CCMIN120495 - Laserfiche WebLink

made it clear that this joint process is to set the general framework, density level and general features of the project and assuming the project is developed in Pleasanton, there are still significant opportunities for further refinement of the plan. Mr. Tarver summarized the comments at this meeting regarding concerns about the soundwalls, golf course (and how to get through it), the Village Center (as it relates to downtown competition and entryway), and traffic issues. Jeff Grote, The Planning Collaborative, reviewed the map and proposed plan. He indicated there has been significant traffic impact analysis for the FJR that was done for the specific plan submitted to the County. The current plan has much less development and traffic analysis is being revised at this time. He continued, the Village Center has been moved from the intersection of Valley and Bernal and is now across the street from existing commercial and office development in the Koll Center property. The project as a whole is conceived to be a mixed use of residential, commercial, a Village Center based on a convenience and neighborhood center concept, office development and other commercial. As set forth in the 1986 General Plan of Pleasanton, it was always designated as an area where a golf course could be and so the initial principal of the plan was to use the golf course as an organizing feature to integrate the different land uses. So in all the schemes that have ever been done, the golf course was in the center surrounded by residential and office or commercial. What is different about the current scheme, which reflects input from a year of working with citizens in Pleasanton, is to locate the clubhouse in the southern area so players could choose to play nine holes on either side of the course. Comments have always been that it is desirable to see the golf course from the freeway as part of the entry experience into town. When one talks about gateways, this entire project forms a gateway, so the golf course and integrated mixtures should be seen as a whole. It is important to continue to address the specifics of the gateways as the you approach from Bernal. One of the big concepts that came from the Decision Makers was the notion that view corridors had an important role. So the community park was situated in its proposed location to provide that view corridor. As the project keeps evolving, we are trying to respond to community comments. Regarding the soundwalls along the freeway, people have always objected to them and the solution has been to have landscaped mounds instead of walls. That requires lots of dirt and expense. After the last Decision Makers meeting, we have minimized the walls and have now tried the addition of see-through walls in conjunction with the mounds. In terms of the gateway notion, it is as important to the design of the project to continually look for solutions as we have in this case. He went on, the twenty acre community park is located on Bernal, there is a school and park south of there which is about fifteen acres and there are neighborhood parks within one half mile of the residential areas. One of the most important comments received in the meetings so far is that the project, in terms of density, type of housing and the land use, needs to be compatible with the character of Pleasanton. We have lowered the density and provided housing types that fit with the character of the community. We have greatly reduced the amount of 12/04/95 -6-