CCMIN102699 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swift said the Rose Avenue extension to Valley Avenue has been in the General Plan for a long time. It needs to cross a portion of the Fairgrounds owned property in order to get to Valley Avenue. Staff has reviewed many different alignments but have not moved forward to try to build the road. It is still included in the traffic impact fee and the developer funded portions of capital projects. The question was raised whether people who will move into this development may protest the extension of Rose Avenue. That is human nature and they probably will. Staff does not want to write a condition that says these homeowners agree not to protest, however they certainly will be aware that the General Plan does show that street going through. The street is designed for the traffic volumes that would be anticipated from a through street, which is why the traffic calming devices were included in the plan. The wide landscape setbacks are also for that reason. The Fair Board has a different perspective. It does not want to lose any land to Rose Avenue and does not want Rose Avenue to cut offa portion of contiguous land to the Fairgrounds. If the road runs along the Arroyo, that would not happen. The Fair Board' s issue with development on the north side of Rose Avenue is unrelated to whether the road goes through. The Board believes if more residents are in that location, there is the potential for more complaints about activities on the Fairgrounds. Staff has addressed this issue in every report prepared for this area. One of the reasons for suggesting density at the low end of medium density is to reduce the number of people. Although the Fair Board is beginning its master plan efforts, the existing uses are the race track, which is a good use with regard to the residential areas, and the maintenance yard areas. That is the reason the Fair Board wanted an eight foot wall, to shield the residents from that activity. Staff believes those uses are still compatible with the residential development given the presence of the wall and landscaping. The Fair Board wanted an eight foot wall because of concerus about people climbing over the wall, not for sound mitigation or a visual screen. Staff still believes that the General Plan is the fight solution to get a Rose Avenue extension because of the benefits to the overall Pleasanton community in terms of reducing traffic on streets with high traffic like Pleasanton Avenue, Division Street, Black Avenue and Hansen. It is uncertain whether the Fair Board will ultimately allow the extension, however. This development plan will work in the area whether there is an extension or not. Ms. Dennis referred to the various alignments mentioned. Mr. Swift said all the suggested alignments are in the same place with regard to the Nolan property. Once the extension goes beyond the Nolan property, that is where the variables occur. Ms. Michelotti referred to the Braddock and Logan proposal which only had an emergency vehicle access, because Rose Avenue looped around the Arroyo. It was not intended to connect to Valley Avenue. Mr. Swift said it did not connect to Valley Avenue because Braddock and Logan could not negotiate an easement for Valley Avenue with the Fair Board nor could it acquire an easement for a water and sewer line. That property at the far end of Rose is basically a cul de sac and requires an EVA pursuant to the General Plan. That EVA Pleasanton City Council 17 Minutes 10/26/99