CCMIN110105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Rasmussen said everything in the Plan was intended to be as natural as possible. Mr. Sullivan mentioned there was discussion to keep traffic at Level of Service (LOS) D. He noted that typically, types of solutions used to keep traffic at LOS D would be to create wide streets with many traffic lights and several left-turn lanes, which seem not to be consistent with the park-like character. Council may choose not to worry about LOS D and consider constraints for traffic in the Park so that traffic is for the park and not traffic trying to get from Point A to Point B. Mr. Rasmussen said Council would have this opportunity particularly after the EIR was completed. He noted that only one public street was being added within the plan area, which would be an extension of Pleasanton Avenue from Bernal Avenue to Valley Avenue that would be used substantially or solely for the Park users getting to Bernal Avenue. If by chance this intersection would overload Bernal Avenue, one of the alternatives considered in the EIR was the potential addition of another intersection at Bernal Avenue that would enter the Phase II Bernal property adjacent to Bernal Avenue from the Fairgrounds where the Fairgrounds parking paved area ends on its western edge, which is an area staff had shown in previous years as a potential connection. This connection could possibly be short in length and be able to serve the western portion of the Community Park and the western portion of the Cultural Arts Center, which would avoid bisecting the Park. If Council should decide the traffic level of service for this area could be lower than LOS D, there would be opportunity to exempt one or two intersections from LOS standards in the interest of preserving the natural character and desirability of the Park. Mr. Sullivan inquired about the status of the flood control issues along the Arroyo and what influence or participation did the City have in determining what this plan looks like as it might affect the Arroyo. Mr. Rasmussen said staff went through the same exercise with the Phase I Specific Plan and EIR because at that time, it was anticipated that improvements might be necessary in the near future. He noted the Phase I Specific Plan and the draft Phase II Specific Plan call for protection to the furthest extent possible of the Arroyo, and if there were any changes it would be on the eastern side of the Arroyo and potentially what would need to occur would be lowering the elevation of some of the land immediately to the east of the Arroyo to allow for some type of pond. He noted the EIR would be getting into this detail and comments would be included from Zone 7 to reach an agreement as to what the policy guidance would be with regard to what improvements Zone 7 might make. Mr. Sullivan asked how this plan would look as it is presented to the voters and beyond that, what level of detail and flexibility is there? Mr. Rasmussen said the key issue is how much flexibility would remain. The City is mandated to take the Phase II Area Land Use Plan to the voters, which does not mean that the entire Phase II Specific Plan would need to be voted upon. If the community voted upon the Phase II Specific Plan, there would be little flexibility for change to the plan document. One idea would be to present the Sub-Area Land Use Plan map in conjunction with the Illustrative Site Plan and some key wording that would summarize the land use and character that would come from the Phase II Specific Plan. Pleasanton City Council 13 11/01/05 Minutes