04 ATTACHMENT 4 - Laserfiche WebLink

important to consider the $12 million underpass at Del Valle Parkway as an alternative to get traffic out of Downtown and Main Street. He recently drove to the Rose Avenue/Valley Avenue area and noted that there were signs stating that the road would be open soon. He requested that those signs be corrected. James Paxson commended staff for the volume of work that had been produced. He noted that he had several small comments and corrections that would not materially change the Element: • Table 3-1: Hacienda Boulevard should be Hacienda Drive. • Table 3-8, pa eg 3-22: With respect to the recommendation for future improvement at Hacienda Drive and Owens Drive to remove the crosswalk on the north leg of Hacienda River, he requested that that either not be done, or should be done as a last resort. They intended to implement their own planning efforts to make the area more pedestrian-friendly so would like the crosswalk to remain. • With respect to the truck route map, he recalled that Hacienda Drive had been designated as part of the truck route. They told all their businesses that were not making local deliveries to pass truck traffic in and out of Hacienda Drive. • Section 3-1: With respect to the issue of sustainability which he believed was a key part of the Element, he encouraged staff to add businesses as beneficiaries of sustainability. They encourage people to carpool or take transit to work, which would increase business-related sustainability. He suggested that the Element reflect the larger picture of land use, circulation, jobs, and housing all connected into a new, functional whole. Mr. Paxson believed it was critical to communicate the other larger planning efforts to the community. He understood that the buildout traffic model did not contemplate some of the improvements that were included in the triangle traffic study; he believed those improvements would make a significant difference on circulation within the community, primarily the improvements to Route 84. With respect to the commute alternative front, he believed the Element did a good job at suggesting that they were there; he wished to state that there were more in existence than were stated. He noted that the East Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station was a hub of over five different transit services; he did not think that people realized that this commute alternative network was located in town. He noted that the San Joaquin Regional Transit District, Metropolitan Area Express (MAX), County Connection, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), and Tri-Delta Transit all converged at the BART station and distributed people throughout North Pleasanton. Mr. Paxson noted that Policy 9-2 contained several areas that recommended further support with respect to regional planning. He noted that he was a member of the Alameda County Traffic Improvement Authority (ACTIA) Citizens' Watchdog Committee, funded by Measure B sales tax dollars. He noted that the committee did a lot of good work, which he believed was important to continue to support. He suggested broadening Policy 9 to make reference to ACTIA, the Congestion Management Agency (CMA), and the Tri-Valley Transportation Committee, which had been historically supported by the City. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding whether this presentation would be given to the City Council, Mr. Paxson replied that he would be happy to do so if needed. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 24, 2007 Page 4 of 15