PC 03/24/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

determined if the study group should go forward agreeing about what they are doing as they go along, or if a final resolution vote should be done at the end. Mr. Swift provided clarification regazding the information in the staff report concerning pazallel routes and the CalTrans issue. He noted that when Pleasanton applied to CalTrans to add the Hacienda Interchange, CalTrans required that there be pazallel routes from the adjoining next two interchanges. Therefore, Dublin Blvd. from Tassajara Road to Dougherty Road had to be constructed, and Stoneridge Drive needed to be extended from Santa Rita Road to Hopyard. The staff report indicates that in order for the planned major expansion of the El Charro Road interchange to take place, the CalTrans rules that currently apply would undoubtedly require the same parallel routes on both the north and south side of I-580 because of the distances between the Tassajaza/Santa Rita interchange and the Airway Blvd. interchange and the subsequent I-84 interchange. He stated that CalTrans will be looking for a pazallel route linking Livermore/Airway Blvd. via Jack London/Stoneridge to Santa Rita. This is the current structure of the CalTrans' policies, but it does not mean that it is "fait accompli." A study can look at these issues and suggestions can be made to CalTrans, but given its past history, it is a reality that if El Charro is to be expanded as in the City's General Plan, the parallel route requirement will undoubtedly be there. If nothing happens to El Chan•o, the extension of Stoneridge Drive would not be required. Brian Arkin, 3740 Newton Way, stated that he thinks that the east side of Pleasanton seems to have an excess of high density housing and that there is very little grass area in the front of homes in this area. He noted that he feels the area is too "patchwork," and that this should be addressed in future planning. Bill Garnett, 3031 Staples Ranch Drive, presented a letter to the Planning Commission, stating his support for a study with review of any material included in the general and specific plans for the eastern Pleasanton azea. He noted that a lot has changed in the Bay Area since the General Plan and the Stoneridge Specific Plan were approved. He stated that he believes the pazk aspect should be included in the scope of the study, noting that there is a unique opportunity to develop a sports park in this area. He suggested that since the County still owns the Staples Ranch property, the County could donate the property or a bond could be floated to purchase the property so that aCity/County sports pazk could be built. Mr. Garnett also would like to see the issues related to noise and risk associated with the Livermore Airport addressed in the study, noting that a pazk makes a perfect neighbor for the airport, while housing does not. Mr. Garnett also noted that the present and future uses of the quarry properties need to be included in the study. Mixing truck traffic and residential and cut-through commute traffic is a bad idea. He noted that cut-through traffic issues need to be addressed. He asked if it is the interest of Pleasanton to start adopting a policy of having expressways that cut across town. He also commented that we should be investing in communication systems that allow people to avoid driving to work at all. He asked if more housing is needed, recognizing that many people want to move to Pleasanton, but if this is supported it can potentially change the chazacter of Pleasanton and people may no longer want to move here. Richard Pugh, 2866 Garden Creek Circle, suggested that the study azea be non-statuatory and not impact current development plans that have already been approved. He feels the focus of the study should be on areas of high impact that will affect the character of the City. He stated that if there were proposals for very high density for the eastern area, it would behoove the City to consult with the residents as this would fundamentally change what people have moved into the area for. Mr. Pugh stated that he would prefer Options D or C which have a residential involvement and would like to see a facilitator from the City staff or a consultant to provide leadership and structural direction. He stated that the bias should be Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 March 24, 1998