Laserfiche WebLink
X`3 . <br /> � . r��1 w "M . . <br /> '0 5 4� Aln �Yt�1, n +�Pn <br /> ♦✓ <br /> : tF . ---i <br /> r r <br /> r S�•iP f �A tr,°- °gat, Cc.�„t) protect t 4■ <br /> It!Sins{yay qu y,oA. ,ih R trips ,c, -,.1 , <br /> ! <br /> IIf Satinet Geekdn. i <br /> 'r } r' _ , <br /> rife) � <br /> Way 'l.._�f : 1 -I xe,, <br /> '. leek T'•. <br /> 1 t T r N <I <br /> (!�/�... 4.� ,�lfM, I 4 alp ,. <br /> 1/µp` Y � I , e lit r�• <br /> OPTION 3: <br /> Lund Ranch Road <br /> and Sunset Creek Lane <br /> Commissioner Balch asked staff to display the slide on the Scenario 3 traffic where the <br /> road connected. <br /> Chair Allen stated that at the meeting where the Commission was reviewing the EIR, <br /> staff had indicated that traffic would be greater without a cul-de-sac in that area <br /> because the assumption was people would be going both ways and there might be <br /> commuters outside of the project area that would be using this route. She asked <br /> Mr. Tassano if she was reading this correctly. <br /> Mr. Tassano replied that the Scenario 3 traffic did not go into that level of detail. He <br /> indicated that what Chair Allen is recalling is his added input, which was not actually in <br /> the report. He clarified that staff put exactly what was in the report but that his item of <br /> concern was that it could potentially be different than this distribution or greater, <br /> depending on what sort of cut-through routes were desirable from the residents who live <br /> there. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 8 of 45 <br />