|
route. If there were commercial development on both aides of the street there
<br />would be pedestrian traffic, and curb parking wo!!ld reduce the capacity of the
<br />street. The greater depth of the subject lots makes them suitable for apart-
<br />ments.
<br />Letter from Raymond E, lieyea, Route 1, Hox 9G, Pleasanton, dated Jan. 6, 1965,
<br />regarding the increased recreational use of waterways. Mr. Blayney stated that
<br />some thought had been given to this matter, and it is true that the General Plan
<br />does not emphasize watenoaye as much ae it might have. Livingston and Blayney
<br />discussed possible flood control channels with Zone 7, and they came to the
<br />conclusion that where there is some existing natural beauty an attempt should be
<br />made to develop it. Access, rights-of-way and liability must be considered.
<br />Mr. Falea stated that this type of recreation would sot have as intensive use ae
<br />in other areas. It is not known whether the Arroyo del Valle or the Arroyo de
<br />la Laguna will have a uniform year-around flow after a dam is constructed.
<br />Letter from W.W. Frost, Jr., D ~ V Builders, Inc., dated January 6, 1965, recom-
<br />mending that the high density classification be changed to range from S to 25
<br />unite per gross acre with an average of 15 units per gross acre, Also, in the
<br />medium density area he recommends achieving variety in other ways than ae stated.
<br />Mr. Blayney stated that, with regard to high density, the wording was intended
<br />to be indefinite, but contemplated an average of 15 unite per gross acre.
<br />Actually, Mr Frost is suggesting a more specific range, Mr. Blayney declared.
<br />With regard to medium density, Mr. Blayney stated they had considered that Chia
<br />would be controversial. The decision was made as a result of recommendation of
<br />the Citizen's Committee. The density lose of a $28,000-$29,000 house on a
<br />11,000 eq.ft, lot would be recouped through apartments or Cownhousea.
<br />Letter from Angelo Iequierdo, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservatioe
<br />District, dated January 6, 1965, requesting that major channels be incorporated
<br />in the General Plan. Mr. Blayney stated that the major channels were shown on
<br />the General Plan, and recommended not showing the smeller channels on the
<br />General Plan ae many will be moved ae adjoining land ie developed. Relocation
<br />of a portion of Taesajara Creek west of Santa Rita Road north of the Arroyo
<br />Mocho was considered desirable in order to make the Channel a buffer between
<br />high density land uses abutting Santa Rita Road and Industrial uses to the west.
<br />Comments in writing made at the meeting of January 6, 1965, and letter from
<br />Mr. Rollin Cunningham, 4048 Eugene St., Fremont, dated January 19, 1965, relat-
<br />ing to Church of Jesus Chrlet of Latter-Day Sainte property (135 acres at Hopyard
<br />Road and Arroyo Mocho Canal) fox which he requests residential zoning. Mr. Falea
<br />stated that the substance of this request was answered in detail by Mr, Blayney
<br />at the public hearing on January 6.
<br />Letter from Mr, and Mrs. C.A. Hamil, 733 Division St., dated Jan. S, 1965, re-
<br />garding Division St, widening--indicated agreement with widening to four moving
<br />lanes, but not two additional perking lanes. Mr. Blayney stated that there is
<br />need for four moving lanes on Division St., and whether or not parking ie
<br />maintained on Division St, is not important to the General Plan. Because the
<br />morning peak direction ie the opposite of the evening peak direction, a street
<br />must have the same number of lanes in each direction. It is recommended that a
<br />precise street plan be adopted to permit widening of Division Street to four
<br />lanes, but that improvements be constructed only when traffic volumes warrant.
<br />Mr. Fales stated that a proposal has been made to the City Council for establish-
<br />ment of a plan for the widening of Division St. The City Council indicated they
<br />giehed to await adop~ion of the General Plan before going ahead with the subject
<br />widoning.
<br />Letter from Walter S. Johnson, dated January 13, 1965, correcting any miaunder-
<br />atanding from remarks made by Mr. Rollin Cunningham at the public healing on
<br />January 6, with regard to the Foothill Road property owrcd by Mr. Johnson. Mr.
<br />Johnson's letter stated furt~.er that he is agreeable to a density of 3 or 4 lots
<br />per acre on the east side of Foothill Road, and 2 lots per acre on the west aide
<br />of Foothill Road. Mr. Blayney atate3 that the area east of Foothill Road is
<br />designated "medium denolt'y", permitting au average of 4.7 unite per acre. Ap-
<br />proximately half o£ Iir. Johnson's property west of Foothill Road in the planning
<br />area is in the "law density" category, permitting an average of two unite per
<br />gross acre. The remaining property is in the "slope conservation" area at a
<br />density of one unit per two gross acres. The average elope of this land 1s 40~
<br />or steeper. Mr. Blayney concluded that Mr. Johnson's letter seems to be in
<br />concurrence with the General Plan.
<br />
|