Laserfiche WebLink
69 <br /> <br /> least. An attempt was made to plan the street large enough to <br /> service the entire southeast future development. The present <br /> design put a cap on the traffic at 10,000 trips per day, which <br /> would not require sound walls. <br /> <br /> Mr. Van Wegen agreed with the current plan but objected to <br />waiting until the South Pleasanton Plan was complete. He felt that <br />the possible connector street should extend east, then out to <br />South Pleasanton. He addressed the issue of density and had no <br />objection to having two units per acre. He disagreed with part of <br />page five of the staff report, and indicated that a 15,000 sq. ft. <br />lot was adequate to insure Low Density Residential development on <br />the existing smaller, irregularly shaped parcels. He disagreed <br />with the Planning Commissions's decision on eliminating the use of <br />wells after the annexation of the project and asked that those <br />residents who would have a one acre lot be allowed to operate a <br />well and irrigate their property. He asked staff if it was still <br />a condition that one could operate a well if they had a backflow <br />device that was tested every year and assured that the City water <br />mains were protected from contamination. <br /> <br /> Mr. Elliott answered yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Van Wegen concluded that the project would provide the <br />existing residents with utilities and those residents who did not <br />wish to develop could still receive utilities without cost. He <br />believed that this plan was as close to a consensus one could reach <br />in that area. <br /> <br /> Blaze Laughlin, 1039 Nelson Court, Ventana Hills, spoke in <br />favor of this project but requested that the connection between San <br />Antonio Drive and Independence Drive to the east west collector <br />remain closed and end with a cul de sac. He explained his <br />involvement with this project and with the Citizens' Advisory <br />Committee. The Committee's primary concern was the traffic <br />circulation inthat area. He felt that there would be no need for <br />Independence Drive to be connected if a school was not going to be <br />built. He pointed out there were no other development plans <br />extending from that area that would depend on Independence Drive <br />remaining open. Mr. Laughlin referred to a map and pointed out <br />different routes the commuters had been taking through his <br />neighborhood. The traffic would increase on Independence Drive and <br />Junipero Drive when the Bonde Ranch was built. He wasn't aware of <br />any benefits to opening Independence Drive and felt very strongly <br />that these streets remain closed. <br /> <br /> Margo Kelly, 5152 Independence Drive, spoke in favor of this <br />item. She stated that her family moved to this neighborhood <br />because it had a "community" atmosphere. She indicated that many <br />of the neighbors tried to sell their homes and move because they <br />were losing the "community" atmosphere due to the traffic. She <br /> <br />2/4/92 <br /> 15 <br /> <br /> <br />