Laserfiche WebLink
70 <br /> <br /> felt that if Independence Drive was opened it would only contribute " <br /> to the traffic problem. She asked that Council keep these streets <br /> closed. <br /> <br /> Ronald Lawsic, 5771 San Antonio Street, represented the <br /> Mission Park Homeowners Association. He stated that the residents <br /> of Mission Hills supported this project but requested that San <br /> Antonio and Independence Drive remain closed. <br /> <br /> He felt that there was no benefit to opening these streets and <br /> that it was not necessary to the project. <br /> <br /> Mike Golden, 3693 Mohr Avenue, spoke in favor of this item. <br /> He supported the School District's proposed plans because they had <br /> the objective of maximizing the dollar return that they could get <br /> from the asset they own. As a parent, he was concerned about the <br /> funding of the schools in Pleasanton. He believed that by <br /> supporting the School District in its goal it would produce results <br /> across the community by providing the maximum amount of funds for <br /> the children's education. <br /> <br /> Rich Crawford, 5788 San Antonio, supported this project. He <br /> felt that San Antonio Street and Independence Drive should not be <br /> opened. He stated that the residents made many suggestions at the <br /> Planning Commission meetings on how they could accomplish emergency <br /> access without opening these streets but these ideas were ignored. <br /> He concluded that the final EIR should not be approved until all <br /> issues were covered. <br /> <br /> A1 Robinson, 5489 San Antonio Street, was in favor of this <br /> item but was opposed to having San Antonio Street opened, except <br /> for emergency vehicle access. <br /> <br /> Tom Glausonose, 5125 Independence Drive, expressed his concern <br /> in opening Independence Drive and San Antonio Street. He asked <br /> Council to keep those streets closed. <br /> <br /> Don Temple, 6409 Alisal, Alisal Improvement Association, <br /> agreed with the staff recommendation l-D, listed in the staff <br /> report, but requested that a specific ADT limit of 9,000 maximum in <br /> the Specific Plan at Sunol Boulevard be added to the condition. He <br /> disagreed with item 1-G and asked Council to deny a south collector <br /> connection on the south side. <br /> <br /> Mr. Temple asked what defined the configuration of Sycamore <br /> Road. He wanted to confirm that the road would remain in a rural <br /> atmosphere. He concurred with the previous co~ents made regarding <br /> the traffic concerns. The Association agreed with the recommended <br /> lot sizes. In conclusion, Mr. Temple commented that he would <br /> support this project if these listed changes were made. <br /> <br /> 2/4Z92 <br /> 16 <br /> <br /> <br />