Laserfiche WebLink
153 <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer stated that at the LAFCO meeting there would <br />probably be a request for annexation of this property to <br />Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that in this density, 25-30% would be lost to <br />internal development. He referred to several of the lots as <br />examples of how the density requirement is established. <br /> <br /> Ms. Couper stated that a stop sign at Sycamore Road where it <br />intersects the collector road would alleviate the concerns of the <br />traffic flow in that area. She felt that the route of traffic <br />coming off of the collector road into Happy Valley Road could be <br />controlled with a no left turn sign. She asked if the collector <br />road is structured so that it could be widened if needed in the <br />future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift answered that it is designed and is being built as <br />a two lane road with no median. If the City wanted to acquire the <br />right-of-way, it could widen the street. <br /> <br /> Sue Frost, 990 Sycamore Road, Parcel 24, indicated that on the <br />most recent map, the new collector road is pointed at her home. <br />She said that at each meeting the road changes direction and she <br />asked for clarification as to where the road will be placed. Ms. <br />Frost objected to the collector road bisecting her property. She <br />also questioned why there was a pedestrian access shown at her <br />front door and surrounding her property. She asked that the <br />pedestrian access be removed from the plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that at the last meeting, Council decided <br />to leave the road where it stands. An asterisk has been placed on <br />the map indicating that this road could be extended to the east and <br />south. The pedestrian trail is still on the plan from when it was <br />first drawn. He indicated that there was no plan as to where it <br />would be located ultimately. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked if the General Plan would have to be <br />amended to remove the pedestrian path. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said yes. The other alternative would be to place <br />the path where the road is and then note, "future location of <br />pedestrian route to be determined." <br /> <br /> Ms. Frost felt that the collector road should go through the <br />developers' properties. She hoped that the condition of "easements <br />on all creek channels" would only apply to the developing <br />properties. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that it was only for developing properties. <br /> <br />3/17/92 n <br /> <br /> <br />