PC 032305 - Laserfiche WebLink

Jerry Wagner, 6344 Alisal Street, noted that he faxed a letter to the City and objected to the amendment of the Specific Plan and the General Plan. He would like to see all issues addressed in the EIR, especially traffic, water pollution of the closed aquifer, noise, and loss of rural atmosphere- He would like to see a new EIR prepared because he believed the current eight-year-old EIR was outdated- He expressed concern about the water pollution and its effects on health. Vanessa Kawaihu, 871 Sycamore Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed location of the Bypass Road and the modification to the Happy Valley Specific Plan. She objected. to what she saw as a symbiotic relationship between the proposed project and the City's failure to mitigate its own development. She stated that the EIR noted a preferred project, which included a Bypass Road situated between a known landslide area and the existing faultline. She added that in 2003, the City Attorney effectively argued that the Bypass Road may be more expensive than originally estimated, but that the geological and seismic conditions in the Happy Valley area were known and addressed in the EIR. She believed the Planning Commission should not only consider impacts identi£ed by staff as significant or insignificant if mitigated, but also the General Plan Community of Character Element Goal 7: "To preserve and enhance the semi-rural character of South Pleasanton" and Goal 1 8: "To preserve and enhance the semi-rural character of Happy Valley." She expressed concern about the air quality impact and believed it should be reconsidered because of increased traffic due to the expanded golf course uses. She noted that the ground water impacts cai~not be mitigated by existing water service. She noted that the visibility of additional tratt3c would violate the circulation requirements for the Happy Valley area. Kevin Close, 871 Sycamore Road, expressed his opposition to the proceedings and believed that the City had failed to uphold the resolves of Resolution 03-008 to study only the Bypass Road as outlined in the Happy Valley Specit3c Plan. He believed that staff had undertaken no additional study of the Bypass Road as shown in the Happy Valley Specific Plan; however, the location of the Bypass Road would be studied as part of the enviroi~inental review process for the proposed project. He did not believe that study would be in great depth and believed the consideration of the Supplemental EIR would be affected by financial concerns- He believed the planning issues must be addressed with the environmental issues and was concerned about the nitrriber of proposed homes. He opposed changing the density in the heart of the Happy Valley area_ He expressed concern about regeneration of the closed aquifer, stormwater runoff, and the moratorium of septic systems in the Happy Valley Creek area. Janet Linfoot, 6300 Alisal Street, expressed concern about the decision regarding the Bypass Road, which had been the subject of vigorous debate between the City and the Happy Valley residents. She objected to the City's construction of the golf course without the Road it had committed to construct She noted that in January, 2003, the City passed Resolution 03-008 to study only the original upper Bypass Road_ She was concerned the City's persistence in the project would entail continued flouting of the judge's ruling and not honoring its commitment to the Happy Valley community. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 23, 2005 Page 4 of 10