CCMIN050796 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iremonger felt there is a benefit to getting a project manager on board to assist in preparation for what happens after July. Mary Greene, 386 Sycamore Road, indicated she was not contacted by the Alisal Improvement Club, however she has received notices from the City. I-Ier main concern is about her driveway. The new collector road is proposed to go through her property and she has always protested this. She stated it was necessary to have access to both of her driveways and she was very concerned about losing some of her land. Mr. Swift pointed out the final alignment of the North Sycamore east/west collector has not been designed and there is no reason why the Greenes can't have two driveways. Until the final design is actually set, there is no way to know where it will sit on the Greene property. We intend to work with all property owners to locate the road as satisfactory for as many as possible. Ms. Greene said her parents are elderly and this is the only place they can walk. She was concerned they be protected from the traffic. It is now too dangerous for them to walk their dogs on Sycamore Road. AI Spotorno stated he did not know his property would be part of this golf course until recen~y. He wants all the community to participate in this process. He referred to density transfer. The allotment of density is less than we were given in the General Plan. We sympathize with traffic problems in the area. We envisioned a small retirement community in the upper valley with very little traffic and to put in a golf course road disturbs that vision. We proposed small houses, etc. The staff report does not relate to our concerns. Our original position is Pleasanton only has so much money to spend to acquire golf course property. We do not want to disrupt the deal with property owners, but we need consideration. He wanted his property in a specific study area to complement the golf course. We don't want it to drag on for eight to ten years like the North Sycamore Plan did. Ms. Michelotti said one alternative was to use this lower property as entry to the golf course. She asked if Mr. Spotorno was willing to look at that? Mr. Spotorno was willing to review the proposal and be reasonable. That is a valuable piece of land with frontage and we need fair compensation. He proposed a density transfer for property up in the hills on the north side of the viewshed. He wanted a Rossmoor-type development on a small scale. John Spotorno, 1028 Harrison Avenue, Redwood City, reiterated the need for a study area. He wanted the property out of the General Plan process and to allow us from July on to study the area. The mailing list is critical and the questionnaire is critical. The type of question is critical; if you say do you want development or more traffic, you know what the answer will be. He proposed questions to be included: do you want upgraded neighborhoods; planned open space; access for horses and other activities; upgrade affordable infrastructure; new sewer, 05/07/96 -21-