CCMIN102699 - Laserfiche WebLink

Lila Bringhurst, 990 Sycamore Road, indicated she has been involved in this process for two years. During the entire process, there were no other residents from Pleasanton that have spoken on this issue. She assumed the residents, in general, are happy with this project or they would be here to criticize it. She has been at meetings with residents other than Ventana Hills and they want the project to proceed, because they have conditions based on how this one moves forward. Her property cannot be subdivided into three parcels until this project is approved. She understands this is a difficult process, but Council is elected to make difficult decisions. She did not feel it was right to make a property within the city limits contingent on something outside the city. Only the residents of Happy Valley will be voting on this. She felt Council should make its decision on the merits of the New Cities project alone and it should not be tied to something outside the City. She asked Council to approve the project without the condition regarding annexation. She did not care about the trail. There were no further speakers on this item. Mayor Tarver indicated he had wanted to keep options open, but he did not have much hope that a trail will happen. When he received the letter from the homeowners, he sympathized with their remarks about the Specific Plan and privacy requirements. This is a tough decision. Their points were well-taken. He might not have that position if this were a case where the trail was in the General Plan, etc., but in this case there are problems with other aspects of the Specific Plan. If there were some way that Council could know exactly where the trail would be installed and how it would be screened, etc. he would be more comfortable. He believed trails should always be put in ahead of development. The new people can see where the trail is and cannot object. The uncertainty of the trail location causes a lot of concem. He is willing to take the trail out, but there has to be some way to make these connections. He would like to have it in a location that insures privacy for the residents, but we do not know where it is to be at this time. Ms. Dennis had a problem with removing the open offer of dedication. It guarantees that the people moving into New Cities will object to a trail, because the open offer will have been removed. The open space is owned and maintained by the people up there and they can use it as they wish. The open space does not belong to those living downhill from it;, it belongs to the people who pay for the maintenance of it. She did not think removing the offer of dedication preserves privacy any more than having it in there. She also was concerned about representing the public overall in addition to trying to reconcile all these neighborhood issues. There are many citizens who want urban access, pedestrian and bicycle paths, etc. and one element of Council decision-making is to provide for options for the future. She believed nothing will happen for a while and she felt them was a way to provide a trail and still protect privacy. She appreciated all the work that went into the negotiations, but she was reluctant to give up the option. Ms. Ayala agreed with Ms. Dennis. She referred to Martin Avenue where the residents thought there would always be open space. When the Mohr Avenue school was built, parents indicated the children needed a path to get to school. Staff was able to Pleasanton City Council 9 10/26/99 Minutes