My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN012103
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
CCMIN012103
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:36 AM
Creation date
2/13/2003 9:56:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/21/2003
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN012103
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. I-Iosterman bdieved Ms. Kawaihau made some good points md she would also like <br />to see information on potential future development in the area and the impacts on the various <br />road alternatives. <br /> <br />Mr. Rasmussen said that would be provided. <br /> <br /> Jay Lofthouse-Zeis, 6028 Alisal Street, said the difference between Alternate #3 and #4 is <br />that #4 splits his property in half. He is one of seven families that will be disrupted by g4. His <br />one acre farm with animals will be split leaving him a lot smaller than what is required in the <br />Specific Plan. The road would be within the drip line of several heritage oak trees and would <br />cause the removal of many barn structures. It would place a road within fifty feet of many <br />homes that are currently 800 feet fi.om any public road. He urged Council to walk or drive in the <br />area to get a tree idea of what is out there. He urged Council to use the land that was annexed <br />for building the bypass road. Please do not disrupt the lives of his family and neighbors and do <br />not pursue Alternative #4. Only investigate Alternate #1. I <br /> <br /> Clive Schliewe, 6330 Laura Lane, did not believe golf course traffic belonged on any <br />Happy Valley road. The construction traffic experienced so far is already destroying the <br />community in his opinion. There is speeding during the day and at the end of the day there is a <br />rush of construction workers to leave the area. There are signs at the both entrances of Happy <br />Valley Road warning of thirty minute delays. Residents have no options for reasonable access to <br />their homes. He believed the City has already extensively studied bypass road alternatives and <br />further study will only cost more money, cause delays, and result in completely destroying the <br />way of life in Happy Valley. He asked Council to approve the alternative set forth in the Happy <br />Valley and North Sycamore Specific Plans and through land already annexed to the City. He <br />said there is construction going on in every comer of Happy Valley; at Sycamore, on Sunol <br />Boulevard, at the £ar corner of Happy Valley Road, and now the golf course. This area is already <br />heavily impacted without the bypass road. <br /> <br /> Tom Smith, 1070 Happy Valley Road, asked if the recent annexation included an <br />agreement that no further development could occur until the bypass road was built? <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said that was not correct. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith asked if the Spotom0 property could be developed without the bypass road? <br /> <br /> Mr. Rasmussen said the plan was that the bypass road would be constructed with any <br />development on the Spotomo property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Smith stated that if there were no road, then there would be no development on the <br />flat land of Spotorno. <br /> <br />Mr. Rasmussen said that was correct because there would be no access to the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Smith stated the Spotomos supported annexation knowing they could only develop <br />their properly with the bypass road. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 12 01/21/03 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.