CCMIN052003 - Laserfiche WebLink

He believed the environmental permits were issued only after pressure from state politicians. He did not believe they would do that again. He did not think the City had funds for infrastructure and relied on developers to provide it. He also believed the golf course would have to be subsidized for the first five to ten years. Only ten percent of the residents are golfers. He complained about traffic, noise, air pollution, water pollution, and the proposed seven trails in the area. He also complained about the proposed park in the Happy Valley area. This project makes no sense to him and urged keeping Alameda County septic tank moratorium in place. Vanessa Kawaihau, 871 Sycamore Road, believed that without the New Cities' and Standard Pacific Homes' projects on track, the Happy Valley community will see the protracted use of its roads for Pleasanton's leap frog project. New Cities has the second segment of the east/west collector road which would connect to the bypass road. She felt that rushing item 4u, acceptance of Westbridge Lane, along with the appeal of item 40, the Standard Pacific minor modification, would result in a similar situation to the West Las Positas interchange; that is, in ten to twenty years there would be discussions about removing the bypass road from the General Plan. Whatever issues Council has with Standard Pacific regarding Neal School should not hold up the New Cities project or the second segment of the east/west collector road. She asked Council to give the Happy Valley community and its lawyers the opportunity to review the staff report for item 4u. Pat Murray, 4470 Mirador Drive, referred to the oath of office for the Commissioners, which requires them to support and defend the constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic. She was surprised and disappointed that Council decided not to place discussion of the Patriot Act on its agenda. If it is not the job of the City to protect its citizens from unauthorized harassment that supercedes our Constitutional rights under the First Amendment, then to whom does this responsibility fall. If City government fails its citizens on the principles of the constitution because it deems it more important to discuss a road, where will that road lead us? She is proud to be an American and has exercised her constitutional rights to assist in the election of officers who foster her beliefs. However, when presented with the biggest issue facing the nation and citizens, Council did not feel it was City business. The Patriot Act was passed in Washington immediately after 9/11 because no one wanted to appear unpatriotic. However, times have change and many of those Legislators who voted for it are not speaking out against it. What she finds most disturbing is that many citizens do not understand what the Patriotic Act is or how it could impact their lives. Council has never shied away from controversy before and she disagreed that the voice of the City would not be heard over the voices of a few citizens sending e-mails into the ether. Council decisions have changed when many people appealed to them at meetings. Cities across the nation are taking a stand against the usurping of our constitutional rights. She felt a mass of cities standing up for what the citizens believe in would have more impact than individual citizens sending e-mails. Freedom has taken generations to gain, but can be lost in a heartbeat. She asked Council to reconsider agendizing the discussion of the Patriot Act. Kurt Kummer, 4456 Clovewood Lane, asked about the status of Pleasanton Day on the Bernal Property? Ms. McKeehan said a date has not been set, but staffis working on it. Pleasanton City Council 7 05/20/03 Minutes