CCMIN040604 - Laserfiche WebLink

would be effected by the loss of funding developers in areas outside of the Happy Valley Specific Plan, including the North Sycamore Specific Plan, for any type of infrastructure. He mentioned that the temporary entrance to the Callippe Preserve Golf Course would have an increase in traffic, which will affect the residents located there. He urged Council to diligently work with the property owners and the developers in the Happy Valley Specific Plan area to bring forward an upper bypass road. Matt Sullivan, 7882 Flagstone Drive, member of the Planning Commission and Chair of the Energy Commission, was concerned that Council had abandoned a long and successful partnership of community involvement with the approval of California Splash last week. Council ignored the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the objections of many residents and approved a down sized version of this plan. What was most disturbing out this was that Council intentionally blocked the avenue of appeal for its constituents. Only Councilmember Hosterman acknowledged that this was an act to disenfi'anchise the public, and she opposed it. When the public is shut out of the process, the options become few and expensive. He had originally intended to ask Council to reconsider its vote on the project, but learned that Council could not reconsider its vote. This would have been the last gasp of a public hoping to see the process work, and another in a long list of staggering irregularities associated with this project. He asked why the City used a conditional use permit process, which he believed was more appropriate for a Starbucks than a major project with this many impacts? Why was EBRPD the decision maker for an EIR and not the City? Why did the City rezone the portion of this property, thus taking away the citizens' right of the referendum, without discussions? Why were limitations placed on the Youth Commission comments related to negative project impacts before issuing a glowing recommendation? The developer changed his plan and construction phasing many times throughout the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, including at least three times during one Planning Commission meeting that it made it impossible for anyone to note if what Council approved is down sized or not. He was aware that a group of neighbors have been assembled to work with the developer in the implementation of this project. He hoped this was a sincere effort to mitigate the impacts of the project. Considering that the developer has an approved project and no requirement or incentive to respond to the neighbors, he hoped this did not lead to further disappointment and disillusionment. It is not surprising that the Council would like a water park, and there are many people in the community that would like one as well. What is surprising is the manner in which Council achieved it. Involving the citizens of Pleasanton in the review of difficult and controversial projects has always paid dividends. The Busch/Ponderosa project is a perfect example. The developer and the Council made a commitment to work with the neighbors in what started as a citizen led referendum of the first plan, and then with the same neighbors speaking in favor of the consensus project. If that can happen with that project, it could have happened for this project. He believed the City had a consensus plan negotiated in private with the developer and a group of local investors. He believed the group of local investors owed it to its neighbors, who have worked so hard to be heard and then silenced to its obvious benefit, to identify themselves. He believed this was a reasonable request fi.om the community that will bear the brunt of the impacts that provide the local investors the majority of the benefits. He asked if California Splash was Pleasanton City Council 5 04/06/04 Minutes