CCMIN100504 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Hosterman then requested that the south side poles be reduced so that anyone standing in the valley would be able to see the mountaintops. How short could the poles be and still be effective? Mr. Wilson said the poles had to be at least thirty feet high. He asked if Ms. Hosterman wanted to eliminate the east side fence as well? Ms. Hosterman said she wanted to eliminate the back fence and the east side fence, but erect something along the open space trail to protect trail users. Mr. Wilson said the driving range could not be opened in that scenario. If the east side fence were removed, balls would be driven into the GE property. An easement from GE would be required. Mr. Roush suggested the east fencing be installed with direction to staff to try to negotiate something with GE. The poles and netting could be removed if the easement is obtained. Mr. Fialho believed the primary impact is from the back poles. Council basically has two decisions: eliminate the poles all together or reduce their height. He was concerned that if the poles are reduced in height, at some point, somewhere in the valley there will be a situation where those poles may be slightly above the ridgeline. It might be more prudent to just take them out. In terms of staff's ability to gather the balls over time, that is something that will have to be determined. He recommended keeping the east and west side netting because of the clubhouse on the right and the GE property on the left. A secondary recommendation could be to pursue discussions with GE for a temporary easement on the east side. A year or two from now, if staff is successful with GE, there could be a phase two where the poles are removed and the driving range is reoriented. He believed the short-term solution is to remove the back twelve poles. Ms. Hosterman asked if the poles farthest away on the right and left could be lowered and still maintain the safety of the area? Mr. Wilson said the existing pole height is based on safety considerations and did not believe the poles could be lowered. Mr. Brozosky was disappointed with what is out there. He would not like that in his neighborhood. A developer would be prevented from doing this kind of thing. It is ironic that Council is dealing with the aesthetics of telecommunications poles and these driving range poles in the same meeting. This is a golf course and open space project. His idea of an open space project was not to see a huge net separating part of the golf course from the open space. He wanted to see expansive views. This impacts the residents and obstructs their views. He would have preferred some kind of story poles or visual montage before this was approved. He agreed the backside is the worst scenario. He felt the 45-degree reorientation would be perfect. He was concerned that if netting were installed now pending further negotiations, that in the future the driving range would have to be shut down. He was concerned about the financial impacts of that. Protection is necessary for the trails, but he felt the cyclone fence would be less obvious than the netting, as suggested by Ms. Hosterman. He would like to have more time to think about this. Pleasanton City Council 17 10/05/04 Minutes