CCMIN031505 - Laserfiche WebLink

Tom Smith, a Happy Valley resident speaking on behalf of Janet Lindfoot, a Happy Valley resident, noted that in January 2003, Council in the face of vigorous and persistent resistance from Happy Valley residents, gave up the pursuit of the alternatives to the original upper bypass road to the golf coume. Council reconfirmed its commitment to that original road and Resolution 03-008 attests to that effect. The abandonment of the Spotorno project provided much more leeway as to the location of the road in the upper bypass area. As of this date, Happy Valley residents are still unaware of any effort by the City to keep its commitment. The trial court, in December of 1993, correctly ruled that the bypass road is a required mitigation factor as part of the golf course project. She received a letter from staff indicating that it is staff's understanding that the bypass road is not a required mitigation for the golf course project. The golf course developers were awarded 10 additional building lots to help offset the costs of the bypass road. She believed the City diverted these funds for other purposes. Mr. Smith asked if the driving range is as long as it is wide? If the driving range were turned sideways additional land would be gained to build an additional home that would pay for any costs associated with the pumhase of the GE property. He noted that one of the original designs for the golf course showed golf being played down in the flat land area with the development of homes along the golf course, which he believed would be of higher value and fit the rural setting. He noted that the Happy Valley residents have tried from the beginning to have the bypass road constructed before any development occurred. He urged Council to hold to the original annexation agreement that stated no development until the bypass road is built and no more than one home per one acre, which is twice as much as the original annexation agreement. He asked Council to fulfill its promise to the Happy Valley residents and avoid any traffic liability by placing too many cars on a substandard road. Sherman Balch, a Happy Valley resident, stressed that Council would need unbiased, factual information pertaining to the costs associated with the bypass road location, the original design and the revised design in order to make an informed decision. He noted that all of the developers that have working on this project are aware of the slide and the geological conditions of that area. Jim Freitas, a Happy Valley resident, addressed his concerns regarding the bypass road. He believed Council should adhere to the location of the bypass road as stated in the Specific Plan. He noted that the bypass road would directly affect him, as it would be located behind his home. At the Planning Commission meeting last week, it was mentioned that there is a possibility of allowing bicycles on the open space trail, which he opposed. He was also opposed to the amount of homes that are proposed in the development plan for the Spotorno property, as the rural area with open space should be maintained in the flat land area. Lori Ingersoll, a Happy Valley resident, said the proposed changes to the Happy Valley Specific Plan do not maintain the semi-rural character of the greater Happy Valley. She asked Council to maintain the Happy Valley neighborhood's existing agricultural heritage, specifically the cows on the hill behind her home, as well as maintaining the open space while minimizing the visual prominence of a bypass road. Vince Barletta, a Happy Valley resident and President of the Alisal Improvement Club, was glad to hear that Council values keeping specific plans in tact. He was in favor of reorienting the driving range, as the current location of the driving range is an Pleasanton City Council 21 03/15/05 Minutes