Laserfiche WebLink
Committee members scheduled meetings I'or Thursdav..iul}~ l ~. "_'006 at 7:00 PM. <br />Thursday .~lu~~ust 10. X006 at 7:00 PM: Thursday Septeu~ber ]4. X006 at 7:00 PM. <br />Lorie Tinfo~~ stated the goal is to keep the meetings to no more than t~~~'o hours <br />with an initial ~~oal of the com}~letion of a recomm~ndatiou for Council h~ <br />September. Shc also explained elements of the l3ro~t~n Act such as the need for <br />quorum of members before starting meetings and rules for conversation outside of <br />meetings. <br />h) Review Staff Report dated June 6. X006 (Attachment 1 ) <br />Roger Manning asked if the report ~~as adopted as resolution. Lorie TinCo~ <br />cunlirmed it was and the names of Alameda County represenuitivcs on the <br />committee ~~ere not received in time to be shown on the report but will he <br />included in the future. <br />c) Attachment "? was reviev~ed and history discussed. Lorie ~Cinfow stated her <br />understandin~~ is that the initial alignment was supported b} residents but was <br />abandoned duo to si~anificant environmental issues. .~ Gcotech report was found <br />i^ staff records indicating those issues: copies ~~ere distributed to the committee <br />and audience. <br />February 1 1. '?00~ letter from Cotton_ Shires cK Associates. Inc. to Robin Giffin. <br />Associate Plamicr with the City of Pleasanton ~~as distributed and discussed. Jim <br />Preitas felt it ~~as confusing because he thought the annexation has something to <br />do with the pr~~ject. Patrick Costanzo stated the Specific Plum annexed only the <br />Spotorno property and the Golf Course. Clarification on voting for annexation <br />~~as provided h~~ ~1rs. Spotorno. She indicates that the 1'` and ~°~ time the <br />Spotornos voted. they voted °no~~ to annexation. The Spotornos finally annexed <br />to protect their larming operation. Mrs. Spotorno further clarified that the first <br />development on their property fell through because of the geolo«ical report and <br />that decision ~~as made by the City of Pleasanton. <br />Janet laudience 1 stated the Cite of Pleasanton nee er conducted a stud. that ~~as <br />promised. Vanessa kawaihau~shared that in ,lanuar~~ ?OU ~ (#0,008) the Cite of <br />Pleasanton said a study «~ould be done onl} regarding the upper h~~pass road and <br />that hasn~t been done to the satisfaction of the 1 lapp~ Vallee residents. Lorie <br />Tinfo~~ stand the City has "undone'' that resolution and is nrnv asking this <br />committee to lool: at other options. <br />Attachment ; ~a~as revie~~ ed and there were no questions. <br />.-lttachment ~1 was revic~~ed wide no comments or questions. <br />1~~1ike "l~assano_'fraffic Engineer_ reviewed information on Attachment ~. Mike <br />explained that the numbers ohse~~~ed for traffic are at the higher part of the hell <br />curve. the 8~`~' percentile. Bub ~~Jaund requested information at the ~0`~' percentile <br />and Mike agreed to provide that information. Mike explained that there are an <br />estimated 1 "'.8 trips per da~° per home in Happy- Valle}~. I3ob Maund asked Mike <br />"Cassano for his interpretation of the data. Mile indicated that the speeds are high <br />for a "_'~ MPH zone. He also shared that he worked with the Police Department <br />and discovered the speeders are primarily- users of the golf course. It «'as asked <br />HVBKC Minutes 06-08-06 2 <br />