CCMIN061703 - Laserfiche WebLink

will lead to more traffic, speeding cars, noise, and unsafe conditions for the children in the area. This would also be an ideal location for teenagers to congregate after dark. He was strongly opposed to a park in the Happy Valley area and he urged the City to consider options for a park on City land only. Kevin Close, 871 Sycamore Road, believed that Council's action to accept the access road at the last meeting showed a disregard for the interests of the community. Happy Valley residents expected a bypass road to be completed in a timely manner. Instead there is an indefinite use of the Happy Valley loop road. They expected to minimize the impact of traffic expected from future development and instead they are impacted by all the traffic of future development. The Happy Valley Specific Plan is being quoted in part as it benefits the City and core developers. The Happy Valley loop is a narrow, rural road with tight tums and sight distance limitations, which create a constraint to adding additional traffic, yet Council has approved adding all future development traffic on this road. He noted the traffic study for the area did not include build out of Greenbriar, New Cities, Kass, Lund II, Spotomo flats, Bringhurst and Applied Biosystems, which will add 3,000 trips daily to the area. If the bypass road is built in ten or twenty years, he asked how Council plans to remm the Happy Valley area to its rural setting. Once it's lost, can it ever be brought back? Jerry Wagner, 6344 Alisal Street, described the golf course at Ruby Hill, which was built at a cost of $20 million. It is a first class facility. He noted Pleasanton is spending $34 million for its golf course, which not be near as good as the Ruby Hill facility. The Ruby Hill residents wanted their golf course, but the Happy Valley residents do not want the golf course being built in their neighborhood. He noted impacts on the water supply and the traffic problems in the area on the narrow roads. Construction on Alisal was to be completed by April 15, but is still not done. He felt the old gas line under the street should have been replaced. He believed there should have been a one-year sunset clause in the CC&Rs for the access road recently accepted. The General Plan states there will be two access points to a development or golf course: one EVA and one public road. The City's golf course will have only one access and should not open. He doubted the golf course would ever open. Vanessa Kawaihau, 871 Sycamore Road, presented copies of the questions she had posed to Mr. Rasmussen and Mr. Grubstick. Mr. Grubstick indicated he could not answer the questions because of pending litigation. He suggested she use formal discovery, but she wanted to informally present the questions to Council. The undeveloped TTK property does not have access to Happy Valley Road. The undeveloped Spotorno property has no access to Alisal Street. She said golf course traffic, during an emergency event requiring evacuation of the golf course or golf course homes, would use the existing driveway and the same intersection as the emergency access road to Alisal Street and/or Happy Valley Road. Emergency vehicles would have to use this same route. She asked what was the minimum required turning radius and widths for roadways shared by responding or evacuating vehicles during an emergency?. She found that was supposed to be fifty feet. The minimum width for two lanes of traffic in Alameda County is eighteen feet and in Pleasanton, it is 24 feet. She did not believe adequate emergency services could be guaranteed without a second access to the golf course or its home sites. She believed there would be a problem until the construction of the bypass road or another EVA. Pleasanton City Council 7 06/17/03 Minutes