CCMIN040505 - Laserfiche WebLink

Other Speakers Jerry Wagner, a Happy Valley resident, addressed Council regarding a petition that was circulated and presented to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in opposition to the installation of a cul-de-sac and/or electronic gate at Happy Valley Road and Alisal Street. Vanessa Kawaihau, a Happy Valley resident, also addressed Council regarding a petition that was circulated and presented to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in opposition to the installation of a cul-de-sac and/or electronic gate at Happy Valley Road and Alisal Street. She presented Council a copy of the petition and a copy of the 2002 petition when the Happy Valley residents first became aware of the cul-de-sac. She pointed out that the idea of a cul-de-sac was raised by LAFCO members, which she believed the City supported. The gate will cause a division of the community and violates items within the Happy Valley Specific Plan and adopted environmental impact report. The traffic from the golf course and the area development was to use loop roads until such a time as a bypass road was realized, and it did not contemplate the closing of Happy Valley Road to through traffic. The Specific Plan identified a need to improve enhanced driving conditions on Happy Valley Road and did not state that a cul-de-sac or gate would accomplish these goals. The Specific Plan stressed the importance of keeping the Happy Valley community rural, and a gate or cul-de-sac directing traffic to two roads does not accomplish that. Kurt Kummer, a Pleasanton resident, provided several options for Council to consider as possible solutions in addressing the shortage of lighted tennis courts. One option would be to ask M.D. Fotheringham and Associates to add lighted tennis courts to the Phase I plans without interrupting the baseball fields. Another option would be looking at other sights in town with the possibility of the two tennis courts at Pleasanton Middle School. He noted that these tennis courts are ~ - locked at night but he believed Pleasanton residents could purchase a key to access the courts after school hours and in the evenings. James Frost, a Pleasanton resident, requested Council to make a policy decision and determine if sports courts meet the definition of an accessory structure and determine if these structures are required to go through the design review process for approval. Howard Neely, a Pleasanton resident, presented pre-built restroom facility information to Council for its consideration as a possible solution to address the need of a restroom facility in the downtown. Vince Casha, Hal Wilson, Sandy Yamaoda, E. John Ainsworth, Tom Murphy, Leonard Cooper, and Cy Matin, Pleasanton residents, addressed the shortage of lighted tennis courts in the community and asked Council to include lighted tennis courts in the Phase I plans for the Bernal property. In response to an assumption made by Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Fialho noted that a Town Hall meeting would be held to allow the public to comment on the five site plan alternatives for the 318- City-owned portion of the Bernal property and the two alternatives for the future Bernal Community Park. The comments provided by the community and the Commissions will be presented at a joint workshop of the Council and Parks and Recreation Commission. At this joint workshop, he believed that Council would provide staff direction in terms of what to include and what not to include as the preferred alternative for the Bernal property. The preferred alternative for the Bernal property would come back to Council at a subsequent meeting for Council adoption. He pointed out that Council had maximum flexibility to add, delete or incorporate modifications that it heard from the Commissions and the community. He reminded Council that it authorized staff to proceed with Phase I construction of lighted sports fields, which encompasses two lighted sports fields, a casual use ball field and some Pleasanton City Council 4 04/05/05 Minutes