CCMIN091702 - Laserfiche WebLink

Happy Valley loop road. At the eleventh hour, the neighbors changed their mind on the access road, believing that the access road may never be built. That belief has some validity, since the selected route has major environmental, cost and visibility problems. He felt the issues could have come about because there was not sufficient study before hand. He encouraged Council to support a new study, however the most important party to the study would be the future developer of the Spotorno property and he did not think that party would participate at this time. He encouraged Council to support the staff recommendation for a study, but eliminate the time constraint so the study can be done properly. Jim Hoge, 739 Main Street, representing TTK Partnership, appealed the Planning Commission decision with regard to Condition 35, which prohibits occupancy of homes until the bypass road issue is resolved. He encouraged another study for a bypass road. Preserving the conditions in the Happy Valley area makes sense for everyone and he felt some solution could be found that most people would be happy with. The study should not be a condition regarding TTK. The TTK parcel is on the west side of the golf course and access is directly from Happy Valley Road. The proposed bypass road would be 2,000 feet away and on the east side of the golf course, totally unrelated to the TTK parcel. He did not feel there was any nexus between the bypass road and the TTK development. In addition, this condition creates uncertainty and would make it difficult to market the property. TTK is not a home builder, it plans to sell the property to a developer who would then build the homes. This condition would make it difficult for a developer to find financing for the project. He supported the staffrecommendation and asked for Council to support the appeal, delete Condition 35 and approve TTK's vesting tentative map. Vanessa Kawaihau, 871 Sycamore Road, referred to the terms of the Specific Plan. No one signing the pro-annexation arguments mentioned that there was no bypass road or the alternate road as a viable option. She felt 83 residents voted for the annexation and the promise of a bypass road. However, 88 residents voted against the annexation because there was no guarantee of a bypass road. In June, the City proposed an alternate annexation plan using the prior EIR and Specific Plan, including the bypass road. On August 8, Supervisor Haggerty and Mayor Pico voiced support of a gate or cul de sac at Happy Valley Road and Alisal Street. LAFCo approved Annexation No. 150. The vesting tentative maps were then approved for TTK and the golf course project with modifications. She felt if Council ignored the Planning Commission's decision to add conditions 18 (City of Pleasanton) and 35 (TTK), it would be approving two leapfrog development projects. The TTK homes could not be built without access from a one-mile portion of infrastructure to be provided by the City for its leapfrog development of the golf course. The impact of the golf course traffic will only be mitigated by the completion of the New Cities segment of the east/west collector road and the approval of the Happy Valley bypass road, which is contingent on future development plans of the Spotorno property. At this point, no EIR has been completed to address the new conditions of Annexation No. 150 and the proposed gate or cul de sac will impose upon the majority of the Happy Valley residents without the bypass road. The New Cities bypass segment has stalled and the development plans have yet to be seen for the Spotorno property or its bypass road. She asked Council to oppose the Happy Valley Road cul de sac that will negatively affect the quality of life of the residents and for the City to work to provide the bypass road set forth in the Specific Plan and to keep the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and consider the traffic impacts from the two leapfrog developments which would not have occurred if the City were not one of the developers. This Pleasanton City Council 11 09/17/02 Minutes