19 Attachments - Laserfiche WebLink

Lorie ~hinio~r read thrrni~:h attachment "_' and asked if the Committee ~yanted to use this process for purposes of discussing the hypass road. al Schornu said he believed that Option B was already eliminated in the previous mcetin<~. Loric responded that several indi~~iduals wanted to see it put hack on. al Spotorno said he helieyed the Committee ryas ~~orkine backwards. Vanessa Ka~yaihau asl.ed if the mall~ix could he amended to begin ~~~ith Option C because an P.IR ~yill address some of the issues. Ro~~er ~tilaunin~a asked if he could get consensus shout Option .4 because if the purpose of the Committee ~~yas to cou~c up ~ti ith a recommended bypass road alignment then "status quo" doesn~t make sense. Lorie finfo~~ asked ifthere ryas consensus to eliminate Option A. Jim Freitas stated that Option ,4 is on the matrix because al Spotorno could put houses ou his property right no~~ti and that~s the purpose for Option :1. al Schorno asked for clarification on Option a. Lorie Tinfrn~ said Uption A indicates there ~~~ill he no nc~y road and housing dcnsit< would remain consistent ~yith the Ilapp~ Vallee Specific Plan. She added that Option E3 is the original bypass ali~~nment modified to wort: ~~~~ith the geulog}. Roger asl:cd ho~~ the Committee ~~-ouldLno~1 nx~difving Option S could be done. Loric ~finfu« responded that we doo't l:no~i if it could he done. Lorie reviewed all aspects of the matrix provided. Lighting. trees and the height of the berm vterc added as elements to the matrix. ?. Determine process to he used Committee a~~recd to use the process and mau•i~ ~~~ith the added three elements for pw~poscs of discussion. ~. T~iscuss options and determine next steps Loric Tinfo~y introduced Don 13rug<aers. a gcotechnicat expert with i:I~G[:U Inc. ~t-ho is ~~orl:ing ~yith Grecnbriar on the project that contains the bypass road alignment included in Uption C. Do^ had also reyiewcd the geotechnical report associated ~yith the ori~~inal bypass road alignment described in Uption B. Ile explained that Option i3 has nine specitic slide areas and t~~o deep landslide areas that are up to lj0 feet deep. Don explained the '~m~issiyc excavating" that would be required to build a b~'pass road in accordance Frith Option I3. Dun described challenges in haying to lo~~yer around eater le~:els and tl:c need to build retainin~~ ~aal!s. :x'hen asl:cd if Uption B is poss;hlc. Don stated anything is possible if rou put enough money and effort into it. but the road is not economically feasible. He stated that from a gcotechnical perspective. Option C is much ^iore realistic. Don indicated that there were fow• small slide areas in Uption C that mere much more mana~~cable in size (the lar~aest to approximately ~0 legit in depth) and much more feasible to excavate. Sep oral Committee members asked ~~~hat the apl?rosimate cost difference w°as hch~een the t~eo options. Don said it would he millions of dollars more I<n• Option I3. There ~yould be approximately $I fl million more for simple parading alone. Tom Smith asl:cd Don if he had lool.cd at any other alignment options. Don stated he had not. Pat COSlanGO stated that constructing a road anywhere in the general area of Option H would include the two large landslide areas. .~l Schorno asked again for an approximate amount for the cost differcucc bet~yeen Option B and Uption C. Pat said they could ~~et an estimate. but he docsn~t have that information immediately a~ailahle. A~'anessa ha~~aihau said the court azreed with City attorney Roush that it «as costh~ to put in the bypass road using Uption B. but feasible. She said the Cite has to prop e its enyironmentall~ unsound. and clarified that Don had said its not practical. Don ciarifed information airead~ presented and said its problematic. }IVE3RC Minutes U9-14-O6 '-