CCMIN091702 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Dennis felt the other option was to simply say staff could use that money or develop another financing plan to allow more flexibility. The issue of whether there is a bypass road depends not only on the City but also on how closely we can work with the residents of Happy Valley to develop alternatives. She felt there were only a certain number of options and no alternative will satisfy everyone. She believed there was an alternative that will mitigate the impacts on the existing loop and Council was committed to looking for it. The timeline for the study and the commitment of Council to proceed with it is all that is needed to make certain the residents have the alternatives presented to them. She wanted to get on with things and allow people to annex who wanted to and to preserve the lifestyle of the area as much as possible. She was not concerned about the agreement with Alameda County. That will iron itself out as the bypass road is worked out. She believed the cul de sac was not the best solution and could be more difficult than a bypass road despite the lower cost. She supported the staff recommendations and wanted to provide flexibility to the staff. Ms. Michelotti commented that if the $3.5 million is returned to the capital fund, all it takes is for Council to set a priority for the bypass road. Ms. McKeehan indicated she was uncomfortable identi~ing how much money is available for a project until it was determined who else was available to contribute to the costs. Mayor Pico said it was entirely conceivable, depending on the alignment of the road, that a significant portion of the costs could be paid for by a property owner or developer. If the money is specifically earmarked, it is as if the City were giving up negotiations for additional funding. Ms. Michelotti stated that to her a bypass road means a road that does not have any impact on the Happy Valley loop. She believed that the discussion of road alternatives was different than a bypass road. She believed that anything different than that will have to have a General Plan change. Mayor Pico felt it would be best to vote on each segment individually. He noted that item 6a(l ) was a summary and did not need action. Item 6a(2) It was moved by Mr. Campbell, seconded by Ms. Ayala, to adopt Resolution No. 02- 105, upholding the appeal and conditionally approving the application of the City of Pleasanton for Vesting Tentative Map 7372. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers - Ayala, Campbell, Dermis, Michelotti, and Mayor Pico NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Pleasanton City Council 22 09/17/02 Minutes