CCMIN012103 - Laserfiche WebLink

environmental and seismic issues regarding the bypass road. Logically, he believed the distance fi.om the City water tank to the developed area was shorter than Alternative #4. If the hillside can support a huge water tank, it should be able to handle a road. He urged Council to work with the Spotornos to pursue the original route on the Specific Plan. Mayor Pico asked staffifmedium density development is still planned for that area? Mr. Rasmussen said it is still in the Plan. Mr. Spotomo believes that from an environmental and economic standpoint it is not realistic. Further study is necessary to see if that is still viable. The bypass road would have to go through the developable area and the route would be determined by the development plan. It is very hard to separate the two becanse it may be necessary to grade both at the same time in order for the bypass road to function. Ms. Ayala felt if a different product type from that proposed by Summerhill were used, it may be possible to develop the area. Mr. Rasmussen said that is why additional study is necessary. The landslide must be assessed for its impacts on development and the road. If it precludes development, then there is no bypass road because there would be no funding for it. Mr. Balch said if a density transfer is necessary, then it should be in that area or somewhere nearby so it doesn't impact the neighborhood. He agreed it was not possible to separate the road from the housing. Vanessa Kawaihau, 871 Sycamore Road, believed the proposed feasibility study was putting the cart before the horse so the City could accommodate its own development. She felt it was premature to consider any of the road alternatives until the status of the New Cities development and its segment of the east/west collector road and the future density transfers being allowed to the Spotorno family are known. She reluctantly supported the staff recommendation to not study Alternates #2 and #7. She believed there was a LAFCo annexation provision that prevents study of Alternate #6. If the City will not oppose the County's proposed cul de sac at Happy Valley Road, why not consider Alternate #6, the proposed cul de sac at Alisal. She was hesitant about Alternate #8 because there were no details about a proposed staging area or the frequency and route of the shuffle bus to the golf course. She opposed Alternate ~4 because of the necessary condemnation of several homes. She said the Happy Valley residents cannot properly assess information from the study of Alternate #3 and Spotorno's A, Al, A2, A3 and A3.1 without knowing the status of the density transfers, the New Cities development and its collector road and the necessity to amend the North Sycamore Specific Plan. Additional impacts to Faith Chapel and the Mortenson properties are not enough to omit Alternate #5 and Spotorno's Alternative C. Because of impacts to the golf course housing, she felt Council would also find that alternative infeasible. She also felt it was necessary to consider impacts to the North Sycamore Specific Plan and possible condenmation to the Daleway property if traffic is directed over the Daleway bridge to access Sycamore Creek Way. She and the majority of her neighbors fully supported studying only Alternate gl, the original bypass road. Pleasanton City Council 11 01/21/03 Minutes