CCMIN012103 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush said it did. Mayor Pice said any condemnation would require payment of fair market value and other costs related to the litigation. That would increase the cost and time to build the road. He felt those costs would most likely be paid by a developer who wanted to develop the Spotomo property or perhaps property owners whose property might be bisected by the road might want to have additional lots. Assuming that property remains in the County, the City has no jurisdiction over that portion. It would seem if the developer of the Spotomo property would pay for the costs of acquiring the land and building the bypass road that there would have to be significant additional density provided to the developer to recoup the costs. He asked if the proposed feasibility study would cover the issues of density, etc. so Council could have a complete picture? Mr. Rasmussen said the intention is to cover environmental, practical, cost and engineering issues facing the City. Mayor Pico asked if staff believed there were significant obstacles to the building of the bypass road as originally anticipated in Alternative 1 ? Mr. Roush acknowledged that there were numerous obstacles. Ms. Ayala asked if there would be any Council discussion before public input. She felt some things could be eliminated. Mayor Pico indicated Council should not eliminate anything until it heard fi.om the public. He said it would be eppropriate to make comments if she desired. Ms. Ayala felt the intent of reviewing alternative routes was to find a road that would be acceptable by the neighborhood. She understood the staff concerns about #2, #6, #7 and #8 (shuffle bus). Because there is no alternative route that the Happy Valley neighborhood is rallying behind, other than the one in the Specific Plan, she asked if it were reasonable to take out all alternatives except for the Specific Plan recommendation and #3. Mr. Rasmussen said that was certainly acceptable. Alternative #4 has not received much positive response. Alternative #5 is the currently used route, which was studied in the EIR for the Specific Plan. He agreed it was a good idea to narrow the options to Alternative #1 and #3. Ms. Ayala did not feel it was worthwhile to spend money analyzing alternatives that are not practical. Mr. Brozosky felt the purpose was to find a route favorable to the neighborhood. If the neighborhood does not want a particular mute, there is no sense spending any money on it. Mr. Campbell agreed. Pleasanton City Council 8 01/21/03 Minutes