My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12a
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
021616
>
12a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/11/2016 4:12:48 PM
Creation date
2/10/2016 3:56:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
2/16/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
12a
Document Relationships
12b
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\021616
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
direct staff to build out the infrastructure as it is designed with all the side spurs. In that way,the <br /> streets would be torn up once. At some point,he felt the differences between the City and the <br /> residents of Happy Valley will be settled and it did not make sense to go back and tear up streets, <br /> or to install the utilities piecemeal. <br /> Mr.Campbell asked which Option he favored. <br /> Mr. Barletta said it was up to the City, but if the infrastructure is there, you can later <br /> decide how people can connect to it. <br /> Mr. Brozosky realized the lines would be stubbed at each household and asked how the <br /> lines would be constructed in the street? <br /> Mr. Grubstick said staff plans to reconstruct Aliso!Street as the utility lines are installed <br /> in the street The plan calls for each utility main to be stubbed to each cross street At this point, <br /> the lines are not to be installed in the cross streets. Sewer and water laterals will be provided to <br /> each home and lot on Alisal so the street will not have to be torn up later. <br /> Vanessa Kawaihau, 811 Sycamore Road, stressed her desire to maintain the Happy <br /> Valley Specific Plan and save money by installing core infrastructure now to the Happy Valley <br /> loop side streets. She was concerned the staff report failed to mention decreasing the housing <br /> density allowed the developers who were to provide the infrastructure on Happy Valley Road. <br /> WIC Partnership was given a number of houses to pay for the infrastructure and that developer <br /> was willing to meet the obligation to the Happy Valley Road residents. However, that is no <br /> longer in the picture. She was also concerned about the lateral costs quoted to Sycamore <br /> residents. This amount was much lower than currently stated. She was concerned about the pro <br /> rata costa for the Sycamore residents. The infrastructure has been in place four years and she felt <br /> staff should know what that pro rata cost is. <br /> Mr.Roush indicated TTK Partnership has agreed to pay for its share of the infiastructune, <br /> about$141,000. <br /> Ms.Hostetrnan asked what the connection cost is for each existing household? <br /> Mr. Grubstick said the estimate for hook-up, including connection fees, is between <br /> $20,000-$24,000. <br /> Ms. McKeehan said these figures will continue to change as the connection fees change <br /> at DSRSD and Zone 7. <br /> Ms. Ayala asked if staff had a fixed cost for the infrastructure in Sycamore, which was <br /> installed by Greenbrier,and whether those costs were less than the new construction would be? <br /> Mr. Grubstidc said staff had just received the backup information from Greenbrier <br /> regarding those costs. Staff is reviewing the information to determine what the final number is <br /> and acknowledged that it could be less. <br /> Mayor Pico noted that New Cities Development had not agreed to continue to finance the <br /> infrastructure. <br /> EXCERPT:CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, December 3, 2002 Page 2 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.