02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Pentin commented on his participation in the Golf Course Committee and that the City was going to provide water and sewer and stubbing up to the property line, which was a big plus, but the matter was defeated. He noted that current costs include water and sewer stubbing from the main pipeline to each parcel property line. Mr. Kirkpatrick explained the process at that time and stated there could be significant expenses to run water laterals and other services now. He explained how the cost estimates were developed. Councilmember Pentin asked why annexation would be included in the plans and Mr. Kirkpatrick reported when the annexation was originally discussed, the City looked at extending the system as well. When annexation failed, the City did not build the extended system. It was noted that the City is proposing a built-out system that stubs to the curb. There are different ways of funding the pro-rata cost per parcel including the County covering 100% of the cost and the City providing water under contract to the County. Discussion will be held with the County as to how the project will be paid for, long term. Discussion followed regarding having a comprehensive strategy with the County to address future hook-ups and the possibility of getting rid of the interim moratorium. Staff recommends keeping the moratorium in place. Councilmember Brown asked whether there was discussion with LAFCo asking that the City consider incorporating the Raymond Track and Mr. Kirkpatrick said LAFCo directed its staff to host a community meeting to ascertain whether there is interest on the part of residents to annex into the City. Councilmember Brown stated she would not like to see Pleasanton rate payers pay a $5.7 million fee and referenced 'The County of Emerald Funds" and other funds that could be used to fund the project. She noted that the City needs the County to help. She added that City streets are different than County streets and that annexation involves many things, including sewer and water. In reply to her question as to how other services expenses would be addressed, Mr. Kirkpatrick reported the subject study focuses on sewer and water infrastructure. There are unimproved streets in the area and there are several other issues that are not up to City standards. Staff did not study those costs, but if City Council wants to consider annexation, staff will need to study those issues to have an idea of costs. Mayor Thorne noted it needs to be a separate agenda item. In response to Councilmember Brown's question, Mr. Kirkpatrick reported that public safety jurisdiction goes to the Sherriffs Department. The City would be the first responder until the Sherriffs show up. Fire services are provided under contract by the City to the County. The City would have jurisdiction under an annexed environment. The City would need to engage in a comprehensive discussion with the County regarding apportioning funds that are now going to the County. Councilmember Olson asked regarding the possibility that Alameda County would remove the moratorium on septic systems because of new technology. Mr. Kirkpatrick reported he heard that, but Alameda County is slower to adopt concepts that would allow new septic systems to be installed. Timing is currently unknown, but that is a possibility. He added that currently, Pleasanton City Code does not allow septic systems to be constructed. Mayor Thorne opened the item for public comment. Peter McDonald, representing Kuldeep Singh, reported that his client owns 622 Happy Valley Road, Pleasanton, which burned down in 2009. He listed improvements Mr. Singh has made on the site and reported his client applied for a pre-annexation agreement in January 2016. In February, the City Council adopted an interim moratorium. He requested the City following the terms of the original City Council Minutes Page 3 of 4 February 21,2017