My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
09
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2017
>
090517
>
09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/30/2017 3:13:41 PM
Creation date
8/30/2017 1:04:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/5/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
09
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
FINANCIAL STATEMENT <br /> No fiscal impact is expected from this interim policy. The cost associated with the study <br /> will be considered as a separate item in the future when the scope of work is defined, and <br /> a consultant selected if needed. <br /> BACKGROUND <br /> The Remen Tract is an approximately 22-acre unincorporated island surrounded by the <br /> city limits. The Remen Tract consists of 48 parcels generally bounded by the Arroyo Del <br /> Valle to the north, Bernal Avenue to the east, Vineyard Avenue to the south, and Wild <br /> Flower Lane to the west. Discussion regarding the annexation of the Remen Tract has <br /> occurred periodically in the past, dating all the way back to the 1970s. The most recent <br /> discussion occurred at a community meeting hosted by LAFCo on May 31, 2017. At the <br /> meeting, those in attendance (mostly area property owners and residents) were asked if <br /> they supported annexation. Consistent with past discussions, the community members <br /> in attendance at the May 2017 meeting articulated their interest in continuing their more <br /> rural lifestyle (e.g. gravel roads, no sidewalks, etc.) and the majority did not support <br /> annexation. They were also asked if they would be interested in understanding what <br /> infrastructure improvements the City would require for annexation, and what the cost of <br /> those improvements would be. Generally speaking, most people were not interested in <br /> such a study. But in the discussion it was clear that LAFCo staff felt such a study was <br /> important to the potential annexation question. <br /> Over the years, the City has accepted and processed requests for sewer and/or water <br /> services from property owners in the unincorporated Remen Tract. The processing <br /> followed much the same procedure as is followed for properties within the City's <br /> jurisdictional boundaries, e.g. the existing systems are evaluated to determine their ability <br /> to serve the property or if upgrades are necessary to serve the property, if upgrades are <br /> determined necessary the applicant is responsible for the cost of the upgrades, the <br /> applicant is required to pay all fees and costs, etc. The additional step for properties in <br /> the County is to execute a pre-annexation agreement whereby the property owner <br /> receiving the services agrees that if at a future date annexation were to be considered <br /> they would support the proposed annexation. The final step should be for the City to seek <br /> an OASA from LAFCo on behalf of each applicant. The OASA permits the City to provide <br /> water and/or sewer service to a property outside its jurisdictional boundaries. <br /> Applying to LAFCo for an OASA before serving properties outside the City boundaries <br /> has been required by State Law since 2001. Unfortunately the final step of seeking an <br /> OASA from LAFCo before allowing connections was not accomplished for the 19 <br /> connections when they occurred. Since the City staff members that processed these <br /> connections have now retired, it is difficult to determine exactly why they did not seek <br /> OASAs from LAFCo. However an explanation could be that since the Remen Tract <br /> properties are located within what was once called the Pleasanton Township County <br /> Water District, and the water district was dissolved in 1973 resulting in the City taking on <br /> the responsibilities previously provided by the district, prior City staff could have been <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.