Laserfiche WebLink
be whatever is in effect when a resident applies for connection. He also clarified that the <br />fees do not go to the City of Pleasanton. They pay for regional improvements for <br />wastewater treatment plant expansion and disposal expansion under the LAVWMA project. <br />Zone 7's fee is for expansion of water service costs. However, during the coming year, <br />Pleasanton will be reviewing its connection fees. That has not been done for quite a long <br />time. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked for a comparison to the Martin area, which was recently annexed. <br />If a resident there chooses to connect to city facilities, that resident will be charged the <br />current rate. That is the same policy applied throughout the City. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum indicated that was correct. <br /> <br />Item 4b <br />Public Hearing for Annexation of the Happy Valley Area (SR 99:228) <br /> <br /> Randall Lum presented the staff report. It was clarified that the special annexation <br />election would be only for those registered voters in the annexation area. If this hearing is <br />continued, time for filing protests or withdrawal of protests is also continued. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if the reason for continuing the public hearing was if the developers' <br />proposal had merit. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta said that was true and in addition once Council has made its decision, it <br />would give people longer to determine whether they want to protest or withdraw their <br />protests. That would not force them to be here this evening. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti felt if consideration of the development agreement is continued, that <br />might also affect the decision of the residents. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush pointed out that September 18, 1999 is still the date for decision for the <br />annexation preceding. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala inquired about the alternatives to continue the golf course plan if the <br />residents decide not to approve annexation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum explained that if the annexation is denied by the residents, then Council <br />could consider whether it wants to submit an alternative annexation proposal that would <br />omit the loop area. That would be sufficiently different from the current application, that <br />the City would not have to wait a year for consideration under LAFCo rules. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver inquired about the possibility of an extension from LAFCo. <br /> <br /> Ms. Seto stated the statues allow only a 60 day continuance, however staff has not <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 4 07/29/99 <br />Special Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />