CCMIN102781 - Laserfiche WebLink

The roll call vote was as follows| AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, Mohr, and Mayor Mercer NOES: Councilmember Wood ABSENT: None SPECIAL REPORTS There were no Special Reports presented at this meeting. REPORTS OF BOAP~DS ~ CO~ISSIONS Actions Taken by the Board. O~ Ad3ustment~ Design Review poard~ a~d Plan~in~ Commis- sion at their~ meetin~ of 10-14-81 Mr. Harris presented his report <SR 81-363) dated October 15, 1981, regarding this matter for the information of the Council. No action was required or taken by Council on this item. REPORTS OF THE CITY MANAGER Resolution makin~ application to LAFCO and ~a~re.ein~.to the exchange of property tax revenues and initiatin~ prezonin~ for the proposed annexation of g~ D. ~uic~ .(Amber Lane) (Contd. from 10-13-81) Mr. ~arnick presented his report (SR 81:370) dated October 20, 1981, regarding this matter. Councilmember ~ood asked how this annexation would benefit the City. Mr. ~alker advised that annexation would allow the City to control the development. Mr. Jim ~uick, 6452 Amber Lane, stated he felt this annexation request is con- sistent with other annexations in the area; and that it will be zoned PUD-Low Density Residential with 1/2 acre sites on the total 8 acres. Dr. Dennis Glafkides, 737 Happy Valley Road, resident since 1976 and President of the Alisal Improvement Club which consists of 124 homeo~ners in this area, stated that people moved here for a way of life of open space and animal raising and that they want it to remain rural. He presented a petition signed by 116 residents of the Happy Valley area and by 29 residents of the Rose Points area, which read as follows: "ge the undersigned homeowners of the Happy Valley area wish to preserce the integrity of our rural farm area and oppose any further annexation of the Happy Valley area by the City of Pleasanton". Dr. Glafkides stated they were opposed to further annexation because of the following reasons: (1) traffic considerations; (2) flooding can occur; (3) office development on Sunol will create traffic problems; (4) narrow railroad overpass; (5) police and fire protection; (6) increase in school population and need for bus- ing; (7) increased inducement for adjacent property to develop; (8) conflict between City and County maintenance; (9) alteration of lifestyle; and (10) more appropriate to allow property between this area and the City to annex first. Dr. Glafkides re- quested that the Quick property and any other property in the area not be annexed by the City. The following persons spoke in opposition to this item: Ms. Judy Jackson, 6140 Amber Road, stated she agreed with Dr. Glafkides to retain a rural atmosphere in this area. Her property is on Amber Road and she reiterated her concern regarding access to Sycamore Road without going through privately-owned property. She stated she felt this problem should be resolved before any more annexa- tions are granted. 7. 10/27/81