CCMIN021902 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Ayala asked how much the infrastructure to be provided by the developers would cost. Mr. Lum said the cost of water and sewer mains for existing residents is $1.65 million. Mayor Pico declared the public hearing open. Janet Linfoot, 6300 Alisal Street, said for those in Happy Valley who want to preserve their quality of life, it has been rewarding to observe Alameda County's increasing interest in preserving areas like Happy Valley. The Alameda County Planning Department has made a major commitment to preserve agriculture and open space and is dedicated to the restoration and enhancement of natural environment. They are getting federal funding and local support to prevent developers and suburban growth from using up County land, such as annexation under Pleasanton's terms would bring. She was happy to see the support of Councilmember Dennis for preservation of agriculture and open space. She felt the Happy Valley area should be annexed and preserved just as it is and a golf course with houses surrounding it not built. This would mean no infrastructure, but the residents could continue to rely on septic tanks and wells. She said that she could replace her septic tank, leach line and new well pump and tank for $20,300. The estimate for her to connect to city water and sewer would be $25,000. She wanted to preserve Happy Valley as it is. Frank Imhof, 962 Happy Valley Road, was concerned about adding 1,500 to 1,800 cars on Happy Valley Road. The golf course entrance would be at Happy Valley and Alisal and the shortest route to the freeway is down Happy Valley Road. He asked Mr. Lum if he felt Happy Valley was a safe road and Mr. Lum said yes. Mr. Imhof said the road has three blind curves and two blind hills and he felt there was a safety problem that should be addressed. Bill Howell, 6651 Alisal Street, thanked staff for attending a neighborhood meeting on a public holiday. That is a testament to the dedication and professionalism of the staff and underscores the importance of this issue. He said he had printed a newsletter regarding the meeting to give it more attention and the meeting was well attended. He will provide a copy of the newsletter for Council. Last October he felt the annexation was in jeopardy because the bypass road was not going to be built. He suggested at that time that the City provide some kind of compensatory mitigation. There is still a feeling that the annexation will fail because of traffic concerns. The annexation proposal would not have gotten this far without the belief on the part of the residents that there would be a bypass road in the foreseeable furore. The Specific Plan for the area is a good master plan and could be a model for other similar areas in the Bay Area. He referred to the possibility that if the annexation election fails, that the City will annex around them. However, in that instance, he felt they would still get all the traffic. Some of the residents feel they have a gun to their heads. He also mentioned that if the City annexes around them, that residents would petition the County to barricade the east end of Happy Valley Road and the east end of Sycamore Road. He also said a resident would retain a lawyer to sue the City on the first occurrence ora bodily injury fi.om golf course related traffic. He was confident that the annexation would be approved if the City could guarantee a bypass road in the foreseeable future. He is still seeking a win/win solution to this. The Specific Plan calls for the bypass road Pleasanton City Council 11 02/19/02 Minutes