CCMIN091702 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Campbell did not want to link occupancy to the completion of the study. He was concerned about the bypass road and wanted to make certain an alternative was found. In addition, he wanted to preserve the way of life for the Happy Valley residents. He has run in that area and wanted to preserve it. He felt the golf course project and TTK project could progress while seeking an alternative for the bypass. Ms. Michelotti said the bypass road has always been important, but she was not convinced it was possible. She did not want to link the bypass road to the developments for the same reasons stated by Ms. Dennis. She could not vote in favor of the agreement with Alameda County because she did not support a cul de sac on Happy Valley Road. She said the LAFCo process that generated that condition was very troublesome to her. She realized there were opinions for and against that step. The other thing she has had grave concern about is the bond for this project. This is the bonding capacity for the City and it cannot get funds for any other project in the City, such as the Bernal property, until these bonds have been reduced. She wanted the golf course as much as anyone else in the community, but there are issues that need to be resolved. The preservation of the trails, open space, and the beauty of the area are important and she did not feel people were opposed to that. She would like to support this project, but was still concerned because the Specific Plan promises a bypass road and she had concerns that it could happen. Ms. Ayala also did not want to link the study to the occupation of the houses. She did, however, want $3.5 million set aside in a fund to give faith to the people in Happy Valley that she was serious about a bypass road. She assured them that a bypass road would be put in and she will work as hard as she can to find it. She was not worried about the bonding and was not concerned if the Bernal property stayed the way it is for many, many years. She did not want to stop the golf course development. She also had no problem with the LAFCo agreement, because she did not think the cul de sac on Happy Valley Road would ever happen. She believed if that agreement is not approved it could affect the annexation. Ms. Dennis asked if there were financial impacts to the City if it set aside the $3.5 million for the bypass road? Ms. McKeehan asked Council not to focus on the money because this may not be the best solution when it is time to finance the road. The finance staff is much better in coming up with alternatives when the time comes. The more important issue is to decide what the project is before focusing on the funding. Staff has never told Council that a project could not be done because there was no money. Ms. Dennis believed there were financing options and some of them might be cheaper than setting aside this $3.5 million. Ms. McKeehan also pointed out that the $3.5 million will not come in all at once, so staff cannot take the money and put it in a pot somewhere. It is uncertain how and when the reimbursement will be coming in. It could be that Council may want to proceed with a bypass road sooner than the reimbursement is received. She urged Council to let staff determine how to finance the project. Pleasanton City Council 21 Minutes 09/17/02