CCMIN020304 - Laserfiche WebLink

with the City for those who may choose to connect to the City for sewer and water services. He urged Council to direct staffto work with the community to begin to find an amicable way that would benefit both the Happy Valley residents and the City. The Happy Valley residents need to be provided safe drinking water, especially given the known ground water contaminations caused by golf courses throughout the United States. The I-Iappy Valley residents also need a way to dispose of its sewage. Mayor Pico pointed out that the City is a long way from determining the final costs of the Golf Course and any cost sharing arrangements. He hoped Mr. Barletta believed that Council would involve all of the Happy Valley residents in determining what those costs might be, and in coming up with a fair allocation. Vanessa Kawaihau, 871 Sycamore Road, asked if the street improvements on Alisal Street were improved from a country lane to that of a two-lane neighborhood street in order to accommodate 2,000 cars per day?. She did not believe the Happy Valley community wanted that road to handle that much traffic, and did not believe the residents would be too happy in having to share in that cost. She referred to the North Sycamore Specific Plan. Pertaining to the utilities costs, she noted that by the time Council assessed the pro-rata share to the Happy Valley community, she would assume that staff would have taken out the Happy Valley Road residents cost share because there is no foreseeable infrastructure in its future. She thought something could be worked out for the side streets. She asked how it would affect the Happy Valley residents if the funding developer's monies were lost from Lund Ranch II, as the developers were to have paid a small portion towards the North Sycamore Specific Plan infrastructure that paved the way for the Golf Course in the Happy Valley area. She noted that she did not see the funds in the budget for the required offsite mitigation costs. She pointed out that staffhad pulled the Perpetual Habitat Endowment Fund in October 2003, which was a requirement of the Regional Water Quality board permit. She did not want to see that endowment slip by the way side. As part of the Grow-In Agreement, she believed there was a quarter of a million dollars that the City was going to pay. She asked if that amount was part of the $450,000, or was it an additional amount? She mentioned that the number of houses that the Spotorno property is allowed will also affect the pro-rata share in the neighborhood, and the costs are still unknown until the Spotornos' come forward with plans. Mr. Brozosky asked staffto respond to Ms. Kawaihau's questions. His understanding of the street improvements for Alisal Street was that the City would not be making the paving improvements because the County's requirements were more stringent than the City's requirements. He asked if he was correct. Mr. Wilson said yes. In response to the question related to the offsite mitigation, he mentioned that it is a $5.7 million cost to the project, but it is not part of the construction project. He referred Council to the first page of the page entitled "Appropriation of Funds for the Golf Course, Open Space, Access Road, and Happy Valley Utilities Comparison Budget" and noted that this is where these items may be found. Pleasanton City Council 16 02/03/04 Minutes