CCMIN120302 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Kaschmitter said if the area develops, he would like it done well with reasonable lots and upscale housing. He did not want high density housing. Some consideration should be given to the roads because traffic will be an issue. Deirdre Gipson, 6187 Alisal Street, disagreed with Mr. Roush's statement that the preannexation condition to not oppose annexation meant a yes vote. She felt "not oppose" meant you don't vote "no". There were no further speakers and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Campbell felt the preannexation agreement did not seem to be a binding document. Ms. Ayala indicated she wanted a bypass road for this area and she wanted to put infrastructure in at the same time the road is constructed so the street does not have to be tom up more than once. She wanted the Happy Valley residents to want to annex to the City of Pleasanton, so she wanted to do as much as she could to encourage developers to pay their share of the infrastructure to make connection less expensive for the residents. She did not want to make a decision at this meeting that would discourage the residents from annexing. Ms. McKeehan said if one wanted to make everyone happy, then Option 4 should be selected. That says that anyone who wants to develop can get water and sewer if they sign a preannexation agreement. In the past, Council has been really concerned about extending water and sewer service to lots that do not exist today. On the other hand, some people would be unhappy with that because they don't want any more building to occur. Staff suggested Option 3 because it conforms to previous policies and goes a little further to allow people with existing legal lots to get services. Ms. Ayala was uncomfortable with the preannexation agreement because it does not require a yes vote and will not accomplish the end goal. Ms. McKeehan indicated most annexation elections start as protest elections. As long as 51% of the property owners do not protest, then the annexation can move forward. Happy Valley is a unique area because it is inhabited, whereas most annexation areas are not inhabited. It is true the agreement requires an owner not to protest, but to force someone to vote yes is a veer different concept. Mr. Roush suggested that to clear up the ambiguity, the agreement can be revised to make it more express that an owner will agree to do something affirmatively. Ms. McKeehan said the agreement would say that at the point in time when the City wants to annex the property, the property owner would agree to the annexation. Mayor Pico felt the intent of the preannexation agreement was that the owner agreed to annex to the City at whatever time the annexation went forward. He wanted to clarify that. Pleasanton City Council 11 12/03/02 Minutes