CCMIN010296 - Laserfiche WebLink

What are the options if there is opposition to the agreement? What are the options that are still available if the proposal is agreed to? After all the information is assimilated, she asked Council as a consensus what its opinion is on this project. She wanted to help Council and she will fight along side them as long as they are all worldng for the same thing and can pass this information on to the community. Jocelyn Combs, 5151 Greentree Court, felt that the community had been coming to the meetings and had put a lot of extra time and energy into this. She did not believe you should continue this fighting and perhaps have to collect 60,000 signatures for a referendum, and fight at LAFCO and the Board of Supervisors. If a plan could be devised that was close enough, we could work out the details in time. She asked how much more is to be gained fighting all the way that cannot be had now. She hoped a decision would be made on January 16th and that Council would not delay any further. Bill Mellberg, 5781 Corte Libre, felt in this particular process on the San Francisco property that you should remember the logo for Pleasanton - "City of Planned Progress". He felt Council should participate in the planning process, sign the agreement, and be cooperative with the parties to get the best deal we can and do it in a timely fashion. Ms. Dennis stated that Council has a proposal in more or less final form. She is hoping to get input from the public. People should weigh the options, look at the plan and decide which way Council should go. There are issues with the plan, the process, and the growth -- management. Those are the types of things she'd like to hear from the community on. Ms. Michelotti referred to a comment from Mr. Tarver that since no one was at the meeting, he assumed he was proceeding in a way the community approves. She felt there was nothing to lose in going forward with the joint process. Even if the final plan is different and San Francisco goes through the County, we still have the referendum process, but she felt strongly that Pleasanton can only gain and make a better plan by continuing the process. Mayor Tarver would like an infomercial to get all the information out before the next meeting. It is complicated and there is a proposal on the table that ou~ines the provisions upon which the joint planning process would go forward. It includes: a dual track process, 1600-1900 units, a golf course, a twenty acre community park, a guaranteed growth management of 150 units in 1996-1998, 250 units in years thereafter until it is developed out, and guaranteed sewer capacity. There are provisions and guidelines which we will be working on in a joint agreement with San Francisco and Alameda County as they proceed through a similar process with Alameda County to the end of April 1996. The question is, does Pleasanton want to sign the agreement under those conditions or don't we. The discussion on this item was then continued to the 1/16/96 agenda. 01/02/96 -22-