CCMIN011696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Alameda County. He felt anything less was an abdication of the public trust placed in the Council. We cannot control San Francisco's decision to proceed in Alameda County, but we can make clear our intention to work with them for a mutually beneficial annexation and development in the City of Pleasanton. He felt he was reasonable and requested San Francisco to voluntarily suspend its development plan application with the County while we work toward a truly cooperative agreement. Ms. Mohr indicated many people had called her and she welcomed the opportunity to discuss the issues with them. In working with San Francisco and Alameda County, even though all have gone into this process in sincere good faith, there are times when reasonable people don't come to the same conclusion. She did not expect that the final product will be what everyone loves. It is ironic that in her first campaign in 1979, there was a citizens committee then that looked at all these properlies and its recommendation for the San Francisco land was agriculture and commercial/industrial. After Hacienda was developed, we realized Pl~_~nton did not need another 500 acre business park. A citizens committee was formed and it made a list of everything PleasanWn could hope to get on this property and San Francisco agreed to just about everything. That says something for San Francisco's willingness to work with Pleasanton. The property does not belong to the Pleasanton and it is not Council's right to demand what it wants. Negotiation is the only reasonable way to solve this matter. She was happy when Ms. Michelotti got people involved. Mr. Tarver indicated that is Council's position and asked for comments that disagreed or had something to add. Nancy Storch, 3193 Chardonnay Drive, had confidence in Pleasanton's planning process which involves the citizens. She agreed it makes sense that Pleasanton has its own preferred plan and wants to make sure the plan involves those who have already put so much time in things like the General Plan. She felt the reason this property is so valuable is because of what Pleasanton had done in the community: roads, schools, downtown, other residential planning. She referred to comments in the newspaper about a proposal to move the County Fairgrounds and develop the property. She felt Alameda County is not a disinterested party in the planning process; if San Francisco lands develop, it makes the fairground property more valuable. She prefers that Alameda County's role be minimized. Michael Pirozzoli, 5925 Via del Cielo, agreed we should participate as long as Pleasanton citizens still have further input. He hopes San Francisco does not get the impression that the citizens like the plan as it is. He supported reducing the residential density and commercial development. He also wanted further sethacks and greenbelt buffers on Bernal Avenue. He is also concerned about building heights and that Pleasanton standards are upheld. Dorene Paradiso, 3168 Paseo Granada, expressed her appreciation for Mayor Tarver's statements. 01/16/96 -8-