CCMIN011696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Paul Ebright, 5416 Blackbird Drive, felt that Pleasanton does not need il golf course, it needs two golf courses. He agreed with Mr. Pico's statements and felt Pleasanton should annex the property, then we can treat the San Francisco Water Department as a developer and approve a plan acceptable to the residents. He did not believe the dual track would work and felt it was holding a gun to our head. Mr. Tarver referred to comments about annexation and explained San Francisco can voluntarily request annexation, in which case it would lose negotiating power, so that is unlikely. The other option is to seek a forced annexation, which is also unlikely given the legal battles and conflict that would occur. We feel we should continue to negotiate instead of going into that confrontation. Ms. Michelotti also stated that this Letter Agreement provides that if the Pleasanton plan is considenbly like the consensus plan, it obligates San Francisco to annex to the City of Pleasanton. That specific plan can still be manipulated and that is why Council is asking for citizen input. If it gets too far from the consensus plan, then it is up to San Francisco to decide whether to get County approval. Bob Piper, 7428 Muirwood Court, reiterated the property is within Alameda County, not the City of Pleasanton. He felt Council and planning staff should not create animosity. We need to work with all parties to get something realistic and of benefit to the residents now and in the future. He urged a continued spirit of cooperation. Chuck Cannon, 5185 Springdale Avenue, agreed with Mr. Piper. He feels the consensus plan is good and we should continue to work with it to get what is best for Pleasanton. Bob Brown, 2302 Meadowlark Drive, felt the decision to accept a compromise plan without normal land use control is a bitter pill for Council. He felt this situation was a mockery of sphere of influence and what it should mean. He feels Pleasanton, areas of Contra Costa County and some areas of San Joaquin valley are being held hostage by aggressively development-minded county governments and the land use and tax sharing leverage they have. He felt the ultimate solution is to work with other cities and the League of Cities to sponsor legislation that would put limits on the ability of counties to approve urban type development within city spheres of influence. He referred to AB 1341 (Sweeney) which would somewhat balance the power in favor of cities in these types of situations. Lin Lippstrew, 7474 Stonedale Drive, stated he was on the General Plan Review Committee and most of what is on the specific plan for the Bernal property was recommended. He was glad Council is continuing to work with San Francisco and the County. He felt a convention center would be ideal for the property. If we work with San Francisco so it makes money and Pleasanton makes money, it could mitigate some of the amount of housing it wants. To get a convention in San Francisco takes years of advance booking. There is no other convention center in this valley. Whatever city puts it in Fffst will get the benefits. The location by the freeway is great and there is the county fairgrounds for overflow. There could be some 01/16/96 -9-