CCMIN080796 - Laserfiche WebLink

Item 6d On-going discussion regardin~ San Francisco Propert_v and Cooperative Planning Process for the S~In Francisco Water Department - Bernal Avenue Site Ms. Acosta indicated on August 1, 1996, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved a plan for the San Francisco Bernal Property. In addition, the Board of Supervisors certified the EIR and approved a development agreement for the property. The Cooperative Plan, approved by the Committee of Decision Makers last December, was the basis for the plan the City of Pleasanton is now reviewing. That plan is now undergoing a process in the City of Pleasanton to receive public comment. Staff is continuing in that process and expects to have a City plan before the Council by next December, which will also include a development agreement, design guidelines and preannexation agreement. Mr. Tarver indicated the Cooperative Agreement provided that the plans would go through the processes established by law for both jurisdictions. He was taken back by comments made by Supervisor King that somehow the City of Pleasanton was acting in bad faith in its actions. Ms. Michelotti referred to discussions about the Tolling Agreement. Mr. Roush indicated there is approval from the City and County of San Francisco to enter into the tolling agreement and the agreement has been discussed generally with the County. Supervisor Campbell indicated the County of Alameda was willing to enter into the tolling agreement as well. He thought that it will be formally presented to the County in a closed session next week for action. Mr. Roush explained that the County approvals begin a period within which a challenge to the EIR or development plan approvals must be brought. The tolling agreement under discussion would provide that Pleasanton would not bring a lawsuit within the statutory period in order to allow discussions to continue. The County of Alameda and the San Francisco Water Department would agree not to raise the statute of limitations against the City of Pleasanton if a lawsuit were filed subsequently. A similar agreement was entered into between the City of Pleasanton, Berrenda Mesa Water District, Zone 7, DSRSD and the Dougherty Valley developers concerning our challenge to the EIR for the Berrenda Mesa water transfer. Mr. Tarver asked if the Board of Supervisors has the ability to rescind its action after the time has run. Mr. Roush indicated the agreement will provide a specific deadline, however any party to the agreement could terminate it earlier by giving written notice and that would start the running of the thirty day statute. 08/07/96 ~ 10-