CCMIN080796 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Tarver asked why San Francisco has proceeded to get County approval of the application if it intended to work with Pleasanton. Ms. Ayala said she asked that question and Mr. Nelson indicated San Francisco did not trust some members of the City Council. She opposed the County approving the application, but she felt the bottom line was that San Francisco did not trust the Council. It could be interpreted that the City of Pleasanton is stalling. She believes the County approval was a questions of politics and cost effectiveness. As a citizen, she is watching her tax dollars go down the drain two ways; first in the City of Pleasanton and also at the County of Alameda. If a lawsuit is filed by Pleasanton, she felt we would be suing ourselves by suing the County. Pleasanton residents will pay to sue the County and then pay to defend it. She asked if the tolling agreement would freeze all processes in the County and give Pleasanton a chance to catch up and complete its planning. She supported the tolling agreement because it is cost effective, it freezes the County processes, and this is an election year and she felt this issue should not become part of that process. If the tolling agreement runs to January 15, 1997, then we don't have to get into these issues during the election. She felt it was common sense to enter into the agreement. She also believed that if the County plan is built containing 2500 units, then Pleasanton will go over its housing cap and more complications will be presented. A point was made that this whole issue goes beyond Pleasanton's borders and is city vs. county. She thinks the biggest issue should be cost effectiveness vs. politics. Dorene Paradiso, 3168 Paseo Granada, urged Council to work with San Francisco and enter into the tolling agreement. A lawsuit should be the last resort when all else falls. She has confidence that with fair negotiations with San Francisco, there can be a plan that is equitable to all concerned. There are three options: refuse to negotiate fairly and drag things out; f~e a lawsuit and allow the lawyers and judges to make the decisions; and negotiate in a fair and open manner to get a final plan that meets Pleasanton's needs and meets San Francisco's needs for a reasonable return on its property. The first two are not in the best interests of Pleasanton and will probably result with the development being done in Alameda County instead of in Pleasanton. That is unacceptable. CLOSED SESSION Council adjourned to closed session at 9:30 p.m. to confer with legal counsel regarding potential litigation concerning the County's certification of the EIR and approval of the development plan for San Francisco's Bernal Avenue property. The meeting was reconvened at 10:35 p.m. Mr. Roush indicated Council discussed the various legal options open to the City of Pleasanton regarding the various Alameda County approvals and Council has directed staff to pursue the tolling agreement along the lines discussed in open session previously. Council, 08/07/96 - 12-