CCMIN060695 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Tarver would like the Board to refer the project to the City of Pleasanton for the -- planning process. However, at the Tri-Valley meeting, the County indicated that the Supervisors weren't going to give up their land use control, but there were discussions of a joint application for a consensus project. He suggested the letter state that option #1 is to refer San Francisco to Pleasanton. If there isn't support of that, to request the Board to consider Pleasanton in the planning process and do it as close to a joint process as we can, with a consensus plan coming out at the end. He wanted consensus highlighted in the letter because time passes, plans get made and other alternatives fall by the wayside until the final decision is made. Mayor Tarver wants to know up-front what the Council is looking at. Ms. Michelotti commented on Mayor Tarver's statement regarding San Francisco's economic analysis and that the lower density project produced a greater benefit. She explained that was only for the cost of services in the County; it wasn't a greater benefit to the City and County of San Francisco; it is thinking that a higher density project yields a larger profit. She then questioned the joint process. She said that Alameda County cannot require San Francisco to go through us. She would like the letter to request that we participate in the planning. Mayor Tarver stated that San Francisco is stating it is going to pursue this alternative (with the County) because it feels it will be successful. The Commission's response to San Francisco was that if it continues in this process (with the County) that it might get turned down. He felt that if the Board of Supervisors says that it wants the applicants to work with us, they will; otherwise they won't have the Board's support. He felt the Board could put Pleasanton in the planning process. Mr. Roush stated that the Board could place the area in a study district, by adopting an ordinance to study that area and that would enable the County to stop processing the application for a period of time. Currently, there are some timelines the County is under to process the application. Mayor Tarver felt we have outlined what we have to do to process the application in Pleasanton but that could be modified if San Francisco could prove to the Supervisors that it could cause them too much delay. Ms. Acosta believed Mayor Tarver was setting out an order of priorities. She stated her belief that Council preferred the application be returned to Pleasanton. She felt that the letter should describe under what circumstances the County could do that, to help it understand. The fall back position was if the Board can't or is not willing to do that, then Council is asking that a joint application be filed. The City of Pleasanton would have to describe to the County how it is the County could do that, but it would be a formal application that San Francisco is jointly processing with us at the same time it is processing with the County. Ms. Mohr asked if the joint processing fees would be allocated according to the workload on the county and city staffs? 06/06/95 19