CCMIN060695 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Acosta stated that it was suggested that if San Francisco were willing to do that, we would waive the processing fees. She stated we were already working on the EIR and the City hasn't been paid for that. She also said that with the joint application, there would be independent joint processes, or a possibility of holding joint meetings between the Planning Commissions. She felt that Pleasanton needs to be included in the planning process and a consensus plan could be developed. If a joint application is pursued, it would be outside of the regular review process. A group from both Planning Commissions, Council, Board, and the applicant would sit down and get through the differences. Mayor Tarver disagreed, saying that would circumvent the process and deny public input. Ms. Acosta stated that there would still be the public heating process but meetings that are outside the usual process would be held before it got to the formal process. Ms. Michelotti asked about option 2, the joint process; does that require San Francisco to file an application with the City of Pleasanton as well? She stated that San Francisco has said it won't do that. Ms. Dennis stated that as she looks at the economies of the project, it could benefit the City and the County to do a joint planning process. Ms. Michelotti thought that with the fairgrounds being across from this project, there should be joint planning. She felt this property could enhance the fairgrounds and it will be an asset to Pleasanton as well. Mayor Tarver also thought a letter should be sent to the PUC and the people who are managing the project, asking them if there isn't some way to talk about what both sides want. We can make a strong case that they do need us, that it is in their interest to cooperate, and we are trying to cooperate even though they may see it as being untooperative. Ms. Mohr asked that if there were a joint application, would it be imperative that Pleasanton have a veto power. Mr. Roush said it could be done either way. The formal application process suggests that Pleasanton would have equal status with Alameda County; but an agreement could be reached such that the County would make the overall decision given that the 90 % of the property is not in the City of Pleasanton. The City Council could decide to let the ultimate decision be made by the County. Ms. Mohr asked if the actions by the City under those terms would be subject to referendum. Ms. Mohr then stated that accountability would then be with the citizens of Pleasanton rather than with the County. 06/06/95 20