Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Roush stated that Pleasanton voters could subject the project to a referendum, but <br />only for that part of the project in the City of Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico did not support a joint application. He would only support processing an <br />application in Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis felt she shared Tom's concerns but she'd like to find a way to have joint <br />planning. She felt this situation is so unique that maybe there should be a MOU as to what was <br />going to happen, how the consensus process would be designed (talks about concepts, <br />community involvement in surveys, etc.), and have certain decision points along the way. <br /> <br /> Mr. Larry Levine, 3178 Weymouth Ct., stated that he would like Alameda County, <br />Pleasanton, and San Francisco to get together and come to an agreement as quickly as possible <br />because he felt that after the San Francisco election, that Alameda County and Pleasanton will <br />get lost in a political power play. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarvet felt that if there is a way to have the Board say we have equal standing, <br />then we know we will have an effect on what happens to that property. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti thought the County won't require San Francisco to come to Pleasanton, <br />but it might come up with a recommendation that there be more involvement. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis stated that the County can motivate an applicant to Pleasanton by saying this <br />is clearly the most expeditious thing to do and it will give the project the greatest chance of <br />success and economic viability. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated the Board can't force San Francisco to come through Pleasanton, but <br />it can deny the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that it is not likely that the Commission will recommend to the Board <br />that the project be denied at this time given the fact that the Commission is in the middle of its <br />public hearing process on the plan. He stated that unless the Council directed him otherwise, <br />he was not comfortable urging the Commission to make that recommendation to the Board. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr felt that it was unlikely that the project will be referred to Pleasanton. She <br />felt the letter might state that we would like to begin the process of working out the joint <br />application. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush felt the Council needs to be specific and detailed in what we are requesting <br />the Commission to do. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis suggested we explain our position and have the letter say we would be happy <br />to process this application if the Commission will make this recommendation. <br /> <br />06/06/95 21 <br /> <br /> <br />