CCMIN060695 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Tarver said we have made the request and have shown this is the proper thing to do; and if we have to deal with a political environment, option #2 says there is still a way we can work together to get this done. We are equal players not lesser. He doesn't want the Board to lead the City on. Ms. Michelotti suggested that the letter say that we will continue to welcome them to come through our process. It will save the City and County of San Francisco a tremendous amount of time, which is something it is looking for. Ms. Mohr asked if Mr. Roush thought it might be more effective if we could propose a program by which this would work, or something more definable. Mr. Roush stated that he's not sure this has been tried before, but in the north Livermore area, after litigation, Livermore, the County, and others started a joint process about what should be planned for that area. If Council were interested in that kind of approach, staff could at least describe it and use it as a framework the County is familiar with. Mr. Pico thought we should recommend to the Planning Commission that there are a number of issues which should be resolved with Pleasanton before the Planning Commission moves on with its process. Mayor Tarver thought that was a great point because San Francisco said at the hearing that it had encouraged Pleasanton to participate and comment. He felt that we are identifying the problems and we are participating in the process, so have the Planning Commission ask San Francisco to respond. Mr. Roush stated that San Francisco's response to that would be that it can respond to Pleasanton's concerns by working through the Alameda County Planning Commission. Does the Council want the Commission to say that it won't recommend a project be approved that Pleasanton doesn't agree with? Ms. Michelotti thought the Planning Commission had identified the issues and so it comes back to whether this project will work, knowing it's a self-sufficient project. It's the Planning Commission's initiative and assessment of whether the project is viable. Mayor Tarver asked if there were any objections to the original request that the application be referred to Pleasanton. He also felt that the letter should say there is a way to resolve the issues through a joint planning process. He felt that the letter has to state that we want control of the property; and if we can't have that, we have extended an offer to San Francisco to process a joint application, details of which would be worked out on a consensus basis. 06/06/95 22