My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN060695
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN060695
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:18:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Acosta stated that the Planning Commission could give direction to the applicant that <br />the Commission is just beginning the process and will be expecting the applicant to work out the <br />issues with Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver announced that he would not be attending the June 19th meeting. He'll <br />be out of town and requests that the Council attend the Planning Commission meeting in his <br />absence. <br /> <br /> It was the consensus of Council that the City Attorney draft a letter to include <br />Pleasanton's desire to process the application; that we would like to request the Alameda County <br />Planning Commission to direct San Francisco to work with Pleasanton to resolve the issues of <br />concern; and that a joint application process, with details to be worked out, would be the fall <br />back position. <br /> <br />The r011 Call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 61 <br />LAVWMA/EBDA Negotiations - staff report and direction to LAVWMA Renresentative 9n <br />modified counter-proposal <br /> <br /> The Director of Public Works had provided the Council with a memo concerning this <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver stated there had been another negotiation meeting with EBDA. He felt <br />that EBDA was suggesting to DSRSD that its proposal not be included in the counter-proposal. <br />He agreed that the DSRSD proposal should not be in the counter-proposal. He stated he <br />understood DSRSD's position; it is in the service district business and its mission is to provide <br />service. We are in a position to accommodate our General Plan build-out which we have <br />incorporated in the counter-proposal; so it is in our interest to authorize the counter-proposal. <br />It was his recommendation to go back to the LAVWMA Board with the original counter- <br />proposal without the DSRSD proposal. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if there was any idea on how going with the counter-proposal could <br />incorporate some incentives for recycling? If it went as proposed, the citizens have to pay <br />separately for the recycling. If future technology comes up with a recycling process that <br />everyone likes, then our citizens will have to pay again. <br /> <br />06/06/95 23 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.