Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Roush stated that LAFCO meets the 2nd Thursday of the month, which means action <br />had to be taken early in August. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked what role the County plays with the tax sharing agreement and its <br />role in the annexation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that the LAFCO staff advised the City that it will not put the <br />annexation matter before LAFCO if a tax sharing agreement is not in place. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver stated he would like to approach the tax sharing issue with the County <br />before we have gone through the whole process. He asked how the City could put it in a form <br />so it can go before the Board. He thought the City needed to write a letter to put the tax sharing <br />agreement on the Board's agenda. He stated he wants the Board of Supervisors to give the City <br />of Pleasanton the same attention that its giving San Francisco Water District in its application. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta stated the City staff has negotiated a tax sharing agreement with the County <br />staff but it had not been put before the Board. A lot depends on the timing and how it's <br />presented. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti stated that she felt we should pursue this joint process and get an <br />understanding because of the effects the annexation process could have. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta stated the County has heard our comments and what we are looking for, and <br />they felt a need to talk with San Francisco before coming back and presenting to us their joint <br />position. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said that staff had concerns that presenting the final EIR and the prezoning <br />to our Planning Commission on August 2 and to the Council on August 7 would be seen as <br />counter-productive to those discussions. That is why Council was brought up to date on the <br />process. Staff is seeking direction as to whether to schedule those meeting with the Pleasanton's <br />Planning Commission and City Council or whether Council wants to defer that to later in the <br />month of August. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico indicated that even though this letter is imminent, he would like to tentatively <br />schedule the meetings of the Planning Commission and the City Council. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti stated the Council needs a clear understanding and communication with <br />the Alameda County staff. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked what would be the consequences of moving our application to LAFCO <br />over to its next meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that would be in November or at a special meeting. The annexation <br />issues could be put on the regular Planning Commission meeting, which would be the 2nd <br /> <br />07/18/95 -20- <br /> <br /> <br />