CCMIN080195 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Tarver said Supervisor King said San Francisco would be unlikely to accept that particular proposal. Mr. Roush stated that the City staff has tried to write something based on our understanding of what might be acceptable to the County and to San Francisco. Something else might also be acceptable to them but staff thought this had something San Francisco and the County could accept. Mayor Tarver said he didn't care which type of process is used as long as the people of Pleasanton that have to deal with this property, its impacts and growth limits are developed through this process by agreeing to it. He would like to get a consensus plan out of this that would be acceptable but any provision has to have some risk for all; otherwise San Francisco will state they might not like what the our citizens say and then go with the County. Ms. Acosta stated that the process allows any party to pull out at any time if the party feels like the process is not successful. The Council needs to propose what it thinks it wants and then we'll walt for a response. Ms. Dennis stated that there are benefits for including a vote up front because the referendum process can be chaotic and it doesn't say what will happen if the referendum falls. That could be an issue. Is the vote on the plan or is the vote to allow the annexation of the property to the City. Cindy McGovern, 9206 Longview Drive, asked the Council to make a good faith effort to continue the joint planning process. Ms. McGovern asked what other options does Pleasanton have to get San Francisco to come back to us. She also asked the newspapers if they could do an in depth report for the citizens of Pleasanton on this property that would give the history and process that San Francisco has already been gone through. If the City doesn't go into a process to work with the City of San Francisco and Alameda County, she thought the optimal plan won't happen. How long can we prolong the process of not going to the table where it starts to be a negative impact on the City. If San Francisco really wants to make money from this land, our City has to look at how we can also get revenue from this property on an on-going basis. Is there a situation where fees would not be imposed on San Francisco and we could own part of the golf course? She felt there were options available in our approach but felt the process needs to be started now. Kay Ayala, 45 15 Gatetree Circle, felt it was important for all the citizens to be aware of all processes along the way with San Francisco and why San Francisco and the County are taking some of the stands they are taking and why we have to take the stand we are taking. She stated that this is a huge piece of land that will have an impact on the City. She asked the Council to please take the joint cooperative proposal, put anything that is necessary in there to safeguard Pleasanton but think about stopping the annexation and asking the County to stop its procedures and get the issues back on the table. 08/01/95 -16-