CCMIN080795 - Laserfiche WebLink

David Speer, 489 Adams Way, felt that the process proposed is for the City and County of San Francisco to take charge and we need to get control of the process and make our own counter proposals that will put Pleasanton on equal footing, if not control the process over the long term. Mr. Speer supported Pleasanton controlling the annexation as well as the planning of the parcel. Dorothy Dow, 4219 Bevilacqua Court, stated the quality of life is dependent upon the quality of air. A recent newscast stated that Pleasanton had the dirtiest air in the Vailey. Ms. Dow was horrified that the City might ailow outside agencies to make decisions about Pleasanton's quality of life. She hoped the City could purchase the land and maintain control of it. Mayor Tarvet stated that the purpose of the cooperative process is for the staff to review and to develop recommendations to refine the draft specific plan that the Alameda County Planning Commission is currently considering. It is understood that such review will be based upon the draft specific plan proposed land use types, location of use, and general layout'. It doesn't say how Pleasanton will do its part in that. There have been suggestions for public hearings, Planning Commission meetings, and Council meetings to talk about every point in the plan. If we want to look at the acquisition of the property or other options, the City needs to specify it in the process or it doesn't happen. Mavonne Garrity, 1870 Tanglewood Way, felt very concerned about this project and wanted to have input but felt it is very confusing on how and where to give that input. Ms. Michelotti clarified what Ms. Garrity was trying to ask. She stated Ms. Garrity's question was what is "the completion of the review process?"; it is outlined in Options 1-4. The groups would come together for a consensus plan. Once everybody agreed to these things, then would it go back to the residents for a vote; and if it didn't pass would it go back and start all over? In option 3-4, it goes back to the County. Mr. Roush stated it assumes that there has been consensus reached and that there is a COnsenSUS plan. Ms. Garrity stated that Option 1 was her choice. Pleasanton has been heard during the General Plan review and Pleasanton wants to have control of that property. Council should do anything to annex it. The community has been bullied into a position where having nothing on the property is not an option. Jennifer Hosterman, 2954 Chardonney, felt the City had been taken hostage and that the San Francisco Water District property will affect the residents of Pleasanton. There will be adverse effects and if a recommendation comes from the six person panel suggesting a burden to the City that can't be accommodated, she will demand to voice her concerns in the form of a vote. 08/07/95 -10-