CCMIN080795 - Laserfiche WebLink

Brian Arkin, 7355 Lemonwood Way, asked that there be meetings that only dealt with the San Francisco Water District property issue and also would like to see a newsletter published bi-weekly or monthly talking about the progress and what the status is on this issue. San Francisco doesn't seem to be willing to have input from the community or answer questions of residents who attend their meetings. The County Board of Supervisors was against the City of Pleasanton and was putting stumbling blocks in the way to impede the process. The Council should continue the annexation process. Mayor Tarver stated he felt Alameda County didn't dislike our City, but its point of view is to protect the County's interest. Charlotte Severin, 45 13 Mirador Drive, stated that she is in favor of cooperation, but the cooperation should end up with annexation, the project's approval by Pleasanton's citizens and that the City should not lose control in this cooperative effort. She wasn't sure the Committee of six is fair representation. She felt that the citizens of Pleasanton should call their Supervisors and express their feelings so that they can vote on their behalf. She asked the Council not to give up control and to make whatever is developed there the same kind of planned quality that the City has to date. Ms. Acosta stated that the Council has before it the annexation process. The County has under the law a time period in which it must negotiate with the City a tax sharing agreement, however, there aren't clear indications what will occur if the parties don't come to an agreement. City and County staff have discussed what would be in a tax sharing agreement but other issues now prevent-that issue coming to closure. The City has discussed giving up 100% of the property taxes but there are many ramifications if that offer were made. Even if the City were willing to give up the property taxes, the County might still find that unacceptable and the City might not be able to prove that the County was negotiating in bad faith. In many property tax exchange negotiations, Counties now want a portion of the sale tax revenue also. If the time period in negotiations expired and LAFCO were approached, then the question would be before them as to whether or not the City's application would be considered complete. Mayor Tarver stated the County also has many hurdles to go through to develop the property. He repeated Mr. Pieo's observation that "sometime, somewhere, somehow, the County will have to get our cooperation to do this proposal". The property is surrounded by the City of Pleasanton, has access from our freeways, roads, would benefit from out sewer and water services, and the County has to form a County services area which has to go before LAFCO for approval. Ms. Mohr stated that some citizens had asked about buying the land. The Council has set a value of land ($220,000 an acre) when it came to park dedication. When the $100,000,000 figure for the land was mentioned, it really wasn't an out of the bailpark figure. She asked the City Manager if the City wanted to buy the property, what would it take. 08/07/95 - 11 -