My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN080795
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN080795
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:27:29 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.
/
25
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
by the community, Alameda County and San Francisco Water District. The way the process <br />is proposed, San Francisco can get out if it doesn't like what it is hearing, and the same for <br />Alameda County and our City. The process is supposed to get all entities to a point where there <br />will be a consensus plan and it should then be taken to the community for approval whether a <br />referendum or initiative. He hoped that the last step would be annexation; the official approval <br />by Pleasanton to adopt the plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked about the County's desire for a 90 day process and when the 90 days <br />would begin. She asked if the item is continued to the next Council meeting if that would delay <br />the start of the 90 days or if the starting date was open. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta stated the 90 days begins from the signing of the document, and that it was <br />open at this point.. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver stated that there will be more discussion on the item and that it will be <br />continued to the next Council meeting so Council will have a better set of options and discussion <br />of the staff report. <br /> <br /> Jocelyn Combs, 5151 Greentree Court, commented that the Tri-Valley Planning <br />Committee could be a model for consensus planning. She stated this agreement was presented <br />to San Francisco with terms by the Board of Supervisors without benefit of staff and without <br />representation by Pleasanton. She also commented that the Council might try to acquire a <br />portion of the property and work out an acceptable development proposal. She stated that <br />would allow San Francisco to use that fund as its starting money to develop the proposal. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that the way it was proposed, this process contemplates comments to <br />and refinements of an existing plan. If the City is interested in looking at something else, then <br />the City needs to be up front about that and find out the County's and San Francisco's response <br />to that. <br /> <br /> Brian Arkin, 7355 Lemonwood Way, stated he still felt very concerned about the density <br />of the project. Most people don't know about the project and what is happening with it and <br />thought that more advertising should take place. Posters could be made for the Farmers Market, <br />concerts in the park or even at the mall. <br /> <br /> Larry Levin, 3 178 Weymouth Court, asked how long had San Francisco been trying to <br />develop a project at that site. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver stated that this particular project has been going on four years. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that San Francisco has been trying to build at that site for at least fifteen <br />years that she knew of. <br /> <br />08/07/95 -13- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.