CCMIN080795 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Tarver stated that the Tri-Valley Planning Committee was a good model to get people to buy in, the people had to understand the process, what the objective was, and a clear understanding of how they had to commit to it or not. That would get the process started and that each jurisdiction would not necessarily have to adopt everything that was developed, but that there was the safety net at the end where each party could back out. He did not like reacting to a preferred plan. He would like to look at options, would like community input and not just refine a preferred plan. He preferred this plan to be a consensus plan where everyone agrees on the policy or it doesn't get included in the plan. He also stated that he preferred a referendum. He felt if there was a preferred plan, the property would be annexed and the Council decision to adopt the plan would be subject to referendum. Mr. Pico commented that when you look at the process and the steps that are ou~ined, he felt the first step should be the meeting of the committee of decision makers to see if there might be a way to have a consensus plan and then to refine questions, issues, differences and interpretations that may exist. The meetings should be televised, open to the public and take place in Pleasanton at Council Chambers. He felt the staff basis should be the survey that was done by the General Plan Review Committee along with the subcommittee reports. He suggested the creation of an independent economic feasibility analysis that looked at the impact in terms of money and what is really feasible. He wanted a plan that is realistic for this property, not merely to come up with a plan that will never be built. He felt the review process was too narrow. Mr. Pico stated he disagreed that in part two of the planning process that the request to suspend the County's review and that the City suspend the processing of the annexation be done but San Francisco continue to develop a specific plan, rezoning and a development agreement. He felt that if San Francisco continues with the rezoning and development agreement, that the City must continue with the annexation process. He felt that if the City hasn't asked the Supervisors to support Pleasanton's annexation process and to approve the tax sharing agreement, it should. He felt it was necessary for the record. He stated that staff needed to address whether or not the City would want a vote or referendum. If the City moves ahead and decided to enter into the agreement he hoped that the City would wait until it got a final official response before it makes any appointments of City representatives to this committee of decision makers. Ms. Michelotti wanted to get into the process and have the Council vote on the consensus plan. She stated that the people have the right at that point to set aside the decision if they are not in favor of it. She would like to take the input and questions for staff and have some alternatives outlined so the joint process can be started. An alternative if San Francisco processes this through the County as it is and the City did nothing would be to hope that a referendum would prevail County-wide. Mayor Tarver stated that if we stop our annexation process that gives the County an advantage time wise if it continues to process the application. The San Francisco project will be ready to be approved and the City will not have proceeded with the annexation plan because the City offered to hold its options and the County kept processing. If the freezing takes place, 08/07/95 -15-