CCMIN080795 - Laserfiche WebLink

Item 4b AnnHcation to LAFCO for Annexation No. 141 (City and County of San Francisco Pleasanton Unified School District and Alameda County nroperties). This item has been continued indefinitely. Item 4c Proposed Coonerative Piannin~ Process for the San Francisco Water Department - Bernal Avenue Site. (SR95:257) Mr. Roush indicated that following the City's receipt of the proposed Cooperative Planning Process for the San Francisco Water Department Bernal Avenue site (developed by Alameda County and the San Francisco representatives), a staff report was given to Council. The Council discussed and heard comments from the public at the Council's meeting on August 1. At that time, the Council asked staff to develop for discussion purposes, some options to respond to the proposed Cooperative Planning Process. Mr. Roush stated that was completed and outlined in the supplemental report that Council received. He stated there were four options, but many more variations are possible, and that options one and two assume that the property would be annexed to the City before any formal action would be taken on the project. Under option one, the procedure is set forth by which if the project were approved, the voters of Pleasanton would then vote on it by a Council sponsored initiative. Option two gets the matters before the voters only if there is a referendum petition filed. Option three and four contemplate City action on the project prior to annexation. It follows the same format as option one and two, in the sense that a project under option three would be placed before the voters automatically by the City Council and with option four, the matter would get to the voters only if a referendum process were followed. There would be questions under option three and four if the voters turned it down, the most significant one being if the County then processed the application, whether or not City infrastructure which is normally part of the consensus plan, would still be an option. Mr. Roush stated that last week the City received some comments from Alameda County on the initial proposal that staff had drafted and the Council saw on August 1. He did not know if those comments had been formally adopted by the County. It provides that the City would not annex the property until after a project were approved, i.e., that the planning approvals would be handled by Alameda County and only then would the City annex the property. Mayor Tarver asked if the comments were the County's staffs position versus the Board's decision. He asked if the proposal were similar to the Ruby Hill project, i.e., the plan was approved and then the City annexed the property with additional conditions. Mr. Roush stated and that the Ruby Hill project was similar. 08/07/95 -3-