Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Mohr stated that there were signs up for the previous committee and it didn't <br /> generate much response. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver stated that there was some confusion about the committee. He formed the <br /> committee to get feedback from the community, and to get a sense of what our options were and <br /> what people thought about the whole dilemma. He stated it was not his intention to start another <br /> committee. He felt the original committee forced San Francisco to be in Alameda County <br /> because that committee said that it liked the preferred plan but it didn't prove to be a good plan <br /> for the community at large, when we turned it over to the General Plan Review Committee. He <br /> stated that he didn't want to use a committee to decide what was good for the community. He <br /> wanted the community to be involved in the process; giving input and being satisfied with the <br /> consensus plan when it goes through. Mayor Tarver didn't want people to come down after the <br /> fact, say they tried everything to get involved, and didn't hear about the meetings and didn't <br /> know what is going on. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti commended all of the committee members for their work and the Mayor <br /> for bringing a cross-section of the community together. She felt Ms. Ayala's suggestions were <br /> very good and wanted to see the continued involvement of the group because they did offer a <br /> wide variety of viewpoints. <br /> <br /> Jocelyn Combs, 5151 Greentree Court, stated that the first step should be a review <br /> process by Pleasanton, Alameda County and City of San Francisco staffs, where they would look <br />- at the plan that is being presented by Alameda County and make recommendations on that plan. <br /> There should be a process which includes the community. The days of referendum are gone. <br /> The consensus process is the way of the future. There was a range of opportunities for <br /> involvement by the community and the City shouldn't walt for the last stage. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver stated that there are four critical elements: the first being that Pleasanton, <br /> Alameda County and San Francisco representatives review and develop recommendations to <br /> "refine the draft specific plan now pending before the County"; step two are the critical planning <br /> issues, intensity of development, number of units and growth limits; third the staff <br /> recommendations would be presented to the committee of decision makers (two representatives <br /> from each of the bodies); and fourth, the plan would be processed by the County. If approved, <br /> the property could be annexed to Pleasanton if certain guarantees to San Francisco were made. <br /> <br /> The Mayor continued, when Mr. Mercer set up the committee to work with San <br /> Francisco, the provision was that we would respond to its plan. That was limiting and gave <br /> Pleasanton no choice in what would be done with the 550+ acres; we were reacting to a specific <br /> plan. That didn't give the community to chance to voice its opinion on what it would like done <br /> with the development of the San Francisco property for the sake of Pleasanton's future. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis stated that there is benefit in making our desires known or discovering what <br /> they are. That would be productive as a community. The City and County of San Francisco <br /> can respond to that but at least the Council will know where it wants to go. To limit the City <br /> <br /> 08/07/95 -6- <br /> <br /> <br />