CCMIN080795 - Laserfiche WebLink

just to react to the process is not being constructive. The assistance of the committee to get a proposal from Supervisors Campbell and King showed the appropriateness of citizen activity in this process and with the community communicating directly to their elected representative on the Board of Supervisors and the other Supervisors as well. Mr. Pico stated that there is another way to get citizen input. What Council needed was input before staff is sent to negotiate changes to this specific plan. Our staff needs valid direction that our community can support. A community survey on the San Francisco project would be a way to get information. The Council should commission a comprehensive survey of our community and invite the City and County of San Francisco and Alameda County Board of Supervisors to communicate in the drafting of the questions so that Council gets input from the community. When the committee of decision makers meet, the meetings should be public, that the meetings be held in Pleasanton and be televised. Eventually the City and County of San Francisco will have to get concurrence from Pleasanton or the Pleasanton City Council in order to make development of that property happen. Ms. Michelotti felt there had to be a way for the community to get its input into the process and that would start as soon as our planners get together. Mike Pirozzole, 5925 Via Del Cielo, felt it was premature to go to the community for a vote at this time. He hadn't heard anything yet from the General Plan Review committees and what their suggestions are. It was a good cross-section of people involved in that and felt that - the general consensus was that the San Francisco Water District property is not appropriate for the residential density. If Council goes into committee with the San Francisco Water District people, Council should start with a compromise with zero development and zero residential. Dorene Paradiso, 3168 Paseo Granada, felt that Pleasanton needs to have a strong and vital role in the planning of this property. A survey would be side tracking right now and putting a vote to the people would be useless without educating them first. The Downtown Association should be present and have input in the negotiations as far as economic development. She encouraged the Council to enter into these negotiations while there is still some hope and possibilities to have a reasonable plan for all. Mayor Tarver asked for the speakers to voice whether they prefer one of the four options; if they want a vote; if the Council should negotiate with San Francisco and under what provisions, if they want the land annexed, not annexed, etc. He felt there are only two significant issues: 1) does the property get annexed or not; and 2) whether there is or isn't a vote, does Alameda County get to continue the processing and planning if the residents of Pleasanton reject it. At the end, if the residents of Pleasanton refuse to accept the plan, should it be able to go back and be processed through Alameda County the way it is even though it has been rejected. Should Council enter into this without the bottom line that the community gets to vote on the outcome or not. He felt the difference of the options come down to two: is there or isn't there a vote and if the vote is negative does Alameda County get to process the plan anyway. The staffs recommendation is that we enter into this process, that we ask for some 08/07/95 -7-