CCMIN080795 - Laserfiche WebLink

modifications to the proposal and those hinge on whether we get to vote. Is it an initiative or is it a referendum and if we don't approve it does Alameda County get to process it anyway. George Gunter, 1805 Greenwood Avenue, stated that the preferred plan of San Francisco is 3,340 homes on the San Francisco property. Pleasanton staff has recommended 2,200 homes. The City needs to be an equal partner in the planning process and he supported public input every two weeks with this item on the agenda for the public to know what the Council is reviewing at that time. Annexing the property to Pleasanton must be a part of the approved plan. One of the items hindering Pleasanton going forward with the annexation is a tax sharing agreement with the County. Supervisors King and Campbell will propose to the County Board of Supervisors that it change that policy and the County will not enter into an agreement with any city within Alameda County on taxation until there is an approved plan for a piece of property. Even though this is a stumbling block, the Council should respond to the proposal and let them know what we want in the negotiations. Mayor Tarver said he has not come to a specific amount of homes that will or can be built on the San Francisco property. The Board of Supervisors had not taken any official position about whether or not to sign future tax sharing agreements. David Jones, 1605 Rose Avenue, would like to see the process go forward. He stated 3303 units reduced by 20% gives the property a density of 4.76 units per acre, or medium density which is proposed in the General Plan. Gene Pons, 832 Abbie Street, stated that he is concerned about the lack of control Pleasanton has in the planning process of this property. What were the chances of Pleasanton prevailing legally and otherwise in annexing that land and controlling the development, just as it has controlled development in the past? The top priority should be to be in a position to incorporate the development of the 500+ acres in the same manner and with the same leverage we have for all the other developments in Pleasanton. Mayor Tarver stated that there is a whole sequence of processes, votes and things that have to occur to have a positive outcome. Mr. Pico stated that Pleasanton would have a lot higher probability of success with the annexation if Pleasanton could have a tax sharing agreement. Mr. Frank Berloger, 2200 Vineyard, has serious doubts about the process Council is proposing and the impact that it might have. San Francisco had already wasted five years, $2 million dollars and still had its project rejected. After all the General Plan subcommittee meetings were over, then the Steering Committee met and rejected the major land use and housing positions taken by their subcommittees and after not being part of the process for two years they cut the density figures in half. He stated if the Council already has its minds made 08/07/95 -8-