CCMIN081595 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Acosta stated a letter was sent to the County Planning Director to be provided to the Board of Supervisors since we were unsure that the Board knew the City had deferred our annexation process. The letter walks through the actions that Council took on August 1 and August 7. Ms. Acosta stated that she had spoken at great length with the County Planning Director. Ms. Michelotti asked if the action by the Board of Supervisors today was the first time it officially acted on the recommendation. Ms. Acosta replied that today was the first time the Board has officially seen the Cooperative Planning Process. The Board's Land Use Committee, which includes Supervisors King and Campbell, had seen it previously. The full Board of Supervisors had not seen it before, so Supervisors King and Campbell presented the proposal to the Board to get its comments in order to officially send back a letter to our Council. Mayor Tarver stated he would have been at that meeting if he had known the joint process was on the agenda. Council has requested that all meetings be suspended until the City finishes consideration of the cooperative process. Ms. Michelotti stated that there had been a request to hold off on the County Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Mohr asked if Council's options might change as a result of public discussions. If Council adjourned to a closed session, what would happen to the audience? She felt if it were lengthy, the audience should not be expected to wait. Mr. Beougher stated that the closed session proposed could be lengthy in order to explain all the options and he didn't recommend the session immediately before the Council meeting. Ms. Acosta stated that a closed session could be scheduled for another day before August 22. After getting public input another closed session could also be scheduled. She suggested August 21 might be the best day for the closed session. Mayor Tarver asked for public input. Geoff Cooper, 7534 Flagstone Drive, believed Pleasanton should not compromise its standing in the annexation process until the City has an agreement with the County that the City's interest will be protected, including the possibility of a public vote on the final plan. He felt that there were flaws in the draft EIR that the San Francisco Water District presented, including the contamination of the aquifer with the ground water recharge system. The San Francisco Water Dept. has a history of ignoring local concerns of communities adjacent to their watershed lands. As to buying the property, he'd hate to see Pleasanton forced into buying the land and thought the money better spent on securing more Ridgelands property. 08/15/95 -10-