CCMIN081595 - Laserfiche WebLink

the San Francisco project and some of the options to meet park standards. There is another workshop meeting scheduled for 8/21/95 with the County Planning Commission. Ms. Acosta stated that she has conflicting reports as to whether or not that meeting will take place, given Pleasanton's on-going concerns about the Alameda County Planning Commission meeting while we are still considering the cooperative planning process. The Board of Supervisors met and considered the ~Cooperative Planning Process," including the August 1 staff report describing proposed amendments. Mayor Tarver asked if the City of Pleasanton had been notified that these items would be on the Board's agenda? Ms. Acosta replied yes. Documents are being faxed back and forth between the two offices as they become public. The staffs are keeping in close contact. She indicated the Board of Supervisors adopted the County staff' s recommendations. The recommendations included the 90-day time frame with extensions. The Alameda County Planning Department recommended that the County continue processing its application and that recommendation was also adopted. She felt the key difference was what would happen after the review process was completed. Mayor Tarver did not want to get too far into the joint process since the public input was not complete and there could be significant changes to the proposal. Ms. Acosta continued that these comments were in the August 1 staff report to Council. There are differences between the two staff s proposals. The main disagreement in all the public dialogue has been over what happens after the joint committee of decision makers finishes with its discussion. County staff concurs with many of Mr. Roush's proposed modifications to the agreement. The one area where the County staff does not agree was turning the application process over to the City of Pleasanton with no further County involvement. Assuming the Committee reaches its consensus, County staff feels that the County needs to sign a development agreement with San Francisco in order to give all parties the protections they desire and that the County must grant the initial approvals. It is likely that if negotiations between all parties are successful and levels of trust improve, some further compromise will be possible. This document from the County was adopted by the Board, which accepted the County staff's recommendations to the initial proposal, including some recommendations that our staff had given to Council in the August 1 agenda packet. The Board of Supervisors has also considered the policy on annexation and tax sharing agreements and it did adopt that policy. Council may be interested in discussing the effect that policy at some point in a closed session. Mayor Tarver stated he would like a closed session at the 8/22/95 meeting after the public hearing. He felt left out of the process and was frustrated that the County is continuing its process. Ms. Dennis asked if the County staff and Supervisors King and Campbell were made aware of the process that the City is going through. She asked if Ms. Acosta had spoken with - the County about the last Council meeting. 08/15/95 -9-