CCMIN082295 - Laserfiche WebLink

He continued, in this ease, some planning principles are not necessarily being followed. The City of Pleasanton has this property in its sphere of influence. The logical next step is for the annexation of this property to the City of Pleasanton. If LAFCO was given the question who is best capable of serving this property, only one conclusion could be reached. Annexations have caused conflict between the cities and counties, because the counties are trying to raise money to provide the necessary services that they are responsible to provide. Development of property and doing land use planning that they cannot service is not the way to raise money to handle County services. Development plans should require community input. Pleasanton requires applicants to submit their plans to the Planning Department staff for staff to evaluate those, produce reports, to have Planning Commission meetings, have draft environmental documents, final environmental documents, and four or five public hearings on the issue. When it is finally decided by City Council, the voters have the fight to referend the actions of that body if the community does not like the project. The County planning process has not yielded that kind of result. The issue is local control and who has the right to plan the City. It has to do with our residents' right to vote. San Francisco has openly indicated that its interest is to get money out of this property. Alameda County's interest is to get something the County wants out of this property. He felt the general public has been left out and the City has tried to have hearings to gather community opinions about the proposal. He supported cooperation and consensus. The meetings should be televised, held in Pleasanton, get the widest public input and begin to decide on which process is to be used. Whether the specific plan, the preferred plan, or other alternatives are reviewed, are important issues. Ms. Michelotti encouraged the Council to get involved in dialogue with the City and County of San Francisco. She felt the decision had to be made at this meeting. It is the right time to give input to the plan, get changes desired, help the County understand the fiscal impact that it will be taking on, and to protect Pleasanton residents from over-development. This could be done through a cooperative process. Annexation and possible litigation is still open at the end of the road, at the middle of the road, or when anyone wants to pull out of this process. It is important now to get to the table and there has been movement towards the joint process. It is important to remember that Pleasanton does not have control of the land, Pleasanton can't easily apply to LAFCO for annexation and if Pleasanton does nothing, the City takes the risk that Pleasanton will end up with a plan that no one can accept. Besides the expense of litigation which will cost the taxpayers, she suggested that the City move forward with this process expediently and if something cannot get on the table that is acceptable, then the City should try to get the decision makers to come together and agree that they can agree on a process. Ms. Dennis thanked the citizens who have tried to communicate with the County Board of Supervisors for getting the County Planning Commission meeting to be put on hold. She felt a counter-proposal should be brought together tonight on the joint process and to make sure that it includes the outline the Council would like to see. She felt is was imperative that the Board of Supervisors have an opportunity to see what has developed after public input and see if that would be acceptable. Until there is time to consider this, the processing of the application should be put on hold so that the Pleasanton won't be losing anything by negotiating. Council should give staff direction to hire the financial consultant to review the fiscal analysis, to make 08/22/95 -12-