CCMIN082295 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Dennis felt that the City and County of San Francisco and Alameda County may want to have something firm to react to in making counter-proposals as this process continues. Ms. Michelotti stated that both staffs need to get together and address a lot of the issues that were brought out in the response to the EIR and felt they have not had the opportunity to have that dialogue. With both staffs getting together early in the process, this will point out to Alameda County and San Francisco some of the fallacies of what are proposed. Ms. Dennis replied that all the information needs to be on the table when the decision makers get together. Designs should not be made, then taken back to gather public input. Some form of input should be on the table that can be addressed within the meetings. The City can still continue to gather more input simultaneously. Ms. Mohr thought the first step was to get the Committee of decision makers to have at least one meeting because someone has to give direction to staff. After each meeting of the decision makers, staff can review what was discussed and give feedback on how things are going. As that evolves, the City will need a step by step public forum. The only thing the public has to respond to at this point is the San Francisco plan. When the modification to this takes place, then at each of those points some response from the community will be needed to let Council know if it is evolving in an acceptable manner. A survey at this time would be premature. Mayor Tarver said a visual preference survey showing the type of development would be helpful. Ms. Dennis stated that in the General Plan review, there were trade-offs. The survey could be broadened to reveal more precise data about how people felt about their desire for the amenities of the development. Ms. Michelotti replied that there has been a tendency to hold back from communicating and getting staff to staff involvement. She felt that the dialogue has to start with all the people in the same room. Mr. Pico stated that when you try to build good faith and trust, it can't be created by having an army of lawyers or politicians trying to wordsmith the document to create a process. He felt there is evidence of good faith from all parties to want to sit at the table and discuss this particular property. It is recognized that the City and County of San Francisco, Alameda County, the City of Pleasanton and the residents of Pleasanton each have strengths and each has a right in this process. He accepts the document that the County sent to Pleasanton. In that agreement, any party can walk away at any time. It makes sense to get the decision makers appointed and to the table; that the meetings be done in public and have a public dialogue. He felt that if each party goes into meeting with a sincere desire t0 reach consensus, everyone will. The decision maker committee should meet first, before the staff review starts. The meetings be held in Pleasanton, televised, and open to the public, because this is where the impact will 08/22/95 -14-