My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN082295
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN082295
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:32:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Commission meeting and the earliest it would be reset was September 5. She felt was a good <br />faith gesture. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta indicated to move the process along, Council needs to review and make final <br />comments to the proposal. She suggested the Council make any amendments and consider <br />whether the Committee of Decision Makers might come together at this point to finaiize the <br />proposal. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked about the possibility of using a community survey to get citizens <br />comments on the project. Would the information be gathered fast enough to get to staff?. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta stated it could be done at any point in time the Council wanted to get input <br />but it wasn't necessary for the Joint Planning Process discussion. A survey would take at least <br />two months, workshops would be quicker. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver opened the matter for public discussion. <br /> <br /> Bob Brown, 2302 Meadowlark Drive, felt a forced annexation was a hostile act and that <br />LAFCO was a County dominated agency. The risk seems to be how the project can go forward <br />without the sewer and water hook-ups. He suggested that rather than put preconditions on this <br />planning effort, he would like to see the City participate in joint planning. Wallring away is <br />always possible if this project does not come out in the City's best interest. Not participating <br />and fighting the County's process is not promising. He asked how the Committee will reach <br />consensus and felt a rapid public input process should be put in place. He felt density wasn't <br />the only the issue and that traffic issues needed to be adequately addressed. He asked Council <br />to participate and influence the negotiations in a positive manner and to hold more public <br />hearings in the future to better define the City's interests and positions. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked the speaker why he felt that LAFCO was a County dominated <br />agency now that special districts have been added to LAFCO. There were two special district <br />numbers, two City representatives, and two Board of Supervisors and one public member. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said he did not know Alameda County had now included the two special <br />districts. He felt that could dilute the County's influence. He felt there were still questions on <br />whether a tax sharing agreement could be worked out. <br /> <br /> Lorelei Tolvtvar, 1993 Greenwood Road, suggested a nature museum be put on the site <br />and that the majority of the land be kept in its natural state. <br /> <br /> Dorene Paradiso, 3168 Paseo Granada, urged Pleasanton to enter into negotiations with <br />the City and County of San Francisco and Alameda County over the San Francisco Water <br />Department Bernal Avenue site. The proposed Joint Planning Process appeared to be an <br />appropriate means to do just that. Unless Pleasanton shows a willingness to negotiate reasonably <br />and in good faith, the City stands to lose the opportunity to have input in planning this site. The <br /> <br />08/22/95 -8- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.