CCMIN082295 - Laserfiche WebLink

current proposal by the City and County of San Francisco to Alameda County would not be acceptable to the citizens of Pleasanton. Michael Pirozzoli, 5925 Via Del Cielo, felt the General Plan Steering Committee recommendations should be taken into consideration. He felt the City should be on the conservative end for the density of the proposed project. By actively participating in the process it will show good faith to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors as well as to the City and County of San Francisco. Larry Levin, 3178 Waymouth Court, asked the Council to negotiate the City's position in good faith. He felt that getting a portion of the City's desired goals was better than being shut out of the process. David Speer, 489 Adams Way, felt the Council should participate in some form of the planning process. On 1-580, Alameda County has been planning for a huge residential and commercial project at Santa Rita. He asked if any of that had been discussed with Pleasanton. The County wants a cooperative planning process, yet Pleasanton has put the annexation process on hold and the County passed legislation to make it impossible for Pleasanton to do any type of annexation without the County's involvement. He asked where the cooperative process was when the County forced Ruby Hill on Pleasanton and Livermore. He felt a referendum was a necessity for the voters and citizens of Pleasanton to have a choice. He stated development was a fight not a privilege. Ms. Michelotti asked if Mr. Speer was advocating going forward with a joint planning process or if he was opposed to that. Mr. Speer stated he wanted the City to go forward but under our terms and conditions. Brian Arkin, 7355 Lemonwood Way, stated the County will go forward with its own development and when the development is approved, it will push it onto Pleasanton so it won't have to service it. He asked Council to deny services to the project if the City is not allowed to participate in the process. Mayor Tarver asked Mr. Roush if the City could be forced through LAFCO to annex this property. Mr. Roush stated that assuming that the County has approved a project on the site and the San Francisco representatives request that the property be annexed to the City, a tax sharing agreement would have to be reached. Mr. Arkin asks if the project could be refused outright. Mr. Roush stated that the City is required by law to negotiate in good faith to reach a tax sharing agreement. If the County were to give Pleasanton 100% of the property taxes from 08/22/95 -9-