CCMIN072192 - Laserfiche WebLink

156 Ms. Acosta stated that staff would recommend Council to make the property surplus if it was decided that it was not necessary for access. Staff would not be able to support building a park on this parcel. Ms. Acosta said that staff would report back to Council in thirty days regarding access. Mr. Butler disagreed that the City should landscape the property if it were decided that it would not be used as an access or be surplus. Mayor Mercer indicated that there were a lot of similar parcels located in Pleasanton. He listed different streets where these types of parcels were located and then indicated that it was difficult for the City to maintain these properties. Item 12b Consideration of A1Rmeda County's Formation of a Revised Waste Reduotion Advisory Board/Local Task Foroe (SR92:309) Mr. Roush was asked if any of these individuals were among those involved in the Measure D litigation. Mr. Roush answered that some of the individuals are on organizations which opposed the City of Dublin and Pleasanton in the Measure D litigation. Mayor Mercer did not believe that these people should be appointed to a recycling board/committee. Ms. Mohr asked if where the proposal for this committee came from. Ms. Acosta answered from the Waste Management Authority. Ms. Mohr then asked if Council could go to the sub-committee and suggest that they find alternates for the committee. She asked if Council was able to influence the choices to be made. Mayor Mercer explained that when the votes come to the Authority it is 11 to 3. Dublin, Pleasanton and San Leandro vote no. Mr. Butler pointed out that this new list of members contains a few of the members from the old committee. Mr. Tarver did not find the advisory board itself objectionable but questioned the representation. 7/21/92