Laserfiche WebLink
209 <br /> <br /> Mr. Tom Pico, 795 Neal Place, commented that the School <br />District, being a public agency, should hold public hearings and <br />give the people a chance to give their input to its plans prior to <br />annexation. He added that the residents have a problem with water <br />and sewer, and since the County will not build a water or sewer <br />plant, they would still have those problems unless the City helps <br />them. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer clarified that the water for that area would not <br />be provided by the City but through Zone 7, which is a County <br />service district. With regard to the annexation issue, he stated <br />that if the Council turned down an application from a major <br />property owner, the City would lose its opportunity to gain <br />control of the area and determine its future. Continuous <br />annexation and consequent development of smaller portions of <br />property could be done, but it would be much better to put <br />together one big area and specifically plan it so that everybody <br />knows, participates, and comes to some kind of consensus <br />agreement on what the plan ought to be. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico stated that he did not disagree with this but would <br />like to have planning and public hearings prior to annexation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer told Mr. Pico he had a valid point. However, if <br />the City came up with a plan that the property owners did not <br />like, they would oppose annexation. Then those who wanted to <br />develop their properties would go to the County, and if the County <br />allowed them to develop the way they wanted, there would be no <br />benefit for the City. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico said he felt that since the School District is a <br />public entity, it would not abandon the citizens of Pleasanton and <br />go to the County before giving reasonable time for hearings. He <br />requested that the process be modified and the property owners be <br />given some consideration. <br /> <br /> Ms. Kathryn Ferreira, 5821 San Carlos Way, whose property <br />line borders on the proposed annexation area, showed the Council <br />some pictures of the development that has taken place in the <br />Mission Park area over the past two years, and stated that if that <br />was the type of control over development that annexation brought <br />with it, then she was seriously opposed to annexation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Larry Pignataro, 720 Sycamore Road, mentioned that he <br />was for annexation and would like to enjoy some of the City's <br />services. He added that it would be good for both the area and <br />the City if the property were annexed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Joe Ording, 5474 Hopkins Court, Ventana Hills, stated <br />that he had heard about the advantages of an Environmental Impact <br />Report and inquired if the project had a financial impact report <br />which would indicate the advantages as well as costs of annexation <br />to the City. He also asked if voters get to vote on whether they <br />are for or against annexation. <br /> <br /> -9- <br /> 8-1-89 <br /> <br /> <br />