CCMIN092094 - Laserfiche WebLink

review and realized that the citizens would not accept its proposed plan. Mr. Pico believed that San Francisco has applied to Alameda County in order to put pressure on Plea~nton. He stressed that Council is trying to work with neighboring jurisdictions. Mr. Tarver believed them is a history of Alameda County approving development around Pleasanton without any regard for effects on the City. He felt is was necessary to take a strong position that this is not acceptable. Frank Neu, 18210 Cannel Drive, Castro Valley, said the City of Plea~anton is now in the same position as the landowners on Pleasanton ridge. The City is asking San Francisco to be fair and reasonable, and it is doing what it wants. Perhaps the Council can be more understanding of the landowners on the ridge. Ms. Dennis related her conversation with a San Francisco representative and she had urged him to be a part of the general plan review process. She understands why San Francisco is applying to Alameda County, but the situation sffil remains that the plan of the magnitude it wants is not acceptable to Pleasanton. She is disappointed it will not work with the City. Ms. Mohr believed Pleananton is the appropriate body for San Francisco to deal with to review their project. She stated that all California cities am in a difficult position and San Francisco is in even more trouble with its $9 million deficit. It has a huge asset on our boundary that it is trying to realize some benefit from. Plea~nton must realiTe the needs of San Francisco and somehow fred a middle ground that meets the needs of both cities. Ms. Scribner stated she had been on the committee that reviewed the Preferred Plan for the San Francisco property. San Francisco has been dealing with Pleasanton for ten years to get to this point. In the last general plan review, San Francisco was given a stamp of approval and then spent four years developing a plan. The last step was the Preferred Plan committee. The committee asked for a golf course, two school sites, a 3f-acre park and many other requests. San Francisco agreed. People must realiz, this is not free. San Francisco must have a way to get something to make it feasible to give Pleasanton what it wants. She understands the frustration of San Francisco; it had approval of a Preferred Plan and when it came back to Council to start the development process, it was told it had to go through another general plan review. To develop a site of that magnitude is approximately a five year process. She stated the comment of the San Francisco representatives was that they would never get the project done, because every five years the City does a general plan update and if they have to go through that every five years, they will be here till doomsday. Mr. Tarver did not believe the community was given a voice to say whether it was willing to trade density for facilities. He has no intention not to work with San Francisco. He 09/20/94 - 15-