My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN110194
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1994
>
CCMIN110194
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:30 AM
Creation date
2/1/2000 8:01:58 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.
/
24
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
Mr. Roush indicated City staff has met with LAFCO staff and have been assured a <br />negative declaration is sufficient. Discussions are underway with regard to the tax sharing <br />agreement. Before LAFCO takes action on the annexation, there has to be an agreement <br />between the City and County regarding the tax sharing arrangement. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta indicated that as a result of the Ruby Hill negotiation process, the City <br />Managers group has discussed with the County executive that there needs to be developed a <br />standard formula to renegotiate the Mayor's formula from years past. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver hoped that through the Constitutional Revision Commission some of these <br />issues will be resolved regarding revenue and services. He believed that reason will prevail with <br />the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and they will agree that it is logical for Plea~nton <br />to determine development of this property. <br /> <br /> Gary Schwaegerle, 189 W. Angela, supported annexation of the San Francisco property <br />and felt that the fairgrounds should be annexed as well. He again urged Council to only approve <br />owned housing and no high density projects. <br /> <br />Item 10b <br />Modifications to pronosed bag-based recvclina nrogram (SR 94:367) <br /> <br />Chris Sherwood presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr questioned the statement that there was no appeal procedure for the Recycling <br />Board's decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Sherwood indicated the only "appeal" was to go to court. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver believed there is a possibility to work with the Board to demonstrate that the <br />money could be spend in better ways. <br /> <br /> bh. Deiuiia sated the goal is to improve the p~rcentage of recovery of mcyclables. She <br />asked if a less expensive bag could be used; perhaps a clear bag and one without drawstrings. <br />She also wanted to use a recyclable bag. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sherwood staff is working to try to reduce the cost of the bags and will be <br />experimenting with different types of bags. The bag to be used is translucent even though it is <br />blue. <br /> <br /> Ruth Abbe, 1028 Fair Oaks Avenue, Alameda, president of the Recycling Board, <br />indicated one of the primary purposes of Measure D was source separation recycling. Measure <br />D has a clear mandate that requires residential recycling program with containers separate from <br />garbage for recycling. The Board cannot waive the requirements of Measure D. Even though <br /> <br />11/01/94 <br /> - 12- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.