Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Pico commented there has been an excellent spirit of cooperation between <br />DSRSD and Pleasanton recently. He felt it would be a positive step for Pleasanton to have <br />representation on the Board rather than just a contractual relationship. He felt there was another <br />alternative to explore and that was the forthcoming LAFCO review of the operations of cities <br />and special districts within the County of Alameda. LAFCO has the charge to see if <br />consolidation of special districts with similar functions would be appropriate. There have been <br />discussions in the past about the potential of consolidating DSRSD and Zone 7, since they both <br />deal with water. He felt there could be regional support to ask LAFCO to study consolidation. <br />That would take longer to achieve, but is another avenue to pursue. He suggested this issue be <br />raised at the Liaison Committee meeting. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Ayala, Brozosky, Campbell, Hosterman, and Mayor Pico <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 6b <br />PAP-53 (PTR-7399~ Northstar Construction and Development. (SR 03:226) <br /> <br /> Councilmember Brozosky recused himself from participating on this issue because he <br />owns property within 500 feet of the development. <br /> <br />Brian Swift presented the staffreport. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala referred to a memo requiring approval by a certain date and asked for <br />clarification. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said appeals of tentative maps must be heard within thirty days. The matter on <br />the last Council agenda was within the thirty-day period and tonight's heating is a few days <br />beyond the period. Staff recommendation is to open the hearing and take action at this meeting. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked if there were other alternatives for staff to pursue, would there be a <br />problem in continuing on that path to find consensus? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush believed that if the public hearing were conducted at this meeting and there <br />were one or two items for staff to bring back for resolution at the next meeting, it would be <br />acceptable by a court. The purpose of the thirty-day role is for closure to the application so an <br />applicant or appellant is not stnmg out for a long time. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hosterman asked if the applicant could show substantial prejudice because of any <br />time delay?. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush felt it depended on how long of a delay. A few days would not make much <br />difference as opposed to a six month delay. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 7 08/19/03 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />