My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN111495
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN111495
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/21/1999 7:38:08 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.
/
20
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. Buffer stated the Council had until November 21, 1995 to appeal to the Supreme <br /> Court. If that is done, the Supreme Court has until December to accept or reject the appeal. <br /> Eventually it will go back to Superior Court. He stated he would like to compromise and get <br /> this behind him. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if this gets appealed to the Supreme Court, what happens. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that a party can petition the California Supreme Court to review an <br /> appellate court decision. It's up to the court if it will take the case or not. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buffer felt that government has gone outside its bounds. He felt the Councilmembers <br /> and the Mayor have taken away his civil rights and cost his group a lot of money to defend <br /> themselves. He believed the group should be reimbursed. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver stated that this issue will be going on longer. He felt there are conflicting <br /> interests and the issue is not settled yet; there is a legislative battle which is still open. He <br /> thought the residents of Pleasanton have spoken about what they want in that area and he would <br /> like to see that materialize. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if this was going to be agendized. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver said no, we don't have public hearings on something that is being liffgated. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated he had not seen or been given a settlement proposal. He stated that <br /> the Council would discuss any settlement in closed session and advise whether or not the <br /> settlement was acceptable. <br /> <br /> Frank Lehne, 5466 Foothill Road, would like to see an open discussion on whether the <br /> issue should be dropped. It costs the taxpayers money to continue this legal action further and <br /> the public should decide whether to spend the money. This was not a discussion about the <br /> validity of the MOU. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that the litigation is over whether the MOU or certain provisions are <br /> valid. That was the challenge of the property owners. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver commented that the taxpayers were asked at the ballot box and they wanted <br /> to pursue the matter. This was determined at the last election and Council is defending that <br /> position. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lehne felt there might be some compromise in other areas. Since there doesn't seem <br /> to be enough money for the Park District to buy more property on the ridge, what about an <br /> initiative on the ballot to try and raise money from the people of Pleasanton so that they can <br /> donate more money to buy property there? <br /> <br /> 11/14/95 -2- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.