Laserfiche WebLink
57 <br /> <br />2 %, and Hayward with only 7% of the area, rule with Alameda County. She thought each <br />jurisdiction would have veto power and development would be impossible. Ms. Cronin indicated <br />the County Counsel had stated it was unlawful for an agency to release its power to a <br />neighboring city. She believed this violates CEQA. She indicated her research had discovered <br />six California cases stating this was illegal. Ms. Cronin indicated there will be many lawsuits <br />regarding this matter and asked if the Pleasanton residents should have liability for millions in <br />legal fees for only 2 % of the area. She urged Council and others interested to attend the Board <br />of Supervisors meeting on October 19, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. She also requested that the Cronin <br />family property be withdrawn from the agreement boundaries. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated the only decision to come before all three jurisdictions would be <br />a general plan change. If a house or barn were constructed in accordance with the existing <br />general plan regulations, only the jurisdiction in which the property is situated would make the <br />decision to approve or deny. <br /> <br /> Frank Lehne, 5466 Foothill Road, requested his parcel be withdrawn from the agreement <br />boundaries. Mr. Lehne was very upset by the way he had been treated over the years. <br />Concerns are expressed about salamanders and snakes but not the rights of the people. He <br />stressed that he and his family will fight for their land. <br /> <br /> Mr. Theobald wanted to know how a particular 600 acre parcel was kept out of the <br />agreement boundaries. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated staff from Hayward, Pleasanton and Alameda County discussed the <br />proposed boundary and brought the issue to the Board and Councils, who agreed. It was also <br />staff' s understanding that Alameda County would not enter the agreement unless that 600 acre <br />parcel were removed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner asked if a process could be established to hear requests for exclusion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver believed that was covered by the planning process currently underway for <br />the general plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated the agreement calls for the parties to adopt goals and policies of their <br />general plans that all have parallel provisions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver inquired if the east county plan changes, how would that apply here? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that if the County wants to use different general plan policies <br /> applicable to certain property, it might be easier to amend the Agreement' s boundaries than the <br /> general plan. <br /> <br /> 10/1/93 <br /> -3- <br /> <br /> <br />