Laserfiche WebLink
86 <br /> <br /> property owners are discussing with the City of Hayward and Alameda <br /> County a golf course proposal. Mr. Tarver urged that the concepts <br /> in Measure M be part of any agreement with Alameda County and the <br /> City of Hayward so the citizens of Pleasanton can be assured of a <br /> vote on what happens on the Ridge. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer reiterated what has happened at the Ridgelands <br /> meetings. He has tried to push for a park and Mike Sweeney, Mayor <br /> of Hayward, has pushed for 100 acre zoning; in other words, one <br /> house for every 100 acres plus 108 lots of record, which totals <br /> 1,208 housing units. Mr. Mercer stressed that the citizens of <br /> Pleasanton do not want that. He tried to direct discussion to <br /> building a park and suggested that each jurisdiction contribute <br /> money for the lands within their area and combine those funds with <br /> the $8 million of the East Bay Regional Park District. Mr. Sweeney <br /> insists on 100 acre zoning. Mary King and Ed Campbell, on behalf <br /> of Alameda County, indicated they prefer to have the Alameda County <br /> Planning Director and staff look at a better formulation for <br /> planning the Ridge. Mr. Mercer again indicated to the committee <br /> that whatever plan is developed must come back to Pleasanton for a <br /> vote and stated the people of Pleasanton prefer a park. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer did not have much hope for an agreement. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet suggested that Mr. Mercer go back to the committee <br /> and tell Mr. Sweeney, Mary King and Ed Campbell that the text of <br /> Measure M be inserted into any agreement to protect Pleasanton's <br /> interests in the way Measure M was intended to do and see what <br /> response he gets. He stressed that Pleasanton must be able to vote <br /> on what happens on the Ridge. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that Measure M applies if the property were <br /> annexed, however Pleasanton cannot control the property if the <br /> property is not annexed. If the property is not in Pleasanton's <br /> city limits, we have no control over it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver inquired if there were anything that precludes <br /> Hayward and Alameda County from agreeing to let Pleasanton voters <br /> vote on their proposals on the Ridge. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer indicated he could ask. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr indicated Pleasanton can vote on anything, but the <br /> fact is Council has no authority unless the property is annexed, <br /> which seems unlikely at this point. She hoped that Alameda County <br /> and the City of Hayward would agree to include some language that <br /> says without approval from Pleasanton no plan would go forward, but <br /> she did not feel there was any leverage to force that. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver said "just ask." <br /> <br /> 10/6/92 12 <br /> <br /> <br />