Laserfiche WebLink
20 <br /> <br /> Mr.. Tarver was in favor of the line adjustanent but made it <br /> clear that the PUD conditions should be adhered to. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Butler, and seconded by Ms. Scribner, <br /> approving Option 1, determining that the staff's interpretation <br /> that the proposed lot line is consistent with the PUD zoning <br /> district and directing the Zoning Administrator to complete the <br /> approval of the requested lot line adjustment. <br /> <br /> The Toll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Scribner, Tarver and Mayor <br /> Mercer <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Settl~men~ proposal for the Pleasanton Ridqelands Litiqation <br /> {Greenbel~ Alliance v. LAFCO) (SR92:196) <br /> <br /> Margo Kelly, 5157 Independence Drive, explained that she was <br /> on the Ridgelands Committee for a short time. She felt that~he <br /> process of the Committee did not work. She understood that the- <br /> guidelines of Measure M needed to be followed but Measure M failed <br /> when the Committee was formed. She supported the settlement <br /> proposal and believed that this was a good opportunity. <br /> <br /> Ron Horan, 876 Bonita, Planning Commissioner and Chairman on <br /> the Yes on Measure M Committee, read a letter addressed to the <br /> Councilmembers (see attached) which spoke in opposition to the <br /> proposal. He asked for his letter to be placed in the minutes of <br /> the meeting. <br /> <br /> Mark Evanoff, Greenbelt Alliance, 116 New Montgomery, #640, <br /> San Francisco, explained that the Councilmembers had the <br /> opportunity to enter into a process to protect the Ridgelands and <br /> he urged them to do so. He reiterated that the open space plan <br /> would have to be ar~ciculated in each jurisdictions General Plans <br /> and those General Plans would go through a full public process. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked why Mr. Evanoff was not willing to wait. until <br /> the voters of Pleasanton voted on June 2. <br /> <br /> Mr. Evanoff answered because of the litigation timeline. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr then asked if he was willing to agree to a 30-day <br /> continuance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Evanoff explained his understanding of the process after <br /> Measure K was voted on. He was asking for a commitment from <br /> Pleasanton to enter into this process. <br /> <br /> 5/5/9 2o <br /> <br /> <br />