My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN062392
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN062392
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:02 AM
Creation date
10/28/1999 11:52:10 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.
/
18
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
107 <br /> <br />They are prepared to participate fully in this process however, <br />while continuing with the Citizens Committee process. They must <br />however, protect their property values. <br /> <br /> Raili Glenn, 5650 Foothill Road, believed that the City of <br />Pleasanton should enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the City <br />of Hayward and Alameda County. She referred to the election <br />results and stated that this was what the citizens wanted. <br /> <br /> Patricia Stillman, 2934 Kilkare Road, Sunol, President of Save <br />Our Sunol Group, thanked the voters of Pleasanton for <br />overwhelmingly defeating Measure K. She believed that her <br />community would have been impacted most by this plan. She felt <br />that Pleasanton should listen to its voters and join in a Joint <br />Powers Agreement with Alameda County and the City of Hayward. <br /> <br /> Dan Hagas, 2441 Kilkare Road, Sunol, explained that the <br />Ridgelands should be preserved and that it was the Council's <br />responsibility to do so. <br /> <br /> Tom Pico, 795 Neal Place, asked that Council strongly consider <br />the exploration of the creation of a Joint Powers Agreement. He <br />felt that this area was a regional asset. He did not believe that <br />it was just the City of Pleasanton's responsibility to pay for the <br />area or to manage it. The Joint Powers Agreement should be given <br />a fair and reasonable chance of proceeding to a conclusion to <br />preserve the Ridgelands. If an agreement was not reached, then the <br />City should then look towards other alternatives. <br /> <br /> Judith Bettencourt, 2918 Kilkare Road, Sunol, urged Council to <br />join a Joint Powers Agreement. She felt that this would be the <br />only way that Council could give the citizens a say as to what <br />happens in this area. <br /> <br /> Joe Rose, 421 Amador Court, spoke in opposition to a Joint <br />Powers Agreement. He believed that the City of Pleasanton should <br />have full control and jurisdiction over the Ridgelands. He felt <br />that if the City did not gain full control of this area, the City <br />of Hayward would. <br /> <br /> Charlotte Severin, 4513 Mirador Drive, pointed out that the <br />City was given a mandate from the Superior Court and Grand Jury <br />which stated that the City of Pleasanton did not have power over <br />the Ridgelands. She supported the Joint Powers Agreement because <br />she felt that this would be the only way that the City could gain <br />power to preserve this area. <br /> <br /> Emily Carson, 2574 Skimmer Court, urged Council to begin <br />negotiations for a Ridgelands Joint Powers Agreement. <br /> <br />6/23/92 ? <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.