Laserfiche WebLink
201 <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Scribner, and seconded by Mayor Mercer, <br />that Resolution No. 92-82 be adopted, confirming that the land use <br />designation of Parcels 1, 4 and 5 in the North Sycamore area as <br />Medium Density Residential. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Scribner, Tarver and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Councilmember Butler <br />ABSTAIN: Councilmember Mohr <br /> <br />Item 8b <br />Settlement Proposal for the Pleasanton Ridqelands Litiqation <br />(Greenbelt Alliance v. LAFCO) (SR92:165) <br /> <br /> Kay Ayala, 4515 Gatetree Circle, spoke in favor of this <br />proposal. She felt that a Joint Powers Agreement was a simple <br />solution. She stated that the entire emphasis of Measure M and <br />Measure N was that the citizens did not want development on the <br />face of the Ridge and that Pleasanton not get Hayward Hotels. It <br />seemed that the Joint Powers Agreement does everything that the <br />average citizen wants to see done in the Ridgelands. She asked <br />Council to pursue and consider signing a Joint Powers Agreement <br />with the understanding that the outcome could or could not affect <br />the Ridgelands Plan. <br /> <br /> Mark Evanoff, Greenbelt Alliance, 116 New Montgomery, #690, <br />San Francisco, explained that Council had the opportunity to <br />implement the wishes of Pleasanton, Hayward, and Alameda County to <br />protect the Pleasanton Ridgelands. He asked that Pleasanton <br />participate in a process to prepare an open space plan to protect <br />the Ridgelands from development. Once that plan had been adopted <br />by the jurisdictions and LAFCO had withdrawn its sphere of <br />influence, the litigation could be dropped. He indicated that <br />Hayward's mayor, Michael Sweeney, supported this concept and was <br />willing to de-annex the top portion of the Ridge. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked if the City of Pleasanton would be opening <br />itself up to a lawsuit by changing all of the plans without having <br />a complete EIR. <br /> <br /> Mr. Evanoff answered that the City would be participating in <br />a process to articulate what the process would be that would be <br />reflected in each of the jurisdictions' General Plans. Those Plans <br />would have to go through the normal process of review. Litigation <br />would be dropped when the Plans were in place and the sphere of <br />influences had been redrawn to reflect those plans. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked if Mr. Evanoff had received a response from <br />Alameda County on its willingness to pursue this settlement. <br /> <br />4/21/92 11 <br /> <br /> <br />