CCMIN042192 - Laserfiche WebLink

2O2 Mr. Evanoff explained that Alameda County Board of Supervisor, Mary King had sent a memo to the County Counsel and Adolf Martinelli asking them to prepare a report for the Board of Supervisors. The Board would consider this tentatively on April 28. Gary Pernell, 2472 Via de Los Milagros, spoke in favor of this proposal. He asked for Council's consideration. He felt that this idea was what the citizens and Council wanted from the beginning. Doug Abbot, representing the Sierra Club, reiterated the supporting comments previously made. He felt that this was a good answer for this problem and asked for Council's support. Jocelyn Combs, 4443 Second Street, believed that this was a tremendous opportunity for Pleasanton to be a participant in regional open space. She asked Council to seize this opportunity and provide the open space, the park land, and the preservation that the citizens of Pleasanton were asking for. Margo Kelly, 5157 Independence Drive, believed that citizens of Pleasanton needed to be good neighbors to the surrounding cities by not doing to them what Pleasanton would not want done to it. Pat Stowman, President of Save Our Sunol Group, expressed her support of the proposed agreement. Emily Carsen, 2574 Skimner Court, felt that the only way to preserve this large area was to have a Joint Powers Agreement. She supported this agreement. Mr. Tarver did not want to eliminate any alternatives in terms of trying to accomplish what the voters had indicated what they wanted. He felt that some of the comments made by the public were correct. The joint workshop between the Planning Commission and Council indicated that they were trying to achieve an alternative. He felt that Council should pursue alternatives. He realized that there would be additional information needed and more discussions would need to take place. Ms. Scribner agreed with Mr. Tarver's comments. She felt that the Ridge was a complex issue and that the ultimate goal was to protect the parkland. She wished that this type of alternative was brought out before Measure M and N were in place. She believed that all possibilities should remain open. Ms. Mohr felt that this type of alternative would have been easier to discuss and consider if it had been presented before Measure M and N. She believed that the voters had set in motion a process that had led to Measure K. Timing was the critical issue. She believed this alternative was basically asking Council to circumvent Measure K. By approving this alternative, Council would 4/21/92 12