CCMIN010290 - Laserfiche WebLink

on the Fertile Crescent as well as Vineyard Avenue be incorporated into the ordinance before it is adopted. Mr. Mercer suggested that Mr. Roush meet with City Attorneys of Dublin and Livemore to find out if all three cities have a common interest to file a suit together. Filing a suit would delay the implementation of the ordinance, which has not even been drafted. The County is saying that nothing can be annexed to the community as it sits. There will be mitigation fees from the properties in the Valley, but nothing is mentioned about guaranteeing that the money will be spent in the Valley. There are too many unanswered questions, the final version of the ordinance has not been done, and the public has not been allowed any input. He expressed the need to confer with other cities about filing a joint suit to require the Board of Supervisors to make all information public and get a full explanation of what the ordinance is, how the mitigation money will be spent, have an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on it, and hold public hearings. If the other cities are not interested in filing any suit, then Pleasanton will proceed on its own. Ms. Mohr suggested that any city in the County affected by the ordinance and looking at similar action be invited to join Pleasanton, rather than limiting it to Dublin and Livemore. She brought out some problems with the ordinance: 1) The County could overrule LAFCO decisions, which could be illegal. The County would then be enacting an ordinance that includes the probability of taking an illegal action. 2) There is nothing in the ordinance that indicates who will set the mitigation fee, how it would be established, how much it would be and where it would be spent. The issue is so open-ended that it makes it impossible to respond. 3) The ordinance states that City annexations are to be treated according to the directives of the County General Plan. No opportunity is given the City to make its own evaluation and handle the annexation in a way that would be most consistent with the City's development. Mr. Tarver commended the Supervisors for trying to preserve open space. He stated, however, that the ordinance is a reversal of a long-standing County policy that development should occur within the City limits. This could lead to conflicts with the County regarding developments in Oaktree and Ruby Hill. The ordinance also considers expanding the County's role in sewer pipe lines to facilitate the development and to protect their interest in the development's potential. He stated that the County should not compete with the City and that he supports the recommendation to file a suit. Mr. Mercer commented that there are parts of the ordinance, once understood, that Council could arrive at a consensus to support. But the problem is that no one understands the ordinance. No opportunity was provided to anybody to get a copy of the ordinance to study it, read how it impacts the City, and go to a public hearing. -13- 1-2-90