Laserfiche WebLink
201 <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that if the City decides to annex, LAFCO <br />will not be able to consider it until August. At present, LAFCO <br />is dealing with Castro Valley's request to move away from the <br />County's control and be a city. Part of the controversy is to <br />determine which areas of Castro Valley will come into the City <br />limits. Palomares Canyon, where the County has approved 679 <br />units, is the key issue. <br /> <br /> Ms. Jocelyn Combs, EBRPD, stated that her staff is presently <br />working on a report which will go back to the EBRPD Board <br />regarding the pros and cons of annexation. She indicated that she <br />would like to bring the EBRPD's report to the Steering Committee <br />as resource information regarding annexation. With regard to her <br />being a member of the Steering Committee, she said that there <br />would be no problem in terms of open space and park issues. <br />However, the EBRPD is concerned about development proposals <br />because it will not support any development projects on the <br />Ridgelands. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler commented that development is a valid viewpoint <br />that needs to be addressed by the Steering Committee, and if the <br />discussions should come to that point, there would be more reason <br />for the EBRPD to be represented. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer explained that the Steering Committee and the <br />General Public Committee will be two different committees. The <br />Steering Committee would define issues and come back with a <br />report. The General Public Committee will determine how to study <br />what needs to be studied, how much time and money would be <br />involved, and the staff that would be needed. He told Ms. Combs <br />that she could sit at that Committee as a citizen rather than as <br />an EBRPD representative. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta requested Council to clarify if it wants staff to <br />disregard the scheduled dates outlined on the second page of the <br />Staff Report. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler replied that it would be difficult to decide that <br />at this time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer reiterated that there was no rush to finish the <br />study but that he did not want to do away with the dates either. <br />He added that the Steering Committee will determine the best <br />process to follow. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr commented that the date function is a target and <br />that Council will not know whether or not some of these target <br />dates should be extended until the Committee gets started. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush inquired if it has been LAFCO's procedure and <br />policy to consider sphere-of-influence changes and annexation of <br />co-terminus property at the same time. He commented that it has <br />been typical of LAFCO to say that it will not look at annexation <br />until action on the sphere-of-influence has been taken. <br /> <br /> - 15 - <br /> 4-17-90 <br /> <br /> <br />