CCMIN051501 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Dennis asked if Council would see the brief it is being asked to support. Mr. Roush replied there is a draft and the final brief would be submitted next week. The complaint alleges the initiative rendered the County general plan internally inconsistent, therefore the initiative should be set aside. It also alleges the initiative is an improper use of the initiative power and a violation of state planning law, it interferes with vested rights, etc. The amicus brief will address the planning issues. Mr. Campbell asked if it helped the case to add cities to the brief?. Mr. Roush believed the purpose of an amicus brief was to inform the judge heating the case, that there is a broader impact of the case than just the city that is a party to the litigation. The more cities who support an amicus brief, the more impact the case will have. It is difficult to ascertain how a judge would view the current situation. Mayor Pico asked if it was normal that a brief was not available for review before the Council authorized its support? Mr. Roush said it would be unusual for a brief to be available at the time the staff report is prepared. Normally a synopsis of the case is provided from the city asking for support or from the League of California Cities. In this case, he felt the attorney who is writing the brief was able to specifically identify the issues to be addressed. Ms. Dennis referred to the fact that the litigation, if successful, would set aside the entire initiative, and asked if the amicus brief would ask Council to endorse all parts of the initiative, including the County's remedies on meeting state mandated housing requirements, land fill issues, quarry issues, etc. Mr. Roush explained that the brief would say that those elements of the initiative are consistent with the existing County general plan, do not violate state planning law, do not interfere with vested rights, etc. He was not certain it is an endorsement, per se, of those policies; it merely says they are valid provisions. Mr. Campbell asked how Pleasanton would benefit from this. Mr. Roush said if Council joins in the brief, it would be saying it supports a measure the voters approved. Staff has not been asked to do an analysis of Measure D in terms of what the benefits or burdens are to the City. When the measure was before the voters last summer, Council majority did not ask staff to prepare an analysis. He did not believe staff could determine at this time the full implications of the measure on Pleasanton. Jon Harvey, 3790 Smallwood Court, stated that Measure D passed by 56,412 votes in Alameda County; in Pleasanton by 1,252 and Livermore by 551. It failed by 54 in Dublin. He presented several questions to help Council deliberate: Is this a question of loyalty? If so, to whom? Plaintiff, County, or the voters of Pleasanton? Is it a legal issue? If so, do you understand the law and the case well enough to render a legal opinion? Mr. Harvey had Pleasanton City Council 10 05/15/01 Minutes