CCMIN051501 - Laserfiche WebLink

confidence that the legal issues should be left to the Stanford law professor who wrote it and the lawyers who have joined the County in defending Measure D. The Pleasanton City Attorney can advise Council if there are any negative legal implications on Pleasanton. He asked if the community would be better off if the County continues to move forward with the implementation of Measure D or if it is overturned? Will it be better to stay neutral or to take a position? He felt Pleasanton may be the only city in the Valley to join the brief. If it does not join, it allows Oakland and Berkeley to speak for us. If we don't support it and Measure D is overturned, he felt we are back to cities having very little control over unincorporated rural land use. He worked hard on the campaign in support of Measure D and voted for it along with 13,344 others in Pleasanton. That is more votes that Councilmembers Campbell or Ayala received in the election. He has been working with County planners and a group of farming, ranching and equestrian professionals, regional and federal conservationists, urban environmentalists and other interested people on creating an agricultural advisory panel of experts, which is called for in Measure D to "enhance economic viability of agriculture and ranching and to minimize environmental impacts." He believed Measure D was the only thing that allows urban environmentalists a "place at the table". He also believed the County would be influenced by Pleasanton's support or lack of in its defense of the initiative. He thanked Council for considering this. Ms. Dennis asked if Mr. Harvey wanted the City Attorney to analyze the measure to advise Council about any negative impacts from supporting Measure D. She also asked if were suggesting that the City write its own amicus briefi Mr. Harvey indicated he wanted Pleasanton to join the brief that is being written by the Assistant City Attorney in Berkeley. Ms. Dennis asked if Pleasanton had an input on that brief. Mr. Roush said not to this point. Mr. Campbell indicated he had heard arguments that Measure D would adversely affect agriculture, although Mr. Harvey felt it would help. He asked for clarification on how it would help the agricultural community and how it would help Pleasanton. Mr. Harvey said the best example was the requirement that the County set up a panel of experts for the purpose of enhancing the economic viability of agriculture, etc. He did not understand any argument that it would hurt agriculture. There are no short term benefits to Pleasanton; the real benefit is quality of life and how much we value agricultural land in the region. Patrick Hubbard, 2656 Corte Vida, urged Council to join the amicus brief. It would reflect the fact the Council recognizes the voters of Pleasanton supported this measure by 52% and he urged the majority of Council to support it as well in reflection of the will of the voters. Jeff Renholts, 7489 Aster Court, believed this has nothing to do with open space or whether the voters of Alameda County approve or disapprove of urban grow, rural environments Pleasanton City Council 11 05/15/01 Minutes