CCMIN051501 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush responded that if a taking were found, then the County would be responsible. To the extent that the County has to get funds from the County tax base, Pleasanton residents along with all other Alameda County residents would pay for that judgment. Ms. Michelotti acknowledged that the Councilmembers are divided on the Measure. The majority of the Council also decided against an analysis of the Measure before the election. She did not feel that a 52% majority was a mandate. The community was very divided on this measure. She did not feel Council had to take action on this and pointed out that 48% did not support the measure and they deserved consideration as well. Ms. Ayala stated she firmly believed in local control. She was totally opposed to the County Supervisors putting Measure C on the ballot because she felt it would confuse the voters. She felt if Measure C had not been on the ballot, Measure D would have passed by a much greater margin. She felt Pleasanton should support the brief because the voters approved it. Ms. Michelotti acknowledged that when there is a split vote on the Council, even though she may be in the minority, she supports the Council decision. However, when there is a close vote of the people such as 52/48 or 49/51, etc. then Council should respect all people's opinions. Ms. Dennis was strongly in favor of the City remaining neutral on this matter. She is actively working to implement the agricultural policies of Measure D, but she also has misgivings about certain parts of the Measure, in particular the County using its unincorporated land inside the urban growth boundary to be responsible for the state mandated housing requirements. She was concerned about quarrying inside the urban growth boundary in Livermore, because quarrying is no longer allowed outside the urban growth boundary. She was also concerned about taking solid waste policy development out of the hands of elected officials on the Waste Management Authority Board and placing it into the hands of a board that is largely appointed. These issues were not discussed very much during the campaign, since most of the discussion was about the urban growth boundary, the Norda Livermore question and the concern about restrictions on new agricultural investments. She was excited about the Committee mentioned in Measure D and felt it should continue. She believed Council should follow the lead of the agricultural community that basically said, the Measure passed, now let's make it work. She did not want to vote in support of those issues of concern as part of the total package and she felt supporting the amicus brief would do that. She was very concerned about signing onto something she has not seen. Ms. Ayala asked if it alarmed her that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are major landowners and developers and did it bother her with regard to who she represented? Ms. Dennis responded that her decision was not based on the lawsuit. She just did not want to embrace the entire measure, which has many parts that could impact the City and which were never discussed. She again stated Council has not seen what will be included in the brief and was concerned that it will support the entire measure. Ms. Ayala asked the City Attorney to clarify what will be included in the brief. Pleasanton City Council 13 05/15/01 Minutes