Laserfiche WebLink
then it is not an issue. It is San Francisco's decision to proceed with the dual track. We are <br />not requiring that, merely asking, so it doesn't become part of the problem. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked how that can be accomplished? Should Council approve the <br />agreement and then write a letter to request San Francisco to withdraw its application with the <br />County? <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr felt it shouM be two separate actions. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to adopt Resolution No. <br />96-10, approving the Cooperative Agreement as proposed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico did not feel the Letter Agreement should be accepted exactly as written. We <br />can agree to the cooperative process, but do not have to agree to the dual track and he refen'ed <br />to the sections of the Letter Agreement and Cooperative Plan Agreement that should be <br />amended. <br /> <br /> A substitute motion was made by Mr. Pico to approve the proposed Letter <br />Agreement with a modification to delete any and aH references in the Letter Agreement and <br />cooperative plan recommendations that indicates Pleasanton consents or concurs with the <br />decision of San Francisco to proceed with a dual track with Alameda County. <br /> <br /> The substitute motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver appreciated what Mr. Pieo was attempting to do and it was Mr. Tarver's <br />hope that San Francisco will not put Ple,~nton in the position that it must fight the Alameda <br />County plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti appreciated Mr. Pico's previous "leap of faith" to proceed with the <br />cooperative effort. She felt Pleasanton is now better off in the cooperative process and the plan <br />has improved. She has faith that this process can continue. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis felt it was important to make the request of San Francisco on the record. <br />She understands San Francisco's desire to keep that option although she does not like it. She <br />hopes the residents go to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and let them know it should <br />not be a County plan. <br /> <br /> lVlr. Tarver felt the letter should be a strong as possible indicating our opposition to the <br />County plan and that we will comment on the County F~rR as we continue to process our own <br />proposal. <br /> <br /> The vote on the original motion was as follows: <br /> <br />01/16/96 -15- <br /> <br /> <br />