Laserfiche WebLink
91 <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta stated this was not discussed. The understanding has always been to do it <br />-- in November. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if this goes on the November ballot and is defeated, would the <br /> agreement still be binding? How long is Hayward obligated to continue to work for agreement <br /> and would this agreement still be binding while the committee is meeting? <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta indicated the Agreement does not answer those questions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated the intent is to have the voters ratify the agreement, then the General <br /> Plan changes will be made. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico preferred that a memorandum of understanding be entered into making it dear <br /> that Pleasanton needs time to go through the process. He did not want the people to feel that <br /> something was being "pushed down their throats". <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr referred to the property description in paragraph 7 and indicated the wording <br /> should be changed from "westerly edge" to more clearly state "westerly property line". <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico referred to the property left out of the northwest comer. It was his <br /> understanding that that was left out because Alameda County preferred that in order to enter into <br /> this agreement. However, Alameda County is not participating in negotiations at all. Mr. Pico <br /> reiterated his desire to go to the voters after all three parties have signed the agreement and after <br /> the Palomares residents have had some input. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired when the County will complete its general plan review. Mr. Swift <br /> indicated four to six months. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico discussed the possibility of a special election in March if it is not possible to <br /> get this on the ballot in November. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis preferred to have the agreement on the November ballot. She indicated the <br /> committee can still review the agreement if the voters indicated they prefer something else. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated Alameda County is clearly saying it does not want to give up <br /> control. He believed Pleasanton and Hayward need this agreement in order to have some control <br /> of the ridge area. This is a different approach to the ridge; it says any general plan change must <br /> be agreed to by Pleasanton, Hayward and Alameda County. Pleasanton cannot just present a <br /> plan for the ridge, because Hayward and Alameda County must agree to it. <br /> <br /> 06/22/93 <br /> Page 3 <br /> <br /> <br />