CCMIN062293 - Laserfiche WebLink

94 Mr. Tarver indicated because it is a contractual agreement, it is binding regardless of who is on the Council of either city. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Scribner believed this is far more complicated than it appears and indicated there are many unanswered questions in this vague agreement. She felt there was a valid request to refer the agreement to the Alameda County General Plan review. Measure M and N both alleged protection of the ridge. Measure M empowered the citizens and Council is required to abide by Measure M. Pleasanton has a citizens' review committee just beginning and it seems logical to refer this agreement to them. It was moved by Ms. Seribner, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to submit the agreement to the General Plan Review Steering Committee for study. After further discussion, the motion was withdrawn and an amended motion presented by Ms. Scribner that if the agreement is to be sent to the General Plan Review Steering Committee for review, that does not preclude modifications and ask for approval process meeting the requirements of Measure M. There was no second. Mr. Pico supported citizen review of this agreement. A year has been spent trying to iron out the agreement acceptable to the citizens. He wants staff to put the agreement in final form and direct the General Plan Steering Committee to review the agreement and comment or make recommendations on timing of a ballot measure to comply with Measure M requirements. He urged that the agreement be amended in Section 1 to indicate the agreement is subject to the understanding that Pleasanton is bound under Measure M for citizen review and ratification by the voters. Ms. Mohr expressed concern because the agreement was negotiated by the two mayors without a citizens committee and with no community participation. She did not believe the Council should present a plan with no input. Mr. Tarver stressed this is a concept only. He understands everyone wants to get committee input and feels that is possible by approving this agreement. The citizens only saw a majority report from the committee and citizens could not vote on a minority position. Putting this on the ballot will indicate what the citizens want. Mr. Tarvet is trying to get cooperation and feels the County may still enter into the agreement. He wants to see if the residents of Pleasanton want to pursue this and if they say no, we will be just as confused as we were after Measure K. He agreed he wanted to hear what the General Plan Review Committee has to say, but is concerned about losing the opportunity with the Hayward Council. If we go through this process, we could get a better product, I would be willing to go back to Hayward to see if they 06/22/93 Page 6