Laserfiche WebLink
95 <br /> <br /> agree. If citizens don't like the concept, we can stop this process. If they do, then we can <br /> continue to negotiate. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked if Mr. Tarver meant to continue with the November ballot. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner then asked if that would be "advisory" or <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver said that was up to the Council. He felt these guidelines were good for all <br /> parties. The details can be worked out later. It is consistent with the East County Plan. The <br /> question is, is the Alameda County Board of Supervisors willing to give up control of this space. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr suggested Alameda County be given four months to complete its plan and not <br />push for the November election. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis believed there was too much emphasis on the committee process. Council <br />is empowering the citizens to vote directly on whether this is a good idea or not. It is not a <br />committee that says what is best for Pleasanton. It is the citizens themselves. If people don't <br />like the agreement, they can say no and Measure M still is in place to allow for the committee <br />process. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr believed this is leading to two elections and objected to no public input. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis pointed that this agreement was one of the alternatives suggested by the <br />Ridge committee, which is why she supports it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver reiterated that an agreement has been reached with Hayward for mutual <br />control and he wants the community to say if it supports that concept. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Pico, seconded by Ms. Scribner, to amend the Paragraph 1, Land <br />Use, to add the phrase "subject to the understanding that Pleasanton is bound under Measure M <br />to have a citizens committee process and subsequent ratification by its voters," and staff is <br />directed to put the agreement in final form and direct the Steering Committee to review and <br />comment on the agreement and make recommendations as to the timing of proposed ballot <br />language to comply with Measure M requirements. <br /> <br /> There was discussion to clarify if the agreement were to be sent to the General Plan <br />Steering Committee and the Planning Commission concurren~y. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis indicated hem desire for a change to the agreement, since Alameda County <br />is not participating, to avoid any attempt to affect planning of their area. <br /> <br />06/22/93 <br /> Page 7 <br /> <br /> <br />