My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN070296
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN070296
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:45 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 10:31:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/2/1996
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Pico indicated his sense of what should be asked is whether the citizens want to vote <br />on any changes to the Urban Growth Boundary line and any changes to the housing cap. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti felt Council was doing what the public wants and if the public is not <br />happy, they can go through a referendum process. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis suggested language that says the line is permanent in nature and not to be <br />substantially changed without the concurrence of the electorate. What they are really voting on <br />is the ability to vote on the changes as opposed to setting the original line. The same is true for <br />the housing cap. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico felt Council needs to take action to adopt a General Plan. It seems the most <br />reasonable thing is not to ask the voters to ratify the action taken, but to ask them whether they <br />want to add another layer of protection, which is the right to vote on these two issues. That <br />could be in the form of an amendment to the General Plan, and if they vote it down, we still <br />have a General Plan that is in effect. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that was his question. Council could adopt the Urban Growth <br />Boundary line and the housing cap by resolution and in the adopting resolution, there could be <br />language to provide that if the voters did not ratify the provision, it would be repealed <br />automatically. Alternatively, the question could be phrased so that those sections would stay in <br />the General Plan and simply ask the voters whether they want to vote on changes to the line or <br />the cap. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico did not want to ask the voters to repeal anything. He believed the best way to <br />protect these cornerstones of the Plan is to have the voters approve any changes to them. He <br />felt that would narrow the issue to the voters. That makes it simpler and easier for the people <br />to understand. <br /> <br /> Ms. Molar felt that if you are going to ask the voters, you should do it before a decision <br />is made. Why only trust them to vote on potential changes and not vote on whether they support <br />the plan in the beginning? <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver referred to his survey questions: Do you support an Urban Growth Boundary <br />line and do you want to vote to change it? Do you support a housing cap and do you want to <br />vote to change it? Do you like 350 units a year or do you want to change it? It is that simple. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti did not think the population cap was the question; it was whether to have <br />a maximum of 29,000 housing units. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico responded to Ms. Mohr that Council has made the decisions. He just wants <br />to make sure those decisions are protected and reinforced. <br /> <br />07/02/96 -30- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.