CCMIN071596 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico felt that waiting to August 6 would be too late to put anything on the ballot. August 9 is the deadline for ballot arguments and it is not reasonable to expect people to prepare arguments in three days. By delaying action tonight, Council is eliminating the possibility of placing any item on the November ballot. If Council is opening this to outside legal opinions, he would like to have review concerning the Vineyard Corridor owners' allegations they have a binding commitment to development of the area. Mr. Roush reviewed the election schedule with regard to deadlines for submitting written material for the ballot and ballot arguments. Ms. Michelotti thought the intent was to have a workshop on August 5 and take final action on August 6. Mr. Tarver wanted Council to deal with everything at a special meeting on August 5, so we do not interfere with the regular Council business. If all the decisions cannot be made due to time, then the matters could be continued to August 6. He felt it would be a disaster to try an do everything on August 6. We have three weeks to get legal opinions, to review all the minutes, etc. Mr. Pico still felt it would be too late to put anything on the November ballot, but that was okay. He would not support any motion on August 5 or August 6 to put anything on the November ballot. It will be too late to get reasonable public response for a ballot argument. Ms. Michelotti asked for clarification on the procedure to be followed. Mr. Tarvet wanted to go back over the issues raised. Ms. Dennis asked if the final review of the straw votes would be done on August 5. We have gotten down to the last few items and have heard public testimony. Mr. Tarvet wanted to start discussion on Exhibit 4, Modifications to the Draft Pleasanton General Plan IJpdate, and issues such as the Vineyard Avenue Corridor, long-term lJrban Growth Boundary, South Pleasanton, Foothill Road, the West Las Positas interchange, and growth management. He suggested these not be straw votes but direction to say unless there is additional information and the need for reconsideration, that this is what will be in the General Plan. Ms. Dennis referred to Larry Butler's objection to being inside the Urban Growth Boundary and asked why that piece of property was included. Mr. Swift indicated a portion of his property is below the 670 foot elevation and the Urban Growth Boundary follows the 670 foot elevation contour as did the Ridgelands Initiative. 07/15/96 - 20 -