Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Weinberger indicated it would most likely be upheld, but it is a much wiser course <br />of action to join the voter approval provision with the substantive enactment, the reaffirmation <br />and readoption of the portion of the plan in question. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if the voters say no to the initiative, what is the impact on the General <br />Plan? Does it invalidate the provision? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said it would not invalidate the provision, but would present a policy question <br />to the Council to decide what the no vote meant. Does it mean the voters don't want a cap or <br />that 29,000 is too high, or that 29,000 is too low, or they don't want to vote on future changes. <br />The Council could do nothing at all and wait for a future Council to change it or wait for the <br />voters to come forward with their own proposal. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico referred to the proposed ballot language and asked if there was a preference <br />for the recommended questions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Weinberger believed that paragraph A.4 was the clearest question, but paragraph A.5 <br />added the provision for minor changes and was probably the most complete. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico said those two do not include the reaffirmation aspect. <br /> <br /> Mr. Weinberger indicated they provide for the initiative to be adopted and within the <br />initiative itself is the reaffirmation of the General Plan. So long as the question is not <br />misleading, it is not necessary to restate what is in the initiative. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr supported keeping the question as simple as possible and liked the A.4 <br />example. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti referred to discussion about deleting the parenthetical phrase of the <br />question. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush agreed that could be done. It is simply a question of how much information <br />does Council want in the question. The parenthetical is explained in the initiative itself. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver liked A.5 without the parenthetical phrase. It says there will be the <br />possibility for minor changes. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis wanted to know if the initiative could be called the Pleasanton Urban Growth <br />Boundary Open Space Protection Initiative. People might not know the purpose of an urban <br />growth boundary and if you added open space protection to the title, it would be plainer what <br />the boundary was for. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated it was up to the Council. <br /> <br />08/07/96 <br /> -5- <br /> <br /> <br />