Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Michelotti believed Council was doing what the citizens wanted and did not feel it <br />was necessary to put it on the ballot. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico felt that Council may think it is doing what the people want, but putting it to <br />a vote will really determine if that is what the people want. The question is really whether the <br />citizens want the fight to vote on future changes to two key issues of the General Plan. He felt <br />this makes the most sense and did not understand why anyone would object to this. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver agreed with those comments. He was disappointed that the growth <br />management issue was not going to be on the ballot. He understands that more review and <br />research is necessary before this can occur. He felt the two issues proposed for the ballot are <br />important and Council needs to know what the people think. He did his own survey of the <br />community and believed it showed that the people want the opportunity to say what they want. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was aS fOllOwS: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Pico, and Mayor Tarvet <br />NOES: Councilmembers - Michelotti and Mohr <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Pico, seconded by Ms. Michelotti, to adopt the following ballot <br />language for the Urban Growth Boundary Initiative: "Shall the Pleasanton Urban Growth <br />Boundary Initiative be adopted to require voter approval of aH but minor changes to the <br />Cit's Urban Growth Boundary?" <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked if Mr. Pico would accept an amendment to the title of the initiative. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico felt the title is appropriate as it is. The urban growth boundary is more than <br />open space protection. He did not want to imply it is only open space protection. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver agreed. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was aS followS: <br />AYES: Councilmembers- Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico, and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Pico to adopt alternative B.3. for the ballot language for the <br />Residential Buildout Initiative, which reads: "Shah the Pleasanton Residential Buildout <br />Initiative be adopted, that would permit the maximum number of housing units, now set <br />at 29,000, to be changed only by a vote of the people?" <br /> <br />08/07/96 <br /> -8- <br /> <br /> <br />