My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN050499
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
CCMIN050499
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:17 AM
Creation date
6/25/1999 3:49:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/4/1999
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
the staff report and other questions answered. She had no problem in waiting until the petitions <br /> are turned in, if the time frame was soon. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico did not understand what was the urgent need for the information. Once the <br /> petitions are tamed in to the City Clerk, the Registrar's Office has thirty days to verify the <br /> signatures. He felt there would be ample time to gather information and prepare a financial <br /> analysis of the initiative. He thought it was premature to spend money on an initiative before the <br /> initiative qualifies. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala did not feel it was meddling in the public process to have questions answered. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver felt there would be a group of people against the idea of having voter <br /> control, who would lead an effective campaign. He said this group of people would take the <br /> analysis and highlight it in a way that favors their position. He did not want to fuel the fire and <br /> provide information that could be used in political brochures. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Ayala, seconded by Ms. Dennis, directing staff to begin an <br /> analysis of the Pleasanton Public Planning Initiative once the petitions are submitted to the <br /> City Clerk; the analysis to include information regarding any potential financial impacts as <br /> a result of the Initiative, to answer questions the Council may have regarding potential <br /> impacts of the Initiative, determine if there would be any impacts on the Pleasanton <br /> schools, and to provide information regarding the potential modification that would be <br />- necessary to the City's development review process as a result of the Initiative. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta informed the Council that if the motion is approved she would share the <br /> questions asked by the City of Livermore. If the motion is approved once the petitions are turned <br /> in staff will be able to take as much time as they need to provide the information, because it will <br /> make no difference as to whether or not the initiative is placed on the ballot. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said the thirty day count begins once the initiative qualifies for the ballot. If <br /> Council is considering putting the initiative on the November ballot it will need to factor in the <br /> thirty days. Council could wait thirty days after the initiative qualifies before deciding whether <br /> to place it on the ballot, but that might be beyond the deadline for the November ballot, resulting <br /> in a special election in January or February. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver believed the majority of the Council wanted to put the initiative on the <br /> November ballot. Therefore any report that comes out about the relevance of the initiative to the <br /> development process, impact to schools, etc., is only information for the debate that will go on <br /> between the point of time the initiative is put on the ballot and the election date. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush did not disagree. He was informing Council that the time period might be <br /> crucial if it wanted the information before it decided to put the initiative on the ballot. <br /> <br /> Pleasanton City Council 14 05/04/99 <br /> Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.