CCMIN030999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush said the City of Livermore and City of San Ramon both have a municipal election in November 1999. He did not know when the Town of Danville held their elections. Mr. Pico asked if the regularly scheduled School Board election would qualify as a municipal election. Mr. Roush said no. Ms. Dennis clarified that in order to qualify for a special election there is a 15 percent signature requirement versus 10 percent. Mayor Tarver asked for public testimony. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard, said initiatives have to be read very carefully. Sometimes people will get more than they bargained for or control is taken away from the people. She could vote either way on the initiative, but the initiative should encourage debate in the community about serious issues. She would like to see an analysis done about the General Plan in regards to what is consistent. This initiative amends the General Plan and the people need to know what is being changed. She asked if this initiative would override the State requirement that General Plans be reviewed every ten years. She said this initiative does not address County land. She felt if the County is allowed to build projects all around Pleasanton, it will threaten the urban growth boundary. She was very concemed about the results. She felt there were questions that needed to be answered. She asked under what conditions could infrastructure precede development. She said the definition of quality of life differs for everyone and it should be clarified. She would like to be enthusiastic about the initiative but feels there will be legal challenges. She said June was too early to put this on the ballot; there needed to be more discussion regarding the issues surrounding the initiative. Geoff Cooper, 7534 Flagstone Drive, supported the CAPP initiative for the County. He is tired of the County approving and allowing inappropriate development to be built. He was surprised when the Pleasanton initiative came forth, but feels people should be able to vote on things that are important to them. He supported having the Pleasanton initiative go to the ballot. Roger Manning, 4725 First Street, was concerned about the initiative. He read the initiative and felt it was morally wrong. He explained there are people who have invested their life savings into their properties as a retirement plan. He did not agree that these people should be punished. He felt workshops should be held to discuss this issue and the possible ramifications. He believed there are other solutions to the problems. He said if this law were passed it would in time reduce property values in Pleasanton. He has asked several questions that could not be answered. This is a very confusing law. Let the proponents gather the signatures and let the people decide. The people on Foothill Road, Mohr/Martin area, Vineyard Corridor and Ruby Hill will be impacted the most. The people voted on an urban growth boundary line to keep growth within certain limits, now some are saying they do not even want the limited growth. The initiative is ridiculous; he encouraged Council not to put it on the ballot early. Pleasanton City Council 7 03/09/99 Special Meeting - Minutes