CCMIN090799 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Tarver asked if there were a process of binding the Council in a way that is subject to a referendum and could also be placed on a ballot in March 2000. Mr. Roush said there could be a Council sponsored initiative that could take any action that Council could take, e.g. adopt General Plan amendments, adopt ordinances, etc. that establish general City policy. That is what Council did in 1996, when it adopted the General Plan and then placed specific portions of the Plan before the voters to ratify. Ms. Michelotti said the new growth management ordinance reduced the allocations each year until only 350 are allowed in 2004. That is part of the general plan as well. Mr. Roush said it was not part of the General Plan directly, it is part of the growth management ordinance, which could have been subject to referendum. Mr. Tarver said the Council adopted the growth management ordinance, which can be the subject of a referendum, and the Council can change it if there are enough votes and that too can be referended. The next step would be to have the voters decide whether it should be changed, so they don't have to prepare a referendum each time. He felt the residents are being placed at a great deal of inconvenience to have to referend what they consider to be bad decisions. He wants Council to take action that would give the community assurance that Council will take actions to satisfy their concerns so they don't have to vote for CAPP. Mr. Roush said the Council could put any development project to a vote as it did with the Saturday Night Specials. Council took the action and stated it would be effective only after ratification. Mr. Tarver supported a discussion of the item. Ms. Ayala also wanted discussion and hoped that in the next two weeks someone might come up with an even better idea. This is not good govemment and she did not like what has happened in response to the CAPP Initiative. Council needs to take a leadership role in trying to find remedies to the real concerns of the people. Ms. Dennis said the only thing she agrees with is the suggestion that there be extra Council meetings to help people get through the process. She also felt it was premature to adopt a counter ordinance to ask a question that has already been asked by the public and will be answered in November. She felt Council should debate the issues and at the same time be charitable toward people who are caught in a time problem. They are not proposing anything offensive to the residents of Pleasanton. These are small projects and would not be an affront to the people who signed the petitions for the initiative. She is uncomfortable that some people are being treated differently than others, but these people have been in the process and deserve to be heard. Pleasanton City Council 12 09/07/99 Meeting