CCMIN120492 - Laserfiche WebLink

257 clarify the issues facing Pleasanton. It will increase the involvement of the citizens and participation in the election. Mr. Tarver continued that the last time people expressed an opinion on the PUD, a majority of the City Council now sitting opposed it. That can be considered a split between the old Council and the new Council and the best way to resolve that is to put it to a vote as soon as possible. Mr. Tarver wanted to end the division that exists and start working on new issues that face Pleasanton. He felt the best way was to consolidate the issues and hold the election in March. Mr. Pico supported the consolidation of the two elections and putting both issues before the voters as soon as possible. He believed this is an example of how the citizens have to fight City Hall and felt that City Hall was not fighting for its citizens, but rather for special interests. He reminded the public that in 1990 a Council initiative was put on the ballot to counter a citizens' referendum. The development interests did not have to go out and gather signatures because they had a majority of Council support. Mr. Pico indicated there is a lot of momentum developed in this signature gathering process and Council is about to take the wind out of their sails. He did not believe that it was fair or right to delay the election until November. He pledged to continue to fight for those who had gathered signatures and to protect their interests. He believed those interests were best served by putting the matter before the voters as soon as possible. Ms. Mohr indicated whether this was a Council initiative or neighborhood referendum colors the whole complexion of the process. Council has spent some time discussing the process and repeatedly heard that the process is extremely important. What is being considered now is whether to abort the referendum process and convert it to a Council initiative. That changes the whole color of the issue. If it were a Measure M or N situation and the proposal was for the Council to put forth an initiative of a different nature than that coming before us, so there were two issues for the voters to choose between, she could understand that. That is not the intent of this; it is to adopt the referendum as a Council initiative. Legislation has set up a process to make sure that special interests don't rule. In this situation, the whole City's interest is best served by following that process and not allowing it to be manipulated to serve any particular segment. In terms of timeliness, that land is not going anywhere. To make the developer wait until either June or November is not hurting the property. If the concern for the land is there today, it will be there in the future. If the issue of cost is the bottom line, waiting until November is a way to reduce the cost. Of the choices presented, proceeding to get the fifth councilmember is imperative. 12/04/92 3