Laserfiche WebLink
401 <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that the use of the word "Initiative" is not <br />inappropriate because an Initiative can be proposed by a local <br />governing body without a petition from the electorate. He <br />continued that whether or not the use of the word "citizens" is <br />misleading is not a legal issue but a political decision that the <br />Council will have to make. He added that Initiatives are <br />categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines; therefore, no Negative <br />Declaration or EIR is required with respect to presenting the <br />Council-sponsored Initiative to the voters. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that it was his understanding that up to <br />five people can sign the arguments on both the Council and SPRC <br />Initiatives. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that Section 1. Declaration of Purpose (A) <br />would be true if the property is annexed. He suggested that the <br />phrase "should the property be annexed" be added. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes indicated that he did not support the change. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that the City is trying to extend its sphere- <br />of-influence so it can exercise some control over the area and that <br />the guarantee that Pleasanton residents would decide the future of <br />the Ridgelands is only as strong as the power of the sphere-of- <br />influence. She pointed out that the Council would like to assume <br />a leadership role in assuring that whatever happens in the <br />Ridgelands would be in the best interest of the citizens of <br />Pleasanton. <br /> <br />Mr. Mercer stated that the word "guarantee" meant that <br />Pleasanton residents, rather than the County or Hayward, would <br />decide the future of the Ridgelands, depending upon what the <br />citizens' committee would propose. In addition, the Council <br />Initiative guarantees the vote of the citizens with regard to the <br />development of the Ridgelands. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet commented that the ballot measure for the SPRC <br />initiative does not specify that there would be a vote to change <br />the zoning although provisions of the Initiative call for that and <br />that is of paramount importance in the Initiative process. The <br />Council-sponsored Initiative had "the vote of the people" in both <br />options. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mercer stated that the difference between the two <br />Initiatives is that if the SPRC Initiative passes, it would go to <br />the vote only if there were a further Initiative process. The <br />Council's position is that when the public comes up with its plan, <br />that plan automatically goes to a vote. <br /> <br /> 3-7-90 <br /> - 9 - <br /> <br /> <br />