CCMIN070588 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Butler stated that Councilmember Wilson is right because there is no project now; there is no way to bring something to the voters be- cause there is nothing for the voters to decide on. He stated an advisory r" vote in advance of Council action does not make sense. He stated that Coun- ~- cilmembers are elected to make decisions, they have the State of California guidelines to following in making decisions, and he felt the citizens expected ~'~ Council to make decisions. He stated the voters could still get a chance to ~ vote through the referendum process if the Council decides to adopt a plan C)"I later. Councilmember Mohr stated she views this much like a public hearing; citizens input is received then Council makes a decision based on all informa- tion before them; to allow this issue to be placed on the ballot would give Council a sense as to how the voters feel about the redevelopment program. It could be a useful piece of information and she is not opposed to having it on the ballot. Mayor Mercer stated on the information available at this time he has not made up his mind about a redevelopment plan; therefore he would have a problem defending it there is not enough information to put it on the ballot. He stated that whatever action is taken by Council, the action is subject to a referendum petition. He stated the real question is - how does this Council determine what goes on the ballot before making a decision on the matter; elected officials are responsible for making decisions. He felt this matter is being rushed if it is placed on the November ballot; Council has assured the citizens that they would not rush this matter. He stated he does not have enough information to make a decision at this time. Councilmember Brandes stated there has been a tremendous amount of infor- mation available regarding this matter. He felt it should be placed on the ballot and if there is an overwhelming vote for the redevelopment plan then a referendum could be avoided. It was moved by Councilmember Brandes to place an advisory initiative on the November ballot as to whether or not to adopt a redevelopment plan. The motion died for lack of a second. item 13b Status Report Concerning Action to be Taken on 1.2 Acre Parcel Needed for Nielsen Park Mayor Mercer declared this item continued to the meeting of July 19, 1988. COMMUNICATIONS item 14a Letter from Committee for Water Policy Consensus Re: Endorsement: Bay-Delta Estuary Protection Resolution Mayor Mercer presented a letter from Supervisor McPeak, Contra Costa Coun- ty and Committee Chair for the Committee for Water Policy Consensus regarding endorsement of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary resolution relative to ade- quate water quality standards. He advised that Supervisor McPeak voted against the Tri-Valley Wastewater project, therefore he did not feel Council should support this effort. After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Councilmember Wilson to endorse the Bay-Delta estuary protections resolution. 16 - 7-5-88