CCMIN030999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico felt the language was not neutral. He felt there would be ample opportunity in the ballot arguments and rebuttals for Councilmember Dennis to state a position. He would not support the new language. Ms. Ayala asked if the ordinance number had to be listed? Mr. Roush thought it was not necessary to include the ordinance number. Ms. Ayala asked what elements of the new language did Mr. Pico not like? Mr. Pico felt the ballot language should be as simple and neutral as possible and the new language was too lengthy and contained more information than is needed. Ms. Michelotti agreed that the language should be as simple as possible, but felt the language should identify the project as low density, with 89 single-family homes. Mayor Tarver agreed the simpler the better. He is hoping the Council would not introduce language that would be conceived as a justification for approval. Public hearings have been held and there will be other public hearings held where the public and/or Council can voice their opinions. He said there is plenty of information that gives people the understanding of where the project is located. He did not feel the ballot language needed to be complicated. Ms. Michelotti still felt the language should include 89 single-family homes, so people would understand this was not a project approving 200 single-family homes. Mayor Tarver originally liked Option 1, dropping the part about $1,000,000 in public amenities. Ms. Ayala polled people regarding the ballot language and Option No. 2 lost. When she read Option No. 2, no one knew what she was talking about. She felt compelled to include enough information in the ballot language, so when people go to vote they will know what it is they are voting on. Many people will go to the polling places and leave their ballots at home. She said the staff report stated that this plan was consistent with the General Plan. She asked staff, "Is the project consistent with the General Plan?" Mr. Roush said staffs recommendation states that the plan was consistent with the General Plan. The Council heard public testimony where members of the community felt it was not. The Council majority agreed that it was and that is how the ordinance was adopted. Ms. Ayala said the Council makes its decision based upon recommendations made by experts. She supported Option No. 1 as amended, if it could include language that the project is consistent with the General Plan. Mayor Tarver felt that language did not need to be included. He said the residents could read the ballot arguments and make their own determination. The majority of the Council can do as they wish. Pleasanton City Council 4 03/09/99 Special Meeting - Minutes