Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Michelotti asked Ms. Dennis to read her suggestion again. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis read her suggestion again. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala suggested leaving out Ordinance Number 1769 and the amenities wording. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti would like the 46 acres left in, take out the reference to Foothill Road, <br />Foothill Knolls and amenities and add that it is in accordance with the General Plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis revised her substitute motion, seconded by Ms. Michelotti, to read, "Shall <br />Ordinance 1769, which prezones the Merritt property, a low-density in-fill project, in accordance <br />with Pleasantness General Plan, creating 89 single-family detached lots on 46 acres be adopted?" <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said the Elections Code states the ballot language should include the identifying <br />ordinance number. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked staff if the wording prezoned and low density was correct. Mr. Roush <br />said it would be more accurate to say prezoned to low density. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis amended her motion to read, "Shall Ordinance 1769, prezoning the Merritt <br />property, a low-density, in-fill project, in accordance with Pleasanton's General Plan, creating 89 <br />single-family detached lots on 46 acres, be adopted?" <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico strongly objected to the omission of the development plan. This project is more <br />than just prezoning. This is an approval of development plan for the Merritt property and omitting <br />reference to the development significantly distorts the ballot language to the public and gives a <br />perception that the property is only being prezoned. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis read her motion again. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico felt the language should identify what the project is. He strongly objected to the <br />use of the words low-density and in-fill project. He felt those words were prejudicial. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti suggested starting the language, "Shall Ordinance 1769, prezoning and the <br />low-density development plan for the Merritt property, etc. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico said the referendum is asking the people to vote on the prezoning and the <br />development plan. He felt it was important to state this in the language. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if Councilmember Pico approved of the language in Option No. 1, <br />dropping the $1,000,000 in public amenities? <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico said yes. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 5 03/09/99 <br />Special Meeting - Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />