Laserfiche WebLink
130 <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer referred to the statement, "if 20% of the land on <br /> which development were to be permitted or to be fully developed, it <br /> would result in a population increase to the City of Pleasanton of <br /> approximately 10% in the next 10-12 years." He suggested removing <br /> that sentence and substitute it for "7,000 people". Mayor Mercer <br /> preferred the Ridgeland's Executive Committee's proposed language <br /> over all other proposals. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler was very concerned with the length of the ballot <br /> language. He felt that it was important to be able to get an idea <br /> or meaning out a paragraph. He felt that the shorter proposal <br /> submitted by the Executive Committee did an excellent job in <br /> explaining the plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr believed that the ballot language needed to be as <br /> brief as possible, the numbers should be included in the impartial <br /> analysis, and ballot arguments should have the political view <br /> points listed in them. She supported Option 1 of the City <br /> Attorney's proposal and thought a sentence should be added <br /> explaining why the 2640 units were called for. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr that Option one be adopted, <br /> substituting the word , "in perpetuity" with "permanently" and <br /> adding the phrase "in order to generate efficient revenue 'to <br /> acquire the open space" to follow "2640 units". <br /> <br /> The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet understood the concern in using numbers in the <br /> ballot language. He believed that the concept of how much the City <br /> would be retaining, the amount of acres that were involved, the <br /> number of units, supporting uses, and the access roads, were the <br /> key points of the plan that needed to be conveyed to the public. <br /> <br /> It was moved byMr. Butler, and seconded by Mayor Mercer, that. <br /> the Option i of the Ridgeland's Executive Committee language be <br /> adopted, to read as follows: Shall the General Plan of the City of <br /> Pleasanton be amended by adopting the Pleasanton Ridgelands Plan, <br /> which provides a mechanism to retain in perpetuity the undeveloped <br /> ridges above Pleasanton and as is economically feasible to provide <br /> open space on approximately 80% of the area creation of publicly- <br /> accessible parkland trails and other rectreational facilites? The <br /> plan would permit, in areas not visible from Pleasanotn but within <br /> the 7100 acres of the Ridgelands, absolutely no more than 2,640 <br /> residential units with associated neighborhood-serving retail for <br /> the purpose of generating the funds necesssary to finance public <br /> acquisistion of these open areas at no addition cost to existing <br /> taxpayers, substituting the words "in perpetuity" with <br /> "permanently" and adding . <br /> <br /> 3/3/92 <br /> 28 <br /> <br /> <br />