Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Tarver asked what the legality of this was. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that he wrote the resolution so that the <br /> Council was requesting arguments for and against the initiative <br /> from the majority and minority member of the Pleasanton Ridgelands <br /> Executive Committee. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribnerunderstood that Council agreed at its February 25 <br /> Special Meeting that it was more appropriate for the Ridgelands <br /> Executive Committee members to write the arguments. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush agreed and stated that was the intent of the <br /> resolution. <br /> <br /> Ms. Spraggins asked if the people opposed to the Plan that are <br />on the Citizens Committee couldwrite the argument and have someone <br />who was not on the Committee sign the argument. <br /> <br /> The Council did not express any preference as to who would <br /> sign the arguments. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer explained that the Council felt that the citizens <br />who were involved in the process should write the arguments. He <br />stated that anyone on the Citizens Committee could write an <br />argument and the persons who sign the argument could be, but did <br />not have to be, on the Committee. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet did not expect that the Committee meeting to be <br />open to the public when they wrote their arguments. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that there had to be public notice when <br />the Committee convenes because of the requirements of the Brown <br />Act. This did not have to be a public hearing but did have to be <br />publicly noticed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Kay Ayala asked that the ballot language be writtenbythe <br />City Attorney. She felt that the adopted ballot language was very <br />biased. <br /> <br /> Frank Neu, 18210 Carmel Drive, Castro Valley, felt that it was <br />important to list the intent of the Committee on the ballot. He <br />stated that if this werewritten in the ballot language and passed, <br />the intent would be there. <br /> <br /> Mr. Winslow asked if the intent of the Committee would be <br />considered as an amendment to the General Plan. <br /> <br /> Rick Dobbs, 3616 Courtsmith Court, was shocked and <br />disappointed with the adopted language which states "at no cost to <br />taxpayers." He asked for clarification on the last sentence of the <br />ballot language. He also asked if the EIR was accurate when it <br />said the City would be in debt for 10 years. <br /> <br />3/5/92 3 <br /> <br /> <br />