CCMIN011984 - Laserfiche WebLink

307 ' Mr. Richard Combs, 4857 Harrison Street, read the referendum petition, and stated the wording in the first alternative expressed the intent of the referendum and those who signed the petition. Mr. Paul Ebright, 5416 Blackbird Drive, stated it must be made clear that the issue is not any one project or any group of projects; it is the general plan amend- ment itself. He asked if the amendment could be printed on the ballot. Mr. Ben Tarver, 1144 Arak Court, stated the amendment muddles the issue of growth and he felt this should be clarified. He stated he felt the public has the right to vote on the issue of whether or not the general plan as worded by the City Council should be approved. He stated he favors alternative one for the wording on the bal- lot and would also like the general plan amendment shovm on the ballot. Mr. Herb Bettencourt, Dublin, stated that the commercial development is the most fantastic thing that has ever happened in Pleasanton. He commended the Planning Com- mission and City Council for the great job they have done for the City in promoting this development, which has and will continue to benefit the residents of the Valley. He asked that the wording on the ballot be very clear so that people can understand it and can vote intelligently on the matter. Mr. Robert Pearson, 3590 Churchill Court, stated the issue being considered is the ballot statement. He advised that Pleasanton has always had an element for bal- anced growth in the community. He stated the issue before the community is not one of 1 project or 22 projects, or 909 acres of development and 1600 acres yet to be talked about; the basic element is land use and balanced community. He stated the ballot statement should be portrayed in the most simple and straight forward manner possible, and that he favored alternative one. Mr. Bob Clyde, 1437 Roselle Drive, Livermore, stated that Pleasanton is far ahead of other cities in commercial planning and should be commended for such planning; he could not see any reason for the controversy opposing the issue. Ms. Emily Carson, 2573 Skimmer Court, stated she is not opposed to growth but felt that it should maintain balance and that she feels the proposed commercial development is too large for the Valley. She stated she would like to have the wording that is on the petition statement printed on the ballot. Mr. MacDonald advised there is not enough room on the ballot to write out the entire general plan amendment or the petition statement, and that it may be against state law to place too long a measure on the ballot. He stated that every regis- tered voter will receive a ballot pamphlet that will contain the general plan amend- ment, as well as the arguments for and against the measure. After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Council- member Mercer, that Resolution No. 84-14, certifying that the required number of signatures have been received to referend Resolution No. 83-501, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Mercer, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Butler NOES: None ABSENT: None It was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Councilmember Mercer, that Resolution No. 84-15, determining that City Counci'i would not repeal Resolution No. 83-501, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Mercer, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Butler NOES: None ABSENT: None 4. 1/9/84