Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Tarver said between now and March 7, Council can only explain its intent. <br />Anything is possible, but he was fairly certain Council would not change its position. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti clarified the language can be in the bond documents and can be <br />included later when land uses go to a vote of the residents. The language could specify <br />the funds would be used elsewhere only by a vote of the people. <br /> <br />Mayor Tarver was not clear why it would be necessary to use funds off-site. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that it is assumed a private developer would install off-site <br />improvements required by that development. It is possible the public facilities that are <br />approved by the voters may create needs for other off-site improvements that were not <br />provided by the developer. Staff wanted the flexibility to use the bond proceeds for that <br />purpose. <br /> <br /> Mr. Amick indicated that as long as the use of the bond proceeds goes back to a <br />vote of the people he was comfortable with the language as written suggested by staff. <br /> <br />There was a break at 9:00 p.m. <br /> <br />The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. <br /> <br />Mayor Tarver invited public comment. <br /> <br /> Jeff Renholz, 7489 Aster Court, referred to the "Field of Dreams" campaign <br />slogan for Measure I. He believed the property should be preserved as open space and <br />not developed. He asked what San Francisco would do if the approval of the two private <br />developments were overturned by referendum. Would it have legal recourse against the <br />City of Pleasanton? He believed it would be necessary to have future bond measures for <br />development of the public facilities. He thought that if the property were developed by <br />San Francisco, there would still be many of the amenities desired by the Task Force, <br />although there would be the residential burden. He strongly urged Council to consider <br />leaving this property in open space. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that if there were a referendum regarding the two private <br />developments, then the Term Sheet would terminate and the deal for purchase of the <br />property would fall apart. The fact that the ballot language includes references to the <br />entitlement for development of those parcels does not provide immunity from a <br />referendum. <br /> <br /> Joseph Russo, 6772 Paseo San Leon, spoke in support of Measure I. He asked if <br />the vote regarding use of the sale proceeds would be majority or 2/3 majority? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said as the language is currently written, it would suggest a majority <br />vote unless Council directed that a higher percentage be required. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 6 02/15/00 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />