My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN031102SP
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCMIN031102SP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:35 AM
Creation date
8/8/2002 7:59:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/11/2002
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN031102SP
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Roush said essentially there would be five signatures on the rebuttal <br />argument. The argument can be split. He recalled with other measures where one or two <br />or three Councilmembers have signed an argument in favor or against something and <br />then two other signatures were by residents from the community. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dennis asked if the signatures would be split. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that all signatures would be at the bottom and depending on <br />how it is worded, the idea would be that someone reading it would understand that the <br />first paragraph would be from the residents and the second paragraph would be from the <br />Council. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico said what he heard Mr. Roush saying is that there would be five <br />signatures on the ballot argument and that one would not be able to distinguish which of <br />those signatures applied to which paragraph because the signatures would be applicable <br />to all of the argument. <br /> <br />Mayor Pico opened the discussion to Public Comments. <br /> <br /> Bill Howell, 6651 Alisal Street, spoke for the other signers and their feeling is that <br />they would prefer Councilmembers sign the rebuttal argument and have it be a joint <br />effort. They would like to be part of this and together draft something, instead of <br />segregating it out. <br /> <br /> Tom Smith, 1070 Happy Valley Road, said there was definitely going to be a golf <br />course out in Happy Valley and felt the thing that would comfort the residents the most <br />would be if Councilmembers would show their commitment to get traffic either bypassed <br />or calmed. <br /> <br />The Public Comment was closed. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico said it was his preference that the residents take the lead in the <br />rebuttal argument and did not feel comfortable with there being three signatures from the <br />City Council on something making some kind of commitment that would appear to be an <br />action that the Council is taking. He felt that it needed to be made very clear that as a <br />City Council we intend to do everything we can to mitigate the traffic situation and will <br />continue to do that but he would not support the entire Council signing rebuttal <br />arguments. He felt that if two members wanted to sign, that would be okay. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Michelotti recalled that previously the Council would have the <br />option of joining the residents in signing the rebuttal and asked if this is still open to us. <br /> <br />Mayor Pico responded that option was still open. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Campbell said he was opposed to any Councilmember signing <br />the rebuttal arguments because he felt that Council needed to be consistent and have the <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Special Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />2 03/11/02 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.