My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN080304
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
CCMIN080304
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:40 AM
Creation date
10/21/2004 1:09:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/3/2004
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN080304
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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. Campbell favored alternative one. However, the terms "land use plan" and <br />"specific plan" were mentioned threa times, which he believed would add to the voters <br />confusion. He suggested using the x~ording "approval of Phase II of the Bemal Specific <br />Plan." <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky did not know how the ballot argument could adequately define <br />what the voters are actually voting oa, as there is much confusion over what is Phase I <br />and what is Phase II of the Bemal Property Specific Plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell liked the idea Of omitting the wording Pleasanton Bemal Land Use <br />Plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush suggested phrasing the ballot question: "Shall an initiative be adopted <br />to require voter approval of the land ~se plan for Phase II of the Bernal property?" <br /> <br />Mr. Campbell concurred with staff's recommendation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky did not believei the ballot question adequately addressed Phase II of <br />the specific plan; however, it is more concise. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico believed the definition of Phase II of the specific plan could be <br />defined in the City Attorney's impartial analysis of the Initiative. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said that he would attempt to define Phase I and Phase II of the Bemal <br />Property Specific Plan in his impartial analysis. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky suggested using the wording "full community park" instead of the <br />wording "Phase II." <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush provided an alternate suggestion for the ballot question, which would <br />state, "Approval of the land use plan!for the Bemai property other than the community <br />park." <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan suggested phrasing the ballot question: "Shall the voters be given <br />the right to approve the land use for the 300-acres of public land on the Bemal property <br />with the exception of the sports field~ which was previously approved?" <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky disagreed. Heibelieved that Phase I is not necessarily sports fields. <br />Phase I includes a community park Which could be a civic center or a youth facility and <br />includes everything that is stated in the initiative that Council adopted at its last meeting. <br />The wording in the initiative that Council adopted at its last meeting addressed active <br />uses as opposed to any specific use for Phase I. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayaia proposed the follonving language for the ballot question: "Shall the <br />voters be given the right to approve the land use plan (Phase II) for the Bernal property?" <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 22 <br />Minutes <br /> <br />08/03/04 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.