CCMIN120799 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Ayala understood the desire for flexibility but felt that stating that 430 acres were to be purchased for public use and 72 acres would be developed was important to be part of the ballot question for those people who have not looked into the matter prior to election day. Mr. Pico supported alternative B-1 for the ballot language Ms. Michelotti supported that as well. She felt it was more important for the people to know where the potential development will be located. Mayor Tarver believed the committee will work quickly and the public will know what is planned for the property before March 2000. Craig Scharton, 235 Main Street, commended Council and staffon this item. It exemplifies the positive nature of this community and its interest in controlling its destiny. He indicated he will be devoting time to insure that this is a successful venture. He hoped this was an issue the entire community can support. Matt Morrison, 5581-A Sonoma Drive, also supported this plan and the ballot measure. He agreed with Mayor about reducing development if possible. He also supported putting the reverse osmosis injection measure on the ballot. He believed Pleasanton residents drink more ground water than other communities in Zone 7 and the public should have a chance to voice an opinion. He expressed concems about the effects of the brine being sent to the Bay and there is no conclusive testing of any population that has been drinking reverse osmosis treated wastewater. He believed the ballot measure will stimulate public discussion. Jack Hovingh, 4250 Muirwood Drive, supported the Mayor's proposal for ballot language. In Option B-1 he wanted to take out "community facilities". He believed community facilities were a public use and would be confusing. He suggested the language say the property would be for open space and other public uses. He objected to the position that the City of Pleasanton is being forced to go to an election. He felt the City Council could just say no. He also believed there should be a backup plan in the event the City is unable to raise $50 million from the 72 acres. Gene Finch, 4847 Drywood Street, remembered when Bemal Avenue was a two- lane road with trees on both sides. He did not believe the City was being forced to do anything on the San Francisco property. Council brought the matter on itself because it failed to negotiate properly. The City has had thirty years to do something about that property. He felt more information was necessary before putting this on the ballot. He felt Council had a conflict of interest because it was becoming a developer in order to sell portions of the Bernal Avenue property. He wondered what Council would concede to get the highest value. How can the people vote on something without all the information? He hoped that confirmation would be provided as quickly as possible. He asked how much of the land would remain open space. Would it be the same as proposed under the San Francisco project? Pleasanton City Council 9 12/07/99 Minutes