CCMIN080696 - Laserfiche WebLink

neighborhood then campaigned against the neighborhood Becky Dennis now lives in. Yet each of you have become productive members of the community. He felt the housing cap initiative was made more onerous because of the Urban Growth Boundary. He felt that for every property that is allowed to develop above the midpoint is taking away from those properties not yet approved for building. He felt the initiative will pit citizen against citizen. Further, if San Francisco builds more than 1900 units, that will take units away from existing in-fill projects. He did not think Council wanted to approve the San Francisco project at the detriment of existing residents. He referred to the staff report and the steps necessary for amendments to the initiatives. He believed there could be a situation where Council wanted to do something to benefit a longstanding member of the community and it will be prevented from doing that. For example, in the future when the city is near buildout, there could be an in-fill piece of property near downtown with the potential for 30 to 50 units. Because the units had been used up, either by the San Francisco project or other development above midpoint, there would not be a way to allow the 30 to 50 units because of the housing cap. Let's say that is a senior housing project that every one wants, with an opportune time for financing, and there is no timely election scheduled. An individual would have to sponsor an initiative, a special election would have to be called at a cost of $30,000 or $40,000 to the community, and all for something that everybody wants to happen. How do you resolve that? He suggested a couple of solutions: eliminate the housing cap initiative; modify the initiative to reflect the original Steering Committee recommendation of 27,000 units excluding San Francisco; or some other modified language that allows flexibility to get back to the midpoint for existing in-fill parcels in the event, Council approves units above the midpoint for some other properties. He felt Council should be aware of possible negative impacts of the proposed initiatives. Lorelei Tolvtvar, 1993 Greenwood Road, referred to other traffic problems at the Stoneridge Drive/680 interchange. She complained of problems at the left turn into Harvest Park Middle School. She had concerns about the EIR for the San Francisco Bernal property because of burial grounds which were found. She agreed with placing General Plan issues on the November ballot; she also felt the people should vote on the San Francisco project. She was concerned about water, smog, and traffic from this area. Barry Luboviski, 8400 Enterprise Way,//205, Oakland, secretary/treasurer of the Building Trades Council, indicated concerns about requiting changes to the General Plan go before the electorate. On the surface it appears to be very democratic in dealing with planning issues. There are many ways to approach democracy in local community. The Building Trades Council believes that the public hearing process is the best way to afford citizens to make comments. City Councils are aware of the need to communicate with the citizens. A system that negates that process raises other issues. He believed when Council members are up for election they should be concerned that those with the money may affect the election process and negate the public hearing process and Council's ability to respond to the citizens. Brian McGuire, 233 Del Valle Court, read a petition regarding a request that land west of the former Pleasanton land fill not be pan of the Vineyard Corridor. All this land has had a 08/06/96 -6-