Laserfiche WebLink
Where is affordable housing going to go on what land is left in the City? He referred to <br />the 700,000 square feet of commercial development which represents about 3,000 jobs. <br />If you only add 300 houses, this will exacerbate the jobs/housing imbalance that already <br />exists. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala said it is not possible to get all the information he wanted for the voters <br />at this time because of the time constraints set by the City of San Francisco. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hovingh believed that poor decisions are made under the pressure of <br />deadlines and he felt a logical plan for the public uses should be in place before the land <br />is purchased. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if he was concemed that there would be no money available <br />for the infrastructure. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hovingh said that was correct. He believed the sports park would only be <br />needed for new growth and it should be paid for by that. He referred to comments in the <br />staff report regarding the City' s debt limit and felt the City may not have money to <br />develop the property without going back to the voters. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta clarified for Mr. Hovingh that there is no representative from any of <br />the commissions on the Land Use Committee. <br /> <br /> Howard Neely, 448 Amador Court, indicated he supported purchasing the <br />property. He appreciated reducing the amount of the general obligation bonds to $50 <br />million and agreed the voters will want to know what this property will be used for. He <br />felt that part of the property could be sold to reduce the bonds. <br /> <br /> Brian Arkin, 3740 Newton Way, asked what happens if the general obligation <br />bond is passed and then the deal with San Francisco doesn't go through? <br /> <br />Mayor Tarver said the bonds would not be sold and there would be no obligation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Arkin asked for clarification on the process for sale of 15% of the land for <br />commercial development. Does that go through the Planning Commission etc. or is that <br />part of the ballot issue? <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver indicated any plan for development would go through the normal <br />public hearing process, although the entitlement of the property would be an expedited <br />procedure. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta pointed out that any entitlements would be dependent on the passage <br />of the bond measure. Staff is trying to have a simultaneous close of escrow with San <br />Francisco before the end of June. In order to be able to do this, the bond measure vote <br />must take place and the property would be entitled. Bonds would not be sold until staff <br />knows that there are buyers for the other pieces of property. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 4 12/02/99 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />