CCMIN021500 - Laserfiche WebLink

because them is not enough affordable housing. He agreed the Bemal property presents unique opportunities, but felt if the 1998 Specific Plan were on the same ballot with Measure I and both had reasonable housing densities, he would vote for Measure I because Pleasanton would control what is developed there. However, he will vote no now. If Measure I appeared later and did not contain adequate housing or revenue producing content, he would consider it to similar to the CAPP Initiative. Finally, he asked whether the bond measure and the Specific Plan could be combined and placed on the November ballot with adequate housing and giving control to Pleasanton. In that case, he would vote for a larger bond issue without hesitation. Jon Harvey, 3790 Smallwood, spoke in support of Measure I. He has lived in Pleasanton for two years and has heard many stories of what could have or should have been done on the Bernal property. The reality is that nothing has been done. He appreciated the win/win solution that has been placed before the voters. He explained the costs of the bond measure and compared it to the cost of a cup of coffee or a video rental per week, depending on the value of the home. The public uses have not yet been decided, but the development on the 72 acres would commence immediately, providing jobs, needed road improvements and revenue for the City. People should vote for this because it allows the City to plan for the future, allows control of a valuable resource, and would make a great City even greater. If the property were developed by private individuals, they would want what gives the most profit today with no regard for the future. We don't know what the citizens will need in twenty or thirty years, and this measure gives us the option to meet future needs when they arise. He asked that a portion of the property be sold to a land trust, which would provide some money to retire the bonds or build infrastructure. He said if people want more information, they can send an email to ivoteves~,vahoo.com. He also related other sources of information. Mayor Tarver indicated there is a mitigation bank for environmental resources on the list of proposed public uses and asked if that were the same as a land trust. Mr. Roush said yes. David Bouchard, 777 Peters Avenue, representing the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, thanked City staff for their efforts in providing information on Measure I. He said the Chamber Board has not taken a position on the Measure but did have some concerns. The development of the property would not go through the normal planning methods and taxpayers would have to pay for infrastructure once the City owns the 430 acres and pay for the development of the proposed public facilities. Millions of dollars of tax revenue will be lost to the City. Taxpayers will be paying $128 million for the bonds over the thirty years. A plan that would have cost the taxpayers nothing was ready for approval by Council, which included open space and fewer homes than was originally proposed for the property. He pointed out that increases in taxes on businesses would be passed on to the customers, thus raising prices for everyone. Business will be expected to pay one-third of the cost of the bond measure. Much of Pleasanton's work force, including police, fire personnel, and teachers are unable to find housing in the community. Measure I will increase thejobs/housing imbalance that causes traffic Pleasanton City Council 9 02/15/00 Minutes