CCMIN031902 - Laserfiche WebLink

"affordable housing". She preferred "opportunity housing". It is for our children and seniors. Council should gather community input and then make a decision. Ms. Dennis said that the reason Measure I was put on the ballot was because the City was asking people to pay for the property. The measure did not pass and people are not directly paying for this property, therefore there is no necessity to ask for voter approval of what goes on the Bemal property. She has watched Task Force meetings on television and she feels it is doing a great job of soliciting community input. It has found a way to accommodate the needs of the community. She believed that can still be done in a park like setting. She believed it was premature to put questions to the voters in terms of the uses of this property. She wanted to encourage continued community participation and thought that placing a measure on the ballot would invite the opinion of people who have not been educated by participating in the public hearing process. She felt if Council wanted to bring something fbr voter approval on a specific part of the plan, she would do it with an eye to asking the people whether they wanted to accelerate the construction of an amenity through a bond issue, parcel tax, or whatever. That comes back to the underlying principle of Measure I, which is asking people if they want to contribute money to make something happen. The people may like a particular facility but do not want to pay to make it happen sooner. She felt that would be more appropriate than to have people pass judgment on something that may take thirty or forty years to implement. There could be a lot of controversy if you ask the voters to approve every single thing. The lighted fields may be controversial, which is why that was to be developed by a separate committee. The school site is controversial and she has received many more phone calls about the forty acre school site than about the fifteen acre affordable housing site. She felt there would need to be more than two ballot measures to get rid of the controversy. She saw no problem with what has transpired so far. She has not received any calls other than praise fbr the Committee's accomplishments. She believed a ballot measure at this time was premature. She supported going back to the community to ask them to spend money on accelerating the vision. The plan is currently too unsettled and she believed the uses can be reviewed and decided upon on a case-by- case basis. She has repeatedly referred people with questions to the Committee meetings and encouraged their participation in the public process. If Council puts things on the ballot after doing all that, it discourages people from working with and on the committees. Ms. Ayala indicated she had worked on the Measure I process because she wanted the City to have total control of the land. It was phenomenal that 64% of the community said it was willing to tax itself to avoid filling that land with housing. She felt that Councilmembers should discuss issues at the Council meeting, but it seems that no one wants to talk and merely takes their political stand. She believed the November 2002 was a very important election and she wanted a ballot measure then. The picture Sharrell Michelotti showed was just trees everywhere. If that were the case, she had no doubt everyone would like it. The City is blessed to have 312 acres to do whatever it wants. She did not want the community to think every piece of it would be developed. That was the impression from the first Committee presentation. Council agreed it wanted a park like theme and she felt the public would embrace that concept. The piece that she felt was missing was the housing. Housing units were added to the Greenbriar plan to include af~brdable units. She did not want any more housing on this property. She felt the community wasvery clear that it didnot want more housing. She supported aparklike theme 100%. Pleasanton City Council 10 Minutes 03/19/02