CCMIN031902 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Pico felt it would be appropriate to seek community approval on the latest plan with a park like theme. He believed it would be necessary to go to the voters in the future to seek financial assistance to construct certain things on the property. Even if it were all trees and park, some financial assistance would be necessary to support a park of that magnitude, lie believed there was a concept for a park theme that the community would embrace. What is missing are the policies and process ibr the City to follow with respect to the implementation of the park plan. He acknowledged there are issues regarding affordable housing, school site, ACE train station, etc. Before Council can move forward in an orderly fashion and avoid piecemeal decisions on the project, he felt a more grand scheme or plan was necessary. He did not feel it was prudent to move forward with the plans and spend a lot of money without first determining if the public supported the direction. He felt strongly that it would be appropriate to get feedback from the community. He would like to define certain policies; e.g. does the City want to sell some of the land (to the School District, a developer, the County for ACE train station, etc.). That is an issue that needs clear direction. It would make a different in how the project proceeds and is developed, lfthe City is unwilling to sell land for an ACE train station, how realistic is it that the station will get built. The same thing applies to a school site. He felt it was important to determine certain policies and process before going forward. That is why he wanted to put it before the voters. Perhaps under those circumstances an EIR is not necessary. Without locking in those policies, the property is subject to the changing political whims of future elected officials. He was not afraid to go back to the voters and ask them if the park like concept is what they want, if the twenty top priorities are supported, and to ratify policies and process for the future. From now until August, the deadline for putting something on the November ballot, he would like the Task Force and staff to hold more public hearings to define the process and policies so Council can enact them. The question is not whether there is affordable housing or any of the twenty projects, it is more important to lay the foundation for how Council is to proceed since this will take many years to implement. Ms. Michelotti indicated she respected what the Task Force has done and felt it should complete its work. She objected to remarks that characterized Council opinions as being made for political reasons. Council is elected to make decisions. She wanted to get all the recommendations from the Task Force, get a conceptual plan for the top twenty uses, and then as each use is ready to be implemented, that it get reviewed by the appropriate Commissions and Council, so there is a review process in each step of the way. The issue before Council now is whether to put a measure on the ballot in November 2002. Her answer is to continue with the Task Force with the Council making the final decision. She felt one or more ballot measures would be divisive for the community. Ms. McKeehan indicated her understanding of Council's direction was for the Task Force to take the park like concept and develop a specific plan without identifying specific uses in specific locations. There are many things on the list of uses and it will be a very long time before they can be implemented. The question of whether to sell any of the property and other policy questions would be included in the Specific Plan along with some other things. She was concerned that a mixed message was being sent to the Task Force. It is not possible to develop a park like concept and also identify acreage for uses. Her understanding was to develop a park like theme and develop a list of potential uses. It cannot provide specific acreages for that kind of plan. Pleasanton City Council 11 03/19/02 Minutes