CCMIN031902 - Laserfiche WebLink

measures. He felt it could have been done in less than a year through regular meetings and Council approvals. The City has a capable staff to advise the committees and he urged Council not to put this on the ballot. There are other methods that are equally valid in getting input and are more flexible in approving the various aspects of the park and open space areas. Jack Hovingh, 4250 Muirwood Drive, agreed it would be a mistake to put this on the ballot, whether binding or advisory. He recalled the advisory vote on the steam train and all the misconceptions that arose from that. He also did not like the idea of having one ballot measure with affordable housing included and one ballot measure without an affbrdable housing component. He urged the process to continue through the committee work. Pat Belding, 7703 Highland Oaks, referred to the town meeting six months ago at which the Housing Element was discussed. A consultant was hired to advise the Planning Department on improvements to the Housing Element. At that meeting there was discussion about barriers to a good Housing Element and one of them was the NIMBY effect. She was concerned that putting affordable housing on the ballot in Pleasanton would bring out the NIMBY effect. She believed what is needed is community education about the need for affordable housing. People need to know that it can be mixed income housing and would be for residents of the community, not just for people from other locations. She urged Council to consider that as the real need and not a ballot measure. She described various venues for public education on this topic. Robert Cordtz, 262 West Angela, said that before any public vote, Council needs to provide the pertinent information on the project. The citizens need to know the time it will take to get permits from environmental agencies, the cost of environmental mitigations, what kind of subsidized housing will be constructed and who will build it, the cost of the housing, the cost of the park along with other things. He felt the new city offices might be better on the Bemal property and the existing City offices could be used for compatible downtown development. A new city hall could be paid for from the funds generated by the reuse of the current city hall site. A cultural arts center could also be used as a conference center on Bemal. He felt the voters should know what the cultural arts center will cost and what regional art facilities would cost. In addition, the voters should know the cost of a new ACE train station and a more comprehensive mass transit hub. He felt Council does not have all the information the voters need to make an informed decision concerning the Bemal property. He approved of the proposed update of the City website and suggested the Fremont site be reviewed as a good example. He wanted to have the development agreement with Greenbriar put on the website. He asked if the agreement included allowing a gas station? He did not believe that was a good site due to dangers from MTBE and proximity to an earthquake fault. Ms. McKeehan said a gas station was one of the potential allowed uses at the comer near the freeway. Any proposal would have to be approved by the Council. Steve Brozosky, 1700 Vineyard Avenue, indicated he is on the Bemal Task Force. He said most of the proposed land uses are non-controversial. Two require further direction from Council or a ballot measure. The first is affordable housing. He felt most people in Pleasanton who voted for Measure I were saying they would tax themselves to prevent housing from going on the property. There is now an approved plan for 581 houses with 86 of those units being Pleasanton City Council 6 03/19/02 Minutes