CCMIN031902 - Laserfiche WebLink

affordable. Now people are asking for more affordable and senior housing on this property with twenty acres with 20-40 units per acre. That could be another 800 homes on this property where people had voted not to have any homes. He believed aftbrdable housing must be mixed in with market rate housing and was uncertain how that would be viewed in light of the Greenbriar development agreement. No one wants to see a 200 unit "project". He felt having two ballot measures would allow the citizens to say what they want and give more direction to the Committee. He believed this was a political decision that the Task Force should not make. If there are two ballot measures, the one with affordable housing must have details on density and acreage ranges. He was also concerned about the impact on the school system with additional housing. He noted affordable housing units do not pay the same school impact fee as market rate housing. The second controversial issue was the school site. When a school is constructed, the only approvals come from Sacramento and do not have City Council or Planning Commission approvals. He was concerned about having a large piece of the park planned by the District without going through City approval processes. If the District wants forty acres, it will be on the most valuable piece of the Bernal property and would not allow a complete plan for the park with various uses flowing into one another. Another problem with a school would be traffic impacts on Bernal Avenue, especially if it is a high school. He supported placing two items on the November 2002 ballot, one with affordable housing and one without. He believed the measures should be on the next ballot, because he felt there will be a large voter turnout due to other items on the ballot. He also asked about the process after the election. Does it go back to the Task Force, or through the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission.'? He believed the citizens want to have affordable housing, but only if it is inclusionary and scattered throughout the city, not all in one location. Jack Dove, 5250 Case Avenue, agreed with a prior statement that the people need to know how much this project will cost. Any ballot measure should be very specific. He was very interested in aftbrdable housing and felt there are good opportunities coming forward, particularly for seniors. He believed the City needed to set the standards and if it decides not to put affordable housing on this property, it will send a message that it did not support affordable housing. He believed that if the voters are asked if they want affordable housing, the measure would be defeated. He felt that if the voters were asked for a fifty acre lighted sports field, it would also be defeated. He believed that each part of this project, whether it is a sports park or other use, will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council and there will be ample opportunity for the people to make their opinions known. He strongly urged Council not to put two measures on the ballot. If there is a ballot measure, it should only be to decide whether the plan from the Committee is supported or not. Ms. McKeehan clarified that the development plan for the property does include a number of affordable units spread throughout the project. Ms. Dennis asked how long the restriction on the sale of the property for private uses applied to this site? Mr. Roush said it expires in fifteen years. When the staff uses the term aflbrdable housing, it includes mixed income projects. Pleasanton City Council 7 03/19/02 Minutes