CCMIN052102 - Laserfiche WebLink

Steve Brozosky, 1700 Vineyard Avenue, referred to the vote on Measure I and the City survey, which indicated the biggest problems cited by the residents were growth and growth related problems. When the plan for the Bemal property was approved in August 2000, it included only 581 housing traits. He believed the only reason for Council not to adopt the citizens' initiative now is if it plans to break its promise by adding more housing. The remaining land was supposed to be reserved for community facilities. He did not think anyone in the city would think more housing was a commtmity facility. He thought the Specific Plan would have to be amended to allow more housing. A month ago, housing advocates said they wanted more housing on the Bernal property but did not want it put to a vote because it would be defeated and the campaign would become ugly. The ugly part has already happened. He believed Council should adopt the initiative to save the City from having to go through this any more. There are those who say the initiative was started so it could become a campaign issue in the November election. This was not the intent of the proponents. If it were adopted now, it would not be an issue in November. He requested Council not to put an initiative on the ballot which would attempt to negate this Bernal Property Initiative by including housing in a treasure chest of potential uses. It is in no one's best interest to have the voters vote down the whole specific plan to eliminate housing. He trusted Council to do the right thing and to remove housing from the Specific Plan, so the citizens' initiative is not superseded in the future. In the event Council determines this should go to the ballot, please ask the citizens to debate the issues and not attack the messengers. He said he and Mr. Arkin proposed the initiative because they thought it was best for the City of Pleasanton. Neither of them of anything personal to gain. Even the 4H farm does not benefit his family. He has property for his kids to raise animals. The 4H farm was intended to be an educational program, not a home for pigs. He supported the seniors and others in need, but felt there were other ways to solve the problem of low cost housing. The community facilities section of the Bemal property is a negotiated resource for the whole city and it should be treated as such. He also believed in democracy and the Council is elected to represent the residents. He urged Council to make the right decisions, so the public does not have to micromanage these issues. Patricia Belding, 7703 Highland Oaks Drive, responded to some of the comments that have been made. A statement was made that affordable housing advocates want to see 100% low income housing on the Bemal property. That is not the policy of the city. It has mixed income housing. The Promenade consists of half market rate housing and the residents are teachers, policemen, business people. The other half is for low income residents. Another statement was that people will be drawn to Pleasanton for the low income housing. She said any City subsidized housing will be for City of Pleasanton residents. The highest preference is given to those who have lived here seven years or more. People will not be coming from outside Pleasanton to take housing on the Bemal property. The Task Fome recommended five acres for senior housing (150 senior units) and ten acres for family units. These are for people who live elsewhere in town and whose children are already in the schools in town. This will not be an extra burden on the schools. She said the Bernal Task Force had done an excellent job over the course of many tedious meetings. If the City put only 5% of the acreage for the affordable housing, it would consist of apartments, not houses. She supported the Task Force recommendations. If the initiative goes on the ballot, a Political Action Committee (PAC) has been formed to educate the community about why the 5% of land for affordable apartments are Pleasanton City Council 11 05/21/02 Minutes