CCMIN052102 - Laserfiche WebLink

the attendees at First Wednesday are from out of town and Pleasanton has become a destination community. He wanted to grow slowly and develop the last ten percent or so as best as possible with as many amenities as possible. The believed there were other locations in the City that could be used for affordable housing. Kevin Doyen, 1808 Sinclair Drive, said it was amazing how confused this issue was getting. Millions of people will be moving to California in the next few years and he did not think they could find housing. Opponents have confused this issue by making it emotional and using the term affordable housing. He referred to prior Council minutes and the prior actions to place a measure on the ballot to purchase the property. Originally 430 acres were to be used as open space, with only 15% for commercial and residential use. That was not approved. Now there are 580 homes with 750,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. If Council does not adopt the initiative it will go to the ballot. There are thousands of voting parents who want recreation facilities, schooling and open park lands. He said we have an opportunity to create something for future generations. William Hall, 6338 Pasco Santa Maria, said he is dismayed at the trend of housing being built in Pleasanton at the expense of other considerations. He voted for certain Councilmembers on a platform of limited growth. He urged Council to be true to the cause the residents have held most dear and that is the environment of a smaller, well-planned, beautiful city. He did not want Pleasanton to be another San Jose, Oakland or Hayward. Many came to Pleasanton to escape those areas. He believed that from the beginning, the fight over the Bernal property was to limit the number of houses. The original San Francisco plan was overly dense and had no consideration of impacts on the infrastructure or quality of life in Pleasanton. Fortunately the City Council fought this. The people have never wavered in their desire for limited growth and 64% were willing to tax themselves to keep the amount of housing to a minimum on the Bernal property. Unfortunately, the amount of housing has increased. Voters have given a clear message they do not want additional housing on this land and the City-owned property should be preserved for a park, open space, and community facilities. The issue is not about low cost housing. He felt there were better opportunities for low cost housing in Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore. The approved plan for the Bernal property already has 15% low cost housing included. He asked Council not to use the excuse of low cost housing to build more houses on this property. He said this is the first time he has helped gather signatures on a petition and repeated several comments from signers who opposed any more housing development. He urged Council to listen to the consistent message of the people and adopt the initiative. Kurt Knmmer, 4456 Clovewood Lane, said he came to the meeting to urge Council to adopt the initiative, but now it seems the initiative should go on the ballot to make sure it is not overruled by the Task Force recommendations. He was confused. He said he has three children in school in Pleasanton, two at Hart Middle School. It was supposed to take ten years to reach capacity, but after two years it is full. That is what the residents are concnmed about. More housing brings more traffic and school impacts. Those who gathered signatures do not hate affordable housing or the residents of affordable housing. They do hate traffic and school overcrowding. He wanted to keep open space in the community. When he first came to Pleasanton from Hayward, he was extremely impressed with the Sports Park and the fact that the City would preserve that much space. He was surprised when he read comments in the Pleasanton City Council 9 05/21/02 Minutes