CCMIN060402 - Laserfiche WebLink

more clear. I will look forward to a campaign in which the voters are fully informed on the reasons why this initiative is not a wise idea for Pleasanton. I also think that certain questions regarding the Bemal Property will be clearer with a little more time. For example, whether the School District needs 40 acres on the Bernal Property or whether it would be able to meet its needs with the property on Busch Road and to the east. More time and less politics will, I think, be good for the careful consideration of the uses of this valuable public property." Mr. Dove added that personally he wished he had the ability that Mr. Fiedler has to present ideas and would certainly like, as would other members of the community, to commend Mr. Fiedler for the manner in which he has brought forth the idea of affordable housing that Councilmembers should take notice. Steve Bmzosky, 1700 Vineyard Avenue, said staffhas presented three choices for Council today. He believed there was a fourth choice. His opinion was that the one choice that really makes sense is Option One - to have us go through the complete public process, go through all the commissions, give all public input, and then bring it to the Council. Option Two indicates that the only thing it is going to do is to delay the vote. Everyone has had a chance to look at the guidelines that the Task Force produced and if one looks at the word "affordable housing" it appears at one spot in the whole document. This document has much more than this and he did not believe that the whole public review process has to be held up just because of the one issue being talked about presently. It is also very easy to make these non-competitive initiatives, if we do bring this to the vote of the people. He suggested to the Task Fome that one line could be inserted to do this, if that is what Council chooses to do. Option Three makes no sense at all. It recommends that the report generated by the Task Force, which the Task Force did not want to call a Specific Plan, go directly to a vote of the people without any public process. The plan was done by advocates of the City and actually non-msidents of the City. Taking this with no public input and not to go through the City commissions makes no sense at all and he did not see how it could even be considered. The fourth option has been suggested once before by staff, but has not been brought up at this time. That is to follow the complete public process that has been specified in the past, mn it through the commissions, go through the public input, go to the City Council, and have the City Council make a change to the Phase One Specific Plan to say that we don't need it to go to a vote of the people. If you look at the document that is in front of you, it's pretty vague. Nobody here could look at that and deny that it's not a vague document. He said he is not sure what it does by bringing this vague document to the vote of the people. What that's going to prove? You also have to consider what will happen if this vague document did get voted down. Where would you go next? You need to have a contingency plan, if that is the way to go. Perhaps one of the things the City could do at this time is to do a City wide survey, as has been done in the past in Pleasanton. Have residents go through all twenty uses, find out what people want and what they don't want. This might help Council make a decision in this. He would not like to see the City tied down to a plan that has to go to a ballot measure, which could be another year, possibly two years, before it would be implemented. He doesn't think any of us want to delay some of the uses on this property, such as the Arts and Cultural Center. Them are a lot of Pleasanton City Council 15 06/04/02 Minutes