CCMIN060402 - Laserfiche WebLink

was, "We've already done this. What are you talking about? This is already done. They can't build any more houses." He recommends that whatever is done, please choose a process that lets people have a decision of one sort or another. In November we're going to do this, or we're going to do that. Don't do something that says, "well in 2003 we can do something else, and in 2004 we can do something else," because people are fed up with all of this. And they are frustrated. Please choose something tonight that gives us a choice in November and let's be done with it and move on. The public input on this agenda item was closed. Mr. Campbell asked if the Bemal PUD was consistent with other PUD's? Mr. Swift said that the way most City Of Pleasanton approvals has occurred over the last 10 - 20 years has been to have PUD's be the vehicle for which the Council has actually approved the essence of a project. This means that they are subject to referendum. It is possible to structure an approval process so that the subsequent approvals are not subject to referendum, and they would be a part of a master plan review. That is not the process that was recommended by the Task Force. Mayor Pico said there is also the issue of development agreements and these impact the use of referendum. Mr. Swirl said what was approved for the Bernal Property was not only a Specific Plan, but also the PUD and a development agreement. These were all subject to referendum. Once the time limit passed the property's land use cannot be changed in a way that's inconsistent with the development agreement. Ms. Dennis said she could not agree to have two things on the ballot because there was no record in the work of the Task Force that housing was that kind of an issue. It was her understanding from reading the minutes that the Task Fome understood that developing a plan to consider general affordable housing on the site was more difficult and they had wanted to put that aside for discussion later. Yet they still ranked that as being important and felt that the Bemal site was an appropriate site. The Task Force members also supported the idea of senior housing on the site and, to a certain degree, they wanted to talk about it more. Our residents still support the idea that the Bernal Property is appropriate for considering community sponsored housing. This is a theme that is found when there was more acreage to discuss. The November election will give Council valuable and interesting information and allow the community to have the freedom to debate the housing issue. It was her hope that if more time was allowed and the community was able to work on an overall Master Plan for the Bemal site, that the community would reach a consensus and would want to vote on a larger plan so that it could not be done piecemeal. The idea of voting on plans is a double edge sword. She also felt even though there was no formal conflict of interest as far as the Planning Commission in the review of the Task Force recommendations, it put them in a difficult position regarding the expression of their First Amendment fights. To fome them to review, at the same time, the recommendations of the Task Fome, would cause constant Pleasanton City Council 20 06/04/02 Minutes