CCMIN060402 - Laserfiche WebLink

debate and discussion how fair and open-minded they are. She doesn't think the City will lose anything by postponing it for a while and letting this other process work itself out. There was a great deal of good work put into this. As an open space advocate and someone who fought very hard for the open space that the City does have in the community and the Regional Park system, she said the housing approved that has the affordable component in it, has brought her great pleasure in the way that it has touched the lives of people and has done a lot of good. These are compatible and we have to work it out as a community. Ms. Michelotti said the thing that bothers her about the entire process is that, when this was first addressed, it was brought to Council by staff. When the process with the Bernal Task Force was still going on, we were told we had the option of putting it on the ballot or not putting it on the ballot. That turned out to be incorrect. We took an action for the reasons that we did not want to have the community divided over this; the Council should make the decision. Then, as the people have the right to do, people who did not agree with that went out and circulated the Initiative. That's why she said in the beginning of the meeting, if we had had this plan, and if she had been aware at the time of the work of the committee, knowing that every use has to come back. She might have done something different. Unlike what was stated by an individual, she mentioned that everything was referendable, but she did not mean that it would go to that. She believed that Councils in the past years have been responsive to the public. If we have review of any project that goes on this property by the Planning Commission and by the Council, and people say, "We don't want this," she didn't think the Council would approve it. Them would not be three votes to do it. However, if a senior housing project came, or something that we felt was really good, now or in the future, there was an option under this plan to let the people approve. In her many years here, she has found that the "pie" is big enough for everyone. We should realize this is a community. People have known from the beginning that she did not want to put anything like this on the ballot. Now her feeling, after looking at the concept, is maybe we should give voters an option. Now everyone is going to be negative to get any senior housing in the future on this property. Everything should go by the process and it should be brought back to the commissions for input and then brought to the Council for decision. She is saddened because of what's going to come in the future and that sides have to be taken. The decision makers should make decisions. Them are enough options for everyone and she would like the community to step back. If we had this four weeks ago, we could have looked at this in a positive way, rather than having to be negative. This hurts the community. She wanted to sit down in a non-televised meeting with all of the members of the Task Fome and allow everyone on the Task Force to give their input to the Council. She feels the Task Force was short-cimuited in this matter and is sorry the process did not go forward. Mr. Campbell said we are elected by the public to make decisions and he is on record of saying that he did not support putting an initiative on the ballot. He does not think it is good for the community because Council should be responsible for land use decisions. Because having the voters approve the plan is in the Specific Plan, he supports that as well. In listening to discussions in the past six weeks, it seems like we have an amazing resource in our community that most communities would dream of. He felt it is Pleasanton City Council 21 06/04/02 Minutes