CCMIN041602 - Laserfiche WebLink

vision of a park like setting with uses for all the demographics of the community makes the most sense to her and complies with the "planned progress" of Pleasanton that she has so admired and supported as a Commissioner and community member. She urged Council to keep the land for public use. If housing is placed on the property, where will the other public uses be located? Terri Carl, 2161 Pomezia Court, indicated she had talked to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, who said democracy is epidemic in Pleasanton. She appreciated Council's decision to revisit this issue and to take the time to make the right decisions. She has heard the Bernal property referred to as Pleasanton's Golden Gate Park, but wanted to remind everyone that it is not that big. She was sad that affordable housing was being made a huge emotional issue. She acknowledged the need for affordable housing for more than seniors and said that there were engineers living in their cars in Santa Clara after the last economic downtown. People who commute to the South Bay daily feel that affordable housing already exists in Pleasanton. It is all a matter of perspective. Steve Brozosky, 1700 Vineyard Avenue, clarified that the plan brought to Council from the Task Force was just a plan to get more feedback for further work, not a recommendation. He said the Bernal Property Specific Plan had two phases: Phase I - housing, retail, commercial; Phase Il - community facilities with a park like setting and open space. Yet there is still a demand for more housing on the property. He did not feel the community supports any more housing on the property, whether market rate, affordable or subsidized. The Bernal initiative was started to allow the citizens to say no more houses. Council action could be to allow more housing and allow citizens to speak out against it. Ifa plan were defeated, there could be another one waiting to come forward. He felt this would be a major distraction to the planning of this important piece of land. He wanted to say no more housing and make it binding by a vote of the people. He believed the residents have said there is enough housing and they want the remaining acres used for public use, parkland, open space and spaces reserved for future generations. In the future, if the residents support specific housing projects, there, a vote is all it takes to approve the project. He wanted to let the people decide. Without a binding initiative by the voters, a burden is placed on the residents to fight each plan that comes before the Council. The Bemal Specific Plan includes a guideline that says Phase II land use and locations will be subject to approval by the electorate. Guidelines are discretionary in their applications. He did not feel the latest indication by Council that it wants a park like setting with potential uses, but no specific size or location, would be appropriate tbr a vote of the people. It is too vague and would not accomplish anything. If the vague plan failed, he did not think the Task Force would know what to do next. He believed the housing element of the plan needed to be placed before the voters. He asked Council to place the current citizens' initiative on the ballot in November, so the residents could focus on other community activities instead of spending hours collecting signatures. If Council desired, it could draft another initiative identical to the citizens' initiative except it could allow a certain number of housing units. He urged Council not to make the competing initiatives confusing. He urged Council to listen to the general population of Pleasanton, not just the vocal minority. He believed the citizens felt the right way to do aftbrdable housing was to have them included in future housing developments pursuant to the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Brian Arkin, 3740 Newton Way, said he did not want this to become a debate on affordable housing. Pleasanton has many affordable housing projects it can be proud of and Pleasanton City Council 8 04/16/02 Minutes