CCMIN041597 - Laserfiche WebLink

proposed. She felt a better use of the land would be commercial. Traffic conditions were not going to get any better. She said the Arroyo channel functioned properly this year, so why spend money improving it when the money could be spent better elsewhere. There would be no increased sales revenue since no commercial development was being proposed. She said a better location would be on the other side of the Arroyo channel. Sara Becks, 3326 Vermont Place, said she lived near the proposed project and her main concern was how the project would affect her home. The land proposed for the development was in a flood zone. She said she would have to endure a considerable amount of noise, dirt, dust and other impacts while this project was being constructed. J. J. Chapman, 5415 Ridgevale Road, supported the little league and adult leagues and the need for more sports parks. He tried forming a senior league and was told the existing fields were full. He felt that Kaufman and Broad would be good neighbors and provide affordable housing. Larry Levin, 3178 Waymouth Court, supported the proposed project. He said Pleasanton had a housing cap of 29,000 and the proposed project would not exceed this. He read in the staff report the eighty units would double the amount of affordable housing. He urged Council to support the proposed project. Stan Erickson, 3684 Chillingham Court, supported the need for more sports parks but he did not want more houses. He felt the park should be in a more central location. He said Council should generate its own ideas on how to fund the sports park. He said commercial sites were needed as well. The site would be perfect for a commercial/industrial development. He said the traffic report was not accurate and the traffic demands needed to be addressed. William Allan Garnett, 3031 Staples Ranch Drive, said his property was directly adjacent to the proposed project. He felt the basic proposal was a trade-off. Kaufman and Broad would get to build its development and the residents of Pleasanton would get its sports park. He said the language of the staff report said the park design had not been approved, but it allowed Kaufman and Broad to start construction immediately. There was no requirement for the park to be finished before the homes were completed and sold. There was no requirement for Kaufman and Broad to actually fund the park and in fact there was a provision to cap its contribution. This seemed ill advised. Kaufman and Broad promised residents a park in Somerset I. Where was the park? Would the money collected from the existing housing projects be used to construct this new park? It appeared the City had underestimated the true cost for supporting infrastructure. He also felt if this project was approved the natural habitat would suffer. He said there was already affordable housing in the neighborhood and felt there was no need for more. He said if Council approved this project he felt that Kaufman and Broad should be required to post bonds to cover damage that might be done to existing homes. He said there were numerous other issues and he did not support the proposed project. Pleasanton City Council 04/15/97 Minutes 12