CCMIN041597 - Laserfiche WebLink

Victoria Holt, 3390 Vermont Place, said that she wanted to be involved in the review of the CC&R's. She said there was a need for the sports park, but at what price. She would like to see the park go in but to dead end Stoneridge Drive to stop cut through traffic. Carl Preztel, 3633 Glacier Court, supported the sports park. He said that Pleasanton was short on recreational facilities and low income housing. He said if this project was approved the residents who bought these homes would be before Council in a few years complaining about the airport noise. He said the cut through traffic would happen on Stoneridge Drive or West Las Positas. He said there were inconsistencies with the TKJM report. At the last Planning Commission meeting it was mentioned the traffic with the San Francisco/Bernal Avenue proposed project with or without the West Las Positas interchange did not exceed the acceptable level of service. When he saw the levels of service chart it showed a level of service D or worse. Robert Czapinsky, 6753 Singletree Way, supported the sports park. He felt there was a need for a lighted park that would allow more time for the children to practice and play so they don't have to go to other cities to practice on lighted fields. In rebuttal, Joe Callahan, 5674 Stoneridge Drive,//212, said he would try to address concerns brought up by the residents regarding traffic issues, commercial and industrial acreage allowed, and the low income housing. He said the project had wonderful freeway exposure, but would be adding a considerable amount of trips per day for the 90 acres. He said he did not feel there was a booming market. He said the proposal being submitted today had many land mixed uses that does create the value. He said there is 40 net acres of commercial land use in this plan. Kaufman and Broad had proposed a plan that is aimed at providing housing to first time home buyers. He said that Kaufman and Broad had worked with several hundred neighbors for over four years and had tried to accommodate all involved. He believed that Pleasanton had a unique opportunity and should take advantage of it. He said the plan was taken to the Livermore Airport Commission and it was satisfied with the proposed development. He said there had not been one complaint listed from the Somerset I project as to the noise levels. There being no further testimony, the public heating was closed. There was a break at 10:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:38 p.m. Mayor Tarver said he would like to continue Item 6e, Tri-Valley Sub-regional Development Fee to May 6, 1997. Ms. Michelotti said the Tri-Valley Transportation Committee would not meet until April 23, so any information would have to be given to her before that date to take forward. Pleasanton City Council 04/15/97 Minutes 13