CCMIN041597 - Laserfiche WebLink

68 affordable housing units on Case Avenue. This project would bring 80 affordable units. That would be 80 units for young professionals, for firefighters, teachers and others. She was willing to put her reputation on the line to try to work out a solution. It would not be reality to say here was a great project, but come back in the year 2000. It was here and now! The newspaper said there were four to six thousand signatures from the sports community in support of this. She respected the concerns of the neighborhood. She felt the community had worked with the developer to work things outs. She still had concerns about working out the CC&R's and the Homeowners Association and that these needed to be worked out. The agreement with CalMat had been worked on but issues needed to be worked out. She supported this because she did not know if something like this would come around again that benefited the community. When the City tried to pick projects, it had to realize and hope the infrastructure would be done at the same time. The General Plan has a provision to encourage affordable housing units. Ms. Ayala said that under the Brown Act, Councilmembers are only allowed to talk to one other Councilmember about a particular project. She was disappointed because she felt that at tonight's meeting she had hoped the Councilmembers would work through the project and understand each others views in a non-political way. Immediately from the start of this meeting, it was obvious that this was not going to happen. She had worked with this plan for a long time, starting with the General Plan review. The Steering Committee offered many suggestions, one of which was a way to get the children to the new school and the developer, in fact, had put this in the project. She said another suggestion from the Steering Committee was to put in affordable housing and that is what the developer did. She said she was perplexed that the City went through the General Plan process and told the developer what it needed to build and the City is still questioning the project. The lighted sports parks and the affordable housing are the issues. She did not know what a developer had to do anymore to get a project approved. She asked Council if it did not like the project? Mr. Pico said that he did not like the project. He said he had major concems about the cut-through traffic impact. The staff report had information but none of it addressed the critical issue in the community. He said the consultant talked about how it would look today but not how it would look in the future, when it would be an absolute mess. He showed a copy of the Valley Times and the picture of the traffic congestion. He said Pleasanton was becoming like Los Angeles. He wanted to address those issues that were irreversible. It was not an unreasonable request for a government representative to ask. He loved the sports park. In regards to the affordable housing, the City was creating the North Pleasanton ghetto. He had said over and over again he was in favor of affordable housing, but that it needed to be distributed throughout the community. Kaufman and Broad did the California Reflections development and it distributed the affordable housing units throughout the whole development. Here was a proposed plan of 80 units backed up against a freeway with a noise level so high you could not hear and it had no place for children to play. He felt this was not a good design. He would like to see the 80 units distributed throughout the whole project. Ms. Ayala asked if he had visited the Kaufman and Broad site in Fremont. Pleasanton City Council 04/15/97 Minutes 15