CCMIN052097 - Laserfiche WebLink

and reasonable. The concern is what is best for the neighborhood and the future of Pleasanton. The 900 square foot dwelling units as part of Kaufman and Broad's housing plan sound very much like apartments. She feels the proposed units lack planning for adequate parking and space. While she thinks she understands the Citys' interest in low income housing, she does not understand why there have not been proposals to add low income housing into other developments here in Pleasanton. She would like to know if North Pleasanton is to be the main area for low income housing. If this is the case, then she has many objections to this. She chose to become a part of Pleasanton because of the schools and stable quality of life. Joe Callahart, 656 Palomino Drive, said Kaufman and Broad was simply asking Council to define the additional review it wishes Kaufman and Broad to prepare. With additional input from staff, he felt that all subjects will be covered. He asked to move forward as expeditiously as possible. Robert Freed, Kaufman and Broad, submitted for the record copies of correspondence to further clarify the belief that the EIR prepared by the City is adequate and should be certified. He believes the major issues have all been covered and that the concerns expressed about certain planning matters should be taken up when the PUD is considered. Sarah Becks, 3326 Vermont Place, said she was concerned about the airport noise. She said the FAA has two studies to determine noise levels at the airports. The EIR addresses the DNL, (Day, Night, Level) which is an average annual study. The EIR study projects out to the year 2011. The Livermore airport would reach capacity by this time. She spoke to the Commissioner of the San Jose airport who said in the next two years San Jose would be expanding and some of the smaller aircraft would be relocated to Livermore. The EIR is clearly outdated in it study. She said the proposed project would be dealing with airport noise as well as freeway traffic. This is clearly too much noise. She urged Council to have further studies done before the EIR is certified. J. J. Chapman, 5415 Ridgevale Road, said he supports the proposed project. There is a great need for a sports park in Pleasanton. He said the lighting for the current sports parks was poo~y done. The poles should be higher and shaded. The lighting at the new Pleasanton upper fields shows how the lighting should be done. The developer is willing to give Pleasanton a sports park and for Pleasanton to turn down this offer would be a big mistake. In a February Planning Commission meeting there was very little opposition. The EIR represents over two years of work and to throw it out would be wasteful. He urged Council to accept the proposal only to amend the proposed EIR. Bill Gamett, 3031 Staples Ranch Drive, said cut-through traffic will be a problem and was not addressed adequately in the EIR. Other things not mentioned in the EIR have to do with the reengineering of the 1-580/1-680 interchange. During this construction, cutthrough traffic will actually increase. He feels the project will split Pleasanton in two. The proposed project will have sound walls on three sides. He did not move to Pleasanton to live in a compound. Pleasanton City Council 05/20/97 Minutes 14