CCMIN052097 - Laserfiche WebLink

The airport noise is another big issue. One of the mitigation measures to create less noise is to ask pilots to fly away from the houses. Being a private pilot this would be an impossible request. He does not feel the proposed park would be enough to meet the demand. He said he was definitely in favor of adding parks but not at the expense of the quality of life that is currenfiy enjoyed for the City of Pleasanton. Mike Crawford, 1262 Bordeaux Street, said he supports the no-growth/slow-growth position for Pleasanton. Even with the limited housing development under the managed city plan, the sports fields for the youth athletics have reached their maximum. The playing fields have not been increased for 15 years. He supports the proposed park by the developer. The planning process has been open to the public from the beginning. Why were issues not brought up before? He urged Council to accept an amendment to the EIR and not lose out on a great amenity for the City. David Young, 4575 Gatetree, asked what could be done currenfiy to the EIR that will enhance the change so that two years of work will not be wasted. He said park space is at a premium and it would be nice to have more. There seems to be a developer willing to provide more park space. Amy Epperson, 3334 Vermont Place, wanted to address the Stoneridge Drive extension. She had just received the Somerset II noise impact report. She said it did not make sense to have a sports park in the middle of a development that would be surrounded by sound walls. She asked when the reports were done did it take into consideration that the Livermore airport was not quite built out and the planes were flying over? If not, she would like to see these issues addressed. Geoff Cooper, 7534 Flagstone Drive, said the General Plan Steering Committee approved this as being an appropriate use for the land and providing benefits for the City of Pleasanton. The Steering Committee reviewed a complete traffic plan and the connection to E1 Charro was not debated. He understands there needs to be some fine tuning done, but would hate to see the project thrown out. The General Plan calls for two more sports park. This proposed project would be able to take care of one of those parks. The park proposed in the San Francisco project is a long time coming. A recent bill before the legislative would remove from the voters the right to establish urban growth boundaries and housing caps. He says the General Plan needs to be carried out so this vote is not taken away. He does not feel the low income housing units should be an issue. He also said the connection of Stoneridge to E1 Charro should be debated separately from the EIR for this project. The project should sink or swim on its own merit and not what might happen across the freeway in ten to twenty years. He said there would be plenty of people willing to buy the homes. He requested Council to have minimal amount of amendments to the EIR. Leah J. Jones, 3366 Vermont Place, said she agreed with Mr. Cooper. She said not all neighbors were against the project. She said Kaufman and Broad has gone the extra mile to Pleasanton City Council 05/20/97 Minutes 15