CCMIN052097 - Laserfiche WebLink

appease the neighbors' concerns. She did not feel the property would remain open space forever and it would be wise for Council to consider what would happen if another developer were to come in. Another developer might not be as generous. She did not feel the people with incomes of $35,000 to $54,000 who could afford the low income housing were really low income families and would not like to be called so. The cut-through traffic on Stoneridge was not Kaufman & Broads idea. Why was the cut-through traffic not put in the General Plan if there was such controversy. She asked Council to honestly and seriously consider what would be best for the City. There was no further public testimony. Ms. Dennis said her concerns were the traffic issues and opening Stoneridge to E1 Charro. She feels the City has embarked on a course of study for regional traffic impacts that are not complete. Her concern is with an impact that was not anticipated. She did not feel Council had the answers to make sure the impacts would be mitigated if Stoneridge is connected. She said the recirculation of the EIR report as far as the traffic is concerned is in the best interest of the community. She said she felt K & B had no way of knowing Council would want the traffic information. However, there is another piece of the PUD that could look at this impact when more information is available. The direction she would like Council to give staff would be to have only an amendment to the proposed EIR that addresses how the project would work if the connection is not made between Stoneridge and E1 Charro. She felt the other issues could be discussed at a later date when the commercial PUD plan, comes forward. She would like the developer to work with the neighbors to distribute the affordable housing throughout the development and cause it to be farther away from the freeway. Mayor Tarver said he was not in agreement with Council doing only an addendure. He said Council has the opportunity to determine what is wrong with the document. CalMat produced a document that said what was wrong with the EIR, namely, cars, trucks, E1 Charro, operation of the gravel quarry, development of the surrounding areas, and airport noise. This document said Council has not done its work. The CalMat, Kaufman and Broad, and City of Pleasanton agreement has provisions that are not clear. He would like more information on the airport protection area. He said existing residents are complaining now. Why build more homes next to the airport? He said people will buy the houses, but the City would be inviting trouble if some of the concerns are not dealt with now. The General Plan is a comprehensive plan and needs to be addressed and assessed in that way. The Stoneridge Road/E1 Charro issue cannot just be removed from the General Plan. He asks why approve a project that cannot be included in a Growth Management scenario for years to come. He would like to direct staff to take the Cal Mat report and fill in the holes. Mr. Pico reiterated major concerns he had expressed at the last Council meeting. The issue of cut-through traffic has not been analyzed in respect to this project or other projects brought forth. The reason it was not looked at before was that it was not understood until the -- very end of the General Plan process that a significant flaw existed in the traffic modeling Pleasanton City Council 05/20/97 Minutes 16