CCMIN092193 - Laserfiche WebLink

45 Scott Hale, 5983 Via de Cielo, supported the project for reasons of the affordable housing which will attract employers. Elaina Monahan, Bissell & Karn/Greiner, agreed with prior comments regarding the need for housing for employees. Leisa Thomas, 8015C Mountain Ridge Drive, supported this project. Dennis Powers, 3164 Julian Circle, lives near the Verona project and indicated Signature is a good developer. He also supported the proposed sports park and felt this was an excellent location. He urged Council to get the land while it can and worry about funding improvements hter, perhaps with a bond issue. Sharrell Michelotti, 7873 Olive Court, expressed her strong support for a sports park in Robert M. Pearson, 3590 Churchill Court, was opposed to this development. He felt there were too many units on the site and did not believe the infrastructure would support the development. He urged Council to fmalize negotiations for the sports park prior to approval of the development. He did not believe the housing will be affordable and would not bring business to California. Mr. Pearson also expressed his opposition to the BART extension. In summary, he urged Council to eliminate Phase I and II of the Robertson Homes project; develop this project at eight units per acre only; and negotiate for the park before approving the project. Paul Ebright, 5416 Blackbird Drive, indicated he disagreed with the stated percentage of people who live and work in Pleasanton. He also believed that we need to see the impacts of what is already approved before approving more development. With regard to a sports park, he suggest putting a golf course in the area. Angelina Summers, 4750 Sutter Gate Avenue, complained about traffic on Stoneridge Drive and cut-through traffic. She does not like residential development in the Business Park, claiming this will require lower speed limits and will make it unsafe for pedestrians and pets. She asked about the location of a future school. She didn't think Bishop Ranch was trying to get housing in its business park. She was also opposed to the affordable housing and the site of the proposed park. She asked about potenth~l parking for the park. Mavonne Garrity, 1870 Tanglewood, did not believe Pleasanton needed this housing project. She also felt Prudential should pay for the park. Mr. Ghielmetti reviewed the proposed housing prices and the occupancy. He indicated that, in fact, Bishop Ranch is looking at residential development. He reiterated Signature's willingness to work with the Council and the community. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. 09/21/93 15