CCMIN102682 - Laserfiche WebLink

159 Mr. David Ash, 615 Orofino Court, asked why all projects were not considered again at the time of reconsideration of the Quail Creek Project. He stated he is concerned about statements being made that he is opposed to affordable housing; he stated he is not against affordable housing but is opposed to this project because of density, location, traffic congestion, and open space. Mr. Ash read a letter from Jack Keegan, Chairperson of the Park and Recreation Commission, dated June 12, 1981, reviewing the need for more open space in Vintage Hills. He stated he did not feel that the Pico Avenue extension would alleviate the traffic concerns. Mr. Ash questioned the Environmental Impact Report relative to "no public controversy" being checked NO, stating that there has been much public controversy by way of petitions, public input at Planning Commission and City Council meetings, and letters to Coun- cilmembers. He suggested that Pico Avenue be completed and reviewed to determine if traffic problems will be taken care of by these improvements before allowing any additional construction in the area. Mr. Ash stated the Morgan Hill project could not be compared to the proposed project in Pleasanton because of size, and because that project is adult only tenants. He urged that the Quail Creek project be denied. Mrs. Carol Hall, 568 Tawny Drive, stated she felt there was a lack of interest on the part of the Planning Commission regarding this matter. She stated she moved here from San Jose and had lived in affordable housing. She stated that families with children cause problems in this type of housing, mor so than senior citizens or young married couples. She advised that homeowners associations cannot control what individuals do in such complexes.. She expressed concern that the project would become a slum, that there would be rental units later on, there would be too many children, and there would be increased traffic problems. She stated she is not against affordable housing but feels it cannot be supported in this area, and that adequate facilities should be available before allowing more housing. Mr. Mike Storrs, 3213 Tawny Drive, asked if Councilmembers changed their vote on this project because it was awarded affordable housing competition status. Council- member Wood stated that he looked at the project more favorably in light of the policy established by the affordable housing competition. Mr. Tom Cunningham, 3556 Tourig~ Drive, stated the term "affordable housing" is a hoax, as the first 25 units of this project will have a unit price of approximately $59,000 and from then on it will be whatever the developer's costs are. He stated he did not feel the units are large enough, and that there will be parking problems. He was concerned about acequate schooling, adequate fire service, traffic problems and street improvements. Mr. Cunningham stated he had doubts about the developer. Mr. Ron Davis, 3126 Touriga Drive, stated he was not against affordable housing even in his back yard, but is.concerned about traffic on Vineyard Avenue, and felt Council's first obligation is to solve this problem before compounding it with more development. Mr. Charles Busso, resident of the Hacienda Mobile Home Park, stated it is his opinion that the City of Pleasanton, and this site in particular, deserves something better than what Ed Parish is proposing. Mr. Steve Butterfield, 3217 Burgundy, stated he is in favor of affordable hous- ing but is opposed to this project because of what it will look like in twenty years from now. He stated that Council turned down a Hindu Temple proposed on Vineyard Avenue because of inadequate sewage capacity and traffic, and he felt this project should be in [he same category. He advised there are six empty parcels of land in the vicinity of the proposed project, and if this project is approved he is concerned that the vacant property will be developed in the same manner. Mr. Butterfield urged a No vote on this project for these reasons. 10. 10/26/82