CCMIN102682 - Laserfiche WebLink

157 Mr. Jack Taylor, 666 Orofino Court, stated he is not against the quality of living in Pleasanton but is opposed to this particular project because of traffic, sewer, high density, accessibility to public parks, school, influx of young families, reduced bussing, and inadequate school facilities. He stated that many problems need to be solved before allowing this type of development. Mrs. Nancy Storch, 3193 Chardonnay Drive, stated she opposes this project. She reviewed the density in the area and stated that this development makes changes in the basic profile of the neighborhood; with the balance going to condominiums and mobile homes creating an affordable housing neighborhood rather than having afford- able housing in the neighborhood. She added that there are better projects else- where and this project is not a good buy. Mr. Larry Lentz, 592 Tawny Drive, stated that based on what he has heard tonight he does not think there has been much planning done regarding this project, and he felt it should not be approved. Mr. Brian Hoyt, 546 Touriga Court, stated he did not feel that $60,000 for 700 sq. ft. of housing is affordable housing. He stated he resented the people coming from Morgan Hill.telling us nice things about their project when perhaps it is on a larger piece of land and with a different population usage. He urged Council not to approve the plan. Mr. James Griffin, 3036 Chardonnay, reviewed the basic changes made to the develop- ment plan as it has been reviewed by Council in the past year relative to street widen- ing, single-family homes changed to duplexes, open space, etc., but stated the project still does not fit the character of the neighborhood and he is very much opposed to the development. Mr. Steven Wechsler again addressed the Council relative to the negative declara- tion in that "no significant adverse public controversy" is checked NO, which he felt was not true. He also questioned the staff report regarding transportation being noted as insignificant. He stated he felt City CoUncil should reopen for further consideration the affordable housing competition decision because of possible mis- representation of facts and thus cause an Environmental Impact Report to be com- pleted before any decision to approve this project plan and before the necessary conditions are established, if Council should decide to approve the project after having twice denying it. Mr. Sieglitz, attorney for the applicant, rebutted the comments of the opponents by stating that Pleasanton needs affordable housing, and he asked Council not to delay a decision on this application. He stated the project meets all the require- ments as set forth by city ordinance and it would be inappropriate not to approve the project after having awarded it the affordable housing competition status. He added that any significant delay is the same as defeating the project which he felt was inappropriate. He urged Council to stand by their earlier approval of the pro- ject and to approve the plan tonight. He stated he did not mean any disrespect to Mr. Schneider. He stated that staff recommended approval of this project as set out in the staff report. He reviewed the traffic study that was conducted by Louis H. Larson, Inc., stating that Vineyard Avenue is only used to 62% capacity, and that remedial action is underway to relieve congestion on this street. Mr. Sieglitz cited Government Code Sections 65852.3 and 65008 relative to discrimination against affordable housing and/or manufactured housing. He stated it is also unlawful to unnecessarily delay a project without sufficient reason or to reject this project after giving it affordable housing status as it satisfies the community'!s require- ments under all of the applicable standards. Mr. Sieglitz presented a petition from the Hacienda Mobile Home Park residents association, signed by 44 residents of this park, which read as follows: 11. 10/26/82