01 - Laserfiche WebLink

why the Council would approve something it has no information on and asked the Council to do its job of representing the community. Shirish Patil supported the opinions already expressed. He stressed the need for an impact analysis and community involvement via a task force before any decisions are made. Jim McGovern said he has heard and continues to hear a genuine and heartfelt request from residents of the Hacienda Business Park community to be an active and legitimate voice in a deliberative decision making process. He and his neighbors are concerned by the seeming rush to judgment on this rezoning plan without the process that was discussed in August 2008. The public cares about what happens in and around this community and that while there is now a better understanding of how this relates to the General Plan process, there continues to be legitimate questions and concerns surrounding the potential for increased financial liabilities and general risk. He requested current, thorough, and well presented, specific data on the impacts to the community as a whole. He said that the public also has the right to know who compiles these reports and the exact timeline and location of study. He disagreed with staff's conclusion regarding the remarkable suitability of the three sites and said he is astonished that only 11% of Pleasanton residents use BART for work related transit. He asked that these studies assess the impacts on the already burdened school system and noted that no school, with the possible exception of Hart Middle School, is within walking distance of the proposed sites. He acknowledged the City's need for state compliance regarding housing mandates but said that significant progress has already been made. At last week's meeting, he learned that the new Stoneridge Mall /BART station rezoning brought the City into 40% compliance with these needs and requested corroboration of that information. He asked the Council to give the public an opportunity for full engagement before any vote is taken. Jim Painter said he both lives and works at the business park, disagrees with what sounds like an attempt to limit the number of homes constructed by developing a massive number of apartments in the park and suggested that park owners, rather than requesting a zoning change in order to develop there, examine the way that it currently does business. He said it is nearly twice as expensive to do business at Hacienda as elsewhere in the City and also noted that his Pleasanton business license costs eight times more than the one he maintains in Dublin. He would like to see this park be what it was meant to be in the first place, which is business friendly. Steve Bursley, Valencia at Hacienda Homeowners' Association, said his primary concern as a resident and board member relates to the financial impacts that this decision could have on the association's encumbering agreement with park owners. He explained that under this agreement, the HOA is assessed for the management, maintenance, and services related to business park operations that support the interests of commercial tenants and owners of Hacienda Business Park. He noted that this assessment does not cover any expenses related to HOA streets, common grounds, or infrastructure. He said that in Fiscal Year, the HOA was responsible for nearly 4% of the total business park budget of more than $2.3 million. He said he also has concerns regarding anticipated impacts on the immediate neighborhood and entire community, as related to the lack of formal studies in the area of traffic, schools, and safety. He noted that the staff report identified a resulting shortage of approximately one acre of neighborhood park capacity. He said that current budget issues and the recent failure of proposed Measure G would make it seem premature to consider moving forward with any rezoning decisions. He reminded the Council of its promise for a task force and questioned how the Planning Commission could approve the proposal in the face of unanimous public opposition. He acknowledged the pending litigation and suggested that the Council consider, in City Council Minutes Page 11 of 25 October 20, 2009