PC 092315 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Rosenbaum stated that the area definitely needed a reinvestment, which is essentially the purpose behind this specific plan for this area, which was caught between the General Plans. He indicated that they very much welcome the effort and the time staff has put into getting the process to this point, and look forward to working with everyone as this process continues. Doug Giffin, Chamberlin Associates, stated that they are a local commercial developer, owner, and active members of the Pleasanton community. He indicated that they own the Federal Express facility on Johnson Drive, as well as Arbor complex on West Las Positas Boulevard. He added that he is also a Pleasanton resident. Mr. Giffin stated that the FedEx property is included in the EDZ. He added that the facility was built 17 years ago, and they are proud of the quality of the building and the design they came up with in collaboration with the City of Pleasanton. He noted that FedEx likes to say that it is the Taj Mahal of their buildings. He indicated that its location at the intersection of 1 -580 and 1 -680 provides a critical facility as well as a great late -night shipping options for the residents of Pleasanton and local businesses. Mr. Giffin stated that they support the EDZ with two primary conditions: first, that the currently permitted industrial uses be left as permitted uses; and second, that traffic on Johnson Drive and at the intersection of Stoneridge and Johnson Drives does not deteriorate to a point where it impacts FedEx operations. He indicated that they have shared these use concerns with City staff on multiple occasions, including an owner's meeting prior to the issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR, and at that time they were told that allowing industrial uses to remain permitted is workable. He noted, however, that the project removes industrial uses and would leave FedEx as a non - conforming use which is not acceptable. He requested that the industrial uses remain permitted and that this be addressed in the Draft Supplemental EIR. He indicated that they provided a written comment letter to the NOP during the comment period, but it was not included in the Draft Supplemental EIR or the staff report. Mr. Giffin stated that he forwarded the Draft Supplemental EIR to their attorney for review, and they had a number of significant concerns about the study: 1. By excluding industrial uses from the list of permitted uses, the project is inconsistent with the General Plan's requirement to limit the conversion of sparse industrial space to non - industrial uses. 2. The Draft Supplemental EIR fails to evaluate the project's potential to cause urban decay. The project's industrial uses are non - conforming and thus unable to grow or evolve. The addition of significant traffic would impair the viability of existing industrial uses, making them likely to relocate the two buildings. Market conditions could easily not support redevelopment at that point or for quite some time. These impacts on ongoing industrial uses must be analyzed in the Draft Supplemental EIR. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 23, 2015 Page 5 of 19