PC 09/09/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Mahern stated that this decision was a hard one for h r to make, as she had been an avid proponent of Hacienda Business Park coming into the ity. She had campaigned vigorously for Hacienda at that time; the surrounding r sidents were told certain things at that time that she felt should not be changed at this point. She was opposed to any change in regard to Site 14a and did not think Prudential needed tha kind of use. She did not think that Hacienda or Pleasanton needed another shopping cen r. She also did not like the idea of a 28-year Development Agreement, and had the same co cerns about the Wells Fargo agreement. She noted that the Planning Commission had vo against the Wells Fargo agreement. Commissioner McGuirk expressed concern with the 28-year length f the Development Agreement. He felt this was too much like an open agreement for hatever might happen in Hacienda Business Park; he knew there would be more excess traffi coming that is not generated by Hacienda Business Park, but he felt the citizens of PI santon will have to live with it, and was not sure what they are going to do about it. He ex ressed concern that they might be letting go of some future traffic control by approving the a reement. He also felt if Lucky leaves the shopping center that the other stores would probab y leave, too. He concluded that he could not support the application primarily becau of the length of the Development Agreement. -- Commissioner Finch stated that there is only a portion of the appli ion that he cannot support and that is Condition 5. He felt that Hacienda Business Par has helped Pleasanton immensely and applauded them. However, he felt there are drawba ks involved. He reiterated that he supported the entire application except for the chan e to Site 14a which is addressed in Condition 5. Chairman Hovingh felt that Hacienda Business Park and NPID have ived up to their agreements over the years. He thought that paying for a fire station, ladder truck, etc. was achieved through that development. He felt that Hacienda Business ark has done a lot for the City and cited the new library that was partially funded by the es tax generated by Hacienda. He stated that he supported the entire application except r Condition 5 and any change to Site 14a. He stated that he felt empathy for the smaller b sinessmen in Val Vista and knew that big business is not always kind to small businesses. A motion was made by Commissioner Wright, seconded by Co . ioner McGuirk recommending approval oC the Negative Declaration with the fm ' g oC De Minimus Cor Case PUD-81-30-26M/PUD-85-8-8M finding that the project does at have a potential for any significant adverse environmental impacts. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Commissioners Finch, Mahern, McGuirk, Wright, an Chairman Hovingh NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michelotti ABSTAIN: None ~ Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1992 Page 9