PC 02/12/86 - Laserfiche WebLink

Minutes Planning Commission. 2/12/86 problems. He can't support development which will ultimately contribute to traffic going 35 miles per hour on local freeways. People will then be using major City arterials in lieu of freeways. In addition to the above, Mr. Tarver was concerned that the project was growth inducing, the noise levels would be increased and the air quality would suffer. There is already more revenue being generated in the City than one can spend. He would like to be sure the solutions to all problems were solved prior to granting approval of new development. Curt Altschul, 6024 Calle Altamira, felt the City no longer needs additional tax money. There is a housing shortage and the demands put on the freeway systems in the region are excessive. San Joaquin County is already complaining about their growth because of Pleasanton. The Final EIR assumed infill of the Tassajara Area for housing, but Contra Costa County indicates all of this property is dedicated to agriculture. Voters were lead to believe Phase II would be 10 years down the line. He felt approval of Phase II would mandate approval of the development proposed as Las Positas New Town. Walnut Creek people voted for limited growth because of overwhelming influx of development in the area and resulting traffic congestion. Sharon Sandeno, according to her 2440 additional generated. She accommodate the 3534 Glacier Court, Pleasanton, stated that calculations with the new Phase II development, participants in softball activities would be expressed concern with the lack of facilities to increase in demand. Joe Callahan, Callahan-Pentz, co-developer, responded to comments of the speakers. He indicated Pleasanton still has an out-commute of about 30% of its work force. Buildout in all local communities will be 8-10,000+ houses in the five communities over the next 20 years and this will allow the continuing maintenance of a balance in the Tri-valley area. He felt it is a little early to be predicting the actual jobs/housing balance. Regarding traffic, Mr. Callahan indicated that their traffic projections are extremely conservative. Walnut Creek/Concord increased their population without increasing one arterial, therefore, the voters were justified in halting development. In the Pleasanton/Dublin areas the same is not the case. Regarding recreation facilities, Mr. Callahan and the co-developers agree there is a need and they are trying to come up with a private solution. They are willing to pay their fair share of the expenditure, but feel they should not totally fund such facilities. Commissioner Innes asked about the developer's proposed Condition 28 regarding Parks and Recreation. Mr. Swift explained staff's intention with regard to this condition and stated staff does not agree with the developer's proposed condition. The developers wish to cooperate only if a solution regarding recreation facilities is resolved through participation of all of the employers in North Pleasanton. It may be too late to do this as Mozart, Meyer and others are already under development. Mr. - 3 - r._r