PC 10/26/83 - Laserfiche WebLink

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/83 Page 11 that since the general plan amendment was a serious issue, it be put before a vote of the people. Curt Altschul, represented the Citizens for Balanced Growth (CBG). He commented to the responses made in the Final EIR concerning water and balanced growth, finding them inadequately explored, especially funding aspects. He felt that the water issue has never been adequately quantified or the sources of water identified. He said the EIR assumes recharge which may not be the case. Concerning balanced growth the EIR assumes that all of the residentially zoned land to be built out. He said the EIR analysis assures permanent imbalance of housing. He felt the result would be similar to Santa Clara with an imbalance of land uses. He addressed air quality. He said the EIR showed concentrations of the federal limits. He said the traffic congestion described in the EIR is greater than used in the air quality analysis. He felt that Hopyard Road and Santa Rita Road would be similar to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard at Dougherty Road and other areas of that town. He said our area is growing faster than any other place in California and that if there are any questions concerning the jeopardy of health and environment the City should be conservative. Alan Winslow, 28 Castlewood Drive, stated he is on the general plan review committee for the City. He felt the general plan amendment as proposed would present a permanent imbalance to the City and suggested the Hacineda Business Park project be scaled down by one-third. He also indicated there may be considerable uncertainty in the fiscal benefit numbers. Chairman Jamieson felt it should be clear for the record that the speaker does not represent the general plan review committee at this hearing. Mr. Winslow stated that this is correct. Bruce Baker, 2398 Sandpiper Way, asked if the opponents would also have a chance to rebut. Chairman Jamieson said they would. Mr. Baker then addressed traffic concerns interchange completions, bus systems, BART, carpools and other mitigations being in place in time to mitigate traffic concerns. He said if these items are not in place when needed, then the mitigations are out the window. Louis Mangum, 875 Sylvaner, addressed the general plan amendment. He said Pleasanton is a city of planned progress and since the proposed general plan amendment effects the entire City not just the business park, the Commission should not decide on the issue but rather refer it to the vote rs. He didn't think the Planning Commission should take a definitive decision on this matter. Bob Pearson, 3590 Churchill Court, said he would not reiterate Mr. Mangum's statements but supported them totally. He felt the general plan amendment issue should have been addressed first and separately. He stated that while in southern California last year he saw beautiful industrial park buildings but that the smog was so great you couldn't see the top of them. He addressed noise concerns and that something should be done concerning sound mitigation for the homes on Santa Rita Rod which have not already been taken care of. He didn't like warehousing to be operated in back of the condominiums on the side of Santa Rita Roads because of