CCMIN030486 - Laserfiche WebLink

position to comment on it. He stated he tried to go through those agencies that had expertise and look at their comments and say "what do I think about this project, does it should like it is right for Plesanton". He stated his intent is, even tho people call him "no-growther", that the intention is a good one. Basically to recap the issues that are contained in the EIR that he did not feel are properly addressed are traffic congestion; housing shortage, water shortage, sewer issue, recreational services, and impact on schools. He stated that if Pleasanton's sphere of influence is expanded it will bring more people into the Valley to fill the jobs at Hacienda Business Park, and even with that all the jobs will not be filled. At this point in time he feels there is a lack of any specific need for this project. He understands that Callahan Pentz has a great deal invested in this project and that the long range plan to attract tenants is important and that approval is necessary to accomplish this but he did not feel it is in the best interests of Pleasanton. There are already more jobs available than people to fill them, and revenues have accumulated. He added there is a high rate of vacancy in the buildings. He recommended that Council deny the project at this time and resubmit it when a total general plan revision is complete, which consolidates both commercial and residential elements together into a comprehensive plan. After hearing of the County's plan to get a Tri-Valley Regional Planning session together to determine whether general plans work together cohesively to come up with a good plan for the Valley, he suggest Council wait for that. Mr. Tarver asked Council to refer this issue to the voters once again. It would not cost the City very much and would give Council the entire community's reaction to Phase II. It would allow residents to hear both sides of the issue and make their .own decision, and would demonstrate Council's desire to consider the feelings of t~he voters. Mr. Curt Altschul, 6324 Calle Altamira, stated the benefits of Phase I are short sited, and he did not feel Phase II is needed. The City is currently in a good financial situation, Phase II will not benefit the City that much more, therefore approval will only benefit the developer. When looking at the comments in the EIR, governmental agencies who would receive no benefit from Phase II have only condemnation for Phase II due to its unmitigatible impacts. The developer does not address these concerns. Some of the problems cannot be mitigated. The developer stated Phase II is needed because of economic rea- sons; but the developer had no guarantee that Phase II would be approved. Ap- proval of even a portion of Phase II is a full commitment to the land for all lifetimes to come. He suggested putting all the 7.3 million development into Phase I and use Phase II land for something more beneficial. He stated that benefits to residents from Phase II are non-existing. He asked this issue be taken to the voters. Mrs. Mary Switzer, 4845 Funston Gate Court, asked when other developers intend to develop their property in other sections of the City. She felt that any additional development will adversely impact traffic and cause real prob- lems. Mayor Brandes advised that public hearings will be scheduled when any plans are presented by a developer and at that time the public may comment on them. Mr. Dave Pastor, 3613 Hawaii Court South, expressed concern regarding traffic. He stated that present freeways will be incapable of handling traf- fic flows and that funding for additional road improvements is doubtful. He felt the traffic flows presented in the EIR are optimistic. With all traffic studies taken into consideration and space now available in Hacienda Phase I, 3-4-86 - 10-