CCMIN030486 - Laserfiche WebLink

he requested Hacienda Phase II approval and the general plan amendment be set aside until the need is shown for Phase II. Mr. Mark Wegrich, 4372 Pleasanton, Avenue, stated Council has a great op- portunity to get a better project; he felt there was a lot of room for im- provement in Phase II and that the people of Pleasanton deserves some voice in those plans. He stated he also felt there is a serious need for a profes- sional architectural design review board. Ms. Emily Carson, 2574 Skimmer Court, urged Council not to make a decision tonight. She stated that Phase I and other business parks are still under construction and none are fully occupied. She expressed concern regarding traffic and stated that all street improvements should be completed before Phase II is contemplated. Mr. Brian Benda, 4820 Smith Gate Court, discussed how to best minimize the adverse effects that the project will have on the City. The Environmental Monitoring Committee is one way. In reviewing the Environmental Impact Re- port, it is clear that other agencies have concerns about traffic. He cau- tioned Council to be aware of the traffic impacts and the methods that will be used to mitigate these problems and pass judgement in a consistent manner and in a manner that will benefit the residents of the City of Pleasanton. Mr. Joe Callahan rebutted the opponents of the project by stating the EIR includes all the boundary lands of Pleasanton that is currently built on or is vacant and it includes it in light of each and every independent zoning desig- nation now and in the future. CEQA requires looking at a worst case scenario for build out; no one knows when that will occur. In Phase I EIR which was first published in early 1982, Phase II was contemplated in its entirety with exactly the same building footage as is being proposed in this application. Further, all then unbuilt on or unapproved industrial and office lands throughout the City were also included in Phase I EIR. Today there is con- siderable difference in the City of Pleasanton and there is a great deal more knowledge of land uses. All of those things have been considered. He stated he felt every aspect has been covered in its worst case scenario, not only in Pleasanton but throughout the Valley area. He reviewed traffic statistics and stated the Pleasanton is the only City in the area with a TSM ordinance which aids in controlling traffic. He stated that when additional traffic signals and traffic counters are in place this will further alleviate the traffic problems. Impacts from future development will have to be considered at the time that plans are presented. He stated he felt it is important to note that Dublin has recently adopted Dougherty Road as a 6-lane expressway north and acquired right-of-way on the eastern side of the railroad and Dublin Boulevard. He reviewed other Valley street improvements which will benefit the entire area. So to say that Hacienda is using mitigation measure that are hypothetical and unlikely to be built is somewhat to ignore the logical development process of land. Mr. Callahan stated with regard to jobs in Pleasanton, Hacienda Business Owners Association conducted a survey of employees in Hacienda Business Park as part of the City's TSM requirements. In 1984 there were approximately 2,000 employees occupied in Hacienda Business Park, with 1,600 response. In 1985 there were approximately 4,200 employees with 3,800 responses. In 1984 5% of those who responded lived within ten minutes of Hacienda Business Park; in 1985, 53% lived within this distance. This indicates there is diverse housing available in Pleasanton. He challenged the concept that housing is 3-4-86 - 11