CCMIN072683 - Laserfiche WebLink

123 Mr. Phillip Baker, 6206 Paseo Santa Cruz, operator of a business in Livermore but residing in Pleasanton, stated he is concerned about traffic and the types of businesses that will be using the buildings. He urged Council to take a careful look at what will occur in Pleasanton in the future. There being no further testimony, Mayor Butler declared the public hearing closed on the application and the negative declaration. Mr. MacDonald made three points. First, he responded to Mr. Ebright's question which was "What is the rush?" Mr. MacDonald stated that the City cannot approve any project unless that project is consistent with the general plan. The courts have held that a city cannot make the finding of general plan consistency unless that city has a legally adequate general plan. The court in the Twain Harte case concluded that any general plan which does not include numerical standards for population density and building intensity for general plan parcels within lands covered by the general plan is not a legally adequate general plan. The City has no choice but to comply with that legal mandate. Mr. MacDonald further stated that California general plan statutes permit only three amendments per year to the land use element. He stated that if the City does not make this amendment to the general plan now, any project approved by the City between now and December would be subject to legal challenge. Mr. MacDonald stated that his second point was related to environmental concerns which were raised at the hearing. The numbers used in the proposed general plan amend- ment merely permit what is currently permitted under the general plan and zoning ordi- nances of this City. The environmental impacts of adopting the proposed standards are exactly identical with the environmental impacts of postponing the adoption of these standards. Mr. MacDonald stated his third point that the result when the City Council post- poned amendments to the balanced growth goal of the general plan on June 8, 1982, at the request of Paul Ebright, Bob Pearson, and others, that didn't prevent another group named Citizens for Balanced Growth from getting the decision to approve Hacienda Business Park overturned because that amendment had been postponed. Mr. MacDonald asked Mr. Altschul to come to the mike. Mr. MacDonald asked if Mr. Altschul was willing to stipulate in writing on behalf of the Citizens for Balanced Growth that no question about the legal adequacy of the City of Pleasanton General Plan, other than with respect to the growth management element, would be raised when the reapproval of Hacienda Business Park goes back to court. Mr. Altschul answered that he thought not but that he couldn't guarantee it. Mr. MacDonald asked if that meant that Citizens for Balanced Growth would not give up the right to go into court and contend that the City has a legally inadequate general plan because the City didn't adopt the Twain Harte amendment. Mr. Altschul responded that he couldn't guarantee anything. Mr. A!tschul pointed out that in view of the fact that the City has com- missioned a general plan review it would be very inconsistent for a judge to rule against the city since the city is working toward the goal of a general plan change which would probably incorporate the Twain Harte amendment. Councilmember Mercer objected to the questioning of Mr. Altschul by Mr. MacDonald, stating he felt it was out of order. Mr. MacDonald replied that the questions were asked in the hope that, having asked the Council to withdraw from taking action, that perhaps Mr. Altschul was willing to make a commitment. Mr. Harris assured Council that this amendment created no substantial changes to the development proposals. 11. 7/26/83