CCMIN110883 - Laserfiche WebLink

463 Mr. Curt Altschul, Citizens for Balanced Growth, stated the developer has glossed over the issues and true impacts. He asked Council to consider that this general plan amendment is not a complete presentation of the facts, especially the permanent im- pact of jobs on the city. He urged Council to reject the general plan amendment. Mr. David Eller, resident of Livermore, stated that many of the things in Pleasan- ton do affect Livermore. He stated that Las Positas New Town north of Livermore might possibly be approved because of the industrial growth in Pleasanton and the Bishop Ranch. He stated he is concerned about smog in the valley as a result of Hacienda Business Park. He urged Council to consider the effects of this project on the entire valley 20-30 years from now. Ms. Margaret Tracy, resident of Livermore, stated she is concerned about the un- certainties of the water supply and the lack of management planning for the ground- water. Mr. Mike Graziadei, 3955 Churchill Drive, stated the issue is whether or not amendment to the general plan should be approved thus allowing construction of 22 business parks, transforming our city from residential to the commercial hub of the East Bay. He stated that 60,000 jobs are too much for Pleasanton. He stated he is also concerned about commute traffic as many of the jobs will be filled by people living outside of the city. He stated he would like to see honesty as to what we will face in Pleasanton regarding industrial development; that other cities have had failures in commercial ventures. He asked Council to consider the drastic trans- formation to our City such as is being proposed this evening. He added that approval of the general plan amendment will encourage more residents to become involved in a referendum procedure. Councilmember Mercer cited several "Letters to the Editor" written by Mr. Graziadei which contained inaccuracies; and asked him where he obtained his information. Mr. Graziadei stated his information had been received from several sources which included a letter from the Bay Area Quality Control District. Mr. Ben Tarvet, 1144 Arak Court, stated his comments in opposition to this pro- ject are on record in the Planning Commission minutes. He stated he concurred wi~h speaker Robert Pearson regarding requiring guarantees from agencies, consultants, and engineers, that all services and mitigations measures will be met. He stated there needs to be better control on all projects, and occupancy of the buildings, before approving more permits. Mr. John Innes, 1586 Foothill Road, addressed the traffic condition associated with all business parks as it relates to LOS D and LOS E. He requested that the word "actual" be inserted before LOS D in condition 2. He asked Council to consider the purchase of software, which would provide automatic counts of all traffic inter- sections connected to the traffic computer. Mr. Cal!ahan advised he is agreeable to inserting the word "actual" in condition 2. Ms. SharPell Michelotti, 7873 Olive Court, stated she concurred with the remarks of Mr. Innes. She stated she felt Council has demonstrated good faith. She stated she had entered the General Plan Review because of her many concerns; she commended the members of the General Plan Review Committee for their concerns and efforts. Mayor Butler recessed the meeting at 11:40 P.M. Mayor Butler reconvened the meeting at 11:50 P.M. The following persons representing Prudential Insurance Company and Callahan- Pentz Properties rebutted the comments of the opponents; 10. 11/8/83