CCMIN110883 - Laserfiche WebLink

465 the intangibles. He stated he does not want Pleasanton to become a city of mitiga- tion measures, trying to cover up its mistakes; developing the sound wall as its new symbol. He urged a NO vote on the proposed general plan amendment. Mr. Jerry Goudreau, 5451 Corte Paloma, presented graphs showing Pleasanton pro- jections relative to population, working residents, and jobs; an analysis based on the environmental impact report and the Industrial General Plan review model. Mr. Robert Pearson, 3590 Church~.tl Court, stated he felt the proposed amendment is a drastic change in the general plan, which not only entails Hacienda but the other 22 projects in the North Pleasanton area. He stated that such a dramatic change would affect the lifestyle of the residents of Pleasanton. He stated he felt guarantees should be secured from agencies, consultants, and engineers who state there is ade- quate sewer capacity, no traffic problems, and that air quality will remain stable. He stated he did not feel this general plan amendment is necessary to approve Hacienda Business Park. Mr. Lee Henderson, 2870 Foothill Road, urged City Council to vote down the general plan amendment. He stated he has been involved with the general plan review from its inception and he is scared to death. He cited newspaper articles relative to un- balance and unclarification of the city goals. He stated that Pleasanton's attitude towards commercial growth should be clear. He urged Council to slow down, and not to approve the amendment until further review and input. Mr. Bruce Baker, 2398 Sandpiper Way, member of the General Plan Review Committee, presented what he felt were discrepancies in project figures in the various reports, particularly in the employment numbers. He stated that traffic is increasing and mitigation measures are not controlling it. Mr. Mark Wegrich, 4372 Pleasanton Avenue, expressed concern regarding the monitor'- ing of air quality, and he requested the City to contract an independent group to con- duct monitoring studies. He stated he felt that 39 net acres of commercial/financial development is too much for the City, and will be too competitive for the downtow~ businesses. Ms. Eunice Langendorff, 3188 Thistledown, asked questions about the widening of 1-580 and 1-680 when the improvements are made to the interchange, and well as widen- ing of Foothill Road and West Las Positas Boulevard. Her particular concern was for the safety of children attending Foothill High School and the elementary school on West Las Positas Boulevard. Staff advised that traffic mitigation measures will be monitored and enforced regarding the Hacienda Business Park. Ms. Beth ~qainwright, 955 L Street, Livermore, stated the project is of regional concern as it will affect the entire valley. She stated her particular concerns are about smog and air quality, as well as traffic on 1-580. Mr. Dave Pastor, 3613 Hawaii Court South, stated that HaciendaTs brochure states that the citizens have a voice in planning the business park but 25 buildings have already been approved. He stated he is concerned about the impact of this development and felt no more building should be allowed until the impacts of the present construc- tion have been determined. He added he felt approval of the general plan amendment and all other business park applications should be deferred until after receipt of the report from the General Plan Review Committee, which should be early in January 1984. Mr. Lee Larson, 5309 Elmridge Court, stated he is concerned about smog and traffic in the Valley Avenue area. He stated he felt this project should be carefully moni- tored for a two year period, and then shut down if it does not comply with all condi- tions set forth. 9. 11/8/83