CCMIN060882 - Laserfiche WebLink

121 Ms. Kathy Holbrook, 6104 Crater Lake Court, stated she had concerns about noise levels associated with this project. She stated she lives close to Hopyard Road and is already adversely impacted by noise, vibration, and smog, which affect her life style. She urged Council to require that some of this project be allocated to hous- ing, saying that the developer has an obligation to provide apartments, and for parks to be used for activities other than sports. She stated she is not against the pro- ject but felt it should be scaled down; that as it is presented now it is too big for Pleasanton. Mr. Lee Henderson, 2870 Foothill Road, stated he felt this project more right- fully belongs in Fremont or some other bay area town. He stated he is against the project as it is presented. He stated he supports Mr. Innes~ request for a citizens General Plan Review Committee. He stated Pleasanton needs to coordinate with all surrounding cities regarding the impacts of this development. He said a "panhandle" buffer along Hopyard Road made sense and he felt the Indian areas should be preserved. Mr. Henderson stated he felt that approval of the business park will create many pro- blems in the Valley, but with various conditions it is possible he could live with it. Mr. Gerald Goudreau, 5451 Corte Paloma, stated he felt there should be a General Plan review to look at full build-out of this project and all other industrial development in North Pleasanton. He stated he was not opposed to construction of Phase 1 of the Hacienda Business Park but that further study should be done before additional development is allowed. He stated the project goes against the balance of Pleasanton and Livermore. He urged that population growth be kept within a rea- sonable level and also to keep industrial development within balance. He noted the potential job figures contained in the Environmental Impact Report indicate enough jobs for a "balanced" community by 1996 without Hacienda Business Park if other approved parks develop. Mr. Curt Altschul, 6324 Calle Altamira, resident of Pleasanton for ten years, stated he felt the City is being wooed by big bucks. He stated there needed to be further study to see if this business park is needed and what effect it will have on the environment, especially air quality and increased traffic. He urged dis- approval of the development. Mr. David Eller, resident of Livermore, stated that this project will have the same impacts on the City of Livermore as it will have on Pleasanton. He stated there would be pressure for increased housing, elimination of agricultural lands, and increased smog and traffic. Mr. Eller stated he favored slow gradual growth that does not ruin an area or adversely affect people. He stated the Livermore- Amador Valley is unique and should not be over-developed. He urged a review of the General Plan, and felt that no development should be allowed beyond the 300,000 gallon capacity now available for industrial/commercial. Mrs. Jacqueline Sullivan, 7860 Olive Court, stated she had concerns regarding the scope of the North Pleasanton development and changes to the General Plan necessitated by this application, which will change the life style of the residents of Pleasanton. She stated she also had concerns about housing capacity, noise, traffic, air quality, and sewer and utility capacity. She felt Caltrans' comments were not properly responded to. She stated she felt the Hacienda Drive Interchange should be completed before the project is built. Mrs. Sullivan stated there are inconsistencies between the Environmental Impact Report and staff conditions rela- tive to traffic LOS figures and also relative to public controversy for the General Plan Negative Declarations. She asked how the 107 conditions would be upheld in their entirety and who would enforce them. She requested that construction of the project be delayed until further air pollution studies can be completed and a review done on the General Plan. 10. 6/8/82