CCMIN060882 - Laserfiche WebLink

119 Ms. Sharrell Michelotti, 7873 Olive Court, stated that Mr. Callahan has been most responsive to her concerns, but she still has reservations regarding the scope of the development. She stated she was opposed to Number 2 of the General Plan amendment regarding truck traffic routing. She asked that Las Positas Boulevard be reconsidered regarding the number of lanes and interchange. She stated she felt a citizens committee should be created to review the General Plan, to insure sensible growth with guidelines. Mr. Thomas J. Sullivan, 7860 Olive Court, stated he is concerned about the impact of growth and what it means to the balance of the community. He stated he also had concerns regarding air quality, size of the project, traffic circulation, job market, access to sports park, consequences of increased population, crime and stress, in- creased traffic accidents, loss of backyard use in surrounding areas, and choice to not live and work with the same people. He questioned the air quality model used in the Earthmetrics report, stating that it was not acceptable by ABAG and other agencies. He further addressed technical issues relating to air quality projections and recom- mended a monitoring/measurement program. Mr. Sullivan stated he felt this project has been rushed. He stated he supports Mr. Innes' concept of a citizens General Plan Re- view Committee as there is need for citizen input and a response to it. He urged Council to maintain a quality community. Mr. Jack Hovingh, 4250 Muirwood Drive, stated he was opposed to changing noise standards, asserting there are inconsistencies in the Negative Declaration study and the project Environmental Impact Report, and requested this change be reconsidered or a standard of 50 dB Ldn be adopted. He stated he has concerns regarding traffic, housing, energy consumption and economics, indicating that the park developments be "interruptible" energy consumers. Mr. Jim Caldwell, 7494 Palm Court, representing eight families on Palm Court, stated they were opposed to changes to the General Plan and any increase in noise and traffic. He stated the General Plan changes will effect the quality of all citizens in Pleasanton. He asked that this decision be left to the citizens by placing it on the November ballot for a voter concensus. He presented a petition signed by 119 residents, which read as follows: "I am strongly opposed to the actions taken by the Pleasanton Planning Commission in their meeting of May 19, 1982, regarding industrial developments in north Pleasanton despite significant adverse environ- mental impacts and General Plan changes without a citizens review." Mr. Caldwell stated that if this project is approved, construction should not be started until the Hacienda Drive interchange is built. He requested that the plans for the interchange at West Las Positas and 1-680 be cancelled and that West Las Positas be made four lanes. He urged Council not to make a decision on the project and to place it on the November ballot. Mr. Frank H. Harmon, 4372 Columbine Drive, speaking on behalf of Rick Sawicki, presented Mr. Sawicki's written statement stating he felt adequate notice had not been made available to the public regarding this matter. He stated there would be serious impacts on the people of Pleasanton relative to traffic, noise, and urbani- zation. He stated this project would create more jobs than people to fill them, and an excess of funds that could not be spent. He stated the project is in excess of what the community needs and would be grossly detrimental to the environment. He requested Council to do a further analysis of the possible alternative "trade- offs" to achieve balanced growth or hire a consultant to do this study. He stated he had concerns regarding traffic (suggesting LOS C as the standard), noise, size of development, air quality, Earthmetrics report, and interchange at West Las Posi- tas and 1-680. 11. 6/8/82