CCMIN060882 - Laserfiche WebLink

117 Ms. Alice Morrison, 3575 Chippendale Court, stated she was concerned about the size of the project, traffic, and air quality, and felt the Hacienda Drive inter- change should be approved first. She stated she was extremely concerned about air quality. Mr. Art Dunkley, 4672 Second Street, speaking on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber has worked along with an Economic Sub- committee for the last 15 years to get quality industrial development in the City of Pleasanton, and they heartily endorse and support the Hacienda Business Park. He stated it will create a fine atmosphere for jobs and will benefit the citizens of Pleasanton as well as the merchants. He stated he supports the minor General Plan changes and encourages a positive decision on this project. Ms. Shirley Spence, 6834 Garland Court, stated she concurred with speakers Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan, and was concerned about air quality and sewer capacity. Mr. John Innes spoke again, stating that Council has heard tonight the concerns of the community. He reiterated his suggestion made earlier in the evening to create a citizens General Plan Review Committee to get public input. He stated he would personally give Council his word of honor that he would initiate no legal action against this business park as it would be counterproductive. He concluded by stating there needs to be a productive method to answer the concerns of the community. Mr. Denny Pace, 6297 Garner Court, stated he felt no action should be taken on this item until after formation of a committee with the cities of Livermore and Dublin to study the planning of the entire Valley. He asked why the City of Pleasan- ton is in such a hurry to approve Hacienda Business Park. Ms. Dagmar Fulton addressed the Council again, stating she appreciated the con- cerns of the opponents but did not understand why they thought they were the total citizenry of Pleasanton; stating that those who favor the project have the same right to be heard. She stated that Pleasanton has an elected body capable of making decisions and who will take the concerns of the citizens into consideration. She urged Council to plan ahead, and to make their decision on the information they have and on behalf of the 37,000 residents of Pleasanton. Mr. Robert Pearson spoke again, stating that a General Plan review will be extremely beneficial to the community and he would be willing to devote his energy and expertise in that direction. Mr. Callahan rebutted the concerns of the opponents concerning the proposed General Plan amendments. He stated that he supports the following: number 2 should be eliminated or be revised to route truck traffic from Hopyard Road to Gibralter Drive; as for number 3, it is his personal opinion that West Las Positas west of Hopyard does not need to be any wider than 4 lanes with a two-lane overpass, and he doubted that an interchange would ever be required at 1-680 and West Las Positas, and suggested the amendment west of Hopyard on West Las Positas Boulevard be deleted until further study and until more development takes place at that location; as for number 5, he stated that with regard to howmany employees will be employed in the Hacienda Business Park and their housing needs, he did not think this could be determined at the present time but felt it would not exceed the maximum number that has been projected to date and could possibly be lower, with possibly only 45,000- 60,000 primary and secondary jobs created for all City projects. Mr. Callahan stated he supports a General Plan review for industrial land for the City as a whole. He stated there has been a great deal of planning and in-depth studies re- garding traffic and rbadways that needs to be analyzed and it is a positive thing to do. He stated he would support the study and was willing to provide front-money 12. 6/8/82