CCMIN060882 - Laserfiche WebLink

127 is a good development with a developer who can do the project well. He stated the problems are no different than those in the past, only on a larger scale because the City is larger. He stated this is a great opportunity for the City to progress according to its plan as it supports the intention of the General Plan. He urged approval tonight of the North Pleasanton plan. Mr. Hal Lohmann, 3862 Pimlico Drive, stated he has been a resident of Pleasanton since 1966 and a member of the Chamber of Commerce Industrial Committee for six years. He stated the Industrial Committee had dreamed and planned and worked to determine how to develop the North Pleasanton area but couldnt because of insufficient sewer capacity. After the sewer problem was solved the Committee started contacting deve- lopers. Then Prudential came with their plan, which was everything the Committee had hoped to find, and was done without a lot of effort on the part of the Industrial Committee. He stated that some people will oppose the plan but he has never seen a better planned development than the Hacienda Business Park, and he has been in the construction business since 1951. He stated this project fits the motto of "City of Planned Progress". Mr. David J. Whalen, 3162 Lansdown Court, speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Livermore-Amador Valley, stated he concurred with the suggestion of Mr. Innes for a citizens General Plan Review Committee to study industrial development in Pleasanton. He presented a report of the League of Women Voters stating that with regard to Volume 1 of the Environmental Impact Report, it indicated that the impact of this development on housing in the Valley was so significant that "local policies, both in Pleasanton and neighboring communities...would have to change". He offered the following three points: (1) if the Hacienda project and the other proposals are approved, the League urges a continuing review of Pleasanton's General Plan; (2) urges the City to coordinate with the other Valley cities and with Alameda County to develop a valley-wide perspective on housing needs and related concerns, these to include open space, water, waste, transportation and regional tax share, and the League of Women Voters support joint powers agreements within the Valley for coordi- nated planning so that development would be orderly and serviced by the established cities; and (3) in these planning processes, this group believes that extensive citizen involvement is essential. Mr. Whalen stated the League of Women Voters supports the Hacienda Business Park project. Ms. Bev Davis, 1423 Harvest Road, presented a petition to Council, signed by 207 residents in support of the project, which read as follows: "We the undersigned support the goals of Pleasanton's general plan for quality commercial development in North Pleasanton. "We also support the minor general plan changes proposed to accommodate Hacienda Business Park because they are consistent with the spirit and major goals of the General Plan as it was designed by citizen review committees over the past three decades. We further commend the Plan- ning Commission, City Council and City staff for their long hours of study, and discussion to make Pleasanton's planning process effective." Mr. George Severe, 4627 Cope Court, stated he has been in the building industry for a number of years and had some concerns regarding traffic and noise but with tighter controls, the end product will be good. Ms. Dagmar Fulton, 4536 Miradot Drive, stated she has lived in Pleasanton all of her life, that her father was a member of the City Council and Mayor for many years and that her brother also served on the Council. She stated the family has always been community minded, and did not have a "no growth" attitude. She stated 7. 6/8/82