CCMIN060882 - Laserfiche WebLink

125 the General Plan has to be flexible because no one can foresee what changes will take place over the years, both economically and physically. She stated she favors the project because it will create jobs, be the most productive land use, and in- crease the tax base. She stated that Hacienda Business Park is well planned and she urged Council to approve it, and without unreasonable conditions. She stated she was opposed to yet another citizens committee to review the General Plan, and asked how it would be determined who would be on this committee as everyone wants to be on it. She stated that Pleasanton has a good City Council, Planning Commis- sion, and City staff who are capable of making intelligent decisions, and that all applications for development are considered by Planning Commission and City Council in public hearings at which time the public is allowed input on each proposed pro- ject. She urged immediate approval of the Hacienda Business Park. Mr. Jim Dahl, 5327 Blackbird, stated he has lived in Pleasanton since 1965, and that he likes living here. He stated the City has maintained its high quality of planning through the efforts of former and present Planning Commissions, City Coun- cils, and City staff. Having commuted to Oakland for many years before taking his present job in the Valley, he could attest to the value of local jobs. He stated this project will allow people to live and work in Pleasanton, thereby creating a better life style. He stated that Hacienda Business Park is the best project he has seen and he strongly urged approval of the development as presented tonight. Ms. Judith Mayhew, 5584 San Jose Drive, speaking as a homeowner and downtown merchant, stated this is a high quality project and will have a positive effect on Pleasanton, and she urged approval of the development.- Mr. Terry Roberrs, 7273 Tulipwood Circle, stated he is in favor of the project but had some overall concerns about the size of the project. He questioned the pos- sible job figures listed in the staff report as well as population numbers. He stated he had concerns about sewer capacity and what will happen at total build-out of the project. He encouraged Council to give consideration as to how these problems will be solved and who will solve them. He stated he favors a citizens General Plan Review Committee as suggested by Mr. Innes. Mr. Robert M. Pearson, 3590 Churchill Court, stated he has been active in City government since 1968. He stated this is an outstanding project with outstanding people behind it. He stated he has some concerns regarding the General Plan and felt this is a good time to review it, as suggested by Mr. Innes, and it will give a mechanism for public interaction which they so desperately need. He stated it will not be easy but will be a positive step forward in the need for public dialogue. He strongly urged Council to consider creating a citizens General Plan Review Com- mittee. Mr. Pearson concluded by stating he supports the project as presented. Mr. Paul Ebright, 5416 Blackbird Drive, stated that based upon the facts presented by Mr. Innes and the presentation made by Mr. Callahan, he felt this project is very high caliber. He stated he agrees with Mr. Innes in that there should be restrictions on the project. He expressed concern regarding sewer capacity. He stated there should be a General Plan change to allow for a balanced community, and that all in- terested persons should be allowed to serve on a review committee; people are en- titled to say how Pleasanton develops. He recommended approval of the project with restrictions. He felt item 5 of the General Plan amendment relating to balance should be deleted. Mr. John R. Stevens, 4467 Second Street, stated he felt item 5 of the General Plan amendment should be deleted because the long range impacts of the project cannot be determined at this time. He stated the fiscal impacts are also difficult to deter- mine at this time but that his review of the reports indicated they were "best case" 8. 6/8/82