CCMIN060882 - Laserfiche WebLink

123 analysis. He stated he is in favor of the project up to what 300,000 gallons sewer capacity can handle. He stated he is not in favor of ultimate build-out due to the projectis effect on the "balanced community" goal, and that more citizen input is needed. Mr. Harvey E. Levine, 1296 Vintner Way, stated this is a phenomenal project and a great opportunity for the City of Pleasanton that many other cities in the Bay Area would like to have. He stated there will be serious impacts from this develop- ment, some are negative but can be mitigated. He commended the developer for his enthusiasm and willingness to mitigate all adverse impacts associated with the pro- ject. He praised City staff for their foresight regarding conditions and their efforts in dealing with problems as they arise relating to this project. He urged Council and the community not to be overly concerned with every issue and how it can be solved today, but to make their decision on the information at hand now and to work out problems as is necessary. Mr. Levine strongly endorsed approval of the Hacienda Business Park. Mayor Butler recessed the meeting at 9:50 P.M. Mayor Butler reconvened the meeting at 10:00 P.M. Mr. Wayne Roberson, 2122 Emetic Avenue, San Pablo, representing the Native Ameri- can Heritage Preservation Project, requested that further archaeological studies be conducted before any earth is moved to determine the exact extent of the Indian "holy places" which must be preserved. He also asked that an Indian Interpretative Center be considered to be placed in the business park, preserving 1500 years of Pleasanton heritage. Mr. Roberson stated he is opposed to any development that will disturb Indian holy places, especially in the area of site Alameda 413. He asked that "test units" be made of this site, the most significant site uncovered in Northern Cali- fornia and, if the Yokuts agree, that some minor artifacts be retained in the Interpretive Center, along with materials unearthed and available from universities, etc. Most artifacts, however, should be restored to the holy place. Mr. Roberson indicated that he could work with staff to accomplish these ends. Mr. Robert I. Reid, 4525 Mirador Drive, briefly reviewed the background of the . General Plan, stating that with all of the reviews there had been very little modi- fication of the elements since it was originally developed. He stated that previous City officials had worked hard to preserve the motto of planned progress, and to grow in an orderly fashion. He commended the citizens for their interest and concern re- garding this issue. He cited past achievements, i.e., suit against curbside mail- boxes,army land for youth sports park and other park lands in the City, and provision of sewer capacity. Mr. Reid stated that with this project within five years Pleasan- ton will be the only city in California with a surplus of funds, and these can be used for further betterment of this City. He urged approval of the project. Mr. Howard W. Neely, 448 Amador Court, stated he is in favor of the project but was concerned that the architectural design of the buildings would not be uniform. He cited the hodge-podge architecture in the Stoneridge Shopping Center. He suggested that an architectural review for the City of Pleasanton be created to review this issue. The following persons spoke in opposition to this matter: Mr. David Pastor, 3613 Hawaii Court South, stated he had concerns regarding the loss of a balanced community, and concurred with Mr. Innes that a review committee should be formed to study the industrial element of the General Plan. He stated he also had concerns about traffic congestion, timing of traffic improvements, accident potential at the new traffic signals, and other impacts listed in the Environmental Impact Report as unavoidable. 9. 6/8/82