CCMIN042881 - Laserfiche WebLink

239 Mr. Paul Ebright, 5416 Blackbird Drive, stated he was opposed to this project because of the significant adverse impacts this will have on the community and the Valley. He stated he considered five stories as high rise and out of character with Pleasanton. He stated there were sufficient findings in various sections of the CEQA guidelines that would require that a full Environmental Impact Report be required on this project. He had concerns about an assessment district being formed before any development is approved. He also had concerns about who would pay for additional police and fire personnel that this project might require. He also had concerns about air traffic. Finally, he stated he had concerns about impacts of an on-going nature. He stated that no building permits should be issued until all mitigation measures and problems had been solved. He stated he would referend any zoning change unless all of his questions and concerns are met. Ms. Susan McKee, 4693 Denker Drive, stated she was opposed to any high rise construction for Pleasanton and will do whatever necessary to legally stop con- struction. She stated she felt there could be a much better plan for this location, that city inspectors did not have the experise to inspect this type of construction, that fire service is a major consideration, the soils report is inadequate, the seismic considerations are incomplete, and she felt the Meyer plan should be trimmed down in total concept. Ms. Kathy Hollbrook, 6104 Crater Lake Court, stated she opposed the 14 story high buildings and is also opposed to the five story .tall buildings; she felt three stories is the only height that should be considered - two above ground and one be- low. She cited office buildings in Menlo Park which she felt were attractive and would be suitable for Pleasanton. She presented pictures of these buildings to the Council. Ms. Hollbrook stated she had grave concerns about increased traffic on Hopyard Road, and also parking problems. She had concerns about the green belt around Pleasanton disappearing. She was also concerned about an assessment district. She stated this project would adversely impact all citizens in the north Pleasanton area, not just Val Vista. She stated there had been mention of a frontage road to extend from Johnson Drive to divert trucks from Stoneridge but the staff report did not mention this. Ms. Hollbrook concluded by stating the concept will bring big city problems to Pleasanton and will not benefit the City. She urged Council not to rush into this as our land is in demand and should be considered in the best planning interests. Mr. Charles Huff, 4597 Shearwater Court, stated that basically the proposal is good except for the height; that he is opposed to 14 stories. He stated he had worked on several of the San Mateo projects and he felt this type of project would fit well into the life style of Pleasanton. Me requested Council to consider the height limitation. Mr. Bill Christensen, 7979 Hillsborough Court, President of the Ston~ridge Homeowners Association, stated this group is opposed to the project because of the height limitations, but not to the project itself. He stated he liked the quality of the Meyer project but favored a 3 story maximum height. Mr. Robert Pearson, 3590 Churchill Court, stated he had concerns about the height limits and this setting a precedent for the entire northern portion of Pleasanton for industrial/commercial development styles. He questioned the avail- ability of sewer capacity and urged Council to take whatever steps are necessary to legally protect the City from any lawsuits over this issue. Mr. Pearson urged the Council to plan the total northern area in one concerted effort, otherwise assessment districts, streets, and other facilities might not be done properly. 6. 4/28/81