CCMIN042881 - Laserfiche WebLink

237 Mr. Thurman Caudill, 4715B Augustine Street, stated he has lived in Pleasanton forty years and had seen the subject area flood many times. He stated he felt there should be a full Environmental Impact Report required on this property. He stated he is opposed to any building higher than 3 stories. He had concerns about signifi- cant adverse impacts relative to traffic and smog. He added he was opposed to the project literally. Mr. Caudill questioned Councilmember Kephart's participation on this item because of Conflict of Interest due to his position as a builder/developer. Councilmember Kephart assured Mr. Caudill he had no propriety interest in this pro- j ect. The City Attorney confirmed that Councilmember Kephart has no Conflict of Interest in this project under the law. Councilmember Kephart stated he deeply resented the assertion made by Mr. Caudill. Mr. David Eller, 3979 Oregon Way, Livermore, stated that what Pleasanton does effects Livermore. He stated there is smog in the Valley and he feels this project. will have significant impact relative to smog, and the proposed project should be required to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report. He stated' he is against some so-called progress if it affects the quality of life for people. He added that Pleasanton could set a precedent for Livermore with this type of development. Mr. Victor Bailey stated that smog is not generated in this Valley; it is generated outside of here and blows in, and can be attributed to traffic outside the Valley. He stated that office development in the Valley will decrease commute traffic and thus reduce smog problems. He stated that peak times for traffic will shift and result in less congestion. He added that police personnel would not have to be significantly increased for higher buildings. Mr. Bailey stated the project would provide a better tax base for the things the City needs, but that it would not be economically feasible to build less than 5 stories in height. Mr. Meyer rebutted the concerns of the opponents, stating that everything possible had been done to assure the highest possible quality project. Mr. Sheldon Richm~n, business associate of Mr. Meyer, stated that Conditions Nos. 57 through 76 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1962 deal with mitigation measures and concluded there are no items that could not be mitigated. He stated that staff has concluded that a mitigated negative declaration is sufficient, and that various studies and reports have been prepared in an effort to satisfy all concerns. He stated the community will benefit from revenue costs gained to the City as a result of this project as well as improvement to public facilities. Mr. Richman commended the opponents for their presentations but stated it was unfor- tunate about the personal attack made against Mr. Meyer and one Councilmember. There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed on the application and the negative declaration. After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Butler, and seconded by Councilmember Mohr, that Resolution No. 81-129, determining on the basis of a review of initial environmental study done for this project, that no significant environmental impact would occur as outlined in the City's guidelines and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for Case PUD-80-16, application of Meyer Properties, Inc., for planned unit development (Industrial and Commercial) zoning and development plan approval for an approximately 82 acre site located at the northwest corner of Hopyard Road and Stoneridge Drive, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None 7. 4/28/81