RES 84176 - Laserfiche WebLink

Environmental Review The Planning Department of the City of Pleasanton prepared a draft environmental impact report ("the E.I.R.") on Hacienda which was completed on March 16, 1982 and then circulated to public agencies and private citizens for comments. Comments were received and in May 1982, the City issued a final E.I.R. which incorporated its responses to comments on the draft E.I.R. A complete copy of the E.I.R. is available for inspection at the City of Pleasanton. Superior Court Action and Referendum On July 29, 1982, Citizens for Balanced Growth, an unincorporated association ("CBG"), Petitioner, filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive relief against the City of Pleasanton and City Council of Pleasanton, Respondents, and The Prudential Insurance Company of America, a New Jersey corporation, and Callahan Pentz Properties, Pleasanton, a California General partnership, Real Parties in Interest. CBG's action challenged the legal sufficiency of the environmental documentation of the proposed Hacienda Business Park Phase I ("Hacienda"), in five causes of action, and in a sixth cause claimed that the City of Pleasanton's approval of Hacienda via Ordinance No. 1040, which included a Development Plan and P.U.D. rezoning, was inconsistent with the City's General Plan goal of "balanced growth". This matter came for trial on December 22, 1982 at the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, South County Branch, in the courtroom of Judge Raymond L. Marsh. The court held against the petitioners on the first five counts of their petition but upheld their contention regarding inconsistency between the General Plan's Growth Management Element and the project approval. Supplemental proceedings were held on January 26, 1983 concerning the scope of injunctive relief at which time the court ordered that a preemptory writ of mandate be issued, commanding respondents to vacate and set aside their approval of Ordinance No. 1040, and issued an injunction enjoining the Respondents and the Real Parties in Interest from taking any action to approve, enforce, carry out or in any other manner allow the construction of any building pursuant to or in furtherance of the P.U.D. development plan and rezoning for the Hacienda Business Park Phase I, other than twelve (12) buildings for which the City Council had already approved building permits, unless and until either the Hacienda Business Park Phase I Development Plan or the General Plan was amended so that Hacienda was consistent with the General Plan. At subsequent court hearings, approval for projects totalling 33 buildings was granted. In response to the court's order, the City adopted a clarifying amendment to the General Plan Growth Management Element after preparation of a related E.I.R. and readopted Ordinance 1040 (now Ordinance ll09). A referendum election to uphold or overturn the City Council's adoption of the General Plan Amendment was qualified and set for April 10, 1984. On -29-