CCMIN112283 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Joe Callahan, representing Callahan Pentz Properties, stated that Callahan- Pentz and Prudential Insurance Company have reviewed the staff reports and accept the conditions contained therein. He stated this property has been zoned for com- mercial/industrial use for more than 20 years. He stated that recent approval by Planning Commission and City Council of the PUD had reduced the density of the deve- lopment. He advised that in the development agreement the City retains all discre- tionarxr rights and also retains the rights for additional mitigation measures if needed in the future. He added that this agreement in no way overrides the condi- tions of the PUD. He stated this agreement has significant benefit to the City in terms of providing economic stability for the project that will enable the City to require completion of the project and enforcement of the mitigation measures set forth. The following persons spoke in favor of the Hacienda Business Park development agreement: Mr. Mike Grenko, 5307 Sonoma, stated he felt the no-growth petition is an insult to the intelligence of the citizens of Pleasanton; they cant deny the improvements to the streets, the quality of the development, and the improved lifestyle because of the north Pleasanton development. He stated that growth is inevitable and that responsible controlled growth is vital for a good tax base. Mr. Darrel Adams, 975 Murietta, Livermore, stated that good things are happening in the City of Pleasanton, and he is considering moving to Pleasanton because of the Hacienda Business Park development. Ms. Kay Daniel, 4075 Rennelwood Way, stated she recently moved to Pleasanton from Southern California. After looking at various cities in the Bay area, she and her husband chose Pleasanton because of its attractive and foresighted planning. Mr. Jack Hovingh, 4250 Muirwood Drive, stated he favors the development agreement because it protects both the developer and the City, with more benefits for the City. He stated it allows Hacienda Business Park flexibility in land use, and will minimize the inbalance between housing and jobs. He stated the agreement protects the resi- dents health, safety and welfare, and that further mitigation measures can be re- quired in the event of unforeseen problems. He added that similar conditions should be required for every development plan that comes before Council for consideration. The following persons spoke in opposition to this matter: Mr. Richard Combs, 4857 Harrison Street, questioned the financial report presented at the meeting of November 8th; and stated there is a great deal of uncertainty in the financial projections. He asked the following four questions: (1) Do we have some sort of a 25 year projection on fiscal impact taking into account the limits of Prop 4; (2) what is your level of confidence in that projection; (3) how do you plan to cope with Proposition 4 in the event that we do exceed that iimit and there are a number of possible ways, I would be curious to know what the Council and City plans are in the event we do exceed that limit; and (4) what advantage does the Council see in proceeding with development that generates revenues which the City cannot spend and that would be affected by what your plans are in the event that we do exceed Prop 4. Mr. Curt Altschul, 6324 Colle Altamira, stated he felt Council has a legal an~ moral duty to wait on approval of the development agreement until after it has been determined whether or not the referendum petition is successful. He stated he felt that Council will contract away the police powers of future City Council and will subject the City of numerous law suits. Mr. Wayne Myers, 3428 Virgil Circle, asked what protection is there against future problems if this agreement is approved. He stated he has concerns regarding traffic and noise. 10. 11/22/83