CCMIN112283 - Laserfiche WebLink

275 Mr. Ben Tarvet, 1144 Arak Court, stated that residents of Pleasanton feel frus- tration at Council actions. He stated he felt the development agreement would benefit the developer. He requested Council not to approve this agreement until after receipt of the petition. Mr. Brian Benda, 4820 Smithgate Court, stated that he has attended many of the Planning Commission and City Council meetings reKarding Hacienda Business Park. He stated that the proponents and opponents read the same documentation but do not inter- pret the information in the same way and reach different conclusions. He stated that Hacienda Business Park is not yet a reality so the actual impacts cannot be deter- mined at this time. He added that Council must make decisions on the information at hand but that future City Councils will be able to assess the development as it stands at that time. He asked Council to reject the development agreement so that future City Councils can make decisions as need to be made later on. Mr. Nicholas Cassons, 4082 Suffolk Way, asked Council not to approve the develop- ment agreement for two reasons: (1) you approved the EIR for Hacienda Business Park which has numerous references to the fine planning system of Pleasanton for each development, each project, each building, to be individually approved, with which I agree, but whether or not one agrees with what youtve done, the citizens have a right to make themselves heard; and (2) he stated he had never imbarked on a plan which required more than one step which has not had a review process all the way through. You are looking at a 25 year plan. He submitted that if Council would say to Prudential that you want them to build these buildings on this schedule, have them occupied on this schedule, they would say that's unreasonable, they can't do that. So lets do it for ourselves, lets say that we want to review each project, each build- ing as it comes up and maintain the process as it is now. Councilmember Brandes stated that this development agreement does not take away Council's right to review the design development plans as they come forward. Ms. Margaret Tracy, Livermore, expressed concern regarding regional imbalances which the Hacienda Business Park development creates. She stated that no regional analysis had been made as to regional impacts; when in fact all Valley residents use the same air, streets and highways, water, etc. She asked Council why the haste in approving the development agreement. She stated that Hacienda Business Park is still in conflict with the General Plan, and she felt it would be illegal to proceed with a referendum procedure in process. Mr. Bruce Baker, 2398 Sandpiper Way, asked if the citizens are successful in their referendum, what will this do to the agreement the way it is written now. The City Attorney advised there is a very high chance that it will be upheld in the Courts. Mr. Baker added that in his opinion he felt the Council is a cancer in the City of Pleasanton. Mr. Mark Wegrich, 4372 Pleasanton Avenue, expressed concern regarding the air quality and what negative impacts the 21 additional projects will have on the Valley. He also expressed concern regarding energy for,these projects. Ms. Emily Carson, 2574 Skimmer Court, asked what is the hurry in approving the development plan and why have a 25 year plan; if the developer can be trusted then he will abide by the plans as approved. Ms. Cynthia Myers, 3428 Virgil Circle, stated she felt the development agreement would render future Councils inept to determine about Hacienda Business Park develop- ment. She stated she is opposed to the business park growing too fast, too soon. She stated that what Hacienda Business Park may say and what actually happens may differ. She stated that her residence was excluded from the soundwall and window insulation, as proposed by Hacienda Business Park. She asked that future City Council's rights not be taken away from them. 11. 11/22/83