CCMIN120688 - Laserfiche WebLink

383 Association, presented a letter to Council dated December 6, 1988, setting forth their objections to the Pactel Properties application. He stated Independence owns certain real property on Johnson Drive adjacent to the Pactel property. They objected to the vacation of Bradley Drive, because it will virtually eliminate through traffic between Stoneridge Drive and Johnson Drive and creat a sort of "visual wall". Mr. Hartman addressed the setback from Johnson Drive and provision of adequate loading facilities, stating that the currently proposed Pactel development would not provide sufficient room for trucks to use the loading facilities without blocking Johnson Drive; the final loading berth design should accommodate sufficient room for all turning and maneuvering on-site. He objected to the Planning Director being allowed to waive the dimensional and maneuvering requirements of the Municipal Code; Condition 12 allows the waiver of the dimensional and maneuvering requirements. He also objected to the proposed height of the buildings, which he felt were excessive. Mr. Hartment urged Council to continue the public hearing to allow consultants Ultrasystems to gether more circulation information, to analyze traffic and circulation impacts more carefully, and to examine appropriate mitigation measures. Mr. Hartman presented a letter from Francisco J. Centurion and Associates, Architects and Planners, 154 Mitchell Boulevard, San Rafael, bringing attention to the vacation of Bradley Drive; consideration of additional set back depth along Johnson Drive in order to provide truck turn around on Pactel's property and additional landscaping to soften the rigid horizontal lines of the building; and the height of the buildings should be reduced in order to reduce the visual impact of these walls along Johnson Drive. Mr. Hartman also presented a letter from Ultrasystems, 16845 Von Karman Avenue, Irvine, CA., addressing traffic and circulation impacts on the local circulation system from the vacation of Bradley Drive. Ultrasystems asked for a continuation of this hearing so that the appropriate data can be analyzed and considered prior to action being taken on the project. Council discussion ensued regarding the loading dock requirements. Mr. Swift advised that dimensions for the docks cannot be finalized until it is determined who the anchor tenants will be. Mr. Stanley Rathbone, 325 Ray Street, stated he pointed out the inadequacy of the loading dock at the Planning Commission meeting. He expressed opposition to the retail use. Mr. Richard Gerhke, 6042 Allbrook Circle, stated he is not against development and when he was made aware of the project, he thought there were be no weekend traffic. He expressed concern regarding the height of the wall; he felt it would have an adverse impact on the privacy in his back yard. He presented photographs of the view from his back yard; people would be able - 14 - 12-6-88