CCMIN041988 - Laserfiche WebLink

261 Mr. Richard Dobbs, 3616 Portsmouth Court, representing Pleasanton Meadows Homeowners, stated that on February 16, 1988, Council adopted Ordinance No. 1349, approving a service station and mini-mart at the intersection of Santa Rita Road and Pimlico Drive. Subsequently, a referendum petition was success- fully executed; it was the desire of the Pleasanton Meadows residents as well as other residents of the community, that this ordinance be rescinded because of their concerns relative to traffic and other matters. They felt no further construction should be allowed in this area until completion of the Santa Rita interchange in order to see the traffic impacts from the freeway, Hacienda Business Park and the apartment complex in this area. Mr. Dobbs requested Council to rescind Ordinance 1349; it is their obligtion to vote as their con- stituents want in order to properly represent them. He stated the City Coun- cil must insure that this city properly plan and assess the impact of current and future growth within and outside the City of Pleasanton by halting con- struction at the Santa Rita interchange until all freeway interchange improve- ments are completed. He stated a better method of forecasting traffic impact must be adopted, one which targets high-use critical traffic areas in a more realistic manner in needed. The criteria of assessing impact based upon only "currently approved projects" is totally inadequate as a forecasting measure for such areas as freeway interchanges and access points; a long-range ap- proach must be taken. C) Mr. Harvey Levine, Attorney representing the applicant, stated he disa- (]0 grees with Mr. Dobbs, and would request that Council not rescind their pre- Cr) vious action, which approved the project on four separate occasions and which ~ he felt should stand. He asked that the voters of Pleasanton be allowed to pass judgment on this project; he felt the voters will support the project. <[ He stated that 3500 signatures on a petition is not representative of the en- ~ tire community. He stated there seemed to be some misleading circumstances related to the circulation of the petition; questionable behavior of a cir- culator, telling people the gas station would be open 24 hours per day, not allowing proper perusal of the legal attachments to the petition, and that the petition would not affect the Pimlico project but only those in the future. He asked that this matter be placed on a ballot to allow the entire community to decide whether or not the project is appropriate. Mr. Carl Cox, 2353 Saddleback Lane, Danville, applicant, stated he concurs with the statements of the Attorney. He hoped Council would allow this proj- ect to come up for vote. He expressed disappointment that after four actions approving the project now there is still consideration of the matter. He stated that compromises were made with the opponents which most residents were satisfied with. He felt the opposition was lead by two competitors and the motivation for the petition was fear of competition. He stated that to repeal the ordinance could deny the citizens of Pleasanton the right to decide this issue; this is a good project and he felt it will be supported by most of Pleasanton residents. He stated that if Council rescinds the ordinance he will take actions to start an initiative to place it on the November ballot in order to let the voters decide the issue. There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed on this item. Councilmember Brandes stated it is unfortunate this matter could not be resolved between the developer and the surrounding neighborhood; a solution that Council could support. He stated there is no clearer way to decide an 5 - 4-19-88