CCMIN010880 - Laserfiche WebLink

willing to cooperate in getting E1 Charro Road opened for public use. He stated the proceedings would have to be initiated by Alameda County. Mr. Caroline stated he would agree to the relocation of the recreation facilit.y to the northeast corner of the park complex, and would work with the Planning Commission and City Council relative to hours to operation. Mr. Caroline stated most of the business tenants in the park would be administrative type offices with a small delicatessen. Mayor Brandes advised that under the PUD zoning the Planning Commission and City Council had the right to deny any use. Councilmember Butler asked if all truck traffic would be oriented toward the freeway. Mr. Caroline advised that most of the businesses would be operated by local people and have local employees, therefore, most of the traffic would be the same as presently generated in the City. He stated that only those trucks entering or exiting from out of town should be required to use E1 Charro Road. Councilmember Mercer asked Mr. Caroline if he had any objection to the home- o~mers request regarding the hours of operation. Mr. Caroline stated he had no objection to this restriction. There being no further testimony, Mayor Brandes declared the public hearing closed on the application and the Environmental Impact Report. }~yor Brandes recessed the meeting at 9:50 P.M. Mayor Brandes reconvened the meeting at 10:00 P.M. Mr. Harris advised that all that is being requested tonight is a change in zoning which does not become effective until an overall development plan or a phased development plan is presented, and the uses can be reviewed at that time. Councilmember Mercer questioned Condition 7 restricting local business people driving a truck who might be at their shop at hours other than 7:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m. Councilmember Wood requested that Condition 9 be amended to include all truck traffic "leaving or entering the City of Pleasanton" agree to use, E1 Charro Road exclusively. Councilmember Butler stated that the last phase of Condition 1 stated a small proportion of warehouse uses, and he asked what is meant by a small portion of warehouse uses. Mr. Caroline advised that no warehousing was intended, rather the intent of the phrase was to permit users to store supplies needed on their sites. It was moved by Councilmember Mercer, and seconded by Councilmember Wood, that Resolution No. 80-12, after finding that the Environment Impact Report has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines; that the Council has reviewed and considered the information in the EIR; that the project would have significant adverse impacts on the environment pertaining to unstable soils, runoff pollution, noise, air pollution and street maintenance but that recommended conditions of approval of case PUD-79-13 would reduce those i~pacts to an insignificant level; and that there are two significant adverse impacts of case PUD-79-13 which are not mitigatable (traffic increase on Valley Avenue and other access routes and impacts on Valley Avenue/Santa Rita Road intersection) but that there are overriding social and economic considerations (more local jobs) which make infeasible all mitigation measures identified in the EIR, therefore accept the Environmental Impact Report on case PUD-79-13, be adopted. 7. 1/s/so