CCMIN022680 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mrs. Anna Martinsen, 1890 Brooktree gay, stated she felt the project was aesthetically well planned but was concerned about the impact of increased traffic in the surrounding areas, especially in the residential areas relative to the safety of children. She asked what mitigating measures had been taken to alleviate this problem. Mr. Harris advised that restrictions had been placed on this project that no trucks larger than 2-axle would be allowed to service the development, that the hours of truck service were limited, and that E1 Charro Road would.,be required to be used when opened for trucks entering and exiting the City. Mrs. Martinsen stated she would assist in whatever way possible to get E1 Charro Road opened for public use. Mrs. Betty Rider, 4392 Miradot Drive, asked if the private crossing on Stanley Boulevard could be used for possible access to this project. Mr. Robert M. Pearson, 3590 Churchill Court, stated he had concern regarding the Environmental Impact Report. He addressed traffic impacts and asked specifically what trucks would be restricted. Staff advised that trucks were restricted to 2-axle with the exception of heavy trucks used during construction of the development. Pearson asked if there was a Ci6y ordinance that would preclude trucks from using any streets other than Santa Rita. The City Attorney advised the City ordinance requires trucks servicing Pleasanton to use the most direct route to their delivery destina- tion. Mr. Pearson asked if there was only one truck ordinance, The City Attorney advised there was only one truck ordinance for the entire City and only one through truck route, that being First Street/Sunol Boulevard. Mr. Pearson asked who to com- plain to when the truck ordinance is violated. Staff advised him to contact the Police Department, City Manager, or City Attorney. Mr. Pearson stated it was his understanding that the Transfer Station trucks were not to use City streets, that Planning Commission Resolution No. 235 was not being enforced, and that he had brought this to the attention of the Planning Commission, City Manager, and City Attorney. The City Attorney advised there is no such condition on the T~ansfer Station, that this was a finding and not a condition. Mr. Pearson expressed con- cern regarding sewer capacity. He stated that if sewer capacity is allocated to this project there will not be any remaining sewer capacity. He urged Council to review the sewer capacity. situation very carefully before allocating all of the reserve to this particular development, unless this was what they wanted to do. Mr. Pearson stated that the Planning Commission Minutes did not correctly reflect his attitude. He stated that America has the greatest form of government in the world but that it is also delicate. He stated that government is now being gravely threatened by initiatives passed by the people but that the initiatives are being brought about because elected officials are not doing what the people want. Elected representatives have to represent the feelings of people and in the best interests of the community. He stated he felt it is a shame that special interest groups are represented more than the.people in the community. Mr. Pearson concluded by stating there were positive steps Council could take relative to this project; limit heavy truck traffic uses until E1 CharTo Road is opened and reserve adequate sewer capa- city. Councilmember Mercer asked if this project was sufficiently conditioned to pro- hibit a law suit relative to sewer capacity. The City Attorney advised he felt it was and that another condition could be added at the tentative map stage that will require before any final map is approved there must be evidence of the availability of sewer capacity. 7. 2/26/80