CCMIN061279 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Hay stated these rates were lower than automobile accident rates, but did not include independent truckers. He added that professional drivers have only one accident for every three years and that there had been five truck accidents on Sunol Boulevard in 1978. He stated that Vallecitos Road could not be considered as an alternate route because it was too dangerous and had a high accident record. Mr. Hay cited Vehicle Code Section 23130 quoting noise limits of 86 dba. Mayor Brandes asked what percent of trucks were independent and what percent were company owned. Mr. Critchfield stated he did not know the ratio figure of company trucks to independents. He said the gravel companies were guilty in not giving the figures as set forth in the 1972 Agreement. Mr. Critchfield stated the City must be careful when limiting trucks on City streets. He cited court cases regarding this issue. Mr. Critchfield urged the City not to pass the pro- posed ordinance and to look for other laternatives. Mr. George Slater, Business Agent for Teamsters Local #291, Alameda County, stated the City should provide a reasonable tax base between residents and the industry. He added that the proposed ordinance would reduce employment, and he felt that the City should enforce local noise laws that are in effect now. Mr. Peter Muller, Chairman of the East Bay Gravel Contractors in California, representing highway and paving contractors in commercial industry, stated this group was opposed to the proposed ordinance because it would affect construction prices in the industry. He stated that 90% of quarry products will com from 1 of ~ quarries. He added he felt truck limitations-should be handled on a regional basis. He also stated that very few quarries are available in the market area. Mr. Muller urged Council not to adopt the proposed ordinance because of the short and long range impact it would have on the construction industry. Mayor Brandes recessed the meeting at 10:30 P.M. Fmyor Brandes reconvened the meeting at 10:40 P.M. Mr. James E. Cox, Attorney representing Lone Star, stated that if the proposed ordinance is passed it will require litigation. He stated he thought that basic- ally this ordinance was an attempt to deal with a regional problem at a local level. Mr. Cox said the extension of Bernal Avenue and other mitigating measures suggested by the gravel companies mada sense. He stated that with the ordinance the City will not have a thru-truck route. He cited the court case of Lafayette vs. Contra Costa County, stating that noise is a State issue and that streets belong to everyone. He also presented an aerial photo of a quarry in Clayton and explained the court case connected with it. Mr. Cox stated that Lone Star made a heavy investment in the Elliott Plant in part because of an agreement. He said it was his opinion that the agreement between the City and gravel producers is valid, that the Bernal Avenue extension is a viable solution, that the proposed ordinance is not property, and that the City action amounts to a subvention to 310 homeo~ners who signed the petition. Mr. Edmond Regalia, representing Kaiser Sand and Gravel, stated he had read the City staff report and that he is opposed to the proposed ordinance. He questioned whether sufficient legal grounds have been covered in the report and urged staff to give further consideration to legal matters. He stated it is not easy to terminate a contract. He added that the figures and statistics are at varience between the City and the gravel companies. Mr. Regalia stated that if the proposed ordinance is adopted Kaiser will file suit against the City, because he did not feel that 7. 6/12/79