CCMIN011375 - Laserfiche WebLink

249 Mr. Ken Nather, 654 Caliente Avenue, Livermore, owners of property across from the property in question, read a letter he had written opposing the rezoning of the approximately 23 acres known as Pleasanton Garbage Service. Mr. Ron ~irth, 444 Vineyard Avenue, expressed concern regarding the traffic impact as well as the environmental impact of this application, and urged careful consideration of the matter. Mr. John Pietronave, 2500 Vineyard Avenue, asked if there would be an open pit for dumping at the proposed transfer station. He was advised that it had not been determined at this time if there would be an open pit. Mayor Mori declared the public hearing closed. It was moved by Councilman Herlihy, and seconded by Councilman Philcox, that Resolution No~ 75-7, approving an amendment of the Pleasanton General Plan from Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential to Agriculture and Grazing, for that approximately 23 acres of land located on the south side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 2,100 feet east of the eastern City Limit Line, known as Pleasanton Garbage Service, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmen Herlihy, Kinne, Councilwoman LeClaire, Councilman Philcox, and Mayor Mori NOES: None ABSENT: None Appeal of Arrow Rentals from an adverse decision of the Design Review Board in denTing application for design review for an approximatel7 2700 s~. ft. commer- cial service building to be located Qn the south side of Stanley. BlVd.~ approxi- mately 225 ft. east of Santa Rita Road~ zoning. for the property .~s C-F (C-S Zoning pending) Mr. Harris presented the staff report dated 3anuary 8, 1975, regarding this matter. He stated that at a special meeting held on December 17, 1974, the Design Review Board approved the building and site plan design for the proposed new loca- tion of Arrow Rentals at 4262 Stanley Boulevard, but that one of the conditions of approval (Condition #1 of Resolution No. R-74-32) was that there be no vehicular access to Vervais Avenue at this time. The owners of Arrow Rentals have appealed this condition as it is their contention that they cannot efficiently operate their business with this restriction. Mr. Edgar stated that it is the staff's opinion that having egress from the subject site only onto Stanley Boulevard would complicate traffic problems on that street to a greater degree than if egress was also possible onto Vervais Avenue, therefore, staff recommended the appeal be granted. Mayor Mori declared the public hearing open. Mr, Bill Hirst, Attorney representing Arrow Rentals, stated his client was agreeable to all the conditions set forth by the Design Review Board with the exception of Condition No. 1 of Planning Commission Resolution R-74-32. He suggested the following points be considered in regard to this condition: (1) since this site is located on two parcels, one fronting on Stanley Blvd., and on fronting on Vervais Avenue, and Vervais Avenue being a public street, ingress and egress should be allowed from both streets; (2) this particular use generates a light volume of vehicular traffic and only during daytime hours; (3) no off- street parking is contemplated, but recommends it be posted as such; (4) the drive is westerly of the residential area on Vervais Avenue with the exception of one, therefore, should not affect these parcels; (5) access from the Arrow Rentals parcel onto Vervais Avenue is of sound engineering practices and principles; and (6) the use proposed/i~a permitted use and consistent with the zoning contemplated for the parcel. Judge William Gale, Attorney representing the four homeowners on Vervais Avenue, stated his clients were opposed to any commercial access on Vervais Avenue due to the narrowness of the street, which Judge Gale was not convined is a public street. He further stated there was already a traffic problem generated from the car wash business and that there were trees and PG&E poles in the right-of-way. Judge Gale added his clients were not opposed to the 3. 1/13/75