SU0013401 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PROPONENTS : Dave Olmstead , 7549 Linne Road , Tracy, asked that Con- dition No. 2 (h ) be modified to delete the reference to improvement of Chrisman Road. He pointed out that the Tracy Defense Depot exits in that area and the road is mainly used by gravel trucks and a small amount of local traffic. Otherwise, there is heavy traffic at 7 : 30 a .m. and 4 : 30 p.m. from employees of Tracy Defense Depot. As for the Valpico area, there are about 160 houses there and most of that traf fic will go west into Tracy or the Bay Area. It will not add a substantial amount of traffic along Chrisman Road. Mr . Olmstead said he dedicated enough land along Chrisman Road for an 84 ' wide right-of- way, however, he does not want to improve it. It would cost $44 , 000 to put in 17 ' of paving. If the improvement is required, it will be the only improvement on that side of the street. He would have to re- set three poles . He said he doubted that the Defense Depot would give land on the other side of the road for the 84 ' width. Comm. Morri said he had a discussion with Mr . Olmstead and he visited the site. He said that what Mr . Olmstead has said is true. The flow of traffic will be on MacArthur and going north on Valpico. He said he felt the condition condition could create a hazardous situation. OPPONENTS: None PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Comm. Gillispie said that the three lanes in front of the Defense Depot were created 15 years ago because the Depot recognized the traf- fic problem. They paid for that improvement and the heavy base and construction of that roadway indicates that heavy traffic is using it. There is heavy truck traffic going into the Defense Depot. Comm. Jungeblut said he felt there should be some improvement on Chrisman Road. He referred to heavy traffic that will be coming into the potential subdivision. He said that eventually Public Works will have to rebuild Chrisman Road and it will probably have to be paid for by the taxpayers . Mr. Olmstead said the paving would widen the road in front of the exits , but it would not widen the road in front of the subdivision. The gravel trucks he previously referred to are heavy trucks. Comm. Bozzano asked Public Works why an 84 ' width was recommended. Mr . Lopez replied that this is the width required in the Code in reference to improvement. He said there is no chance that the water tower would be relocated, but he believed the intent of the ordinance could be met. The Chrisman Road widening is not only to serve this subdivision but it is also for circulation for the area. Comm. Carter commented that it would be a hazard if only that section were moved. She noted that there is no Specific Plan for Chrisman Road. PC: 11/19/87 -2- MINUTES