CCMIN071596 - Laserfiche WebLink

Russell Schaeffer, 4990 Forest Hill Drive, indicated that for the last 16 years, he has been driving over West Las Positas Boulevard and it is impossible to miss the wide places for freeway offramps. That is like buying a house next to an airport and being surprised there are airplanes flying over your house. He felt the interchange was a necessity and believed them are ways to control traffic. He then read a letter submitted by Michael Kliment regarding the widening of Foothill Road. Mr. Schaeffer felt a four lane road encourages faster traffic and increases noise. He did not think a four lane road was necessary. Bob Dees, 7773 Olive Drive, spoke in opposition to the West Las Positas interchange. He complained of speeding traffic, noise and fumes from traffic that currently exist. He did not feel them is a need for this interchange because of the Bernal and Stoneridge interchanges. He also felt crime would be increased. Matt Sullivan, 4324 Muirwood Drive, indicated he and several neighbors had addressed the General Plan subcommittee and was under the impression that the interchange would be taken out. He felt the General Plan should include an option to delete the interchange. He believed there was too much traffic on Muirwood Drive now and it can only get worse if there is a freeway offramp. Ken Chrisman, 1944 Vineyard Avenue, referred to the statement that there are 3.7 acres of prime agricultural land out of 200.+ acres. He knows grapes can be grown on other than prime agricultural land. He felt there was an issue of fairness and equity. Members of Council have stated they cannot support the position of the Vineyard property owners because those who elected them would not support them should they seek reelection. Mr. Chrisman felt Council was elected to represent everyone in the city, whether the citizen voted for them or not. Sharen Heinz, 1550 Vineyard Avenue, indicated she had been at the July 1 meeting where a vote was taken to place the Vineyard Corridor into a study area. She received phone calls from a staff person indicated the "S " curve issue would not be on the agenda for July 2 or for July 9. She assumed nothing would be discussed about the Vineyard area and was extremely upset to hear that a vote was taken on July 9 to set a 150 unit cap. She reiterated her complaints about the agreement regarding annexation and the money spent on a specific plan. She felt they were not being treated fairly and were losing their property rights. She also complained of how her business suffered during the Main Street reconstruction. She objected to comments made by a Planning Commissioner regarding the Vineyard property owners. There was a break at 9:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. Mr. Tarvet indicated the items discussed were the Foothill Road widening, the West Las Positas interchange, and the Vineyard Corridor. 07/15/96 - 14-