CCMIN062095 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico asked where the Park's access road would be and that it seemed the least impact may be to use the existing Vineyard Avenue without significantly modifying the existing driveway. Mr. Graham stated that it could be gated off at the Vineyard Avenue junction, but he needed reasonable access since the junction would be a 1/4 mile away from his house. Mr. Swift stated that in the discussions with the East Bay Park District, Mr. Graham was going to get his access directly off Vineyard, so there was more flexibility with the road. Mr. Hallec wants access to the back of his property and isn't sure whether he wants a private or public road; the Park District has not decided whether or not to place a gate out by Vineyard Avenue or to leave the street as a public street to its property line. One way for Mr. Graham to use the road is to leave it a public road all the way to his property line, but half of the road belongs to the property owner on the other side of the street. It could become a private road when it gets to his gate or it could be a private road to serve the Park District and his property. Anthony Pietronave, 2500 Pietronave Lane, stated that he was unhappy with the height of the retaining wall and felt that the wall is too short. Mr. Pietronave stated a wall that short will impact his property. He asked to work with staff to raise the wall since the road is being moved closer to his house. He felt there will be more noise and he will be losing his trees that act as a sound barrier for his bedroom. Mr. Lum talked about the two 14 foot hollow retaining walls which do not require extensive grading on Mr. Pietronave's property and the 11 foot retaining wall which does require extensive grading. Both walls could be placed closer to his property to accommodate the future extension of Vineyard, but staff was recommending the four foot wall that has minimal impact to the Pietronave property but would be removed if Vineyard is extended. Ms. Michelotti commented about a letter received from Mr. Wayne Hahner. The letter suggested restricting all Ruby Hills construction traffic to Stanley and Isabel Streets. Ms. Michelotti asked if there are any restrictions in that area. She also mentioned the letter asked if the speed limit could be lowered on Vineyard Avenue from 45 to 35 MPH. Mr. Swift said there is a route for the construction trucks but not for private vehicles used by the workers. Mr. Lum said the traffic speed is based on traffic studies and the design of the roadway. He stated it could be monitored, but the County set it at 50 and the Council changed it to 45 at the "S" curve. It was moved by Ms. Dennis, and seconded by Ms. Michelotti, to approve preliminarily staffs recommendation as to the realignment of Vineyard Avenue, easterly of Clara Lane, to direct staff to return to Council a final recommendation as to the alignment after determining whether any property adjacent to the proposed realignment needs to be condemned, and to have 06/20/95 -16-