CCMIN070594 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Mohr asked if Mr. Bowers had read the report written by East Bay Regional Park District. Mr. Bowers answered yes. He explained that the report was referring to a public right- of-access and Mr. Bowers was referring to the right-of-way. He believed that EBRPD should be involved in the decision of the application because it has a financial interest in building and maintaining the road, as well as the liability for damage to the roadway. In response to Mayor Tarver's questions, Mr. Roush believed that EBRPD's purchase of the adjacent property would not change the nature of the easement and therefore, would not open it generally to public access. David Glenn, 5650 Foothill Road, explained that his main concern was that the excavating be done professional because of potential landslides. (A copy of the City's grading requirements was given to Council). He was concerned of the safety of the road and the installation of a mirror at one of the comers where Mr. Joel has previously had an accident. Martha (Marty) Greist, 5470 Foothill Road, spoke about the title of the easement. She explained that the mirror was not required of the Joeis, but only recommended. She requested that Council deny the appeal by Mr. Glenn. She briefly explained the history of the road and described her plans for the roadway access. Ms. Greist stated that this private easement is covered under the Civil Code of the State of California. She added these issues were voted on fairly by the users of the easement and believed that Mr. Glenn should take his complaints to the appropriate civil court. Mr. Lum explained the maintenance requirements of this private road and of other private and public roads/streets. Franke Lehne, 5466 Foothill Road, believed that this roadway should not be a major concern. He spoke in support the improvements to the roadway. There being no further testimony, Mr. Tarver declared the public hearing closed. There was considerable discussion regarding the proposed water pipeline, water pressure, the responsibility for maintenance of the road, and public v. private interest in the roadway. It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Ms. Seribner, to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission, thereby upholding the Planning Director' s determination that the proposed private driveway improvements by Mannie Joel and Martha Greist are consistent with the existing PUD on the property. Ms. Dennis was not comfortable with voting on an application for which she has never seen the plans. 07/05/94 6