CCMIN072192 - Laserfiche WebLink

154 Mr. Roush indicated that if the Council intended to sell the parcel, it would need to be declared surplus and a value would need to be established. Council would also need to determine if it was realistic that there would not be an access to the Hatsushi property. Ms. Acosta pointed out that the Vineyard Corridor Study was currently being processed. The study should be complete in three months. She was concerned with Council's deciding that this property was surplus and then after the study was complete, it was found that the parcel was the preferred access to the area. She concluded that staff could not recommend Council to find the parcel as surplus at this time. Dave Trimble, stated that the parcel is an eyesore to the neighborhood. He believed that the City should landscape it and use the monies that were collected from each of the owners for trees that were never planted. Mary Pat Hawkins, supported the City's landscaping this parcel. She agreed that the area was an eyesore and felt a sense of betrayal because nothing has been done to the property. She explained that the development has no greenbelts and/or setbacks. She questioned the park exaction fees that the developer paid. Ms. Hopkins felt that it would be impossible for a street to be placed in that area John Peterson, 857 Montevino Drive, objected to building a street on this parcel. He stated that the area was too steep for vehicles to drive safely. He said that the neighbors are now maintaining the parcel (picking up garbage, etc). The owners were under the understanding that this parcel was going to be a park. He was told that the developer paid $1500 per lot in park dedication fees and $140 per lot for trees. Ron Cote, 870 Montevino Drive, was also concerned with the traffic through his neighborhood. He had contacted Sgt. Burford regarding this problem and that resulted in 25 mph speed signs being placed on the street. Mr. Cote requested the police department monitor the area with radar but so far it has not happened. He believed by opening the parcel up to create a street would only add to the problem. Mr. Butler stated that there were some questions that needed to be answered such as requirements in the subdivision. He believed that there was never the intent to make this parcel into a neighborhood park. The parcel would not meet the park requirements. He felt that now was not the time to make the decision of whether this property should be declared surplus. He did not support using any park money or general fund money for the property. 7/21/92 12