Laserfiche WebLink
122 <br /> <br /> Item 6c <br /> Alignment and Street Cross-Section for Stanley Boulevard from the <br /> First Street Bridqe to California Avenue and for Del Valle Parkway <br /> from the Stanley Boulevard-First Street Intersection to Bernal <br /> Avenue <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 90:457) regarding the <br /> matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the <br /> application. <br /> <br /> Mr. Richard Irby, 3780 Stanley Boulevard, stated that when <br /> Stanley Boulevard was still part of Alameda County, the Board of <br /> Supervisors did not plan four lanes for the road. He added that <br /> although Mr. Joe Madden and he requested a meeting between the City <br /> and property owners on January 25th and a progress report on May <br /> 12th, they were never consulted. He pointed out that it was <br /> customary for a developer to furnish his own project's right-of-way <br /> and that it was unfair that the property owners are being asked in <br /> this case to provide 50 feet of land and over 75% of an acre to <br /> accommodate a development across the road. He also mentioned that <br /> he felt there was a conflict of interest involved in the alignment <br /> study, which was prepared by an employee of the developer. <br /> <br /> Mr. Scott Gridley, 3878 Stanley Boulevard, President of <br /> Pleasanton Lumber Company, stated that he could not understand why <br /> existing properties are being taken to expand the Stanley Boulevard <br /> when open area is available on the other side of the road. He <br /> added that although the City has a condition on the property on <br /> which he runs his business that the road could be expanded towards <br /> the front porch of his building, the City also granted him a <br /> Conditional Use Permit for his business. He said that he expressed <br /> concern that the expansion of the road would impact his business <br /> and inquired who would pay for the loss of his business if the plan <br /> was approved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer referred the matter to Mr. Roush. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that he did not have the conditions on the <br /> property before him; however, if the property has a condition by <br /> which it is agreed that that property will be dedicated to the City <br /> if and when Stanley Boulevard is widened, there would be no <br /> compensation made for the property. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired if the property owner would be obligated to <br /> put in road improvements with the taking of his property, if he is <br /> not doing any further development. <br /> <br /> - 24 - <br /> 11-20-90 <br /> <br /> <br />