CCMIN052284 - Laserfiche WebLink

345 Bennington stated that the residents are prepared to ask for an injunction to protect their guarantee of no street access from the development to Butter gate if that should become necessary. He urged a Yes vote on Alternative 3A, if emergency access if really needed. Mrs. Geraldine Kitsling, 4988 Mohr Avenue, stated that the residents were guaranteed no street access in 1979 and also no emergency access, and that this was brought to the attention of police and fire at that time. She stated that Mr. McManus, the developer, stated at that time that he would do whatever the neighbors wanted. Mrs. Kirs!ing ad- vised that the residents in her area do not want any access as it will create a traffic hazard for their children. She concluded by stating she was not originally in favor of any emergency access but now the neighbors have decided that if emergency access is neces- sary that Alternative 3A plan is something they could live with. Mr. John Frick, 4798 Sutter Gate, stated he had purchased his home seven years ago and was totally relieved when Ordinance No. 885 was adopted by the City Council to in- sure no through traffic on Sutter Gate. He stated he favors Alternative 3A as presented by Mr. McMillan, which would solve the problem of emergency access and still preserve the quietness of the neighborhood. There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed on the application and the Negative Declaration. Mayor Mercer stated that at no time does a guarantee of a City Council encumber a future City Council. He stated that he was a member of City Council in 1979 when the guarantee was made to the residents of the Sutter Gate area, and that he did not intend to back down on his guarantee of no access on Sutter Gate. He commended the citizens for their sincere efforts to solve the problem. He advised that Council needs to ad- dress the Hopyard Road intersection at the front end of the sports park, the S turn within the parks emergency access at Butter Gate, and landscaping. Councilmember Brandes stated he strongly agrees with the Mayor regarding upholding the guarantee made by the Council in Ordinance No. 885, and that he would not be sup- porting any through road on Sutter Gate Avenue. However, he stated he did feel that it is necessary to provide emergency entrance into the sports park from the eastern end and that he endorses the plan submitted by the citizens this evening. He stated that other improvements need to be made in the park area to improve traffic circulation. Councilmember Wood stated he favors use of the levy and will support Alternative 3A. Councilmember Butler stated he was on the Council that voted for Ordinance No. 885. He added that any action taken by City Council can be looked at again, even as soon as the next meeting, if that is deemed necessary. He stated that conditions have changed since adoption of the Ordinance in 1979 and he feels there is need for emergency access from the eastern end of the sports park. He stated the plan presented by the citizens is a positive recommendation and has some very good points; it does allow for a pedes- trian/bike access from this residential portion of town and it appears to provide acceptable emergency access. Councilmember Mohr stated she came prepared to support emergency access and to address the City's liability. She stated she felt a sense of responsibility to main- tain the integrity of the City Council decision in 1979 and would uphold that decision. Council discussion ensued regarding how the access improvements would be paid for. Mayor Mercer advised that the cost would be split between Hacienda Business Park, Crocker Homes and the City, but it has not been determined at this time how the costs will be pro-rated. 7. 5/22/84