Laserfiche WebLink
Report o£ the Director of Housing and C,~mmunit Develo .m__ent~ Re: Public Improvement <br />in the Longview Subdivision <br /> Mr. Bowling presented the staff report, dated June 21, 1974, regarding this <br />matters <br /> <br /> Mr~ Raymond T. Diamond, 9086 Longview Drive, requested that the drain on lower <br />Longview be cleared, and stressed the importance of getting this problem corrected <br />before the rainy season begins~ <br /> <br /> Mr. E. Go Meyers, 9220 Longview, stated he felt Dr. Long was responsible for <br />the improvement and repair of the road, and that the dirt road should be paved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell explained the drainage problem in the Longview area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Richard J. Angel, 512 Neal Street, presented his letter to the City Council, <br />dated June 24, 1974, stating his opinion of the drainage problem and proposed solu- <br />tions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ted Fairfield, MacKay and Somps, presented background history of the Long- <br />view project and stated he felt the best way to solve the drainage problem is to <br />finish the development, and that exemption to the Restricted Growth Policy would <br />not obligate the City to provide sewage capacity to the project° <br /> <br /> Mr. Gilbert E. Maines, Attorney, 3443 Beacon Avenue, Fremont, questioned <br />whether the City has the authority under the Subdivision Map Act to deny the <br />Tentative and Final Map or condition an approval on the completion of certain <br />improvements. <br /> <br /> Mr. James M. Armstrong, Attorney, 351 St. Mary Street, stated that the Tenta- <br />tive Map was prepared but had not been submitted for approval because it was <br />necessary to first obtain an exemption from the Restricted Growth Policy. <br /> <br /> Dro Howard Long, 363 St. Mary Street, assured the City Council and residents <br />that he felt a moral obligation regarding this matter, but stated that any <br />improvements made now would have to be temporary until final development is <br />allowed, thus would be a waste of money~ <br /> <br /> Councilman Herlihy stated he supported this project in its concept when it <br />began as a welcome addition to the City, but the question to be settled tonight <br />is the maintenance of the road. He further stated the issue of Restricted <br />Growth Policy exemption was decided two weeks ago. He added he felt staff <br />should be instructed to work with Dr. Long in correcting the drainage problem. <br /> <br /> Councilman Philcox stated that since this road is a City street, perhaps <br />the City should share in some of the costs for repair and maintenance to correct <br />the drainage problem. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pro Tom Kinney stated that immediate steps should be taken to correct <br />this nuisance and hazardous condition. He added he did not feel the City should <br />be obligated to share in costs of maintaining a road that was beyond normal <br />maintenance conditions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Edgar stated the City feels strongly that the maintenance of this road, <br />with the unauthorized cuts, makes it difficult for the City of maintain. He <br />read a memorandum from the Director of Field Services regarding maintenance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell explained what portion of the road was maintained, and what <br />could be was subject to extraordinary difficulties for maintenance purposes. <br />He stated ~here were several solutions to the drainage prolblem besides complete <br />developmen~ <br /> <br /> Councilman Philcox stated that after hearing the Director of Field Services' <br />report, he would retract his statement regarding City sharing in the cost t6 <br />correct the drainage problem. <br /> <br /> Mr. Calmpbell stated the City would not demand any one particular solution, <br />only an acceptable end result. <br /> <br /> 6/24/74 <br /> <br /> <br />