CCMIN060303 - Laserfiche WebLink

Bud Barlow, 6723 Alisal Street, said with the assumption the bypass road is to be built, he had questions: 1. What legal protections are in place so that the access will be an EVA only when the bypass road is built? 2. Will all the golf course property owners have to agree in writing when they buy their properties that the EVA will be there only for emergency vehicle access? 3. Why does the road have to be wider than Alisal Street? 4. How does the road closure, once the EVA is built, fit in with City and state regulations? The name Westbridge Lane means nothing to him and he suggested the name should be Eva (for Eva Dutra). He commented he had voted for annexation, but after hearing the stronger comments doubting the construction of the bypass road, he would have voted against annexation. Chris Schlies, 699 Peters Avenue, Suite B, believed that if Council accepted this temporary access, it has taken an irreversible step towards the abandonment of any meaningful bypass road. Creation of a public road is far easier than the abandonment of public use. He cited the Streets and Highways Code. To close a road requires the vote of the Council and is then subject to court review. He noted two court cases where the court found no evidence the road was no longer necessary and disallowed the closure of the roads. Staff has suggested the acceptance be conditional upon the future event of construction of the bypass road. While this sounds workable, he has found no legal authority that allows conditional creation of a public road, which would be eliminated by some future event. He felt once the public access is opened, a court would find it necessary and not subject to abandonment. If this access becomes a public road, the Happy Valley residents would contend it is a violation of the Happy Valley Specific Plan and that the EIR is inadequate due to the change in traffic circulation. The Specific Plan did contemplate temporary access to the golf course via the Happy Valley Loop and that was studied as part of the EIR. The Specific Plan did not contemplate a permanent road connecting the golf course project, via the Happy Valley Loop. The EIR specifically found the traffic and noise from vehicles to the golf course and new housing would constitute a significant environmental impact. The bypass road was to mitigate the impact by taking traffic around the Happy Valley loop. However, if this access becomes a permanent route, that mitigation of traffic and noise will likely never result. As long as this access remains open, a motorist would have the choice of staying on the valley floor and taking the Happy Valley loop as opposed to going over the Spotorno hill and through the Sycamore Creek area. Considerations of distance, time and elevation changes will cause most motorists to choose the Happy Valley loop. Moreover, with such a permanent route available, the need to build the bypass road would never be viewed as urgent, necessary, or politically desirable. He suggested a temporary private road. If Council chooses to proceed with the staff recommendation, the Happy Valley residents will have no choice but to seek injunctive relief. Clifford Smedley, 936 Happy Valley Road, referred to the Mayor's statement to Alameda County that agreed to close Happy Valley Road. Since then he has heard many arguments that say that is not possible. He believed the Mayor knew that when he made the previous agreement and felt there were discussions behind closed doors. He asked what happened? Mayor Pico said he was wrong and there were no discussions behind doors. The decision made was that the City would not oppose a County action to close Happy Valley Road. Council is not endorsing closure of the road. Pleasanton City Council 9 06/03/03 Minutes