CCMIN060303 - Laserfiche WebLink

Robert J. Gallagher, 3705 Gettysburg Court North, felt the golf course project is a farce. He felt Council defers to developers in order to get parks and various fees. He believed the Happy Valley residents and felt Council would not keep its promises. He did not think another golf course was necessary. He objected to the rubberized asphalt plant on Vineyard and did not feel a school should be built near it because of the air pollution. Vince Barletta, 6290 Laura Lane, indicated he is concerned about potential groundwater contamination in Happy Valley, since most residents do not have access to City water. He was also still concerned about traffic. All this contributes to a change in lifestyle and loss of the rural atmosphere. There are many joggers and bikers who use the area and are not residents. He is very concerned the EIR does not address increased traffic. He was also concerned about a possible condemnation of property to get this road. He urged Council to proceed with the bypass road now. There were no further speakers on this item. Mr. Roush believed staff's recommendation is still the best way to proceed. If this access is turned into a private road, the City could never remove the access for residents of Tract 7372. Once the bypass road is constructed, this resolution, combined with the appropriate Council findings, will allow this access to be an EVA only. Mayor Pico asked if there were deed restrictions on the lots that would support future action to close the road? Mr. Roush said there are many conditions, covenants and restrictions applicable to those lots. He believed this issue was included in the CC&R's and he would verify that it was there. If not, it could be added. The purchasers of the lots would specifically acknowledge that the access would be temporary and would be closed when the bypass road is constructed. Mr. Campbell asked about the resolution. Mr. Roush believed it would hold up in court, along with appropriate Council findings. He could not guarantee a court would uphold it, but he was confident it was defensible. Ms. Ayala asked if it was necessary to have this access as wide as proposed? Mr. Roush said it was necessary for two-way traffic. Mr. Brozosky asked how wide Alisal was and why this access could not be a private road. Mr. Roush was uncertain, but did not think it was 33 feet. If it were a private road, an easement would have to be granted to the 37 property owners. That would create an easement in perpetuity and would almost guarantee the access could not be closed. Pleasanton City Council 10 06/03/03 Minutes