SU0003081 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

has so well resorted on past occasion. Indeed, when one of us pro- posed just that, a few workday hours ago, both the key Staff member and the developer, seemed enthusiasticall favorable. However, we were instructed that the die ha a ready been cast, and that the only wny in which the matter could be forced open to do this would be for us to now appeal — all with a deadline of about 10 working hours and n cost to us of $550.00. Accordingly, we now do so. Even an, following that route in lieu of preserving said dedication(s) can do grievous harm to parcel holders, especially to parcel holders south of the tunnel under Interstate Highway 580, inasmuch as the dedication would appear to cover more of the road than would be covered by ease- ments from the current developers. Too, dedication would make avail- able the enforcement of criminal law by the Sheriff's Department for abuse or blockage of the road. With a private road such infractions become "civil matters" which the Sheriff's Department seems normally to decline to touch. Accordingly, a public road, with dedication to the County of the developing parcel's improved frontage road at the time of obtaining site approval for undertaking industrial operations thereon, in the successive development of parcels progressively "upstream", seems the non-chaotic, common-sense objective for the County to pursue — and it is the route the appellants prefer by far, and feel would be no more than fair to them after the County had created the parcels. A second issue is the deletion of the requirement for dedication wrought by Recommendation No. 1 in said 2/25/94 letter, pore 1 . Especially for the "60-foot right-of-way local industrial road across the frontage" of the developer's own parcel, it seems ludicrous for the County, after mandating that a paved road be installed doubtless for helping the "upstream" parcel holders to get past the industrial operation, to then strip away the obligation for the industrialist to allow the "upstreamers" to use it. Even if the years-old dedication of the 20-foot frontage strip were left intact, it is seen quite un- likely that much, if any, of to 60-foot right-of-way's paving would be atop it. Rather, the "upstreamers" would then be left to be allowed to drive up the drainage ditch, but stay off the paving. Even obtain- ing the aforesaid private easements could fall far short of letting the "upstreamers" actually travel over the paved portion, especially were an improved road to be run astraddle down the section line to be shared by two developers on opposite sides of the street. No, it flies in the face of common sense to split apart the improved road from the obligation to allow it to be used for the "upstream" access. The developers are not seen to be objecting to so dedicating their own frontage road. Rather, it is Staff which is seen doing the pressing toward doing away with dedication. Common to both issues is the professed reason for the Staff's having perpetrated both of the horrors. It's that the California Department of Water Resources has, in some communication — vaguely alluded to, but not exhibited — said they wish the Hansen Road bridge over the California Aqueduct not to become, or remain, a public throughfare, but merely one to serve the thousan s scree and the scad of County parcels dependent upon it for access. Can there be any solid sub- stance to such a bizarre suggestion that the California Aqueduct is a "great wall of China" cutting off public east-west travel in some 300 miles of the length of the State? Our daily observation bespeaks just the opposite. Public crossings abound. Witness: Only about four miles southeast, their Tracy Boulevard bridge is about 200 feet wide, as well as about 200 feet long, serving as a public traffic hub, with vehicles going in perhaps six directions therefrom, often with insufficient breaks in the traffic to permit one to walk rather than run across. Even closer, in the opposite direction, Interstate Highway 205 is carried over the Aqueduct on a bridge. Is the County bent upon laying waste to a significant portion of its southern extremity by insensibly complying, without energetic challenge, with some such curious whisper from a State staff member? Is the State merely jockeying to avoid being saddled with having to pay for enlarging the bridge in the wake of Board of Supervisors having declined, in July, 1993, to oblige these very developers from having to do so as a condition for introducing industrialization to our south-of- Aqueduct area here?