CC Min 1984-09-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4. Public Hearing - Proposed vacation of public service easement, 968 Pleasant Hill Road (RESOLUTION 9680, adopted 8/27/84; Report of City Manager and Director Public Works 8/22/84) (702 -10) Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Hearing and of Mailing on file. Director of Public Works Addiego presented the subject proposed vacation using overhead projections to illustrate his comments and referred to his report of August 22, 1984. Mr. Addiego noted that no permit has been issuE, for the proposed deck and hot tub. He stated that drainage may be improves' by the proposed construction in the easement area, that arrangements have been made by the applicants with the utility company to have the utility pole moved at the applicants' expense and, in response to question, stated that the statement of the homebui lder, Oddstad, is the typical developer's statement to eliminate liability in the event a property owner makes changes which create problems relating to grading and drainage. In response to question, City Attorney Schricker said that if branches of trees protrude on to another's property, the adjacent property owner may remove them. Mayor Britschgi declared the public hearing open at 7:58 p.m. James Allen, 973 Stoney Hill, backyard neighbor of the applicants, referred to his letter of September 5, 1984, with ten signatures of Stoney Hill Road neighbors who object to the proposed vacation and filed additional signatures. Mr. Allen said he fears drainage problems will occur, objects to the trimming or removal of any trees, has concern about the moving of the utility pole and believes he will suffer a loss of privacy, if the applicants are permitted to make use of the public easement area on their property. Mr. Allen suggested that a conflict of interest may exist on the part of the Councilmember who is employed by Canada College, since the applicant is also employed there. He also suggested that a bad precedent will be set. Councilman Claire said that he is employed by Canada, that he is acquainted with the applicant and that he is not his superior and is not employed in the same department and asked the City Attorney for a ruling. City Attorney Schricker advised that no conflict of interest exists. Discussion followed and Mr. Allen commented and replied to questions concerning his objections to the use of the easement; his acknowledgement that he has not consulted professional engineers with regard to his concerns about drainage; the fact the Director of Public Works states that drainage is not a problem; the fact that the professional expertise of the utility company will be involved in moving the pole; the fact that each such similar application would be reviewed on its own merits; and whether it might be possible to make conditions to mitigate any loss of privacy. Reg.Minutes 9/17/84 Page 3 MINUTE BOOK NO. 45 Page No. 134