CCMIN091592 - Laserfiche WebLink

52 Marilyn Grimes, 962 Concord Street, was concerned about the impact that the traffic would have in her neighborhood due to this project. She understood that at some time a left hand turn from Touriga to Hearst would be prohibited. If this were to happen, people would make a right hand turn and then make a U turn in front of the elementary school. This could result in a safety hazard. Michael Goodwin, 1630 Vineyard Avenue, was opposed to the secondary access roads proposed because they crossed his property. He was not opposed to the project itself but was never notified about these roads using his property. Martin Inderbitzen, 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 400, representing the applicant, responded to some of the questions and/or comments made by the previous speakers. He wanted to make it clear that the golf course would be a privately operated golf course that would be open to the public. There is an operation plan that would have to be approved for the golf course as one of the conditions of approval and that plan would go back to the Planning Commission. At that time, these types of concerns could be addressed. He explained that most of Ms. Hollister's concerns had been addressed in the EIR and staff report. Mr. Inderbitzen indicated that the applicant did his best to include and notify all residents that would be effected by this project. He then explained that in the event that there was no secondary access, there would be at least two emergency vehicle accesses. The EIR and the traffic studies all conclude that the traffic impact is insignificant because it does not reach the 3,000 average daily trips. He pointed out that there was considerable reduction in trips per day when the project was reduced to 98 units. Houses are to be only on one side of the street with further set backs so the traffic issue could be resolved. Mr. Tarver asked if Mr. Inderbitzen was indicating that Hearst Drive was different than other streets that are characterized as having the capacity of 3,000. Mr. Inderbitzen answered yes. It is different than what might have been anticipated when the General Plan was drafted. He indicated that Mr. Fairfield would agree to drop the project to 86 units with the golf course and no requirement for a secondary access. With regard to the oak tree issue, he explained that the area proposed to be used for the golf course is an agricultural use and cattle grazing piece of property. Cattle are a death knell to oak tree survival. This project would enhance the land because the cattle would be removed and the project has a very extensive revegetation plan. The applicant had an extensive study done regarding this plan. He confirmed that this course would create an environment that looks very natural and mature. 9/15/92 26