Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Butler understood that the applicant would be willing to <br />bond for the entire project not just the golf course. If a PUD <br />approval was combined with a bond over the entire project then <br />growth management would not be an issue. It would be an issue of <br />timing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift understood that the project could be bonded for <br />street, infrastructure and the golf course but probably not for the <br />value of the houses. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler agreed. He could not visualize any circumstance <br />where a property owner would not want to go ahead once all of the <br />subdivision improvements were in. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that she was hypothetically proposing the lack <br />of growth management approval. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler felt that provisions should be made for another <br />access, however he had a difficult time with seeing a secondary <br />access being required for this small amount of traffic at either <br />level of number of units. He indicated that he could support <br />reducing the number of units and not requiring a second access, but <br />he preferred to maintain the ability to have the access point at <br />some time. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer believed that it would be cleaner to reduce the <br />number of units. The project met all of the environmental impacts <br />and conditions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver believed that if a golf course were placed in this <br />proposed area with 86 or 98 or 120 homes it ought to have access, <br />not through the neighborhoods, but through a public thoroughfare. <br />He did not consider Vineyard Avenue a thoroughfare although it is <br />getting straightened out and would be made into a main road from <br />Ruby Hill and Livermore into Pleasanton. If there were to be <br />access to a golf course, be it private or public, it should come <br />from this road. All of the points that the residents made about <br />safety of children, number of trips, etc. are valid concerns. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler agreed that the concerns expressed tonight were <br />valid but it just depended on how one would read the numbers. He <br />did not see a second access as a need. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that she had been concerned with a second <br />access road since Kottinger Hills was built there. She did meet <br />with the Homeowners Association and had a tour of the property with <br />the developer. The rear access had an appeal to her, but the <br />hesitation that she had was that it would take out more trees and <br />require more grading. The traffic issue should be based on the EIR <br />study. She agreed with reducing the project number. After hearing <br />the debate this evening she was still having a difficult time <br />deciding between a smaller project and no access road. <br /> <br />9/15/92 36 <br /> <br /> <br />