CCMIN052284 - Laserfiche WebLink

subdivision residents. He stated that response time for police and fire is poor and there is a definite need for access to the sports park from Sutter Gate. He reviewed the general history of this area and proposed access to the sports park and Crocker Homes development. He stated that if additional access is not provided that traffic flow at the intersection of the sports park and Hopyard Road will reach the level of LOS E, which is intolerable. He stated there may be some liability involved if better access for emergency vehicles is not provided. He stated he was not opposed to having access into the park from Sutter Gate to a parking lot, and from Skylark into a parking lot, with the parking lots joining. Mr. Hirst concluded by stating that the Transport- ation Subcommittee as well as the Steering Committee of the General Plan Review Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of access to the sports park from the eastern end. The following persons spoke in opposition to the application: Mr. Doug Stuhr~ 4849 Mohr Avenue, stated that he had moved into his home five years ago because of the quiet neighborhood. He stated that about three months after he re- ceived a public hearing notice relative to the Crocker Homes development and the opening of Sutter Gate. He stated the residents fought hard to keep Sutter Gate from being connected to Hopyard Road and because of that, Ordinance No. 885 was adopted by the City Council guaranteeing no access from Sutter Gate. He advised that the residents of this area are still vehemently opposed to any access from Sutter Gate, because of the in- creased traffic this access would allow. He stated he is not opposed to emergency access if such access stays within the limits of Ordinance No. 885. Mr. Richard McMillan, 4712 McHenry Gate, presented an alternate that has been agreed upon by the citizens committee, which allows 20~ emergency access on Sutter Gate Avenue, gated at ingress to Zone 7 arroyo, with a second gate at Marjan Court egress; lots numbers 21 and 22 should each have 5' minimum setback from common property line; 10' pedestrian/bicycle access with 6' walls with adequate obstruction to prohibit motorcycle passage; bulb finish to Sutter Gate Avenue; and irrigated landscaping along the northern Sutter Gate boundary. He stated this alternate has received the endorsement from many parties, will meet the emergency access concerns of the City, and will maintain the in- tegrity of Ordinance No. 885. Mr. Bob Jones, 4868 Mohr Avenue, stated that property owners were shown copies of Ordinance No. 885 when they bought their homes, guaranteeing no access from Sutter Gate to Crocker Homes development, and that their property was purchased based upon this guarantee. He stated that at that time the police and fire departments felt that emer- gency access into the park was not necessary. He concurred with the alternate presented by Mr. McMillan as a compromise solution, which would allow emergency access to the park for injured, fire access to homes, and police protection in the area. He suggested alternative gate systems that might be used. He also requested that landscaping be provided to eliminate the fire hazard. Mr. Phillip Schwartz, 4589 Mohr, representing a number of his neighbors, stated they think it is ludicrous to consider on-site access from Mohr or Sutter Gate Avenues to the sports park; their primary concern being traffic safety. He stated that Mohr Avenue is a dangerous street now without any increase in traffic. Mr. Bob Fischer, Klamath Court and Mohr Avenue, stated that Mohr Avenue is a dangerous street and he did not want any more traffic added to it. Mr. Doug Bennington, 4957 Mohr Avenue, expressed appreciation to the Council for hearing their side of the story, and he thanked the citizens who have worked for a solution to this problem. He stated he supports the alternative presented by Mr. Mc- Millan, if an access road is necessary. He added that use of the Zone 7 levy protects the integrity of the residents of Sutter Gate and of Ordinance No. 885. He stated this plan also protects the promise of four members of City Council of five years ago. Mr. 6. 5/22/84