Laserfiche WebLink
141 <br /> <br /> Mr. Ken Smith, 3441 Brandy Court, representing the Vintage Hills Homeowners <br />Association, stated this group had met with Mr. Parish before this matter was con- <br />sidered by the Planning Commission. He stated the Association had some major con- <br />cerns relative to density, traffic congestion, and park facilities but that these <br />concerns had been resolved for the most part. He stated there were still concerns <br />regarding the lot for fire service. Mr. Smith stated that the Board of Directors <br />for the Vintage Hills Homeowners Association endorsed this project with some reser- <br />vations. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ron Schneider, 650 Orofino Court, presented letters from two of his neighbors <br />as follows: (1) James A. Griffen, 3036 Chardonnay Drive, expressing opposition to the <br />Parish project; and (2) Dave Ash, 615 Orofino Court, voicing opposition to this pro- <br />ject. Mr. Schneider then made a slide presentation identifying his objections to the <br />Quail Creek project, and the advantages of the Amador Meadows project over Quail Creek. <br />He listed the major issues against Quail Creek as density, experimental housimg, <br />limited open space, designation of use of park and recreation funds, adverse impact <br />of additional traffic on Vineyard Avenue, lack of significant effect of Pico Avenue <br />extension relieving Vineyard Avenue traffic, and difficulty in control of maintenance. <br />He recommended the proposed project be rejected for these reasons. Mr. Schneider <br />cited advantages of the Amador Meadows project as being close to public transporta- <br />tion, closer to parks/recreation facilities, maintenance provided by homeowners asso- <br />ciation, low impact on streets, and proximity of parks lowers impact of not having <br />park and recreation funds designated to nearby area. For these reasons, Mr. Schneider <br />urged Council not to approve the Quail Creek project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sieglitz rebutted the concerns of the opponents by stating that he did not <br />feel there would be any significant adverse impact from traffic with the extension <br />of Pico Avenue, which is presently under construction. He stated the purpose of <br />tonight's meeting is to consider this project under the criteria of affordable hous- <br />ing and assurance of performance; and the project meets all the goals established by <br />Council. He stated this project is not an experiment in manufactured housing; that <br />manufactured housing is approved housing by State law, and that consumers should have <br />a choice between conventional and manufactured housing. Mr. Sieglitz stated that many <br />homeowners in the immediate area are in support of the project. He presented a letter <br />from the Hacienda Mobile Home Park Homeowners Association, dated September 1, 1982, <br />giving their un-qualified approval of project "Quail Creek" and stating it would be a <br />most welcome subdivision adjacent to their property. Mr. Sieglitz stated that a lot <br />of planning had gone into the project to minimize traffic congestion and sewer capa- <br />city, and that all units are designed with water saving devices. He stated the design <br />of the project is high quality. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vaughn Shahinian, Civil Engineer, San Jose, presented a model of the single- <br />family unit and of the duplex unit, and elaborated on the design, garage, and setback. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sieglitz stated the homeowners association would preserve a high quality of <br />maintenance. He stated that 247 units are proposed but he would accept a minor modi- <br />fication to the configuration of the recreational area and that one to three lots <br />could be devoted to this area. He advised he did not contemplate any other changes <br />to the plan. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mayor Butler declared the public hearing closed <br />on this item. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Mercer stated that Mr. Earp's project is competing against itself. <br />Council could grant affordable housing up to 249 units, but the project has not been <br />approved by Council. He stated the present plan is no different than the one pre- <br />sented previously. Councilmember Mercer reviewed several points in the staff report. <br />He stated he was concerned about drainage. He stated there needs to be some variety <br /> <br /> 4. 9/14/82 <br /> <br /> <br />