PC 032807 - Laserfiche WebLink

square footage total was excessive. He did not believe the staff report was clear in stating whether the second unit ordinance would apply. He noted that Item 49 on page 18 discussed protecting the blue oak woodlands and noted that there were other species such as buckeye trees and western sycamore trees that should be included. He noted that if only the old trees were protected, there would be no trees left in time. He suggested a new tree-planting program. James Van Dyke, 3362 Arbor Drive, noted that he wished to comment on the Oak Grove project and that he lived in Vintage Hills and believed that this was generally a good plan that he supported. He wanted to ensure that the area was designated open space for the general public. He agreed with Mr. Harvey’s comment about protecting all species. He wished to mention some comments in local publications that he believed bordered on hysteria or NIMBYism that if there was an access at Kottinger Ranch, that would invite arsonists or partiers to the site. He did not believe that was a reasonable fear and did not believe that an arsonist would be deterred by a “Keep Out” sign or lack of public parking. He believed that safety was enhanced by the presence of hikers and mountain bikers. He noted that mountain bikers were generally nature-loving people who were concerned about conservation; he noted that they tended to go into the deepest wilderness areas and would immediately do something if they saw an arsonist. He noted that mountain bikers had less of an environmental impact than equestrians. He noted that open space access was a positive activity for kids. Bing Hadley, 1210 Hearst Drive, President of the Kottinger Ranch Homeowners Association, noted that he wished to comment on the Oak Grove project and believed that this plan represented significant effort on the part of the City, developer, and homeowners. He believed it represented significant and meaningful compromise that impacted the adjacent neighborhoods as little as possible. He supported the open space gained by the City. He would like to ensure that there was a conservation easement held by a third party that ensured the land would remain open space. He would not want to see further road extensions and tie-ins and would like the project to become the end of the line at the urban growth boundary. He wished to ensure that the City had no intention of exercising eminent domain to overturn that at a future point. He did not believe that would be the case, but wanted that to be memorialized. He supported public access to the open space, which was an important part of the project; he supported an 11-space parking lot with restrooms, water, and a horse trough. He would like to see a meaningful plan put in place to avoid the area being used as an after-hours hangout. He had originally been against public access to open space but was persuaded by Ms. Dolores Bengtson that the use of lighting, timed sprinklers, and law enforcement presence would make the area less attractive to loiterers. He noted that emergency vehicle access was an important part of the project; he favored a circular route. He noted that the developer had put funding for traffic mitigation and traffic lights at Kottinger Drive and Bernal Avenue and wanted to keep that in the program. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard Avenue, noted that she wished to comment on the Oak Grove project and that as she read through the staff report, she was upset about the open space conservation district because it was worded differently in different parts of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2007 Page 6 of 16