PC 101100 - Laserfiche WebLink

see vineyards with grapes in this area. Mr. Hahner advised that he has no objection to planting fruit-bearing plants if that is what the Commission wants. Mr. Hahner stated that he feels that the 30% to 40% inversion rate noted in the noise report is too high, and that it is more like 10%. Commissioner Arkin expressed concern that there is no mechanism in place to be sure that the vineyards will be maintained and prevent the property from looking like it currently does. Mr. Hahner stated that he believes that the easement agreement requires annual monitoring to be sure that certain criteria is met. The Commission recessed for a break at 9:25 p.m. Chairperson Sullivan reeonvened the meeting at 9:35 p.m. PUBLI~2 HEARING WAS OPENED S~,ve Bmzosky, 1700 Vineyard Avenue, asked about the phasing plan referenced in Condition #27, ~how he would access his property. Mr. Swift advised that there are a number of properties for which the actual details regarding access need to be worked out. He stated that he believes that a driveway access for the Brozoslcy property could be arranged that would allow them to cro~s the pedestrian trail and connect to the access mad for the school district property. He advised that staff is attempting to get near perpendicular crossings of the trail for access of all impacted adjacent properties. He noted that the details would need to be worked out at the tentative map stage. Mr. Brozosky stated he cannot move his driveway because of an oak ~ce in the area, and it may be necessary to install a bridge. He advised that he is concerned about emergency access to his property, mail delivery, etc. Mr. Brozosky noted that he deals with livestock quite a bit, and he wants to be certain the disclosures are explicit about surrounding uses. He asked if the cons~-uc6on hours could be changed to Monday through Friday, with no construction on Saturday. Phil Rowe, Delco Builders, noted that Condition #13 requires that the developer provide a three- legged road to the school, but it is his understanding that the cost would be shared by all the Vineyard Avenue developers. Mr. Swift advised that U-shaped road is part of the shared Discussion ensued regarding the amenity that is being provided by the Costas property and the density being allowed for the project. Commissioners Roberts and Maas questioned whether paying the infrastructure costs constitutes an amenity. Mr. Rowe stated that the Specific Plan infrastructure is not needed to develop the Costas property. Mr. Swift commented that the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan provides a number of amenities being for the entire Corridor and that staff thought it was equitable to treat the Costas property with the same density as other lots similarly situated. He advised that the Costas property is being treated with the same unit- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 11, 2000 Page 6