PC 03/23/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

the City utilizing two roads to eliminate excess noise and to prevent cars having to go uphill on Lot 3. He expressed concern with a temporary road being utilized due to the length of time necessary for the lower parcels to develop. Mori Hatsushi, 2756 Vineyard Avenue, noted the negative impacts on the nursery business (Lot 1) if Lot 3 is developed with the access road proposed in the Specific Plan. Further, he expressed his desire to be a good neighbor to adjacent property owners. Michael E. Kyle, 5000 Hopyard Road, representing Michael Goodwin, provided the Commission with an aerial photo and enlarged photos of the Goodwin property and referenced his letter dated March 23, 1999. He commented on the unfair appropriation of lots that Mr. Goodwin's property has received. He requested that the Commission provide a favorable recommendation to the City Council that the Goodwin property be allowed two additional lots on the lower front area of the parcel. He also suggested that two additional lots be permitted between the existing house and the lower portion of the property. He commented on the economic analysis and the residual land value and requested further review by staff. He expressed concern with multiple developers developing property and the costs associated with that. Steve Brozosky, 1700 Vineyard Avenue, expressed concern with Lot 22 and the caretaker's facility being permitted in the Open Space district. He also expressed concern with the density of Lot 25 and with reducing vineyard area and the large number of children proposed for the daycare center. Further, if the daycare center is permitted, significant environmental issues need to be addressed. He expressed concern with the combination of Lots 18, 19, 21, and 28, the density of homes on these lots, and the elimination of vineyards due to housing. He suggested putting conditions on permits to require cultivation of vineyards within a specified period of time. He further expressed concem with restrictions being placed on the raising of farm animals and agricultural use, and opposed his property being restricted due to new development. He suggested a condition stating "not for commercial use" relating to farm animals and agriculture and no restrictions of personal use of land for 4-H agricultural uses. He supported traffic impacts being mitigated in outlying residential areas and requested that the same standards be applied to existing residential areas. He expressed concern with the school being built without infrastructure in place (including the realignment of Vineyard Avenue), and the inconvenience to existing residents of infrastructure being installed along the existing Vineyard Avenue. He expressed concern with the removal of heritage trees on the school site and suggested that all oak trees be treated the same as heritage trees in the Specific Plan. Mr. Brozosky further expressed concern with the costs associated with the undergrounding of utilities and noted that new development should pay for those costs, not existing homeowners. He felt that the new location of the school is too far to the west and would infringe on the wildlife corridor. He expressed concern that 50-foot agricultural building setbacks are too restrictive. He commented on the EIR and expressed concern with the phasing of the project, especially as it relates to safety at the school. He expressed concern with the economic analysis not giving monetary value to Open Space. He noted that due to the time, he would be submitting further comments to staff in writing. Mary Roberts noted that due to the lateness of the hour, she would be submitting her comments to staff in writing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 March 23, 1999