PC 04/28/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Janet Elgammal, 865 Clara Lane, expressed concern future traffic that would be generated from Lot 4 on her property (Lot 6). Brian McGuire, 233 Del Valle Court, provided background information relating to the Vineyard Avenue Specific Plan process and annexation issues. He expressed concern with the amount of time that the process has taken. He noted that the residents have acted in good faith regarding this project, that this is a good project which would preserve much of the rural nature of the Vineyard Corridor in the future, and should be approved with no further delay. Further, he suggested that the Corridor be separated into two areas with the land at the west end being able to develop first because of the availability of existing infrastructure. Frank Berlogar, 2200 Vineyard Avenue, addressed issues relating to Lot 31 and noted he has been raising cattle for many year in this area. He commented on the needs of cattle and the cattle not being affected by development. He requested that the Commission follow the original staff recommendation relating to Lot 31, the Fagliano property, and grant one more unit for the Fagliano property. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard Avenue, commented positively on the 189 homes being financially feasible for the project and that City funding for the project will not be necessary. She noted the importance of analyzing who would benefit by reducing the number of homes in the project and expressed concern with taking houses from one owner and shifting them to another due to most of the residents wanting additional units on their property. She expressed concern with the open space easements as worded in the Specific Plan, Attachment 7, Page 9, number 55, not being stringent enough, and suggested that open space easements be dedicated in perpetuity to the City with a second offer to the South Livermore Valley Trust at the time of the final subdivision map recordation. "Further, she requested that the Commission approve staffs recommendation for not requiring organic farming of vineyards except for non-use of Methyl Bromide due to the limitations that already exist on the vineyards. She further noted that if the vineyards are required to be organic, the school and surrounding neighbors should be required to be organic. Ms. Roberts also read the following into the record, "The repositioning of the school in its entirety to Lot 19, makes Trail No. 4, where it intersects the existing Vineyard Avenue, a particularly attractive nuisance for children entering and exiting the school. The trail on Lot 26 is in an extreme wildfire risk area, as ruled such by the Fire Department. It is basically a wilderness trail and as such it presents numerous dangers to children including rough and irregular terrain and exposure to wild animals. The junction of these trails might invite children to wonder unsupervised into potentially dangerous areas where they could not be seen. We, the owners of Lot 26, do not want to be liable either for injuries to children or damage instigated by them to biological resources on the property. We also assume that the Pleasanton Unified School District, Pleasanton Park and Recreation, as well as the City of Pleasanton, do not want to assume such liability either." Ms. Roberts requested that Trail No. 4 be eliminated from the Plan due to liability issues and fire hazard issues for the owners of the property unless the school is repositioned. Ms. Roberts noted that a conditional use permit or variance be considered for people who want more animals on their property, as long as the number of animals do no harm to the Open Space area. She noted that the school impact fees need to be addressed, that Vineyard Avenue should be reduced to two PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 April 28, 1999