PC 021401 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pavan referenced a letter from Mr. Mark Posson of 3036 Chardonnay Drive requesting that r Vineyard A venue traffic impacts be addressed. Mr. Pavan noted that the City will be resurfacing Vineyard Avenue with rubberized asphalt and that additional measures requested by Mr. Posson can be handled at any time through the Capital Improvement process. Mr. Pavan introduced Mr. John Norwood, Executive Director, and Ms. Lois Lutz, Pleasanton representative, of the South Livermore VaUey Agricultural Land Trust. Ms. Lutz stated that the easement included in the packet is not the model easement that the Trust uses, even though the staff reports states that it is the intent for the Trust to have the easement. Discussion ensued regarding the preparation of the sample document provided. Ms. Seto advised that a final decision has not yet been made as to whom the conservation easements would go to, she noted that the document before the Planning Commission is a sample, and staff is having further discussions with the Land Trust about the treatment of all of the projects in the Vineyard Corridor. r. Mr. Norwood advised that if too much flexibility is allowed for landowners to write their own easements, it becomes more difficult for the Land Trust tow work out the specifics of the easement. He provided information regarding the two model easements that are used with the City of Livermore and Alameda County. He noted that the simpler and more standard and uniform the easement is, the easier it is to keep track of in terms of the Trust's stewardship. Mr. Norwood provided clarification regarding the rights that an easement provides; information about the grantee, grantor,' and beneficiary; and described how the easements in the City of Livermore function. He also provided information about the process for amending an easement, noting that there is some latitude to work with the landowner to amend an easement. Discussion ensued regarding the PUD condition of approval that requires that the vineyard shall be maintained for at least eight years. Ms. Seto advised that the situation in Pleasanton is slightly different from that of Livermore and Alameda County, in that there is the added layer of the Specific Plan and the PUD conditions, which require the vineyards to be maintained until the property owner could show that it is financially infeasible to maintain the vineyards and request a modification. Mr. Norwood advised that the Land Trust would not want to require landowners to plant crops of a specific nature. He advised that if the City wants to do this it should be done outside of the easement. Ms. Lutz noted that it is difficult to monitor an easement with "curvy" building envelopes, in that you don't know where the corners are and you cannot tell if a structure is encroaching on the building envelope. She stated that it would be helpful if the building envelopes would have a rectangular shape with straight lines. Mr. Norwood commented that each easement is a financial liability and they would want to minimize the number of easements and maximize the size of the parcels. He noted that the construction of the easement is really important and recommended that the City contact the firm of Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger regarding the work they have done in this area. He advised that the Trust would like to focus on parcels that are more of the 19-acre size and would discourage easements for smaller parcels. (' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 14,2001 Page 3