PC 071002 - Laserfiche WebLink

,,- Mr. Ebrahimi wished to discuss page 23, Item 94, which read: "All utilities required to serve any existing or proposed development on-site would be installed underground, unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer. The existing utility on the southerly side of Old Vineyard Avenue shall be moved to the northerly side on the existing poles or, if feasible, abandoned." He noted that this condition was not called out in the Specific Plan. He added that it was a positive plan which would improve the visual impact of the Trail, and Greenbriar agreed with this condition. However, they believed it was part of the Vineyard Specific Plan, and that the costs should be split as the other utilities are being split throughout the development. In response to Commissioner Kameny's question, Mr. Ebrahimi replied that each pole would cost between $5,000 and $7,000 to relocate. Commissioner Sullivan inquired what the impact would be if Greenbriar put those costs on the rest of the developers. Mr. Swift replied that staffwas not unalterably opposed to that idea, but it would require that staff would have to discuss the matter with the other developers. The Specific Plan contained estimated costs for each item, and if the estimate were to be off several percent, it would cover moving the line to the other pole. It would not have any significant monetary impact on the developer's plans. ,,- Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard, noted that if the telephone lines were moved, they would be placed on the 60KV line on the other side of the street. She noted that PG&E planned to move the 60KV lines some time in the future, which would leave the telephone lines dangling. Regarding the performance bond, she added that the Specific Plan stated that 25% of the houses will be withheld until the vineyards are in. She believed that the performance bond's requirement of a complete planting plan was unreasonable and nearly impossible. She believed that the open space in the 3.8 acres would work well, and added that the Heinz's have run cattle and managed the 20 acres as grazing land. She believed that use could continue, and noted that the Specific Plan identified how many animals could occupy each acre. Ms. Roberts commended Greenbriar for working with the Foley family, and added that they were a major part of the urban growth boundary of South Pleasanton. She did not believe that development should impose any problems on the Foleys. From her point of view as a neighbor, she believed that alternatives 1 and 2 were completely unacceptable and unworkable. Number 2 was particularly unworkable, because it would access another person's property when the proposal had not been discussed with them. Ms. Roberts retracted her opposition to where the manor house is located because the side ofthe house would be viewed when coming down the trail. Its placement in the two alternatives would be more prominent and less attractive in the two alternatives. She expressed concern about the side privacy fencing, which would not retreat visually as much as in the Centex property. Otherwise, she believed the plan was a nice one. Architecturally, she agreed with staffs proposal to put a cement pad in front of the homes rather than porches. She noted that porches were not necessarily appropriate for Southern ".-. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 10, 2002 Page 14