PC 05/06/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

. . . Chairman Lutz stated that the South Livermore Valley Area Plan states there should be a minimum 100-foot uncultivated buffer from the top of the bank. Mr. Dove does not believe this restriction was ever brought up in the Circulation Subcommittee discussions. Commissioner Hovingh is concerned about the wetlands argument and that the loading would be single-sided. Mr. Higdon advised that the existing Vineyard Avenue could become a local street with nothing fronting it except existing driveways. Commissioner Hovingh assumed that new sewer pipes would follow the realignment of Vineyard Avenue. Mr. Higdon also advised that the water supply pipelines and turnouts are present to service this area. There is no sewage system available, and development would necessitate extending it from Bernal Avenue. Chairman Lutz stated that he is not opposed to realigning Vineyard Avenue along the Arroyo, unless it is the reason for intensive development. He feels that the present alignment can be made safe and has enough capacity for the area. Commissioner Barker discussed her concerns with noise attenuation in the area of Bernal and Vineyard. She also asked staff if there were any possibility of adding another road to Stanley Boulevard. Mr. Higdon said that there was some talk of extending Hearststone but that the idea did not receive approval and was dropped. Discussion went to the topic of Isabel Avenue. Mr. Bill VanGelder advised that the Isabel Avenue extension is part of the interchange plan for the Measure B extension. Livermore is trying to decide the design of the road, and there are plans for a traffic signal. Considerable discussion ensued regarding the plans for the Highway 84 extension and the realignment of Isabel Avenue in Livermore. Commissioner Wright commented that he reviewed all the alternatives of the Vineyard Corridor and feels that no matter what plan is chosen, Vineyard Avenue needs to be realigned. Commissioner Wright tended to support Suba1ternative 7 because it is a combination of the property owners' wishes and the wishes of several members of the General Plan Steering Committee - a compromise. In trying to satisfy both sides, it would put the housing number at about 480 units. Commissioner Wright commented that in deciding if this is an infill project, to be infill, all utilities need to be in place. This is not totally the case. Commissioner Wright also looked at the densities of the surrounding areas. He feels the residents are asking for density comparable to Ruby Hill. He feels the Vineyard Corridor should be given Low Density Residential. Subalternative 7 provides a density of 1.3 units per acre, which falls within Low Density Residential category. Commissioner Wright supports Subalternative 7 which he feels is a compromise of the too severe General Plan Steering Committee recommendation and the requests of the property owners. The requested 700 units is too much. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 6, 1996