PC 07/12/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ken Chrisman, 1944 Vineyard Avenue, is in support of the realignment of Vineyard Avenue along with an appropriate number of units to be built to justify the development of the realignment. In response to Commissioner Barker, he does not know the answer to the number of housing units needed to pay for the infrastructure. Gary Schwagerle spoke for the older residents along the Happy Valley and Alisal Roads who would like to retain the existing density which is slated to be changed to a lower density. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED A break was taken at 10:20 pm. Commissioner Wright inquired of staff if any studies were done to identify the number of units needed to support the Vineyard Avenue Corridor infrastructure. Mr. Rasmussen stated that the consultants have estimated that about 480 units would be needed to support the realignment, and other needed infrastructure. Commissioner Hovingh noted that several Vineyard Corridor people have alluded to "promises" made to them by the City for their annexation. Mr. Rasmussen commented that the property owners had been working with staff to develop plans and an EIR, and that the City Council had directed the General Plan Steering Committee to also review this area. Commissioner Wright remembered there had been some implied densities in the Vineyard Corridor similar to those in Ruby Hill. Staff didn't know of any actual implied densities. In response to Commissioner Barker, Mr. Swift noted prezoning public hearings for the Vineyard Corridor had been held by the Planning Commission and City Council. He also noted the South Livermore Area Plan was approved at the same time with the agricultural area being designated as a gateway to the City. The Commissioners discussed at length their thoughts about the report before them and whether or not they could recommend it onto the City Council or whether they would like more time to review all of the documents and have a second meeting at a later date to discuss their views of the recommendations. Commissioner Barker expressed that she likes and dislikes aspects of the report, but she trusted the process in which the document was prepared. She would like to send the document onto the City Council supporting the work done to date. Commissioner Barker stated she supports Alternative 1 of the staff report. Commissioner Wright supports Alternative 2. He felt he shouldn't go to the meetings, rather let the process move forward, ending at the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wright feels that the Commissioners should make a written evaluation of the final recommendations to be forwarded to staff. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 12, 1995