PC 10/23/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairman Mahern asked whether other developers would be contributing to the trust as discussed by Mr. McKeehan. Mr. McKeehan affirmed that anyone wanting to develop in this area would have to pay some fees. For example in his case, it would never be less than $10,000 a unit, and it goes up depending on how large the unit is. Chairman Mahem posed an issue to Mr. McKeehan and the Commission. She noted there is this plan which the Commission has not seen and the whole reason for the General Plan amendment is because the City Council has determined that this plan is something the City wants. Because of this being such a good plan, they need to annex all the property in between so there is a contiguous route out to Ruby Hills. She felt she was at a real disadvantage in not knowing that it was worth going through a General Plan amendment and a prezoning process when they do not know exactly what they are getting. She did not know that the plan was so great, or whether the Commission should take public testimony and then make their decision after they have seen the plan. Mr. McKeehan responded to Chairman Mahem, stating that the decision to annex the property has already been made. He said the Council has contractually agreed to do that in a 4-1 vote for preannexation. Further discussion ensued between the Commission as to what steps may have to be taken to adequately address the EIR. Commissioner Horan voiced the question as to why the Commission is dealing with the issue at this point when the Council has already taken aforementioned action. Mr. Rasmussen responded that the Planning Commission was asked to conduct this public hearing and make its recommendation after testimony. Chairman Mahem ascertained that it is a legal formality that the public hearing is held and that the Planning Commission give their recommendation. Commissioner Hovingh expressed the hope that the Commission's recommendations would be so compelling and constructive that Signature Properties would take them into consideration and incorporate them into their plans. Debra Barker, 2947 Chardonnay Drive, Pleasanton, stated she has serious concerns about the plan. She lives about 50 ft. from Vineyard Avenue and has two small children. She is concerned that with development traffic will greatly increase and will create safety hazards for the neighborhood. She requested that when development takes place there be a signal light installed at Isabel Avenue and Stanley Boulevard. She would favor traffic being re- routed to Isabel and Bernal Avenue. She would want to retain the rural character of Vineyard Avenue and the Ruby Hill development as much as possible, not create more lanes, and keep the area a good place to live. Margaret Tracy, 1262 Madison Avenue, Livermore, presented a letter to the Recording Secretary and the staff, and read the letter for the record. She stated that she felt it was premature to amend and expand the General Plan land use map to conform to the Ruby Hill Minutes Planning Commission Meeting October 23, 1991 Page 19 ,. .