CCMIN100797 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Belzer said this was looked at initially, but rejected in order to make the properties more marketable and because it was more financially preferable to have a vineyard estate concept. The South Livermore Valley Land Trust deducts the value of the development before it will pay for a conservation easement. The analysis also considered the fees that would have to be paid to the South Livermore Valley Land Trust. Mayor Tarvet asked for public input. Irmeli Vatanen for Brian Lin said the noise and view of the quarry had been overlooked in the analysis. She did not feel $500,000 for vineyard estates would sell in this area. There are expensive homes in Ruby Hills that have not even sold. She also did not think the gateway to the wine country was through the Vineyard Avenue Corridor. She did not think people would drive through Pleasanton to get to Vineyard Avenue. She disagreed with the concept of a public school in the middle of vineyards because of the chemical spraying and dust. Frank Berlogar, 2200 Vineyard Avenue, felt this was a new beginning. He is pleased to see the houses being proposed would be fiscally sound. He supported the realignment of Vineyard for safety reasons. He encouraged the City to keep the financial consultants involved so at the end of the process there is something financially viable. Michael Goodwin, 1630 Vineyard Avenue, said his main concern is the availability of water. He said the plan needs to be economically feasible. He felt it could be a win-win situation for everyone involved. He also felt Vineyard Avenue needed to be realigned in order to accomplish a scenic road into the wine country. It is unsafe in its present condition. He said the analysis should cover the fair share reimbursement commitment for the fire station, S-curve improvements and other things. He asked if the water requirements had been taken into account if heavy agricultural uses such as vineyards are proposed for the area. He felt the infrastructure costs for the area are extremely high due to the way Ruby Hill was developed. It is not right that the Vineyard Corridor should bear all the costs of the infrastructure. He recommended the Council address the issues that have not been addressed in the report and direct staff to move forward in developing a specific plan for a buildable project. He believed that 150 units would not support the infrastructure. He also felt the consultant should be involved in the outcome. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard Avenue, thanked Council for having the analysis done. She supported the development of the Corridor into vineyards. She would like to see 84 houses in the area. She suggested using density transfer and felt this would help reduce the cost of the infrastructure. She mentioned the report done by the viticulturist and felt this area was prime for growing grapes. She looked forward to working on this to see it become a reality. Pam Chrisman, 1944 Vineyard Avenue, said there have never been vineyards in this area and there are residents that do not want vineyards in this area. She did not see this area as wine country. She would like to see Vineyard Avenue relocated. It is too busy to hike and ride bikes on. She also had a concern with being told she would have to hook up to City water and sewer Pleasanton City Council 10/07/97 Minutes 13