CCMIN052896 - Laserfiche WebLink

Sharen Heinz, 1550 Vineyard Avenue, indicated she owned the property contiguous to Ruby Hill. She believed there were promises made by the City that she could develop. The property owners now have higher taxes, fewer land fights, and a restriction on septic tanks. She was upset that the owners were not allowed to be on the General Plan Steering Committee because of an alleged confilet of interest. There was someone on the Steering Committee who was on the Planning Commission and also lives on Vineyard Avenue. She believed there was documentation to verify the owners' position. David Jones, 1605 Rose Avenue, turned in a petition requesting that Rose Avenue/Rose Lane not be extended to Valley Avenue and that any recommendation in the General Plan for such an extension be permanently deleted. The extension has always been opposed by the Alameda County Fair Board. He referred to the proposed costs for extending a sewer line and a 12~ water line and the prohibitive costs for developing his property. If this road is ever to go through, he felt it was the City's responsibility to provide it. The property owners have tried for ten years to get this accomplished with no success. Two different developers tried to get projects approved and spend considerable money, but were not successful. He felt that when negotiations were being done with Alameda County regarding the San Francisco Water Department property, that the Rose Avenue extension should have been included. Steve Brozosky, 1700 Vineyard Avenue, indicated he recently bought the Moxon property and he has not had time to review all the documents on the Vineyard Corridor. He indicated he would like to have Vineyard Avenue realigned. Getting onto Vineyard Avenue has become more difficult because he is on a blind curve. He believed that the property owners would not have spent $200,000 on a Specific Plan if promises had not been made to them. He does not plan to subdivide his property and indicated his support of controlled growth. He opposed the 4/Sths vote requirement to change the General Plan. John Spotorno, 1028 Harrison Avenue, Redwood City, indicated there are two matters Council needs to consider with regard to developing the golf course and mitigating impacts on the neighborhood. Those issues are the Urban Growth Boundary line location and the two acre minimum requirement. He felt the intent of the Urban Growth Boundary is to separate the developable land from open space. He believes the 15 acres discussed as the upper Spotorno Valley is really 40 acres and part of the reason the Urban Growth Boundary line was drawn where it was is because of the 25 % slope and the visibility of the land. Some of the property is visible; however, some of the proposed golf course area is also very visible. He believed the Urban Growth Boundary line is too close in and a more easterly location would allow more possibilities of different access points to the golf course and any future development of the Spotorno property. He felt the other issue of two acre minimum lot size was unreasonable and would restrict the area' s ability to support the infrastructure that has been discussed for the golf course. The City proposed one acre lots around the golf course and the North Sycamore Plan agreed one acre lots was a reasonable buffer. He referred to a project he is working on in Redwood City. 05/28/96 -11-