CCMIN052896 - Laserfiche WebLink

Steering Committee recommendation for low and medium density in one area will not generate any funds for the Land Trust. Them were two transition areas intended to provide most of the funds for the Land Trust, one in Livermore and one in Pleasanton (the Vineyard Corridor). The property owners' plan at 700 units could provide $7 million to the Land Trust. Mr. Berlogar referred to 'gross developable acres' and read that portion from the draft General Plan. He then referred to an illustration of proposed development. Originally, they could have constructed 176 units; with the current recommendations for densities would allow 30 units; if the 25 % slope rule is imposed, the developable acreage on each of the sites drops and only four new units could be constructed in this area. The last issue he referred to was the concept of in-fill. He showed maps of Ruby Hill and the Vineyard Corridor at the same scale to demonstrate his belief that the Vineyard Corridor is clearly an in-fill site. There is medium to high density development going up to the Corridor from Pleasanton and Ruby Hill is no less than low density on the other side. The draft General Plan encourages development of in-fill sites. The Planning Commission does not consider this in-fill because it doesn't meet a strict definition that says all the infrastructure must be in place and there is no existing sewer line down Vineyard. He is very concerned about the outcome of this process and so far he does not feel he and his neighbors have been treated fairy. Council has an opportunity to correct the situation. Frank Brandes, 6889 Corte Sonada, concurred with the comments of the attorney and property owners regarding the historical perspective concerning Vineyard. He felt there was a commitment to the citizens. He urged Council to carefully review the prior minutes. Mr. Tarvet indicated he would be reviewing the situation and he did not remember any commitment adopted by the entire Council. Every action on Vineyard has involved a great deal of debate. Mr. Brandes believed that when the Mike Harris property was annexed, everything east of that point was to go into the South Livermore study. That was before Ruby Hill was envisioned. He also recalled many questions posed by the Vineyard property owners. The fact that there was a tremendous involvement of staff time and the commitment of these land owners to pay for the study rather than the City would lead to the belief that there was a commitment. Ms. Dennis indicated she had been told Signature wanted to apply in the City first and was told to go to the County for approval. Mr. Brandes indicated Signature never made a formal application to the City and he was surprised when Signature applied in the County. The big issue he remembered was what was going to happen with the South Livermore study and the vineyard groups were involved. Ms. Mohr remembered a call from Jim McKeehan in the early stages of Ruby Hill, asking what her feelings were about Signature Properties making an application with the City 05/28/96 -9-