CCMIN061396 - Laserfiche WebLink

had not yet been completed with regard to the Ruby Hill annexation. He felt there was a trust issue because the Vineyard residents passed up their rights to protest and stop the annexation and the City said it would give them reasonable density. A process was started that took three years and cost $200,000 to produce a Specific Plan that now seems to have very little use. Setting aside those issues, he then reviewed the current proposal (modified alternative 7) for the Vineyard Corridor. The first modification of the Planning Commission proposal was to delete the requirement for another Specific Plan. In its place, they propose drafting design guidelines. The design guidelines could determine where the actual density of development would go and what it would be. The proposed density is proposed at a minimum of 410 units and a maximum of 480 units. They believe that 410 units is the minimum to allow the funding of the necessary infrastructure, including realignment of Vineyard Avenue, as suggested in the environmental document for the General Plan Update. Zoning of the property would be P-D; in this way Council and the Planning Commission would still have discretionary approval of what will be developed and in what location. In this way, the goals and objectives of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan would still be met. He requested a continuance of this public hearing in order to provide more feedback on the proposed Alternative 7. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard Avenue, thanked the City for the fire station on Vineyard Avenue. She then indicated she and her family were happy with the proposed General Plan Update as written. In 1991, her family, the Safrenos, and Halvorsens opposed annexation. They were concerned there would be speculation which would 1cad to dense development in the area. They dry farm their property and grow grapes for winemaking and want to preserve the agricultural uses. One of the elements discussed in the new General Plan is "community character". She agreed with a prior speaker about widening and developing Foothill Road. Pleasanton is now a maturing community, not a boomtown. As a community matures, the preservation of character becomes more important. She gave downtown as an example. The traffic is not efficient, but if it were changed to accommodate traffic, you would destroy the downtown area. She related her experience of dining outside in another town and the experience was not pleasant because of the speeding traffxc. Pleasanton is much better. She then related some of the goals of the General Plan to preserve agriculture and open. space character at the edge of the city. She felt the Vineyard Corridor was the edge of the city even though Ruby Hill is next to them. Another goal was to enhance the special visual quality of the Vineyard Corridor area and to adopt design guidelines for the Vineyard Corridor. The staff tried to do this with the Specific Plan. She referred to the necessity to preserve the California oak trees and she felt the wildlands overlay district was a wonderful idea. If the land is left in the proposed rural designation (five acre parcels), 91 to 127 houses will be added. The larger parcels will encourage small agricultural uses. She gave the example of a family that bought a 20 acre parcel and they have children in 4H and raise sheep. Others have horses. She believes there are enough people who want to have this lifestyle to make it worthwhile to preserve the area as proposed. She referred to the alignment of Vineyard Avenue. There is more traffic now but there are fewer accidents. Part of the road is due to be straightened by Ruby Hill developers. She felt the bike trails could be moved towards the arroyo. Some people are concerned about driving their children to school but a school bus could be employed. She objected to considering 06/13/96 -5-