CCMIN070196 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Rasmussen indicated this area has been studied in some detail and each parcel was reviewed in tens of the appropriate lot patterns. He agreed setting the maximum number of units was not the typical method, however, it was necessary to review the impacts of a certain level of development. Ms. Mohr felt the usual method to determine units was through the zoning process and setting the midpoint of the zoning to yield X number of units depending on the parcel development plans. One property owner wants to grow grapes and hopefully other property owners would decide to do that as well; on the other hand, if another property owner wants to build a few homes, that would not preclude the agricultural uses. At the same time, because one property remains agricultural, it should not mean another property gets more units than appropriate. Mr. Rasmussen indicated the number of units allowed remains with the particular property, whether developed now or later. There was no consideration given to density transfer here. Mr. Swift indicated the South Livermore Plan, when it was finished, tried to accommodate that in a different way than density transfer. There was a money transfer system instead. Any units built would pay into a fund that would accommodate the agricultural easements over the more viable agriculture lands. Ms. Michelotfi asked if there were incentives for viticulture uses in the area. She agreed with Mr. McKeehan in that it is not so much the number of units, it is how it looks and feels. Mr. Tarver agreed with that and felt that when the slopes, arroyos and other undevelopable lands are removed, you get fairly intense lower level development. When you try to put 480 units there, that is not what he envisioned for the area. He does not want to have density determined by infrastructure. That is not good land use planning. He felt the visual aspects of the corridor should dictate the density. The cost of straightening Vineyard Avenue should not drive up the density. Ms. Mohr felt the City could contribute to the cost of Vineyard Avenue. Moving the road near the arroyo could be a good idea. Ms. Dennis did not feel that moving the road near the arroyo was consistent with the South Livermore Area Plan because the creek was to be avoided by development. She asked what the Steering Committee recommendations was and also was curious as to why uses like wineries, bed and breakfast inns, etc. were not considered. Mr. Rasmussen indicated these uses were considered and could be acceptable there. The General Plan Steering Committee did not suggest specific wording; it recommended changes to 07/01/96 -20-