CCMIN051899 - Laserfiche WebLink

Janet Caprile, 75 Santa Barbara Road, Pleasant Hill, 94523, works with the University of California Cooperative Extension and is the Farm Advisor for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties commercial agriculture crops. She wanted to specifically speak on whether the agriculture property should be required to farm organically. She has been involved in a lot of organic agricultural operations over the last ten years. She is quite familiar with what it takes to do an operation organically. She said grapes could be grown organically, but felt it would be a restriction on the growers to require them to grow grapes organically. Most organic production is voluntary, because it is more expensive and time consuming. The main pesticide that is used is organic and nothing would change if the property is required to grow organically. The problem would be trying to do weed abatement organically. Growers typically put a strip of herbacide under the vine row, such as "Roundup". She said it is also drip irrigation is hard to use in organic production. Most growers like to use drip irrigation system because it is a more responsible water management system. She felt most of the things that organic growers would be required to do the growers are already doing. She said there are strict requirements and training required to apply certain restrictive materials. These restrictions help keep the issue of applying restrictive materials to a minimum. She questioned the legality of a city imposing a pesticide restriction and the interference with the right to farm ordinance. Her understanding is that the State has jurisdiction over restricting what materials are used and a city can not override this. She said the City could try and encourage the growers to farm organically. Paulette Salisbury, 6170 Corte Trancas, representing the Sierra Club, had a number of environmental issues. There has been months of testimony from citizens stating that more growth is not what they want and the addition of 189 homes is totally unnecessary. This development would have a tremendous negative impact on the infrastructure, including the transportation system, the sewer system, the water system, etc. She asked Council not to approve the project as it is proposed. She agreed it would be good to use the school impact fees to construct another elementary school on the property, but felt there was another way to get these fees without approving another development. Steve Brozosky, 1700 Vineyard Avenue, spoke about the impact this project would have on the 4-H program. He said the time for the 4-H projects is minimal. He also had some concerns with the restriction of not being able to put an agricultural building within 50 feet of his property line. He felt the houses being built next to agricultural properties should be doing the buffer and/or mitigating the issues. He said he is having to suffer a lot of restrictions with this project without getting anything in return. He agreed Pleasanton is in need of more schools, but the location selected for the school is not the best location. He believed the school belongs outside of Ruby Hill. He also felt a 240 person day care is an incompatible use for the area. He felt there were other solutions to lower the density yet to keep the same feasibility for the project. David Trotter, 2121 N. Califomia Boulevard, #875, representing Sharon and Bob Hines, Lot 28, indicated that it is time to adopt this plan. He said many years have been spent trying to make this a balanced plan. He felt it was time to respect property rights, to strike the correct balance and to adopt the General Plan. Pleasanton City Council 23 05/18/99 Minutes