CCMIN051899 - Laserfiche WebLink

the whole project. He is concerned with the unsafe nature of Vineyard Avenue. He believed that the Specific Plan allows the construction of the school and other buildings to be developed prior to the realignment of Vineyard Avenue. He felt this was asking for liability problems. Arlene Utal, 712 Bancroft Road, #118, Walnut Creek, asked Council to approve approximately 11/4 acres for a day care site. She indicated that she is only interested in pursuing a day care center if a school is constructed. She said day care is needed in the City. Frank Berlogar, 2200 Vineyard Avenue, liked the original plan allowing lots 29, 30 and 31 to be subdivided. He felt the owners of lot 31 should be allowed to subdivide if they want too. People that want to live out in this area realize that farming and animal processing is done and that should not be a reason not to allow the subdivision of the lot. Paul Fagliano, 1364 Vineyard Avenue, felt people should be able to do what the want with their property. The Specific Plan originally stated that the he would be able to split his lot and he is only asking the Council to abide by this original plan. Randy Harris, One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1010, Oakland, representing the Foley family, said they do not want to compromise the operation of their ranch. He explained the impacts during the development of Ruby Hill. The Foleys do not want any more development chipping away at their ability to operate the ranch. David Harris said Mr. Harris has given good reason not to approve the entire project, but one additional home far away from the ranch will not have any impact on the ranch, much less close it down. There being no further speakers, the public testimony was closed and the public hearing was continued to the June 1 City Council meeting. Item 6d Discussion concerning the purchase of the San Francisco Bernal Avenue Property. (SR99:133) Ms. Acosta presented the staff report. She said there are many issues Council needs to consider in order to put this on the ballot. She said it would be difficult to pull the material together by the end of July to make the November ballot. Under normal circumstances a measure would be placed on the ballot to purchase a large piece of property with the idea that Council would look at what uses it wants to place on the property. The San Francisco property is a unique situation. To determine what uses are for the property, there would need to be an extensive public heating process. Therefore the Council needs to look at whether it wants to determine in advance the types of uses or if it wanted to be more general. There are also issues with the cost, environmental issues, putting this on the ballot, and strategy. Pleasanton City Council 26 05/18/99 Minutes