CCMIN030601 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swift indicated the homeowners association for this development would be maintaining some of the landscaping on the relocated Vineyard Avenue in the low density area. Along the medium density area, it would maintain some of the open space within the creek area. The cost of those obligations are spread among the residences that benefit from the landscaped ambiance of the project. Staff recommends that Parcel B, which is part of the low density area and will have the same type of landscaping gateway to its house, be included in the owners association. Parcel A is different because it is a 20-acre parcel that will be contributing about seventeen acres of grape plantings, which the owner will maintain at its own expense. Ms. Ayala inquired about the trails in the area. Mr. Swift said the Planning Commission included a condition that the trail be approved before any occupancy occurs. The trail may not be operational because it is necessary to have the vineyard in first, but the Planning Commission was confident the Master Plan for the trails and final approval of this specific trail will be done prior to any occupancy. Mayor Pico declared the public heating open. Phil Rowe, Delco Builders, indicated that this plan fulfills a portion of the City's Specific Plan for this area. An integral part of that Plan was to make certain the infrastructure was financed and the six lots on the Costas property was an important part of that. The developers have worked hard with staff and the Planning Commission to address all the issues raised. There are only a few issues of disagreement and he urged Council to support staff's recommendations. Allen Moore, 279 Front Street, Danville, an attorney representing Wayne Hahner, thanked Delco Builders for the great project. The only issue of concern was the conservation easement and the fact that the South Livermore Valley Land Trust is the third party beneficiary. He believed the Specific Plan is very clear on the uses for the property and Mr. Hahner agrees to those uses. He believed that the Specific Plan was very clear and it was not necessary to have another level of enforcement. He preferred that only the City be the holder of the easement and felt the City had full authority to protect the property. There was also concern about access to the property to monitor compliance with the Specific Plan and Mr. Hahner preferred that city representatives perform that function. Ms. Michelotti asked when the third party beneficiary would have to be involved? Mr. Moore felt it was unlikely the Land Trust would ever need to be involved, which is another reason not to have it in place. He believed that if the Land Trust felt the City were not doing enough to protect the propeax'y, it might step forward to enforce the conservation easement through a court action. However, he trusted the City to do what was necessary to preserve the property. Pleasanton City Council 8 03/06/01 Minutes