CCMIN091603 - Laserfiche WebLink

however, that his clients are willing to acquiesce to that condition. The well in question is a very good well and has always been. It was originally designed to serve six properties and has never shown a propensity to under produce water and there is no evidence that it will under produce water. Ms. Hosterman drew the Council's attention to the language in the staffreport that states, "as to the condition to add,ss the joint well, the condition has now been drafted and accepted by both property owners." As far as she was concerned, the issue had been dealt with and was finished. Steve Brozosky, 1700 Vineyard Avenue, speaking for himself, pointed out there is a specific guideline for the policy governing the Vineyard Corridor. This guideline states, "grading should be compatible with the existing topographic contours and minimized to preserve the natural topography of the site." If you were to look at the grading on this site, it is significant. There are 146,000 cubic square yards of dirt to be removed. All of the dirt removed will be transported on Vineyard Avenue; the original plan had the removal of dirt going to a development across the street. Once the dirt is removed, there are another 46,000 cubic yards of dirt to be moved around on this site. To him, it seemed like it was not compatible with the existing topography for this site. He referred to lot six, and mentioned the pad level is 30 feet below the existing contour. He did not believe this is preserving the contour of the land. They are also installing a 750 foot long retaining wall and it gets as high as eight feet in front of Lot 12. He believed this would be seen from the new Vineyard Avenue, and mentioned that no visuals had been provided as indicated by Ms. Ayala. He believed Council needed to address the off haul dirt problems on Vineyard Avenue that the Planning Commission did not address. Vineyard Avenue is highly traveled by school traffic in the mornings and afternoons. He did not want to have trucks offhauling dirt at the same time parents are dropping offor picking up their children from school. He suggested that the hours be restricted for tracks that will be offhauling dirt so that it will not conflict with the school traffic. He also pointed out the possibility that a new elementary school would be built before the project is completed. He expressed his concern regarding one of the access roads for this development that goes along the loop road of Neal School. He difnot believe it was appropriate to allow tracks to haul off dirt during school hours and when children are present. He suggested that if the school is built before the offhaul occurs, the traffic be muted around the school. Vanessa Kawalhau, 871 Sycamore Road, understood the feelings and concerns of the residents located in the Vineyard Corridor having to deal with the gravel tracks. She raised a question regarding the interim basis in which the water will be available to the Brozosky family. Her understanding is that it will be used for emergency purposes only and during drought conditions. She asked if the word "interim' encompasses only those uses or would the Brozoskys be required to drill a new well, or be able to use the water line for an undetermined amount of time until they are able to connect to the City water system under the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. Her reason for asking this question was based on a curt~t Happy Valley resident who is sharing his well with the Pleasanton City Council 18 09/16/03 Minutes