PC 04/29/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Hovingh asked staff if money from the South Livermore Land Trust can be used • to pay for Public Health and Safety land south of Vineyard Avenue. Staff advised that the South Livermore valley Land Tlust determines the use of the money which could be for outright purchase and/or preservation of easements. Chairman Lutz advised that it wind be used to purchase Open Space. Commissioner Hovittgh feels that the fees should stay within the area. Mr. Rasmussen advised the lands covered by the fees is east of the landfill site. Approximately 70-80 acres of the Vineyazd Corridor aze not included in the mitigation fees to the South Livermore Valley Land Trust. Commissioner Hovingh inquired if density transfer is part of any of the subalternatives. Staff advised that it is not an issue at this time. Commissioner Bazker commented that she does not want development in the steep terrain areas. She likes some aspects of Subalternative 6 because it has a park; however, she wants more than a community park in twenty years. She would like some trails in the arroyo. She is concerned about the lack of utilities, that Ruby Hill was a leapfrog development that is now supposed to justify this infill development. In conclusion, Commissioner Barker will support the General Plan Steering Committee's rewmmendation. Commissioner Wright feels that the development represents-good planning, and feels that the pazk and viticulture should be considered project amenities. He does not believe that a neighborhood park is necessazily needed in this area. He believes that there is very little difference between Subalternative 6 and Subaltetnative 7. • Commissioner McGuirk likes the idea of keeping Vineyard Avenue more rustic than would be possible with the realignment, but without further details, he will not pursue this idea. He is considering either Subalternative 6 or Subaltetnative 7. By definition, he does not feel that this area meets the criteria for being infill development; however, he does feel it is a transition or gateway to the vineyard area. Ali things considered, he supports Subalternative 7. Commissioner Hovingh concurred with Commissioner McGuirk's comments and supports Subalternative 7. Chairman Lutz also concurs that this is not an infdl site; his concern is the proposed Medium Density Residential on Vineyard Avenue beyond Pietronave Lane. Ruby Hill is partially zoned Agricultural. Other properties in the area are zoned Rural Density Residential and Low Density Residential. The minutes from the City Council in 1992 had listed many zoning designations, but not Medium Density Residential for this area. This is a transitional area between the viticulture areas of the South Livermore Valley and urban areas. He finds that Medium Density Residential zoning east of the north-south line (Pietronave lane) is not wnsistem with the Pleasanton General Plan or the South Livermore Valley Area Plan. He feels that Vineyard Avemte can be made safe in its present location; however, he is not opposed to moving it if it can be done environnfentally and without the need for more • Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 6, 1996