PC 101905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Marilyn Watson, 7424 Via di Salerno, agreed with the previous spealccrs and expressed her concern about Mr. Wente's statement at the homeowners' meeting that if this project did not go through, something else would be built there. She believed that Mr. Wente suggested that a winery would be a noisy use. In response to an inquiry by Ms_ Watson regarding the suitability of a winery use, Mr. Pavan replied that anything on this property was suY~ject to City review and approval. He anticipated that a winery would require Plaraciicig Corrarraission and possibly Lity Council review- Julie Lynch, 2301 E_ Ruby Hill Urive, spoke in opposition to this item and noted that her house was the first house on E. Ruby Hill Drive. She was very concerned about this project's potential impacts on her quality of life and property; she purchased her property for the golf course and vineyard views, as it was zoned- She believed this project would be a 180-degree charge from the intended zoning and uses- She did not want her neighborhood to turn into Napa; she did not believe there was a draw for the boutique stores in Pleasaraton and usually saw her neighbors at the more modest stores. Shc did not believe this project would be economically viable or suitable for the neighborhood. Carol Waksdal, 535 Montori Court, spoke in opposition to the zoning change. She did support the wine industry and did not believe that a commercial shopping center would be a positive contribution to this area- She did. not believe that this use would be a good neighbor. Jina Waksdal, 535 Montori Court, spoke in opposition to the zoning charage s+.-ad expressed concern about the traffic impacts- In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Maas regarding control of uses, Mr. Pav act noted that the City defined permitted, conditionally allowed, and prohibited uses. As stated by the applicant to the C oa-nrnission, he provided a list of prohibited uses, but not permitted uses. Staff would prefer to see a proposal of what they would like to see permitted- Candy Aselage, 1 178 Via di Salerno, spoke in opposition to this item and noted that there was a lot of activity at the nearby soccer and swimming facility. She was concerned about the impacts of the construction on those users and that traffic lights would be required at Ruby Hi]] Boulevard and Isabel Avenue- She believed this proj cct would be a big mistake. Mcribcth Uctweiler, 553 Santel Court, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that there were four homes on Santcl Court, and her house faces directly the back of the project. When she planned her home, her views were of vineyards and did not want a view of a blank wall and dumpsters_ She noted that about 100 residents attended the homeowners' meeting, which was held early in the evening in the summer, when many people were away. She was very concerned that soft threats seemed to have been made to the community, that they were told that the rezoning was a minor issue, and that City staff "loved" the proj ect_ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr_ Potter wished to address the public comments- He noted that while the date of the hocraeowraers' - meeting may have bean wicon~fortablc, it was set by the Homeowners Association and they attended at PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 19, 2005 Page 12 of 19