PC 10/13/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

environmental constraims. Further, staff decided on where the 15-acre density would be, where the low density would be, where and how the number of units would be allocated, changed the acreage on the flat parcel from 45 to 33 acres, lowered the slope allowance from 25 percent to 15 percent for the Spotomo property, but maintained 25 percent slope and height for the golf course. She noted that the family cannot deal with the onsite mitigation issue due to being forced to mitigate on the remaining ranch parcel which will be continued to be fanned. She stated that staff's interpretation of what the Happy Valley Specific Plan EIR intends is not germane; however, what is important is the Happy Valley Specific Plan does allow for off-site mitigation. She noted that staff has stated that "the Sportono's do not have a problem with environmental species habitat because the land has been continuously farmed for over 130 years; however, that is not the case for the golf course." In conclusion, Ms. Spotomo noted that staff requests more compromise on the family's part in order to make the project work. She noted that the family is happy to comply and that the family concurs with staff's recomtnendation and statement that "a fresh start is necessary." She notes that the Spotorno family would recoinmend the restoration of the 45-acres on the front parcel, the reinstatement of the 25 percent slope, two units to the acre density on flat parcels to provide equity with the golf course, and no by-pass road. Further, that in so doing, the Happy Valley residents would get their infrastructure and the citizens of Pleasanton would get the golf course. Mark Armstrong, 279 Front Street, Danville, clarified Mrs. Spotorno's statements and explained her frustration with the balance that was achieved during the Specific Plan process. He commented on the public trails issue and a pending City Council Resolution entitled "Policies for the Agricultural/Open Space Sub Area of the Happy Valley Specific Plan." He noted that the Resolution notes the need for sensitive trail design on or near roads and agricultural areas and that trails should be located and designed to be sensitive to and protect agricultural operations. He noted that the Spotoruo's desire was to maintain agricultural operations, also in conjunction with the by-pass road, and medium and lower density areas. He noted those were the elements of the Specific Plan in conjunction with the development of the municipal golf course. He noted that the issues the Spotorno's have raised are not "monumental", including issues of the custom lots and road alignment. He noted that the protection of agriculture is a basic component of this project and the Specific Plan. He expressed concem with the implied density bonus and stated that there is no reason the density bonus should not adopted. He commented on the subdivision agreement, and stated that the reason there is a Spotorno Ranch Annexation Development Agreement is from direction received from the Council to move forward with the process. He provided a memorandum to the Commissioners for their review. Mr. Champion noted that he will defer from further statements to the extent that the Commission would like to deal with specific adjustments to Exhibit "B". PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Discussion ensued relating to adjourning this meeting, the date for the Happy Valley Annexation being set for November 16, 1999, ballots being mailed by November 1, 1999, whether this item should be continued to the next meeting, and effects on the City Council by continuing this hearing to another meeting. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 16