PC 08/26/87 - Laserfiche WebLink

Minutes Planning Commission August 26, 1987 Milt Jones, 976 Happy Valley Road, President, Alisal Improvement Club, stated he has spoken in length with Mr. Spotorno and residents of the area. Everyone wants rural for the entire 160 acres. The only people who don't want it are the City staff. If 30 acres are put Low Density Residential it will change the entire character of the area. Mr. Jones indicated he co-chaired with Brian Hoyt the Residential Review Committee. The recommendation of the Committee was to keep the entire southern area one house per five acres. He did not recall any discussion of 15 acres being Low Density Residential, and the fact that there are 15 acres of the Spotorno property designated Low Density Residential is news to him. Mr. Jones was in favor of one house for five acres for a land use designation. Ron Guerra, 901 Sycamore, spoke in Residential for the area. He felt should not be the designation of the have also met with the land consultant school property. Currently there is a school property. The land consultants looking at the plan. Rural Density controlling traffic and flooding. favor of Rural Density public health and safety Spotorno property. They who wishes to develop the committee working on the have done a good job in would be appropriate for Phil Shearer, 686 Happy Valley Road, felt that when one moves to the area, one expects septic tanks instead of sewers and not to be served with City water. However, the rural atmosphere is still protected. The change of land use would increase the traffic. Children frequently ride horses on the streets of the area, and 30/75 houses would have a detrimental effect on the environment. 30/75 houses would be a detriment to the area. Mr. Shearer said this also is the first time he was aware that 15 aces of the Spotorno property was already designed Low Density Residential. Mr. Shearer supported redesignating the entire 160 acres Rural Density Residential. Diane McEvan, 6767 Alisal Street, stated it was her understanding that their properties are in the County, therefore, the City of Pleasanton should not be able to rezone the land. Mr. Swift explained that while it is true the properties are in the County, they are in the City's planning area. Should the properties ever be annexed they will have a land use designation on them. There is no requirement that the County General Plan land use designation match that of the City's but it usually does. Ms. McEvan asked if there are any pending annexations. Mr. Swift stated that the school is trying to develop under the City and annexation will probably be required for that property, however, Mr. Spotorno has not asked for annexation. Dr. Abud, 925 Sycamore, supported Rural Density Residential (1 house for 5 acres), but objected to how the application came about. He had no knowledge there was already 15 acres Low Density Residential. Concerning the school property, he didn't believe he agreed with that either. - 3 - . T_._