CCMIN061698 - Laserfiche WebLink

remainder parcel is not part of the development parcel and remains in its original ownership and use. The dedications significantly decreases the value of the agricultural remainder parcel. If the Spotorno family would have known from the beginning that it would have been required to deed over all the agriculture remainder parcel, they would never have been involved in the discussion for the golf course or the Happy Valley Specific Plan. There is no need for this dedication since there are slope restrictions, view shed restrictions, the Williamson Act, urban limit line restrictions, and the 29,000 housing cap. The Spotorno family questions the legality of such a demand. If the City insists upon demanding all of the agriculture open space, then the City should buy it, just as they are doing for the golf course property owners. Laveme Spotorno, PO Box 487, Pleasanton, described her life working on the Spotorno Ranch. She enjoys the work and it is a way of life that is very rewarding. A1 Spotorno has ranched in Pleasanton for over 50 years. Now at 72, when he should be looking toward a peaceful retirement, he is being threatened with condemnation proceedings if he does not allow the bypass road and is being coerced into signing a deed for an open-space conservation easement on 2/3 of the ranch that is not being sold. She felt this was blackmail, extortion and a way to steal the Spotornos' land. She said the land is A1 Spotorno's savings account, an insurance policy against farming losses that can occur for any number of reasons. Banks will be reticent to loan money on this property, because a restriction severely devalues the property and its potential as collateral. She agreed a golf course is a nice amenity but it is not a public necessity. The Spotornos do not oppose the golf course, but do oppose the destruction of people's lives and the taking away of a lifetime investment. There must be a reasonable balance between what is desired, what is needed and what is just. Sherman Balch, 6010 Alisal Street, said there are two major obstacles regarding affordable housing: Cost of the land and city fees in the development of the property. The Happy Valley area might lend an opportunity for the City Council to address these issues. If the cost of the property is $100,000 to $200,000, there is no way to build a house that would sell for under $200,000. He asked Council to consider on a limited basis allowing six or seven units to be built on a two acre parcel. The cost of the homes could be substantially less. This should be done on a minimal basis so to preserve the rural area. He asked that the wording "should or recommend" be changed in the Specific Plan to "recommending that staff should approve certain things at staff level." Janet Linfoot, 6300 Alisal Street, asked Council to preserve as much of the view of the hills and landscape as possible for the residents and future residents. She said the developer does not care about the way of life in Happy Valley, only profit. She believed a very comfortable profit could be made with single-story homes on two acre parcels with much less negative impact on the. people that live in the Valley. Daryl Horan, 6330 Alisal, said she is one of three people that would have enjoyed the view corridor. But after seeing the tentative plans for the development of the Spotorno Flat Area leading to the golf course and what the view corridor would be like, she has changed her Pleasanton City Council 14 06/16/98 Minutes