CCMIN052896 - Laserfiche WebLink

Frank Brandes, 6889 Cone Sonada, did not think the land use designation for the Spotorno property was correct. He felt development of that area is premature and could be a problem in the future. He felt the next General Plan review was the proper time to change the land use designation on this property. A1 Spotorno disagreed with Mr. Brandes. He felt Mr. Brandes was not well informed regarding this area; whether it is visible or not, the impact of the North Sycamore area, the fact that they can see the Bonde development, the Lund proposal, impacts of being forced out of agricultural uses, and the fact they are forced to cooperate in the golf course development. Roger Smith, 6344 Alisal Street, agreed with Mr. Spotomo. The upper part of the Spotorno property is developable and would be an asset to the city and not in any way offensive to the residents of Happy Valley or the City. He felt the General Plan Steering Committee had a good idea to put more density over the hill where it cannot be seen and less development down in the flat land. He disagreed with John Spotorno's remarks about possibly clustering 22 units on two acres and felt that would be a disaster. He supported the two acre lot minimum because it is an area where horses and other animals are kept. Many of the properties are more than two acres now in Happy Valley and they want to preserve the semi-rural nature. There is a big difference between having an "average" two acre density and having two acre lots. Mr. Smith was surprised about the comments of John Spotorno to move the Urban Growth Boundary line to give him flexibility to build houses on the top of the ridgelines. He agreed with the current line because it precludes development on the hillsides and on the top of the ridge. Noreen Ambrose, representing the San Francisco Water Department, presented copies of comments that were submiUed to the Pleasanton Planning Commission on the draft FIR and draft General Plan. She indicated they were very heartened by the actions at the last Council meeting regarding the San Francisco Water Department property. While they hope to continue to move that forward, it is recognized that there are no formal agreements about the project. She encouraged maintenance of flexibility in the General Plan to allow an agreement to be reached consistent with the cooperative plan that has been approved. There were no further speakers. Ms. Dennis referred to the mitigation fees for the South Livermore Valley Area Plan and asked for an analysis of what land is covered and the mount of development necessary to generate the $1 million that is anticipated for the Land Trust. Mr. Rasmussen indicated that could be brought back at the next meeting. Ms. Dennis also wanted to know what caused Ruby Hill to apply to Alameda County for development. She went to County hearings on the project and she was concerned about the loss of agricultural land. She remembered coming to the Pleasanton City Council and asking how much money these owners were spending on the plan and whether that means that the City is 05/28/96 - 12 -