CCMIN121587 - Laserfiche WebLink

449 Consider Adoption of Negative Declaration Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 8/:547} dated Decembe 15, 1987, regard- ing this matter. Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on the application and the negative declaration. Mr. Martin Inderbitzen, Attorney, 62 West Neal Street, representing the applicant, stated they are requesting rezoning to Rural Density, not Low Den- sity as shown on the agenda. He stated there has been a lot of talk about development plans and what the development capability is of the parcel. The motivation of Mr. Spotorno with regard to the General Plan amendment relates to the General Plan designation and the economic impact on the property. He presented background information stating this property is in the County an- dprior to the City's General Plan amendments and adoption of the City's General plan almost two years ago the 145 acres was designated as Public Health and Safety. The difference between Public Health and Safety then and now is that when the General Plan hearings were held, Mr. Lee of the Planning Department, stated that Public Health and Safety was always referred to as a holding designation for property but in fact assign a density, therefore he felt it should have a rural density designation. There are already 700 acres designated as rural density residential, already annexed to the City or more ready for development. Mr. Spotorno raised an objection at that time during the joint hearings, specifically said:that (1) don't change his land to Public Health and Safety under the new General Plan because it creates down zoning capability of his property, and (2) his property near Alisal Road is very flat, and if you are going to designate low density in that area more property should be included because the property is flat. Mr. Inderbitzen stated it was his recollection that matter was going to be worked out at staff level but it was never done. Mr. Spotorno since that time has been coming back to the City saying the property should either be low density on the flat portion or rural density on the 145 acres. Mr. Lee advised him that the only way this could be done was through General Plan amendment. Mr. Spotorno has no inten- tion of developing this property. .It is simply an act on his part to preserve the economic viability of the property. He is concerned about that because of development that is encroaching to the edge of his property now; the Harris property, the School property, the Lund property. All of those developments tend to bring the possibility of extension of roads and public improvements either into the area or through his property. He is not in a position to develop and if a public entity wishes to acquire it the value of his land for that acquisition will be greatly diminshed by the Public Health and Safety designation. All the adjacent landowners support Mr. Spotorno's application. Mayor Mercer asked if this property is within the City limits. Mr. Inder- bitzen advised him it is not. Mayor Mercer asked if any governmental agency wants to purchase the property. Mr. Inderbitzen advised that no one wants to buy the property. The following persons spoke in opposition to this item: Dr. Dennis Glafkides, 737 Happy Valley Road, stated he has been a resident of Pleasanton since 1966 and a resident of Happy Valley area since 1976, moving to Happy Valley Road so that his family could experience a way of life unique to Pleasanton. He advised the Happy Valley area is diminishing in size because of annexation and rezoning. Several years ago discussion were held relative to individual rights vs. community interest. He stated that other - 7 12-15-87