PC 04/22/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

is part of the Spotomo Agricultural Remainder Parcel and is not available for trail dedication. It is also completely incompatible with the agricultural operation on the property. He also noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that Trail No. 7 be deleted since they supported Mr. Spotorno's position. He further stated that since the Spotomo property is impacted by five of the other trail segments, the land along Trail No. 7 is not for sale at any price. Mr. MacDonald advised the Commission that in order to make the agricultural portion of the property viable, the family would like to build a home on the north slope. Mr. Rasmussen noted that the Specific Plan does not allow any housing on the north slope or in the open space areas. Mr. MacDonald stated that the Spotornos want the right to build a family compound on that slope and that it could be designed to be hidden. Mr. MacDonald also stated that he and the Spotornos do not believe there are any red-legged frogs in the area and they oppose any permits that would be allowed for animals that aze simply not there. With regazd to the General Plan going from two-acre to 1.5 acre densities, it was his and Mr. Spotorno's understanding that that related to creating a view corridor through the Spotomo Flat Area that would create an open space preservation. He said that it would require a conservation easement and that is not consistent with Mr. Spotorno's understanding, nor is he willing to create a permanent conservation easement. In support of this contention, he cited Civil Section Code 913. In conclusion, Mr. MacDonald stated that before annexation could take place, the citizens would have to vote on it. He, therefore, believes it is very important to be respectful to all property owners. Donald O'Dell, Hallgrimson, McNichols & McCann, L.L.P., 5000 Hopyard Road, stated that his law firm represents the Castlewood Country Club. He noted that every year there is damage to the Club property caused by water runoff, especially the 17th and 18th fairways. He stated that although the Plan addresses the need for mitigation, there is not adequate mitigation as to how the release of the water will take place or how it will affect downstream neighbors. Roger Smith, 6344 Alisal Street, congratulated staff for their efforts thus faz in the process. He stated that he will submit a detailed document expressing his views to City staff before the next meeting. He stated that he supports Mr. Spotorno's request that no trails go through Minnie Road. He also supports Mr. Spotorno's request for a family compound on the north side of the hill. He feels that should be allowed under the Plan in light of what Mr. Spotomo is doing to allow development. He feels that the home could be built in a way that it would not be visible from the Happy Valley loop. Mr. Smith further related that nobody he has talked to has ever seen ared-legged frog in the valley. He stated that there aze many bull frogs, who do not allow red-legged frogs to exist in the same area. Mr. Smith stated that he has concerns with traffic issues, density issues, and water and sewer issues, which will be more specifically defined in his letter. However, he stated that the chaos that will be created by construction traffic on narrow roads is unacceptable. He suggested that the bypass road and the east/west collector road be constructed first in order to accommodate constmction vehicles. He is strongly opposed to any construction traffic whatsoever on the Happy Valley loop. With regard to land use, he stated that the 2 acre zoning issue is very important and that it was hotly debated in the General Plan process. He noted that the General Plan represents a compromise after a lot of hazd work and negotiations. He stated that since everybody has already agreed to it, it would not be Planning Commission Page 14 April 22, 1998