PC 04/29/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

the 15-acre Medium Density Residential area. He, therefore, stated that it would be appropriate for the Commission to modify that condition accordingly. Larissa Seto, Assistant City Attorney, addressed a comment made by Mr. MacDonald, the legal representative of the Spotorno property owners, regarding what he believed was a limitation in Civil Code 913 that would prohibit the City from requiring the dedication of a conservation easement in conjunction with the City giving approval for development of property. She agrees that the Code does restrict the City's ability to require the dedication of a conservation easement in conjunction with the approval of a development. The conservation easement includes keeping a property in its natural state, whether agricultural, forest, or open space. However, after reviewing some of the other provisions in that same code section as well as supporting case law, she found that the City has other authority under other government code sections which does allow the City to require the dedication of open space easements or agricultural easements in conjunction with the development of property. She, therefore, concluded that the City does maintain other authority to require other types of open space easements. She, therefore, feels that the specific plan, as proposed, is not affected by Civil Code Section 913. Mr. Rasmussen pointed out that staff has recommended that the open space area, open space easement, and PUD open space zone be referred to as "agricultural/open space" instead of just "open space". Ms. Seto distributed a memorandum identifying the current LAFCO members as well as explaining the process for LAFCO applications. She gave a detailed description of the LAFCO annexation process. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED John Spotorno, P.O. Box 487, distributed a letter authored by his father, who was unable to attend this public hearing. The letter mostly relates to housing density concerns that he has. Mr. Spotorno recited the history of his family's involvement and perceptions throughout the planning process. He stated that during the specific plan process, the family supported doing a special study for Happy Valley because they felt most of the complex issues were never resolved under the General Plan. They felt the 1996 General Plan allowed 102 units on the Spotorno's 112 acre parcel property. He also stated that although the golf course was identified in the General Plan, there was no housing or bypass road identified. He further stated that the concept documents in Mazch, 1997, began the specific plan process, and it contained new elements allowing 34 housing units on the golf course in order to support the cost of the golf course. It also included a new bypass road in order to accommodate the additional traffic from the housing units as well as the golf course to be paid for on a pro-rata share based on usage. Mr. Spotorno detailed the offers and requests that the family and their potential developers made to the City during the process of the specific plan, noting that none of their suggestions were ever pursued vigorously. However, he pointed out that the specific plan and the golf course plan increases the density by over 50% for the golf course area by reducing lot sizes. The plan now requires that the developer pay for the entire cost of the bypass road through the Medium Density Residential azea, which radically changes the performa on that portion of the project. In addition, the General Plan mid-range numbers were capped, which gives the City no flexibility for density transfers or negotiating to allow modifications for one azea to pay for another to try to adjust the cost. He also stated that the Spotomos Planning Commission Page 3 April 29, 1998