CCMIN101999 - Laserfiche WebLink

area. There are very high costs for the bypass road and the developer has to amortize that against revenues generated. There are significant differences in revenue from detached and attached housing. The Specific Plan says maintain rural character and detached homes are the only way to do that. Third, density: 75 units are permitted and the project has been reduced to 52 units. Fourth, slopes greater than 25%: this exists in the eastern portion where the custom lots are located. Mr. Spotorno has agreed to reduce the number of lots in that area and he (Mr. Champion) did not think that is grounds for denial. Fifth, lots on the bypass road: He felt that was a safety issue. The Planning Commission suggested flare-outs for the driveways to avoid backing onto the bypass road but the project would lose several lots. To make this project viable, he needs to maintain the density applied for. Sixth, environmental and open space provisions: the Happy Valley Specific Plan does not require that the balance of the Spotorno property be dedicated as open space; only if six more units are allowed on the flat area would a dedication have to be made and the Spotornos do not want those additional six lots. Mr. Spotorno wants to keep his property in agriculture. There are conflicts between open space and agricultural uses. SummerHill could acquire an open space option for Spotomo from neighboring property owners. Seventh, density in the low density area: 16 units are permitted in the Specific Plan. We propose density transfers and we are permitted 19 which is what we provided. We took lots out of seismic areas. The key fact is the Specific Plan permits 19 and that is what we have. Eighth, visual impacts: the concem of staff was that some lots would be too visible. This area is already protected by natural ridges. He described the site using enlarged photographs. The only concem is from the west and only a portion of the lot would be visible. We would mitigate with berming, landscaping and single story homes. He felt it was also helpful to keep grading in perspective. This project will have 550,000 cubic yards of cut. Ruby Hill had nine million cubic yards of grading. The Presley project is 500,000 cubic yards. This amount of grading has been done successfully and should not be a reason for project denial. Grading on the flat area was also of concem, but that is related to the bypass road. Most of the cut is a portion of the road that serves this project and the golf course project. Yet the burden is all on the Spotorno property. Mr. Champion stated those are the main items raised in the staff report and he pointed out that the geotechnical, open space and view impact concerns will affect any project on the Spotoruo property, so if this project is denied, then anything else will also have to be denied. The other concem is the bridge over the creek. That could cost over a million dollars because it is a double arched span. He asked who will pay for the bypass road if this project is denied. There will be only 21 lots left on the Spotomo property and that will not justify $7 million in road improvements. He believed SummerHill had met the Specific Plan requirements and construction could start next summer if approve& Mark Armstrong, 279 Front Street, Danville, representing the Spotomo family, urged support of the SummerHill project and expressed his belief that the plan was in compliance with the Specific Plan and agricultural protection policies. Bud Barlow, 6723 Alisal Street, indicated the residents promsted annexation because there was no advantage for the residents. Then along came a proposal for funding sewer and water and he felt he could vote for annexation. However, he is still 21 10/19/99 Pleasanton City Council Minutes