15 ATTACHMENT 9 - Laserfiche WebLink

acceptable to them. So, both Planning and the owners felt that that was not going to work. The objective then is to reduce the overall view impact from below. So, we did cut the pad, we moved the house back, we added more trees. As a result of the cut, the majority of that cut material is going to placed down below. We were going to go with an embankment of about 15 feet, and then start up about a third of the property, and actually terrace, flat benches, like they do in Europe, and there would be lines of the vineyards. So, there might be some material, within a quarter of a mile, and there are a lot of other sites that would need that material. So, in conclusion, we feel that we have worked with staff, the owner, and have come up with a house that we think could be screened. I do welcome any of your comments. Thank you. Chairperson Maas: Thank you. I am going to go ahead, and we will take the other speakers, and then we will have you come back after that. We are kind of going to hang loose here, since it is a workshop, we will keep it informal and try and talk about all the issues so we can get them handled. The next speaker card I have is for Greg Reznick. Good evening. Mr. Greg Reznick: Good evening, Commissioners and staff. My name is Greg Reznick, and I own the property at 1680 Vineyard: It is the property across the ravine from this plan. And I think you could argue that my property is most heavily impacted by this proposal. The visuals are all facing straight at me. From the back of my house, I look directly at that knoll, which is scheduled. to be demolished in this plan and replaced with a large residence. I think that this proposal violates both the letter and the spirit of the Specific Plan. Let me tell you a few things about.whyI believe that. One is that the grading of the knoll, it is basically the removal of 40 feet of knoll, and if you go up to where my property is and you look out there, it is this wonderful open space feeling that would be changed forever. And I do not think that was what was intended in the Specific Plan. And it is not about dots here and dots there, and I understand that, because again, I have the property just next door practically. But what we are really talking about here is whether or not we are going to remove large parts of the geography. Secondly, the Specific Plan is very clear about the height and the number of stories at this elevation, and I don't think there's any ambiguity about that in this Specific Plan. I think this proposal violates those restrictions without ambiguity. And I think finally, the overall design just fails to really adapt itself to the geography and the character of the region that it's sitting in. So, with all these reasons, I think there are some real problems with this proposal. But I would also like to add that I am contemplating the development on my property just next door. And as I am contemplating that, I am taking the strictures of the Specific Plan 8