15 ATTACHMENT 9 - Laserfiche WebLink

driveways, outdoor use areas, etc. should be compatible with existing topography, and minimized to preserve the natural site topography. Therefore, rather than create a flat pad at the top of the site by grading the knoll, the house should be constructed in the previously graded flat area, where the existing garage is located'," which is the original reason the additional home site was approved for this location. And I will go back further to 1999, when this was approved, because the previous owner lobbied extensively before this Commission, before the City Council with his legal counsel that he could fit more lots on that property. He wanted medium-density residential down below, and he wanted lots all over the back of that hill. In the staff report to the Planning Commission on March 23, 1999, it says that "housing was not proposed by staff in the southwest corner of Lot 27 because of its steep terrain, valuable wildlife habitat characteristics, excessive distance from Vineyard Avenue, and difficulty in achieving vehicular access without significantly impacting an existing riparian habitat for approximately 1,200 feet in length." The previous owner and his counsel went before the City Council and again argued for more. That was on May 18, 1999, and it was continued to June ls`, where the Specific Plan was approved. And it's interesting to note that the Specific Plan was not changed at all; nothing was added; no lots were moved around, and this one is particularly specific. It is a dot; this is six low-density residential in that area. Three hillside residential in the vineyard are not about to happen in the vineyard because next year we have our twentieth vintage. Those are general, but this is quite specific. The Council that approved this was Mayor Ben Tarver and Councilmembers Sharrell Michelotti, Becky Dennis, Matt Campbell, and Tom Pico. The slope map of the Sarich property shows 6-6; a good portion of this lot is over 20 percent slope. The change in the staff report says that they are going to retain the house, but in everything else that I've seen, they're going to take it down. At one time, they were going to put vineyards up there. But you could fit a very large house on that large pad. You would take down the other house -they meant to take down the other house in the first place. I cannot imagine why they want it there. It has a fantastic view, and as I said in my letter, it is a place you could do that; however, this particular house has a grand entrance. And you have to have the house up here, so that you can look out and get the view from the back of Ruby Hill and the surrounding area. That is why they do not want it up here, because you cannot have the entrance. I think that this house does need to be re-designed, and it needs to be put here, and you can do fantastic things with it. You do not have to jam it up against the lot line here, and there are places here where you could step it down in the trees. A friend of ours who is an architect in Palo Alto showed me his portfolio one time, and said: "What do you think of this ... how big do you think this house is?" And it was a very woodsy thing, and it was in the woods, and it had a couple of levels." And I said, "10,000 square feet." He said, "You're the only one who thinks it was 10,000 square feet." I said, "But I noticed the levels, and I noticed what you could do with it." 11