15 ATTACHMENT 9 - Laserfiche WebLink

So, I think things could be done. Staff has referred to this as a flatland house. I think the architecture is way too ornate for the top of a hill. I know Brian Swift did not say" "Yes, go ahead. Cut off the top of the hill. We always build on ridgelines," because if that big of a house flies in that position on the top of a hill, anything can go anywhere in the City. If you drove out Vineyard, and you look at the Delco building that this Commission approved, you'll notice two lots stepping down the hill -the foundations are there. We always ask people to do that -not to create flat pads if at all possible. I have a serious question about the vineyazds. If he is talking about taking the dirt off and putting it down on the vineyard or where they are going to have a vineyard, we do not take lousy dirt -top of hills are lousy dirt -and stick it on top of a place where you are going to be growing. I do know something about viticulture and viniculture. At any rate, I hope you do not spend a lot of time redesigning this house in that position. I think it needs to go back to the drawing boards and put it where it is supposed to be. Chairperson Maas: Thank you. I don't have any other speaker cards. I am going to go back to the applicants, and I am just going to leave the public hearing open because I really want to get some things resolved. Mr. Pico: I want to go back to my opening comments. We just have to go look at the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. We specifically put in provisions for flexibility in this Plan, and on page 24 of the Plan, Residential Development Standards, it talks about the standards and says: "Minor variations may be permitted subjected to the PUD development plan approval process," which is what we're doing, "where necessary due to physical site conditions." We have one major physical site condition here, and I know that Wayne Rasmussen was a fabulous employee for the City of Pleasanton, and I know he did the best possible job that he could have out here. I hope that those of you who went up to the site with us today and those of you who will come up later recognize the fact that unless the Sariches give up their existing residence - and they're entitled to one additional hillside residential unit up there -they will be giving up one potential lot, and that was not what was bargained for. The predecessor bargained for eight total lots on this property, six down at the bottom, the existing residence, and a new one. They did not bargain for tearing down the existing residence and the existing garage barn structure and then let them put a new residence in its place. That was not the deal. I think that whoever looked at this and put that little dot on the map, which was really never intended to be the only building envelope, and I think staff will support this. At the bottom of page 25, it says: "In HR areas, all home sites must be located within the designated development areas as generally depicted on the land use plan." Some other folk might want to say that the only place you could put that is in that circle. Well, it does not fit. 12