15 ATTACHMENT 9 - Laserfiche WebLink

JUN 0 1 2005 Ford and Mary Roberts CITY OF PLEASANTO'" 1666 Frog Hill Lane, formerly Vineyard Ave. PLANNING DEPT. Pleasanton, Ca. 94566 -- May 30, 2005 Re: PUD-32 Sarich residence Dear Commissioners: We sincerely wanted to welcome this nice family to ow neighborhood. Because we did not want to be unpleasant neighbors, I suggested they talk to the City as soon as I became aware of what they were planning. I was sure that the Planning Department would suggest that this house was inappropriate. They did. Though the Sariches continued with their plan, the City continued to deny as is evident in Heidi Kline's letter of Nov. 20, -2003. They have continued to propose this house with very slight modifications since they pwchased the property in March of 2000. We are opposed to the Sarich residence and out buildings as presented. I can't think of anyway their proposal is in conformance with the Vineyazd Corridor Specific Plan, in particular, the design guidelines for hillside residential. As this project directly impacts us .as well as the Reznicks, we ask that you deny it as presented. The workshop format implies compromise. In ow view, the entire Specific Plan was a compromise between those who wanted to develop 700 homes, those of us not interested in development, and the City who wanted to plan a gateway to the wine country. We are most concerned with the position of the lot. Quite simply, it is not where it is supposed to be. It is not an approved hillside residential site. Hilltop sites are definitely not allowed. Wayne Rasmussen, the Principal Planner in charge of the Vineyard Comdor, cazefully hiked these hills to determine which sites were suitable for residential custom development. Areas that required too much grading, areas that required the removal of too many trees, areas that impacted the environment were not designated, often over the zealous lobbying of land owners. The sites that are on the map are knolls, or flatter areas that avoid the ridge tops. The original six homes built in these hills were positioned on knolls or bench areas and required minimal grading. What the Sariches are planning remind us of a Staff report that describes why another development was denied. They were, ... "changing the topography of the upper Spotorno area to fit the style of the proposed homes instead of changing the home styles to fit the topography" (p. 4 of DE1R work session 3/23/05). The hillside residential for this parcel was to be the bench area where the original home is sited. The second site for which the previous owner lobbied extensively, is on the same bench where a garage/barn structwe is located. It was assumed that the original home would be rebuilt if not torn down completely. The proposed.inappropriate grading is a result of attempting to place the house on a non- approved site. The land is being forced to fit this enormous house. As Staff indicates, the Tuscanesque architecture is extremely inappropriate. It is not a matter of changing the color or reducing the height or even requesting to enable a two