PC 110911 - Laserfiche WebLink

elevation of the natural grade of the ground covered by the structure to the mean height between eaves and ridges for a hip, gable, or gambrel roof. She noted that the proposed structure meets the requirements for both straight zoning for R-1-40,000 District as well as for the West Foothill Corridor Overlay District. Chair Narum requested Wes Jost, Development Services Manager, to address the issue of erosion. Wes Jost stated the staff looked at the hillside and did not have any concern about erosion. He noted that this area of Foothill Road is a fairly stable piece of ground that has had no experience of soil creeping or slides. With respect to drainage, he indicated that it can be taken out towards the front of the property. He noted that the City has urban storm water runoff requirements which require disconnect of roof leaders; however, there are exceptions in hillside type developments where they can be put in pipes and taken out to the front of the property. He stated that he believed erosion would not be an issue here. Chair Narum asked Mr. Jost if he was comfortable with what was being proposed in terms of the hillside stability and drainage. Mr. Jost said yes. He indicated that staff will conduct a more detailed review once the plans are actually submitted for building permit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Ken Van Cleave, applicant, stated that Mr. Poddatoori and his family are looking forward to being residents of Pleasanton and enjoying a long stay here. He noted PowerPoint presentation showing the various elevations from neighboring properties, which is something our designer did in response to the standard elevations required as part of the application. He added that in the second version after reconsidering the facets of the project to make it more palatable and useful to Mr. Poddatoori, the project was re-designed to take advantage of the natural slopes and to preserve the natural uncluttered vista views to the open area. He indicated that they have agreed to install plantings to mitigate any privacy issues of the neighbors; however, he proposed that both parties would be better served by holding off on the actual planting of trees until the structure is partially framed so they can see the actual locations of windows and other openings that they want to mitigate. He noted that this would give the neighbors the best choice of determining where those trees should be located and the applicants will not need to plant trees a second time. Mr. Van Cleave thanked Mr. Weiner for the photographs he submitted which shows his concept of where the building is going to be located. He noted that the location of the building is much too high; that the actual structure as it is connected to the existing is much lower. He then showed a photograph showing the height of the windows, the elevation where the top window is located, and where the actual roofline of the new structure would be located, at about mid-point of where the windows are. He also PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 9, 2011 Page 4 of 29