CCMIN020712 - Laserfiche WebLink

be able to see them. The window from the second floor is low and from that angle, he will see his backyard and not see in her backyard. He does not want privacy issues and does not want to be able to see in her backyard. He referred to conditions and the City was asking for installation of a system so he could install a solar water heater system on. He would like to have solar on the roof, but there is not enough roof exposure for solar for electric and for hot water. Therefore, he has proposed a tank-less hot water system and knows his application will exceed the required 50 green points. Fran Cunningham, Applicant, said she and her husband have complied with every request to modify, change, rearrange, and eliminate everywhere possible their 3-bedroom home of 1800 square feet, which has now become a 2-bedroom home of 1500 square feet. They cannot go any smaller. She said she simply does not understand it—they have tried to comply in every way possible, does not understand why neighbors didn't hold conversations to try and resolve any building issues. She does not understand the degree of opposition from neighbors. The reason they are here tonight is because neighbors are appealing the project and it is strictly because they live next door and not a concern for the City. If they were in a different location, they would not be here tonight. There have been many homes built and in the downtown built that have gone through very lengthy processes, and rarely do they get appealed. She thinks this appeal is unjustified and very unfair. They have had to fight the issue for almost 3 years and complied with everything and she just doesn't "get it." All she asks is that the Council agrees to what has already been approved and let them move on. They have met every guideline and legality, they have a few variances that have been approved, and currently, the majority of homes downtown has few variances. They are only trying to build a home for their family that conforms to the neighborhood. It fits on the lot and one that will have better appearance and appeal than what is currently there now. Right now, there is absolutely no historical value. She guarantees that they will build a nice home with beautiful landscaping, and visitors and residents will walk by and enjoy it. She hoped everybody can move forward and turn this grueling experience into a happy home. Mayor Hosterman said because of the numerous speakers on this item and the remaining item on the agenda, she asked the Clerk to set the timer to 2 versus 3 minutes. Bonnie Kirchbaum, 303 Neal Street, voiced opposition to the plan, have read and re-read the DSP and the replacement house does not fit within the guidelines in many ways. The DSP is not advisory but planning policy. This has been told to her by Jerry Iserson, Brian Dolan and Natalie Amos. The guidelines come first from the General Plan, second from the DSP, and then from zoning. The DSP on page 1 states, "Under California law, no rezoning, subdivision, use permit, development plan or other entitlement for use shall be authorized for construction within the plan area which is not in substantial conformance with the plan." The DSP committee and the City have compiled a list of specific plan historic resources. This has 90 heritage sites listed; #7 is for the Second and Third Street neighborhood, all homes and buildings in the neighborhood. Within this designated historic neighborhood, 19 homes and sites were chosen with special recognition including the Buford Hall Home at 250 Neal Street, which is definitely in the DSP map. Joshua Neal's homestead is also on Neal Street. In 2009, the planning staff wrote Charles Huff and Mr. and Mrs. Cunningham telling them that the house at 215 Neal Street was built in 1890, is listed as a historic resource, and also listed in the General Plan as a historic resource. The planner further informed them that a survey in 2003 stated that 215 Neal Street has a greater level of significance because it is associated with one of Pleasanton's early families. She thinks the desecration of the Hall property which has taken place over the past few years is shocking and to demolish the cottage or a home that is too big for the site requiring many variances is wrong. In the DSP #5 states that the bulk and massing of new residential construction should be consistent with the neighborhood. Page 76, #14 states, Pleasanton should preserve and protect the character of the East Side Neighborhood around Second Street from teardowns, large scale and inappropriately styled additions. #17, as Mr. Dolan pointed out, on this page states that Pleasanton should protect the established size and space and new buildings in historic residential neighborhoods by avoiding excessive lot coverage and maintaining appropriate separations. City Council Minutes Page 13 of 25 February 7,2012