PC 012512 - Laserfiche WebLink

Trina Lopez, Applicant, noted that the City Council Minutes indicate that, in regard to Option 3, Vice Mayor Cook - Kallio did ask whether or not the Perrys wanted the skylight. Ms. Lopez stated that, in good faith, the intent has always been to install the skylight and that the purpose of the $2,500 was never for any other usage. She added that this is the reason they are asking the Planning Commission to look at this again. She cited Mr. Lopez's earlier statement that they are not attorneys but residents of Pleasanton who were unfortunately caught in a situation they and the residents of the Val Vista neighborhood never expected would escalate from an Administrative Design Review to the City Council. She stated that she wanted to make sure that the City of Pleasanton and the Planning Division do not set a precedent that the neighbors of anyone looking to build a two -story home could just demand any type of inducement or monetary value for anything without mitigating the issues. She noted that from the very first time they went to the Administrative Design Review hearing, the intent was to mitigate an issue or concern of the neighbors, which they have faithfully done. She added that at the mediation, the Perrys refused all the options they offered, and at the City Council meeting, the option in question was provided in order to appease and be empathetic, given the fact that the Council was going to approve the proposal to build the two -story home. She reiterated her request that the Planning Commission revisit their position that the intent is and was to build the skylight, as was implied in the City Council Minutes by Mayor Hosterman and Councilmember Cook - Kallio, but the language of the condition unfortunately does not mention that intent. Mr. Lopez stated that he wanted to remind the Commission that this is a residential project and that it is their fund. He noted that during mediation, there were several other options offered for other concerns; and the City Council asked the Perrys to choose among those options, and the Perrys chose them all. He added that he was told specifically that the Perrys chose all the options because the Perrys wanted them to spend more money. He indicated that have spent a lot of money and have gone over their budget to provide the Perrys with the additional options. He concluded that he was glad the City of Pleasanton is not in the car insurance business and assisting in committing a fraud like this, because the City of Pleasanton has a high standard as a Community of Character, which he hoped would play a part in this as well. Commissioner Olson inquired what options the Lopezes provided along the way. Mr. Lopez replied that the Perrys' first concern was that when they come out of their house, they would be looking at the two -story wall of the Lopezes' house, which the Lopezes offered to mitigate in three different ways: planting a tree between the two houses, putting a decorative belly -band on the roof to break the length of a straight -up wall, and hipping the roof. again to break down the length of that wall. He noted that the Perrys declined all three options. He added that the three options were not meant to all go together and that the tree alone would take care of the concern, but the Perrys chose all three, and they [the Lopezes] incurred additional costs for the tree, the belly -band, and re- engineering for the hipping of the roof. Commissioner Olson inquired if all three have been done. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 25, 2012 Page 7 of 19