CCMIN082002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Ayala agreed Ms. Bryson's residence is impacted by the current location of the silo and asked if the silo were moved farther back from the road, would that be acceptable. Ms. Bryson did not think that would be aesthetically pleasing. She felt the focus should be on the adobe and did not consider the dairy period an historic period for the area. Ms. Michelotti asked for clarification on the location of the barn. She wanted to make certain that people are aware that the barn structure has already been approved and will be visible, although it is set back from the embankment. Ms. Bryson said she would be able to see the barn. The City has planted trees between her property and the adobe, but even during the height of the leaf season, she can still see what is up there. She did not think the 28 foot barn will loom over her property the way the 42 foot silo did. Linda Marquardt, 3206 Belvedere Court, said she and her husband have always been against the silo and when the story poles were erected, they felt it was worse than they had imagined. She said they could see this huge, ugly silo from every part of their residence. It is next to the road and cannot be hidden by anything. The barn can have landscape in front of it to mitigate the impact. Even though this park is not part of the Foothill Overlay District, the reason for the Overlay District was to maintain the beauty of the hills and not to have bright white structures standing out. The dairy is not historic and would only be a rebuilt version. She believed the real impact of an historic structure is the fact that one can see and touch the actual building that was used by those 100 years ago. People complain about the NIMBY (not in my back yard) concept, but felt that if one doesn't want something in their back yard, it should not be moved to someone else's back yard. This silo is not necessary or historic. This would be an expensive project and she felt the money could be spent in a more worthwhile way. Russell Hostetter, 3203 Belvedere Court, said he had participated in many meetings a year ago the result of which eliminated the silo fi'om the plans. Somehow it was put back into the plan. He spent a lot of his time along with other members of the community. The Council has changed, but the constituents are still there and so are the issues of safety, graffiti, and the blot this structure represents. He did not understand why this is still being discussed. This structure is visible from many places in Pleasanton and he felt this was not just in Laguna Oaks' backyard, but in the entire City's backyard. He was disappointed that the community had gone through much work and discussed the rationale and aesthetics of the silo. Council just spent a half an hour talking about the aesthetics of a carport and now we are talking about an almost fifty foot high, twenty foot wide silo on the side of a beautiful hill. There is no reason to have a complete barn and silo on the site for historical purposes or in order to obtain grant funding for the park. Considering all the meetings with the Parks and Recreation Commission, the comments made to the City Council and the logic behind them, and the fact the Council did not recommend it to be included in the plans, he was surprised we are still talking about it a year later. He felt it seems more attention is paid to environmental impacts on fish than to humans. There is an impact on everyone who can see the silo in the community. Pleasanton City Council 19 08/20/02 Minutes