PC 052307 - Laserfiche WebLink

discussion on the Planning Commission at the time regarding whether or not developable acreage for a site should exclude any areas with a grade of 25 percent or greater, and to look at other areas in terms of determining density. She added that went no further than that discussion; it was evaluated and analyzed but was not taken up by the City Council as part of this General Plan. She emphasized that it was not part of the current General Plan and, therefore, not a constraint to the development of the site. Mr. Lorenz displayed and described the various slopes on the site. In response to Chairperson Fox’s inquiry regarding the direction of any potential landslide, he pointed out the surfacial landslide feature which was not deep-seated and added that it would flow away from the house. The geotechnical report indicated that the entire area above Foothill Road was an ancient landslide, which slid millions of years ago, and that everything in the area was built on it. He did not believe there were any identified landslide features in this area, which had been stable for many years, and that it was unlikely to develop a landslide. He described the buffer of trees and the design mitigations they took to increase privacy and the viewpoints between the two residences. He noted that there would be no changes in the trees between the home and the Szetos’ home. Jim Diggins, DeBolt Civil Engineering, 811 San Ramon Valley Blvd., Danville, noted that their soils engineer and Engeo were comfortable with the placement of the house. He noted that they would redesign the storm drainage to go around as requested. Simon Szeto, 9904 Longview Lane, noted that he lived next door to the subject site. He noted that he was surprised when he received the notice for this meeting the previous week and that he did not have much time to prepare. He believed the project may affect homes in the valley which were more than 1,000 feet from the site. He expressed concern about the year-and-a-half of construction but noted that they would cope with it. He realized that a new home would come of it and may want to build his own home someday and was interested in what the planning process was and how to go about getting the approvals. He noted that this home was above the 670-foot elevation, and while the new ordinance did not allow that, he knew that this home was approved well before the ordinance was enacted. He inquired about the reasoning for that ordinance. He recalled that the home would be moved 15 feet in another direction, rather than the five feet as noted in the letter; he requested clarification of that. He inquired what would happen if the property were to be sold before the house was built. Ms. Decker noted that while she was uncertain about the discussion of no building above the 670-foot elevation, the staff report reflected a discussion of the location of this site relative to the West Foothill Road Corridor Overlay District requirements. The site was outside that district, but the staff report did discuss what was prohibited or allowed, and how this particular proposal met those requirements. The first paragraph on page 9 stated that the District prohibited building sites within lots located at, on, or near ridges that did not have the background of the Pleasanton or Main ridges. She noted that staff could research that issue and give the information to Mr. Szeto. She noted that there were other homes above that elevation and that this was the last home that was available for PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 2007 Page 13 of 20