My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
15 ATTACHMENT 6
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
031808
>
15 ATTACHMENT 6
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2008 3:48:42 PM
Creation date
3/14/2008 3:48:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
3/18/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
15 ATTACHMENT 6
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
development be limited to areas that can physically and visually accommodate it without <br />disrupting the natural character of the site. She believed that removing 40 feet off the top of the <br />hill would disrupt the natural character of the site. She believed that the design of the house was <br />graceful and European, but it did not emphasize the rural character and is not characteristic of the <br />area. <br />Ms. Roberts noted that with respect to Subarea 3 where the Sarich property is located, the <br />Specific Plan states that "the large majority of land within this area is to be preserved as <br />permanent open space." She noted that while open space was discussed in this application, it did <br />not discuss the permanent preservation of the hilltop. She stated that the hilltop was to be open <br />space, and people have made plans around the assumption that no house would be built on top of <br />the hill. She noted that the former owner had wanted 17 houses on the hillside, and Wayne <br />Rasmussen allowed one hillside residential lot. <br />Ms. Roberts expressed concern with the lot position. She noted that the house design did not fit <br />with the land and that the land was being made to fit the house rather than the other way around. <br />She added that the size and the height of the building did not conform to the Specific Plan. She <br />noted that the Commission had discussed this with the Reznick proposal, who wanted two-story <br />houses above the 570-foot elevation that they would tuck in, and the Commission allowed no <br />snore than 27 feet high and only 20 percent of the first floor. She stated that the Sarich home is <br />much large than this, and much bigger than the Oak Grove development houses, where the size <br />and number of the houses were balanced by an amenity of 497 acres of open space. She added <br />that there is no amenity provided in the Sarich project and that if she and Mr. Berlogar <br />developed, they would provide a trail. <br />Ms. Roberts also expressed concern about the subdivision of the site and was unsure whether it <br />met the intent of the Specific Plan. She noted that the subdivision is intended to go along with <br />financial plan, that "the original parcel shares are due at subdivision of the first map, creating a <br />new buildable site." She noted that the Council never amended this item, and several <br />developments that have gone in, including the Berlogar development, which had approval for <br />nine low-density lots, had to come up with the money for his five hillside residential lots. The <br />Specific Plan fees for 198 units are supposed to be paid to fit all the financial obligations in the <br />Specific Plan. <br />Ms. Roberts expressed other concerns that were not related to the Specific Plan. She noted that <br />the Specific Plan is silent about shared wells. She indicated that there are only two wells left in <br />the area and added that shared wells were not set up for new development. <br />Ms Roberts cited an article in the April 9, 2007 Time magazine which noted that one way to <br />prevent or slow down global warming is to "ditch the mansion." The article continued that <br />"oversized houses aren't just architecturally offensive. They also generally require more energy <br />to heat and cool than smaller ones even with efficient appliances. And in the US, bigger houses <br />are becoming the norm, even though a relatively inefficient small house consumes less energy <br />than a greener large house and uses fewer building materials which expand the carbon footprint." <br />She noted that noted that the applicants have accumulated a great number of LEED points; a <br />house this big could be built if it were contemporary and not Tuscan, probably with straw in <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 10 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.