CCMIN040108 - Laserfiche WebLink

Carolyn Newton said she had never been involved in any referendum process until the Oak Grove development which she believed would have a permanent and significant impact on the city. She asked the Council to stand behind staff and its citizens and appeal the decision, believed it was wrong that a developer could invalidate what is a fair process and she believed others will follow in this. June Thompson spoke of her dismay in the ruling on Oak Grove and hoped the Council feels likewise, and believes it should be discussed openly and fairly. Marty Inderbitzen congratulated the student who won the National Vocabulary Championship, said he represents the Lin Family and Jim Tong and while the Lin's have not lived in Pleasanton, however, they have owned the property for 25 years and have made many contributions to the community. He said they believe in the obligation of commitment to the community, believed comments regarding the Lin's not living in Pleasanton were wrong, said in the judge's opinion, there was a greater danger to the integrity of the referendum process by allowing a group of citizens to divert the process by not complying with the regulations than to allow it to be challenged and set aside. He said there have been slanderous accusations to many, feels the attacks are inappropriate. He thanked the Council majority who supported the project and to those opposed, he asked to put this phase behind us and join together to move the project forward. Councilmember McGovern questioned and confirmed with the City Attorney that the Oak Grove matter was on the agenda for a Closed Session. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS 5. Continued Public Hearing: PUD-32, Daniel and Belinda Sarich -Consider an application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan approval to subdivide an approximately 20-acre site into two single-family residential lots: (1) an approximately one-acre parcel which would include the existing residence and a new detached two-car garage; and (2) an approximately 19-acre parcel which would include: (a) an approximately 9,990-square-foot, two-story home with a 3,150-square-foot habitable basement with second unit; (b) a 1,785-square-foot five-car attached garage; (c) a 660-square-foot cabana; (d) a 165-square-foot pool bathroom; and (e) a 165-square-foot greenhouse. The property is located at 5 Tuscany Place (formerly 1630 Vineyard Avenue), in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Area, and is zoned PUD-LDR/HR/OS (Planned Unit Development -Low Density Residential/Hillside Residential/Open Space) District Planning Director Jerry Iserson gave the staff report, described the application, surrounding properties, zoning and site plan. The plan has been to two Planning Commission workshops and a hearing where the Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the plan with revisions. He described the project's square footage, garage, existing house, retaining walls, preservation of trees and screening, the roadway and new main house, grading, cabana, greenhouse and planting of vineyards. A major issue staff has been addressing throughout review has been the interpretation of the existing and proposed new home in the hillside residential portion of the site. Staff and the Planning Commission agree that the dot area for the new proposed home is conceptual in nature and there is some flexibility as to where the actual house may go. At the time the specific plan was drawn out there was consideration to the new City Council Minutes 3 April 1, 2008