November 14, 2007
APPLICANT: Daniel and Belinda Sarich
PROPERTY OWNER: Daniel and Belinda Sarich
PURPOSE: 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.
GENERAL PLAN: Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Area
ZONING: PUD-LDR/HR/OS (Planned Unit Development – Low Density
Residential/Hillside Residential/Open Space) District
LOCATION: 5 Tuscany Place (formerly 1630 Vineyard Avenue)
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit A: Proposed Plans; Narrative & Comparison of Previous
& Current Plans; Green Point Checklist; Visual Simulations; Tree
Report; Integrated Pest Management Program; Open Space
Management and Wildland Fire Protection Plan; and Geotechnical
Report with Response to Peer Review Comments
2. Exhibit B, Recommended Conditions of Approval
3. November 6, 2007, email from Mary Roberts
4. Excerpts of the Minutes of the October 25, 2006, Planning
5. October 23, 2006, Memorandum to the Planning Commission
6. Comment Letter from the City’s Visual Peer Review Consultant
Matt Brockway, Vallier Design Associates, dated June 5, 2007
PUD-32 Page - 1 - November 14, 2007
7. Comment Letters from the City’s Geotechnical Peer Review
Consultant Alan Kropp, Alan Kropp and Associates, dated
January 30, 2004 and June 12, 2007
8. October 17, 2006, Memorandum to the Planning Commission
On June 1, 1999, the City Council approved a Specific Plan and Planned Unit Development
(PUD) prezoning/rezoning for the 384-acre area commonly referred to as Vineyard Avenue
Corridor located in southeast Pleasanton.
The Sarich property is Lot 27 in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan (VACSP) Area.
The subject site has three land use designations: 1) Low Density Residential (LDR), 2) Hillside
Residential (HR), and 3) Open Space (OS). The LDR area is shown on approximately four
acres in the northeastern portion of the site fronting Old Vineyard Avenue. The HR area is an
approximately one-acre area located near the southeast corner of the property. The OS area is
the remainder of the site characterized by an existing oak woodland. A total of eight residential
units are approved for Lot 27: one existing and one new dwelling in the HR area and six new
dwellings in the LDR area.
In October 2003, Daniel and Belinda Sarich filed an application for development of an eight-lot
residential project. In 2005, the applicants decided to pursue a portion of the original
application: demolition of the existing house, guest house, and garage/barn and construction of
a new house and several accessory buildings on the existing lot. The applicants indicated they
would pursue approval of a development plan for the six lower lots at a later date. A Planning
Commission workshop was scheduled on June 8, 2005, to allow the Planning Commission and
public to review and comment on the proposed plans. However, the application was continued
at the request of the applicants based on a continued dialog with staff regarding the project.
The applicants revised their application by proposing to retain the existing house and detached
garage/barn. The applicants determined that they could renovate the home for a caretaker’s unit
instead of building a new dwelling unit. The existing guest house was proposed to be
demolished. The applicants also decided to eliminate a proposed detached second unit and
barn/winery structure from the plan. The revised plans were taken to a Planning Commission
Workshop to receive input from the Commission and public.
II. SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located on the south side of Old Vineyard Avenue and measures
approximately 20-acres in area. The property contains an existing one-story, approximately
PUD-32 Page - 2 - November 14, 2007
2,300-square-foot residence, detached guest house, and detached garage/barn with a paved
driveway off of Old Vineyard Avenue. Most of the subject property contains slopes exceeding
20 percent. Flat portions of the site are limited to the small pads that were created for the
existing structures. The elevations of the subject site range from 450 feet along Old Vineyard
Avenue to 670 feet at the top of the knoll near the southern property line. The property has a
large number of native blue oak trees and smaller numbers of valley oak, eucalyptus, California
buckeye, and willow trees.
Subject property as viewed from Old Vineyard Ave. Existing Residence
The property is bordered on the west by the Roberts parcel and residence (1666 Frog Hill Lane,
formerly Vineyard Avenue), on the east by Greenbriar Homes’ Bordeaux Country Estates
development, and on the south by the Foley parcel. Centex Homes’ Avingnon development
(currently under construction) and the Safreno parcel and residence (1627 Safreno Place,
formerly Vineyard Avenue) are located north of the subject site, across Old Vineyard Avenue.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicants propose to subdivide the approximately 20-acre site into two single-family
residential lots measuring approximately one acre and 19 acres in area. The existing residence
and a new, detached two-car garage would be located on the one-acre lot. A new custom home
and several accessory structures would be constructed on the 19-acre “Estate” lot for the
Sariches. The existing detached guest house would be demolished. On the following page is a
table comparing the previous and current house plans along with a description of the project
PUD-32 Page - 3 - November 14, 2007
Table 1: Comparison of Previous and Current Plans
September 28, 2005 October 25, 2006 Current Plans
Workshop Plans Workshop Plans
Location of New House Top of the knoll Top of the knoll Top of the knoll
Graded Pad Elevations 622 to 625 ft. 627.3 to 630.5 ft. 625 to 629.5 ft.
Finished Floor Elevations 623 to 626.5 ft. 627.5 to 631 ft. 628.5 to 631 ft.
First Floor 9,095 sq. ft. 8,095 sq. ft. 7,100 sq. ft.
Second Floor 3,300 sq. ft. 2,920 sq. ft. 2,890 sq. ft.
1st and 2nd Floor Total 12,395 sq. ft. 11,015 sq. ft. 9,990 sq. ft.
Basement 770 sq. ft. 770 sq. ft. 3,210 sq. ft.
Garage 1,345 sq. ft. 1,230 sq. ft. 1,785 sq. ft.
Total Area without Garage 13,165 sq. ft. 11,785 sq. ft. 13,200 sq. ft.
Total Area with Garage 14,510 sq. ft. 13,015 sq. ft. 14,985 sq. ft.
Height1 32.3 ft. (at main roof ridge) ≈ 29.5 ft. (at main roof ridge) 30.2 ft. (at main roof ridge)
37.8 ft. (top of the cupola, ≈ 34.5 ft. (top of the cupola, 35.2 ft. (top of the cupola,
excluding the finial) excluding the finial) excluding the finial)
Trees Removed 562 382 67
Building height in the VACSP area is measured vertically from the lowest elevation of the building to the highest
elevation of the building, excluding chimneys.
Does not reflect a few additional trees that would need to be removed to accommodate widening of the lower portion
of the private road.
• An approximately 9,990-square-foot, two-story home with a 3,210-square-foot habitable
basement, including an 890-square-foot second unit, and a 1,785-square-foot five-car
attached garage are proposed on the 19-acre lot. Differences between the current plans and
the last workshop plans include a 1,025-square-foot reduction to the first and second floor
area, a 555-square-foot increase to the garage area, and a 2,440-square-foot increase to the
non-visible basement area. The previously proposed pool house has been eliminated on the
19-acre lot and a 660-square-foot cabana, a spa with a 165-square-foot subterranean pool
bathroom, and a 165-square-foot greenhouse are proposed on the 19-acre lot. In addition,
the existing barn/garage would be retained and be used as a winery barn for the 19-acre lot.
• Building envelopes (identified as Designated Development Areas) have been created for the
two lots. All structures (i.e., the main dwelling and accessory structures) would be required
to be located within the Designated Development Areas. The Designated Development
Areas for the one-acre and 19-acre lots measure approximately 19,000 and 50,400 square
feet, respectively. Developments of this type with large lot areas oftentimes create a
development area and establish maximum building sizes.
PUD-32 Page - 4 - November 14, 2007
• The applicants have limited the development of future accessory structures and additions to
the following in lieu of creating a floor area ratio (FAR) based on the lot size or development
19-Acre Estate Lot:
Accessory structure (agricultural barn) = 2,100 square feet
Addition to existing barn = 800 square feet
Addition to existing 2,300-square-foot home = 2,900 square feet (total size of home with
addition equals 5,200 square feet)
Addition to garage = 350 square feet
Accessory structure (guest house/second unit) = 1,200 square feet
Accessory structure (pool house) = 400 square feet
• The proposed home and accessory structures would be located on a knoll near the ridgeline.
The knoll would be graded a maximum 40-feet near the base of the slope bank behind
(south) of the house. A retaining wall would be located along the north side of the house,
making the base of the northern house wall approximately six-inches to five-feet lower that
the natural grade at the top of the retaining wall. Any excess material removed from the
knoll would be relocated to the vineyard area at the north side of the parcel. The grading at
the site would balance so that there is no soil to import or off haul.
• A Tuscan farmhouse/villa design is proposed for the Sarich residence (see partial front
elevation below). The applicants recently added more detailing to the building elevations to
make the building look authentic and “old world.” For example, corbels, shutters, decorative
wrought iron, carriage-style garage doors, and carved stone trim were added to the building
elevations. In addition, the applicants replaced some of the stucco wall material with
limestone and would use reclaimed roof ties from France.
PUD-32 Page - 5 - November 14, 2007
• The two-story home would measure approximately 30.2-feet tall as measured from the
lowest grade adjacent to the house to the top of the main roof ridge and approximately 35.2-
feet tall at the top of the cupola, excluding the finial. The lowest grade adjacent to the house
(approximately 627 feet) was measured from the base of the front loggia that projects out
from the house wall. When measured from the lowest grade adjacent to the wall of the house
(approximately 628 feet at the nook), the house measures approximately 29.2-feet tall to the
top of the main roof ridge and approximately 34.2-feet tall at the top of the cupola, excluding
the finial. With the last workshop plans, the applicants had indicated that the height of the
house was 27 feet 8 inches at the top of the main roof ridge and approximately 32 feet 8
inches feet at the top of the cupola, excluding the finial. Upon further review by staff, the
height was not measured from the lowest grade adjacent to the house and the actual height
was closer to 29.5 feet to the main roof ridge and 34.5 feet to the top of the cupola (these
measurements are estimates since full-sized, scalable plans were not submitted with the prior
workshop plans). Therefore, the height is substantially the same as previously considered by
the Planning Commission. The applicant has modified the grading and the square footage is
redistributed to have more of the home underground, thus reducing the overall visual
appearance of height and massing.
• A color photograph of the color/material board for the Sarich Residence has been provided
which shows: ochre-colored stucco and limestone walls; dark brown-stained wood garage
doors and trellis; natural copper gutters, downspouts, and dormer roof; copper patina cupola
roof; and a mixture of red- and terra cotta-colored Mission-style clay roof tiles. A
color/material board with actual color samples will be available for viewing at the hearing.
The applicants have also provided color renderings of the proposed home. Images of
textures, colors, and materials similar to what the applicants’ desire are also included in the
• As required by the City’s Green Building Ordinance, the proposed home is required to
provide for at least 50 points based on the Alameda County Waste Management Authority’s
“Single-Family Green Building Rating System.” The applicants have proposed to
incorporate a considerable number of “Green Building” measures into the home, providing
approximately 158 points. For example, the applicants would incorporate recycled flyash in
the concrete mix, would use FSC-certified wood for 70% of the dimensional studs and
panels, would exceed Title 24 state energy conservation requirements by 15%, would install
a solar water heating system, and would use environmentally preferred flooring and interior
finish materials. Please see the attached Green Building checklist for the complete list of the
proposed Green Building measures that are proposed for incorporation into the design of the
proposed home. Staff notes that a “standard” City condition of approval requires homes to
be designed to accommodate the installation of future roof-mounted photovoltaic panels,
which is one of the green building measures listed in the green building rating system and is
worth two points. Therefore, as conditioned, the applicants qualify for two additional green
points, brining the total to 160 points.
PUD-32 Page - 6 - November 14, 2007
• Proposed new accessory structures on the 19-acre estate lot include: 1) a 660-square-foot,
16-foot tall open-air cabana with fireplace and bathroom would be located on the east side of
the house; 2) a 165-square-foot, 15-foot tall glass conservatory would be located on the south
side of the house near the kitchen; and 3) a spa with a 165-square-foot subterranean pool
bathroom would be located on the east side of the house next to a proposed pool.
• Beginning at Old Vineyard Avenue, a new road would access both HR homes and the six
future LDR homes. As specified in the VACSP, the new road would connect to Old
Vineyard Avenue approximately 60-feet southeast of the current Sarich driveway in order to
align with Safreno Way across Old Vineyard Avenue. The Bordeaux Country Estates
developer was required to dedicate a roadway easement at the northwest corner of its
property to accommodate the new road alignment on the Sarich property. The proposed
street is within the roadway easement. The lower, LDR portion of the road would measure
32-feet wide, curb-to-curb, as specified in the VACSP. In order to reduce paving and to
keep the road farther from the Bordeaux Country Estates’ open space, the first 50 feet of
roadway from Old Vineyard Avenue would be reduced to 20-feet wide, curb-to-curb, and
signed/striped for no parking. The LDR portion of the road would become a public street
when the applicants develop the LDR lots. Beyond the LDR portion of the road, access to
the proposed house would be from a 16-foot wide private drive that generally follows the
location of the existing road to the existing residence. The drive would be extended
approximately 400 feet up the knoll to serve the proposed home site. The upper portion of
the drive would narrow to 12-feet wide to minimize grading and tree removal.
• A decorative wrought-iron style gate flanked by cast stone columns and low stucco walls
would be located at the lower portion of the private drive (design shown on Sheet A-10 of
the proposed plans). Eight-foot tall open wire mesh fencing would be installed along the
northern (front) property line along the future Old Vineyard trail, the southern property line
abutting the Foley property, and the western property line abutting the Roberts property.
The existing eight-foot tall open wire mesh fence along the eastern property line would
remain. A five-foot tall wrought-iron style fence would be installed around the pool of the
• The upper portion of the private road would be cut into the hillside and utilize retaining walls
up to five-feet tall to reduce impacts on the existing trees. The retaining wall on the uphill
side of the road would be stone-faced while the retaining walls on the downhill side of the
road would be stone-colored, split-faced concrete block with a stone cap. Prostrate rosemary
would be installed at the top and bottom of the concrete block retaining walls.
• In order to comply with the fire-fighting requirements for this lot, a water booster pump with
enclosure would be located on the south side of the private drive near the 536-foot elevation.
The applicants would utilize an electrically driven pump. The roofed booster pump
PUD-32 Page - 7 - November 14, 2007
enclosure would measure approximately 16-feet wide by 23-feet long. No design has been
provided for the pump house. The applicants are also proposing a 5,000-gallon water tank
on the slope bank above the house to further enhance fire-fighting capabilities on the site
even though it was not required by the Fire Department. A fire truck turnout has been
provided near the top of the private drive at the 610-foot elevation. A hammerhead-style fire
truck turnaround has been provided at the top of the private drive. The turn around was
modified from the prior plan to allow a 28-inch diameter, healthy blue oak tree (tree no. 18)
to be saved.
• A total of 67 trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed development, consisting
of 16 heritage-sized trees (i.e., a tree which measures 35 feet or greater in height or which
measures 55 inches or greater in circumference) and 51 non-heritage-sized trees. The current
plan removes 29 more trees than the prior plan. A total of 438 new trees would be planted,
exceeding the specific plan’s 6:1 replacement ratio.
• At the northerly portion of the site designated as LDR, a series of stepped benches would be
graded and planted with vineyards until the land is developed with homes. The vineyards
would not be planted until a reliable water source is available.
The proposed uses for the Hillside Residential and Open Space areas generally follow the uses
listed in the Specific Plan (see recommended condition of approval no. 2). Staff eliminated
some uses that were not applicable to the property (e.g., eliminated common recreation area,
public water pump station, public trails, and park from the OS area).
The new road would connect to Old Vineyard Avenue approximately 60-feet southeast of the
current driveway in order to align with Safreno Way across Old Vineyard Avenue. The
Bordeaux Country Estates developer was required to dedicate a roadway easement at the
northwest corner of its property to accommodate the new road alignment on the Sarich property.
The proposed street is within the roadway easement and complies with the location shown in the
The Specific Plan shows the future public streets in the adjacent Bordeaux Country Estates
(formerly Heinz property) and Sarich properties connecting. The Specific Plan indicates that the
street alignments shown are conceptual only and may change subject to the PUD development
PUD-32 Page - 8 - November 14, 2007
plan review process. At the time of the Bordeaux Country Estates PUD review, it was
determined that the roads should not connect.
Home Site Location
The Specific Plan indicates that all HR home sites must be located within the designated
development areas as generally depicted on the land use plan. The VACSP Land Use Plan
shows a large asterisk indicating the approximate location. These areas are conceptual and not
intended to be specific in that at the time that these plans were made it was not connected to or
related to topographic constraints.
As can be seen on the development plan slope map, most of the site is comprised of slopes
greater than 20 percent. Staff believes the home could be located anywhere within the general
vicinity of the location shown on the land use plan. Consideration was given to looking at the
area closest to the existing home. Staff found that this location would require considerable
grading and retaining walls to accommodate the proposed home. Therefore, staff evaluated the
proposed location at the top of the knoll and believes with the proposed mitigations, reduction of
the aboveground living area, and the proposal to keep a larger area of the original grade up to
the home, that this site is preferable.
Building Envelopes/Designated Development Areas
Staff recommended that building envelopes for both lots be established rather than list minimum
property line setbacks as is typically done with standard-sized lots. The proposed building
envelopes, identified as Designated Development Areas (DDAs), have been shown on the
proposed plans. All structures (i.e., the main dwelling and all accessory structures) would need
to be located within these areas. The DDAs generally comply with the minimum property line
setbacks noted in the Specific Plan for the HR area, with a few exceptions noted below.
The Specific Plan requires a 35-foot minimum front yard setback for HR lots as measured from
property lines. The Specific Plan allows building setbacks to be modified through the PUD
approval process. The area in front of the existing home is flat and there is limited flat pad area
on the one-acre lot. Therefore, the applicants have proposed a 25-foot front setback along the
private street of the one-acre lot. The existing home and proposed home will front onto a private
street. Staff supports a reduction from 35 feet to 25 feet as proposed.
The Specific Plan also requires a 40-foot rear yard setback. Most of the proposed DDA is
located 65-feet from the southern property line, but the westernmost portion of the DDA is
located 20-feet from the southern property line, near where the future agricultural barn may be
located. As noted above, the Specific Plan allows building setbacks to be modified through the
PUD approval process. Staff believes that the proposed 20-foot setback to the southern property
PUD-32 Page - 9 - November 14, 2007
line would be acceptable since the Foley residence is located approximately 2,200 feet away and
the City’s General Plan does not allow additional homes to be developed on the Foley property.
Future Development on the HR Lots (within the DDAs)
In addition to the proposed structures shown on the development plans, the applicants have
limited future development on the 19-acre lot to a 2,100-square-foot agriculture barn and an
800-square-foot addition to the existing barn, and have limited future development on the one-
acre lot to a 2,900-square-foot addition to the existing home, a 350-square-foot addition to the
proposed garage, a 1,200-square-foot detached guest house/second unit, and a 400-square-foot
pool house. Staff believes that the proposed number and size of the future additions and
accessory structures are acceptable.
Building Design/Architecture for Estate Home
Building Height and Stories
In the HR District, the Specific Plan allows primary buildings to be 30 feet in height and two
stories below elevations of 540 feet. Above that elevation, buildings are limited to 25 feet in
height and one story. The proposed home would be located above an elevation of 540 feet and,
therefore, would be limited to 25 feet in height and one story. The Specific Plan indicates that
site development standards such as building setbacks and height shall be implemented through
the City’s PUD development plan approval process and may vary for unusual site conditions as
long as any new standards are consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan. The applicants are
proposing a two story, and up to 30 feet in height in order to reduce the size of the house
footprint and the grading.
Staff believes that the applicants have done a good job at minimizing the apparent height and
mass of the home:
• The second floor walls have been set back from the first floor walls;
• The second floor area is 32.5 percent of the first floor area;
• A substantial amount of the house is located below grade and would not be visible;
• A retaining wall would be located along the north side of the house, making the base of the
northern house wall approximately six-inches to five-feet lower that the natural grade at the
top of the retaining wall;
• The roofline has been broken up; and
PUD-32 Page - 10 - November 14, 2007
• The house has a relatively shallow (4.5:12) roof pitch.
Taken together, staff finds that these measures adequately mitigate the height increase and
additional story, and staff can support the house as proposed.
The Specific Plan indicates that house designs in the Hillside Residential District should be
limited to traditional architectural styles and forms adjusted to conform to the natural character
of the site. In staff’s opinion, the building architecture can generally be described as a
contemporary interpretation of a Tuscan farmhouse/villa, which is a traditional architectural
style. Staff feels that the proposed architectural style of the house is acceptable and contains
detailing and high quality materials to help make the building look authentic to its period.
Colors and Materials
The Specific Plan states that medium- to dark-earthtone building colors shall be used in the HR
district to complement the surrounding natural setting. Staff believes that the proposed stucco
and limestone wall colors meet the intent of the Specific Plan since the ochre color would help
blend the house into the grassland areas on the property. Based on the color photograph of the
proposed roof tile, it appears that the roof colors are aged/faded and would not be too bright for
this hillside setting. However, since staff was unable to review an actual sample of the roof tile,
a condition of approval requires that a sample of the roof tile be submitted for the review and
approval by the Planning Director prior to installation. Staff also believes that the proposed
materials are acceptable and are in keeping with the architectural style of the home.
Due to stormwater quality concerns, staff had informed the applicants that the copper material
on the cupola and dormer roofs and the gutters and downspouts would need to be sealed/lined or
changed to another material. The applicants have indicated that they will seal/line the copper
materials. A condition of approval has been included to ensure the project meets the stormwater
The proposed home and accessory structures would be located on a knoll near the ridgeline.
The knoll would be cut to accommodate a flat building pad for the house and accessory
structures. A maximum 40-foot deep cut would occur near the base of the slope bank behind
(south) of the house. The excess soil from this cut would be brought down to the LDR portion
of the site to create a series of stepped benches for the proposed vineyards. The grading at the
site would balance so that there is no soil to import or off haul.
PUD-32 Page - 11 - November 14, 2007
Staff encourages a stepped home design on a hillside lot. However, in some cases, stepping a
home on a hillside can make it more visible. Grading down the existing knoll would help reduce
views of the residence (compared to stepping the house on the existing grades on top of the
knoll). Such a trade-off has been used elsewhere in the City and staff finds it acceptable in this
case. In addition, the proposed grading and retaining wall near the northern side of the house
would help screen the lower potion of the house when viewed from the adjacent Reznick and
Roberts residences and other off-site areas to the northeast to northwest. Overall, staff finds the
grading plan to be acceptable.
In order to reduce stormwater runoff and pollutants from the site, drainage from the roofs of the
existing and proposed structures and some surface drainage would be conveyed to several dry
wells, which are subsurface basins to which runoff is diverted for storage and slow infiltration.
This is a type of stormwater runoff measure strongly supported by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and local agencies implementing the urban clean water runoff program.
Drainage from the private road would be conveyed to an oil/water separator in the road near the
base of the property. Staff notes that oil/water separators are no longer a preferred stormwater
treatment measure by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and local agencies
implementing the urban clean water runoff program as they require regular maintenance and do
not provide an effective means to treat both the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff from a
site. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicants install a vegetated bioswale on the
The project anticipates the vacation of an 18-foot wide portion of the Old Vineyard right-of-way
to the estate lot. This vacation of excess roadway right-of-way is consistent with the Vineyard
Avenue Corridor Specific Plan and staff believes that it would be ideal to locate the bioswale at
this location similar to the bioswale approved for the Reznick development. Staff notes that at
the easternmost portion of the Sarich frontage, all or some of the excess right-of-way will be
needed by the City to accommodate the future public trail and the parallel driveway that will
need to be installed in Old Vineyard Avenue between Safreno Way and the Safreno driveway.
Therefore, the bioswale will need to be located towards the western half of the project frontage.
A condition of approval addresses this item.
The drainage plan does not include drainage information for the proposed two-car garage, the
existing home, the existing barn, and the yard areas around the proposed home. A condition of
approval requires a drainage plan for these areas be submitted for review and approval by the
PUD-32 Page - 12 - November 14, 2007
As required by General Plan policies and the Specific Plan, a geotechnical analysis was prepared
for the subject site entitled “Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development
Lot 27, 1630 Vineyard Ave” by Terrasearch Inc. The geotechnical report was peer reviewed by
the City’s consulting geologist, Mr. Alan Kropp, of Alan Kropp and Associates. Terrasearch’s
response to the peer review comments and Alan Kropp and Associates’ final review comments
are stated in letters dated March 12, and June 12, 2007, respectively, which are provided in the
Planning Commission's packet.
From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, Terrasearch states that the proposed development
can be constructed as planned, provided that the conclusions and recommendations contained in
the report are incorporated into the project design and grading. Consistent with City policy, the
geotechnical report was peer reviewed by the City’s consulting geologist, Mr. Alan Kropp, of
Alan Kropp and Associates. In his attached letter, Mr. Kropp indicates that the geotechnical
investigation preformed by Terrasearch generally conforms to accepted geotechnical/geologic
principles and practices, but there are a few items that need to be reviewed as the project
progresses, such as observing the grading of the estate lot to confirm that the geologic structure
exposed is compatible with the recommendations made by Terrasearch.
The geotechnical analysis and peer-review comments were reviewed and accepted by the City
Engineer. A condition of approval has been included that requires the applicants to comply with
the recommendations listed in the geotechnical reports and peer review letters.
A preliminary utility plan has been included for the Commission’s review. Water, storm drain,
and sanitary sewer lines would be extended from existing City mains in Old Vineyard Avenue
up the private road to serve the existing and new homes. The existing on-site overhead utility
lines serving the existing home and all new on-site utilities required to serve the proposed
development will be installed underground in a joint utility trench. Staff finds the preliminary
utility plan to be acceptable.
The Specific Plan states that property owners choosing to subdivide are required to connect their
existing homes to the City water and sewer systems at the time that service is extended to their
subdivided land. A condition of approval addresses this item.
An existing well located on the Roberts property is shared by both the Sariches and Roberts.
The Specific Plan allows existing wells to be used for irrigation after City water is supplied to
the existing residence. In addition, the Specific Plan indicates that partial mitigation of the
PUD-32 Page - 13 - November 14, 2007
cumulative increase in potable water demand will be provided by water conservation measures.
One of those measures states that well water shall be required for irrigation of vineyards and
related agricultural uses. There has been discussion that this statement in the Specific Plan only
relates to the Vineyard District. The Sariches have indicated that they would like to use the well
water to irrigate the proposed vineyards. This is consistent with the Specific Plan, and the water
system created for the VACSP was not designed to have City supplies used for irrigation of very
large parcels. The new domestic water infrastructure, including the new water tank on the
Reznick site, is not sized to serve residential demand along with agricultural uses.
As indicated in the attached November 6, 2007, email from Mary Roberts, Mrs. Roberts
indicates that the existing shared well is not dependable and that any use of the shared well
water will likely prevent her from drawing water since the well is not adequate for two families.
Staff discussed Mrs. Roberts’ concerns with the Sariches. The Sariches suggested that the
following condition be included to address Mrs. Roberts’ concerns:
The Sariches recognize the concerns about the shared water well and acknowledge that
this is the primary source of water for the Roberts residence until such time as they are
required to connect to City water. The Sariches will agree to be good neighbors and to
provide the Roberts residence with first priority for use of the well for household (non-
irrigation) needs until such time as the Roberts connect to City water. The Sariches are
required to hook up to City water for domestic uses. They will agree to defer planting of
vineyards until such time in the future as a proven water source on the Sarich property
can be developed or it can be demonstrated that the existing shared well has the capacity
to meet both the Sarich and Roberts irrigation needs. In lieu of planting vineyards, the
vineyard area will be hydroseeded for erosion control purposes.
At the time this report was written, Mary Roberts was reviewing the Sariches condition and
indicated that she would respond soon. Staff anticipates having Mrs. Roberts’ response at the
time of the hearing.
Staff believes the Sariches offer to be an acceptable solution to address the use of the joint well
and has included it as a condition of approval for the project. Staff slightly modified the
language of the proposed condition to allow it to function as a condition of approval and be
The Specific Plan requires that a visual analysis be created with the development plan review.
Photomontages of the proposed development have been provided. Viewpoints were taken from
Ruby Hill Boulevard (near Vineyard Avenue), Michael Katz Winery, Fire Station #5, Vineyard
Avenue (near Safreno Way), Vineyard Avenue (near Machado Place), Old Vineyard Avenue (in
front of the Bordeaux Country Estates development), Bordeaux Country Estates development (at
PUD-32 Page - 14 - November 14, 2007
Montrose Place), the Reznick property (at the rear of the existing home), and the Roberts
property (from two different viewpoints behind the home).
The visual simulations show that the proposed home would be partially visible from all
viewpoints. Except for the views from the Roberts and Reznick properties, most of the estate
home would be obscured by the existing and proposed landscaping and the existing hillside.
The home would be most visible from the adjacent Roberts and Reznick properties. The
applicants have proposed a substantial number of trees that would help screen the proposed
estate home, private road, and retaining walls over time from the Roberts and Reznick properties
(please see the simulations showing the proposed development after 10 years).
The photo simulations have been peer reviewed by the City’s visual consultant, Mr. Matt
Brockway, of Vallier Design Group. In his attached letter, Mr. Brockway indicates that he feels
the simulations are accurate and effective in describing the potential scale, mass, location and
visibility of the proposed structures and that the simulations fall within industry standards for
use in evaluating potential visual impact.
Tree Removal and Mitigation
A tree report prepared by HortScience, Inc. has been prepared that specifies the species, size,
health, and suitability for preservation of the existing trees on the site that exceed six-inches in
diameter. A tree removal plan has also been provided with the development plans.
A total of 67 trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed development, consisting of
16 heritage-sized trees (i.e., a tree which measures 35 feet or greater in height or which
measures 55 inches or greater in circumference) and 51 non-heritage-sized trees. Tree species to
be removed include valley oak, blue oak, California buckeye, and yellow willow. The current
plan removes 29 more trees primarily due to the arborist’s recommendation to remove several
trees that are in poor health, due to the new accessory structures and pool, and due to the review
of the tree impacts by the installation of the lower portion of the private road (which had not
been reviewed in the prior tree report or plans).
A total of 438 new trees would be planted, exceeding the specific plan’s 6:1 replacement ratio,
which would require 402 trees. A partial tree replacement plan has been provided that shows
the replacement trees that would be installed around the estate home and the upper potion of the
private road. Since this replacement plan does not show all 438 of the proposed replacement
trees that would be planted, a final tree replacement plan will be prepared to mitigate the trees
that are removed. A condition of approval requires that the final tree replacement plan be
submitted for Planning Director review and approval. The tree replacement plan has been
conditioned to conform to the tree replacement requirements of the Specific Plan with respect to
tree species and sizes. Furthermore, staff had included a condition requiring that the arborist re-
evaluate the trees recommended for removal due to poor health to indicate if they would pose a
PUD-32 Page - 15 - November 14, 2007
safety risk or risk the health of the woodland. Since some of the poor health trees would help to
screen the proposed home and other improvements, staff believes that poor health trees should
not be removed unless the tree is dead, poses a safety risk, or its removal would improve the
health of the woodland. Should additional trees be saved, then the applicants would be allowed
to reduce the number of replacement trees so long as the specific plan’s 6:1 replacement ratio
The landscape plan proposes large, box-sized trees ranging from 24-inch to 60-inch size.
Proposed species include coast live oak, strawberry tree, deodar cedar, CA pepper, Italian
cypress, olive, and fern pine. Staff feels that the proposed landscape plan is attractive and
contains sufficient landscape area around the estate home to help screen it from off-site views.
Staff also feels that the density and species of trees and shrubs indicated on the plan are
However, staff does have a few recommended changes to the landscape plan:
• To improve screening of the estate home and private road from the Roberts and Reznick
properties, staff recommends the size of coast live oak tree nos. R10 and R11 be increased to
60-inch box size and that tree nos. R12 – R17 be increased to 36-inch box size (three trees)
and 48-inch box size (three trees). Staff believes that the two proposed 60-inch box coast
live oak trees at the northeast side of the estate home (#’s R6 and R7) could be reduced to
24-inch box size.
• The plan needs to specify the size, location, and species of the proposed shrubs.
• The plan needs to show the location of the proposed groundcover.
A condition of approval addresses these items. The final landscape plan would be subject to
final review and approval by the Planning Director.
Fencing and Entry Walls
The proposed fencing complies with the VACSP Residential Design Guidelines which state that
site perimeter and other outlying fencing should remain visually open (i.e., split-rail or wire-
mesh) in order to minimize the visual “ribbon-like” effect of fencing on the hillsides. A
condition of approval has been included to require that the fence posts be painted forest green to
match the color of the existing fence posts between this property and the adjacent Bordeaux
Country Estates subdivision. Staff notes that the adjacent property owners’ approval will be
needed before any new fencing could be placed on a common property line. If these approvals
PUD-32 Page - 16 - November 14, 2007
could not be secured, then the applicants would need to set the fencing back a few inches so that
it is located entirely on the applicants’ property.
At the lower portion of the private drive, the applicants are proposing to install a decorative
wrought-iron style gate flanked by two nine-foot tall cast stone columns and low stucco walls.
The Specific Plan indicates that gated developments which preclude public access shall not be
permitted unless required for agricultural protection purposes. In addition, the General Plan
discourages the development of further gated communities. Because the gate is needed to
protect the proposed vineyards from deer and would only restrict access to the two HR home
sites, staff believes that the gate is acceptable. Staff also believes the gate and walls would
provide an attractive entry feature to the upper lots.
Open Space Management and Wildland Fire Protection Plan
Proper management of Open Space areas is necessary to maintain the quality of the existing
natural environment as well as to reduce fire hazards. Therefore, the Specific Plan requires that
site-specific Open-Space Management and Wildland Fire Protection Plans be prepared and
submitted by each developer of lots which contain Open Space land as a part of the PUD
development plan application. The plans are required to address agricultural operations, open
space maintenance, wildlife and vegetation preservation needs, and measures to reduce fire
intensity through fuels management and to allow the dwellings to resist fire exposure.
The applicant has submitted the Open-Space Management and Wildland Fire Protection Plan as
one document. The plan discusses such items as the allowable uses in the open space areas,
agricultural operations, the care of existing trees, and recommendations for new trees, and
includes several fire management measures such as regularly mowing grasslands and limiting
the height of under story plantings. Sheet A-1 of the development plans also shows two hash-
marked areas below the existing house where no new vegetation would be allowed or where
only low-combustible vegetation would be allowed. Staff finds the Open-Space Management
and Wildland Fire Protection Plan to be generally acceptable, but does recommend that a few
minor changes be incorporated into the plan, which are described below:
• Modify the open space and residential uses to conform to the uses listed in PUD
condition No. 2.b.
• Add all language from PUD condition no. 30, regarding raptor nests.
A condition of approval addresses the above items.
PUD-32 Page - 17 - November 14, 2007
Integrated Pest Management Program
An integrated pest management program is required for the vineyard areas. The applicants
submitted an integrated pest management program prepared by Michael A. Gatzman, of
Gatzman Consulting Services. The program provides guidelines and recommendations to
reduce the use of agricultural chemical use (e.g., pesticides, fertilizers, etc.) by using non-
chemical alternatives such as site planning, cover crops, and biologic controls. The program
also references guidelines prepared by U.C. Davis, considered one of the leading institutions
researching integrated pest management. Staff finds the program to be acceptable and has
included a condition of approval requiring the applicants to develop and maintained the
vineyards in accordance with the program.
As required by the Specific Plan, staff has included a condition of approval that specifies that
only natural gas burning fireplaces, pellet fueled stoves/heaters, or United States Environmental
Protection Agency approved wood-burning fireplaces be permitted inside or outside of the
Specific Plan Fees
In 2000, the City Council approved the “Shared Infrastructure Financing Program” for the
Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. A condition of approval requires that the applicants
pay the applicable Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan fees for the development as
specified by the financing program.
V. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOPS
September 28, 2005, Planning Commission Workshop
On September 28, 2005, the Planning Commission held a workshop to review the applicants’
plans to construct an approximately 12,395-square-foot, two-story home with a 770-square-foot
habitable basement, a 1,345-square-foot four-car attached garage and an approximately 130-
square-foot pool house. The Commission provided the following comments:
• With respect to the location of the new HR home site, some Commissioners felt that the
proposed home site location would be acceptable if the house was redesigned to be less
visually prominent and have medium to dark earthtone colors to help the home blend in with
its surroundings. One Commissioner was opposed to the hilltop siting of the house and felt
that the new HR house should be located down near the existing garage, closer to the
asterisk shown on the VACSP land use plan. Another Commissioner indicated that he could
not provide final comments on the siting of the home until he knew the significance of the
PUD-32 Page - 18 - November 14, 2007
future home “blobs” shown on the VACSP land use plan.
• Regarding the height and number of stories of the proposed house, one Commissioner felt
that residence should be limited to 25 feet in height and one story as required by the Specific
Plan. Other Commissioners felt that a two-story house that was slightly taller than 25 feet
would be acceptable if designed to reduce its visual impact and utilized dark earthtone wall
and roof colors.
• A Commissioner was concerned that the topography was being changed to conform to the
house, not the other way around.
• There was general consensus that the Tuscan farmhouse/villa architectural style of the house
• A Commissioner expressed concern with the number of trees that would be removed.
Workshop Public Comment
Mary Roberts, adjacent neighbor at 1666 Frog Hill Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposed
siting of the home and felt that it should be located closer to what is shown on the VACSP land
use map. Mrs. Roberts expressed concern with the amount of grading and tree removal and
indicated that the architecture of the house was too ornate and should be redesigned.
Greg Reznick, adjacent neighbor at 5 Windy Oaks Drive, expressed concern with the grading of
the knoll and conformance with the Specific Plan regarding building height and number of
stories. Mr. Reznick also stated that the house design fails to adapt itself to the geography and
the character of the region it is sitting in. Mr. Reznick indicated that he was contemplating
development of his property and that if the Commission granted the Sarich project flexibility
with respect to the Specific Plan regulations, then he would request similar flexibility in his
project. Staff notes that Mr. Reznick’s PUD development plan was approved by the City
Council on June 6, 2006.
October 25, 2006, Planning Commission Workshop
On October 25, 2006, the Planning Commission held a workshop to review the applicants’
revised plans. As a result of the September workshop, the applicants reduced the building area,
height, grading, size of graded pad, and tree removal. The plans included reducing the original
12,395-square-foot, two-story home with a 770-square-foot habitable basement, and a 1,345-
square-foot four-car attached garage to an approximately 11,015-square-foot, two-story home
with a 770-square-foot habitable basement, and a 1,230-square-foot four-car attached garage.
The existing residence and its detached garage/barn would be retained and the existing detached
PUD-32 Page - 19 - November 14, 2007
guest house would be demolished. The Planning Commission took “straw votes” on the
• Whether the Specific Plan requires the proposed home to be built precisely on the
“blob” shown on the land use plan or whether there was flexibility with respect to
interpretation of the Specific Plan.
There was consensus that there could be flexibility considered in the siting of the future
home and that the proposed home did not need to be located precisely on the “blob” shown
on the land use plan, located more or less at the angle point at the easterly and southerly
• Whether the top of the knoll was an appropriate location for a home and whether it
was acceptable to locate the proposed home there.
Two Commissioners did not feel that the top of the knoll was an appropriate location to
build a home. One Commissioner indicated that the top of the knoll was an appropriate
location to build a home, but not the proposed home. One Commissioner felt that it would
be acceptable to locate a smaller home on the knoll. One Commissioner believed that the
top of the knoll was the appropriate place to build the proposed home.
• Whether it would be acceptable to build a two-story home above the 540-foot elevation.
Four Commissioners felt that felt that a two-story house would be acceptable above the 540-
foot elevation if it were well designed and designed to reduce its visual impact. One
Commissioner felt that the home should be limited to one story as required by the Specific
• Whether it would be acceptable to build an approximately 27.5-foot tall home above
the 540-foot elevation.
There was general consensus that it would be acceptable to allow a slightly taller house if it
helped reduce the massing and visual impact of the home. One Commissioner indicated that
she would not support the proposed cupola due to concerns with its visual prominence on the
hillside site. Other Commissioners felt that the cupola was acceptable since it was not very
• Whether the massing and color of the house was acceptable.
One Commissioner indicated that she appreciated the toning down of the colors of the house.
Another Commissioner believed a little more toning down of the colors and reduction of the
massing of the home would be helpful. Two Commissioners indicated that they had a
PUD-32 Page - 20 - November 14, 2007
problem with locating a home of this size at a high elevation. One Commissioner felt that if
the house had a high Green Points rating, significantly above the 50-point minimum, he
would not object to the size of the home. Another Commissioner noted that it would be a
positive mitigation if the house had 150 Green Points versus 50 points. Two other
Commissioners indicated that they supported Green Building, but did not necessarily believe
that a high number of Green Points would mitigate the visual impact of the home.
Workshop Public Comment
Mary Roberts opposed the siting of the home on the top of the knoll and the grading to remove
the top of the knoll. She believed the house design was controlling the property, not the reverse,
and did not believe that the design was an environmentally superior solution. She wished the
home were smaller and noted it was one of the largest homes she had seen this Commission
consider. She believed the proposed location of the home should be open space and would like
the road to the house go around the other side of the hill.
Greg Reznick believed the siting of the home at the top of the knoll violated the intent of the
Specific Plan with regard to the fundamental characteristics of the topography and character of
the Vineyard Avenue Corridor. He also expressed concern with the removal of a hill that was
designated as open space in the Specific Plan.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of the proposed application was mailed to the surrounding property owners and tenants
within 1,000 feet of the subject property. As described earlier in this report, Mary Roberts and
Greg Reznick both spoke in opposition to the project at the two prior workshops. Mary Roberts
had also previously submitted letters and emails, which have been included in the Commission’s
packet. Mary Roberts recently sent an email (see Attachment #3) indicating her concerns with
the Sariches’ use of the well to irrigate the proposed vineyards.
Staff had also received an email from Steve Brozosky, 1 Brozosky Hill Lane, reminding the City
that the applicants will be required to pay the Specific Plan fees for the existing house and all
seven of the planned lots at the time the final map is recorded. Mr. Brozosky is also requesting
the applicants to remove themselves from the shared well when they obtain City water as the
Roberts will be depending on this water for their domestic use and he felt that it would be unfair
for the Roberts to share a well with somebody who has both City and well water as the Sariches
could use the well water for their irrigation until the well goes dry (which Mr. Brozosky stated it
does quite often) and then switch over to city water, at which time the Roberts will not have
water in this shared well for their domestic use.
PUD-32 Page - 21 - November 14, 2007
VII. PUD CONSIDERATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance of the Municipal Code sets forth purposes of the Planned Unit
Development District and "considerations" to be addressed in reviewing a PUD development
1. Whether the plan is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general
The proposed project, as conditioned, meets all applicable City standards concerning
public health, safety, and welfare. The subject development would include the
installation of all required on-site utilities with connections to municipal systems in order
to serve the new lots. The project will not generate volumes of traffic that cannot be
accommodated by existing City streets and intersections in the area. The structures
would be designed to meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, Fire Code,
and other applicable City codes. The proposed development is compatible with the
adjacent uses and would be consistent with the existing scale and character of the area.
Adequate setbacks would be provided between the new structures and the existing
structures on the adjacent properties.
Therefore, staff believes that the proposed PUD development plan is in the best interests
of the public health, safety, and general welfare, and that this finding can be made.
2. Whether the plan is consistent with the City's General Plan and any applicable
The Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan was developed to implement the City’s
General Plan for the Vineyard Avenue Corridor area and has been found by the City
Council to be consistent with General Plan policies including densities consistent with
surrounding properties, preservation of open space, protection of wildlife habitat, and
mitigation of drainage impacts. The proposed PUD development plan has been designed
or conditioned to meet the applicable Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan policies
for the Hillside Residential and Open Space land use designations. The site will initially
be developed with two single-family Hillside Residential lots with six single-family Low
Density Residential lots to be developed in the future, consistent with Vineyard Avenue
Corridor Specific Plan. Additionally, the development would be limited to only a small
portion of the site, leaving the majority of land as natural open space. Staff believes that
the proposed PUD development plan is consistent with the Vineyard Avenue Corridor
Specific Plan, as conditioned. By conforming to the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific
Plan, the proposed project also conforms to the General Plan.
PUD-32 Page - 22 - November 14, 2007
Thus, staff concludes that the proposed development plan is consistent with the City's
General Plan and Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, and staff believes that this
finding can be made.
3. Whether the plan is compatible with previously developed properties in the vicinity
and the natural, topographic features of the site:
Surrounding properties include undeveloped/open space properties and large lot
properties with single-family residences and outbuildings. As conditioned, staff believes
that the proposed residential lots and proposed structures would be compatible with the
surrounding uses. The proposed building envelopes and limited amount of future
additions and accessory structures will minimize the future structures’ impacts on
neighboring properties. Future structures over 10-feet in height will also be subject to the
City's design review process to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses.
Therefore, staff feels that the PUD development plan is compatible with the previously
developed properties and the natural, topographic features of the site, and staff believes
that this finding can be made.
4. Whether grading takes into account environmental characteristics and is designed
in keeping with the best engineering practices to avoid erosion, slides, or flooding to
have as minimal an effect upon the environment as possible.
Graded areas have been minimized to the extent feasible to preserve the natural
topography of the site and reduce tree removal. In addition, rounded landform grading
techniques are used to achieve a natural transition between graded areas and existing
terrain. Parallel retaining walls have been used in order to minimize large cut slopes and
tree removal. Erosion control and dust suppression measures will be documented in the
improvement plans and will be administered by the City's Building and Public Works
Departments. According to the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency
Flood Hazard maps, no portion of the site is located in a flood hazard zone.
Therefore, staff believes that this finding can be made.
5. Whether streets and buildings have been designed and located to complement the
natural terrain and landscape:
A new private road would generally follow the alignment of an existing paved road on
the site. The road would be cut into the hillside to reduce visibility and utilize retaining
walls to reduce impacts on the existing trees. Although staff generally tries to obtain a
stepped home on a hillside lot, in some cases, stepping a home on a hillside can make it
more visible. Grading down the existing knoll as proposed would help reduce views of
PUD-32 Page - 23 - November 14, 2007
the residence (compared to stepping the house on the existing grades on top of the knoll).
Such a trade-off to minimize visual impacts from off site views has been used elsewhere
in the City and staff finds it acceptable in this case. Colors and material would be
compatible with the hillside setting.
Therefore, staff feels that this PUD finding can be made as conditioned.
6. Whether adequate public safety measures have been incorporated into the design of
Several public safety measures have been incorporated into the design of the proposed
development plan. The City's Fire Department has found that the curve radii, width, and
slopes of the proposed private road are satisfactory and that the road can be negotiated by
fire and emergency vehicles. Because the site is located outside of the City’s five-minute
emergency response time, the new home is required to be equipped with automatic
residential fire sprinklers. A private water booster pump will be installed on the site in
order to ensure adequate water pressure for fire fighting. For further fire protection, a
5,000-gallon water storage tank will be installed near the proposed home. A fire
management plan was also prepared that includes measures to reduce fire intensity
through fuels management and to allow the dwellings to resist fire exposure. The
proposed private road would align with Safreno Way across Old Vineyard Avenue,
which will reduce traffic conflicts with users of the future trail on Old Vineyard Avenue.
The structures would be required to meet the applicable requirements of the Uniform
Building Code, Fire Code, other applicable City codes, and State of California energy and
Therefore, staff believes that this finding can be made.
7. Whether the plan conforms to the purposes of the PUD District:
The PUD district allows flexibility in creating development plans and standards for
unique situations. In this case, the applicants were able to tailor the development plans
and standards to the unique situations presented by hillside terrain, the desire to preserve
and protect natural open space, and the desire to limit the amount and type of future
development which can occur on the proposed lots. Staff feels that the development
plans and standards as proposed and conditioned can accomplish such goals.
Staff feels that the proposed development plan takes into account the City's desire to
preserve open space and significant vegetation, to reduce grading on hillsides, and to
minimize visibility of development from off-site views. The applicants are proposing to
limit the size of the building envelopes and preclude development in the remaining open
space. The PUD process also allows for ample input from the public and for an ultimate
PUD-32 Page - 24 - November 14, 2007
decision by the City Council regarding appropriateness of the proposed use and
Staff feels that through the PUD process the proposed project has provided the applicants
and the City with a development plan that optimizes the use of this hillside site in a
sensitive manner. Therefore, staff believes that this finding can be made.
Staff feels that the proposed plan is appropriate in density and design for this site, addresses the
types of issues and concerns that staff normally has regarding hillside development, and
conforms to the intent of the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. Staff believes the design
is well executed and sensitive to the site constraints and that the home is attractive and will
support the agricultural and old world/vineyard ambiance. Therefore, staff is requesting that the
Commission recommend approval of the proposed development plan.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Environmental review for the proposed project was undertaken with the Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) approved by the City Council for the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific
Plan in conformance with the standards of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specifies that residential development
projects that are prepared pursuant to the requirements of an adopted specific plan for which an
EIR has been prepared and certified are exempt from additional environmental review provided:
1) there are no substantial changes to the project or to the circumstances under which the project
is being undertaken that involve new significant environmental effects or that substantially
increase the severity of previously identified effects; or 2) that new information of substantial
importance which was not known at the time the previous EIR was certified shows the project
will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR. Staff does not believe that
there are any changes in the project, circumstances, or new information causing new significant
environmental effects. Thus, staff recommends this project be reviewed without any additional
CEQA review or process.
X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission take the following actions:
1. Find that there are no new or changed circumstances or information which require
additional CEQA review of the project;
2. Find that the proposed PUD development plan is consistent with the General Plan and
Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan;
PUD-32 Page - 25 - November 14, 2007
3. Make the PUD findings as listed in this staff report; and
4. Adopt a resolution recommending approval of PUD-32, subject to the conditions of
approval listed on Exhibit B, and forward the PUD development plan to the City Council
for public hearing and review.
For questions or comments about this proposal, please contact: Steve Otto, Associate Planner at 925-931-5608
PUD-32 Page - 26 - November 14, 2007