PC 113011 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

has been omitted in the proposed conditions of approval. She requested that the clause be put back on the conditions. Mary Greene stated that she has lived in the area since 1956 and has seen a lot of changes come. She indicated that she was at the last meeting and presented a petition signed by 125 people who oppose the project. She noted that the North Sycamore Specific Plan had stipulations in it for business and home occupations, and the list does not allow hospitals, sanitariums, nursing homes, and similar businesses. She stated that this proposal should not be allowed at this location and that the existing structure should be demolished and a single-family home built in its place because of its location at bottom of the hill. She noted that for the past several years, families have purchased homes on Sycamore Terrace and have put a lot of effort into them, and now their little children are growing up and play at the bottom of the hill. Ms. Greene stated that they have put up with a lot from the City over the years, and prior to this proposal, the North Sycamore Specific Plan came in and took a lot of the land across the front of the properties for the curvature that goes up to Sycamore Creek Way. She indicated that the neighborhood does not like changes to come that way, and she feels the project is not good for their area or the neighbors who have come in to live there. Mr. Panich stated that he would address the issues and concerns brought up by the speakers. He indicated that they are confident that egressing onto Sycamore Terrace is not a misuse and cannot be constituted and/or considered a misuse of the easement, and, therefore, any attempt to terminate the easement due to misuse would not be successful. Regarding the size of the house, he noted that the PUD-42 subdivision specified that the floor area ratio (FAR) on the lot mandated that no structure could be in excess of 5,000 square feet and has explicit square footages and make-ups for that determinations. He added that the proposed building is under the FAR for the site and that they are 100 percent subscribing to PUD-42 in terms of lot coverage. With respect to the bedrooms that abut the street, Mr. Panich stated that the bedrooms, as they exist today and as they have always existed in that building, are about ten feet from the edge of the road. As to the runoff, he noted that they are in compliance with Alameda C3 requirement, and the runoff will flow in three different filter areas that subscribe to the C3 criteria before being introduced into the storm water system. Lastly, he reiterated that the proposal is considered a residential use of the property for people who do not want to be institutionalized and who want to live in a residential setting; it is not a nursing home or a hospital. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Blank moved to approve Case P11-0458, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit A of the staff report, with the addition of language to Condition No. 38 prohibiting construction activities on State and Federal holidays. Commissioner Pentin seconded the motion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 30, 2011 Page 15 of 19