22 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

buildings and residential accessory structures may only be sited within the designated development areas." Mr. Reeves stated that there was a discussion in the past about this, and he did not see that in the packet. He added that there was also a staff memo to the Planning Commission in 2006 indicating that staff had consulted with Wayne Rasmussen, former Principal Planner and Project Planner for the Specific Plan, and Wayne had stated that due to the environmental constraints of the hillside residential areas, house locations were meant to be fairly precise as represented by the 'blobs.' He noted that he thinks that is contrary to what was mentioned today. He added that he had sent an email regarding PUD-32, which was not included in the packet, and there was also a consideration for PUD-54 in which staff had since discovered that the VACSP and the EIR restrict construction from occurring within 100 feet of the center on jurisdictional waters of the U.S. He indicated that he believes because this is a drainage way, an EIR impact necessitated alternative considerations, and there is a Specific Plan, a related EIR, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration plan that says the homes must be in the designated development area. He added that one of the arguments in this case, and in previous cases, is what the "blobs" mean. Mr. Reeves stated that the relocation or expansion of the proposed development contemplates a deviation of 103 feet in horizontal distance and over 50 feet elevation to the top of the hill, and a 25-foot partial flattening of the top of the hill. He indicated that to allow for this deviation of the designated development area would amount to a de facto amendment of the Specific Plan. He added that staff had indicated that there was some discretion to approve deviations from the designated development area; however, staffs interpretation ignores the next sentence of the Specific Plan that expressly limits the flexibility by clearly stating that all primary residential buildings and residential accessory structures may only be sited within the designated development areas, that the lot lines can extend out but the buildings must be in that area. Mr. Reeves state that he does not know if the scale on the visual photos are accurate as they show 12-foot tall retaining walls, and 30-foot tall buildings as basically a half inch. He added that the Alternatives, and primarily the first Alternative was fairly transparent to make the Alternatives look as offensive as possible so as to go back to the desired plan and raise questions such as why the trees have to be destroyed, why the building has such a large envelope and if it needs to be flat. He stated that this is hard to visualize by looking at photos and invited the Commissioners to come visit the site and take a look at what the neighbors are trying to visualize. Colin Proudfoot stated that he has lived on the lot marked No. 2 for 14 years, before any of the development on the hill. He concurred that any Alternative that destroys the heritage oaks that are hundreds of years old on that property would be a travesty, and noted that the initial application does not destroy the oaks while all the Alternatives do. He indicated that he believes there may be a compromise solution that would improve the visual impact to the Silver Oaks residents as opposed to the ones in the plan that shown today. He noted his objection to any Alternative that takes the road from the EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 24, 2013 Page 4 of 10