01 - Laserfiche WebLink

the restrictions contained within the Specific Plan were developed in conjunction with the EIR. The EIR clearly identified the damaging visual impacts that could result from the improper placement of homes within the plan area and any change to the prescribed mitigations would require that the city prepare an update to both the DR and Specific Plan. He said the proposed development does not, and perhaps cannot, harmonize the idea of development with preserving the natural values of the area. If it is possible, lowering the building pads, increasing landscaping and reducing the home sizes are likely critical. He encouraged the city and applicant to continue to work on measures to further reduce these impacts. Mr: MacDonald noted that the upper lot cannot even be visualized from Vineyard Avenue until one is about a half mile away. He also stated that Mr. Berlogar is willing to support either the 36" box trees recommended by staff or the 48" tree requested by neighbors. BREAK Mayor Thorne called a brief recess and reconvened the regular meeting at 8:33 p.m. Councilmember Brown asked staff to comment on the potential visual impacts, as well as those created by grading if Alternative 2 were selected, as they relate to the EIR. Ms. Stem stated that the Specific Plan contemplated the need for these sites to be graded for flat or split level pads. The DR therefore looked at this potential as well as that for the off hauling of a certain amount of dirt and other debris. With regards to visual impacts, the plan and EIR recognized that hillside homes would be visible to some extent. They required that walls be as natural looking and screened to the extent possible..They also discussed the screening of structures, which will be a part of the landscape plan for each lot as will photo simulations of each home. She said she believed the Specific Plan and EIR assume a balancing of all these policies that is accomplished with this project. Councilmember Brown acknowledged that Measure PP does not apply, but wondered whether either home would be tall enough to insert rooflines into the ridge top view and be considered a negative visual impact. Ms. Stern said that was not specifically addressed in the EIR. She noted that Alternative 2.places the roofline at 500 feet against a ridgeline backdrop of 540 foot, which could break that visual line depending on the viewing angle but really is pretty well mitigated on its own. Mayor Thome requested confirmation that if approved, each home would still go before the Planning Commission and City Council for review. Ms. Stern clarified that it is a staff level review, as currently written, with only the actions report coming before the Council for approval. Mr. Dolan added that each project would still be advertized and neighbors provided an opportunity to comment. Vice-Mayor Pentin asked and staff confirmed that they could also end up being appealed to the Planning Commission and again to the Council. Councilmember Narum wondered whether there was merit in requiring that the home on Lot 2 go to the Planning Commission for review, similar to other developments like the golf course where there is strong visual concern. Mr. Dolan said his preference would be to let the process take its natural course, which or may not ultimately lead to the Planning Commission. City Council Minutes Page 10 of 15 April 15, 2014