01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Neighbors also raised the question of non-compliance with the Mitigated Specific Plan and related Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Both the plan and EIR contemplated hillside development in this area, and in fact considered the development of three new homes where only two are proposed. Both documents sought a balance between development and the natural features of the site, including its slopes and natural land forms. Staff believes this particular proposal reaches that balance. Staff also received a letter from an attorney representing the Silver Oaks Estates Home Owners Association. The letter asserts that the project may violate Measure PP, although staff notes that the parcel is exempt because it was a legal parcel prior to January 1, 2007 and the proposal is for fewer than ten units. The letter asserts that the project can only be approved if it can be effectively visually screened so as to be essentially invisible from the areas below, including Vineyard Avenue. Staff believes that the Specific Plan did contemplate hillside development and requires the visual prominence be mitigated, but that the plan also recognizes that it may be visible on some level. Ms. Stem shared a graphic simulation from the EIR. which shows a housing structure on the hill as acceptable. The letter also asserts that the homes cannot be placed outside of the blob on the hillside development area. Staff believes that the Specific Plan did anticipate some variation based on specific site conditions and the desire to preserve certain natural features such as the steep slope, oak woodland and creeks. She also noted that several of the existing homes on the Land Use Plan are inaccurately plotted outside of their blobs and that subsequent developments have been approved outside of these blobs as well. She presented an enlarged graphic of the blob in relation to the two proposed lots, acknowledging that Lot 2 is outside of the defined area However, she noted that resituating Lot 1 to accommodate Lot 2 within this area would result in the loss of oak trees in the area. She presented the Land Use Plan superimposed over a 2001 aerial view showing the existing housing site, noting that the existing home is inaccurately plotted on the Land Use Plan. She noted again that several subsequent development approvals have occurred outside of the blob areas for a number of environmental reasons specific to those sites, some of which cannot be clearly envisioned until a detailed proposal is brought forward. Ms. Stern referred to the memo which recommends several changes and additions to the Conditions of Approval. The first includes a clarification of the maintenance obligation in Condition No 5 to indicate that landscaping is included as a part of that obligation. Staff has also added Condition No. 16 to address concerns expressed by the neighbors for a more natural looking retaining wall. The Conditions also outline several requirements for additional landscaping, which include the addition of oak trees on the slope or lots of Silver Oaks Lane homeowners that the applicant has agreed to install and maintain. One neighbor has indicated a preference for a 48" box tree over the 36" size specified,though the city's Landscape Architect has advised that smaller trees actually perform better in the long term. The conditions also clarify landscape requirements at the retaining walls. After a subsequent conversation with one neighbor, staff recommends further clarifying that this also applies to the full length of the roadway and not just the retaining wall. Staff is also requesting that the Council discuss several additional conditions requested by neighbors. One pertains to the installation of an electronic gate at the private roadway entrance, which if approved would be reflected as Condition No. 18 and in the maintenance agreement in Condition No. 5. Neighbors have also requested that the habitable space of both spots, which is currently allowed at 8,500 square feet, be reduced to 7,000 square feet. Councilmember Brown requested clarification on whether the existing home plus the two proposed units represents full development of the subject parcel. Ms. Stem explained that the blob is acknowledged as being able to accommodate three parcels, only two of which are being proposed by the applicant. However, while the application does not specifically stipulate there will be no additional units, the PUD encompasses the developable area in full and there is an assumption that no additional units will be allowed within this area. She also noted that the Gib)Cdiiribil;Minutes Page 7 of 15 April 15,2014