SR 06:287 - Laserfiche WebLink

Landscaping The existing vineyards would be the primary landscape at the proposed facility. Instead of align- ing Palm trees along the sides of the driveway, the applicant proposes to use pillars with draping vines, etc. as an accent feature on both sides of the driveway. The conceptual landscaping shows that Olive trees, Aristocratic pear trees, Ornamental plum trees, white oleanders, and other deer- resistant trees, shrubs, groundcover, and grass. At the Planning Commission meeting, Ruby Hill residents requested that landscaping include planting at the back (south side) of the building. The Planning Commission, as a condition of approval, required the applicant revise the landscaping plan and submit the revisions addressing residents' request to the Commission for review and ap- proval on a separate date. Drainage Proposed building grades would follow the site's existing topography. The applicant would grade the site to drain toward the vineyards. As such, the vineyards would receive all storm wa- ter runoff from the building and the parking areas. This approach has been reviewed and ac- cepted by the Public Works/ Engineering Department and meets Urban Stormwater runoff re- quirements. Compliance with LEED The LEED Green Building Rating System scorecard shows the proposed project would achieve 29 points, exceeding the required 26-point LEED certified level. Public Comment The proposed location and design of the facility is the result of several Ruby Hill HOA meetings and neighborhood group meetings. A neighborhood focal group was formed which consisted of the residents who live the closest to the proposed facility on East Ruby Hill Drive, A vio Court, Varese Court, and Santel Court. The group supports the proposed development plan as revised, after having addressed concerns associated with traffic, noise from the proposed facility as well as from wine production, dust and lighting from the parking area, etc. Staff, however, still received some opposition to the proposed development. Tom and Julie Lynch, 2301 East Ruby Hill Drive, and Jimmy and Carol Waksdal, 535 Montori Court, oppose the proposal. Neither of them believes that that the proposed development is an appropriate use for Ruby Hill. In addition, a petition opposing the proposed development was submitted to the Planning Commission at the Commission hearing. Except for the Lynches, none of the oppos- ing residents live close to the proposed development. SR:06: 287 Page 9