01.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

numbers of lots. Councilmember McGovern disagreed and read the General Plan which characterizes the site upland areas as moderately susceptible to landslides and highly susceptible to erosion. She said the soil on the hill slopes is severe to very severe, erosion factors with rapid run-off, there was a recent slide at lots 13 and 14 and she said she was concerned. There could be some changes given the City has signed itself off into a development agreement, which takes precedence over the conditions in the PUD. City Attorney Roush said the development agreement provides that, with respect to subsequent approvals, the City has the right to make changes to the project if those are the result of environmental mitigation. If the geotechnical information came back and indicated certain other items had to be done or a house could not be situated in a certain area, nothing in the development agreement would preclude that from happening. The agreement simply provides that if there are subsequent approvals the Council has the right to modify those in its furtherance of mitigation measures identified, which this has. Councilmember McGovern referred to building height and said the EIR states it would allow a 3- story tall house provided that no 2-story section overlapped and she asked if this was true. Mr. Iserson said yes, the house might step back, have three different levels, but no more than 2 levels in one area, and it could be built all within the height limit of 30 feet on a parallel plane to the slope. Councilmember McGovern referred to the square footage of homes and confirmed that secondary units must be allowed on the lots. She asked whether or not an owner could build a house of 9,000 square feet and another one at 3,500 on the same property. Mr. Iserson said the condition of approval for second units is that they are required to be attached to the main house, which would not permit detached second units. Councilmember McGovem also questioned and confirmed that height limits were 15 feet for accessory buildings. Regarding the Callippe butterfly and environmental issues, she received an email from a resident who had contacted Dr. Arnold and he did not know the City had asked another Ph.D. to determine the butterfly site. She said there is a letter from Dr. Murphy from Nevada, who has not gone out to the site but has indicated there is no Callippe butterfly. Mr. Iserson said the matter is not resolved to the point of determining whether or not there is a Callippe butterfly, it needs further study and a determination made by Fish and Game before an answer is known. Councilmember McGovern said Dr. Arnold told the resident that US Fish and Game takes all species of the Callippe and sees them as endangered species. She was surprised this had not yet been resolved and questioned the future process to resolve it. Mr. Iserson said there needs to be further analysis conducted to determine the presence of the butterfly, whether it is the species that is endangered and if so, that determination is made before the final map by the appropriate environmental agencies, and appropriate mitigation measures must be implemented. Councilmember McGovern said she lives off of the Pleasanton ridge, has lived there before Measure F passed, and if you stand at the light at Bernal and Valley and look up at the ridge face, homes that have been there for 15 years or more are not screened and are very visible. She asked staff why the City has not gone back and request they be screened, which were within the conditions of approval. Mr. Iserson said it depended upon which home development it was and said many homes were not required to be totally screened by trees. He said one that did is Golden Eagle and even those were not required to be screened in the manner that this project is. City Council Minutes 10 October 2, 2007