PC 111407 - Laserfiche WebLink

was absent, leaving Commissioners Maas, Fox, Pearce, and Blank, it reflected Chairperson Maas’ disagreement regarding the Tuscan architecture and that she felt it was out of place; on page 20, Commissioner Blank questioned its compliance with the Specific Plan; and on page 19 she [Chairperson Fox] indicated that the architecture did not conform to the hillside residential guidelines. She noted that there is no indication that any of the Commissioners stated that the architectural style of the house was acceptable. Commissioner Blank believed that at the time, he was concerned about the mass and the height of the cupola and felt the house was not a good fit on the hill. Mr. Otto recalled that the Commission felt that the architecture was acceptable. He added that on page 20 of the Minutes, Chairperson Maas stated that the architecture was great, but not on a hilltop. He noted that the actual style was acceptable to the Commission; the concerns were about the height, mass, size, and colors. Chairperson Fox inquired what the Specific Plan and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) state with respect to watering vineyards with well water versus what was proposed at this point. Ms. Decker replied that the EIR and the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan acknowledged that the use of well water shall be for agricultural purposes, which could include vineyards, grazing, livestock, and so forth. The “shall” language referenced the Vineyard District, which is the flat area of the Bordeaux developments where vineyards were going in. She clarified that the Sarich home site is not located within the Vineyard District. She noted that an email from the Roberts stated that intent of wells is for the existing rather than new vineyards or agricultural uses. She added that the City has taken a policy position that the wells can be used for the irrigation of new vineyards, as shown in the Avignon, Bordeaux, the estate lots and other sites, which would encompass pre-existing and proposed uses. She noted that the City water tanks, including that on the Reznick property, were sized for domestic and home uses and, from an engineering or demand standpoint, were never sized for consideration to provide irrigation water for agricultural uses. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the water source for the vineyards provided in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, Ms. Decker replied that the water came from wells. Chairperson Fox inquired if these were shared wells; Ms. Decker replied that there were shared wells on some properties but not in the Vineyard District. She added that as far as she can recall, the wells were mostly on the estate lots. Chairperson Fox noted that in the October 23, 2006 memo from Jerry Iserson and the November 30, 2003 memo from Heidi Kline, there was discussion regarding whether the “blob” was meant to be the exact location or if it was open to interpretation, whether the house should be where the accessory structure is or could be located on top of the hill. She inquired what the final word from staff was with respect to whether the “blob” was a location for the second residence. Ms. Decker replied that the memos provided historical information. She indicated that there were some internal discussions on whether the “blob” was conceptual or actual before the project before the Commission on June 8, 2005. She noted that in the September 28, 2005 workshop, the discussion included a memo from then Assistant City Attorney Lynn Tracy Nerland and herself that the “blobs” in the Specific Plan documents were conceptual as far as the intent of where the buildings were generally desired and what would make most sense PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 15 of 34