PC 111407 - Laserfiche WebLink

environmentally. She noted that the “blobs” were not tied to topography or the distance from property lines; these would be examined when a project actually came forward. The Minutes show that the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of putting the house where the “blob” was located or at the existing garage opposite the existing home. She noted that there were three points to consider with respect to the “blobs”: what the “blob” means, whether it is where the structure should be located, and what the best location is that serves the needs of both the City and the applicant. Chairperson Fox noted that the memo of October 23, 2006 following the workshop stated that staff had consulted with Wayne Rasmussen, former Principal Planner and project planner for the Specific Plan, who stated his belief that due to the environmental constraints in the hillside residential areas, the house locations were meant to be fairly precise, as represented by the blobs. She believed that the conference call with Mr. Rasmussen seemed to bring back the original interpretation that it was supposed to be where the barn was. Ms. Decker recalled that at the time this was being sited, Mr. Rasmussen had walked the site, and that there were no proposals of places to put homes or how large the homes would be. The actual process began when the applicant came forward with plans, and it was determined that if the house were to be located at the “blob,” the hillside would be cut back more than 40 percent across entire area. She pointed our that it is not the intent of the Specific Plan, the location of the “blobs,” or the circles with the numbers to limit the size of the house as well. She noted that part of consideration staff looked at in its evaluation is what the best site would be. She added that after discussion with the architect, requiring the applicant to put the house where the previous discussion of the “blob” and the existing garage is and reducing the amount of the cut would yield a 1,500-square-foot home, which would not necessarily be the better option as retaining walls would have to be installed and trees removed. She noted that the Planning process looked at the most viable siting where there would be less tree removal and impact on the site. Commissioner Blank requested a clarification on Item J of the Green checklist regarding whether the value of 30 points is attained at or over 15 percent. Mr. Otto replied that the possible number of points is 30 and that the applicants intend to meet that requirement. He added that he would clarify this with the applicants and would get the information back to the Commission. Chairperson Fox noted that she walked the site months ago and met with the applicant and Tom Pico. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Dan Sarich, applicant, noted that he and his wife, Belinda, had worked closely with staff over the past year, following the last workshop. He noted that they had listened very carefully to the Commissioners’ concerns and worked with staff; they had reduced the mass of the house and saved more trees. They also provided increased screening and adjusted the architecture to look more timeless and Old World in nature. They have achieved and exceed the Green points for standard homes and have also lessened the project’s impact on the surrounding environment. He noted that they had addressed the water issue and that the Roberts would be able to continue using the well water for their domestic needs. He added that they will not plant their vineyards PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 16 of 34