PC 111407 - Laserfiche WebLink

He noted that environmental issues were numerous and believed that the removal of 67 trees was excessive for a single house, to which Mr. Otto noted that the number included the removal of trees required for the road construction. Mr. Brozosky stated that grading 40 feet on top of a hill does not fit the character of the area. He noted that there was no mention about the cubic yards of dirt that would be quite significant that would go down to the Low Density Residential portion of the property. He inquired if there were any photomontages of what that will look like after it was re-graded with fill; Mr. Otto replied that the photomontage was of the proposed home. Mr. Brozosky noted that this would be one of the more visible sites whose appearance would be changed with the significant amount of fill. He added that he did not know how many retaining walls were proposed, where they would be located, and how high they would be. Mr. Brozosky noted that building a 15,000-square-foot home did not meet the intent of green building standards. He did not agree with getting points for putting designing the structure to support future photovoltaic (PV) panels as he did not believe that the applicants would place PV panels on their roof. He noted that vineyards are allowed only for Semi-Rural Residential District and not for Low Density Residential District, the designation of the lower portion of the property. He expressed concern about the water for the vineyards, which technically do not belong in that area. He noted that if the vineyards are proposed as landscaping to make the site look better, they should be required to be put in. He noted that the fill and the benches would be put there but without the vineyards, and recommended that the vineyards be conditioned to go in when the house is being built to mitigate the visual impacts. Mr. Brozosky noted that the Draft EIR states that the proposed vineyard in the Vineyard District will be irrigated with ground water supplied by onsite wells and that City water would be used for all other irrigation needs. He noted that the vineyards would be best irrigated with City water because of the problems with the salt content and total dissolved solids (TDS) in the well water. The use of City water would improve the water quality on-site and below. He disagreed with the staff report, which stated that there was no water capacity for using City water for the vineyards. The vineyards will be located in the Low Density Residential area that could hold six houses. Vineyards will use less water than houses, and when they remove the vineyards to put in the houses, the landscape plan will use significantly more water. With respect to the shared well, the applicants indicated that the Roberts would have the priority to use it for domestic use. He noted that this would be taking away the Roberts’ right to use the water for irrigation. He added that irrigation is not just for aesthetic reasons. He noted the high fire danger on the hillsides, which would be increased when more houses are built in that location, and indicated that a greenbelt around the house added to the fire safety. He stated that the Roberts should be allowed to water the yard for fire safety reasons. He proposed a condition requiring the Sariches to agree to not use the well until the Roberts subdivide the property and are required to receive City water. At that time, the Roberts would release all claims to the well and related easements. If the Sariches have City water, they can actually deplete the well water, and the Roberts will be out of water. He noted that if the Sariches can get building materials from Europe, they should be able to put in another well for $15,000 and be good neighbors. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 26 of 34