15 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

not plan to develop the bottom portion at this time but would keep it in open space and would plant vineyards; however, they want to retain the right to develop it in the future. In response to Commissioner Blank's earlier question regarding Green Building, Mr. Otto indicated that the Sariches gained two points for every one percent above Title 24 up to 30 points. He stated that 15 percent would be equivalent to 30 points and since the Sariches are proposing to exceed Title 24 requirements by 15 percent, they would qualify for 30 points in this category. Tom Pico, on behalf of the applicant, stated that he believed all the Commissioners have had a chance to visit the site. He noted that he was one of the key architects to the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan and that the Plan was designed to provide flexibility through the PUD process. He noted that the Plan included language that site development standards inay vary, that the guidelines were intended to be flexible and allow for minor variations to residential development standards, and that hillside residential must be located within the designated development areas as generally located within the area depicted on the land use plan. He emphasized that it was never intended that the hillside residential lots would only exist within the limited circles on Figure 4-2 of the Specific Plan, when in fact the Hillside Residential District provides fora 40,000-square-foot minimum lot size. He did not believe it would be viable that the home would fit inside a very small diameter. He did not believe it was intended that every change within the residential lots would require a Specific Plan Amendment as was initially thought might be the case. He concurred with staff and believed the project location and design met and exceeded most of the objectives of the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. He believed there must be flexibility in the interpretation of some of the Specific Plan requirements. He noted that they had worked very hard in addressing the visual concerns and that they had updated the plan, reduced the massing of the project, and eliminated the proposed new barn and guesthouse that would be very visible. He added that they plan to use the existing structure as a guesthouse and had significantly and extensively re-landscaped the site to address the concerns from the neighbors, particularly the Reznicks and the Roberts. He noted that following questions about the validity of the photomontage, they went and redid a new one. He stated that the photomontage supports the conclusion that the proposed house would be far less visible on the knoll site than where the existing house or the "blob" is. He noted that the area where the "blob" is located is not workable because it is too close to the property line, almost touching the edges of the existing barn and garage. Mr. Pico noted that while it was impossible to totally screen the home from off-site views, every reasonable effort has been made to mitigate the view impacts. He believed that the applicants complied with the land use objectives that clearly state: "Limit development of hilltop areas to homes that can be substantially screened from off-site areas, and limit hillside development to areas that can be physically and visually accommodated without disrupting the natural character of the site." He believed that the Hillside Residential District guidelines of the Specific Plan contemplate that not every project can be totally screened by location and design and provide that the views of hillside homes should be substantially screened by uses of evergreen tree planting. He noted that they tried every possible means to comply with that intent. The home is designed to incorporate extensive green-building designs, totaling about 160 Green points. He added that the house is a model of a large home built in an environmentally sustainable way. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 4 of 19