CCMIN040108 - Laserfiche WebLink

in the specific plan that are over 540 feet in elevation, but every other house that comes in the specific plan area and hillside residential area would be reviewed under its own merits. Councilmember Thorne questioned what the Council would need to do to have the accessory structures return to the Planning Commission, and Mr. Iserson said the Council can change the condition of approval as a design review by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Thorne referred to the peer review of the visuals by the City's consultant and confirmed with Mr. Iserson that they were accurate according to what was presented tonight. Councilmember Thorne said there are people on both sides of debate which have been part of the process, thinks the struggle is apparent but does not agree that the Council can't find the project to be consistent enough with the specific plan and felt there must be some flexibility. He believes it is consistent based on other approvals in the area, does not think the visibility will be an issue for this house and he supported the project and acknowledged not everyone would be happy. Councilmember McGovern said the staff report was significant, in reviewing the specific plan, there are two elements on page 25 that talks about building height as it is measured. She believed the City should not be measuring the building from the lowest point to just the top of the roofline, but to the cupola, and she believed the house is 33.5 feet. Under the exception, Mr. Resnick accommodates a water tank that was double the size of the original one because there was not enough water in the Vineyard corridor and he was allowed variances. She does not believe the Council should set precedent each time it makes decisions, but it seems like anytime there is a change, the next staff report indicates it is a variance and we should allow it to happen again. She referred to the September 28, 2005 staff report which states, "The Commission's decision would be used from this point forward for all remaining hillside development in the specific plan," so it ties the hands of the Council because everything will be precedent setting, which takes away the flexibility. She referred to the blobs and a memo from October 23, 2006 from Mr. Iserson to the Planning Commission; "However, staff has since consulted with Wayne Rasmussen, former Principal Planner and project planner for the Specific Plan. Wayne stated his belief that due to the environmental constraints in the hillside residential areas, the house locations were meant to be fairly precise as presented by the blobs." And, the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan states, "The purpose of this designation is to allow for clustering of homes in well-defined areas of the hills in order to preserve significant features such as ridgelines, hilltops, oak woodlands, creeks and steep slopes." It also states the land use plan figure 4-2 identifies individual developable areas and uses, which is exactly where the blobs are. Land use objective 7 states, "Preserve the major ridgeline in the southern plan area, limit development on hilltop areas to homes that can be substantially screened from off site areas, and limit hillside development to areas that can physically and visually accommodate it without disrupting the natural character of the site" and she said 40 feet will be taken off of a hill, which disrupts the natural character of the site. She referred to Objective 48 which emphasizes rural character and other features. Page 1 states the Specific Plan was provided to a process such that it is called a mitigated plan or a specific plan which contains the environmental mitigations within its text, and to her, all of the saving of the terrain were the environmental mitigations and she was not sure if the city has really looked at them because it talks about two riparian corridors which drain down to the Arroyo Del Val where animals can get down to the Arroyo, and fencing bothers that. City Council Minutes 8 April 1, 2008