15 ATTACHMENT 9 - Laserfiche WebLink

• Landscaping Staff has compiled the following excerpts of the Specific Plan that the Commission may consider when reviewing the landscape plan: 1. General Residential Design Guideline d.2 (p. 33) -The planting of new non-native materials should be compatible with the natural setting of the~Plan Area and confined to the immediate vicinity of homes. 2. Specific Hillside Residential District Design Guideline c.l (p. 35) -Views of hillside homes from off-site areas which cannot be screened by way of location and architectural design should be substantially screened by use of evergreen tree planting. Discussion Points for Landscaping Are the proposed plant species acceptable? Would the landscape plan adequately screen the structures from off-site views? An integrated pest management plan is required for the vineyard areas. The plan will need to specify the reduction of agricultural chemical use (e.g., pesticides, fertilizers, etc.) as an objective and present specific non-chemical measures (e.g., site planning, mechanical methods, or biologic controls) as alternatives to agricultural chemical use. IV. CONCLUSION Staff continues to work with the applicants to complete its review of this project. Included in that review are reviews of the geotechnical report, photomontages, wetlands delineation, tree report, grading and drainage plan, and other items. Staff believes the project is ready for review and direction from the Commission as to the issues outlined above. Staff notes that some issues, such as the location of the new residence, require interpretation of the Specific Plan. Staff will continue to work with the applicants to bring this project into close conformity with the requirements of the City. V. PUBLIC COMMENT Public notices were sent to all property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property. At the time this report was written, staff had received a letter (see Attachment #10) from Ford and Mary Roberts, adjacent neighbors at 1666 Frog Hill Lane, indicating their opposition to the proposed project. The Robertses are concerned with the location of the -structures, proposed grading, and house design. The Robertses suggest that the structure be PUD-32 Page -10 - September 28, 2005