12/12/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 Planning Commission Meeting December 12, 2022 Minutes Chair Waschura characterized the results of the public polling as such: the residents were not very concerned about building height, strongly preferred there be incentives offered to preserve the development standards of the Town, and that affordable housing should be further discussed. Commissioner Couperus raised his concerns about a certain element at the end of Attachment 3 for Item 5.1 in the packet. Senior Planner Ling and Planning Director Mangalam noted that the referred to letter was presented to assist the Commission. Prior to accepting public comments, Planning Director Mangalam noted that any questions staff could not answer during this session would be posted on the website with answers later. Chair Waschura opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Public Comment Esther John, a Los Altos Hills resident, commented on a condition that noted the resident would be required to live on the lot for a period of 3 years. Senior Planner Ling noted that that condition still existed, and every jurisdiction was mandated by the state to include that condition. Kit Gordon, a resident of Los Altos Hills, commented that she sent a letter to the Town stating that the method of identifying creeks is not accurate and that could impact future development. She noted that the Open Space Committee (OSC) placed easements on creek locations and that easements were not placed on creeks located in the setbacks because they were relying on the setbacks to provide a buffer between development and the creeks. She further noted that SB9 does not recognize setbacks, therefore removing the protections formerly provided by the setbacks. Commissioner Patel noted that per SB9, creeks were not protected, and asked that staff provide clarifying comments. Senior Planner Ling noted that development could not be in the floodway of a creek; however, another term, floodplain, is identified at a federal level is used. She also noted that if a minor creek is not identified in FEMA’s map, then SB9 projects can be developed in creek setbacks or swales. She asked City Attorney Lindsey Andrea to clarify that detail. Chair Waschura also asked that City Attorney Andrea also include how other easement types are affected SB9 development. City Attorney Andrea noted easements that cover the entire site are prohibited. If a portion of a site is covered by an easement, then development would be restricted to outside of that easement. It is unlawful to prohibit development on a lot because of a recorded easement. Chair Waschura further asked if there wasn’t an easement created yet what then? He cited an example of a pathways easement that has not yet been recorded but is part of a Master Path Plan. City Attorney Andrea noted that prohibiting development on an easement that has not yet been recorded, even if it is part of a future plan would raise legal concerns.