The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFebruary 8OSC FINAL_Minutes18-0208.docx 3/9/18 1 Los Altos Hills Open Space Committee Los Altos Hills Parks and Recreation Building FINAL Minutes of Regular Meeting February 8, 2018 Members and Associates Present: George Clifford, Nancy Couperus, Kit Gordon, Alice Sakamoto, Sharen Schoendorf, Jean Struthers, Sue Welch (Members); Karen Lemes (Associate) Members and Associates Absent: Richard Contreras, Wendie Ward (Members); Peter Brown (Associate) Council Liaison Present: Roger Spreen Member of Public Present: Yoriko Kishimoto (MROSD Board Member) 1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes A. Roll Call. NC called the meeting to order at 9:02 am. B. Acceptance of Meeting Minutes. SW moved to accept with minor amendments the minutes from the meetings of Nov 9, 2017 and Jan 11, 2018. KG seconded and the vote was 8 in favor and one abstaining (AS was not present at Jan meeting) C. Announcements. i. Yoriko Kishimoto (MROSD Board Member representing LAH) provided a brief update on MROSD activities. Mount Umunhum and La Honda Creek areas are now open to the public. Bear Creek will open next year and next round of projects funded under Measure AA are in the planning stages. ii. Articles for Town Newsletter on LAH Persons of Note. Jitze Couperus wrote an interesting article on Alfred Barnitz Byrnes (who donated land for Byrne Preserve) that will appear in the next issue of the Town newsletter. An article on Mary Davey, who helped create the Preserve, will follow. iii. Wildlife Corridor Talk. Pathways for Wildlife and Committee for Green Foothills will present a wildlife talk on Feb 28, 2018 at Mitchell Park Community Center in Palo Alto. Tanya Diamond and Ahiga Snyder will share their current research on wildlife habitat permeability in the Santa Cruz Mountains and Coyote Valley. iv. Wildlife Film. Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST), MROSD, and Pathways for Wildlife will present a free screening of the documentary film, “The Cat That Changed America”, on Saturday, April 7, 2018 at the Los Gatos High School Theater. The film describes the life of mountain lion, P22, who lives in Griffith Park in Los Angeles. The film will be followed by a discussion of efforts to protect and enhance wildlife corridors on the Peninsula and in the South Bay. v. OSC Membership. SS’s term ends in February. She plans to apply to continue as an Associate Member. Members were asked to try to identify potential new members. vi. Top Elegant Investment Subdivision. City Council reviewed this project at the regular Council meeting on Jan 18, 2018 and voted to send the project back to the Planning Commission. 2. New Business A. Drones in Open Space. OSC discussed whether to institute a policy to prohibit drones in Town-owned open space preserves. National Parks prohibit drones; drone policy in CA state parks is set by the superintendent for each park. OSC agreed no action was needed in LAH at this time. B. Project Coordination. KG led discussion on how OSC can improve communication with staff and the public about OSC issues, including: i. Creek signs. Jacob has made all the creek signs (one or two for each creek and three for Moody Creek). KG and JS will coordinate with him on installation. All docs have been submitted to USGS for naming Moody Creek. USGS will meet again in July. ii. Website Info. OSC discussed options for posting OSC information for the public on the Town web (e.g., weed flyers, wildlife and rodenticide info, other brochures). City Manager supports this. iii. Database for OSC reviews. OSC discussed options for organizing OSC property reviews and supporting information where it can be easily accessed by committee members and planners. The Town has adopted a tracking system (Trackit) for new development projects, but access to historical records is still a problem. KG will identify a staff member to help with Trackit. iv. Educating staff and public. It was suggested that OSC members attending Senior Hikes and Parks & Recreation walks could help identify native plants, weeds, and creek issues. v. Distribution of OSC Property Reviews. OSC discussed a new practice by some planners to provide OSC property reviews without modification directly to site development applicants. OSC reports are OSC FINAL_Minutes18-0208.docx 3/9/18 2 public but are intended to be advisory to staff—i.e., observations and recommendations for staff to evaluate and use (or not) in their staff reports for projects. Council Liaison Spreen will clarify with staff. OSC will add a statement on the OSC review form clarifying that observations and recommendations are for staff to evaluate (and adopt or not) and text of policies and ordinances supporting OSC recommendations. vi. Arundo removal. KG reported that removal of arundo from local creeks requires a Stream Alteration Permit from CDFW. Monterey and Napa counties have programs to work with private landowners to help them remove this pest plant. KG will write to SCVWD about starting a similar program in LAH. LAH City Manager, Carl Cahill has express support. SCVWD holds an easement over the section of Adobe Creek across El Monte from the fire station on Foothill College) and has agreed to remove the large infestation of arundo there. KG will also ask whether SCVWD wants to enlarge the existing easement on Adobe Creek to reduce costs for Town and private landowners. vii. New Seminar Speaker. OSC discussed inviting Dr. Ann Kerimidjian, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford to give a talk on earthquakes for the general public. GC moved that OSC arrange and host this talk. SW seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (GC, NC, KG, AS, SS, JS, SW). viii. Planning project attorneys at OSC meetings. City Manager Carl Cahill informed OSC that in the future, an attorney representing a developer who has plans under review by the Town may speak at OSC meetings or site visits only if the LAH City Attorney is also present. D. Revised Site Review Forms. KG distributed revised site review form for committee review (Attachment C). Members should attach all supporting documents to the review (maps, photos, relevant conditions of approval from prior development, easement CRs, adjacent OSEs, etc). OSC members were asked to review the form and bring edits and suggestions to the March meeting. E. Earth day 2018. This annual event will be held Sunday April 15 (1 to 4 pm) at Westwind Community Barn. The wild cats will perform and OSC will have a table. KG will create a 1-page handout for the public with info about coyotes, invasive weeds, and other OS issues. 3. Planning A. Fence Permit Reviews. i. 12950 Robleda Road. Dec 7, 2017 Planning Commission (PC) meeting. Developers submitted a fence permit requesting a 5-ft post and wire 3,300 -linear-foot perimeter fence around the 12-acre parcel. OSC sent a preliminary recommendation (not reviewed by full OSC) to PC recommending either no fence or wildlife permeable fence around CE areas and no fence in swale areas. Dec 7, 2017 Planning Commission (PC) Meeting. PC reviewed the fence permit. They had concerns about fencing in conservation easement areas that had been proposed for earlier development projects (but never dedicated) and impact on rural character and wildlife movement. PC continued the item and recommended the owners return with a modified proposal. A number of neighbors spoke and requested that the new fence not obstruct wildlife movement in the area or block the neighborhood pathway used by local residents. Owners submitted a revised fence plan to the Town dated 1/05/18 that reduced fence length to 2,720 linear feet; increased setback from Robleda Road and from utility easements along the NE and SE borders; and proposed a 5-ft high three rail fence (without wire mesh) for the majority of perimeter fence (except for a 160 ft run of 6-ft high solid fence along the NE border adjacent to a pathway). Jan 11, 2018 OSC Meeting. OSC discussed the 1/05/18 revised fence plan and submitted formal recommendations to PC focused on maintaining permeability to wildlife in the CE areas. These included prohibiting fencing in areas proposed as CE, or if fencing were permitted, to requiring use of one-rail or two-rail open fence for these CE areas, rather than the 5-ft high three-rail fence the owners proposed. Both the 5-foot top rail height and the closely spaced three rails (only 12 to 15 inch spacing) are barriers to wildlife. OSC recommended several alternative fence styles that are easier for wildlife to pass through without injury (e.g., fence on the adjacent property on Brendel Drive or the fences on Mir Mirou and Taaffe). OSC also recommended providing short breaks in the fence at active wildlife trails, and not running the fence across the two drainages on the eastern portion of the parcel. OSC FINAL_Minutes18-0208.docx 3/9/18 3 Feb 01, 2018 PC Meeting. PC reviewed the 1/05/18 revised fence permit. Owners now reported they plan to keep horses and need a higher fence. Following extensive discussion about horse fencing and wildlife permeable fence designs, PC continued the project with a request to modify the fence to a 54- to 60-inch high, two-rail structure with a 24-inch clearance at the bottom; and to provide more information about the drainage swales (headwater tributaries of Purisima Creek).. Feb 8, 2018 OSC meeting. OSC reviewed the 1/05/08 fence plan and recommendations from the Feb 01 PC meeting. OSC discussed options for wildlife-permeable horse fences, including suitable existing wildlife permeable fences in LAH and fence ordinances in Portola Valley and other jurisdictions. Fencing to keep horses out of the swale area was also discussed. After lengthy discussion, OSC recommended an unpainted fence, no higher than 54 inches, with two rails and 18 inches of clearance below the bottom rail and at least 24 inches of clearance between the two rails (Attachment A). NC moved that OSC revised their fence recommendation as described above and in Attachment A and the attached drawing to Erin Horan and the PC. Fencing should be kept out of the swale area. Owners should also be reminded to remove the large stinkwort infestation on the parcel. KG seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (GC, NC, KG, AS, SS, JS, SW). B. OSC Site Reviews and Recommendations for Development Projects. i. 14195 Wild Plum Lane (Lands of X; APN X; file#). The reason for OSC review is a landscape plan and fence. The parcel is on the south side of Wild Plum (east off Manuella), one lot away from Adobe Creek and within designated Open Space Conservation Area. RC and JS made a site visit. KG moved that OSC recommend the Town request the following 1) extend the existing OSE in the southeast corner to protect the sloped area of the oaks grove (revision is drawn on the plans, Attachment B); 2) remove barb-wire from fence. The vote was unanimously in favor (GC, NC, KG, AS, SS, JS, SW). 4. Continuing Business A. Grant Application to Santa Clara Valley Water District. Grassroots Ecology submitted a pollution prevention grant to SCVWD on Jan 12. The goal is to improve the wetland area in the lower Westwind Barn. Grassroots Ecology anticipates hearing from SCVWD by April or May. B. WWCB weed management. OSC volunteers will continue to remove invasives in the lower WWCB area over the winter. C. Grassroots Ecology Update. Byrne Brigade workdays for planting, invasive weed removal, and other work in the preserves will be held every Monday from Jan 22 through end of March. Weeding work is focusing on removal of milk thistle and the remaining purple star thistle rosettes. D. Rodenticide Use in Town; Education and Actions. GC’s info about the dangers of using rodenticides to kill rodents was posted on Nextdoor and the Town web site. The article includes info on safer management alternatives and links to other information sources. E. Site Development and Fast Track Review Meetings. OSC members were reminded to volunteer to attend these important planning meetings (held Tuesdays at 10 am) to provide input on potential impact of proposed development projects on creeks, trees, and other conservation resources. 5. Open Discussion A. Field Trip to O’Keeffe OSP. Maybe next month. 6. Communications from the Floor. None. 7. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 am Next Regular Meeting: Thursday, March 8, 2017 2018 9:00 AM at LAH Parks and Recreation Building Attachment A: Revised OSC recommendation for 12950 Robleda Fence Permit Attachment B: 14195 Wild Plum Lane revised open space easement Attachment C: DRAFT Revised Site Review Form Final minutes were approved with minor amendments at the regular OSC meeting of 08/08/18. ______________________________________________________________________________ To: Erin Horan, LAH Assistant Planner Date: February 9, 2018 From: Open Space Committee Subject: Fence Recommendation – 12950 Robleda Road At its February 8th meeting, the members of the Open Space Committee reviewed the motion made at the February 1st Planning Commission meeting and offered its recommendation on how best to provide a wildlife-friendly horse fence for the property at 12950 Robleda Road.   Planning Commission motion – February 1, 2018:                “Move to continue item 4.2 to the March 1st Planning Commission meeting to allow the    developer to redesign and modify the fence to a two‐rail structure with a 24‐inch    clearance at the bottom, 54‐60 inches tall, and provide more clarity on the swales    Issue.”    The Open Space Committee (OSC) supports the Planning Commission’s motion, with the following modifications for the height of the horse fence and spacing of rails. The OSC recommends a two-rail fence that is no more than 4 ½ feet high (54 inches). We base this recommendation on evidence that horses can be confined by a 4-feet high fence. As a specific example for instance, Portola Valley’s horse fence ordinance 18.43.030 limits horse fencing to 4 feet as follows: 18.43.030 Height Fences in residential zoning districts are subject to the following height limits. • Horse fences shall not exceed four feet in height. • Fences adjacent to public trails and paths in districts requiring a minimum parcel area of one acre or more shall not exceed four feet in height.   Instead of creating a 24-inch space at the bottom, the OSC research on animal movement recommends an 18-inch space at the bottom and a 24-inch space between the bottom and top rails. With two 2x6-inch rails, the fence would be 54 inches high, as recommended. The placing of the rails with a wider space at the top will allow some deer to pass through more easily, without being forced to jump the fence. For aesthetic purposes, the fence-posts themselves should be allowed to project a further 4 inches above the top rail to a maximum height of 58 inches. These measures we believe will ensure effective containment of horses, while also allowing for some movement of wildlife. Additionally, the OSC, as stated previously, supports the Planning Commission concerns about allowing horses in the drainage swales: Fencing should avoid the drainage swales in the eastern portion of the parcel. These swales drain into Robleda Creek, tributary of Adobe Creek, on the adjacent parcel on La Rena. The OSC recommends running the fence along a contour above the top of the swales and to keep horses out of these drainages.       OSC Site Review 14195 Wild Plum Lane .docx 2/12/18 1 Open Space Committee Property Review Information - January 2018 Property address 14195 Wild Plum Lane Lands of APN 175-10-023 Planner Erin Horan Project number 2-18-ZP-SD Reason for OSC review: Major Landscape Work Other (specify) OSC Reviewers (initials) RC, JS Date of site visit 31 Jan 2018 SLOPE: Average slope of lot % Areas with slope ≥30%? Check slope/LUF worksheet for subdivision: None Are all contour lines recorded? (Look for unexpected variations between adjacent contour lines) CREEKS Creeks or waterways through parcel? None Name of creek: Shown on USGS map? SCVWD creek map? LAH Hazard Map? EcoAtlas? Evidence of bed, banks, OHWM? Condition of banks? Existing riparian or OSE along creek on this property or nearby parcels? At South East corner Proposed setbacks for structures? TREES Heritage oaks? yes Groves of significant trees? yes Trees proposed for removal (Heritage oaks or other; number and species)? No Oaks, some pine already removed WILDLIFE CORRIDORS Check 2006 Live Oak Associates map (not official) Evidence of wildlife (e.g., deer trails, spoor)? OSC Site Review 14195 Wild Plum Lane .docx 2/12/18 2 EXISTING FENCING Identify location and type of existing fencing: Some with barbred wire (see attached photo) Check that fencing on plans agrees with fencing on the ground Note any fence that does not meet current fencing regulations: OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS Check Town records for existing CE or OSE on this property or adjacent and nearby parcels: none found Identify areas where OSE may be appropriate (slope ≥30%, significant trees, creeks, drainage swales): slopes with significant oak coverage PATHWAY EASEMENTS Check Town records for existing or newly proposed PE on this property or adjacent and nearby parcels: Should OSE be placed on PE? SEPTIC FIELD LOCATION Note location (if applicable) : (Septic fields, sewer and approved drainage installations are generally allowed in OSE ) OSC RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS PROPERTY Draft recommendation (from reviewer): Remove barbed wire from fence (see photo) Extend conservation easement as an open space easement to cover sloped area of oaked woodlands (as shown on attached map) FINAL OSC RECOMMENDATION (after formal OSC review on Feb 8, unanimous committee vote) Remove barbed wire from fence (see photo) Extend conservation easement as an open space easement to cover sloped area of oaked woodlands (as shown on attached map) FOLLOW-UP Date Development Plans approved: Fast Track meeting Planning Commission meeting City Council meeting Conditions of approval related to open space Note changes from OSC recommendation (From Planning Staff): OSC Site Review 14195 Wild Plum Lane .docx 2/12/18 3 OSC Site Review 14195 Wild Plum Lane .docx 2/12/18 4 DRAFT_OSC Site Review Form Feb2018.docx           3/9/18 1  To: Los Altos Hills Planning Department  From: Open Space Committee  Date:  Property address:   Date of Site Visit:  Reviewers’ Initials:  Lands of  APN   Town  Planner   Project  Number      Reason for review  New Residence  Second Unit  Addition/ Major Remodel   Other:    OSC RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS PROPERTY  Draft recommendation (from reviewer)          Final OSC recommendation (after formal OSC review)  Date of OSC review:  Voting of review:      SUPPORTING INFORMATION    SLOPE/SOIL:    Average slope of lot ___________  Areas with slope ≥30%?   Check slope/LUF worksheet on subdivisions: Are all contour lines recorded? Look for  unexpected variations between adjacent contour lines.  Review Geologic Hazard Report, if applicable. Are any areas listed as unstable?  Safety Policy 1.1 Open space easements, zoning and other land use regulations shall be  used to limit and, in some cases, prohibit development in areas of unstable terrain, active  fault traces, water channels, flood plains, excessively steep slopes and other areas  determined to be hazardous to public welfare and safety.  Safety Policy 2.2 Locate development so as to avoid geologic hazards, including slope  instability, to the maximum extent feasible.    DRAFT_OSC Site Review Form Feb2018.docx           3/9/18 2  Land Use Policy 2.5 Steep slopes, canyons and ravines generally in excess of 30% slope, as  well as natural swales and drainage channels, and geologic hazard areas within areas  designated for residential development shall be left undisturbed and preserved in their  natural condition to the maximum extent feasible.  Land Use Policy 2.6 Limits on the development of individual residential lots shall be  determined based on evaluation of such factors as natural vegetation, topographic  characteristics, soils and geology.     CREEKS  Creeks or waterways or swale on parcel?  Name of creek/tributary of:  Shown on USGS map?  SCVWD creek map?  LAH Hazard Map?  EcoAtlas?   Condition of banks?  Existing riparian or OSE along creek on this property or nearby parcels?  Proposed setbacks for structures?   Evidence of bed, banks, Original High Water Mark (OHWM)?  Identify any structures including fences within 25 feet of top of bank? Within OHWM?  The US Army Corps of Engineers claims jurisdiction on waterways up to the OHWM as shown  below.        Conservation Policy 1.3: Preserve the integrity of riparian corridors as unique and  environmentally sensitive resources.  Conservation Policy 3.1: Maintain and protect creeks and riparian corridors for wildlife  that use this resource for food, shelter, migration and breeding.  Conservation Policy 5.1: Keep or restore major drainage courses in their natural condition  insofar as possible because of their importance in supplying major vegetation, land forms  and wildlife habitat, and storm drainage.  DRAFT_OSC Site Review Form Feb2018.docx           3/9/18 3  Conservation Program 5.2: In the planning, environmental impact review, and completion  of all land development or land alteration projects, direct particular attention toward the  protection of the natural water system.  Conservation Policy 11.5: Ensure that development projects are designed to conserve the  natural slope, preserve existing native vegetation, limit invasive species, and conserve  natural drainage channels and swales.  Open Space Policy 1.2: Protect and maintain those areas necessary to the integrity of  natural resources and processes, with special emphasis on, but not limited to, the  groundwater recharge and drainage system, open spaces vital for wildlife habitat, open  spaces suitable for agriculture, and other areas of major or unique ecological significance  Safety Policy 1.1 Open space easements, zoning and other land use regulations shall be  used to limit and, in some cases, prohibit development in areas of unstable terrain, active  fault traces, water channels, flood plains, excessively steep slopes and other areas  determined to be hazardous to public welfare and safety.  Safety Policy 3.1: Leave natural channels and flood plains in a natural state,  unencumbered by development to the maximum extent feasible.        Municipal Code 10‐2.702 Siting.  (e) Creek Protection. Structures shall be set back a minimum of twenty‐five (25) feet from  the top of bank of all creeks. Greater setbacks may be required along major creeks in the  Town; however, lesser setbacks may be allowed where approved by the Planning  Commission. Improvements required to all creeks shall be accomplished to appear natural  and to maintain the natural meandering course of the existing creek. Creeks and banks shall  be protected so as to remain in their natural state as much as possible. They should not be  disturbed by the building or grading process. No grading shall be allowed in creeks or within  the required setbacks from top of bank. Siting of structures shall be done with safety as a  primary concern. Safety concerns and preservation of riparian habitat are required to be  simultaneously addressed when designing development and required improvements to  creeks. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985; §§ 6, 7, Ord. 370, eff. May 20, 1994; § 1,  Ord. 504, eff. October 28, 2006)      TREES & NATIVE VEGETATION (Do we want to comment on invasive plants?)  Heritage oaks?  Groves of significant trees?  Trees proposed for removal (Heritage oaks or other; number and species)?    Conservation Policy 2.2: Minimize disturbance of the natural terrain and vegetation.   DRAFT_OSC Site Review Form Feb2018.docx           3/9/18 4  Preserve and protect native and naturalized plants, with special attention to preservation  of unique, rare or endangered species and plant communities such as oak woodlands.   Conservation Policy 2.3: Preserve and protect Heritage Trees, including native oaks and  other significant trees, on public and private property.    Conservation Program 2.5 Encourage the dedication of conservation/open space  easements or the public acquisition of areas that are rich in wildlife or of a fragile  ecological nature to ensure their protection  Land Use Program 2.3 Encourage the preservation of existing trees, rock outcroppings,  ridgelines and other significant natural features    Municipal Code 10‐2.702 Siting.  (f) Tree Preservation. Every feasible attempt should be made to preserve existing trees except those trees identified in the Los Altos Hills Landscape Guidelines invasive plant        WILDLIFE CORRIDORS & FENCING:  Check 2006 Live Oak Associates map (not official)  Evidence of wildlife (e.g., deer trails, spoor)?  Identify location and type of existing fencing  Check that fencing on plans agrees with fencing on the ground  Note any fence that does not meet current fencing regulations  (list fence ordinance) Conservation Policy 2.7: Avoid the development of environmentally sensitive areas that are  rich in wildlife or of a fragile ecological nature, such as areas of rare or endangered species  of plants, or riparian areas.   Conservation Goal 3: Maintain and enhance the integrity of wildlife habitat.  Conservation Program 3.3: Assess the potential for development patterns to fragment and  isolate significant wildlife habitats.  Conservation Section 315: Planning for natural movement of wildlife can help avoid,  minimize and compensate for serious negative impacts on wildlife and humans.  Areas that  link wildlife habitat have become vital because native animals such as deer, fox, bobcat,  and coyote are prevented by roads, fences, homes and other development from moving  freely as they once did.      Municipal Code 10‐1.507 (d) Prohibited Fences, Walls, Gates, and Column Types. The  following fences are prohibited:  DRAFT_OSC Site Review Form Feb2018.docx           3/9/18 5  (1)    Chain‐link or cyclone fences, including any fence with bare lengths of wire stretched  between metal poles, with the exception of dark green, black, or brown vinyl‐coated chain‐ linked fences with matching vinyl‐coated cross bars and caps.  (2)    Barbed or razor wire fences, including any fence with attached barbs, sharp points, or  razors. Electric fences, including any fence designed to produce an electric shock, except  where necessary for animal husbandry operations.  (3)    Any fence, wall, and/or gate that may cause harm to people, pets, and/or wildlife due  to points, spikes, or sharpened edges on the top or bottom part of the fence, wall structure  and/or gate.      OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS (OSE)/CONSERVATION EASEMENTS (CE)  Check Town records for existing CE or OSE on this property and adjacent and nearby parcels.  Identify areas where OSE may be appropriate (slope ≥30%, significant trees, creeks, drainage  swales)  Open Space Policy 1.1 Provide, during the development process, for the maximum feasible  preservation of open space in and adjoining the Town, with spaces ranging in size from  regional scale to small‐scale open space on individual lots.  Open Space Policy 1.4: Preserve the natural beauty and minimize disturbance of the  natural terrain and vegetation.  Open Space Policy 1.7: To the extent possible, link open spaces together visually and  physically to form a system of open spaces.  Open Space Policy 1.8: Ensure that land uses and structures are compatible with the  general open space quality of the planning area.  Open Space Policy 2.6 New residential subdivisions shall provide open space for recreation  in order to meet their appropriate share of local recreation needs.    PATHWAY EASEMENTS   Check Town records for existing or newly proposed PE on this property or adjacent and  nearby parcels.       SEPTIC FIELD LOCATION   Note location if applicable  Septic fields, sewer and approved drainage installations are generally allowed in OSE    Attachments:  ‐ Photos from site  DRAFT_OSC Site Review Form Feb2018.docx           3/9/18 6  ‐ Easement history  ‐ Photo of site plan with marked OSE  FOLLOWUP   Send final copy to OSC Secretary  Upload to TraKit ?  Add address to list of easements to track on OSC agenda       Date Development Plans approved:  __________________ Fast Track meeting  __________________ Planning Commission meeting  __________________ City Council meeting  Conditions of approval related to open space    Note changes from OSC recommendation (From Planning Staff):       