Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/01/2016Approved October 6, 2016 1 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 1, 2016 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, September 01, 2016, 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Partridge, Chair Tankha Staff: Suzanne Avila, Planning Director; Jaime McAvoy, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the floor. 3. STUDY SESSION AND DISCUSSION 3.1 LANDS OF TOP ELEGANT INVESTMENT, LLC (FORMER LANDS OF STIRLING); 28030 Natoma Road: File #193-15-TM and #112-15-MISC; A request for approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide an 18.18 acre property into nine lots. CEQA review: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project (staff-Suzanne Avila). No action will be taken on this item. Ex Parte Disclosures: Commissioner Couperus said that he had spoken to applicant team Rosy Ko, Steve Atkinson and Jeff Petersen, as well as Alice Sakamoto and Nancy Couperus. Commissioner Partridge said that he had also spoken with Ms. Ko, Mr. Petersen, and Mrs. Couperus, as well as neighbor Christine Sloss. Commissioner Basiji said that he had spoken with Ms. Ko, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Petersen, and Mrs. Couperus, as well as Pathways Committee Chair Ann Duwe. Commissioner Mandle and Chair Tankha said they spoke with Mr. Petersen, Ms. Ko and Mrs. Couperus. Planning Director Suzanne Avila presented the staff report. Commission asked questions of staff. Approved October 6, 2016 2 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 1, 2016 Commissioner Partridge asked about the proposed road width. Director Avila said the width had been approved by the Fire Department and meets the Town's current requirements. Commissioner Mandle asked for the difference between a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Director Avila said that an EIR is more expensive and requires the applicant to provide project alternatives and a cumulative impact analysis. Based on the input from the environmental consultant it was decided that an EIR was not required, and that a MND would comply with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Rosy Ko, representative of Top Elegant Investments, introduced the project to the Commission. Jeff Petersen, Project Engineer, addressed grading and drainage matters on the property, as well as path and roadway design. The Commission asked questions of the applicant's team and received their responses. Steve Rottenborn, ecological consultant for the applicant, answered questions about proposed fencing around the development and within the wildlife corridors. Chair Tankha opened the floor to PUBLIC COMMENT. Kit Gordon, Open Space Committee, shared the recommendations that the Committee had made when the proposal came before them. Commissioner Partridge asked how this was similar and/or different from what the applicant was proposing. Ms. Gordon said she would have to confer with the Committee before commenting. David Rude, lawyer for the Myrikami Family, shared the family's desire to preserve the oak grove on the property, and requested the Commission approve the open space easement proposed by the applicant. Ann Duwe, Chair, Pathways Committee, thanked the developer for responding to the concerns posed by the Pathways Committee when the project had come before them. She did request that the applicant follow the recommendations they had provided them, rather than what was presented this evening. Mike Kernoff, Los Altos Hills, asked details about the switchback path as it abuts his property line. He expressed his appreciation of the applicant increasing the size of the pathway easement, but asked they consider making the pathway aligning more with the original recommendation of the Pathways Committee. Sarah Sigmund, representative, Friends of Upper Matadero Creek, expressed the concerns that her client had that the MND was not adequate. She stated that an Approved October 6, 2016 3 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 1, 2016 EIR would have been more appropriate as there has not been sufficient analysis at this point, and that reporting on the proposed bridge's mitigating factors was insufficient. Ben Sloss, Los Altos Hills, access to the subdivision is through his property. The original proposal included widening the road and required many trees that his family was fond of to be removed. Since Top Elegant has taken over the project they have worked with his family to narrow the road in places and preserve as many trees as possible. Carol Gottlieb, Co-Chair Environmental Design and Protection Committee, said that the Committee was not completely up to date on all the information that has been provided. The Committee’s previous recommended actins included protection of the oak grove in lot one and the relocation of the road downslope, which would accommodate the wildlife corridors and pathway easement. Sue Welch, Los Altos Hills, expressed concern with the development as proposed and the inadequate environmental document presented. The developers have failed to adequately document the condition of Matadero Creek and the areas affected by the development. She then answered questions posed by the Commission. Ed Smith, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, said that the Romig Engineers' report concerned him because of how much soil needed to be removed and replaced for stabilization, and the damage it would do to the natural landscape. This was also a concern because of the fault line through the development and the risks of landslide in the area. Sharon Schoendorff, Los Altos Hills, expressed concern that her view would be affected by the development. Commissioner Mandle asked Ms. Sigmund to return to the podium and answer questions about her statement that the MND was not sufficient. Ms. Ko responded to the comments made by the speakers and made a closing statement. Chair Tankha closed the floor to PUBLIC COMMENT. Commissioner Couperus said he was delighted that positive changes have been made to the proposal. He did express concern on what would occur when the houses on the lots come forth for development. How would this affect current neighbors' views? The lots are aligned, not staggered, so when the houses come in for development, the Commission will have to ask them to design their houses so as not to block a neighbor's view. This may limit the type of house that could be approved there, but he did not know what the solution would be. Approved October 6, 2016 4 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 1, 2016 Commissioner Partridge said that the evening's proposal was a significant improvement from the previous renditions. He said that he was more agreeable to the Conservation Easement on the East property line and the pathway along the road, and how it would engage the development with the rest of the neighborhood. There needs to be more discussions between Environmental Design, Open Space, and Pathways Committees. He expressed concern with grading and drainage throughout the development. Commissioner Mandle said that she has a lot more concerns now than she did before the study session. She knows the applicant was not able to respond to a lot of issues brought up, and when the applicant's team is able, she may feel differently. She appreciates all the time that has been put into the project, and while it is a beautiful lot, there are problems with the fault and creek, and possible drainage issues. She said that she was not qualified to determine how adequate the environmental document was, but it appears to need an update as the development has changed. Commissioner Basiji said he had a number of concerns before the study session, and many of them have been addressed this evening. Need to look more into the negative impacts the development has, such as drainage and erosion control issues, but the applicant is off to a good start. Said he was very pleased with the open space and conservation easement proposals, although he wished they could be a little larger. Chair Tankha said the applicant has made a good faith effort to alleviate all concerns posed by the Town and its residents. She is concerned there are gaps in the MND, and as she is no expert, she would like to hear from the City Attorney to its' validity. She heard many concerns about lot stability which could trickle over to when the lots are developed, so these issues need to be addressed and resolved at this junction. She said that she feels better after this discussion, and this had been a great forum for concerns and suggestions, which gives her hope that everyone can work together for a positive outcome. She thanked the audience for their comments and participation. Chair Tankha called for a recess at 9:56 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 10:04 P.M. 4. OLD BUSINESS - none Director Avila referred to an item from the previous Agenda that the commission was not able to address. There had been concern from the Environmental Design and Protection Committee (EDPC) to address hillside lighting in Town. Commissioner Mandle had suggested that a few Commissioners discuss the item, where the Committee could attend as advisory, but could not have a combine subcommittee as there would be Brown Act Approved October 6, 2016 5 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 1, 2016 issues. She said that updating the outdoor lighting policy was good idea due to the types of lighting that were being developed and installed. Commissioner Mandle clarified that she wanted two Commissioners to ask the EDPC what the concern is, and if they agreed, bring it back to the Commission to ask the City Council to form an official subcommittee. There was a consensus that any Commissioners interested in joining the subcommittee would notify Chair Tankha. 5. NEW BUSINESS - none 6. REPORTS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for August 25 – Commissioner Couperus Commissioner Couperus presented a report on this meeting, as well as the August 18th meeting. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for September 15 – Chair Tankha 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for October 20 – Commissioner Mandle 6.4 Planning Commission Representative for November 17 – Commissioner Basiji 7. REPORTS FROM FAST TRACK MEETINGS – none 8. REPORTS FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS – AUGUST 30, 2016 8.1 LANDS OF JENSEN, 26225 Purissima Road; File #244-16-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape screening, lighting and fencing plans for a previously approved new residence. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304(b) (Staff- S. Avila). 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:17 P.M. Approved October 6, 2016 6 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 1, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, Jaime L. McAvoy Jaime L. McAvoy M.A. Planning Secretary The minutes for the September 1, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting were approved with corrections on October 6, 2016.