Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/2022Approved February 2, 2023 Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting December 12, 2022 Minutes Zoom Meeting, Los Altos Hills, California 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Via teleconference according to the Government Code Section 54953(e), Chair Waschura called the December 12, 2022 Planning Commission Special meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura, City Attorney Andrea Staff: Planning Director Mangalam, Senior Planner Ling 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Chair Waschura opened PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR. Planning Director Mangalam read aloud a Supplemental to Item 2 from Kit Gordon. No other presentations from the floor. Chair Waschura closed PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR 3.1 Motion of the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Altos Hills to continue meeting virtually through teleconference meetings and making related findings pursuant to AB 361. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Chair Waschura moved to APPROVE the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Altos Hills to continue meeting virtually through teleconference meetings and making related findings pursuant to AB 361. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Patel. MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0 AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura NOES: None ABSTAIN: None RECUSE: None ABSENT: None 3.2 Approval of the December 1, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Chair Waschura moved to APPROVE the December 1, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Indaco. MOTION PASSED: 3-0-2-0-0 AYES: Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Chair Waschura NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Patel, Vice-Chair Bredo RECUSE: None ABSENT: None 2 Planning Commission Meeting December 12, 2022 Minutes 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ex parte: No ex parte communications were reported by the Commissioners. 4.1 Continued to a date uncertain. 10701 Magdalena Road – File #SD22-0042 – Lands of Ng Site Development permit for a new residence, attached garage, swimming pool, with a Grading Exception. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a) Project Planner: Elaine Ling 5. STUDY SESSION 5.1 Study Session to consider Zoning Ordinance text amendments of the Municipal Code to ministerially allow properties to develop up to four units or subdivide into two lots and develop up to two units, pursuant to California Senate Bill 9 (SB9). Planner: Elaine Ling Commissioner Couperus noted concerns related to State Bill 9 and two other state bills. He also voiced his concerns on the Wildlife Urban Interface (WUI) designation as it relates to development for fire dangers. Commissioner Indaco noted her concerns regarding how other municipalities are working on adopting new ordinances to accommodate Senate Bill 9 (SB9). Chair Waschura noted his agreement with both commissioners’ comments and further noted he was concerned about the seismic situation and construction on hillsides as it pertains to public safety. He also noted a concern about how to handle a request for someone wanting to develop on a hillside with something like a 50% slope. He also wanted to discuss how the Town and outside agencies, and specifically the Santa Clara County Fire Department, would work together on these issues to make their involvement ministerial. Senior Planner Ling presented the staff report. The presentation included a poll, an introduction to SB 9 State Bill, the Town’s urgency ordinance, and introduction of other jurisdictions’ SB 9 ordinances. The first poll question was, “How are you associated with the Town?” The answer choices were listed as follows: 1. Own, 2. Rent, 3. Work, 4. Other. Planning Director Mangalam noted that all the responses to the poll from the public participants were “1. Own.” Senior Planner Ling presented a second set of poll questions to the public with listed choices for responses detailed below. Which aspects of the Town’s existing single family zoning standards do you think are most important to preserving the character of Los Altos Hills? 1. Deep property line setbacks: 40ft front and 30ft rear and sides. 2. Building height under 27ft. 3. Maximum development and floor area size: MDA and MFA rules. 4. Easements required for open space and hillside preservation. 5. Easements required for approved pathways. 3 Planning Commission Meeting December 12, 2022 Minutes How important is it that Affordable Housing features be incorporated into the SB9 requirements? 1. Low 2. Medium 3. High Should the Town provide incentives to encourage development that adhere to existing single family zoning standards? 1. Yes 2. No Chair Waschura requested that the Commissioners have an opportunity to ask staff questions about the information being presented. Commissioner Indaco asked to revisit the information presented on Saratoga’s response to SB9. Chair Waschura asked if there was a top list of which aspects of the Town’s Urgency Ordinance require the most attention. Senior Planner Ling responded that this question would be addressed at a second study session. Planning Director Mangalam qualified Senior Planner Ling’s response by stating that this was the first study session, which could yield more guidance and/or refinements to the Town’s Urgency Ordinance as further reviews would reveal. Commissioner Couperus asked a question regarding responding to the second poll question as mentioned in these minutes. Planning Director Mangalam noted that the second poll question allowed more than one answer to be selected up to all, the third and fourth questions only allowed only one answer to be selected. Planning Director Mangalam noted that there were 11 answers to this poll submitted so far and this survey would be added to the Town’s webpage. Public polling resumed and the results were shared by Planning Director Mangalam. Results to the first poll question were noted as follows: • 8/12 chose property setbacks. • 4/12 chose building height. • 7/12 chose maximum MDA/MFA. • 9/12 chose easements required for open space & hillside preservation. • 5/12 chose easements for approved pathways. Results for the second poll question was noted as follows: • 2/12 chose “low.” • 3/12 chose “medium.” • 7/12 chose “high.” Results for the third poll question was noted as follows: • 12/12 chose “Yes.” 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. 5 Planning Commission Meeting December 12, 2022 Minutes A question-and-answer session between Chair Waschura and City Attorney Andrea ensued. Planning Director Mangalam asked City Attorney Andrea to clarify her understanding that even if there were recorded easements, the Town would have to allow up to an 800 square foot SB9 unit. City Attorney Andrea confirmed that understanding and further clarified that if the property could support development on the non-easement portion of the land, then the development could be placed there. Vice-Chair Bredo commented that Portola Valley had a provision for development on a steep slope. A question-and-answer session between the Commissioners, staff, and the City Attorney ensued regarding easements and SB9 development. Laura Snable, a resident of Los Altos Hills, asked about the number of SB9 applications and their status at this time. Planning Director Mangalam responded that there were four (4) SB9 applications and all of them were under planning review. Esther John, a resident of Los Altos Hills, asked about the requirements of SB9 units for very low- and low-income housing. She noted that she was in support of having low-income housing in Los Altos Hills to support the residents who need low-income housing. Chair Waschura noted that the Town has requirements to provide housing at a variety of income levels and was challenged in providing housing at the median-income level. Carol Gottlieb, a resident of Los Altos Hills, asked about a comment made by the California Attorney General, who stated in a news comment that communities with narrow, winding roads could not be forced to approve high density developments. She wanted to know how that statement pertained to SB9. A question-and-answer session between the Commissioners and the City Attorney ensued to address Ms. Gottlieb’s comment. Commission discussion ensued regarding how to preserve the Town’s deep setbacks and large lot sizes while adhering to SB9. Commission discussion pivoted to providing incentives to homeowners to maintain large lots for their improvements instead of splitting lots into smaller parcels to leverage SB9 for development. Planning Director Mangalam reminded the public the Town maintains a dedicated web page for SB9 updates. Chair Waschura closed the PUBLIC HEARING. No Motion. 6. REPORTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS 6.1 Past Meeting No past meetings to report. 6 Planning Commission Meeting December 12, 2022 Minutes 6.2 Upcoming Meeting Assignments • December 15, 2022 – Commissioner Patel • January 24, 2023 – Vice-Chair Bredo Chair Waschura confirmed upcoming meeting assignments. 7. REPORT ON PAST FAST TRACK/SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS 7.1 DECEMBER 6, 2022 CANCELLED Planning Director Mangalam noted there were no Site Development/Fast Track hearings to report since the last Planning Commission meeting. 8. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT Planning Director Mangalam noted there was an upcoming Planning Commission Special meeting planned for December 20, 2022. She also noted the January 2023 meeting is planned for January 12, 2023. 9. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:07 PM by Chair Waschura. Respectfully submitted, Keren Brunner Planning Technician