Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/12/1995Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 4/26/95 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, April 12,1995,6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #08-95 (3 ) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, Doran, Finn, Gottlieb, McMahon & Stutz Staff: City Manager, Jeff Peterson; City Attorney, Sandy Sloan; Mike Porto and Debra Pollart, Acting Town Planners; Sheryl Kolf, Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Planner; Susan Manca, Planner; Lam Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOO 3. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF JABBOUR, 12800 Clausen Court (3-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and landscape plan (continued from March 22, 1995). Mrs. Davis introduced this item noting a correction to Worksheet #2, 957 square feet appearing under "attic and basement' is incorrect. This figure is actually the garage square footage. The proposed 6,505 square feet listed under development area includes the garage figures. She also noted that a letter had been received from Dr. Hwong. The amount of pavement in the setback will be approximately 1,600 square feet which includes the front and side setback. There is also approximately three feet of pool decking encroaching into the setback area. Code does allow a five foot encroachment of decking. The amount of pavement proposed is not unusual. The pavement, in this case, is needed for back up area Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/26/95 April 12, 1995 Page 2 in order to be able to maneuver cars in and out of the garage. The pavement will be modified slightly as one corner cuts into the utility easement which is not allowed. For this garage configuration, engineering is recommending the proposed amount of pavement. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with the driveway being very close to where someone would make the turn into Clausen Court suggesting the driveway coming in at an angle, then circle around. Ms. Kolf noted that they usually look for a driveway entrance to be 100 feet from the intersection of the two center lines. Commissioner Finn asked if the driveway would be safer entering off of Voorhees rather than Clausen Court. Ms. Kolf noted that Clausen Court would be the safer entrance and that the driveway access has not been relinquished from Voorhees Drive. Discussion ensued regarding access from Voorhees versus Clausen Court. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mark Robinson, 1068 Alderbrook Lane, San Jose, architect, discussed the changes to the plan as directed at the previous meeting which included turning the garage doors which reduced the overall length of the building by between 10-15 feet for each of the two garages, and screening of the garages from Voorhees Drive. At the previous meeting, they were directed to access from Clausen Court. The pool is sitting directly in cut ground because the soils engineer will not allow it on fill. The decking around the perimeter of the pool is on fill. Commissioner Doran asked if there was anything in the tentative map to prevent access from Voorhees legally. Mr. Porto noted under item 3, the way the subdivision was designed, access was intended to come off of Clausen Court for four of the lots. The assistant engineer indicated that access right's along Voorhees Drive were not relinquished (not dedicated). The findings state that the access was to come off of Clausen Court. It was not known if legally they would have to revise the findings of the tentative map in order to access from Voorhees Drive. The Hwong's access from Voorhees was overlooked. They should have accessed from Clausen Court. Mr. Robinson was asked if there was any way to move the driveway closer in on Clausen Court, making a greater swing with the driveway. He noted as they move up Clausen Court they begin to hit more of a grade requiring more and more grading up against one 26 inch oak tree. The second problem would be making the driveway safe. There is a natural limit as to how far they can move it up. He has already shifted the driveway 15-20 feet from the previous design. Commissioner Gottlieb commented that driveways should not come straight in from the road. They look much better if they curve around, giving the house a softer look. Commissioner Finn noted that the way to reduce pavement as much Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/26/95 April 12, 1995 Page 3 as possible would be to access off of Voorhees Drive which would also be Commissioner Gottlieb's preference. Staff would need to check with the City Attorney to see if access could be off of Voorhees Drive. Mr. Robinson would be willing to work with staff regarding the design of the driveway coming off of Voorhees Drive. The design would depend on the contours. Currently the front door is on Clausen Court. The house across the street (the Hwongs) faces the comer. If they change the driveway to Voorhees, the garage doors will be the first thing you will see. They will not be able to have planting screen all of the garage doors, which was the intent of putting the garage doors back on the side. They want people to park on Clausen Court, walking down the steps to the front door. The way to accomplish this was to somehow accommodate the driveway on the Clausen Court side and still do the planting on Voorhees Drive. He can attempt to move the driveway back up a little further without massive grading. The safety issue would be accommodated. Mr. Porto noted he just had an opportunity to discuss access with the City Attorney. According to the California State Subdivision Map Act and according to the City Attorney they would have to revise the findings that were made to the tentative map to allow access to come off of Voorhees Drive. Mrs. Davis noted that the property is addressed on Clausen Court. If you move the driveway, you would have to change the address to Voorhees Drive as well. The fire department requests that the driveway and address be consistent. Commissioner Gottlieb commented that at the previous meeting, Mrs. Jabbour stated she would work with the owner of the lower lot regarding drainage, asking if this has been accomplished. Ms. Kolf stated that there has been a site analysis meeting with the architect for the lower lot, working together on the drainage for both lots. Commissioner Gottlieb would like to condition the project, deleting drainage as shown, as she did not feel this was an acceptable plan. A new drainage plan should be submitted, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY The conditions of approval were discussed. Mrs. Jabbour agreed with the conditions of approval as noted in the staff report. Commissioner Doran noted that at the previous meeting it was discussed that this was not site drainage but was drainage to get the water away from the house. The applicants will be submitting an on-site drainage plan. Ms. Kolf commented that the applicant will be handling the on-site drainage basically as sheet flow across the property, directed toward the natural drainage pattern existing in that area. There will also be some drainage along the lower portion of the pathway. Condition 13 was discussed noting the condition, as written, allows staff to work with both engineers. Ms. Kolf felt the Commission has made staff aware of their concerns Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/26/95 April 12, 1995 Page 4 regarding drainage and the lower lot, especially keeping water away from the building area of the lower lot. Generally, it is not the responsibility of one property to protect the next property completely. It was noted that there will be no stairs leading down to pathways. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to approve the site development permit for a new residence and pool. The applicant will work with staff to move the driveway a sufficient distance away from the street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Finn, McMahon, Gottlieb, Cheng, Stutz & Doran NOES: None 4.2 LANDS OF VIDOVICH, 11920 Stonebrook Drive (254 -93 -TM and 257-93-EIR); Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report and preliminary Tentative Map for a proposed 23 lot subdivision. MOTION PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the public hearing on the Lands of Vidovich if the public testimony appears to be going beyond 11:30 p.m. This is to allow time to complete the remaining items on the agenda. Sandy Sloan, City Attorney, provided background information, reviewing the basics and procedures for an Environmental Impact Report. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that before a complicated project with environmental impacts is considered, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. The EIR is required to analyze different categories of environmental impacts and details. She discussed the various categories as listed in the EIR Table of Contents. The Town has hired a professional consultant, David Powers and Associates, to prepare the EIR. The EIR will ultimately show the Town's judgment as to the environmental effects of the project. The Draft EIR or Supplemental FIR refers to the earlier project proposed in 1988 which is on file at Town Hall. The EIR is comprised of two volumes; Volume 1, FIR Text, and Volume II, Technical Appendices. The law requires a 45 day public review period for comments. Since the FIR is a draft, this is the time for comments (i.e. possible deletions in information, errors in information, more information needed). Written comments can be presented to the Town Hall any time through May 1st at 5:00 p.m. Oral comments made at the Planning Commission meetings will be noted by David Powers and do not have to be presented in writing. After all written and oral comments are submitted, the EIR consultant responds to each comment that is relevant. The response to the comments along with the Draft EIR forms the final EIR. It is only when the final EIR is complete and the environmental impacts are fully analyzed will the real work on the project itself Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/26/95 April 12,1995 t Page 5 begin. It is only when all the significant impacts are analyzed that staff will be able to make recommendations as to whether, in their opinion, the project should be approved, disapproved or approved with conditions and what those conditions should be. It is only at that point that the project will return to the Planning Commission for the beginning of more public hearings on the project itself. At that time, the Commission will make recommendations on whether the final EIR is adequate. The final EIR together with the recommendations on the project will go to the City Council. The Planning Commission is responsible for the Draft EIR. The term "significant effect' will be seen throughout the document. The law requires that if there are significant environmental effects of the project, they must either be mitigated or if they cannot be mitigated to an insignificant level and mitigation is found not to be feasible, then before the project can be approved, the Council upon the Commissions recommendation, must find the benefits of the project outweigh any significant unmitigated environmental impacts. The project involves a number of requests; a tentative map, a modification to the adopted Neary Quarry Reclamation Plan, expansion of the Los Altos Hills Urban t Service area, annexation of the site to the Town of Los Altos Hills, and �W amendments to the Town's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Mr. Porto and Mrs. Pollart presented additional information. It was noted that yellow comment cards were available for written comments which will be forwarded to David Powers and Associates. Chairman Schreiner noted the importance of input from residents. Due to the number of residents present, it may be necessary to institute a five minute limit for each speaker. The next public meeting will be April 26, 1995. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Discussion only on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ensued (the environmental issues as it relates to how adequate is this document and what more information is needed). Dr. Martin, 11666 Dawson Drive, discussed pages 88 through 91 of the EIR and Appendix C (impact on the sanitary sewer system). The following concerns were noted: the damage to the Juan Prado Mesa Preserve; proposed service roadway; easement given years ago for emergency access only; construction trucks crossing over 11665 Dawson Drive and Mr. Martinis property; loss and damage to Oak and Redwood trees; construction within dripline; and damage to the Preserve (trees, plantings) caused if the sewer line ever leaked. Dr. Martin Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/26/95 April 12, 1995 Page 6 Vj strongly protests a sewer line going through the Juan Prado Mesa Preserve instead of the alternatives. Alan Dale, 25274 La Loma Drive, was concerned with heavy traffic on Stonebrook (220 truck trips per day) which would be a significant change. Safety was an issue and needed to be addressed. He understood that part of the unpaved section of Stonebrook would be paved; the part that comes from EI Monte up the hill to Prospect. Karen Emerzian, 11670 Dawson Drive, concurred with Dr. Martin's comments. She further discussed supervision by an arborist and the impact on the property owners of 11665 Dawson Drive. She did not want the sewer to access through the preserve. Ken Shoemaker, 11092 Stonebrook Avenue, discussed the impact to his property; the road layout; widening their end of Stonebrook was not clear; removal of some old oak trees; re -grading of the quarry side edge; convenience, stability and safety of Stonebrook Avenue after construction; extension to the Los Altos Hills trail system; and the 10 foot easement at the end of Stonebrook on the other side of the gate to access the open space preserve which may turn into an unnatural parking area at the end of the roadway. He presented a detailed letter to staff. Emily Martin, 11666 Dawson Drive, noted concerns; the roadway would create much more opportunity for trespassing; and sewer connection impacts of the oak trees. Belinda Shoemaker, 11092 Stonebrook Avenue, noted concerns with the impact of wild life which is a significant environmental impact; and increase noise levels with the removal of mature oak trees. Stan Hill, 12051 Stonebrook (west side), noted concerns with added noise from the quarry area. He will provide staff with additional information and location of areas of concern. Patricia Daly, 10944 Stonebrook, noted concerns regarding simply resurfacing the road in its present size which is currently adequate for emergency vehicles and would not impact the wildlife. Another concerns was for an environmentally pleasing fence along the end properties so children and dogs do not cross over. She is not opposed to the development. Ed Carlstone, 10921 Stonebrook Avenue, commented that it would be impossible for the preliminary environmental impact report to be effective because many items brought up by the engineers have not addressed in the Draft. He also felt the EIR could only be completed once the plan is known so they can actually see Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/26/95 April 12, 1995 Page 7 what the EIR is effecting. He does not feel the report provided enough information. Dick Aurelio, 25320 La Loma Drive, discussed the summary of alternatives evaluated and noted that there was no project alternatives recommended. He briefly discussed the history of the property; the significant impacts on environment and on the community; and noting the alternative would be to leave it in the County and not impact the Town. Nat Gorham, 15829 Stonebrook, urged adoption of the EIR and the project as he felt this was the best project the Town will ever see. Dr. Martin, responding to the previous speaker's comments noting the positive sides of the project. He does agree to a certain extent that Mr. Vidovich is proposing something which could be positive for the area and for the Town. He further discussed noticing a flow (spring) about 10 days ago which is not from the rain run-off but from the first re -connection of the main tributary of Hale Creek called the Loma Prieta tributary. This has finally been re -connected to Hale Creek and there has been flow continuously since the reconnection. He continued, discussing the sewer line which he felt had major potential problems t to the environment. He would like to see it separated into two units: (1) damage V to the Juan Prado Mesa Preserve by the construction process, and by what would occur after the construction process, if following the proposal rather than putting in a lift pump, which would not damage anything in the environment; and (2) the damage to the homes below the Juan Prado Mesa Preserve if they trespass with trucks and facilities going through pristine properties. He noted that it was possible to do all of the sewer construction work from above without trespassing across private property and maintaining it from above. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Doran made the following comments: traffic study (level of service on Stonebrook Drive) is not adequate when it discusses Level of Service "A" at 1,450 trips a day; a need to address the runoff from the La Loma hillside when Stonebrook is closed (where and how will the runoff be diverted); did not feel the survey was up-to-date after recent fills of the Quarry and asked if a new survey would be provided; hazardous waste on site (cannot mitigate an unknown); public safety issue (lake level now and future); what happens if the lake flow does not reach expected levels; and the impact on Juan Prado Mesa Preserve for the sewer line. Commissioner Finn felt there needs to be more discussion of the lots and the roads as it impacts the heritage oak trees and other issues (map issue). He felt Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/26/95 - April 12,1995 Page 8 there should be more discussion on lots 18 through 21 (hillside lots); the need for more discussion regarding diesel tanks; and the Juan Prado Mesa Preserve. Commissioner Cheng felt there would be a multitude of impact during construction, some mentioned and some not fully mitigated. She was concerned with the emergency access which is not adequate on Stonebrook. The driveways to lots 19 through 21 are not adequate (map issue). The water quality will be significantly impacted, losing some quality. The sewer line impact was also a concern and needed further discussion. Mr. Porto, for clarification, noted that what the Commission should be looking for are areas they feel are inadequate or in need of more information in the EIR (environment issues). Chairman Schreiner noted concerns were: the three (3) eight -acre lots which may be subdivided which would add more impact by expanding the proposed 23 lots to a larger number unless it can be conditioned not to allow further expansion (map issue also); a lake management plan (maintaining and monitoring); and the complete impact on an additional 220 trips daily on Stonebrook onto El Monte has not been adequately addressed (safety). Other issues were the drainage channel, and trucks on private property. Commissioner Stutz commented under "Land Use", suggesting the possibility of fewer lots (15) which would maintain open space and would result in less traffic, less noise, etc. Other concerns involved: "Transportation and Traffic" as it pertains to the geology, quarry walls stability, and the lake issue (was not received adequate information regarding the reclamation plan). She would like to see a design for a perimeter fence with copies of approval from the Fish and Game Department and other environmental agencies. The Commission should have the application of their increased diameter of the outfield pipe that was previously required. She noted that the lake was to be filled with excess water from Hale Creek which has not been accomplished. She would also like to see a copy of the six different monitoring reports from the years 1989 through 1994 and the next reports up to the year 2001 also. She felt there would be significant problems with turning over the lake monitoring/maintenance to the new residence. Further concerns involved vegetation and wildlife; utilities and urban services; noise; reclamation plan; and accumulative hydrological water quality. It was noted that the applicant still has an open application with Santa Clara County for approval of a General Plan Amendment and FIR. Commissioner Gottlieb commented on the visual impact of the skylights in this basin; the air quality (wood burning fireplaces, etc.); what items are involved in the management of the lake; paths and circulation elements; the loss of wildlife Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/26/95 April 12, 1995 Page 9 habitat; erosion of the area between the lake and Hill Creek; and the potential damage from flooding as a result of an earthquake (stability of the fill material). Commissioner McMahon shared concerns with lake management; fencing around the quarry and safety measures; fill; and seismic impact. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb, seconded by Commissioner Finn and passed by consensus to continue the discussion on the Lands of Vidovich Draft EIR to April 26, 1995. (The review period extends to May 1 at 5:00 p.m. Written responses to comments from the audience and Commissioners will not be available until after that date.). Brief break at 8:45 p.m. The Commission opened discussion to review and identify some of the map issues. It was noted that there was not a model of the quarry available. Mr. Peterson noted that at this time staff is still collecting information from the other public agencies on the map. Part of the tentative map review will include conditions which will work as mitigation for concerns that are brought up %W through the EIR. At this time, staff does not have any recommendations or conditions of approval on the map. It would be helpful to the applicant to be advised of specific areas of concern on the map that are not addressed or are in need of additional information. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Porto provided a map indicating site constraint issues: flow for debris; trail too steep; storm drain convey pipe; improve Stonebrook Drive; need flat area; protection from erosion and wave action; infill area; drainage easement; off site flows to lake; vehicle and boat access to the lake; access; potential. land slide; ridge top safety measures; corrective grading; 20 foot side emergency vehicle access; and rim stability. Dr. Martin was concerned with a potential problem; if a decision was made to put a sewer line through Juan Prado Mesa Preserve with a maintenance road, and if at a later date Mr. Vidovich or someone else could request the use of this road for an access road to the area. There would be concerns with widening the road, the possibility of condemning properties. The more you create roads, the more you create the use of roads. He further discussed the potential problem with subdividing the three (3) eight acre lots. Chairman Schreiner asked Mr. Martin where was the easement that allows all the truck traffic through Juan Prado Mesa? He responded, there was none. The only potential access to get to Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/26/95 April 12,1995 Page 10 the Preserve without going through private property would come from the quarry downhill. The Town would have to allow this kind of traffic going through its green belt which is the Juan Prado Mesa Preserve. Commissioner Doran asked staff what was the last revision of the actual survey that was provided to the Commission? Does the map represent all the fill which will be brought in or does it represent the current situation? Mr. Peterson commented that the contours actually show two things: on the upper hillside it shows actual contours of what exists currently; and the lower area is what will be the final grades of the subdivision on the lower lots. The lower contours are proposed (lots 1-17); the upper contours are existing (18-21). Ed Carlstone, 10921 Stonebrook Avenue, was concerned with the possible problem on the Stonebrook Avenue section with handling of parked cars if this area becomes a major access to the open space. Les Earnest, Pathway Committee Chair, discussed and provided a copy of 12 pathway recommendations. Commissioner Finn noted that the lake is proposed to be private. Pathway recommendations indicate public access. Further comments included: a request for depths to be shown on the map for fill areas; all engineered fill was under the supervision of an engineering geologist as it was put in; request for showing all conservation easements on areas over 30% slope including a conservation easement shown over the banks of the lake and around the entire lake; lake management; consideration of view corridors of the lake; and does the Town have the right to abandon the 40 foot road right-of-way on Stonebrook making it a drainage channel. (Who owns this property?) Mr. Porto noted that many of the items of concern were addressed in letters from Wilsey. and Ham, and the William Cotton letter to the applicant requesting additional information. In the future, copies of letters will be supplied to the Commission. Commissioner Stutz noted that items listed in the footnotes are not included in the EIR. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Finn, seconded by Commissioner McMahon and passed by consensus to continue the discussion on the Lands of Vidovich tentative map to April 26, 1995. f� u Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/26/95 April 12,1995 Page 11 5. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5.1 Planning Commission Representative for the March 15th meeting - Commissioner Finn noting the discussion of the Open Space Element. 5.2 Planning Commission representative for April 19th meeting - Commissioner Gottlieb. MINEWWWWWAMW None. 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Report from subcommittees. An additional meeting was scheduled for April 17th at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the color board prior to placing it on the April 26th agenda. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the March 8, 1995 Minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb, seconded by Commissioner McMahon and passed by consensus to approve the March 8th minutes changing "breezeway" to ..porte- cochere" on page 4. 8.2 Approval of the March 22, 1995 Minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Stutz, seconded by Commissioner McMahon and passed by consensus to approve the March 22nd minutes correcting the spelling of Katy Stella's name on page 1 and changing "pump" to "water tank" on page 12. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MOTION PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To move the Report From The Site Development Committee Meeting to follow the Lands of Jabbour. 9.1 LANDS OF YANEZ, 26879 Moody Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape, fence and gate. Approved with conditions March 14, 1995. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/26/95 April 12, 1995 Page 12 Ij 9.2 LANDS OF CIMERA, 25601 Chapin Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape, hardscape and related improvements. Approved with conditions March 28, 1995. 9.3 LANDS OF DRAEGER, 27811 Lupine Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan. Approved with conditions April 4, 1995. 9.4 LANDS OF MAC DONALD, 11800 Francemont Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan. Approved with conditions April 4, 1995. 9.5 LANDS OF YUNG, 13880 Campo Vista Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan. This item was continued to the April 26th meeting. 9.6 LANDS OF REDDY, 11011 Magdalena Avenue; A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool and landscape plan. Approved with conditions April 11, 1995. 10. ADJOURNMENT J The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lm Lonberger Planning Secretary j