Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/07/19954 Minutes of a Special Meeting Approved 9/27/95 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Council cc: Cas: September 7, 1995, 7:00 p.m. cambers, 26379 Fremont Road ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Gottlieb, Schreiner, Doran & Stutz Absent: Commissioners Finn & Cheng Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Sandy Sloan, City Attorney; Jeff Peterson, City Manager; Land Lonberger, Planning Secretary Consultant: John Hesler with David Powers and Associates A moment of silence was observed in memory of the passing of Tom Doran. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR -None. 4.1 LANDS OF VIDOVICH, QUARRY HILLS SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE MAP, 11920 Stonebrook Drive (254 -93 -TM and 257-93-EIR); A request for certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, amendments to the Town's General Plan, Pre -Zoning to the R -A (Residential -Agricultural) District, and approval of a Tentative Map for 23 lots on 78 acres. Mr. Williams introduced this item, discussing the staff report with suggested recommended procedures for conducting the meeting. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the Reclamation Plan and the work that had taken place up to date (grading, the outflow channel), and what the MDA/MFA figures were predicated on (existing or past topography). Mr. Peterson responded all the work that has been done to date, other than the retaining wall, has been done under the 4 reclamation plan, to his knowledge. Mr. Williams responded to the second question Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95 September 7,1995 Page 2 noting that he had passed out a table of the MDA/MFA for all of the lots (1-23) which had been verified earlier on in the process by Wilsey and Ham based on the topography that existed at the time that the map was submitted. It does not recognize changes that might have been made through the Reclamation Plan work. This might be something that the Commission and City Council may need to discuss, whether those numbers should be the numbers that govern the project or whether there should be some adjustment due to the new grades that exist today. Other questions fielded by Mr. Williams were as follows: number of lots with possible subdivision potential; lot 11 (potential 4) and lot 21 (potential unknown); a land survey was performed on the lower lots and an aerial survey on the more difficult upper lots; and the well site between lots 7 and 8 is a legal parcel which would require a legal easement to it. Commissioner Doran noted the staff report addressed all the items that were brought up as part of the EIR review period. However, it does not address hazardous waste issues which are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Report. She asked if hazardous waste should be addressed in both reports. John Hesler, consultant, replied, in the EIR, they did identify hazardous waste as a "significant impact" and they showed mitigation for reducing it. Commissioner Doran asked if those items in the Mitigation Monitoring Program could be revised to reflect a different scenario. Sandy Sloan responded yes. The staff report cross references the Mitigation Monitoring Plan which is a draft. When the Commission works with the conditions, some of the things in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan might change. Chairman McMahon announced to the public that the Commission would hear this item until 11:00 p.m. There was a request from Dr. Martin to take #17 (sewer service) out of turn. Everyone was in agreement with the request. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Vidovich, 920 W. Fremont Avenue, Sunnyvale, applicant, was available for questions. At the proper time, he would discuss the Conditions of Approval as stated in the staff report. Gary Deaner, 11665 Dawson Drive, discussed the lack of information available to him and other neighbors by mail. He has lived in the current residence for four (4) months and was not aware of the project being heard. He was concerned with the impact of the proposed sewer easement and the Juan Prado Mesa Preserve.. He asked if there had been a cost benefit analysis completed regarding the sewer development. He also asked if the flow of Hale Creek would be modified, would the flow from Hale Creek be used to off -set lake evaporation, and if the sewer assessment for the lots would be increased to cover the continuing maintenance costs of the pumping station. J Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95 September 7,1995 t Page 3 fir' Mr. Williams noted this property was beyond the 500 foot mailing list. However, since the sewer line extends beyond 500 feet, it would be appropriate to extend the mailing list to include affected properties. All Commissioners agreed. Abdoul-Salam Boon, 6879 Chiala Lane, San Jose, Boon Construction, representing residents at 10933 Stonebrook Drive where he had performed extensive drainage work under the house. He was concerned with how the trail run-off from lot 18 would effect the Kabbani residence and how it would be handled. John Vidovich was familiar with the trail and requested deletion because of the short back yard of the Kabbanis and that trail would interfere with their privacy as the trail would be very close to the area the residence use. He did not feel this was an existing trail. Dr. Martin, 11666 Dawson Drive, commented on the following: the access across 11665 Dawson Drive and his property which is a dedicated trail; the trail was dedicated for pedestrians/equestrians and emergency vehicles (with his permission) only and not for service vehicles (Sandy Sloan agreed); the impact of a sewer line through Juan Prado Mesa Preserve; the limited life expectancy of a sewer line; sewer leakage occurring, sewer will not be at the lowest point; and the major problems with sewers are the detergent runoffs. He felt it would only be a matter of time before they experienced a L leak and at what cost to the environment. He was not in favor of septic systems or a pump system. Harry Emerzian,11670 Dawson Drive, shared Dr. Martin's comments and supported his concerns. He enjoys the rural setting and does not want this characteristic to change. He hoped that someone is really reviewing the many concerns such as what future maintenance requirements would be from Dawson Drive, protecting the vegetation, erosion, and pathways. Karen Emerzian,11670 Dawson Drive, discussed the possibility of septic systems rather than a sewer system. Dr. Martin was not in favor of a septic system. She was not in favor of the sewer by Juan Prado Mesa Preserve. Emily Martin, 11666 Dawson Drive, questioned the access between the end of the Preserve and Dawson Drive noting the access is only used by only a few pedestrian/equestrians currently. She asked how does someone get to the connection. Mr. Vidovich discussed the detailed sewer plan filed with the City which was brought before the City Council about four years ago. The sewer was designed to service this project. He noted it is possible to drain to a concrete lined well and pump another way out, however it is not a preferable option. Commissioner Gottlieb questioned the placement of little red plastic tops along the pathway. She asked if this was the path that the sewer would follow? Mr. Vidovich was not familiar with the plastic tops. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95 September 7,1995 Page 4 J Commissioner Schreiner noted the concerns of many of the people on Dawson Drive regarding access from their property. She asked Mr. Vidovich how he was going to access from the Quarry, asking if he needed to go across the creek to service the sewer. Mr. Vidovich responded they would have to cross the creek if they were to access with a vehicle, although he did not feel they would need to service the sewer very much, if at all. Mr. Peterson noted currently in the Los Altos basin the City of Los Altos maintains those sewer lines which require some type of access. The applicant is correct, especially with a new line, that there rarely are problems. However, as the line gets older, there are more opportunity for root intrusion, blockage, etc. Ultimately, there would need to be some maintenance access to the sewer, summer and/or winter. Mrs. Sloan commented Mr. Vidovich has always maintained that he has reserved some allocation from Los Altos sewer which means he has some capacity rights if the sewer is extended. If he does not come into the City, it is the City's position that he has no right to hook up to the sewer and there is no designated way in which the sewer line runs. All he has is reserved capacity rights. She briefly discussed the 1990 report. Dr. Martin noted Mr. Vidovich stated the present sewer was designed in anticipation of his project. The manhole which is just over into the Preserve from their property was placed there more than 50 years ago. This is hardly in anticipation of his project. As far as he knew, there was nothing done in anticipation of his project. Commissioner Doran commented #67 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program mentions the 1990 staff report asking if this report was circulated to see where the connections were planned? It should have also included maintenance. Mr. Peterson responded noting that maintenance was also an issue at that time. Most all of the sewers in Los Altos Hills are six inches. So a six inch sewer would serve this subdivision adequately. There could be an attachment to the sewer condition that they inspect or videotape that line to make sure it is in adequate condition. If it is not, require repairs to be made. Commissioner Doran asked if there was something in the 1990 report indicating maintenance for the line and where the access would be? Mr. Peterson believed the access was over the existing path or dirt road through the Preserve. Libby Lucas, 174 Yerba Santa, discussed the new approach of water shed management and the Water District. She suggested not taking the sewer through a nature preserve. She also suggested when looking at fire access, a possible helicopter pad. Leonardo Stout, 10933 Stonebrook Drive, discussed item #17, suggesting retaining another agency to closely review the final mitigation and report their analysis before the committee approval. He agreed with the emergency access only, not for a opening of Stonebrook Drive. The cliffs are steep, the roadway and properties have easements in place. An open thorough -way would increase traffic and causing vehicles and people to stop, park, etc. He did not feel the majority of the neighbors want to give up their land y Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95 September 7,1995 Page 5 4 rights or easement agreements for the opening of Stonebrook Drive for the public; only for emergency vehicles. He also noted that along Stonebrook Drive there needs to be safety with the possible increase in traffic. He also noted a serious water drainage problem of the storm water settling at the bottom of driveways on Stonebrook Drive. Les Earnest, Pathways Committee Chair, noted that the staff plan for pathways appears acceptable. One specification appears to be loose; the trail connection to the Mid Peninsula Open Space property. He hoped that they were talking about connections to two existing paths; one going west up the hill (lot 20), the other going northwest up to connect to the property (21). He pointed out the areas on the wall map. He noted that the existing trail is much wider than 10 feet and should be maintained as a trail and an emergency access route. The recommendation of the Pathway Committee was for a 20 foot path. It was noted that the staff report is discussing both paths. The Committee is recommending IIB paths on all the roads, however they do not have any type of road design. He noted that there should be a path on Street A. He would prefer to keep the path running along where they plan to abandon the road right of way easement (lots 1, 2, 3, & 4). However, this was not in the staff report. Commissioner Schreiner noted that the path along a portion of the lake does not appear to have access to the back lots. She asked where the back lots ( lots 13-14) access. She requested to visually see what is being proposed. Commissioner Gottlieb asked Mr. Earnest if the path going from Street B" into the Juan Prado Preserve would require a bridge over the creek? He did not feel 4 it was necessary as the path should be able to stay on the left side of the channel. �r Mr. Peterson commented since they were discussing sanitary sewer access for a vehicle, they need to look at the access for both vehicles and pathway. It would be wise to have that access in the same place, however, there would need to be some type of bridge no matter what side the access easement was on. It can either be crossing the by-pass channel or the outlet channel. Dr. Martin noted a dark purple set of arrows which he believes represents the Loma Prieta tributary to Hall Creek. The Loma Prieta tributary was the one that is most visible and is the one mostly on the surface, used a great deal to fill up the lake. He asked if it could return to Hall Creek where it belongs. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Schreiner assured the audience that even though only a few items were brought up by them, the Commission would be reviewing the complete design of the subdivision, the number of lots, the geological questions which have surfaces, the lake management program, the pathways, the circulation, etc. She felt the staff has done an extremely thorough job in addressing some of these issues. Discussion ensued regarding items 1 through 18. Since there had been a previous request to take #17 out of order, discussion started with Sewer Service. John Hesler, Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95 September 7,1995 Page 6 consultant with David Powers and Associated, addressed some of the impacts of the sewer line. He first noted the function of David Powers and Associates, explaining to their clients objectively the pros and cons from an environmental prospective, not taking sides. In this case, when preparing the EIR, in addition to what the applicant was proposing which is the sewer extension through the Preserve, staff asked them to look at two alternatives; the forced main up Stonebrook and septic systems. First, they looked at the extension through the Preserve looking at it independently, concluding that putting the sewer line through the Preserve would create a significant environmental impact (impact to the trees, the potential water quality impacts, impacts on the properties, etc.). Once they state it is "significant" they are then obligated to state whether it can be mitigated. He explained why the 1990 staff report was referenced, re- printing the report in the technical appendixes. When you read through it, it includes a large list of very specific measures that the applicant has agreed to implement to minimize the impacts. In their professional opinion they said if the applicant includes all of those mitigation measures, the impacts are reduced to less than a significant impact. This does not means that there would never be an impact. The speakers were correct in that you can never say there would be "no" impact. They also looked at the force main, looking at only environmental impacts. Of the three options (force main, septic and Juan Prado extension), the force main is by far the best from an environmental perspective only. It has the least impacts. A septic system would be the worst of the three options. The Commission, after reviewing the Draft EIR can recommend to the City Council further mitigation measures, if they see fit. Commissioner Gottlieb would like to know the sewer route through the Preserve and what are the little red markers previously mentioned. She would also like to know the difference in maintenance cost of putting the sewer through the Preserve versus putting in a pumping system. It was suggested staking the two routes through the Preserve. Mr. Peterson suggested that the manholes be staked. Generally sewer lines are straight lines between the manholes. Discussion ensued regarding item #1, Emergency Assess and #2, Abandonment of portion of Stonebrook Drive (lots 1-4). Commissioner Schreiner suggested taking the whole circulation plan (Vs 1, 2,3113, 14, and 16). Regarding the private road and whether it can be an emergency access road, Mrs. Sloan commented that the road is private and some of the private parties that own the road include the Vidovich property. What they were discussing was when Vidovich develops that property, the first concern is whether it should be a through road, emergency access or no access. However, Mrs. Sloan felt that the Town has the ability through approval of the subdivision to have any one of the three choices. However, once you leave the Town limits (the Vidovich property), the Town does not have any control over making the County area a public road. Commissioner Doran asked if they wanted to use that portion of Stonebrook for permanent access into the subdivision, would they loose the right, at a certain point of Stonebrook because they do not own that section? She would prefer to access the subdivision from that end of Stonebrook. J Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95 September 7,1995 Page 7 Commissioner Doran noted disagreement with the reports regarding traffic from El Monte up Stonebrook. She travels that section several times a day noting more than an insignificant impact. She suggested opening up Stonebrook on the Magdalena side and using that as an access; not only to elevate the traffic coming up Stonebrook and safety issues but for future emergency issues and access to that whole area. This is one of the items she would like investigate/change in the subdivision process. She further discussed the "landlocking" of properties (Silver, Hill and others). Commissioner Gottlieb noted (in the staff report) a request for an easement to be granted for these properties so they have access to their lots. Commissioner Doran commented on the possibility of the Silver property being subdivided and his only access being off of Prospect. If they close Stonebrook at that point there is not a way for future development unless, in the future, they look at opening that area. This is another issue they should review. She also had a concern regarding the Loma Prieta tributary where it drains from the back side of La Loma, coming through the Silver property and down. She asked where all the water on the back side of La Loma runs. Mr. Peterson noted the Silver property is not landlocked as it has access to a public street on Prospect. He felt the issue was, if they subdivided, whether or not they would want to access to that area. One of the things Mr. Vidovich would need to do is to be able to get permission from the people on the private road so he can access them off the L end of Street "C". Part of the conditions of approval is to go through the abandonment �W procedure prior to recordation of the Tract Map. If he could not do this, he could not include the portion that he is proposing to abandon in lots 1 through 4. Then those lots would actually be smaller. However, they would still be over one acre. Mr. Peterson commented on drainage, noting that the drainage that comes down through the La Loma basin currently runs along that section of private road that crosses under the intersection where you drive into the subdivision. It is still proposed to run along that area. The applicant may need to make some improvements along there so there is not an erosion problem. This is actually the water that the Tentative Map proposes to continue down Hale Creek. The water would flow through the bypass channel, continuing down to Hale Creek. Commissioner Stutz felt'landlock" may not be the term to use on the Silver property. She felt it was poor planning to bring a road clear down almost to Stonebrook and back up just to access off of Prospect as this would really scar the hill. It would be better if they could service two to three lots off of Stonebrook. Mrs. Sloan commented that until those neighbors agree to abandon the easement, the Town really does not need to decide whether or not to cut it off. Mr. Peterson noted if that portion of street was not abandoned and in fact used in the future, this subdivision would be creating lots that would have streets on two sides and in some cases, maybe even three. Mrs. Sloan made it clear that there were clear questions regarding easements and Mr. Vidovich needs to provide Title Reports on all of the lots that back up to Stonebrook for clarification of V right of way and ownership questions Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95 September 7, 1995 Page 8 J Further discussion ensued regarding the pathway recommendation on the back lots and privacy issues. Ed Carlstone, 10921 Stonebrook, discussed restricted access to Stonebrook Avenue. He does not mind an emergency access. However, making it a through access would increase the width of the street to meet Town standards, it would add vibrations and risk in that area, and destroy more trees. The access of Stonebrook Avenue onto Magdalena would create a significant increase in accidents. He would prefer keeping that section as is: rural. Discussion ensued regarding #3, Access to the lake and hillside lots. In answering a request by Commissioner Schreiner, the Planning Director illustrated how they propose to move Street "C" from the intersection to provide a flat area for an adequate vehicular transition to the hillside area for Lot 19, noting an engineering study would be needed. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that the existing fire road as it is now goes through lot 19. This road which has always existed, going from the bottom of the Quarry to the Mid Peninsula Park District to the top of the ridge, has been well traveled over the years. Looking at this map, it appears to go through lot 19. When walking the site, the path is covered with brush. She felt this existing, long used path could be used as a primary emergency access and trail head to the Mid Peninsula Park District. Mr. Peterson commented that this actually is the very access location for the upper hillside recommended by the Pathway Committee. It is also the location of the proposed driveways for the upper hillside lots. She suggested staking of the driveways to lots 19 through 21 for better visualization of the driveways with Street "C". No further comments were made regarding items #13, Traffic on Stonebrook Drive and #14, Public versus private streets as both items have been discussed prior. Discussion ensued regarding item #16, Pathways/trails and trailhead parking. Under consideration, at the applicant's request, was the elimination of the pathway in back of the lots 1 through 4, having the path coming down Stonebrook Drive and Street "A, B and C" then coming up to the Mid Peninsula Park District. Commissioner Doran was in agreement with the applicant in that if they can avoid going behind those homes, lets do it. Commissioner Gottlieb then suggested not having mailboxes, sewer manholes or electrical manholes within the pathway easement and road right-of-way. Commissioner Schreiner felt the pathway requests were modest given the size of this subdivision. Commissioner Stutz commented if the applicant takes their 20 feet of road right-of-way and the Town still has an off-road path on Stonebrook which will be down to almost lot 3 with 20 feet on that road. She asked why they cannot use this until they get the other off-road path on the Silver property. They would still need a path along lot 1 to be continuance with Street "C" to close the loop, requesting a pathway easement on lot 1 along the west sides. J Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95 September 7, 1995 Page 9 Mr. Williams noted that the conditions of approval incorporate all the Pathway Committee recommendations: eliminating the pathway adjacent to lots 18 and 23;10 foot wide path easement from Street "C" to the upper hillside trail (20 foot may be more appropriate) along the existing path/road; and whatever additional easements needed within the upper area to cover the existing paths along the existing pathway coming over from the Merrill property; 10 foot wide trail easement from the end of Street "B" adjacent to lot 10 and an outlet channel up to the Preserve; and the widening of the 10 foot easement shown on the corner of lot 11 to a 20 foot which is a connection up to the McCulloch subdivision. The Commissioners suggestions were the following: an easement on the west sides of lot 1; IIB pathways along all of the streets; and the restriction regarding mailboxes, utilities, etc. being out of the pathways. Commissioner Gottlieb noted Mid Peninsula Park District's request for emergency access easements over the existing roads leading up into the Mid Peninsula Park District. Mr. Vidovich discussed the staff report which recommends using lot 17 as a parking area and the elimination of two lots with a path going directly through the middle of the property up to the Preserve. If they have a parking area on lot 17 which is already a very attractive piece of property, they will be inviting many people from out of the area to use that parking lot. If they keep the access as proposed where it would be something the residents and the neighbors can use and be a part of the Towns system. This area has the potential to be "high volume" due to the lake and location. It was decided to have Mr. Vidovich discuss the conditions of approval. Comments were as follows: #1 change "30 days" to "prior to recordation of the Final Map'; #2, the applicant would either do what they said they would do which would be without Mr. Silver or if the Town felt, from a planning standpoint, they would want a guarantee that it would never be driven on, the applicant would be willing to pay for whatever vale the right-of-way had to Mr. Silver; #5a, objects to the elimination of lots 17,20 and 21. He will stake the driveways for lots 20 and 21 for review. #5b and c, does not see a reason for this request. The report notes using lot 17 for lake access. He felt the more reasonable lake access would be between lots 13 and 14 as there is a private path there which could also be used to access the lake. It also accesses a path which is wide enough to drive vehicles on. There is a ramp that they have installed as part of the reclamation program which accesses the portion of the lake that is most accessible. He did not feel access from lot 17 was a good idea. #5d, previously discussed. #5e, does not know why they need 40 feet of flat ground at the end of the driveway; 20 feet seems reasonable. #5f, everything would be subject to geological review. Commissioner Doran asked if Mr. Vidovich had read part in the staff report regarding having geotechnical studies done right up front for those building envelopes as there are several different areas on his property that have different levels of fill. Mr. Williams ( clarified the request, staff is asking, on the fill sites, for additional information, and also Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95 September 7,1995 Page 10 for preliminary foundation recommendations for all of the lots (standard request for final map stage). Mr. Vidovich asked that they only demonstrate that the lot is buildable. They do not want to study the entire lot, only the buildable area. Mr. Peterson felt this work has actually been done by the applicant. His geologist has prepared a map in the past which is within the technical documents regarding the upper hillside lots. What 5f is requesting is this to be shown on the Tentative Map of record so staff can see the areas that were mapped by his geologist of the debris flows and also the proposed building envelope zones that his geologist felt are safe. Mr. Vidovich continued with the conditions of approval. #5g, did not agree with draining water down any very steep area. They have the ability for the water to get in between lots 14 and 13 very easily. At that point, they are looking at a very gradual grade, entering the lake with very little erosion. #5k, agreed with the elimination of the trail adjacent to lot 18 but not adjacent to lot 23. #5m, noted that they already have a trail which he improved at their expense through the McCulloch subdivision. There is an area with a 10 foot public easement where people can enter the Preserve If you have people entering the area from lots 10 and 11, you are creating intrusion there. This condition would create a double trail. #6, already explained his position in that they would like the Commission to reconsider prior to putting a parking area there. #9 and 10, previously discussed. #13, did not agree with prohibiting access off of Street "A" asking they consider lots 4 and 5. It is possible they may want a driveway near the corner of those lots that may connect off of Street "A". Needs a little clarification. #15, discussed in detail. He did not agree with the geologist request regarding grading the slope. They can widen Stonebrook Road which is approximately 18 feet currently to 20 feet in most areas. He would prefer saving the trees rather then widening the road. Commissioner Stutz interpreted the condition as asking for a right-of-way by an additional 10 feet. Mr. Peterson, for clarification, stated that this condition does not specifically speak to what Mr. Vidovich is discussing, however, condition #24 does. Commissioner Stutz continued noting Mr. Vidovich's map does not show where the edge of pavement is on Stonebrook Avenue. She felt there was room to meander that road so that the two large oak trees would not have to be removed. Mr. Peterson noted that he and the fire department would like a 20 foot access for emergency vehicles. He was in agreement with the widening to a 20 foot access except in the few areas where there are large oaks. Commissioner Stutz suggested asking for a 10 foot additional right-of-way off of lot 18 to line it up with the one on Stonebrook Avenue. This would give them the 30 feet all along that area. This would just be a right-of-way from Street "C" up to the edge of the property line to straighten out the road. She did not feel this would effect lot 18. Mr. Vidovich continued with the conditions of approval. #18 and 19, previously discussed. #22, objected to granting someone else a property right that they do not have. He did not see any purpose to their subdivision granting them a path/road/pipeline easement to a well site. He did not feel the well was even legal and that the subdivision does not land lock the well sites as they are already landlocked. VJ Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95 September 7,1995 Page 11 4r #24, previously discussed. #26, does not understand. #27, does not understand why he would have to build a debris basin for an area they are leaving totally natural and not developing. #28, not practical to line the bypass channel. #29, previously discussed. #34, would like to discuss with staff. #43b, no reason to prohibit boats on the lake. #43c, proposed a private (for control) path between lots 13 and 14 for lake access. The path would go on lots 14,15 and 16. Commissioner Gottlieb asked for some areas around the lake to be widened to provide a bench for viewing and enjoying the lake. Mr. Vidovich agreed with request. #43e through 1, anything that is covered in a Town ordinance should not be included in the CC&Rs. #45, discussed interceptor ditches. #52, previously discussed. #54, until houses are built, he would prefer keeping the caretakers house as the caretaker provides security. #56, if they bond, he would like to start building some houses, or at least start building on lot 11. The Commission resumed their discussion with item #16, Pathways/trails and trailhead parking. After hearing Mr. Vidovich's remarks, the Commission will discuss issues relating to the configuration of Street "C", lot 17, the elimination of lots 20 and 21, access on lot 19. Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Schreiner requested discussion regarding the possibility of a reduced number of lots (mentioned in the Draft EIR), the impact of all the lots, and the suburban tract look of the subdivision. In discussing other lot subdivisions, it was noted that the Commission does not need to look at the environmental impacts for any possible subdivision in the future. They only need to look in the EIR for reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts. Mr. Peterson discussed conservation easements noting they are usually placed over natural drainage features like natural swales or ravines. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Doran, seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb and passed by consensus to continue to application to September 26, 1995 with discussion to start with the number of lots proposed. The following requests need to be addressed prior to the meeting: a. An expanded mailing list and labels for all owners of property immediately abutting the Juan Prado Mesa Preserve, and of all property with access to/from the portion of Stonebrook Drive connecting to Magdalena Avenue. b. The sewer alignment is to be staked with ribbons attached, at the approximate locations of proposed manholes along the route for review prior to the next meeting. 4W Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95 September 7, 1995 Page 12 The driveways to lots 19 through 21 are to be staked to provide better visualization of the intersection of the driveways with Street "C" and staking of the centerline of Street "C" from Street "B" to the emergency access road. d. Provide staff with any title reports or other information indicating existing access rights of owners of property adjacent to the portion of Stonebrook Drive to be abandoned (to the rear of lots 1 through 4, or otherwise currently provided access from that road. e. Provide staff with any title reports or other information in regards to the status of the "well" lots, including any pertinent easement restrictions or rights. 10. ADTOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J'" LaniLonberger Planning Secretary J J