Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/1996` Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 12/11/96 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, November 13,1996,7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (3 ) #21-96 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Gottlieb, Stutz, Cheng, Schreiner, & Jinkerson Absent: Commissioner Finn Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Sheryl Proft, Assistant Engineer; Lam Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -None. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF GOLDBERG/PEIRCE, 12012 and 12008 Emerald Hill Lane (179 -96 -VAR); A request for a variance to grade across property line. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. It was noted that the approved site development plans for both the Goldberg and Peirce projects show the driveways cut into the existing grade, which has resulted in unnatural topography (hump) created between the two driveways. The variance would allow grading across the property line to reestablish a more natural grade between the two properties. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Art Goldberg, applicant, clarified that the grading was to provide a more natural contour between the properties. He was available for questions. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1996 Page 2 Approved 12/11/96 4 Commissioner Gottlieb suggested making the wording in the variance findings stronger to note that the grading is proposed to replicate natural contours, consistent with the intent of grading provisions of the Code. Commissioner Stutz will not vote to recomour as she felt it opens the door to the community to do the same. A variance should not be for beautification purposes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson to approve a variance to grade across property lines, Lands of Goldberg/Peirce, with a modification to Variance Finding #2, (the grading is proposed to replicate natural contours, consistent with the intent of grading provisions of the Code). AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Cheng, Gottlieb, Jinkerson & Schreiner NOES: Commissioner Stutz ABSENT: Commissioner Finn This approval is subject to a 10 day appeal period. 3.2 LANDS OF HSIA, 26685 Purissima Road (127-96-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a guest house/secondary dwelling unit. Staff recommended that this item be continued to the December 11, 1996 meeting due to incomplete labels provided by the applicant. The item will be re -noticed for the December 11, 1996 regularly scheduled meeting. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the applicant to December 11, 1996. 3.3 LANDS OF MUELLER, 27860 Via Corita Court (133-96-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, secondary dwelling unit, and pool. The Planning Director introduced this item noting the receipt of numerous letters from neighbors opposing the requested dedication for a 10 foot wide pathway easement along the northern property line. He provided the Commission with a memo noting that if the Commission determines to require the pathway dedication, the City Attorney has advised making specific findings to establish the "nexus" for the dedication. He also provided proposed findings for the Commission's use or modification. He further discussed the history of the subdivision. Questions from the Commissioners included what was allowed in the slope easement, and when did the Fire Department start requesting two addresses for a resident and Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1996 Page 3 Approved 12/11/96 their secondary dwelling unit. The Assistant Engineer noted that the slope easement was for Town maintenance. She felt development in this area was appropriate, in this case. It was noted that in 1988, the applicants received approval for a site development permit and building permits for a two story residence at this site. However, the project was never completed. The applicant has included plans which show the areas of foundation which have been constructed as well as the natural and existing grades on the site. The applicants, have revised their plans to propose a one story residence utilizing the existing foundations. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested backfilling to reduce the appearance of height. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Marge Mueller, 136 Hudson Street, Redwood City, applicant, voiced opposition to the pathway easement dedication along the north side of the property as it was never requested with the subdivision nor with the approved 1988 site development permit. She opposed the proposed pathway easement on the following grounds: it is not necessary; destroys their privacy; is a security problem; was not requested by the Town on four previous occasions when there was opportunity; is an excessive confiscation of their property; is proposed to extend through a settled area where all the property owners adamantly oppose it impacts them immediately for a project that would not be completed for years, if ever; was put on the Master Path Plan without notifying the property owners; and violates the pathway element. In conclusion, she stated that the new pathway was not necessary as there are other pathways to get from Natoma Road to Elena Road, and it is not proportional for them to be deprived of their privacy, security and peace of mind to offer a second route to another street. She provided a petition signed by neighbors on Via Corita Way, Elena Road, and Dawn Lane. Marion Olsen, 27862 Via Corita Way, previously submitted two letters voicing objection to the proposed pathway easement request noting walkers on that path would have an intimate view of every back yard, bedroom, kitchen, family room and pool area of all seven houses along the trail. She felt there would be an invasion of their privacy, their safety, and their rights as property owners were being threatened. Pearl Chan, 27864 Via Corita Way, discussed the proposed pathway dedication. She voiced concerns regarding the following: privacy and security issues; creating a pathway that leads to nowhere; and creating confusion for pedestrians following the pathway who end up trespassing on private property. Katy Stella, Pathway Committee, noted the pathway request was to link to Elena Road. The pathway would not be developed until all the links had been dedicated. She noted the importance of the pathway system in town. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1996 Page 4 Approved 12/11/96 David Kahn, 27868 Via Corita Way, voiced opposition to the requested pathway easement. Andy Perga, 12100 Dawn Lane, voiced opposition to the requested pathway easement. He noted that there was a better pathway going by Dan Alexander's house. However, it would not be good for the Alexanders. The path is currently used informally. Jim Mueller, applicant, reiterated opposition expressed by the previous speakers. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued regarding the opposed pathway dedication. Commissioner Cheng noted the applicant already has pathways on two sides. She did not feel an additional pathway along the north side of the property was necessary. Commissioner Schreiner, speaking as a former Pathway Committee Chairperson, discussed the Pathway Element, providing on and off road paths. By law, they must establish a "nexus" for the dedication. She did not understand why this dedication was not taken at the time of the subdivision. She noted that the Planning Commission does listen to the residents. Commissioner Gottlieb discussed the request and the possible alternate path which would put a burden on Dan Alexander. She did not agree with all of the voiced objections to the dedication. Commissioner Jinkerson noted that if a dedication is not taken now, they will never acquire one. Chairman Doran discussed the history of the requested pathway on her property although there would be no link to another pathway in her lifetime. Discussion ensued regarding the house design. Commissioner Stutz felt the house design would be a good addition to the area; fitting into the neighborhood. Commissioner Gottlieb would like to see some backfill along the west elevation to minimize the visual impact of the exposed height of the foundation wall. She questioned the setback area by the garage, and the height of landscaping as she would not want views to be obstructed. Commissioner Schreiner shared the concern with the driveway within the setback. It was noted that the house cannot be pushed back as the foundation is in place. She also would not want two separate addresses for one property. Otherwise, she liked the house design. Commissioner Cheng also liked the design. The Planning Director will discuss the two address concern with the Fire Marshal. Consensus: to eliminate the request for a dedication of a 10 foot wide pathway easement along the northern property line. Commissioner Gottlieb emphasized agreement because she felt there was an alternate route. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1996 Page 5 Approved 12/11/96 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, secondary dwelling unit, and pool, Lands of Mueller, with the following changes/amendments to the conditions of approval: the applicant shall submit plans showing backfill along the west elevation to minimize the visual impact of the exposed height of the foundation wall; and modification to condition #11, deleting reference to the dedication of a 10 foot wide pathway easement along the northern property line. The condition shall read "The applicant shall install a 5 foot wide, Type IIB pathway along Natoma Road. The work shall be done to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection." AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Gottlieb, Stutz, Schreiner, Jinkerson & Cheng NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Finn This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar December 4, 1996 Brief break at 8:25 p.m. 3.4 Request for Conditional Use Permits and Variances for installation of PCS wireless telecommunications facilities (on four sites as follows); and adoption of Negative Declaration; Pacific Bell Mobile Services. The Planning Director suggested allowing the applicants to provide an overview of their applications (four sites), followed by public input, site by site, then allowing the applicant to respond to the public comments and concerns. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Darrell Daugherty, 844 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, with P1anCom, Inc., provided the following information: a history of the Pacific Bell Mobile Services; PCS (personal communications services) facilities; GSM technology; aesthetic considerations; a master plan which includes four sites; backyard sites which provide screening; pursued Caffrans maintenance yard sites; collocation not always desirable; willingness to explore Caffrans maintenance facility as an option; Wireless Communications Ordinance; submittal of technical updated data regarding cumulative effects of radiation as they relate to FCC standards; and CalTrans call boxes. He further went on to discuss the Magdalena Avenue site noting CalTrans is very unwilling to lease any active right of way. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1996 Page 6 Approved 12/11/96 3.4a PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES, 26140 Duval Way (Lands of St. Luke's Chapel in the Hills) (224-95-ZP-SD-CUP-VAR-ND); A request for a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Negative Declaration for placement of a 35 foot high PCS pole and antennas, and adjacent equipment box. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING At Jackson, 26088 Duval Way, understood that there was a general plan regarding these facilities. However, he is currently looking at a very high pole on the Foothill College property. He will have to drive by the proposed site every day. He asked if there was a 3-5 year plan for the Town. Mariann Malcolm, 26045 Duval Way, voiced opposition to the proposed site asking that Los Altos Hills maintain the rural atmosphere. Armand King, St. Luke's Chapel, discussed being approached by Pacific Bell. He felt the antenna was hidden amongst the pine trees. He noted that they have only been approached by Pacific Bell Mobile Services regarding siting. Michael Malcolm, 26045 Duval Way, opposed the project as the pole at Foothill kv College is enough to look at daily. Shirley Chiu, 14175 Berry Hill Lane, retired real estate broker, noted that potential buyers do not want to buy property by antenna poles. This type of project should not be by residential structures. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY An overall discussion ensued regarding all proposed sites. Commissioner Schreiner discussed policy regarding allowing more than one carrier per site, and are they going to ask to expand the definition of allowing wireless communications facilities on residential property. The Planning Director noted that the Federal Communications Act of 1996 provided two critical statements regarding local control. The statements in the act are as follows: 1) they cannot prevent these facilities from locating in the town if it is necessary for them to complete their network; 2) the Federal Government has preempted local governments from dealing with the health issue relative to radio emissions. What is allowed is to require monitoring, and reporting that conformance with the Federal standards are being met. They cannot deny an application based on the health and hazard risk. They cannot preclude the location of these facilities within the town limits; they can dictate, as best they can, where they would least impact the residence. Also, they cannot treat one carrier differently than another. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1996 Page 7 Approved 12/11/96 Commissioner Jinkerson stated that he would not agree to a variance so that an eye- sore could be put up. They grant variances where they have made findings that it is in the best interest of the community. If they grant one variance for a wireless communications facilities, they will have to continue granting them. He stated that he will never vote for a variance on one of these devices until there is a clear policy in the community. He also would not vote for a Use Permit for longer than one year unless there was a clear justification for a longer period of time. Commissioner Schreiner asked for consideration and/or recommendation of a policy that would: 1) allow just one carrier on each one of the proposed sites; and 2) after they have determined what sites are appropriate, have the applicant work with the whole neighborhood regarding placement. If the neighborhood feels the situation can be mitigated, then the Commission will consider approval. Commissioner Cheng noted that some sites (Foothill College, water tank sites) can accommodate more than one facility. Commissioner Stutz felt that if the antenna was moved back in the trees another 5-10 feet, the width of the pole at ground level would disappear. The applicant agreed. Commissioner Gottlieb does not want the equipment box in the setback. MOTION PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the application with direction from the Commission to meet with the neighbors to determine a more suitable location on this site or another site, which would be less visible. They also suggested exploring moving the pole and equipment box farther from the road, to be better screened by the existing trees. 3.4b PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES, on La Cresta Drive behind 12869 La Cresta Drive (Lands of Purissima Hills Water District) (5 1 - 96-ZP-SD-CUP-VAR-ND); A request for a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and a Negative Declaration for the placement of a 20 foot high PCS pole and antennas, and adjacent equipment box. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING It was noted that there is a GTE facility on site currently which was permitted in 1989. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the status of the common driveway asking if it was a private driveway owned by the Water Company and the resident. The Planning Director noted that the driveway was actually on the resident's property with an easement for the Water Company. She would not want to see the resident burdened by this new carrier. Commissioner Gottlieb again voiced concern with the equipment box requiring a variance. Mr. Doug Walsh, with JM Consulting Group commented that the Water District does not feel it is desirable to share a foundation. They will need a very small pad of approximately 4' x 6'. Commissioner Schreiner `,, continued asking if each carrier required a 200 square foot equipment shed and asked Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1996 Page 8 Approved 12/11/96 4 if there was any way to have a common shed. The Planning Director clarified that the 200 square feet refers to a pad of area as the equipment does not take up that kind of area. Carriers all need their separate boxes as they cannot share the equipment box. He further discussed the "Wireless Communications Facilities" policy. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Stutz noted, in particular on this site, that the antennas are well placed into the trees. She hoped the applicant could do the same on other sites. The height of water tanks were discussed. The Planning Director will review the common driveway issue with the City Attorney. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Doran and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to recommend to the City Council approval of the Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and a Negative Declaration, Pacific Bell Mobile Services for the placement of a 20 foot high PCS pole and antennas, and adjacent equipment box on La Cresta Drive behind 12869 La Cresta Drive (Lands of Purissima Hills Water District), with the following additions/changes: the height shall not be any higher than the water tank; and the pad shall not be larger than the PCS box it sits on; AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Schreiner, Cheng, Stutz & Gottlieb NOES: Commissioner Jinkerson ABSENT: Commissioner Finn This application can either be scheduled for City Council public hearing December 4 or wait until the other sites are approved, and heard at that time. The applicant will advise the Planning Director of their preference 3.4c PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES, 27785 Stirrup Way (Lands of Araj) (50-96-ZP-SD-CUP-VAR-ND); A request for a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and a Negative Declaration for the placement of a 25 foot high PCS pole and antennas, and adjacent equipment box. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Director clarified for the audience that of the two story poles in place at the Stirrup Way location (Lands of Araj and Town property), the Town property site will not be a viable site. He asked for and received consensus from the Planning Commissioners that the location not be considered. All agreed. Discussion ensured regarding the site location on the Araj property. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1996 Page 9 Approved 12/11/96 Donald Dmyanoff, 14150 Berry Hill Lane, clarified that the alternative site proposing a 45 foot antenna pole is no longer a consideration. He was concerned with the health aspect of being so close to an antenna of this type. For every study that states they are not a health hazard, there are other studies that state the opposite. Mr. Dmyanoff had submitted two separate letters listing his concerns. He preferred the CalTrans maintenance facility site at Christopher's Lane and Page Mill Road as it had no negative impact on the adjacent properties. Commissioner Schreiner questioned how this property has gone over their development area maximum and why they are not asking them to correct this situation by reducing the development area. The Planning Director will investigate the MDA figures. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the application with direction from the Commission to evaluate the location of the antenna at the CalTrans maintenance yard on Page Mill Road, and for possible collocation with other carriers assuming a pole of excess height would not result. They also suggested working with the property owner on Stirrup Way to eliminate the need for a variance and to clean up existing code e violations, prior to proceeding with the application, and to move the pole up the hill �r on that site closer to or at the house, for better screening. 3.4d PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES, APN#33642-022 (Magdalena @ Eastbrook Avenue) (Lands of California Water Service Company) (49-96-ZP-SD-CUP-VAR-ND); A request for a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and a Negative Declaration for the placement of a 30 foot high PCS pole and antennas, and adjacent equipment box. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Parviz Keshtbod, 11627 Rebecca Lane, noted that his house is located 40-50 feet south of the proposed antennas. He voiced the following objections to the project: health hazards; unsightly antennas which are seen from his back yard and all upstairs bedrooms; all utilities in the area are undergrounded; and property value decline relating to antennas. He felt there were better sites for installation. He asked for medical information and statistics on the effects of microwave radiation on humans; data on power, frequency, and directionality of the transmission of the proposed antennas; and possible effects to the Redwood trees and other shrubbery surrounding the antennas. He does not feel it is appropriate for the California Water Service to go into other businesses. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1996 Page 10 Approved 12/11/96 Janet Lull, 11623 Rebecca Lane, noted the following: adverse impact on their residence, adverse health issues due to electronic radiation; effects on their electronic apparatus (TV, VCR, telephones, radios, computers); the visual negative impact; possibility of radiation power being transmitted; and the poorly chosen site. She strongly opposed the project. She emphasized the participation of all the residents on Rebecca Lane who voiced opposition to this site and to the visual impact. She asked the Commission to ask the applicant to consider another site which would be acceptable to the residents. Mina Keshtbod, 11627 Rebecca Lane, voiced opposition to the project. Kanye Lim, 11633 Rebecca Lane, agreed with previous comments. She opposed the project. Donald Lull, 11623 Rebecca Lane, had previously provided the Planning Commission with two letters listing objections which included the following concerns: visibility; adverse effects on his residence; visual impact; pine trees not adequate to screen pole; electronic radiation; disfigurement of the town's rural atmosphere; loss of property values; the poorly chosen site; and objections to the variance since he is unable to evaluate exactly what the effect will be. Darrell Daugherty felt the Magdalena Road site was very good. He would request an opportunity to work with the residence to come up with some mitigation and by working with their engineers. He felt the site could be well screened. He further discussed the intended color of the poles; how much paved area is actually involved (slabs), and radiation issues. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if this could be incorporated into Pacific Bell telephone poles. Mr. Daugherty discussed the regulation regarding the use of poles. The height that would be allowed would not be adequate for their use. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY MOTION PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the application with direction from the Commission for the applicants to work with the neighbors to identify an acceptable site which further minimizes visual impacts. Suggestions included relocating to the adjacent lands to the north (Lands of Nicholson) or relocating elsewhere on the Cal Water site to enhance screening. All continued items will be re -noticed for public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1996 Page 11 Approved 12/11/96 Conclusion discussion ensued. There was a consensus that the Commissioners would not approve a variance on private land on any proposed site. Commissioner Schreiner thanked the residents for coming to the meeting to express their opinions. She asked the Planning Director to express to any other potential carrier what has happened this evening noting that the Commission is looking seriously at not burdening these neighborhoods with more than one carrier. The Planning Director stated that Pacific Bell had notified the neighbors of the pending projects prior to the Town notices being sent. He thanked Pacific Bell and their representatives for trying to work very hard to be flexible. Commissioner Gottlieb felt it would be a great accomplishment if the applicant could incorporate the antennas into some existing structure. 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4.1 Planning Commission Representative for November 6' meeting, Commissioner Gottlieb, reported on the following items: volunteer awards luncheon; grant of pathway easement, Lands of Kash; irrevocable offer of dedication of right of way on Quail Lane, Lands of Mushier; Technology Improvement Committee; relocation of access to the property, Lands of Ruiner; and Lands of V idovich. 4.2 Planning Commission Representative for the November 20" -meeting- 4W Chairman Doran. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Report from subcommittees. None. 5.2 Joint Study Session with City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, November 20" at 7:00 p.m. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 November 27, 1996 Planning Commission meeting -canceled. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the October 23, 1996 minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner, seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson, and passed by consensus to approve the October 23, 1996 minutes with minor changes to page 6. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/11/96 November 13, 1996 Page 12 4w 8. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5 1996 8.1 LANDS OF LIEN, 13288 East Sunset Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for a minor second story addition. Approved with conditions. 8.2 LANDS OF TIMMINS, 12102 Oak Park Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan. Approved with conditions. 8.3 LANDS OF KELLMAN, 12109 Oak Park Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool, landscape and hardscape. Approved with conditions. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:50 p.m. Repectflly�submitted, � ^ Lam Lonbergr Planning Secretary