Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/6/2010 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 06/03/2010 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, May 6, 2010, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Clow and Commissioners: Collins, Harpootlian, Abraham, and Partridge. Staff: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director; Brian Froelich, Associate Planner; and Victoria Ortland, Planning Secretary. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR—None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Regarding Item 3.1, Commissioner Collins had spoken with the applicant and three neighbors; Commissioner Harpootlian had spoken with the applicant, architect, and three neighbors; Commissioner Abraham had spoken with the applicant and architect; Commissioner Partridge had spoken with the applicant, architect, and four neighbors; and Chairman Clow had spoken with the applicant, architect, builder, and five neighbors. 3.1 LANDS OF HOMA NATOMA, LLC, 27270 Natoma Road; File #25-10-ZP-SD- GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a new 27,254 square foot residence with a partial two story element (maximum height 29'). The applicant is also requesting a grading policy exception for cuts of up to eight (8) feet to accommodate a lowered driveway, fire truck turnaround, and front entry. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) & (e) (Staff-Brian Froelich). Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for the proposed 27,254 square foot estate home and Grading Policy exception on the 4.92 acre parcel. A previously submitted application for a five-lot subdivision had been replaced with the approved two-lot subdivision plan after the applicant's purchase of the property. Newly created Palomino Place, required by the subdivision improvement plan, will serve as entrance to the lot. The request for the Grading Policy exception would allow vehicular traffic to access a lowered finished floor level of the structure. Los Altos Hills' geotechnical consultant had recommended a 25 foot setback from the Altamont fault trace that crosses the property. Neighbor and resident input both in support and opposition of the project had been received by staff Concerns included views, landscape screening, and close proximity to the property line. Estate home requirements require a public Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6,2010 Page 2 hearing for the residence and landscape screening, and increased setbacks (60 feet for the front and 45 feet for the sides and rear). Commissioner Abraham asked about the distance of the proposed structure from the setbacks, and the height of the new home compared to the current house. Staff explained about 50 percent of the new building is at the setback. The existing house was two stories at 28 feet in height. The proposed house is primarily single story when viewed from the uphill side and would be six to eight feet lower. Commissioner Collins asked about the timeline of the project and neighbor notification. Staff replied that initial meetings regarding the project were held in November, plans were submitted in February, and the neighbors contacted staff in March. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Jenna and Jim Ellis, applicants, stated they had resided in Los Altos Hills for seven years and wanted to build their dream house on the Natoma Road site. The size, location, neighborhood, proximity to Westwind Barn, open space, and the views had contributed to selection of the property for their new home. The house had been designed to accommodate their family, including the children, parents, and future grandchildren. Effort was made to comply with Town ordinances and the Grading Policy exception requested only to lower the house for access. The Ellis' want to be part of the neighborhood and had tried to find compromises to neighbor's concerns to allow everyone to enjoy the view. They had met with neighbors in April after Town staff's plan review. As a result of neighbor input, significant changes to the plan had been made. One adjoining neighbor could not be contacted, despite repeated attempts. Bob Glazier, architect, said that a survey was conducted of the finished floor elevations for the surrounding homes to help preserve views that may be affected by the new residence. The new house was designed to be lower than the existing house to keep it below the finished floor of most of the homes on the uphill side. The roof layout is broken up by flat areas and cedar shingles are planned to soften the look. After meeting with the neighbors, concerns about views were addressed with revision to the plans. The roof slope was lowered and plate heights were dropped for a reduction in height of the house. Two chimneys were completely removed. The two car garage was moved into a bunker, the 16 foot high roof was moved back 62 feet, the game room and showroom garage was moved back 12 feet. The driveway would be moved and a portion dropped down to meet the floor of the bunker garage. The story poles were readjusted to reflect the revision to the plans. Commissioner Collins asked if any of the remaining house design changed with the rotation of the game room/showcase garage. Bob Glazier replied that there was no change in the rest of the house. �) Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6,2010 Page 3 Commissioner Partridge requested clarification on which set of plans the Planning Commission was being asked to consider; the plans submitted with the application or the modified plans presented by Bob Glazier. Bob Glazier said the revised plans presented at the Planning Commission meeting were requested for consideration. Debbie Pedro said staff would like to have the opportunity to complete a thorough plan review and check for required additional grading. Commissioner Harpootlian asked if moving the house about 40 feet toward the center of the lot would create less of an impact to the view from Beverly Barkhau's property. Bob Glazier said that improvement had been made to the amount of view affected from Beverly Barkhau's house with the plan changes that moved the large roof completely out of view. He wanted other options examined before considering moving the house down slope. Jim Ellis felt that moving the house 40 feet would severely compromise their views from the new house. The conservation easement would become the primary view, a partial mountain view would be retained,but no bay view would remain. Commissioner Collins appreciated the effort made to design the new house so the top of the roof would be at or below the finished floor of the neighboring homes. This would be the perfect solution if the view was straight across the bay to the mountains, but from the neighboring properties, the view to the bay is downward. She was not convinced that the roof to finished floor relationship was as effective in this case. Every room in the proposed house appears to have a view of the water in the bay. Bob Glazier stated that determining the finished floor of the surrounding homes was a starting point in developing a strategy to maintain the neighbor's view and create a view for the applicants. The view from the master bedroom area would be more of trees than the bay, as the house bends at that section. Commissioner Partridge asked if an alternative plan for the roof wells containing the air conditioners was a possibility. Relocating the AC equipment would allow the height of the roof to be lowered and reduce obstruction of the neighbor's view. Bob Glazier said that the proposed roof design, to accommodate the air conditioning units, was lower than a roof line that would rise to a peak. The house had been designed with as much flat roof area as possible. Alice Arnold, Almaden Court, said that the existing house is about one fifth, one sixth, or one seventh the size of the proposed house. The comparison was not fair between the existing house, which is not destroying anyone's view, and the proposed house which will be destroying many people's view. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6,2010 Page 4 Paul Staschower, Almaden Court, said that the new residence would effectively create a 24 to 29 foot high solid wall across the entire back width of his lot. No view space allowance would exist along the side of his house that currently has a view. From the pool deck of his home, the proposed house at the minimum setback would block not only the view but also air flow. A simple solution for compromise would be to move the house down the hill and preserve the openness of Los Altos Hills that he desired and has enjoyed for years. Shohreh Malek, Altamont Road, stated that she would be adversely affected by the project as would all the surrounding neighbors. She was concerned that the close proximity and site orientation of the long, large house would block the view from the five neighbors. Greatly increased setbacks must be required because of the bulk and enormity of the structure. The highest part of the house, at 29 feet, is directly in the narrow view corridor and blocks the view. The views affected in her home would be from the bedroom, living room, family room, kitchen, breakfast nook, and outdoor sitting area. The unprecedented size of the house will affect the rural character and openness of the neighborhood. She suggested increasing the setback, moving the house down the slope another 30 feet, lowering the profile of the structure 15 feet with grading and excavation, and lowering the ceiling height(especially at the tallest section on the east side). Yigal Brandman, Natoma Road, spoke in support of the project and thought the house would be a good addition to the neighborhood. He hoped the Planning Commission would approve the plan. Courtenay Corrigan, Fremont Pines Lane, supported the application and said that Jim and Jenna Ellis had searched a long time for the ideal property for their new home. The proposed project had been designed to meet the Town's guidelines and the applicants have been willing to make many compromises for the neighbors. Randall Kruep, Sunrise Farm Road, enjoyed the view of the spectacular property and gave his support of the project. Bill Shreve, Almaden Court, supported the project and appreciated the reduction in the final number of lots for the subdivision from five to two. He felt the impact on the view and neighborhood would have been worse with five houses. He hoped the Planning Commission would approve the application. Lisa Warren, Cupertino, daughter of Beverly Barkhau, Altamont Road, said she appreciated the recent efforts made to mitigate the neighbors' concerns. She felt the application was "one of a kind" and the size and amenities of the project classified it as more than an estate home. She commented on the process for project submittal, review, and approval quoting the wording from the Town's Site Development Review Process handouts. She noted that special consideration must be given during the development process to keep protection of views and scenic corridors a priority. Conducting neighborhood outreach before filing the site development approval is recommended. Considering the handout suggestions and reference to the General Plan, she requested that the Planning Commission require stricter standards for height, setbacks, site location, and size of the project. Increasing the setbacks would lessen the obtrusiveness of the structure and create a buffer for noise and privacy as the setback minimums for estate homes Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6,2010 Page 5 would not mitigate the project. Because the house is situated backward on the site, it would be appropriate to designate the front of the lot as the south and west borders. Commissioner Harpootlian asked Ms. Warren where she had obtained her information. Lisa Warren replied that the General Plan and Municipal Code of Los Altos Hills had provided the information. Sandy Katz, daughter of Beverly Barkhau, Altamont Road, urged the Planning Commission to closely examine the location of the garage and the height of the recreation room roof. Their view would be taken away by these elements because they are directly in the line of sight. The garage and recreation room could be relocated further down toward the center of the property to alleviate the problem. Although commendable, the plan changes to rotate the garage do not remedy the loss of view from the kitchen, the majority of the deck, and elsewhere. The rotated garage will be longer across the view, and as the view is down and not straight across, the bay view and city lights will be lost. Chairman Clow said that his understanding of the photographs, given to the Planning Commission,represented the views from the individual neighbor's homes. Sandy Katz replied that the photographs representing the view from Beverly Barkhau's house were taken only from the deck. Beverly spends most of their time inside the house so the view from inside the house (kitchen, living room, etc.) was very important. The new house will significantly compromise the current view from her home. Mitra Malek, Altamont Road, said that the majority of the photographs of her home were taken from the back yard and do not depict actual views from the living areas. When looking out from the inside of her house, much more of the view will be obstructed than the photos show. The story poles do not give a true depiction of the extent of the view blockage caused by the new house. She suggested moving the house down slope on the property. A possible compromise could be to reduce the number of rooms in the proposed house that have prime views, to help preserve the views from the existing homes in the neighborhood. Tracy Liu, 26751 Almaden Court, thought the new residence would increase home values in the neighborhood. She requested an increased setback because the proposed residence was located too close to her property line. She also had privacy concerns over the height of the new house and asked for installation of 15 foot tall screening trees. Mina Malek, Altamont Road, felt the new development would devaluate all the properties up slope of the site. The existing house may be taller than the proposed building; but it is so much smaller that it blocks only a sliver of the view, compared to the amount that will be obscured by the new residence. The proposed structure will completely block the view over the entire expanse over their property line. The entire beautiful view of the city lights from her bedroom window will be gone. She asked the Planning Commission to consider her cherished view when making their decision. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6,2010 Page 6 Jim Ellis said the comparison with the existing house was used only as a reference point and not meant to misrepresent the scope of the project. In the presentation, they had tried to use photographs provided by neighbors to document the views that the neighbors had considered important. Bob Glazier explained that the plans for the project had been shared with the neighbors after he was confident that they were in compliance with Town ordinances. He said he had convinced the Ellis' that it would make a good argument for approval if the new house was kept below the finished floor of the homes behind. Even though a two-story house have been a possibility and would improve their views, they felt it was more neighborly to build a one story structure. Beverly Barkhau's view issue is difficult to address because her house is at nearly the same elevation and was non-conforming by its proximity to the property line. He felt that the changes in the revised plan, with the 16 foot high roof moved 62 feet and the entire structure moved 12 feet, was a major response to some of their concerns about compromised views. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Abraham supported the project with the proposed revisions. The project complied with Town ordinances and the applicants had worked hard to accommodate the views of the neighbors while preserving some of their own views. The Grading Policy exception was justified and allowed for a lower garage. Commissioner Partridge felt that it would be very hard to make a decision on the revised plans without a review by staff. Increased setbacks would be helpful so the façade would not appear as much like a solid wall. The driveway was too close to the neighboring properties and an increase in setback for both the house and driveway would be desirable. Commissioner Collins said the applicants had been considerate of the neighbors and made a remarkable effort to design the house within the ordinances. However, because of the impact on the neighborhood from the size of the house, more consideration must be given before a decision on the project. The proposed revisions to the submitted plans need to be thoroughly reviewed by staff. Los Altos Hill's Site Development Ordinance required structures to be unobtrusive when viewed from offsite, scenic views should be retained, and buildings are not to dominate the natural landscape. She suggested that to retain the views, the entire structure or portions of it, should be moved down slope. Commissioner Harpootlian asked staff if the height of any portion of the new house was higher than a single story. Brian Froelich replied that some of the floor area in the center part of the house had been counted twice(as floor area)because of the height. Commissioner Harpootlian said that portions of the house were counted as two stories. He felt a significant improvement toward preserving the neighbors' views could be made by moving the house down slope. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6,2010 Page 7 Chairman Clow said that a challenge for the house, even with the 45 foot setback, was its perception of massiveness. He felt the applicants had acted with integrity regarding the neighbors and the use of the photographs. He emphasized the importance of the neighbors sharing photographs with the applicants that documented the most important views from their properties. Thoughtfully placed landscape screening would help break up the façade of the new house. He thought continuing the project to a future Planning Commission meeting was an option. Commissioner Harpootlian agreed that the project should be continued with the specific suggestion to move the house at least 20 feet down slope, and maybe with a goal of 30 to 40 feet. Chairman Clow pointed out that just moving the house would significantly impact the Barkhau's view and end up with a worse situation. Commissioner Abraham agreed that simply moving the house downhill would negatively affect the Barkhau's property. Commissioner Collins stated that an increase in cut for the Grading Policy exception may be needed with the relocation of the house. MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Harpootlian and seconded by Commissioner Collins to continue the application to a future Planning Commission meeting and for the applicant to consider the following suggestions: move the house or part of the house down slope at least 20 to 30 feet, lower the house elevation with more excavation, relocate the air conditioning units so the roof profile can be lowered, and work closely with the neighbors to address their concerns. AYES: Commissioners: Abraham, Collins, Harpootlian,Partridge, and Chairman Clow NOES: None Jim and Jenna Ellis accepted the continuance of the project to a future Planning Commission meeting. Jenna wanted to know at what point before the meeting they should present the plans to the neighbors and when the story poles should be changed. Debbie Pedro, Planning Director said that staff would meet with the applicants after the public hearing. The story poles need to be changed to reflect the new plans. The applicant should share the redesigned plans with the neighbors and incorporate their suggestions if possible. Chairman Clow asked for a way to facilitate communication between the applicants and the neighbors. Debbie Pedro replied that a neighborhood meeting could be held at Town Hall. Commissioner Collins explained to the neighbors that the rooftop of the new residence cannot be completely screened. This item will be continued to a future Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6,2010 Page 8 3.2 LANDS OF LOS ALTOS HILLS/WESTWIND BARN (Applicant: VERIZON WIRELESS), 27210 Altamont Road; File #16-10-CUP; A request for a Conditional Use Permit renewal for an existing/previously approved wireless communications facility. The facility consists of ground cabinets and nine panel antennas mounted to a tree pole. No change is being proposed to the existing buildings, structures or use of the facilities. CEQA review: exempt per 15301 (a) (Staff-Brian Froelich). Commissioner Partridge recused himself from Item#3.2. Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for the Conditional Use Permit renewal for the wireless communication facility at Westwind Barn. The facility included the tree pole, ground equipment, and conduit for Verizon Wireless. According to State law, the original conditions of approval must be revised to reflect the increased renewal period of 10 years. Commissioner Harpootlian asked if the trees around the base of the monopole had been removed. Staff replied that the two Monterey pines had been removed by the Public Works Department at the direction of the Public Safety Officer as a safety hazard. Commissioner Abraham stated that the antenna provided by the Town and installed by Verizon on the monopine for use by the Emergency Communications Committee appeared to have been removed. He suggested that the replacement of the antenna be included as part of the approval. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Crystal Wood, representative for Verizon Wireless, was unaware of what happened to the Emergency Communications Committee antenna but it would be replaced if it was a provision of the lease agreement. Staff replied that condition of approval#10 required the installation of a ham radio antenna. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY VOICE VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Abraham and seconded by Commissioner Harpootlian to forward a recommendation to the City Council for renewal of the Conditional Use Permit of the Verizon Wireless Facility located at Westwind Barn with the additional requirement that Verizon shall reinstall the Emergency Communications Committee antenna and feed line. AYES: Commissioners: Abraham, Collins, Harpootlian, and Chairman Clow NOES: None RECUSED: Commissioner Partridge `�' This item will be forwarded to a future meeting of the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6,2010 Page 9 ( 3.3 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 10, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 8 OF THE LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. File #29-10-MISC. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per 15307 (Staff-Brian Froelich). Commissioner Harpootlian explained that all local governmental agencies were required by the State of California's revised Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 1881) to adopt the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or create a local ordinance that was equal to or exceeded the Model Ordinances' effectiveness in conserving water. The Water Conservation Committee researched the alternative ordinances developed by the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency and the Santa Clara Valley Water District and concluded that these ordinances did not meet the unique needs of Los Altos Hills. The Model Ordinance formula would allow the use of 850 units for the average lot in Los Altos Hills while the guaranteed average water allocation from the Purissima Hills Water District is 400 units per parcel. One of the goals of the Water Conservation Committee in developing the proposed Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance was to reduce the water usage in Los Altos Hills to an amount closer to the annual supply. The proposed ordinance will address the objectives of the Model Ordinance and be at least as effective as it by both including a Water Conservation Factor and considering topography in the Parcel Water Budget formula. Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, stated that the proposed ordinance would apply to new landscape projects with over 5,000 square feet of irrigated landscaping associated with site development permits for new residences and major additions that require landscape screening. Additional submittal requirements for landscape screening applications would include: landscape and irrigation plans, parcel water budget, landscape water use calculation, submitted plans must be prepared by a State of California Licensed Landscape Architect, and certification of installation by a State of California Licensed Landscape Architect. The Town's ordinance would comply with the State's Model Ordinance AB 1881 requirements and reduce the paperwork associated with that ordinance. The proposed Los Altos Hills ordinance would influence irrigation and design, limit lawn areas, reduce runoff, and increase water use awareness. Commissioner Abraham asked for the rationalization for incorporating the Lot Unit Factor in the formula for the Parcel Water Budget. He said that a lot with a small LUF would not be allowed as much landscape area as a lot with a large LUF. Commissioner Harpootlian explained that the existing LUF formula was an established and accepted way to measure the steepness of a lot. Chairman Clow felt that flat lots would be allowed much more landscape area than steep lots. Irrigation is needed for vegetation growth to help prevent erosion on steep lots. Commissioner Abraham asked for clarification on the allowed annual 120 units. Staff explained that the Purrissima Hills Water District had supplied the annual 120 unit measurement to increase the Parcel Water Budget available to a lot and to account for indoor ( water usage. Adjustment of the 120 annual unit allotments would be available for exceptional circumstances. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6,2010 Page 10 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Ginger Summit, Lennox Way, explained that the State Model Ordinance and the other municipal water ordinances did not deny irrigation on slopes, but encouraged consideration of the slope during landscape design to reduce the amount of irrigation needed and to prevent run-off. She felt the Lot Unit Factor did apply to the formula. Sue Welch commented that most slopes were designated as conservation areas at the time of development and required to have native vegetation that doesn't need irrigation. Barbara Goodrich, Hill Way, thought that the State Model Ordinance required water efficiency but the Town had drifted toward water conservation. She took issue with the proposed ordinance exceeding State requirements specifically by establishing a water budget that would be audited. A disincentive to excessive water usage was already built into the water bill rate structure. It was overkill for Los Altos Hills to decide what a Parcel Water Budget should be especially since Purissima Hills Water District recently had rate increases. She explained that she spoke on general principle. Her 100-year old house is on a small, flat lot and she probably would not be affected by the ordinance. The idea of these kinds of burdensome ordinances for homeowners is very problematic. Commissioner Harpootlian explained that there was no choice for some of the requirements, as they were coming from the State. He asked Barbara Goodrich how the Town should answer homeowners that no longer can provide enough water to sustain a Town approved landscape plan. Barbara Goodrich said it was a misunderstanding on the part of the homeowner that an appropriate looking landscape plan was the same as a commitment to them that the plan was affordable. She felt the Planning Commission, City Council, Planning Department, or State should never be in charge of how much water is used by a resident. The State's efficiency emphasis makes more sense than a local government deciding to go so very much further with their own ordinance. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Abraham asked for clarification on the intention of Public Education, page eight, item two in the proposed ordinance regarding audits for existing landscapes. Staff explained that the Town, in conjunction with Purissima Hills Water District and California Water Service, may develop a program to examine existing landscaping. This would present a good educational opportunity. If the City Council decided to move forward with the program, it would be an item budgeted by the Town. Commissioner Abraham did not support neither the audit program nor the deposit forfeiture and felt it went beyond the requirements of the State. He also did not support item (e) on page seven regarding Final Inspection and Occupancy, requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6,2010 Page 11 and certified prior to occupancy. He felt the ordinance should have the least possible imposition on the Town's residents and still fulfill the State requirements. Commission Collins felt that the Town should comply with the State requirements and supported the ordinance. However, it was not clear to her how withholding occupancy was furthering the goals of the ordinance. REOPENED PUBLIC HEARING Gary Waldeck, President, Board of Directors, Purissima Hills Water District, said because Los Altos Hills does not have an alternative ordinance currently, the State Model Ordinance is now and will stay in place until an ordinance at least as effective is adopted. The Town does not have a legal option to ignore the ordinance. The Water Conservation Committee tried to find a way to avoid the studies required by AB 1881. Their suggestion of an analysis conducted by a Landscape Architect followed by a water meter comparison was an easier method for compliance, yet does fulfill the State requirements. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Partridge was concerned that the Parcel Water Budget formula was overly complex. He felt that because newly constructed homes were more water efficient, utilizing new water saving appliances and devices, the 120-unit measure for indoor use was generous. Discussion ensued among the Commissioners and staff regarding the LUF and MDA computations in the Parcel Water Budget formula. Staff clarified that the Planning Commissioners had suggested using acreage minus the impervious area minus the conservation easement would equal the landscape area. Commissioner Abraham asked that Item (g) Deposit Required; Forfeiture of Deposit, and (i) Public Education, #2 on page eight and removed from the ordinance. Chairman Clow felt that the word "audit" was harsh and could be replaced with a less emotionally charged word or phrase such as "provide feedback" or"consult with". Commissioner Partridge asked for explanation of the landscape deposit. Staff explained that currently a minimum $5,000 landscape deposit is required to ensure that landscape screening associated with a project is present and alive after two years. The deposit is returned to the applicant after inspection. With the proposed Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, in addition to the plant inspection will be a comparison of the Parcel Water Budget to the actual amount of water used for compliance. Chairman Clow thought that the wording on page 4, under (c) Definitions, Special Landscape Area, the phrase "and where turf provides a playing surface" should be written to define the playing surface as a public facility. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6,2010 Page 12 Commissioner Abraham requested that the second paragraph on page 2, be stricken from the ordinance. Commissioner Collins and Chairman Clow felt the intent of the paragraph was ok. REOPENED PUBLIC HEARING Gary Waldeck said that the ordinance was not associated with the Purissima Hills Water District except for PHWD trying to assist the Town with ways to comply with the State Ordinance. He stated Purissima Hills Water District is actively searching for more water sources for the future. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY VOICE VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Harpootlian and seconded by Commissioner Collins to continue the discussion of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance to the June 3, 2010 meeting of the Planning Commission. AYES: Commissioners: Abraham, Collins, Harpootlian,Partridge, and Chairman Clow NOES: None This item will be continued to the June 3, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. 4. OLD BUSINESS —None 5. NEW BUSINESS—None 6. REPORTS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for April 15 —Commissioner Harpootlian 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for May 20—Commissioner Collins 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of March 25, 2010 minutes. MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Abraham to approve the March 25, 2010 minutes as corrected. Change the order of the words in line two,paragraph four, on page seven to "put in". AYES: Commissioners: Abraham, Collins, Harpootlian,Partridge, and Chairman Clow NOES: None Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6,2010 Page 13 8. REPORT FROM FAST TRACK MEETING—APRIL 6, 2010 8.1 LANDS OF PARIVASH TRUST, 12252 Menalto Drive; File #237-09-PM-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 4,954 square foot new two-story residence and 1,456 square foot basement (Maximum height: 30 feet). CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) (Staff-Brian Froelich) (approved with conditions). 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING—APRIL 6, 2010 9.1 LANDS OF HARTLEY, 13730 Wildflower Lane; File #18-10-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 514 square foot swimming pool and spa. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(e) (Staff-Nicole Horvitz) (approved with conditions). 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, d;f4e;C.a7(6144/ Victoria Ortland Planning Secretary