Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/3/2010 • Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 08/05/2010 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, June 3, 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; Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner; and Victoria Ortland,Planning Secretary. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR—None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS ' Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Commissioner Collins had attended the Subdivision Committee public hearing for Item 3.1; Commissioner Partridge had met with the applicant and architect for Item 3.2; and Chairman Clow had met with the applicant for Item 3.1. 3.1 LANDS OF INCERPI FAMILY SURVIVOR'S TRUST, (APN 336-20-033), 24500 Voorhees Drive; File #228-09-IS-TM-ND; A review by the Planning Commission of a request for a two lot subdivision of an existing 2.951 acre parcel. The property is zoned R-A (Residential-Agricultural). CEQA Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration(Staff-Nicole Horvitz). Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report for the two-lot subdivision on the 2.951 acre site. The resulting parcel one would consist of 1.741 acres with a 25.9 percent slope and parcel two of 1.210 acres with a 17.7 percent slope.New easement dedications on parcel one would include an additional width of five feet to the existing sewer easement, a 15 foot wide PG&E easement, and a 25 foot ingress/egress and utility easement to allow access to parcel two. On May 18, 2010, the Subdivision Committee meeting was held to review the project. A neighbor on an abutting property, Bill Silver of Miraloma Way, expressed concerns over future development on parcel two; including drainage, landscape screening, and the possibility of headlights illuminating his house from the new driveway. Al and Nancy Traficanti of Voorhees Drive spoke in support of the project. Prior to the meeting, emails had been received from two neighbors on Hilltop Drive who were concerned about drainage. The Environmental Design and Protection Committee's written recommendation was for the dedication of an Open Space Easement over the southern portion of the property that contained a tributary of Summerhill Planning Commission Minutes Approved 08/05/2010 June 3,2010 Page 2 Creek. The Open Space Committee's review of the application had concluded that an Open Space Easement was not required because the area was not within an Open Space Conservation Area and not contiguous with other open space easements. Commissioner Abraham asked if PG&E held exclusive rights to the easement along the southern property line of parcel one. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Rod Incerpi, applicant, said that the subdivision application was a straightforward project. Mark Helton, Civil Engineer, responded to Commissioner Abraham's question stating that the PG&E easement would be available for use by other utility companies. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, said that a huge portion of the property had a 30 to 50 percent slope to a major drainage area with oak woodlands at the bottom. The Environmental Design and Protection Committee disagreed with the Open Space Committee's conclusion that an open space easement was not required for the area, especially along the oak woodland area. Bill Silver, Miraloma Way, felt that installation of sufficient landscape screening and drainage were major concerns in the development of the subdivision. Headlights from vehicles utilizing the new driveway will shine into the bedroom windows of his home, if existing trees to be removed are not replaced. Prevention of any drainage problems on his property caused by construction is important. Because the site is very visible, any new residence should be designed and built with the contours of the land. Chairman Clow said that Bill Silver's comments would be included in the public record for future reference. Emily Cheng, Voorhees Drive, requested installation of landscape screening between her property and the new driveway after the subdivision is done. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Harpootlian said that the landscape screening would be addressed during the site development review. After the pine trees that currently provide screening between the Cheng's property line and the new driveway are removed, the landscape screening must be restored. He was surprised that the Open Space Committee did not request an open space easement but felt their recommendation should be respected. Commissioners Collins and Abraham recommended approval of the project. Commissioner Partridge felt the recommendation of the Open Space Committee should not be overruled. He asked about the proximity of the new driveway to the Cheng's property, removal of the existing pine trees, and future landscape screening. • Planning Commission Minutes Approved 08/05/2010 June 3,2010 Page 3 Staff explained that landscape screening is typically not required at the subdivision stage but at the site development review. The pine trees are not on the applicant's property according to the survey. REOPENED PUBLIC HEARING Emily Cheng said she did not want any drainage water from the applicant's property diverted to her property. Mark Helton said that water from the subdivision lots would not enter the Cheng's property. Sandy Humphries said that it was the Environmental Design and Protection Committee that oversaw creeks. She reiterated that a major drainage and creek area was present on the subdivision property and must be preserved and protected with native plants and vegetation. She felt it was vital to acknowledge and care for areas that may be affected by West Nile Virus. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Harpootlian asked if the creek was considered an established creek with an applied 25-foot creek easement. Staff said that the drainage channel was a tributary of Summerhill Creek, not the main creek, and an existing sewer line ran along the bank of the channel. When conducting review of a property for possible dedication of an open space easement, criteria considered included: location of creeks, the General Plan Land Use Diagram's Open Space Conservation Area, steeps slopes, oak tree coverage, and contiguity with other open space easements. Isolated pockets of dedicated open space are not ideal and the area is not located within a designated OSCA on the Town's Land Use Diagram. The Open Space Committee's recommendation recognized the presence of oak trees and steep slopes but did not require an open space easement. Chairman Clow supported the project. He felt that Bill Silver and Emily Cheng presented valid concerns about landscape screening and the issue would be discussed during the site development process. He respected the recommendation made by the Open Space Committee. MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY VOICE VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Abraham and seconded by Commissioner Collins to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program as described in Attachment three, and approve the Tentative Map based on the Findings of Approval in Attachment Two and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment One. AYES: Commissioners: Abraham, Collins, Harpootlian, Partridge, and Chairman Clow NOES: None This item will be forwarded to a future meeting of the City Council. • Planning Commission Minutes Approved 08/05/2010 June 3,2010 Page 4 3.2 LANDS OF ZIOHANA 693, LLC, 14160 Donelson Place; File #57-10-ZP-SD- GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a new 11,960 square foot two story residence (maximum height 32') with a 2,390 square foot basement, 1,202 square foot swimming pool, and 734 square foot pool house. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) and (e) (Staff-Nicole Horvitz). Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report for the new estate home request. A lot merger had been approved in December 2009 to create a new 2.149 acre lot on Donelson Place. The existing development was proposed for demolition and replacement with a new 11,900 square foot two-story residence with a basement, pool, pool house, and shade pavilion. Setbacks had been increased to for allow for an increased height, and the project complied with the Town's ordinances and policies. Fifty-two trees, 13 of which are eucalyptus, were proposed to be removed. No existing oak trees on the site are scheduled for removal. An arborist's report and tree protection plan had been submitted. Commissioner Partridge asked about the possible amount of storm water run-off from the property. Staff explained that storm water would be directed to a retention basin and energy dissipater designed for a ten year flood. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Kevin Maxey, Architect, offered to respond to questions from the Planning Commissioners, staff, and audience members. Commissioner Harpootlian asked about the impervious and pervious surfaces used in the hardscaped areas. Tom Klope, Landscape Architect, explained that the driveway would be constructed of a pervious surface, the walkways and outdoor pool area would be stone on concrete, and the pathways around the property would be made of crushed stone. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Abraham to approve the requested Site Development Permit for a new residence, swimming pool, and pool house subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment One. AYES: Commissioners: Abraham, Collins, Harpootlian, Partridge and Chairman Clow NOES: None This item will be forwarded to a future meeting of the City Council. 1 • Planning Commission Minutes Approved 08/05/2010 June 3,2010 Page 5 3.3 LANDS OF PURISSMIA HILLS WATER DISTRICT (APPLICANT: T-MOBILE), 27299 Arastradero Road; File#41-10-CUP-VAR; A request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit to co-locate on an existing wireless communication facility. The applicant is also requesting a variance to locate the ground equipment cabinets within the setbacks. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15301 (a) (Staff- Nicole Horvitz). Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report for the T-Mobile co-location of six antennas on an existing monopine and a setback variance for location of four ground equipment cabinets. The size and shape of the property prevent any possible location for equipment cabinets out of the setbacks. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Talin Aghazaria, representative for T-Mobile concurred with the staff report and conditions of approval. Commissioner Abraham asked if the existing razor wire fencing surrounding the property was required by T-Mobile. Talin Agazaria stated that the razor wire was not a necessary feature for T-Mobile's installation. Gary Waldeck, Viscaino Road and President, Board of Directors, Purissima Hills Water District, said that the razor wire could be an installation for security reasons and the issue would be brought up for discussion at a future Purissima Hills Water District meeting. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY VOICE VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Partridge and seconded by Commissioner Collins to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the requested Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit and Variance subject to the Conditions of Approval and Findings of Approval in Attachments One and Two. AYES: Commissioners: Abraham, Collins, Harpootlian,Partridge, and Chairman Clow NOES: None This item will be forwarded to a future meeting of the City Council. 3.4 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) Continued from May 6, 2010. Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, presented the changes made to the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance as recommended at the May 6, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. A letter from the • Planning Commission Minutes Approved 08/05/2010 June 3,2010 Page 6 Purissima Hills Water District, received after that meeting, recommended that a 1.0 Water Conservation Factor be followed for the Parcel Water Budget. Commissioner Harpootlian explained that the Town's proposed ordinance was much less complicated and bureaucratic than the State Model Ordinance. Chairman Clow commented that the proposed ordinance was designed specifically for Los Altos Hills and was better suited for the Town than the State Model Ordinance. Commissioner Harpootlian recommended using a 1.0 Water Conservation Factor with penalties if exceeded and a warning statement of high water usage provided to applicants if the estimated water usage for their landscape plan was more than .8. He requested quarterly reports be presented to the Planning Commission by the Planning Department regarding submitted landscape plans. Chairman Clow suggested that the applicant and landscape designer calculate the Water Budget and estimated cost of water use of their landscape plan. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Barbara Goodrich, Hill Way, said she viewed State mandates very skeptically, by her own practical experience. She thought the proposed Town Water Ordinance was going way beyond what the State required for water efficiency. The Planning Commission and City Council should be protective of the citizens of Los Altos Hills and not make a tough situation worse. The Town Ordinance required water conservation, forfeiture of deposits, lower Water Budgets, and review of existing landscaping. She felt the postcard mailed to residents did not provide enough information regarding the proposed ordinance and did not reveal that the Town's ordinance went further than the State's ordinance. The provision giving the Planning Director authority to grant certain residents more than the 120 unit allotment of water for indoor use and causing residents to beg for water was not good. Commissioner Harpootlian asked Barbara Goodrich if the State's Water Ordinance requirement for installation of a separate meter for landscape water use would be an acceptable alternative. Barbara Goodrich replied that she wanted as minimal an impact on Town residents as possible. The same result as the State Ordinance could be achieved without the "water police", penalties, and emphasis on water efficiency instead of water conservation. Gary Waldeck, Viscaino Road and President, Board of Directors, Purissima Hills Water District, said the Town Water Ordinance was much improved and very well done. The ordinance would help reduce wasting water while being generous because of the nature of the landscapes in the Town. The Water Conservation Factor was designed to be flexible. The State requirement was met at 1.0, but the WC Factor may be adjusted over time depending on the effectiveness of the ordinance and water needs. He had questions about the proposed ordinance related to non- ' compliance with the requirements of an approved landscape screening plan, forfeiture of the landscape deposit, and future water usage amounts for that landscape. • Planning Commission Minutes Approved 08/05/2010 June 3,2010 Page 7 Commissioner Harpootlian stated that high water users had been addressed in the State Model Water Ordinance. The Water Conservation Committee's recommendation for the Town's Water Ordinance was for information to be provided to high water users based on lot size, etc. for a suggested Water Budget. The information would be available to the Purissima Hills Water District. He hoped that water bills would inform the customer when their water usage was in the highest tier and at what percentage above the Water Budget. Gary Waldeck said that was an interesting idea and should be explored. Commissioner Collins felt that an ordinance with a Water Conservation Factor of 1.0 would not really conserve water for Los Altos Hills. The effort and time taken by applicants and staff to submit and review landscape and irrigation plans, does not seem worth the trouble if the water savings is so small. To make a difference in water conservation a Water Conservation Factor lower than 1.0 must be used in the formula. Discussion ensued regarding anticipated future water supply, demand, and price. Sandy Humphries, Fremont Road, said that many landscape plan submittals, especially for large homes, are showing new wells as a water source. They may not feel affected by the water shortage. Wells may need to be an issue of discussion because there is no control over the origin of this water that belongs to everyone. John Radford, La Paloma Road, said his water bills had been huge following the installation of his landscaping. After putting in a drip irrigation system, removing half of the lawn, and visits from Purissima Hills Water District, he still struggles with water. He felt it was important to work with applicants and help them understand what is needed to develop landscaping that will be consistent with the goals of efficiency, conservation, and affordability. He encouraged the Planning Commission to work in partnership with the residents that were trying to install landscape plans that effectively conserve water. He wanted the Water Ordinance to be efficient and easy to understand, have no penalties included, allow larger lots to be allocated more water, and not be applicable to existing homes. Chairman Clow clarified with John Radford that he wanted any reference, which applied to current homeowners not going through the planning process, to be removed from the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Abraham agreed with the removal of any reference to current homeowners. Commissioner Harpootlian explained that in addition to the requirements for homeowners that are submitting landscaping plans, existing homeowners would have calculations available for determining their property's Water Budget. Staff stated that the public education part of the Water Ordinance affects existing homeowners. On page eight was language explaining that the Town, in conjunction with Purissima Hills Water District, may develop a pilot program relating to existing homeowners who use an amount of water 80 percent over their Parcel Water Budget. Included could be an outreach program to assist them to reduce water usage. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 08/05/2010 June 3,2010 Page 8 Barbara Goodrich felt the Town's calculation of a Parcel Water Budget for each property, examination of water bills, and outreach to homeowners was the beginning of policing water usage. Jitze Couperus, Page Mill Road, said developers put in lawns and landscaping for curb appeal to help sell homes. He suggested assignment of a water allotment number at the time of development that stays with the house and is required to be disclosed at the sale. Chairman Clow said that existing homes have current water bills for disclosure of water usage. New homes would have a projected amount of water usage calculated for the landscape plan, so perhaps the numbers were already available. Staff replied that estimated water usage would be part of the permanent permit record the Town keeps on each property. A potential homebuyer, exercising due diligence, would come to Town Hall to review permit records and see the estimated water usage for a property. Chairman Clow suggested that the annual estimated water usage be printed on the landscape plan. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Collins said Los Altos Hills was behind most California Cities in the requirement for submittal of both landscape and irrigation plans. She was very disappointed in the Water Conservation Factor of 1.0 because it would do little good toward actual water conservation. The ordinance would become an efficiency "practice" and not a conservation ordinance. If there was no water conservation,the penalties, reviews, and audits should be eliminated from the ordinance as it is then an introduction on how to develop a water budget. Staff should not be required to go through the effort to follow up on landscape reviews because the landscape plan was an educational tool. The ordinance should be made as simple as possible. Applicants would receive a water use estimate from which they could find out, from their water company, what the expected water cost would be. A Water Conservation Factor of.6 would be needed to make any difference in water usage. Commissioner Partridge felt that a developer's motivation to install a lawn, with no thought to the cost of water, was a concern. A Water Conservation Factor of 1.0 would not produce conservation, but a factor of.8 would make a difference. He proposed the alternate wording for the Public Education section, "Starting on January 1, 2012, the Town may, in conjunction with water purveyors, develop and administer a voluntary program to review water usage for existing landscapes". He could not support the ordnance with a 1.0 Water Conservation Factor. Commissioner Abraham supported Commissioner Partridge's suggestion regarding the Public Education wording modification. He could not support any penalty or required deposit. He felt that the 1.0 Water Conservation Factor would make a difference in water use reduction, because it is the State's requirement. The residents of Los Altos Hills should not be penalized to a greater extent than other residents of the State. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 08/05/2010 June 3,2010 Page 9 Commissioner Harpootlian did not believe that the Water Ordinance would meet the State requirements if the penalty were removed. Without the penalty, the audits must be reinstated along with the associated bureaucracy. The State required an ordinance equally as efficient as the State Model Ordinance, which used audits to determine water efficiency. He was agreeable with a Water Conservation Factor of.8; although a 1.0 factor was fine. If 1.0 was adopted, he wanted language added to encourage landscape plans to achieve a .8 factor. Staff clarified that when a landscape screening plan was approved, a landscape screening deposit was required to assure that the landscape survives for two years. There was no other penalty; the irrigation efficiency component will be reviewed as part of the landscape deposit. Chairman Clow said the major water conservation would take place through the pricing structure. He wanted no appearance in the ordinance that the Town was reaching out to existing homeowners to force water conservation upon them. He asked staff to review the ordinance for any wording that could be interpreted in that way. The expected water cost for a landscape should be made as obvious as possible and the landscape plan should include the expected annual water usage cost. He favored the Water Conservation Factor of 1.0 for the Parcel Water Budget. The word penalty should be removed from the ordinance; "forfeiture of deposit" was acceptable. MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AMENDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Harpootlian, and amended by Commissioner Partridge to forward the recommendation to the City Council to adopt the resolution approving the proposed amendments to Sections 10-2.801, 10-2.802, and 10-2.809 of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code; The Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, with these amendments: that the wording for the Public Education section, Item 2, read"Starting on January 1, 2012,the Town may, in conjunction with water purveyors, develop and administer a voluntary program to review water usage for existing landscapes"; that the word penalty be removed from the ordinance; that the landscape plans be submitted with an Estimated Total Water Use not exceeding 80% of the Parcel Water Budget; however, the enforcement and release of landscape deposit will be based on the Parcel Water Budget (100%); and clarification language to subsection E adding the ordinance title "Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance" replacing "ordinance". Staff clarified that the cover sheet of the landscape plan shall have listed the estimated annual units of water used and the annual cost of that water. Commissioner Abraham clarified that the design criteria would be .8; a restriction beyond the State requirement. AYES: Commissioners: Collins, Harpootlian, and Partridge NOES: Commissioner Abraham and Chairman Clow This item will be forwarded to a future meeting of the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 08/05/2010 June 3,2010 Page 10 3.5 CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED FAST TRACK GUIDE FOR NEW RESIDENCES. File #1-10-MISC. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per 15378 (b) (2) (Staff-Nicole Horvitz). Debbie Pedro, Planning Director,presented the staff report for the proposed Fast Track Guide for New Residences brochure. The Town used the former Design Guidelines as part of the planning process from 1994 until it was repealed in 2001. In May of 2009, the City Council voted to establish an ad hoc committee to update the former Design Guidelines as an educational tool to help residents, architects, and designers. The purpose of the Fast Track Guide for New Residences is to assist people in understanding the basic philosophies behind the Town's General Plan, Site Development, and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Fast Track Guide has improved format,updated information, and a project checklist. The checklist helps determine how closely a development project complies with the document's 4 goals and 40 guidelines; which are basic, sound design principles of urban design. Each development guideline has an established point value from 1 to 5. Projects receiving 14 points or fewer would qualify for a Fast Track hearing; projects receiving 15 to 21 points would have the option to revise and improve the plan design; and projects exceeding 22 points would require review by the Planning Commission. The Fast Track Guide for New Residences would be used solely to determine whether a project was eligible for a Fast Track public hearing. If the Fast Track Guide for New Residences were adopted, amendments to the Los Altos Hills Municipal code would be necessary for references to the former Design Guidelines. Commissioner Collins commented that the requirement status on page 8, under Goal 2, Al, regarding houses on ridgelines and hilltops was confusing; and the current Green Point Rating system included B2 and B3. Listed under Goad 3, B3 seemed to be more suitable to be placed under Goal 1; El is a critical item and should have a 5 point designation; and E2 seemed repetitive of Goal 1, Al. She felt that listed under Goal 4, B1 should be removed as well as page 27 with the corresponding language; B2 should have DA spelled out as development area; and Cl should contain the correction for the word usage of "too". On page 6, the illustration depicting a 35% slope is too specific when used only as an example. The detail of the background graphic under the flow chart on page 7 is distracting and should be changed. Commissioner Harpootlian requested verification of the MDA and MFA numbers used with the illustration on page 6. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Carol Gottlieb, Summerhill Avenue, asked that Robert Frank and Carrasco & Associates Architects receive credit for the illustrations in the brochure. The text on Page 13, under C, mentioned pathways easements as a way to preserve open space, but there is no reference to pathways easements under 1. Sandra Humphries, Fremont Road, felt that language should be added to the text on page 3 stating that farm animals and horses were allowed in Los Altos Hills, along with a statement regarding the presence of abundant wildlife in the Town. In the reference to Heritage Oaks on page 32, a statement should also be included explaining that any tree with a 22" or larger trunk can be declared a Heritage Tree by resolution of the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 08/05/2010 June 3,2010 Page 11 Commissioner Collins thought that the addition of the word wildlife to the end of sentence 1, in paragraph 2, on page 3 would be a sufficient change. Duffy Price, Anacapa Drive, requested that footnotes be added to the document crediting the section of the Municipal Code, Site Development Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, or General Plan referenced in the Goal or Philosophy used in the text of the page. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioners Collins, Harpootlian, and Partridge supported the document. Commissioner Abraham said he could support the Fast Track Guide for New Residences as a good handout for building a new residence or major addition. He would not support either the document used as design guidelines or the point system as a requirement for Fast Track approval. In recent years, Town-wide surveys have been conducted that confirmed resident support for the present Fast Track process and the elimination of the former Design Guidelines as criteria for project approval. Chairman Clow felt that using the Fast Track Guide point system may prevent project controversy by demonstrating how closely a new residence does or does not adhere to the Town's Codes and Ordinances. Footnotes referencing the General Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, and Site Development Ordinance should be included on the appropriate pages. MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY VOICE VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Partridge to forward the recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Proposed Fast Track Guide for New Residences with the following changes: on page 3, add the word wildlife to the end of sentence 1, in paragraph 2; on page 7, edit the background graphic to be less distracting; on page 9, under Goal 3, change El from 3 points to 5 points; on page 10, Goal 4, in Cl correct the typographical error to read"too", and eliminate B1; eliminate page 27; credit Robert Frank and Carrasco & Associates Architects as the illustrators; add footnote references where applicable; and direct staff to prepare amendments to the Municipal Code as determined to be necessary. AYES: Commissioners: Collins,Harpootlian, Partridge, and Chairman Clow NOES: Commissioner Abraham This item will forwarded to a future meeting of the City Council. 4. OLD BUSINESS—None 5. NEW BUSINESS—None • • Planning Commission Minutes Approved 08/05/2010 June 3,2010 Page 12 6. REPORTS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 6.1 Planning Commission Report for May 13 —Special Meeting 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for May 20—Commissioner Collins 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for June 17—Commissioner Clow 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of May 6, 2010 minutes. MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Abraham and seconded by Commissioner Partridge to approve the May 6, 2010 minutes. AYES: Commissioners: Abraham, Collins, Harpootlian, Partridge, and Chairman Clow NOES: None 8. REPORT FROM FAST TRACK MEETING—MAY 11, 2010 8.1 LANDS OF LEE, 27751 Lupine Road; File #45-10-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 6,266 square foot new residence (Maximum height: 24 feet). CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) (staff-Brian Froelich) (approved with conditions). 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING—MAY 18, 2010 9.1 LANDS OF CADEDDU, 11520 Old Ranch Road; File #48-10-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape screening for a 6,091 square foot two story new residence and swimming pool approved on April 22, 2008. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304 (b) (staff-Nicole Horvitz) (approved with conditions). 10. REPORT FROM SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING—MAY 18, 2010 10.1 LANDS OF INCERPI SURVIVOR'S TRUST, (APN 336-20-033), 24500 Voorhees Drive; File #228-09-IS-TM-ND; A review by the Subdivision Committee of a request for a two lot subdivision of an existing 2.951 acre parcel. The property is zoned R-A (Residential-Agricultural). CEQA Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration(staff-Nicole Horvitz). The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:51 p.m. cespec fully p-ftet —' Victoria Ortland Planning Secretary