The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/06/2022Approved November 3, 2022 Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 6, 2022 Minutes Zoom Meeting and Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Via teleconference according to the Government Code Section 54953(e), Chair Waschura called the October 6, 2022 Planning Commission Regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura Staff: Planning Director Mangalam, Senior Planner Ling, Assistant Planner Perez, Administrative Clerk/Technician Brunner 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Chair Waschura opened PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR. No presentations from the floor. Chair Waschura closed PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR 3.1 Motion of the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Altos Hills to continue meeting virtually through teleconference meetings and making related findings pursuant to AB 361. 3.2 Approval of the September 1, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Patel moved to APPROVE the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Indaco. MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0 AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura NOES: None ABSTAIN: None RECUSE: None ABSENT: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ex parte: Chair Waschura had communications with Vice-Chair Bredo on Item 4.2. Commissioner Indaco had communications with Carol Gottlieb, from the Environmental Design & Protection Committee (EDPC), on Items 4.1 and 4.2. Vice-Chair Bredo had communications with Chair Waschura, Carol Gottlieb from the EDPC, and the appellant, Nicholas Moore, on Item 4.2. Commissioners Patel and Couperus had no ex parte communication. 2 Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2022 Minutes 4.1 24020 Oak Knoll Circle – File #SD22-0015 – Lands of Xie Site Development Permit for a new 1,350 sqft swimming pool and spa within a 1,976 sqft sunroom, deck, and related hardscape improvements; and a request for a grading policy exception for the swimming pool deck. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(e) Project Planner: Areli Perez Assistant Planner Perez presented the staff report. A question-and-answer session between the Commissioners and staff ensued. Chair Waschura opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Representing the owners, the applicants, Mark Helton and Stan Gamble introduced themselves and offered comments on behalf of the project. A question-and-answer session between the applicants and the Commissioners ensued. Public Comment No public comments. Chair Waschura closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission Discussion Commissioner Couperus shared a presentation and offered comments in support of the proposed project. Commissioner Indaco shared photos and offered comments. Vice-Chair Bredo shared her concerns regarding the glass and offered comments. Commissioner Patel shared his concerns regarding grading and glass and offered comments. Chair Waschura requested the applicants answer additional questions posed by the Commission. Chair Waschura shared his concerns regarding grading and glass and offered comments. Planning Director Mangalam asked the Commission if they would like to condition the landscape screening plan to return to staff for review or Planning Commission Chair Waschura shared with the Commission recommended conditions of approval for the project that address the items discussed during the hearing. After a motion was made and seconded but before the vote was recorded, Commissioner Indaco offered comments in support of her view regarding 30% of the project requesting a grading variance, which represented a large square footage, and noted other designs could have been considered. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Patel moved to adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) to APPROVE the Site Development Permit and the exception to the Town’s Grading Policy, subject to the listed conditions of approval, with the following conditions added: 1. no exterior lighting 2. landscape screening plan to include shrubs on 2 tiers of the retaining wall and to break up the south side of glass and to return to staff 3. no glass on any transom or kickplate panels on all four sides 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2022 Minutes 4. the use of the smart glass as exhibited in Supplemental 1 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Couperus. MOTION PASSED: 4-1-0-0-0 AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura NOES: Commissioner Indaco ABSTAIN: None RECUSE: None ABSENT: None 4.2 24490 Amigos Court – File #APL-0003 and APL22-0004 – Lands of Teng Appeal of conditions of approval for a landscape screening site development approval for a new residence at 24490 Amigos Court (SD22-0018) to modify Conditions #2, #3, and #4 for a 36- inch box size minimum for all screening trees and eight (8) 36-inch box Canyon Live Oaks along the northern property line. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304(b) Project Planner: Elaine Ling Senior Planner Ling presented the staff report. A question-and-answer session between the Commissioners and staff ensued. Chair Waschura opened the PUBLIC HEARING. One appellant, James and Karen Wolfe, introduced themselves and offered comments in support of their appeal requests. Mike Dillon, representing the appellant James and Karen Wolfe, shared a presentation and offered comments in support of their appeal requests. The second appellant, Nicholas Moore, offered comments in support of his appeal requests. A question-and-answer session between the appellants and the Commissioners ensued. Public Comment Barry Trost, a resident of Los Altos Hills, offered comments regarding the driveway depiction. Lulu Teng and Felix Lo, the homeowners of the appealed project, offered comments in support of their original landscape screening plans and requested a denial to the appeal. Allen Yu, a neighbor to the Amigos Court owners, offered comments regarding his concerns over the fire hazard dense tree and vegetation plantings would pose and against the appellants’ requests for such. John Aldrich, landscape architect to the Amigos Court homeowners, offered comments in support of the revised landscape screening plan Revision 1 from the homeowner and requested a denial to the appeal. David Beckham, representing Kielty Arborists, for the Amigos Court property, shared a presentation and offered comments in favor of 24-inch box replacing trees instead of 36-inch box sizes. Kathryn Li, a neighbor to Amigos Court, offered comments in support of the revised landscape screening plan Revision 1. 4 Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2022 Minutes The Wolfe/Dillon appellant team offered rebuttal comments. Nicholas Moore offered rebuttal comments. Chair Waschura closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission Discussion Commissioner Indaco shared a presentation with photos and highlighted her concerns regarding the proposed lighting, tree, and shrub selections. Vice-Chair Bredo and Chair Waschura asked Planning Director Mangalam about the lighting issues raised by Commissioner Indaco. Planning Director Mangalam responded that the owners were working with staff to reduce the number of proposed lights. Commissioner Couperus offered comments in favor of the approved original screening plans. He noted that the appellants’ expectation to not see or hear their neighbor as unreasonable and shared his experience with planted 24” boxes trees recovering faster than 36” boxed trees and supported smaller sized plantings. Commissioner Patel offered comments in agreement with Commissioner Couperus, noted that the Town did not have plans that required applicants to hermitically seal their property from their neighbors, and further noted that the appellants’ arguments for noise abatement for children playing in the front yard as offensive. He noted residents did not have the right to dictate a neighbor’s screening selections; that it was the choice of the property owner, and suggested the appellants plant their own trees to achieve the total screening they expected to have. Vice-Chair Bredo offered comments in agreement with the previous Commissioners’ comments and in favor of Revision 1. Commissioner Indaco asked staff about the difference between the two revisions and staff responded. Chair Waschura offered comments in support of continuing the process of working with staff to complete the applicant’s landscape screening plan according to the conditions of approval, specifically noting the trophy lighting on either side of the picture window should be aimed downward. Planning Director Mangalam invited Assistant Planner Perez to provide clarifying comments regarding previously approved lighting. Chair Waschura advised the appellants they have 21 days to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Patel moved to adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) to DENY the appeals and UPHOLD the conditions of approval #2, #3, and #4 made on August 16, 2022 at the Site Development Hearing with Landscape Plan Revision #1 (Attachment 9) and that the applicant work with staff to reduce the outdoor lighting to comply with the current outdoor lighting policy. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bredo. MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0 AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 5 Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2022 Minutes RECUSE: None ABSENT: None 5. REPORTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS 5.1 Past Meeting • September 15, 2022 – Commissioner Couperus Commissioner Couperus provided a summary of the past City Council meeting. 5.2 Upcoming Meeting Assignments • October 20, 2022 – Vice-Chair Waschura • November 17, 2022 (unconfirmed) – Commissioner Indaco • December 15, 2022 (unconfirmed) – Vice-Chair Bredo Chair Waschura confirmed upcoming meeting assignments. Planning Director Mangalam noted the upcoming special joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting on October 21, 2022. Chair Waschura noted Commissioner Patel's request to switch his January assignment to the City Council with another Commissioner due to travel. 6. REPORT ON PAST FAST TRACK/SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS 6.1 AUGUST 30, 2022 27385 Deer Springs Way – File #ZP22-0008 – Lands of Angquist Zoning Permit to approve a front yard fence and driveway gate requiring an exception from minimum requirements. 6-foot fence and driveway gate are proposed 30 feet from the centerline of Deer Springs Way, where 45 feet is required. APPROVED 6.2 SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 CANCELLED 6.3 SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 CANCELLED 6.4 SEPTEMBER 20, 2022 CANCELLED 6.5 SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 CANCELLED 6.6 OCTOBER 4, 2022 CANCELLED Planning Director Mangalam provided highlights on past Site Development/Fast Track hearings and noted that all but the August 30 dates had cancellations. 7. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT Planning Director Mangalam noted staff will be working on two ordinances: SB9, which expires October 2023, and the Fence Ordinance, and requested the Planning Commission create two ad hoc subcommittees to cover each of the ordinances. Commissioner Patel indicated he would like to work on the SB9 Ordinance. Chair Waschura also volunteered to work on the SB9 Ordinance. 6 Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2022 Minutes Commissioner Indaco indicated she would like to work on the Fence Ordinance. Vice-Chair Bredo also volunteered to work on the Fence Ordinance. Commissioner Couperus requested the Town formally acknowledge the significant contribution of a particular past planning commissioner. Chair Waschura requested Commissioner Couperus draft a letter to present at the next Planning Commission meeting to recommend this person for a pathway naming, listing reasons to support that recommendation, note this is a City Council decision, and get approval from the Pathways Committee. This letter would be included as part of the Consent Calendar to forward a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Indaco asked Planning Director Mangalam if the Planning Commission would be overstepping the volunteer committee by making a recommendation. Planning Director Mangalam noted that there was no procedure, either in the municipal code or in the general plan, regarding naming of the pathways and that this situation was not a land use issue. She suggested to have some sort of policy in place regarding the naming of the paths and that it would be best if the Pathways Committee made the recommendations. Commissioner discussion regarding pathway naming ensued. 8. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:19PM by Chair Waschura. Respectfully submitted, Keren Brunner Planning Technician