Claire Lai: Hey, Jim, if you're talking, we don't hear you online.
Speaker 1 (Council Chambers): Hello, Claire, is that you?
Claire Lai: Yes, this is Claire.
Council Chambers: Okay, I just.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): to make sure that everyone's connected and can hear fine. Is there… if there's anyone online that's having difficulty, please raise your hand, and we'll see if we can find someone to assist you.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Otherwise, we'll just continue moving on.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): There were two subdivision proposals. One was for 12 one-acre home sites, and the other was for a hundred and… and…
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): 119, home sites, and the process for today isn't to do any approvals or, figuring out
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): if they can do… if people can do this kind of development in town, it's really an opportunity for different committees in town, pathways, open space, environmental design and protection, building planning, and the planning commission.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): To ask questions of the applicant, get their questions out in… and then have an opportunity to hear from residents about this proposal, so that we can make sure that the staff is aware of all the concerns.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): That way, as they then move forward through processing the application and doing more with it, they will be aware of what all of our collective concerns are, and hopefully address all of those issues.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): So, the… what we're going to do is first hear a staff presentation about the proposal. If I'm not mistaken, we're going to do one of the proposals at a time. There will be some duplication, obviously, because there's a lot of similarity in the two proposals.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): And after the staff report, then we will go through each of the different committees and constituencies up here to see… and they will alert the applicant and everyone to the issues that come from that quarter, so to speak.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): And then, we will ask the applicant to address any of those things that they wish to address.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): And then we'll move on to the second proposal and do the very same thing.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Are there any questions up on the dais?
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Well, why don't we then move right along into the first, staff presentation? Jay, do you want to hold this, or could I hold… I see. Jonathan will be giving the presentation.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Take it away, Jonathan.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Thank you, Commissioner Waschura. Thank you, Subdivision Committee. So first, I'm going to start with.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Some background on the Subdivision committee and discuss why we're here.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): So, this is required by the municipal Code and the Subdivision ordinance.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): And the town is required to schedule a subdivision committee.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): That is composed of the Community Development Director, Public Works Director, a Planning Commissioner, and then one member of each of the Committees, EDPC, Open Space and Pathways Committee.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): The Municipal Code requires this subdivision committee to be formed, and for the committee to review an application within 45 days of receiving that tentative map application.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): The code doesn't say that that application needs to be
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): complete or thorough, or address all the town's questions before the town reviews it. It's just within 45 days of receiving that application.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): So that's why we're here this evening.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): The Subdivision Committee's, purpose is… this committee meeting is to gather preliminary information on the tentative MAP application.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): No discretionary action will be taken, and just so the audience and the committee knows, the application is incomplete at this time.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): A written report of the Subdivision committee's recommendations will be provided within 5 days to the subdivider and the Subdivider's engineer.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): So the… we're looking first at the 12-lot subdivision proposal at 28001 Elena Road, file number TM26-0005.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): a bit on the subdivision process. We are in the tentative map phase, which is the first step in subdivision. It is a… it's a design and a conceptual look at what that subdivision is going to look like.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Which is going to inform how the final map is drawn. The final map is going to include, the legal descriptions of the property, all of the easements, and ensuring that the town's land surveyor,
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Finds it in good form, but we're still in that first phase in collecting information and making sure all that bare-bones information is on the tentative map.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Once it progresses to the final map, and the town, land surveyor and the city engineer have looked at it, the city council has looked at it, it will go off to recording. After recording, that subdivision becomes final.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): So, looking closely at the tentative map process where we are today, we're still in completeness review, and we're holding our subdivision committee meeting.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): After the application is deemed complete, we will be looking at compliance, where staff will be looking at whether or not the application complies with the general plan and the zoning ordinance.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Following that, there will be two opportunities for public hearing. First, at the Planning Commission, who will provide a recommendation to the City Council. Final decision rests with the City Council.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): We discussed the Subdivision committee.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Moving on to the committee notice, a notice was
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): provided to all neighbors within 500 feet of the project site 10 days before this meeting. The notice was also provided to the subdivider, the applicant, to the abutting jurisdictions listed on screen, and to the affected public utility companies.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Here's the project location at 28001 Elena Road.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): APN is 18202016.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): It is an approximately 43-acre property.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): South of, the Twin Oaks Subdivision.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Elena Road is to the south of the project site, we are west of 280.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Existing conditions on the site, again, just shy of 43 acres, 42.74. It is zoned Residential Agricultural, RA, and is subject to a Williamson Act contract for agricultural land preservation.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): There are a number of easements on the property today. There's a pathways easement, which we'll look at later in the discussion.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Pedestrian pathways easement, there's a private access easement, there's public utility easements, that are also shown on the plans and in the parcel map for this property.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Here's the proposed subdivision for the 12-lot proposal.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): So, lots 1 through 11 are roughly 1 acre, and the remaining portion, which is the agricultural, lot, which will have the agricultural uses, is over 30 acres.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): So now we're looking at a close-up view of each one of those sections.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): So this is lots 1 through 4.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): That is south of the… The Perlagos property at 28011 Elena Road.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): So you're getting, a feel of the lot size, the…
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): The tentative conceptual access to each one of these properties and the single-family residence that's on each one of those properties.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Moving down to Elena Road, this is those three lots along Elena.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): A land on the road and the corresponding private access easement leads to that residence, existing residence, on 28011.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): You're also seeing the road that would go direct to the agricultural Portion of the property.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Which is right here.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Where my cursor is hovering?
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): And now we're looking closely at the agricultural portion of the property, specifically the northwestern portion.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Where they have a farm equipment building.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Primary residence, some accessory structures, what's labeled as a secondary farmhouse residence.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): And a proposed road leading to… The Twin Oaks property.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): So again, this… the purpose of the Subdivision committee meeting is to gather preliminary information about the application.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): And some of those topics, are included on screen that the Subdivision committee
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Can ask questions on, and assess the application for circulation, ingress and egress, grading, street alignment, identification of easements, frontage improvements, tree removal, so on and so forth.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): The next steps for this tenant map application. So, presently, the application has been deemed complete, and it was received on June 26th. The town provided its incomplete letter to the subdivivider on July 24th.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): And upon receiving a resubmittal, the Town will conduct another 30-day review of the application.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Once the application is deemed complete, the town will review the application for compliance with the general plan, the zoning ordinance, and Subdivision ordinance, and receive comments from other agencies, including County Fire.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): That concludes staff's presentation. I'll pass it back to the Subdivision committee.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Anything you wanted to add at this time?
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): not specifically to staff's presentation, but I do think that from the town's perspective.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): if there's no other comments at this point on the presentation, certainly we would go through each of the individual items associated with our individual disciplines, and with that, I would kick that process off, so…
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): One of the things that we noted about this application, unlike the subdivision application that we received, for the Twin Oaks property.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): This application, is, looking not only for the subdivision, but is actually also looking for the development of specific units, so I'd make that, distinction for this particular… these two applications.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): that we're hearing today versus the prior applications we've heard at the last Subdivision committee meeting we had earlier in April.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Things missing from our subdivision checklist include the letter of authorization, and so we would look to see and have the applicant respond to
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): You know, these things that are typical of other applications and explain their ownership. Potentially, the title report would be able to help with that, so looking for information there. There's also some information we'd like clarified as it relates to slope density calculations.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): topography, relating to the survey, slope of roadways, and classification of roadways on the map. We'd like, more information, from some other things that we think, we're maybe missing, included in the site development checklist, which are
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Related to application fees, for the site plan, the grading plan, and some of the other things that the tentative map process would invoke.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Staff is also looking at the project to be able to respond to the subdivision ordinance, and identify issues, with
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): minimum roadway widths, and the 160-foot, diameter circle requirement, that the Subdivision ordinance asks for for any, site to be able to make sure that,
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): any additional structures developed on it would be able to be maintained within the site with applicable clearances around it, so we'd look for more information there. We'd also be looking for more information
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): On, comments that have been received from the, reviewing agencies, like the County Fire, Engineering, Sewer, and Geotechnical, that are often our third-party reviewers.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): We'd also have some questions about the existing Williamson Act contract, and the proposed exchanges of, easements between the Twin Oaks property that also has proposed tentative maps associated with it, and how those,
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Two parties, with the different applications.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Would be, working through those particular issues.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): We'd also, want to understand, the CEQA process that, the applicant
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): would go into, and whether or not the CEQA process is going to be using exemptions for their project, because that does then tie into administrative processes associated with
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): potential tribal consultations, and I'd let the applicant know that we've already been contacted by tribes as it relates to potential mitigation measures that may be applicable to a project through that SQL process.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): And then…
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): I think that there's probably some other things that we would like to come back to once we've heard, kind of, the list of all the other different entities represented here today, and certainly we'd expect there'd be a few comments that maybe we'd want to weigh in on after we've heard others, so I'd reserve some additional time for that.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Am I next?
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Thank you, Jay. Woojae Kim, Public Works Director. I'm at…
Speaker 5 (Council Chambers): We had, John Chow, the project manager for Public Works, review this project.
Speaker 5 (Council Chambers): He's actually out of the office today, so I have…
Speaker 5 (Council Chambers): Astha Khanal, the associate engineer who's going to be presenting the general summary of the project, will be, speaking on engineering-related land development reviews that we conducted related to grading policy, easements, and following town standards, and so forth. So, Astha, you could take it away.
Astha Khanal: Well, thank you, WooJay. So, from the engineering department, I will provide a summary of the comments for the application.
Astha Khanal: So the submitted plans are overall incomplete and require substantial revisions.
Astha Khanal: A complete grading and drainage plan is required, including a topographic survey.
Astha Khanal: With maximum 2-foot contours, and a grading plan, also with maximum 2-foot contours.
Astha Khanal: If the ground slope exceeds 10%, then 5-foot contours may also be shown.
Astha Khanal: The proposed plans also do not include sufficient elevation and or labels for the proposed structures.
Astha Khanal: Or the proposed finished floor elevations, since they include pad elevations, but not the finished floor elevations.
Astha Khanal: Additionally, so complete… A utility plan will also be required.
Astha Khanal: Structural details for all of the proposed improvements will be required, and plans clearly depicting, all of the proposed grading and drainage are also required.
Astha Khanal: For the private roadways shown, the easements, shall be minimum 60 foot wide. They're shown less than that currently.
Astha Khanal: And also, the plans do not clearly identify all of the existing and proposed structures and easements, since there's,
Astha Khanal: There are some easements that are shown as proposed, where they're actually existing, such as the right-of-way easement.
Astha Khanal: The plans must also be revised to clearly show
Astha Khanal: The proposed drainage system, including, the… all of the stormwater discharge points.
Astha Khanal: One of the main comments from our department is regarding grading. So, the property does not comply with the town's grading policy currently.
Astha Khanal: The overall cut and fill, proposed exceeds the allowable maximum 4-foot cut and maximum fill of 3 foot allowed by the town.
Astha Khanal: For structures not including the main residences and tennis courts. Since main residence allow for maximum 8-foot cut.
Astha Khanal: And then tennis courts allow for a 6-foot cut.
Astha Khanal: And then the same, maximum 3-foot fill quantities apply for both.
Astha Khanal: The proposed structures, including the AI farm equipment building, the primary and secondary farmhouse residence, and the other proposed structures.
Astha Khanal: All exceed these allowable quantities.
Astha Khanal: odds.
Astha Khanal: As part of our comments, we listed out all of the, different structures that don't comply with the town's grading policy.
Astha Khanal: Including, 50 feet of fill for the AI farm equipment building, 40 feet of cut for the secondary farmhouse residence.
Astha Khanal: As well as for the primary farmhouse residents.
Astha Khanal: There's also 25 feet of combined cut and fill for the tennis court.
Astha Khanal: And 20 feet of combined cut and fill for the gym and pool, and then 10 feet of combined cut and fill for the pickleball court.
Astha Khanal: And we've listed that out, for the applicant for all the various structures.
Astha Khanal: Additionally, the town's grading policy requires stepping of the structures.
Astha Khanal: Down sloped hillsides and terracing to the maximum extent possible to retain the hillside and existing contours.
Astha Khanal: The last thing, I will summarize is the comments for the proposed sanitary sewer main extension.
Astha Khanal: So our comments include, a revised plan with complete plan and profile drawings for the proposed sewer mains.
Astha Khanal: So the town, to clarify, does not own or maintain sewer mains on private property except within a public utility easement.
Astha Khanal: Additionally, the proposed main is currently shown as a 6-inch line, but the minimum for the town is an 8 inch.
Astha Khanal: The sewage flow from this subdivision will drain to the Prisma sewage lift station, and if there's an amendment to the reimbursement agreement.
Astha Khanal: The subdivision will be subject to a usage fee.
Astha Khanal: And that's all of the comments that I had.
Speaker 5 (Council Chambers): I have some comments on it. Oh, Carol Gottlieb from the Environment.
Council Chambers: environmental design and.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Protection Committee. It's a minor thing, and they do have a disclosure, but on all the sheets, instead of showing that it's a 12-lot subdivision, it says it's a 12… 24-lot subdivision, and that should be changed, I guess.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): And then I question, well, and she's brought it up, the road ride-of-ways. Then I,
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): That's one of the biggest things. And the cut and fill, they show, I question that amount of cut and fill on any… on… even if it is a 42-a-lot subdivision.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Okay, I… I was questioning whether that part of Elena really can take A two-driveway, or two-entry point.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Because that's a curve.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): And that's a very important pathway. So, they're showing two cuts, one for the homes and one for the farm. So I was wondering if there'd be a better cut for that.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Stiggering.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Then I'm questioning the retaining walls, because in some of the areas, they did not show the dimension, the height of some of the retaining walls with the addition of a 6-foot, CMU wall.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): And I think some of those retaining walls will be over 12… I…
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): I question the height of the retaining walls.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Second, I was wondering about… well, one of the things I was wondering about was the, Hillipport, and, how… what jurisdiction would be over
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): A heliport, a helicopter being landed… a helicopter being landed on private property.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): To me, the equipment… ugh.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): The question, the size of the equipment.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): shed… And then I was wondering the retention pond, I questioned whether it was open or closed.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): For the wa… for the, drain, draining this, storm drainage area.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): I think that I was also questioning whether private
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): roads versus public roads, because I think in the subdivision… I… I'll question that.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): And,
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Then there was a thing in the… talking about accessory units. Were those farm units, or what were, what are the accessory units they were talking about in the report?
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): And then, I would like to know how this complies with the Williamson Act.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Taking it out of the Williamson Act, whether they have to take it… whether they would need to take the whole 42 acres off, or can they subdivide a Williamson Act property?
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Hi, Anita Baldwin, Open Space Committee, and I don't have any…
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): questions right now. I just want to say that, if this goes forward.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): at the Open Space Committee, we'll have a lot of
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): We'll want some clarity on some of these issues, and the things that we really, really care about, like protecting swales, the amount of oaks that may come down, the slopes versus the easements, there's a lot of topographical
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): Questions we have regarding this open space easements and whether there's a place for them, riparian habitat and wildlife corridors, all of these issues seem to be present in this,
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): In this application, and I think if it goes forward, we'll be wanting to weigh in on that. Thanks.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): Hello, I'm Nick Earn, I'm the chair of the.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): the Pathways Committee.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): The main thing… Jonathan, is it possible at all to show the GIS for this property?
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): So everybody can see the green sections on this property, and so what we have is on three sides, there's already a master path plan for the pathways that would go along that.
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): And then, thanks to feedback from Carol to explain, all of the green arrows that are pointing in from the corners, those are all places where the pathway should connect inside of that property.
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): So that if there are any subdivisions that'll be done, there should be a corridor for pathways for
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): people, pedestrians, wildlife, to be able to go through this property and, have access. So, the main questions that I have is, how are they going to deal with this? Are they going to make sure that all these pathways follow off-road, on-road?
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): codes that have been developed by Los Altos Hills, and making sure that they're all within the slope conditions that we care about.
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): To make sure that it's a safe path for… Pedestrians, horses, bikes, and wildlife.
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): Those are the main issues. None of that has been addressed yet.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Thank you. Thank you, everyone.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): I'm a planning commissioner, so what we kind of deal with is zoning and development standards, and there's a lot of issues that we want to go through, and I'm going to try to focus just on those issues.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): But I do want to touch on some of the things that were said already.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): I think much of the Williamson Act questions are out of scope for tonight's meeting.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): But it is a very important subject, and the one thing I did, notice was that there was an option in either this or the other configuration for 3 acres of
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): recreational use, and the question of whether that would end up in the Williamson Act or not.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): I have…
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): a lot of questions in my own mind about how this… these proposals interact with the Twin Oaks proposal next door.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): and whether these proposals truly are independent of the Twin Oaks proposal, or if there's some kind of cooperation going on. And I don't see enough detail here to really answer some of those questions. I happen to know there's some easements and some utilities that it seems to me there must be some cooperation between the two, but it hasn't been
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Made clear to me yet.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): So that question of independence is a… is a question for me.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Fundamentally, I think the… there's a big question to me of what is kind of the legal basis for the application as it sits, because there's an awful lot of things here that just do not match any of our subdivision or development standards.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): And so, for instance, we require, if there's a subdivision for the resulting parcels to have
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): not just one acre of gross acreage, but one acre after you've accounted for all the slopes. That's called LUF. It has to have at least 1.0 LUF.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): And, even in the configuration of the 12… only the 12 homes, I don't see that, being complied with.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): So, I apologize, but I'm just going to kind of rifle through these. It turns out it's important for us to get into the record what these questions are. It's almost more important to get the questions identified than the answers, which might feel a little disappointing.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): But we'll give the applicant a moment afterwards to reply, and maybe we can get some better understanding about some of these issues.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): But let me just go through the zoning and the development standards issues that I've identified, and I'd like to comment that this is an incomplete list. I'm sure there are other things I haven't caught completely.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): First of all, as I mentioned a moment ago, the lot unit factor, the LUF of 1.0, that does not seem to be, complied with, unless all of these have a slope of less than 10%, and I don't believe that's the case.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): The second thing is the building site geometry. We require that there be a 160-foot circle in the lot outside of all setbacks, and that doesn't seem to be complied with.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): We have a standards for setbacks, 40-foot front setbacks, 30-foot side and rear setbacks, that doesn't seem to be complied with.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): I am curious about the MDA and the MFA artifacts that get created as a result of creating these parcels. In our town, if we have a small lot that is a conditional use lot, there's a minimum MFA MDA of 7,500 square foot of development, 5,000 square foot of…
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): a floor area, would that apply to a 3,000 square foot parcel? I'd just like to understand how that works a little bit more.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): There are easements on the property. The ones that I'm familiar with is on the north.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): side between Twin Oaks and, Sea Landing. There is a 40-foot equestrian pedestrian easement that goes all the way along the top and then turns left, and there's a little hook down here. And according to what I saw, there are, there are greenhouses, or planting areas
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): on… directly on that easement. That doesn't seem to be consistent.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): With, with the expectation there. There's a pathway easement along the eastern edge, along I-280. That's about a… I think it's a 10-foot pathway easement, and
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): I'd like to make sure that that gets preserved, as you described. There's fire access easements, there's a water district easement. I just want to make sure that all of the easement-related issues are taken care of.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Often when we do any kind of development, we… we ask for easements. Slopes greater than 30% typically get an open space easement. The pathways easements, those arrows that you saw on the corners.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): aren't… don't necessarily say that that's the entryway of where it is, but it does identify that the pathway committee has identified that this large piece of property needs pathways figured out inside that property. And so the whole question of dedication of open space easements for high slope
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): And dedication of easements for pathways needs to be considered.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): We've also had this piece of property analyzed in the past. It was a report that was never accepted by a city council.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): But we analyzed it for wildlife corridors, and we're certain… I've been up there myself, we're certain there are wildlife corridors there, and that can sometimes restrict development, but it certainly does restrict things like what kind of fences that you could put up. And so I think that needs to be
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Incorporated. WooJ already mentioned all of the issues about grading and the dimensions. I actually saw a number on… I'm sorry, this is for the next one, that showed a retaining wall that could be as high as 55 feet.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): with a 6-foot concrete block thing on top of it. And so… and by the way, I don't want to sound negative about the whole proposal. I think it's very interesting to look at and to find a way that something like this
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): might be in our future, if not now, maybe sometimes… sometime in the future. But things like 55-foot retaining walls, we probably want to address.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): We do have a beautiful semi-rural character in our town, and these folks are here and coming here because that is so nice. So we want them to protect it as much as we protect it.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): let's see, the, the building department also identified that the private road and the access standards, what I saw was 20 to 22 foot wide.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): kind of driveways, really. They're streets, maybe you call them alleys, accessing, many of the homes, and in our town, our streets are typically 60 feet wide, and so that just needs to be understood and identified.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): There, is also a question of tree removal on the northern part of this property. There is, quite a bit of
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): trees, beautiful big oaks, and so I just want to make sure that
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): the issues of heritage oaks, and even beyond heritage oaks. I think we have another classification for the giant oaks. I'm not sure I can remember exactly what that's called, but we want to respect that. It's not like…
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): we could re… in many cases, if you're building a home, the home outweighs the trees. But we have a rule that says that the planning department can request as many as 4 trees to be planted for everyone that comes out.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): But in the case of these giant 200-year-old trees, I'm not sure that's adequate, of just replacing them with
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): two-foot-tall trees. And lastly, for this project, the question of the CEQA determination, and calling this an infill
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): project and getting a, exemption over that, I would just hope that the lawyers would look at that carefully. The fact that it is,
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): 40 acres, associate… connected to a wildlife-urban interface. I… I don't know if that qualifies as infill, typical… typical infill. And… and so those are the questions that I have. I welcome anyone to,
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): If there's any other issues, yes, here you go, Carol.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): 280 is a scenic highway, and this was emphasized by the fire department.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): That, when they're clearing, working with Caltrans to clear
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): 280, that they had to work very closely on the scenic part of the highway, and this governed a lot of what they could do with it. So this is a consideration. And also, we do not allow retaining walls along 280, and there,
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Retaining wall, along with the CMU retaining wall, will be considered a sound wall, so we do not allow that in town.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Yeah, and then I think one of the other questions we had was around the Williamson Act status. We see that there's a potential for that status to be rescinded. However, that doesn't necessarily meet terms within the Act itself, so we are interested to understand if the applicant's going to go through a non-renewal process and cancellation process.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Associated with this particular subdivision as well.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): And I would add, for the town's benefit and the residents' benefit, it would be good to understand, kind of, the order of events.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): for processing the Williamson Act aspects of this? Do we clear up the Williamson Act issues first, and then go on to Subdivision, and then go on to development? Or, does it all magically happen at once in some fashion? I'm just not aware of that.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Jay, I'm afraid I don't know the procedure here. Should we first have the applicant, say what they would like to say, and then have a public hearing, and then have the applicant come back, similar to what we do in Planning Commission meetings?
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): be having a public hearing, but we would be asking the public if they would like to comment on the project as well, since this would be the first time we would be able to get any insight from the public. But certainly the applicant, we would ask if they'd like to participate with a presentation or response, whether it be now or after public comment would be fine.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Okay, I would like to give the applicant every opportunity to explain as much as possible, because I think that we all want to get as much information as we can. So I'm going to ask the applicant if there's any presentation, or any information, or any response to what they've heard so far that they'd like to address. Then I'm going to,
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): ask for your input, and we'll use the microphone at the podium for that. And then we'll have the applicant come back and perhaps be able to respond to any of the issues that you bring up.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): The applicant's name is Brian O'Neill. Mr. O'Neill, would you care to make any kind of presentation at this time, or respond to anything that you've heard at this point?
Brian O'Neill: Sure. Quickly, I'll just address a few items. Obviously, there's a lot of comments, and I can't really respond to everything at this point.
Brian O'Neill: But a few… a few clarifications. This… this… Project does utilize,
Brian O'Neill: HCD-approved modular units, and it is proposed as a density bonus project, with 5% of the units restricted as very low income to qualify for the density bonus, and under the density bonus would also be seeking incentives and waivers and concessions
Brian O'Neill: To waive certain,
Brian O'Neill: of the town's standards to accomplish the project. So that's an important aspect of
Brian O'Neill: of, of the project. The questions about the Williamson Act contract? So the Williamson Act contract is… it's voluntary. The applicant at this point, it's…
Brian O'Neill: It's subject to annual renewal, and either the city or the applicant can choose not to renew that contract.
Brian O'Neill: Now, the applicant does want to utilize the remainder parcel for agricultural uses, and so this could be a conversation with the town moving forward on how exactly you want to go about it, but could enter a new
Brian O'Neill: contract for the remainder, parcel, or seek cancellation of just a portion of the Williamson Act contract and have the remainder, parcel remain under that, agricultural,
Brian O'Neill: agricultural designation. The… The Williamson Act contract, has 11…
Brian O'Neill: 11 enumerated uses. Agriculture, of course, but also primary and secondary dwellings. There was a question about the secondary dwellings. Those would be detached accessory dwelling units that would be proposed under the state accessory dwelling unit law.
Brian O'Neill: Recreational fil… recreational facilities are also an allowed use under the current Williamson Act contract.
Brian O'Neill: M… So, this, this project has been, for the most part.
Brian O'Neill: designed separately from the Twin Oaks subdivision.
Brian O'Neill: Now, previously, there was some conversations at the last Subdivision committee meeting about there not being enough recreational facilities provided in the Twin Oaks subdivision. So…
Brian O'Neill: there was an offer to include some additional recreational facilities on the sea landing site to serve the future residents of the Twin Oaks, Twin Oaks Subdivision, although that… the town has not
Brian O'Neill: this point.
Brian O'Neill: expressed,
Brian O'Neill: that… that is an option that they want the applicant to continue to explore. So, at this point, this project is, proposed to be completely separate from the Twin Oaks Subdivision. Now, they are… the proposal does include a…
Brian O'Neill: a proposed pedestrian easement along 280 that would connect into Twin Oaks, through…
Brian O'Neill: To Elena Road, so that would be the only sort of connection between the two subdivisions, would be a pedestrian pathway.
Brian O'Neill: to connect to the existing pathway in Twin Oaks.
Brian O'Neill: M… So, those are kind of the main…
Brian O'Neill: items I wanted to address, and I know there's… there's…
Brian O'Neill: It's still an incomplete application, so we are, planning to resubmit and address some of the items that have been laid out at this hearing and previously in the town's letters, so more information will be coming.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Brian, if I could ask you to just clarify one thing. When you were responding to the ADUs, was that to,
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): the Representative Carol Gottlieb's question about the 12 versus 24 units, or was that specifically to the ADU question? I think, you know, that could respond to both.
Brian O'Neill: It is… so it is 12 lots, 11 new lots, and 1 remainder parcel.
Brian O'Neill: and… one… primary dwelling on each one of those lots, and there are three
Brian O'Neill: I believe it's 3 accessory dwelling units proposed on, on a few of the lots. So I don't know where the 24 came from.
Brian O'Neill: And you lost audio.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Question, Brian. Thank you, thank you for your time, examining this.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): You mentioned that you were seeking bonus densities and application of the density bonus law. I'd just like to try to understand the legal basis for what you feel is the base density.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): My understanding is that this is potentially… that you've… you've… you're… you have said that, the… the Talon's development standards were frozen back in time upon an earlier application, but,
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): even back then, in an RA zone, one acre has one unit.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): And so I'm trying to understand the idea of, adding or applying bonus dens… or density bonus.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): to the base density of 1 acre per unit, it doesn't get me to the numbers that you're at, so you must be assuming a different base density. What's your take on this?
Brian O'Neill: So, this project is… This app… this… this submittal is 12…
Brian O'Neill: 12 primary dwelling units, and so it is consistent with the 1 unit per acre standard density, with the, the
Brian O'Neill: Again, excluding the remainder parcel. Accessory dwelling…
Brian O'Neill: Accessory… and accessory dwelling… dwelling units do not count as density under state law.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Okay, that helps me understand. You're using the gross acreage
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): As the density… as the base density.
Brian O'Neill: And we are not actually seeking, at this… at this point, a density bonus. We are just providing, affordable… an affordable unit to qualify for the incentives, concessions, and waivers under.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): I see. Under state law. Thank you. I'll delay that question until we're talking about the…
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): the larger numbers of units. Thank you.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): It's your turn.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Let's try,
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Did we want people to sign, sign up with, forms? Yeah, we have some forms so far. So please call 3 or 4 people up at a time, and we'll queue here at the podium. That way we can kind of get through things as quickly as possible. Everyone will be recognized once.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): And everyone will have 3 minutes to say what they wish to say. After that, let's… let's not try to have a lot of conversation from seats.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): that's beneficial for people who are listening at Zoom, they can't hear you when you talk from the seats, please don't do that. And so, why don't we begin by calling up the first set of 3 or 4 people.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Can I request Emmy Shroud?
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Stephen Chen and Peter.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): per Legos.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): And may I also say, for those of you who are connected by Zoom, if you would wish to contribute, please just raise your hand, and we will see that, and we'll call upon you as well. We'll probably handle all the folks here in the room first, and then we'll do who's on Zoom. So…
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Please.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): You might have to turn the mic on.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Yeah, let me clarify, while that's being fixed, this is the proposal for the 12 units. As you pointed out, a lot of the things are common, and I…
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): feel free to speak whenever you want about the things that are in common. If there's something specific to the higher number of units, please wait till the second item we address.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Otherwise, please continue.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Nope. It's the magic finger.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Sorry.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): You guys, you're wasting your time. Okay, can you hear me now?
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): Okay, three categories. Resources, Environmental Review, CEQA, and whose land is it? Resources.
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): I'm requesting that you all… it sounds like you're into this, but that studies are done to show how the residents… I am a resident, I use Elena Road all the time. It's my evacuation route. We would like, or I'm speaking for the residents,
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): Has there been a determination as to how many cars are then going to flow onto Elena?
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): And block our evacuation route. Second, utilities. PG&E lines and poles, will they be underground for fire safety?
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): Internet.
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): I have been told there's one provider
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): west of 280, my internet goes out all the time. Is that going to be addressed? Will it be impacted? Will new infrastructure be put in to accommodate the rest of us?
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): and water. This is a limited resource. Do you remember 3 years ago, there was a drought, or there was a 3-year drought around 2017?
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): Residents were told, don't water outside if you want to have water inside. It was a serious deal. Los Altos Hills gets… buys our water wholesale from the San Francisco Public Utility Commission. They have now put together a 6-year drought scenario that looks very bleak.
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): And, our water rates are going up. You may have gotten that notice in the mail.
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): Our water is a limited resource. The Chuwamne River is a great river, it's pure, it's wonderful.
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): Will this affect…
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): the ability for us to buy our water from San Francisco Public Utility Commission, and at what cost? Has that been addressed? And then, fundamental values of Los Altos Hills, I've heard you guys say this also, but it's why we are here.
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): Our values are minimal housing, spaced far apart, open spaces.
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): And this space is one of the few left. I'm glad you've mentioned the wildlife corridor, I'm glad you mentioned the pathways, I'm glad you're looking into the trees, everything. They need to be protected. Please, do not waive your standards as requested by the applicant. Please keep those standards intact.
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): Now, CEQA, I think George is going to speak. He did a great analysis of what needs to be done in the attachment to what I was able to read. It's not what you have, but he did list all of the reasons why CEQA should not be exempted.
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): So I'm gonna let him go with that. And the tribes. So, there were two tribes that were in the area. They were sent to three missions in San Jose, Santa Clara, and San Francisco.
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): Those descendants have been tracked via census over the decades starting in 1905. They are tracked to what is now called the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of San Francisco Bay Area.
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): In 2021, Los Altos… the town of Los Altos Hills, sorry, and Foothill did a land acknowledgement. Essentially.
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): They asked us to be good stewards, and…
Speaker 10 (Council Chambers): What that means, but it's totally opposite of what you're looking into doing here.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): We'll try to keep to the clock as much as possible. If you do.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): here in the.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Nobody's gonna cut you off immediately, but please wrap up your sentences and…
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Can I request Ethan Chan?
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): I live in Settle Mountain Drive.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): At a boundary, West boundary of the proposed lots activities.
Council Chambers: By the way, I did not reset.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): any notice within 10 days. I received it 2 days ago.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): On an email that is sent to the whole town.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): Not because I'm right next to the property in question.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): Anyway… I'm glad to hear a lot of good Issues being raised.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): I'm happy about that.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): So… On my take, The farming activity It's a large, commercial enterprise.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): I don't care whether it's for profit or non-profit, it is huge.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): For the town.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): So, you think of all the noise of the activities being carried out.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): All the traffic's going in and out.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): And you think about their planting stuff, Fertilizers are involved.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): Chemicals are involved.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): Where do they go? Seep into the soil.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): It's an environmental issue that cannot be ignored.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): So…
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): The town on the west side of 280 is being considered high wildfire risk zone.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): by the fire district.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): So you think of all the additional structures.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): Especially on the 118-unit version.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): I have to speak on both because I need to leave.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): There's a lot of closed… the… bundled of buildings.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): And we are encouraged to have wise spaces, Cut our planting in clusters.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): This is totally opposite.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): To the theme that we are encouraged to follow.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): If a wildfire actually comes along.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): We're in trouble. Big trouble.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): All those buildings, all those people, everything.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): That's called for the exit route in emergency wildfire.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): Elaine Road is a highly traveled road.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): And at the… Traffic due to the high population that's gonna be involved.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): is a bottleneck.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): For me, on a Saddle Mountain Drive.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): At worst case, I can go through pathways to either Elena or Lupine Road.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): Again, there will be a bottleneck because of the high population density there.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): So… Any kind of traffic analysis, including emergency situations.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): Need to be studied by the town, jointly with the fire district.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): And not by the applicant's side, whether they be themselves doing it, or hire somebody to do the analysis. It has to be our analysis.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): with the fire district.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): So again, I'm very happy to hear a lot of you.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): Comments, issues being raised.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): But the bottom line, The 118 unit.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): It's a definitely, definitely no-no.
Speaker 1 (Council Chambers): Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (Council Chambers): Right.
Speaker 1 (Council Chambers): Hi, good evening, my name is Peter Perlagos.
Speaker 1 (Council Chambers): In our family.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): Emily owns the property immediately adjacent to…
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): 28001 Elena Road. I'm commenting on both proposals tonight, and I request my comments be entered into the administrative record for both applications and all related approvals. Our concerns are not about affordable housing.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): They concern whether a development of this magnitude can lawfully and safely occur on this particular property.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): First, the Williamson Act. The property remains subject to Williamson Act contract. Before allowing residential development on contracted land, I asked the Town to identify each statutory finding required for cancellation, and the evidence supporting those findings. Cancelation should not be treated as a predetermined outcome.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): Second, easements and existing property rights. The applicant's own plans show numerous pathway emergency access, ingress, egress, utilities.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): and other privately and publicly held easements. Before approving either map, I request a complete title and easement analysis establishing
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): That existing rights benefiting neighboring properties and the public will not be impaired.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): Third, drainage and grading.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): The plans propose approximately… More than a… more than a half million yards of, cut and fill.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): And acknowledge that hydro modification is required. A significant natural drainage swale affects this area.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): As an immediately adjacent owner, I request all an independent hydrology analysis.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): Addressing downstream impacts and the cumulative effects of the…
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): Sea Landing and Twin Oaks properties. Fourth, wildfire and emergency evacuations. Before potentially adding 118 residences here. The town should obtain written analysis from the appropriate fire authorities demonstrating adequate evacuation, secondary accesses, fire flows.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): And simultaneous emergency vehicle ingress.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): and resident evacuations.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): Finally, the applicant labels the proposals as final ministerial applications. I respectfully ask that the town not accept that label as a legal conclusion.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): Please identify the statutory basis making each approval ministerial, and identify which approvals, including Williamson Act cancellation, remains discretionary.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): I understand tonight's meeting is informational, and I'm asking that the issues be preserved and answered before any decision is made. Thank you. I'm also very impressed with the, with the panel today, and the homework they did for the public tonight. Thank you very much.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Can I request Eric and John?
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): To be the next speakers.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Hi, Eric Brado, as you know, I think. I'm on Moon Lane downhill from this project.
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): I used to go up and swing from the oak trees up where Fenwick built the house, so forth, as a kid.
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): I'm going to repeat some of the things other people said. I think they said some excellent things, but the lady who came up first raised the emergency exit issue, and that's one that hitherto hasn't had a whole lot of discussion, as far as I can tell. I… I… our access is through Page Mill to 280.
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): But astradero comes down and would… people… hundreds of people exiting down onto Page Mill there would basically cut us off. I wonder if Caltrans doesn't need some kind of weigh-in on this, or whoever runs 280?
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): How… what's the access to 280 gonna be like that doesn't get plugged up?
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): So that's a serious one that, I think hasn't gotten quite as much attention as it should have.
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): The Williamson Act, Jim said we're not going to deal with that a lot. What the lawyer or owner or representative of the owner said doesn't square with the way I understand the Williamson Act, and I'm in the Williamson Act. So that's an issue to clarify, I think.
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): I do worry about water access, as someone else raised. We have a 6-inch main along the top of Saddle Mountain. I assume there's another main along Perissima or Elena. Do we know anything about that, whether there's going to be enough water for this?
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): The commercial use of this farm, to me, is just outrageous, and that continues. It's clearly a big commercial enterprise they're trying to build with the owner's mansion, and the farm workers' little houses, and the helipad, and the whole thing.
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): It's… they previously said they did plan to sell produce from this place. I don't know what they're trying to do, but it strikes me as a large-scale commercial enterprise that's being proposed.
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): The helicopter.
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): I hardly know what to say. It's so outrageous, it's unbelievable.
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): And yet, such things are very badly controlled.
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): the FAA…
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): has some jurisdiction, the county has some jurisdiction, the town, none. I talked to George Subdivian in the past about regulating some things, and basically it fell between a lot of committees, and nobody… and the coordinating committee that brought the committees together had been disbanded.
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): So I think we need to actually explore that seriously and see what…
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): what's going on there? Because that's…
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): That's really beyond the pale. Okay, that's it for me. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Thank you, Eric, for some great points, and also for using the word hitherto.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): Good evening, I'm John O'Connell, Los Altos Hills.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): There is the term, if you submit a proposal to a local government agency which you know is not compliant with the law, and wastes public resources. It is called a frivolous application.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): I would contend that is exactly what we have in front of us.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): This property is subject, and I'm sorry, I am going to address the Williamson Act, because it is actually the first decision that has to be made. All of this other stuff…
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): It's completely irrelevant. It's like looking at water that's flowed down a stream before it's actually rained.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): We… if this property is subject to the Williamson Act currently until the end of 2035,
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): The Supreme Court ruled, in the case of Sierra Club v. Hayward, that routine cancellation just because it is in the economic benefit of the owners.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): is defeating the purpose of the act.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): The enforceable restriction that this property has Is its rolling 10-year contract.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): If the owners wish to commence, they need to file a notice of non-Renewal, because until they file a notice of non-Renewal, the town is not allowed by law to even consider a request for cancellation.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): So, I do state… that…
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): You need to determine whether or not this property is subject to Williamson Act. If it is, this entire set of stuff is irrelevant.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): The second thing I wish to point out
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): is that there are a number of assertions by Mr. O'Neill. And I understand he's a lawyer, and I also understand that I am not.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): But his assertions are pushing the limits.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): The density bonus law only applies in the way he's describing it
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): To a density specified in dwelling units per acre.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): We do that for multifamily, but our RA zoning is not specified in dwelling units per acre.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): Our RA zoning is specified very clearly. If you don't create, and this is after any subdivision after January 1st, 1980, a subdivided parcel must be greater than one LUT or less, or it's not subdividable.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): So, not only does it not meet the requirements, by the way of the Subdivision Act, if you read the California Subdivision Map Act 66474.4, it specifically states a Subdivision Act cannot be put forward for a Williamson Act enrolled contract.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): I, I would just like to further add.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): This town has very limited resources.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): Those resources are paid from property taxes paid by the residents of this town, and by permit fees paid by the residents of this town.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): We are constantly having to defer extremely important work because town staff don't have enough time to do it, and we need to put it on the 2027 work plan.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): This… Jim, if I may finish, please. Please finish. If this continues, we are just wasting valuable resources. This property at the moment is… has a valuation under the, the county assessor. Believe it or not.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): The value of this 43 acres is $45,391, and it pays taxes of $410 a year.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): So, I really do… I'm sorry, I want to make my point. I really do suggest… I really do suggest that the town stop processing an application that it doesn't need to be doing under due process.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): And what we should be doing is putting our effort into working out a long-term strategic plan to put into our general plan for this area, which is in total 55 acres, and we need to put something together that enables the town to grow and develop
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): Protects the health and safety of existing residents and future residents.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): And is under the town's control.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): And I further state that there is no way
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): that the residents of this town are going to allow Sea Landing, Draco Nest, or any other company that they wish to create to annex 55 acres of this town. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): Mr. Grady. Thank you.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): what he said.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): I took you at your.
Speaker 15 (Council Chambers): I'll be brief. I also wanted to, call attention to the Government Code Section 65302, known as the Room to Roam Act, which is going to require
Speaker 15 (Council Chambers): this town, in its next, general plan update, to take into account connectivity areas for wildlife,
Speaker 15 (Council Chambers): movement.
Speaker 15 (Council Chambers): And this… property, as, Council, Commissioner Waschura mentioned.
Speaker 15 (Council Chambers): Has lots of wildlife, corridors across it, and across Saddle Mountain Drive to the open space across from my property, on the north side of Saddle Mountain Drive. This owner of this property
Speaker 15 (Council Chambers): has already previously tried to impede that wildlife by, proposing a, impermeable fences all around the perimeter, and fortunately, the Planning Commission did not allow that, but,
Speaker 15 (Council Chambers): to comply with the law, you're not going to allow this sort of, development that they have proposed, because it will be clearly impeding the wildlife circulation. Thanks. Thank you.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): United Questra, Jupiter.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): rajiv Patel, resident and town.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): At the last Subdivision meeting,
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): I was here, and I heard many of the same.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): comments from the committee members for a different proposal to this applicant.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): Well… Not this apple. No.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): Well, same parties, let me put it that way. I see the same person talking every time for the applicant.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): Well, that tells me one thing, that the applicant is clearly ignoring what the town is saying.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): Of what they want, To process applications appropriately.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): And continues to… Submit.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): what I would consider shoddy, half-baked plans
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): Their fishing expeditions clearly are intended for only one purpose.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): Waste time, resources, and money of her town.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): Should we allow such backed actors to continue to do so?
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): I know that this will not, conclude today.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): This applicant is going to come up with multiple such future proposals.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): Different ones… all the time, which are half-baked and shoddy, as I mentioned earlier.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): So, I would also like the town to do whatever it takes, which is legally possible, to reduce the waste of time, effort, and money that we are going through.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): And maybe Take 10 minutes.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): To finish a subcommittee meeting, And not spend any amount of staff time
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): or even legal time, because this is more expensive than what I heard, the $400 that this applicant pays every year.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): Thank you.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): We have two people online.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Do we have anyone?
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): In the council Chambers?
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Fair.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Please introduce yourself. Eric Evans.
Speaker 11 (Council Chambers): The Williamson Act was enacted in order to preserve agricultural and open space land, higher intensity.
Speaker 17 (Council Chambers): urban land uses are explicitly not allowed on lands placed under this protection. SB 330 and SB9 projects are specifically intended to create denser urban development.
Speaker 17 (Council Chambers): These laws are in direct contravention with each other. The California Department of Conservation has a role, upon request of reviewing projects that are under Williamson Act contract that have development proposals upon them.
Speaker 17 (Council Chambers): They have issued many opinion letters on proposed development projects over the years.
Speaker 17 (Council Chambers): Not only is the Department of Conservation very clear that subdivisions are not an acceptable reason for cancellation of a Williamson Act contract, nor portions of land protected under a Williamson Act contract. The state statutes are very clear this is not allowed as well.
Speaker 17 (Council Chambers): I ask that the Town submit these proposals for review by the CDOC for their opinion on the compliance with the Williamson Act.
Speaker 17 (Council Chambers): In addition to any pathway easement that may be proposed connecting Twin Oaks with Elena Road, the plans very clearly show a 20-foot fire access road whose purpose would likely be a required emergency egress route for the very large development that has been proposed on the Twin Oaks property.
Speaker 17 (Council Chambers): This road seems to not be part of the ag or open space use on sea landing.
Speaker 17 (Council Chambers): This land use also does not fit within the statutory requirement that all improvements on a Williamson Act-protected property are supportive of the primary use, which is agricultural preserve.
Speaker 17 (Council Chambers): The Williamson Act contract is the first issue that must be addressed on this project prior to any other development proposals. Thank you.
Speaker 17 (Council Chambers): Thank you.
Speaker 17 (Council Chambers): Hi, this is Kim Tam. I'm living on Southern Mountain Drive.
Speaker 17 (Council Chambers): Last year.
Speaker 18 (Council Chambers): There was a fire.
Speaker 18 (Council Chambers): at exactly… The location where they want to propose.
Speaker 18 (Council Chambers): Was a big fire.
Speaker 18 (Council Chambers): Okay. Now, Elena Street were not able to handle the fire engine to get in, only can handle one or two, maximum. So the helicopter flew in.
Speaker 18 (Council Chambers): Four times to bring in water. They also used my driveway. Two fire engines used my driveway and cut the fence. Now, the fence is still broken. It's not fixed.
Speaker 18 (Council Chambers): So, it's not able to handle.
Speaker 18 (Council Chambers): the fire agent not able to handle, how can we allow them to develop?
Speaker 18 (Council Chambers): I'm building a couple hundred houses in there. Now, I think…
Speaker 18 (Council Chambers): Everyone in here is a greeted. Would you turn this lot To a public park.
Speaker 18 (Council Chambers): Hello.
Speaker 18 (Council Chambers): To allow us to go and enjoy the Los Altos Hills.
Speaker 18 (Council Chambers): Thank you.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): They're filmed out in the room, why don't we go to…
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Edward?
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Can you please go ahead?
Edward: Can you hear me?
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Yes, we can.
Edward: Hi, this is Edward Sharp.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): We heard you for just a moment.
Edward: I can… yeah, I got unmuted, muted directly. Can you hear me again?
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Yes.
Edward: Yeah, Edward Sharp lived on Desahara in Los Altos Hills.
Edward: I just wanted to give a counter-argument, to what we've heard tonight.
Edward: We live in a community and in a state with a housing crisis.
Edward: A homelessness crisis, a cost of living crisis.
Edward: Members of the town raised valid concerns about infrastructure and fryer protection, and we absolutely need to address those. But these are problems that can be solved, and I'd urge the Council to find a way to make
Edward: this… a reasonable proposal work. Even at…
Edward: the extreme proposal that's being put in place, I think it's…
Edward: Would maybe change the population of the town by 3%.
Edward: So it's not the kind of, you know.
Edward: gridlock that we might be hearing. Certainly, we should do proper assessments of that.
Edward: But I would just urge the Council to find a way that we can evolve with our community.
Edward: Thank you.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Thank you, Edward. I want to just comment. We do have a City Council, and I don't want you to think you're speaking with the City Council right now. This is just a subdivision committee form just for the purpose of the subdivision conversation.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): I'm sure there will be opportunities in the future to talk to City Council about that.
Edward: I referred to the Council as a broad setting. I understand you're a subcommittee, and I see you represent the town. So, thanks.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Sure. Thank you for your comments.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): response to Mr. Sharp. In fact.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): We all believe there should be affordable housing in town, but the way that density.
Speaker 19 (Council Chambers): bonus works for every one affordable home, we have to build 20.
Speaker 19 (Council Chambers): And it is not a 3% difference. We… if we have a gap of 49 homes, we have to build another 900. This town only has 3,000 homes. That's a 30% increase in the number of residences in this town.
Speaker 19 (Council Chambers): and a 30% increase in population. So please, get your facts straight, because this kind of density is not helpful.
Speaker 19 (Council Chambers): for affordable housing. Thanks.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Can I… can we have your name, please?
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Surely.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): We have Marta online. Marta, can you go ahead, please?
Martha Bowden: Hi, I'm Martha Bowden, and I live on Saddle Court.
Martha Bowden: Both Twin Oaks and this property are within our Firewise community. I'm one of the leads, as is Michael Grady, for the Saddle Mountain Firewise community.
Martha Bowden: And my concerns are, that
Martha Bowden: we… we need to build hardened homes, but we also need to make sure we have evacuation routes available for every homeowner, because we do not want people stuck in cars during firestorms. People die.
Martha Bowden: So that's number one, whether the access road or the density, either proposal, the 12 units.
Martha Bowden: Or the 12 lots, or the 119 lots.
Martha Bowden: Are they sufficient for… Evacuation.
Martha Bowden: And then my other major concern is the stormwater treatment.
Martha Bowden: Facility that would be required.
Martha Bowden: Why?
Martha Bowden: My guess is that with the proposal of high agriculture.
Martha Bowden: That it's going to be using a lot of…
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Who else?
Martha Bowden: Fertilizer.
Martha Bowden: And remember, this property empties into Deer Creek.
Martha Bowden: And… if… drainage… If a water treatment pond or a facility is required.
Martha Bowden: Why would we allow that much fertilizer to be used in this area, where we're dumping into the local creeks and then into the bay?
Martha Bowden: And those are my two comments for now.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Thank you.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Ann Dewey?
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): whole thing.
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: I have two major objections, in addition to the ones everyone else has already mentioned this evening. One is that
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: the development of this property seems to be in direct conflict with the aims of the Williamson Act. The Williamson Act was put in place to
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: protect large agricultural properties. It was not put in place so that residential subdivisions could be carved out.
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: And in addition, in this particular case, the idea of having any kind of large commercial farm in Los Altos Hills is in direct opposition to the long-time
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: conditions in our town, our ordinances, which prevent
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: large-scale commercial developments, for all the obvious reasons of traffic and runoff and all the other things involved with an actual commercial agricultural
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: enterprise.
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: Secondly, developers like to throw around the term that they're putting up affordable housing, but my question is, what sort of income level
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: Do these developers anticipate is going to be necessary for someone to afford to move into any of those deed-restricted, affordable units that they are putting up?
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: And of course.
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: Clearly, in order to get just a handful of affordable units at almost any cost or any price to the buyer.
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: We have to accept A huge number of
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: Market rate or luxury dwellings that we don't really need more of in town.
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: So… I'd like to support the committee in being very careful to apply Our existing standards and requiring
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: For the, at the very least, a far more detailed
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: application than we have seen to date. Thank you.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): And that does bring up a point from the community development perspective, which is that the application really does need to be evaluated to ensure that the ag uses are within the limits and intent of agriculture within our RA zoning district. I do think that there is this question about commercial agriculture versus industrial agriculture, and then the current zoning
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): for the RA, which, certainly, should be, thought of, in the applicant's response, as well as working with staff.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): All right, I see that there are no more hands raised. I think we're done with this particular item. I would ask staff to take all of the comments that were
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): described here today, both online and here, and apply them to both projects, because it does seem like there was quite a bit of overlap, and in case that needs to be said, I wanted to just make sure that was the case.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Let's take a moment and hear from Mr. O'Neill if there's anything you'd like to respond to based on the things that you've heard.
Brian O'Neill: Sure, I'll just address a few, a few of the comments and, and…
Brian O'Neill: questions that were raised. There… there were some comments about.
Brian O'Neill: Sewer and water and availability of services. I'll note that the town's housing element says that
Brian O'Neill: Sewer and water is not a constraint on the development of housing, and under the housing element law.
Brian O'Neill: The town is required to prioritize sewer and water services for projects that include affordable housing, and there are limited reasons why the town can deny services for projects that include affordable units.
Brian O'Neill: The… the helipad, that is proposed for emergency access, not as a private helipad to be used. It's essentially for emergency situations, for evacuation, and
Brian O'Neill: So it's not… it's not going to be utilized as a… as a private helipad.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): What's that?
Brian O'Neill: The question about… The density, the density bonus law does specifically say that
Brian O'Neill: Density must be determined by dwelling units per acre. That's a requirement of state housing law.
Brian O'Neill: The Williamson Act, the… again, the Williamson Act contract, so this…
Brian O'Neill: This, site has a specific contract that… did… that…
Brian O'Neill: lists out the terms of this particular piece of property. And that is… it is a voluntary process.
Brian O'Neill: And that is the intent of the Williamson Act land, in exchange for
Brian O'Neill: entering into the contract, the benefit to the property owner is that you get, you get a lower tax rate. So that's why, that's why the property taxes on this property are low, because it is currently…
Brian O'Neill: It is currently subject to a Williamson Act contract. If that contract were to not be renewed or canceled, then the county assessor would reassess the property and they would be subject to a higher tax rate.
Brian O'Neill: And…
Brian O'Neill: I know there were, the questions about the stormwater. That is a requirement of state law to… anytime you are adding impervious surfaces, you are required to have stormwater drainage facilities. So that is, that is for compliance with state… with state
Brian O'Neill: Regional Water Quality Board requirements.
Brian O'Neill: There were some…
Brian O'Neill: comments about, again, drainage and wildlife corridor, we would disagree with the statement that there's streams and resources and wetlands on this property, and those issues, I think, will be addressed when
Brian O'Neill: When it does go through environmental review.
Brian O'Neill: And I think that's all of… the comments… I had.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): All right, well, thank you very much, appreciate your responses. Why don't we move straight on to the next, project? Jay, is there a separate staff report for the next project? Jonathan, is there another staff report? Very well. Let's… let's continue.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Is it a counter to what is your O'Neill said? Oh, I'm sorry, just a moment.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): I'd rather not talk back and forth to the seats. There are people at home that can't hear what you're saying, but I do want to respond to you. Maybe I could repeat what your question was if I had heard it. What was it? Is that a counter to what Mr. O'Neill just proposed?
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): It's not.
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): His account to the lawyers.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): No, no. That really doesn't happen at this stage. There will be many, stages in this process. This is really just one to identify the questions and the issues that we see and you see, and to get some initial feedback.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Not to really answer the questions. It is the questions that are important right now, and I think we've done a fairly good job of that.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Let's move on to the second proposal.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Thank you, Commissioner Waschura.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): So again, just for anyone that is joining in just now, this is the second item on the agenda, same property as the prior application, 28001 Elena Road, APN 18202016. This proposal is for a 119-lot subdivision.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Here's the project location.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Twin Oaks Development to the north.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Elena Road to the south, 280 to the east.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Existing conditions?
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Currently 1 parcel, 42.74 acres, zoned residential agricultural, RA, and is subject to a Williamson Act contract for agricultural land preservation.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): There are existing easements on the property.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): pedestrian… pathway, private access, emergency access, Prisma Hills Water District easement, utility easements as well.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Here is the proposed 119-lot subdivision.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): So, showing in this proposal much smaller lots to achieve that density.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): on this property.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): And we're gonna look at a few close-ups here.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): So this is, the… The bulk of the units south of the property at 28011 Elena Road.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): So you're seeing… A range of lot sizes between
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): 1,500 square feet and 2,600 square feet.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): They're… Paved roadways, 20-foot wide paved, over 32-foot wide easements, some 25-foot wide easements.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): You're seeing some parcels here. What's actually labeled 120 and 121, these are private open space easements.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Or private open space parcels, excuse me.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): So, moving on to Elena Road. Again, we're seeing
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): the private access from Elena Road leading to… leading through those,
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): parcels, those proposed parcels, and leading to 28011, Lena Road to the north. Again, seeing the…
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): The dedicated driveway to the agricultural property, which, again, is much larger at 34.5 acres out of the existing 43.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): And a similar site plan to the…
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): The previous proposal, the 12-lot proposal.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): This is the agricultural portion of the property. Again, the farm equipment building, primary farmhouse residence, the accessory buildings and structures, secondary farmhouse residence, and the…
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): The plants, along the northern property line.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): So again, for the committee, preliminary information gathering session, taking a look at several topics that could be discussed, circulation, grading, street alignment, identification of easements, frontage improvements, etc.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): The next steps, same as the previous application, these applications were submitted at the same time on June 26th. They were deemed complete on the same day, July 24th.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Again, the town will do a re… another 30-day review following a resubmittal of the application, and when it's… when it's deemed… if it's deemed complete.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): The town will review the application for compliance with the general plan, zoning, and Subdivision ordinances. I also wanted to mention that 3 public comments were received for this particular item on the agenda. Those 3 public comments were forwarded to the Subdivision Committee, they're included in their packets, and they were also published online.
Speaker 3 (Council Chambers): Thank you.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Thank you, Jonathan. Let's do the same thing we did before. We'll step through each of our different, areas, and…
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Please repeat, since this is a separate item, we shouldn't just say, we shouldn't ignore the things that we brought up before. Please bring them up again so that it's clear that they apply to this as well, though maybe we don't need quite as much description of each of these items. Jay?
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Yeah, Jay Bradford, Community Development Director. So, much like the first project, and different than the Subdivision committee meeting that we heard in March, this application, just for clarification, is seeking the subdivision and also the development of the units.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): This application, however, also requires a general plan amendment and rezoning to multi-family, because of the specific request for number of units involved in the project.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Some materials missing that we'd like more information on, the letter of authorization from the property owner, preliminary title reports, slope density calculations, including LAFMDA, MFA, topographic survey, slope and roadway classifications, and maps.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Also, missing material from the site development checklist relates to, payment of the site development fees, site plan, grain… drainage and… sorry, grading and drainage, and, certainly be helpful, because this is looking to propose units, building sections.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Outdoor lighting and acoustical studies are things that would help staff to understand if the project
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): that's being developed would be compliant. Other questions are, again, related to the existing Williamson Act contract, and do appreciate Brian O'Neill's comments earlier, as to responses to some of these questions, but also do have questions about the proposed easement exchanges between adjacent property owners.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): I would note that, like the previous application, the CEQA review will start when the application is deemed complete, and right now we have that incomplete application. So, some of these things, as it relates to further technical reviews, additional studies, will be part of that CEQA process and should be expected there. That includes consultations, and certainly we've
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): I've heard from, the tribes.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): that there's potential monitoring that they think may be part of the mitigation measures through their tribal consultations that would be forthcoming through the CEQA review process.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): or a bridge process, depending on, the applicant's final application. The town also,
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Is looking for… To reserve additional comments in case, through this conversation, additional things are brought up.
Speaker 5 (Council Chambers): Thank you, Jay. WooJay Kim, once again, Public Works Director. We may have similar comments as the other project, but some more specific comments related to sewers.
Speaker 5 (Council Chambers): About some of the grading, and
Speaker 5 (Council Chambers): other type of comments may be similar. I'm gonna pass on the mic, or allow Astha to speak on those things. A couple of things I do want to emphasize are some clarification on easements, specified on the plans, whether they're gonna be public, private, and
Speaker 5 (Council Chambers): Putting more definition on, public utility easements, any joint trenches that are being proposed, so some clarity on those would be helpful.
Speaker 5 (Council Chambers): And, yeah, I'm gonna actually pass it on to Astha again, thank you.
Astha Khanal: Thank you, Ray. Astha Khanal, Associate Engineer for the Town.
Astha Khanal: And so the majority of the comments that I have are similar to the comments discussed for the 12-lot proposal for this 118-lot proposal.
Astha Khanal: With some additional comments for sewer, as WooJ mentioned. So, from the engineering department,
Astha Khanal: Similarly, the submitted plans for our initial review are incomplete, and
Astha Khanal: It also requires substantial revisions for this proposal.
Astha Khanal: A complete grading and drainage plan is required, with,
Astha Khanal: Including a topographic survey with maximum 2-foot contours.
Astha Khanal: And a grading plan, also with maximum 2-foot contours.
Astha Khanal: And if the ground slope exceeds 10%, then 5 foot contours may be shown.
Astha Khanal: The proposed plans do not include sufficient elevations, including further retaining walls.
Astha Khanal: And they also don't include, enough information for the proposed structures, including proposed finish floor elevations.
Astha Khanal: A complete utility plan is also required.
Astha Khanal: We will also require structural details for all of the proposed improvements, and plans that clearly depict the proposed grading and drainage.
Astha Khanal: Additionally, for the private roadway easements, the town requires a 60-foot wide roadway easement.
Astha Khanal: The plans, also don't show all of the existing easements, including, pathway easements.
Astha Khanal: Some of them are shown as proposed easements, and they need to be clarified whether they're proposed or existing.
Astha Khanal: And also if they're private or if they're public easements.
Astha Khanal: Some of the sewer and storm drain are also proposed without the necessary easements.
Astha Khanal: The plans must be revised to show all of this information.
Astha Khanal: Additionally, the proposed drainage system
Astha Khanal: Must clearly identify the proposed stormwater drainage system, and then also all of the stormwater discharge points.
Astha Khanal: Addressing grading, the proposed property does not comply with the town's grading policy.
Astha Khanal: And to go over the policy again…
Astha Khanal: The overall cut and fill proposed exceeds the allowable maximum 4-foot cut.
Astha Khanal: And the maximum fill of 3 foot allowed by the town.
Astha Khanal: And this is for all structures, not including main residence and tennis courts.
Astha Khanal: A maximum of 8-foot cut is allowed for main residences.
Astha Khanal: And 6 foot, cut is allowed for tennis courts.
Astha Khanal: The proposed structures, including the AI farm equipment building, the primary and secondary farmhouse residences.
Astha Khanal: And the other structures proposed all exceed these quantities.
Astha Khanal: Additionally.
Astha Khanal: I can go through the list for some of the comments provided specifically for the different structures.
Astha Khanal: So, to address…
Astha Khanal: All of the, the structure specifically, the overall grading exceeds a combined cut and fill of 55 feet for the lot.
Astha Khanal: Including, 50 feet of fill proposed for the AI farm equipment building.
Astha Khanal: 40 feet of… Combined cut and fill for the building pad.
Astha Khanal: 40 feet of cut for the secondary farmhouse residence.
Astha Khanal: 40 feet of combined cut and fill for the primary farmhouse residence.
Astha Khanal: 30 feet of combined cut and fill for the farmhouse.
Astha Khanal: 25 feet of combined cut and fill for the tennis court.
Astha Khanal: 20 feet of combined cut and fill for the gym and pool.
Astha Khanal: And 10 feet of combined cut and fill.
Astha Khanal: For the pickleball court.
Astha Khanal: Additionally, the town's grading policy requires stepping of structures.
Astha Khanal: Down hillsides to, preserve existing contours.
Astha Khanal: Or to retain existing contours, I should say.
Astha Khanal: One thing I would like to add, that I didn't mention in the previous proposal,
Astha Khanal: Is that, the town would also require a traffic study.
Astha Khanal: For, for both proposals.
Astha Khanal: For the proposed sanitary sewer main extension, the engineering department's comments
Astha Khanal: Include providing a revised plan with complete plan and profile drawings for the proposed sewer mains.
Astha Khanal: The town does not own or maintain sewer mains on private property, except within, public utility easements.
Astha Khanal: Additionally, the proposed main, should be an 8-inch main minimum.
Astha Khanal: the sewer flow from this subdivision will also drain to the Persama sewage lift station.
Astha Khanal: And if there is an amendment to the reimbursement agreement, the subdivision will be subject to a usage fee.
Astha Khanal: Additionally, for this specific proposal, there is a sewer capacity study required due to the increased sewage flow from this subdivision.
Astha Khanal: And applicants will be responsible for the cost to upsize the existing sewer mains.
Astha Khanal: The discharge volume may also be limited by capacity rights per the agreement with the City of Palo Alto.
Astha Khanal: with the Regional Water Quality Plant… Control Plant in Palo Alto.
Astha Khanal: That's all… that's all I have for my comments.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Again, Drawings… On 6, 7, 8, and 9 show 24 lots.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): So, they didn't change that. It should say 119th. Scenic, and again, I want to emphasize this is a scenic highway, and that sort of,
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): does preclude… Dwelling… it has to take into effect that it's a scenic highway, so you want your,
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): We'd like to have your, buildings Hidden, not be prominent.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): to the landscape.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): The other thing is, that hasn't been address… was addressed a little bit, is the number of parking places per unit.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): And where the parking was going to be. And I think it's along the roadways, but I think we should address it. Also, the units are shown to be three-story.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): So, this is going to, with this kind of development, it's going to be very, very prominent. So that should be addressed. And again, my favorite topic is the retaining walls. I think, and it would be EDBC's
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Then these retaining walls are far too… Excessive.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): And the roads, again,
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): don't meet the town's standards, so that needs to be addressed, and whether they're private or public. I don't think we usually have… do we have private roads on a development of this way? Usually, private roads are 2 or 3 houses.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): If not… A subdivision.
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): And, the other thing… is…
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Oh, again, one entrance, whether looking at two entrances so close together, and what kind of, entryway, what would be the size of the entryway coming into the subdivision?
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Awesome. Thanks.
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): Wanna say something?
Speaker 13 (Council Chambers): Yeah.
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): Again, Nick, aren't sure.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): take a moment, though, just to say that… For something about this? No, just to say that,
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): what you had said before applies to this. Oh, sure. We want this to be able.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): Yeah, it's the very same issues. The topography has not changed.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): And, you know, Open Space Committee still has the same concerns going forward, if the application goes forward.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): We are concerned about the swales, the wildlife corridors, any riparian habitat, the slopes, open space easements that could be there. All of those things we would want to address.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): Thank you.
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): Yes, again, Nick Earn, Chairman for the Pathways Committee. Jonathan, just to show it one more time, just to make it clear.
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): So on the GIS that we have for the Master Path Plan for the Pathways Committee, it's very clear that currently on three sides of this property, we already have, pathways allocated and designed. They should be in compliance with the codes.
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): that the city has for pathways. The four corners, and, was, clearly specified by Jim, too.
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): Is they don't necessarily have to come in from those exact locations, but the whole point of having those arrows is to make sure that there are pathways to code that go through these properties that interconnect.
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): That, either on-road and off-road, they have to be compliant, and in any of the site development plans, they should be laid out and clear, so that it's very clear that the pathways are a key component of our entire city. All of the dwellings on this should
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): try to…
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): Embrace, what the pathways are all about, making it a safe corridor for both people, horses, pedestrians, wildlife, so that this way it is also used for emergency access pathways.
Speaker 8 (Council Chambers): And all of those need to be clearly addressed, during the development.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Thank you.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): And I'm just gonna rifle through my list of development standards and zoning issues.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): They're very similar to what was said before, but there are a few things that have to do with the density that has increased here, and I'll mention those things as well. First of all, the LUF. We require a LUF of 1.0 when we do a subdivision, and we would
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): I'd like to understand how we, can create an average 2,250 square foot lot and achieve any LUF that's consistent with our codes.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Predominantly, there's an issue about this going through a rezoning process to become a multi-family zone.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): And, it's not clear to me
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): how that comes about. That isn't something that an applicant can just…
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): do. That's something that the town does, so we'll have to figure out how that would happen in this case.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): I mentioned earlier on the other one, the building site geometry, that has gotten more of an… a more acute issue because these are even smaller. Setbacks, that's more acute because they're smaller. MDA, MFA, same point. Here's a new one, which is parking.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Parking with this much density is going to be an issue. We… we try not to have parking on streets.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): And we have requirements that a home have two and three different parking spots, and if you have an ADU, another parking spot, and it's not clear to me that this supports any of those town design standards.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): The easements we mentioned before, both the existing easements and being compatible with their uses, but also the new easements that are typical in development, such as the pathways that are going to be needed to outfit such a large
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): piece of real estate. And open space easements, for slope… Conservation.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Also with the density is landscape screening. We typically try to have some barriers between homes so that there's some privacy, and as these homes get closer and closer together, that's going to be harder to achieve. I'd like to understand how that happens.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): The grading issue, I think, is very important. This is the document where I saw a 55-foot retaining wall, and I can point you to that, page 16, section C.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): the… the access to the homes being private roads and having our access standards be complied with, what I read, again, is 20 to 22 foot road widths when we typically use 60 feet wide right-of-ways for
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): For the… for, access.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): I already mentioned multifamily zoning and that transition, and I think that is a very large issue.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Is there anything else anyone from the committees would like to say at this point?
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): pardon? The hell of a path?
Speaker 6 (Council Chambers): Doctor.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): You'd like to just make sure that the helipad is… FAA compliant? FAA compliant, yes, okay.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): I understand that.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Why don't we give the applicant an opportunity to respond to the questions that we've brought up, and then we'll ask for any,
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Advice… advice… advice from the,
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): From the audience, and then we'll go back to the applicant. Okay,
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Mr. O'Neill, would you like to say anything in response to some of the questions that were brought up on this particular proposal?
Brian O'Neill: Just very briefly, I think it's a lot of the same issues that we previously discussed. Wanted to clarify, it is a… it is 118 units, in a
Brian O'Neill: 8.5 acre portion, essentially the same portion of the property that would be developed with the 11 lots of the other proposal. The idea here was to be consistent with the
Brian O'Neill: the…
Brian O'Neill: with the town's housing element overlay, and we understand that right now, this property would be required to be rezoned in a general plan amendment. I know the town is still
Brian O'Neill: looking for alternative… alternative sites to meet the arena requirements, in addition to…
Brian O'Neill: In addition to low income, it's still, the town is still behind on all affordability levels, including above moderate
Brian O'Neill: Or above moderate, moderate, very low. So this is,
Brian O'Neill: A large site that would meet the requirements for the housing element law to accommodate.
Brian O'Neill: accommodate affordable housing, and this concept proposal is if the town were interested in, designating this for multifamily purposes. But we do recognize that that would require a discretionary rezoning of the site.
Brian O'Neill: And… That's all I got on this one.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): All right, well, thank you very much. It was very good. Thank you for pointing that out. That is…
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): an issue for the town, having affordable housing. And this is an opportunity for the town to consider a way to get lots of affordable housing without having lots of high luxury homes attending it.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Increasing the density much higher. This is a,
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): something that will go through many phases of analysis and consideration. There'll be many opportunities for people to weigh in. Why don't we take this opportunity to hear from any residents who have anything to say about this particular application?
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): And if you have any names, you might… okay, we don't. But, so please, raise your hand, get our attention, come to the podium, and we'd like to hear what you have to say.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Good evening. Thank you for having this wonderful panel here, which covers, encompasses what our.
Speaker 20 (Council Chambers): is all about, you know, a slice of everything.
Speaker 20 (Council Chambers): So, I'm just… my name is Indu Kadambi, and, I do agree that, you know, housing, affordable housing, and that housing element is important.
Speaker 20 (Council Chambers): But do we have to alter our ridgeline? Do we have to, work with the, you know, mitigating factors like runoff and fertilizer and all these things in order to achieve that goal?
Speaker 20 (Council Chambers): you know, that small goal of affordable housing, can we not have alternative, you know, options? Do we have to go with…
Speaker 20 (Council Chambers): And all the helicopter, I mean, it's not something like a Marie Antoinette kind of a situation. Do we really need a helipad? The reason they have it, they said, Mr. O'Neill said that it was, you know, for safety and things like that. Do we need to tamper our land?
Speaker 20 (Council Chambers): in order to have, you know, safety. Actually, we are creating all those hazards, and then in order to mitigate that, we are trying to do retaining walls, and prevent runoffs, and then have helipads, you know, and things like that. Do we need all that, or are there ways to attain our lofty goal of having the affordable housing?
Speaker 20 (Council Chambers): Without having to go with the…
Speaker 20 (Council Chambers): luxury options, which is, you know, disproportionate to what the housing element, you know, mandates us to do. So that's one thing. I'm also interested in knowing about the AI farm. I do, support AI, it's not that I'm, you know, it's not an anathema in my eyes.
Speaker 20 (Council Chambers): But I would like to know how much the water consumption will be on that particular issue. So that… these are all issues that people need to talk about, and when you have a disproportionate, non-affordable housing.
Speaker 20 (Council Chambers): we should be asking, do we have alternate options where we can achieve this, and maybe even better, maybe we can even provide more affordable housing without having to go with all the behemoth construction? So, that's all I wanted.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): Okay, there is time.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): I have 3 additional questions specifically for this 118-unit alternative. First, the applicant's plans say that
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): These 118 residents will be served by only 20 to 20 foot wide private roads, and they also identify a potential connection through the proposed Twin Oaks development. I asked the town whether this project can independently satisfy fire emergency traffic and circulation requirements if Twin Oaks is never constructed.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): Can TM26…
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): 0006 function independently if Twin Oaks is never approved or constructed? If not, why are these being reviewed as independent projects?
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): Second, the plants contain residential lots as small as 1,400 square feet and many approximately 21 feet wide.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): I'd like the town to identify every RA development standard that this proposal violates and departs from, and the specific state law waiver concession.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): Were other authority claimed for each departure?
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): The applicant defines The residential project area is only 8.5 acres.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): for its claim CEQA exemption, yet the plans contemplate additional recreation land, roads, drainage, fire access, and infrastructure elsewhere on this 43-acre site. I asked the town to explain exactly what constitutes the project site for CEQA purposes, and ensure the project is not being artificially segmented.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): There appears to be a proposed lot of only 980 square feet.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): The preliminary lotting plan identifies 121, identifies lot 121 as approximately 980 square feet.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): What is this parcel for? Whether it's being counted among the 119 lots, and whether it is developable.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): And what standards apply to it? Why does a 118-unit project create 119 lots, plus other identified parcels? The agenda,
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): describes a 119-lot Subdivision with 118 residential units. And, please explain the complete parcel accounting, including lots 119, 120, 121, shown in the plans.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): and the legal purposes for each one of these non-residential parcels. I request that the Town's answers and supporting documents be placed in the record. Thank you.
Speaker 12 (Council Chambers): Thank you.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): Good evening.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): Jill Grunewald on Elena Road, thank you very much for your participation. One of the things I want to bring up is that there are two other sites that have been identified.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): And that is Foothill College and St. Nicholas. Now, Foothill College
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): came to one of the meetings. They're enthused to have low-income housing there, and it makes all the sense.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): There's police, There's fire, there's patrol.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): There's employment.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): There's transportation.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): I think we need to ease a little bit and take a look at the foothill site.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): That's where the multi-dwelling needs to occur.
Speaker 7 (Council Chambers): Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): Rajiv Patel, speaking as an individual.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): First of all, I'd like to commend the town staff and the subcommittee for a detailed review
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): that you have done for what I consider poorly developed applications.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): That the applicant has provided just to place it on the record.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): This proposal… Clearly is an urban development.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): This parcel is a Williamson Act parcel.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): So, both of these don't go hand in hand.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): We've heard the client's lawyer talk about, in broad general terms, about Williamson Act. It meant nothing to me.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): If they would like to respond, I want a specific answer.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): From the client's lawyer.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): And that answer should be either in yes or a no.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): Is your client willing to start a removal process of Williamson Act on this parcel prior to submitting such dense urban development proposals?
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): I would consider a non-response to my question.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): As a fishing expedition by the applicant to just rile up
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): Housing advocates with false and incorrect information
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): In the name of affordable housing.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): The town should find ways to reduce wasting town's resources on such bad actors.
Speaker 16 (Council Chambers): Thank you.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Welcome, John. Let's try to do 3 minutes.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): In my prior comments, I may have come across as not being particularly supportive of the proposal.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): And I would like to emphasize, because there was a gentleman that raised a very good point.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): Which is… We actually do need to build Housing.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): And I want to make it clear for the record
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): that I am 100% supportive of building housing.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): I would also like to make it clear for the record that in my letter to HCD, which I wrote, earlier this year.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): I did take an advanced look at the town's APR, which was subsequently transmitted, and I believe that the town is actually on very good track with respect to meeting our commitments under the housing element.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): However… The key issue…
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): Obviously, the key issue for Los Altos Hills, given the economics and everything, is how do we possibly generate the affordable, particularly for very low and lower-income households, how do we possibly achieve that?
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): Well, we certainly don't achieve it by following the path
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): Of private development, where somebody wants to build 118 units, and they put 6 units in, which are lower income, in order to not get extra units, but to get access to bonuses and concessions and et cetera, to try and waive all of our standards.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): That is like putting a gun To your own head.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): The way we do it is we get land, and we specifically develop lower-income housing. That's how Hillsborough, Palo Alto, Los Altos, and I will continue… stop continuing to name them. That is what we need to do.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): So, I… I see the opportunity to find an agreement.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): On solving the real problems that exist.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): However, I am going to come back to the point I made on the last proposal.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): The absolute…
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): mandatory first step is for the owner to file a notice of non-renewal. Until then, the town should not even be entertaining this proposal unless they wish to claim that this is compatible use.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): Secondly, Under Government Code 51282, Paragraph B, paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): That is the paragraph that says that the town cannot
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): Consider a request for cancellation unless a notice of renewal has been filed.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): So, please follow the law. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): I would also just like to provide Mr. O'Neill with the reference
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): that under density bonus law, 65915, paragraph O, subparagraph 6, that
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): If the town does not specify density in dwelling units per acre.
Speaker 14 (Council Chambers): The town calculates based upon its own standards as to what the base density is, and unless the project conforms to the base density, it doesn't get access to any of the benefits under the density bonus law. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Marco, is there anyone online who would like to contribute?
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Marta, please go ahead.
Martha Bowden: Okay, so… The 12-unit subdivision was interesting.
Martha Bowden: But the 118-lot subdivision is crazy.
Martha Bowden: All of the lots are located bunched around one single family lot and abutting two neighbor lots to the west side.
Martha Bowden: This is akin to putting a trailer park in our neighborhood to the extreme financial harm to 3-4 single-family homes.
Martha Bowden: There is no way that… 118 homes.
Martha Bowden: Plus the 2 that are already there.
Martha Bowden: Can safely evacuate in the middle of the night.
Martha Bowden: When a fire rages through, There is absolutely no way.
Martha Bowden: Elena cannot handle it.
Martha Bowden: Those narrow streets cannot handle it.
Martha Bowden: This is… I think this is a game, the home… the…
Martha Bowden: The property owner is playing with us.
Martha Bowden: They present one possibility that's 12 lots.
Martha Bowden: And then they present this other bizarre possibility of 119, or 118, sorry. Gotta get the numbers straight.
Martha Bowden: And… With the hope that, oh, we'll throw out the 118 and maybe accept the 12.
Martha Bowden: Without looking at any of the details.
Martha Bowden: Well, I think we're smarter than that.
Martha Bowden: And this neighbor, Has shown, in the past.
Martha Bowden: That they're not a very good neighbor.
Martha Bowden: Because they've tried to put in… in fact, they have put in illegal fencing on the property, they've blocked off wildlife transit.
Martha Bowden: And…
Martha Bowden: When we used to see lots of deer in our backyard on Saddle Court, which is right around the… right over the hillside from them.
Martha Bowden: The last 5 years… 5 to 6 years, we've seen very few deer coming through.
Martha Bowden: So, the deer population has migrated elsewhere.
Martha Bowden: Or, you know, we even… my husband even found a dead deer on Fran Stevenson's path, which…
Martha Bowden: Abuts their property.
Martha Bowden: So… yeah.
Martha Bowden: I… I… hmm.
Martha Bowden: That's all I'm gonna say.
Martha Bowden: Thank you.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Thank you, Martha.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Anne, please go ahead.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): N…
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Ann, Dewey, are you, good? There you go.
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: Let me just,
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: applaud John for his remarks in particular, and say once again that if we want to solve the problem of low and very low income housing, let's have the developer show us
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: an application
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: That solves the problem we have, rather than creating the host of problems that all of you who have spoken tonight
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: have described.
Ann Duwe, Cupertino: That's it. Thank you.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): I see Couperus online.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Jitzi, please go ahead.
Jitze Couperus: Can you hear me?
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Yes.
Jitze Couperus: I just want to drive home.
Jitze Couperus: One thing… That has been made clear tonight.
Jitze Couperus: We have a low income.
Jitze Couperus: housing problem.
Jitze Couperus: We need to solve.
Jitze Couperus: To solve that, We can't… Do it by doing 1 or 2%.
Jitze Couperus: Of all multi-housing development.
Jitze Couperus: We need to, within our town, Come up!
Jitze Couperus: With some dedicated… Multi-housing.
Jitze Couperus: Development.
Jitze Couperus: Devoted.
Jitze Couperus: To low-income housing.
Jitze Couperus: Otherwise, our population has to explode to accommodate it.
Jitze Couperus: That is a fundamental law of physics.
Jitze Couperus: Having said that, I have been waiting.
Jitze Couperus: To say my peace on that subject.
Jitze Couperus: But I'm waiting for a subcommittee to be formed.
Jitze Couperus: On multi-family housing, and placing thereof.
Jitze Couperus: So I'd like to put… The town fathers, on notice.
Jitze Couperus: That I have.
Jitze Couperus: Sitting on my computer.
Jitze Couperus: Two proposals.
Jitze Couperus: Attacking that very problem.
Jitze Couperus: But I'm waiting until there is an appropriate town committee to listen to it.
Jitze Couperus: Thank you.
Speaker 9 (Council Chambers): Thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): And stay tuned, for upcoming City Council meetings.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Okay, I don't see anyone else, online. Is there anyone else in the room? I don't see that. Why don't we go and ask, Mr. O'Neill
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Would you like to respond to anything you've heard here tonight, so far?
Brian O'Neill: I don't have much, much more to say on the comments that were made. It wears.
Brian O'Neill: some… comments, I… Think are, attacking the, property owners, or me.
Brian O'Neill: Which is fine. So… the…
Brian O'Neill: The owners had previously tried to, utilize the
Brian O'Neill: utilized their property consistent with the Williamson Act contract, which designated it, actually, as grazing.
Brian O'Neill: And fencing is a necessary part of grazing operations to maintain the Williamson Act.
Brian O'Neill: purpose.
Brian O'Neill: That was not permitted, and now is seeking to utilize their property in a different way to provide a benefit to the community.
Brian O'Neill: And our position is that It's not just low-income housing that needs to be Provided.
Brian O'Neill: We need an all-above… all of the above approach to address the housing crisis that the state faces. So that includes both density bonus, mixed-use.
Brian O'Neill: Or mixed income market rate, and…
Brian O'Neill: A project of this… of this type that has smaller lots can create the missing middle housing that is naturally affordable and is not, you know, large estates on… or large homes on one-acre estates.
Brian O'Neill: So, this is… this is a much-needed housing type, and the property owners are trying to do what they believe is… is a benefit to the community.
Brian O'Neill: And so they are proposing this project also to help
Brian O'Neill: again, meet the town's RENA requirements, but again, we do realize that it does… would require a
Brian O'Neill: Discretionary rezoning of the property, so if the town is not interested in a project of this type, then it likely would not move forward, because it would need support of the town.
Brian O'Neill: So, this was being… this was being proposed by the property owners, again, because of the interest that the town has shown in trying to identify additional, housing element inventory sites.
Brian O'Neill: M.
Brian O'Neill: So, that's pretty much all I have.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Okay, Brian, this is Jay Bradford, Community Development Director again. Thank you for your comments, and certainly want to say thank you to the public that spent a lot of time here in helping identify issues that I think will both make your proposals
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): more well thought through and addressed a number of the concerns here tonight. I would like to address some of the comments that were made through you and through the public comment period, which is the status of the town's housing element, which I'd like to say is a very positive news, which we have a certified housing element. We're compliant with that housing element, and been working through a number
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): number of implementation goals associated with that. And part of that, you know, to Mr. O'Neill's point, is the fact that there are programs that do help to support the building of
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): Projects that include, various, A…
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): AMI levels which tie to affordability within the greater regional areas of Santa Clara County, and those programs do offer incentives if a project qualifies and is complete in its application, and would be willing to work with this particular applicant on any of the number of proposals to be able to show how they align with the underlying zoning.
Speaker 4 (Council Chambers): and the regulations that are germane to those particular properties. Certainly, the town's willing to further discussions associated with projects, with those constraints in mind.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Thank you.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Is there any other comments that any of us would like to make at this time?
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): All right, why don't we call an end to this meeting? I thank everyone for joining us here tonight. I thank people who came in on Zoom. I thank Mr. O'Neill for being here and being so forthcoming with his information.
Speaker 2 (Council Chambers): Until the next time. Meeting adjourned. Thank you.