Planning Commission - Special Meeting

The town of Loscatoos special meeting of the planning commission of December 17, 2025 is now called to order. I will now call the role. Commissioners, please state here when your name is called. Commissioner Bernett here. Commissioner Raspby here. Vice Chair Burch here. Commissioner Sordy here.

And I am here as well. Please note for the record that Commissioner Barnett is recused due to proximity to that the site and Commissioner Stump is absent tonight. Please stand if you are able as Commissioner Bernett leads us in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. As the planning commission conducts the meeting this evening, we encourage active participation by the public, which is essential to the work of the commission. The public can participate in several ways. Prior to a meeting, written comments about agenda items may be submitted to staff. And during the meeting, there are two opportunities for members of the public to participate. First, during the verbal communications period, an individual may speak on any topic that is not on the agenda. Second, during the public hearing portion of tonight's meeting, any member of the public may speak about an agenda item. You will be advised of the times when to speak on each on the one single item that we have tonight. If you wish to address the commission tonight during the verbal communications portion or a public hearing agenda item, please raise your hand on Zoom or for those here in person, complete a yellow speaker card and give it to a staff member. When you are called to speak, please come up to the podium and speak directly into the microphone. You can adjust it as needed. As this meeting is being recorded, please state your name and address for the record or indicate that you are speaking anonymously. You will have three minutes to speak. We will now begin with the verbal communications portion of the meeting during which members of the public are invited to address the commission on any issue that is not on the agenda for tonight's meeting. Staff will announce when your

three-minut time limit is up. I have one speaker card for Brown Act. Okay, I'm coming anonymously. Brown Act. I think you probably understand why I'm doing the Brown Act. Um, I am speaking on from past experience. I was a general contractor. I bought a I'm neutral trying to be neutral on this, but I bought a large over 2.2 2 acre lot off of the city of Camp Certino built the house. Um, and I'm uh, and I know there's legal issues. I have legal issues right now, but uh, um, what I'm trying to say is at the beginning when you when you're doing this and everybody, you know, I this is like I'm asking why you're doing this as a special if there was any, you know, really public because I didn't see this in the newspaper or anything like that. of originally, you know, because it's up on a hill, it'll it'll echo echo down. And I built on a hill and so, you know, and you're you're dividing it. A lot of people are to more than hear or are to be interested in this uh this kind of um deal. I'm not a public speaker. I'm just giving you a heads up to legal issues because I also know um because I had, you know, when developers get in and owners get in, everybody gets, you know, and and even the contractors get sued. So, I'm just letting you know, heads up. Um you know, you know, that's I'm just putting it out there. Thank you. Thank you all. Try to keep it nice.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker? Are there any hands raised on Zoom? There are not.

Okay. We will now begin with the ver uh sorry, we will now move on to our public hearing starting with item number one. Consider a request for approval for the subdivision of one lot into 12 lots with a vesting tenative map. construction of a new single family residence on each lot. Site work requiring a grading permit and removal of large protected trees under Senate Bill 330 on vacant property zoned RC located at 178 Twin Oaks Drive, APN 532-16-006. architecture and site applications S-24-023 through 032 and S-24-059 vesting tenative map application M-24-013 and mitigated negative declaration application ND-25-001 an initial study and mitigated negative declaration have been prepared property owner applicant is Larry Dodge before the staff report can I ask for a show of hands hands of commissioners that visited the site and are there any disclosures from anyone? Um, I would like to make a disclosure that I, um, am familiar with the area and know some people that live in this neighborhood because I grew up here and still live in town. So, um, but it will not prevent me from being able to make a decision tonight. Um, I will still be able to make an impartial decision. So that being said, u Miss Walters will be presenting the staff report this evening.

Thank you, chair, and good evening. Aaron Walters, senior planner. Before you this evening is a request to subdivide the 17.5 acre vacant lot located at 178 Twin Oaks Drive into 12 lots um through a vesting tenative map. The applicant is requesting approval of multiple architecture and site applications to construct 12 twostory single family homes and associated site work uh requiring a grading permit. Of the 12 single family homes, three are designated to be affordable, representing 25% of the total units. These units would be for sale BMP units restricted to lowincome households. The project also includes a request to remove 223 protected trees. 12 trees are large protected per town code. This project is being processed under SP 330 and the proc the project qualifies for five incentives and unlimited waiverss under the density bonus law and the applicant has also invoked builder's remedy. The project's underlying zoning is RC, which would not support the proposed density. The applicant is utilizing builder's remedy for the general planned land use designation, zoning, and density. The town is applying R 110 zoning standards to this project. Primary access to the subdivision would be provided by a 20 foot wide private street with a culde-sac connecting to Twin Oaks. A 20 foot wide emergency vehicle access would extend south to the site to Brookacres Drive providing secondary emergency access consistent with the fire department standards. A private driveway will be accessed off of Sierra Vista Court which will provide access to lot 10. The town requested the applicant meet all the town's objective standards. However, the applicant has requested incentives and waiverss allowed through

state laws. The applicant has requested four incentives through state density bonus law, which include not installing story poles and netting, not providing sidewalks, not providing trails, and not providing open space easements. The applicant has also requested 58 different waiverss as summarized in page 13 of the staff report. Um the applicant has provided written justification which can be found in exhibit 5. An initial study was prepare prepared for the project and it included a number of project level technical studies. All technical reports were peer-reviewed by the town and prepared by the town's consultants. The initial study concluded that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment with the adoption of the M andD and the mitigated mitigation monitoring and reporting program to mitigate potential impacts to less than a significant level. An EIR was therefore not required. 18 mitigation measures are included in the MMRP and conditions of approval which are in exhibit 3. The M &D did not have to be recirculated as there were no major modifications that were identified after the public review. Minor changes are described in the AATA sheet which is found in exhibit 14. There are two addendums this evening as well as a desk item that were distributed for this item. And this concludes staff's report. We staff as well as the town's environmental consultants from Rainey, the town's traffic consultants and outside legal counsel are available to support your discussion. And now I'm going to turn it over to the town attorney who will provide background on the regulatory framework.

Thank you. I'm Gabrielle Wan, town attorney and there are a number of different state housing laws that apply to this project. And so I have prepared a brief PowerPoint to go over the applicable laws um so that everybody has the framework. And on also available on Zoom is Nosanine Zlei with the law firm of Goldfarb and Litman. And the law firm of Goldfarb and Litman has been assisting the town with its review of the various Senate Bill 330 planning applications that have come in. Um so I'm ready for the first slide. Um there are four major laws that are implicated by this project. Um and I'll discuss them in turn. The first is Senate Bill 330. The second is the State Housing Accountability Act. The third is State Density Bonus Law. And the fourth is the California Environmental Quality Act. Next slide, please. Senate Bill 330 authorizes applicants to submit what's called a preliminary application. And once that preliminary application has been submitted, the applicant vests to whatever development standards were in place at the time the application was submitted. Um, and there are 17 things that are required for the preliminary application to be deemed submitted. Um, and applicants who meet those 17 criteria will vest. Um, and so this applicant vested at a time prior to certification of the town's um, housing element. And so as a result, this applicant is eligible to use what's called the builder's remedy, which I'll get into later. Next slide, please. Um, pursuant to Senate Bill 330, the town is limited to five public hearings on any SB 330 project, and tonight's hearing will constitute the first of those five. Next slide, please. Um, so this project

vested to the development standards in place when it submitted its preliminary application. Um, and in addition to SB 330, the project is using state density bonus law and the builder's remedy. Next slide, please. Uh, the state housing accountability act is the statute that contains um what's colloquial called the builder's remedy. It's codified at government code section 65589.5. Um and it provides that uh local agencies cannot apply objective standards that would render uh housing project qualified housing projects um infeasible and um interpretations of the term infeasible mean both physically impossible and economically infeasible. Um a project will qualify as if it has a sufficient amount of low-income housing as a component of it. Um the requirement is that it be 20% affordable to lowincome households. Um this particular applicant is proposing a project that has 25% of the units affordable to low-income households. Next slide please. Um and so also there are three ways that a project can be deemed an eligible housing development project. Um the first of those is that it's a project for residential units only, which this project is. So it therefore qualifies. Next slide please. Um and we've discussed the fact that 20% more than 20% of the units will be low income. So it qualifies on that basis to use the housing accountability act. Next slide. Um and so the town does have the ability to apply its objective development standards so long as those standards will not render the project infeasible. Um, and so the question often comes up,

what is an objective development standard? Um, and it needs to be a standard that's consistent with the town meeting its regional housing needs allocation and it has to be applied to facilitate development at the density that's proposed. Next slide, please. Um, it can't be a subjective determination. It needs to be something that's based on a written uniformly applied standard. Next slide, please. Um, the Housing Accountability Act also goes into what what it means for a local agency to disapprove a housing development project. Um, and the definition is broader than simply voting no on a housing proposal. Um, it can also uh be not meeting the town's statutory deadlines for making a decision and it can also mean imposing a condition of approval that would render a project infeasible. Next slide please. Um, so the town pursuant to the statute, the town does bear the burden to show that the condition of approval will not render the project infeasible and the town makes this determination based on the preponderance of the evidence standard. Um, meaning that the evidence um in favor of it not rendering the project infeasible outweighs evidence on the other side. Next slide, please. Um the Housing Accountability Act does have a number of grounds upon which a local agency can deny um a builder's remedy project or impose a condition that renders it infeasible. Um the first would be that the town had an adopted housing element and has met its share of the regional housing needs allocation in all income categories um proposed in the project. Um the town at this point has not met its regional housing needs allocations. So that first reason is inapplicable.

Um the second reason would be that the project will have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety and that determination needs to be based on an objective written standard. Next slide please. Uh the third basis for denying or rendering a project infeasible would be that it's required in order to comply with a specific state or federal law. Um the fourth reason would be that the project is on agricultural land without adequate water or wastewater treatment facilities. Next slide please. Um and then uh the fifth reason would be that the development is inconsistent with both the zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation. However, this reason only is only available to public agencies that had a certified housing element at the time that the project vested. Next slide, please. Um, and then the sixth and final reason for denying would be if the project did not qualify as a builder's remedy project. Um, and so based on the 2025 version of the statute, projects that are much more dense than are allowed in the new version of the statute will no longer qualify as a builder's remedy project. Um, however, this project does not meet that density and so it does qualify. Next slide, please. Um, so are there any questions on housing accountability act before I move to state density bonus law? Okay. Um, so state density bonus law provides that applicants who are providing specified levels of affordability can get density bonuses, meaning they can build a denser project than they could otherwise um, a specified number of incentives or concessions and unlimited waiverss. Um, pursuant to the law, applicants do not

need to utilize the density bonus portion of the statute, meaning they don't have to build denser in order to take advantage of the ability to use incentives, concessions, and waivers. Um, and so that's what this applicant has chosen to do. They're not seeking to increase the density, um, but they are seeking incentives, concessions, and waivers. Next slide, please. Um and so an incentive or concession can be any any reduction in standards um that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions to the project. Next slide please. Um it can also be approval of mixed use zoning which is not applicable here or any other thing that will result in a cost reduction and an example of that would be the the request not to comply with the story pole policy. Next slide please. Um so the public agencies have several grounds upon which to deny a request for an incentive or concession. Um the first would be if the request does not result in identifiable or actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing. The second reason would be if the proposal would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety and that impact cannot be mitigated without rendering the project unaffordable. Next slide, please. And the third grounds for denial would be if the requested incentive or concession were contrary to state or federal law. Next slide, please. Um, the state density bonus statute also provides for waiverss. Um, and a waiver is defined as um not applying any development standard that would have the effect of quote unquote physically precluding the project. Um, and it's important to note that there is case law holding that that means physically

precluding the project as proposed. Um, meaning that public agencies don't have the ability to redesign the project. Next slide, please. Um and then the final uh law that applies is the California Environmental Quality Act. And as Miss Walters mentioned, um the town's consultant did prepare an initial study. Um and based on the results of that initial study, um the town determined that a mitigated negative declaration was appropriate. And what that means is there may be significant environmental impacts but all of those impacts can be mitigated to less than significance. Next slide please. And that concludes my presentation and both I and Missy are available to answer any follow-up questions. Um before we get questions to staff, I just wanted to because tonight's meeting there's a lot to cover. I just wanted to remind us all that or request that commissioners limit our questions to staff at this time to clarifying questions. something specific to the staff report, procedural questions, or something that might take a few minutes to answer that they can seek information on, but hold most of our most of our bigger questions or some things that might open up some greater discussion until after we've heard from the applicant team. So, um, Vice Chair Burch had a question and then Mr. Bernett,

it was just a clarifying question. Um so it has come up about um you know in a number of the letters we have about adhering to the objective standards and I would just like for you to confirm that because of the density law the waiverss that they have requested while they may be against our objective standards they will they should be granted to them or

yeah I mean what's interesting about this project is there's so many different laws that apply and so there's going to be slightly different analysis based on each law And so under the Housing Accountability Act, the town can apply its objective standard so long as it doesn't render the project infeasible. So that's like one level of inquiry. And then under density bonus law, um the town has those three reasons for denying a requested incentive or concession. Um and the one that seems most apppropo is the one that says um it has to result in a cost reduction and it has to be demonstrated that it would. Um and then for waiverss, the question will be would application of the town's objective standard physically preclude the project as proposed.

Commissioner Burch and then Commissioner Sordy I mean sorry Commissioner Bernett and then

thank you chair. So, a question um to follow up on the mitigated negative declaration um approach preferred over an EIR. Did this come up by the applicant and was there a comment by staff or was there recommend recommendation by the staff given the complexity of this project? Um, so the determination is made by the town's environmental consultant on behalf of the town and representatives from Rainey are here if you have more questions about that determination. Um, many applicants do choose to do an environmental impact report. They will ask the town, they'll say, even though I qualify for a mitigated negative declaration, I would like to do an environmental impact report. And under those circumstances, the town will prepare an environmental impact report.

Thank you.

Just to follow up on that, so I know there was an EIR referenced in the materials in a few places. I think there's an EI dating back to about 2017 and then there's some old correspondence that seem to have been related to prior engagement of agencies going back around that time. So I guess my question is is is the I mean I think I know the answer but just for clarity the EI is not part of this consideration at all and the does the ism andd stand completely on its own? Um, so in order to make its recommendation to the town council, you know, as you know, the planning commission will have to make a determination on the squa. And so the commission's being asked to make a determination on the squa that was presented tonight, well, that will be presented tonight, which is the mitigated negative declaration. And then just for clarity, since affordable housing is so relevant to so many parts of this builder's remedy application, um I think I saw in the file what the applicant's opinion is on what the the minimum required affordable percentage is on this project. I didn't see staff maybe it was in the staff report and I missed it. So what is the minimum affordable housing percentage required?

It would be 20% in this case the applicants providing 25%. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other questions for staff at this time? No. Okay. We will now open the public portion of the public hearing on item number one and give the applicant an opportunity to address the commission for up to five minutes. Um I believe that the Mr. Foley will be speaking on behalf of the applicant first. Um, thank you. That's correct.

Good evening, planning commission. It's nice to see you. It's been a little bit since uh had the pleasure of being up here. Jim Foley from Penant Properties. I'm representing um the Dodge family as the applicant and the property owners. Thank you for taking the time to um have this special meeting for us this close to the holidays and the end of the year. Um, first I wanted to thank uh the town staff, town attorney Gabrielle, town manager Chris, Joel, Sean, Aaron, and the planning team. Um, the engineering team as well all played a big role in getting this application to where it is. Spent a long time. I think we submitted the preliminary application two years ago, December of of 2023. Um just to give a little background uh on the project, the Dodge family have been um stakeholders in Los Gatus for generations. Bob Dodge began this Suriri Farms development in the early 1950s. This final phase, the Suriri Farms estates, is the culmination of a lifetime of um Losata serving developments, neighborhood developments by the Dodge family. A similar project was brought forward in 2018 and went all the way to town council for approval, but was not approved because at that time the property was in the Williamson Act. Uh the Williamson act for this particular property expired early this year in uh January of 25. The Dodgers were disappointed at that time that the project did not get approved and they would have to wait a little bit longer and that's what brings us here today. Um, a couple of other notes just to kind of remember and keep in mind while you guys are making your deliberations. Um, staff has worked tirelessly on this project. Provide a very detailed framework um for you to hopefully provide a positive recommendation to the town council which we're requesting. This project is going to bring some of the first new affordable units uh for sale in town since I think Bellotera at

the North 40. We have a couple of other projects um coming forward from Summer Hill and City Ventures that are going to deliver some units. Um and then there's a number of other SP330 applications pending and we don't know what's going to happen with those. And at this time, every unit counts uh in Losatus to count towards our housing element. So, we think that this is a good use of the property to try to further that effort. Um, we could have proposed an enormously more dense project and abuse the builder's remedy and that's not the intent of the Dodge family or anything that we would consider doing as their decadesl long vision for the development of the property. This prop this proposal is an elegant extension of the neighborhood as originally envisioned by the family. We attempted to comply with as many of the various potential potentially applicable development standards that could have been in place uh for the zoning for the project as many as we could in order to deliver a first class project. We have our project team here tonight that can elaborate a little bit more about that during the meeting. Um, we also took into consideration a lot of comments, public comments that happened in the 2018 project including road alignment, home orientation, headlight pollution, etc. Uh, many of the objectors as expected with every project cite the inadequacy of the EIR and SQUA. However, believe me, um, there was tremendous additional study and updating of the technical reports and studies. uh it added a lot of time to what we anticipated for getting the application prepared for you. So um yes, there was an ER done in 2018. There is some background with SQA. The ISMND was prepared and there was a lot of effort put in into that to make sure we got it right. for other members of the public that plan on speaking, you know, just remember that this is a longtime um family, community stakeholders, and I think if a lot of us

and you all were in their position, you'd want the same legacy for for your children and your grandchildren. So, we're excited to move through this process, hopefully deliver a first class project, and have a fruitful conversation about this tonight. And we're all here, our team is here to answer any questions you guys may have um regarding the project. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the speaker at this time? The applicant team at this time? Okay. Thank you. Uh we will now be um moving on to public comment. So we if you have not already filled out a speaker card, please um do that and return it to staff. And if you are on Zoom, you can raise your hand now. When you are called to speak, please state your name and address for the record and know that you will have three minutes to make your com comments and then after that uh commissioners will have an opportunity to um ask any questions. So the first speaker card I have is for um Cindy Clark. Yes. Yay. Yes, you can come on up to the speaker and you can adjust the microphone so you're

okay. Um All right. So, um my name is Cindy Clark. I live at 16326 West Li Chakita Avenue in Lascatus. So, I'm not in the neighborhood. I'm about a mile and a half away. And I'm first off want to thank all the commissioners for the hard work you've done and all you do for our town. We really appreciate it. Uh I'm going to make two points tonight in opposition to the development plans. The first is um you know this all of course we had a really great presentation on the builder's resity and SB 330 and all that is about building more housing and yet the developer is asking to use 17 acres of rare wooded land to build three I'm going to say token below market homes and nine giant homes. You these homes are for the very rich. You know, we see this all the time. And I'm really afraid they're going to be like so many of the houses that are that big in Lascatus. They're used for second and third houses. They're investment opportunities. These these really aren't houses as as the as SB 330 um is is thinking about. And I believe building this type of housing in this type of area is very wasteful and short-sighted. My second point is if this development does proceed, and I hope it doesn't, the town should deny permits to remove the 223 protected trees. These are mostly oaks. They're large trees. They're old and they're not replaceable at all. Um they are vital to healthy ecosystems. I'm an outdoor education dosen at Mid Peninsula Open Space. I teach third, fourth, and fifth graders all about our ecosystems, all about these oaks and their roles. They're considered keystone species and they support thousands of organisms um organisms that live in the ground that live on the tree and also live live in Lascatus, live in Certino, live in Sunnyvale, owls and such that you know return at night to roost but um

they have to have those trees. Um, and you know, these trees should also be preserved and the developers set set aside this land underneath them. Um, including community walkways. Um, and this is all all these trees are located on the southwest portion. So, it's not like they're everywhere. Um, and and it would be really easy to do community paths. You you can see an example of that at um Kennedy Court where they've got that that open space. I think our town deserves more compensation for the loss of this rare heritage space than three token undermarket homes. That's it. Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker? Thank you for speaking tonight.

Appreciate it. Next speaker card I have is for Gus who

Hi again. Um just uh listening in on just what was h happening the I think that the public in general would want a road to connect the two because it's up in between two things and there's a lot of traffic going so it would be better to have a loop in that in the two roads instead of the one one at the Sierra I don't know the lower court there's just one house another thing is when I when I built um it was I bought it off the Certino. They it was a 400 It was seven springs and it was a 400 acre lot that the u that the our neighbor um sold they kept 40 acres and I you know and they turned and they gave the the the city three lots and I bought one of the lots off of it was it was a park but I bought one of the lots off of them and it would be better to do it that remedy if for the builders you know instead of trying to lower market because this things. And another thing was um when I built um I I designed a 3500 ft house and it was too small for the the neighborhood and I had to double it because it was a big giant house. I didn't want a big giant house, but I had to build a big giant house. So, it was one of those thing you can probably limit the size of the house, you know, and and even up I mean, I'd up the if it's 14 acres, you know, you can probably up up it a couple houses, but if it was a if it was a loop around there, it's for safety reasons. I I think that would be the most important thing. Even if nobody builds there, you should have a road connecting that high up to try to work a deal with the the builders because I think I mean he just said that they're family oriented and they they look for these long projects

and you're probably to build something up there. So a road between the two for safety issues is is my biggest concern for the public. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The next speaker card I have is for Jan or John Witkin. Thank you, commissioners. I'm John Witkin, 188 Twin Oaks Drive, right next door to the development. And I've lived on Twin Oaks Drive on and off for 70 years now. And there's a reason that that hillside has never been developed. Um, it is a it's a hillside with an oak forest and a Ross Creek feeder stream at the base. It is not feasible for subdivision for multiple home tracks. All these similar developments have had issues in California when we cut down 250 trees, move 200 loads of dirt, and pave over a repairarian corridor. What can we anticipate? Last year, the uh hillside was recatategorized as a high fire danger zone. And eventually in California, for all of us that have lived here, we know we'll have a flood or an earthquake or a fire. And these altered landscapes, they just ultimately fail. We will experience as before, landslides, massive property damage, and a just a major safety hazard. It's just not safe to build these structures for 126 $6 million homes. and I don't think that's going to reduce any of the housing crisis in California. Uh let's keep Loscata safe and beautiful. We need existing open space to remain. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the speaker? Thank you. Commissioner Bernett has a question for you, Mr. Whitton. Sorry.

Hi. Thank you. So, um the creek uh runs in the back of your property and your property actually has the most exposure to um the ramifications of of the creek and the water and that drainage. I know there are they've put in um drainage um uh you know areas there but can you comment on that? Is that one of your concerns? Flooding? We've we've had flooding u twice in the last 30 years and u it's brings dirt and silt down from the hillside and it's also overflowed at the dodge property where it goes into a culvert. So we've we've had multiple experiences where we've had to take dirt out of the pool and similar issues. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Um, okay. Thank you very much. Um, the next speaker card I have is for Bill Mleco.

Hello. Uh, my name is Bill Malco. I live at 189 Long Meadow Drive where we've lived there for 45 years. Uh we're adjacent to the proposed at the uh border with Hillbrook where this property drains its hillside uh onto our property which is an open culvert. Uh our major concern is privacy, trees, noise, and the drainage. Uh from a privacy standpoint, um I'd prepared a simulation or a visual simulation showing how it would look like with these houses, but I now understand that we can't show them visually. So, I'll distribute these somehow. Um but the uh um the elevation of our backyards uh 407 ft while the base elevation of the houses that going to that are going to be built are 430 ft. And that's the base of those elevations. So, these new homes are going to look down into our backyard and into our windows. It's going to be a major privacy concern. From a trees standpoint, um the applicant's rendering on the architectural submitt shows 35 trees that are supposed to be installed. These are between lots five and six and my house and the Ford ice house, which is next door. When reviewing the plans, if you look at it, they're only going to install seven. So there's a discrepancy between what the rendering is and what they're actually planning to do. The also from a tree standpoint, they're removing six protected trees on these two lots. Their reasoning for removing these trees is the retention of the tree restricts the economic enjoyment of the property and creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely limiting the use of the property. These trees are along the property line with Hillbrook. They don't interfere with

anything and doesn't and don't interfere with the construction. You know, if you do approve this, we'd ask that you from a privacy standpoint for us require the developer to add these 65 these 35 trees. The other problem we have is noise. When Hillbrook was preparing their studies to get their cup, the report stated that the current sound level at our home was at the threshold of unacceptable. Surely with the accumulation effect of Hillbrook in the proposed houses, it'll put our the sound above the unacceptable level. The third problem is drainage. This hillside drains entirely towards our property. It uh currently there's a catch basin at the corner which is about 80% capacity that will surely overflow with the drainage that's going to be created. It's also um going to be uh um

the other problem is a retention basin. Thank you. Um, so are there any question? Do you have a question? Okay. Um, did you have a question? Commissioner Bernett. Thank you. So, you did mention just to follow up on the um the the catch basin which is in your back right yard now. That is usually it runs at an 80% capacity. You're saying is that most of the time or Well, that's during heavy rains. Yeah. During heavy rains, right? I mean, if you look at the the concrete on it, you can see where the water standing is about 80%.

Right. And your your home your uh then they they want to uh add an addition water retention pond like in behind your property and you're which is six feet below your your Well, the retention pond the bottom of that retention pond's I think it's like four or five feet above our yard. We've uh during the summer months our backyard is soggy. We've had to add drainage in the area to drain it during the winter. We've got standing water in our backyard. Okay. I just just wanted that clarification. Thank you. Sure.

And then I had a question too for you, Mr. Mo. Um can the trees you mentioned the the removal of the protected trees in the seven versus the 35 on the plans. Um were you and then you you made a request about them. Can you just clarify what you would Well, on their rendering, they show, you know, 35 trees between their houses and our property. That's going to create uh create a lot of a it'll it'll solve some of the noise problem that's created from these houses and it'll keep the visibility of them from, you know, viewing into our backyard and into our windows.

Okay. And then were you did you have any preferences on the like types of trees or species or No, just Okay. Thank you. Sure. Thanks. Okay. Question.

Perfect. Okay. Um, the next speaker card I have is for Monica Herszy. Hello, my name is Monica Herszy. I live at 185 Long Meadow Drive. A house separates me and the Malikos and two houses to the Ford Isis. So, we're about three houses from the proposed development. I actually face Twin Oaks. And I don't have a lot of data in front of me to present to you. It's more of a heart comment that I want to say. I moved here in 2011. We've launched three kids from Lascatoos. Our final one we just launched in October to Seattle. And we're finding we're trying to find every reason to stay in California. and and unfortunately a proposal like this tends to keep people like us from retiring here. Um I want to paint a picture that in any given day if you're night or day, if you're in my house or in my yard, there are owls, coyotes, deer, rabbits, foxes. I have all this. This is all on film because we have a security camera. There are now turkeys. Um I've seen a wild cat once. hawks and quailes and yes, the occasional snake. And I think about that all the time whenever um Miss Ford Ice brings us up to date on this proposal cuz unfortunately that's all going to go away. The hawks aren't going to be in the sky anymore cuz the trees are going to be gone and I'm not going to hear the coyotes yep in the middle of the night cuz their habitat is going to be destroyed. And it worries me. And I understand that the state needs housing and I'm a teacher, so I understand that we need affordable housing, but I tend to agree with the former speaker that is a second home housing. Are these housings going to produce ADUs on each of them? Are they then going to be subdivided and sold as individual lots, which I've seen happen in this town? and

and it frightens me and it you know frankly I think that sometimes I mean my husband is a little bit more cynical than I am and he often says to me well we have no control over this and I like to think that we do have control over this being property owners and I love living in this town and I hope that you do take into consideration me and my neighbors comments today. I also worry about safety and access to the site. Um, we have a young man who is autistic on Long Meadow Drive and I've watched him grow up and he often stands in the middle of the street and I wonder sometimes, you know, when we have all this housing going on, all this building, you know, I worry about the children in our neighborhood and what's going to happen to them because access is so limited to their proposal. Um, and that's about it and thank you again for allowing me to comment this evening.

Thank you. Any questions for the speaker? Thank you very much for your comments. Next, I have uh Jill Ford.

Hi, I'm Jill Ford. Uh we live at 191 Long Meadow Drive. I've lived there since 1999 and we've raised our five children there and we've enjoyed both the peacefulness of the natural hill and the wildlife behind us, all that Monica just spoke of. Um, as well as the lovely, vibrant, thriving Suriri Farms neighborhood, kids playing in the street. Um, it's an old-fashioned neighborhood. Um, it's one of the main reasons we moved there. the backdrop of the beautiful hill and the beautiful construction that was done by the Dodge family. Um when we were deciding to move to Surrey Farms in 1999, we went to the town to inquire about the likelihood of the hill being developed. We're the in the court next to the Mikos and the Wickkins. So we abut the the project specifically. Um the clerk pointed to the property on the map and said it's resource conservation space and it won't likely be developed in your lifetime. So, in 2018, the applicant here filed the non-renewal for the Williamson Act, and we are now facing a new reality. It's no longer resource conservation space. We have all these builder remedy laws, and we understand that the times have changed, not only because of the loss of the Williamson Act protection, but because of this environment that we're living in. um the laws that the applicant relies on for affordable housing. It should be clear that it's a 12-unit development, nine of which are large luxury homes directly behind the story farms neighborhood and there are three small in one they share one driveway at the bottom of the unit uh at the bottom of the development affordable housing units. There still exists an obligation to the community to ensure that the proposed development is environmentally vetted appropriately for the scope of the project and that does not put our health and safety at risk. We request that the project is denied because it would result in specific adverse impact to us. We spoke in our

letters and also in videos that we have sent and photos that we will we're worried about the risk of wildfire and appropriate evacuation um from the oneway in one way out from Twin Oaks to Long Meadow to Kennedy or even if you go out Brookacres we're on two-lane roads there's a possibility of erosion mudslide and landslide on the project site which is in a geologic hazard zone I am right below that it exposes the surrounding area to the risk of flooding water quality degradation, water pollution, and harms associated with the proposed bio retention plan that again will be right behind my home. Each of these risks are acknowledged in the negative declaration, but the mitigation for each is vague, uncertain, deferred, and potentially uninforceable. I wish I had more time. Um, but I would encourage you to look at the letters that we submitted. They're very detailed in what is required and what is lacking under mitigation for fire, for the geologic hazard zone, and for the potential to pollute and flood our property. Um, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for listening.

Uh, thank you for speaking tonight. Are there any questions for the speaker? No.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next I have um Craig Ford Ice. Hello Craig Ford Ice. I'm at 191 Long Drive. So an EIR is required in our opinion. The fate of an undeveloped rural loss hillside home to to protected trees species in a riparian corridor requires at a minimum a detailed understanding of the environmental impact of the proposed development. In this case, we have not been given the necessary information to have such an understanding. Housing law does not wave or reduce SQA review. Compliance with SQA is mandatory and and independent of zoning or housing authorization. The M &D approach suggests suggests environmental review as secondary to entitlement which is legally incorrect. The M andd relies on an outdated uncertified EIR from 2017. Natural environments change over the course of the years. Uh species appear and disappear and are not fixed in time. The proposal is not the same as the one considered in 2018. One key difference is the scope of the development. 13% increase. The lots are different. The number of homes is different. The home sites are different. The ingress and egress is different. An uncertified EIR cannot legally be relied upon for the adoption of a MND. Sea letters submitted by the Sierra Club, the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Control Board each site multiple issues that were not adequately addressed by the MMD. The S, the Bird Alliance, and the Sierra

Club note that because the project is located within an ecologically sensitive transition zone between existing development in the natural hillside habitat, a preparation of an EIR is essential. The Sierra Club and the Bird Alliance found substantial evidence that the project may result in significant hydra hydro hydraological and biological impacts that are not adequately disclosed. analyzed or mitigated. The Sierra Club and the bird alliance have supplied a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental impact, including the following issues. The M &D fails to adequately is adequately assess significant and irreversible impacts in to biological resources, including native woodland habitat, wildlife movement corridors, nesting birds, and special status pollinators in the Ross Creek wershed. and are known to support raptors, migratory songirds, and and oak associated wildlife. The M &D removes a substantial number of mature coast live oaks and associated understory vegetation. It does not uh quantify total tree loss, assess habitat fragmentation, or evaluate impacts to wildlife corridor functionality across the Ross Creek drainage imp. Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker?

No. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Next, I have uh Chris Bayor. Good evening. Chris Bayoric, 120 Clover Way. uh in the in the community nearby that proposed development. My main uh concern uh is centered on uh the fact that the property as proposed the development as proposed clearly exceeds the drainage capability of that land. And uh the mitigating requests are to build basically at least three possibly more wetlands, ponds to catch the effluents from drainage of that property. And ponds are a severe health concern. With the presence of West Nile virus in our community and the fact that ponds breed mosquitoes and mosquitoes transfer that virus, I think it would be extremely challenging to maintain adequate safety health safety factors uh via these various bonds proposed on the property. I don't know if you've read the report. is 1242 pages long. But I call to your attention page 27. It lists uh uh in a very long paragraph at least three, possibly four proposed wetlands. They call them bioretention basins, but they're basically proposing wetlands to capture the effluids. And those wetlands will uh breed mosquitoes. and you cause the danger of having those

mosquitoes spread a West Nile virus. It's adjoining to a school and it's adjoining to several residential areas that surround that property. I don't think the town would like to be responsible for allowing the formation of such wetlands. The second concern I have to compound the problem is that the proposal is very uh fuzzy about who's going to be responsible for maintenance of those wetlands. The town is not going to want to maintain them, right? Uh they have uh they talk about applicant being re responsible. The owner will be responsible. Who's the owner of a wetland? Have they carved out specific parcels that contain the wetlands so that somebody is responsible in a well- definfined manner for those wetlands? No. The various homeowners will be stuck with having to deal with this. And the consequence of that will be that this will end up right on your laps, the town's laps because not only will those homeowners be concerned about dealing with those maintenance issues, but the entire surrounding community will be responsible. So I I think the scope of the development needs to be downsized to avoid the dependence on these uh wetlands.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker? No. Okay. Thank you very much for your comments. Next speaker I have is Lee Canana. Good evening Lee Kintana. Um I'm here not to speak on the project but to speak on the environmental review. Currently I serve on the historic preservation committee but I am not representing the historic preservation committee here. Um I am relying on 15 years of experience working for the city of San Jose doing environmental review. There were two things that were paramount in the review of of um projects. One was the purpose of environmental review was to provide pro provide decision makers with adequate information to make informed decisions. That's adequate information as to the uh potential significant um impacts and the mitigation to uh mitigate those impacts that's necessary for them to make informed decisions. Um the second thing that was always paramount was to make our documents bulletproof which means that we achieved the first purpose and provided all the information the studies and the mitigation that flowed from the studies uh before a document was released. In this case, as you have lots of letters from um professionals, there appears to

be uh a certain incompleteness in uh those studies and deferred mitigation and lack of uh consultation with uh agencies that have jurisdiction over lands uh in Lascatos. uh once you approve a project and then you go back and do your studies and consultations, you're limited in many cases in what you can do. Uh and you may not be able to achieve full mitigation. So it's really important to have those studies upfront and for that reason I I would not support approving the mitigated negative declaration. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions speaker? No. Next I have is uh Jan Schwarz.

Hi, I'm Jan Schwarz and I live at 15966 Sarah Vista Drive. So, I'm on the other side of the hill and I have concerns from my neighbors who are on we will have one or two houses on our side. More will be on the others. I am concerned from my neighbors. I've heard the flooding, the landslides, the mosquitoes. I think there's significant risks, but my concern is speaker um talked about before is the wildlife that we have here. And we've got a riparian corridor next to the library that the town's put a lot of effort into building. We have a natural one already up there. We have a den of coyotes. I also sit out at night and listen to them. Western screech owls, bobcats, red foxes. I saw 18 turkeys when I came home last night. Cooper's hawks, lots of deer. We have a lot of wildlife that's going to disappear. I'm in Lascatos. I love Lascatos. I've been here since 1975. And I know progress moves on. I've seen the North 40. We've seen certainly a lot of development, but I do hope that we can maintain the um wildlife and riparian corridor that we have right now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? No. Thank you very much. The uh next speaker card I have is Ann Griffin and Griffin 158 Twin Oaks Drive. I've lived in my home for over 50 years. I have had a flooded back yard due to the Ross Creek flooding twice and I am up the road from the property to be developed. I'm not here to talk about

regulations and the necessity housing. I see in my home I am a caretaker of oak trees that have been passed on to me and I hope I can give them to the people who follow me. And the thought of if I had to tear one down, you would probably penalize me and I am the caretaker and doing the best I can see that they continue to another generation. My concern is safety. The street of Long Meadow is a Twin Oaks, Clover, and Blueberry travel on to Long Meadow to exit the one big exit for all of these homes. We are adding probably two cars to every home, most of which will go through Long Meadow. I counted four cars parked on Long Meadow at 7 o'lock tonight. It is a narrow street. Well, an adequate street, no street lights, no sidewalks, and during the day, if you were to travel on Long Meadow, you would probably see four or five landscaped trucks, cars parked, service people, children riding bikes, people walking dogs. I am concerned about safety. I live at the end of Twin Oaks and I would like an emergency vehicle to be able to come to my home if I needed it. And if you traveled at any given time, you have to stop and let a car pass as you continue to enter or exit your property. So, I'm not here to talk about anything, but we have a lot of people enjoying our

community, but safety is an issue that we have to continue. If we increase the cars, you remove people from walking, children riding bikes, and the integrity of our community would be limited. Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments. Are there any questions for the speaker? Are there any hands raised on Zoom? There are no hands raised currently on Zoom.

Okay. Um I do not have any speaker cards and since there are no hands raised on Zoom, we will um return to the applicant so that the applicant team can provide closing remarks. You will have three minutes followed by questions. Thank you. Uh and thanks to all the people that took their time to come and speak and provide letters. We reviewed a lot of the letters. Um a lot of these topics aren't new. There are some of the things that informed um what we tried to create for the project and what was provided. Um just to pick off a couple of the things that we just heard and then you guys may have some of the similar questions and we've got our team here to delve into those further if they require it. Um the trees by Hill Brook School and the screening I think we have our consulting arborist hopefully on Zoom if that comes up. Um that's certainly something to look at. Safety and access there's extensive language in the conditions of approval about best management practices, safety access during construction. everything else. So, um I don't think there's any intention of the project with the limited number of houses to create any unsafe environment in this extension of the neighborhood. Um the buyer retention areas and those concerns, I mean, they're engineered, they're widely accepted. Um it's all gone through the the process. I don't think this is anything different from what is typical and we can elaborate on um drainage and and the storm water and what those bio retention areas may look like. Um there's a lot of language and conditions of approval, the requirements for CCNRs, who's going to manage them, ongoing access, review, proactive submitting of reporting to the town of Lascatusa. So um the idea of how we created that and and the drainage for the neighborhood

was well thought out. Um, as far as the wildlife and those concerns, we have we still have this ephemeral swale through the site that is kind of the main feature I think where you're going to find um, you know, wildlife and protected areas. We've stayed away from that. That photo doesn't really do it justice, but there's still a lot of that being preserved with this project. Um, if we want to get into the details and then on, you know, the matter of SQA, we we talked about it before. We're not here to to debate the merits of ERS. I just want to re reiterate, you know, a lot of effort went in. Rainey spent a lot of time um taking prior information, new information, updating, uh making sure all the technical studies were adequate for what we're trying to do. Um and I think they did a good job. And you know, I don't I just don't think everything needs an EI. Are we going to start doing ERS for ADUs? I don't know. Sequest seems to be changing daily in California. But I think the information that's provided, whatever you want to call it, um is really good and thorough information um that should help you make an informed decision on what we're proposing. And um if there are more questions, we're we'll be here. We have the team ready.

Commissioner Bernett,

thank you. So, one question. Um did it seems you you didn't meet with any of the neighbors. I know that you're not that isn't needed, but you know, that would have been a good gesture. I would think I've had a lot of meetings with a lot of neighbors for a lot of projects over time. Um, specifically, we had a lot of information from from 2018. I think it was very clear what a lot of the concerns were and this is a different kind of project. We have different laws and tools that we're using and just chose to take the information that we had, rely on that, and move on. We've had project signs, oh shoot, for over a year up there with contact information, my cell phone number. Um, and I never heard from one neighbor either.

Um, may I follow up? Although this project is 62,000 62,000 square ft and the one you're talking about was 55,000. So surely there was more questions regarding around this project. So I would think the neighbors would even there'd be even more reason to want to touch with them. Um and not that you needed to.

Yeah. Was this sort of just a decision for the for how we were going to bring the project forward? So I another question I have the size of the the what is it the bio the basins on average because every home has one. I was just wondering what what's the average size there and are the is it a graded basin or h how because my concern is the water the drainage I can I hear from the neighbors there's a lot lot a lot of concern over that issue. So,

right, I'll probably ask our civil engineer to to kind of weigh in on that a little bit, but we we've seen some of these comments provided prior and in current um letters, and I'm not a civil engineer, so I'll let them answer it a little bit more, but you know, the general notion is that we think that now we have engineered solutions that are going to treat and direct drainage like projectwide, whether it, you know, the retention basins are just a portion of it. So, it's possible that we're going to even improve the situation and be able to catch and divert runoff drainage from winding up in swimming pools or whatever else. I've got um HMH here.

Yeah. So, Zephy Menz with HMH civil engineer on the project. Uh your question regarding the sizing of the bio retention cells, uh it is based off how much water is actually going to it. So, it's tributary area. It's roughly about 3%. So it does vary based off of what is tributary to it. Um if there is a concern about water standing in it, that is not the intent. We are following the local uh county and state guidelines to be able to treat the water. The intent is for the water to be able to be treated before before it flows out into the waterways and then eventually out to the bay. And are the home is the homeowners association or the homeowner are they going to be responsible for the removal of debris and any issues?

Yeah, there's maintenance requirements and uh reporting and inspection requirements that have been um provided as part of the conditions of approval. Other questions continue. Okay. So, another um the concern over why you you wouldn't want to put in trails. I know that is would that be a cost too costly for your project? Would it would it impact your ability to have your lowincome housing? I mean, that's usually what it's tied to.

Yes. The question of cost is always kind of um on top of mind and everything is so costly to do now that I'm sure you hear time and time again especially where we live and you know getting the pieces to the puzzle with land values, construction costs, cost of financing, carrying costs and everything else to align um it's very thin and having um land dedicated is a cost. Having the ongoing management of it is a cost. uh we created the project in a way where there there are CCNRs and there are maintenance obligations but there is no homeowners association which is also a cost to manage and something that um you can have challenges going forward. So again just based on the vision for the project the kind of project we wanted to bring forward at this time it was it just wasn't a consideration generally for those reasons.

Thank you. Just one quick one. Can I follow up? I have a follow-up question directly to that. Um, so the trail, you know, the trails that is, you did not consider that cost then is what you're saying. We considered it a cost that would create the project. It to be too challenging to fund the project by adding public trails through the project and there was no there wasn't a the way that we proposed the project, it wasn't required. So, okay. We did not design it that way. And then what about

uh Okay, thank you. Back to you soon. Okay. And a quick followup um with Larry Cannon's report our town architect that I know you do not have to follow his sort of u recommendations but there were a few I know you would respond to maybe a color you know some kind of color suggestion on the homes that was in the report and that that was one thing you've sort of agreed to that you would be open to maybe color suggestions. Yeah, we have our architect team here too who you worked directly with Larry on some of his comments if you've got specific questions regarding architecture or color or recommendations.

Yeah, that was one. But the slim windows, I noticed all the homes have very slim slim windows. So, that was one comment by Larry Cannon. And the second one which I um sort of agreed with, there was no window trim. So, the homes are very um you know, just from an architectural standpoint. I know you don't have to follow any of those guidelines, but I was just

right. I think um I don't know if Chris wants to get up and just talk. Chris Hall is architect from platform architecture and we chose him for many reasons including his vision for the custom home neighborhood and whether some of those design elements are things that are in his vision, our vision, the public's vision, a marketable vision um certainly relied on him. So, do you have a specific question? You want to know if we want to change a color or a window trim or

Well, I know in the report that your answer was that you would be open to color suggestions. Uh because I think his comment was it was all like one color. Uh the homes were was sort of needed a little bit more diversity, but colors that would work in a hillside. Uh Sure. I mean, if there's a proposal, I' I'd look to Chris to help me determine whether or not it's something that's going to fit um, you know, in with the kind of the overall look and feel of the neighborhood that we're proposing. Okay. Okay. Vice Chair or first, sorry. I think Thank you.

I did want to follow up on some of the the questions about drainage and maybe the silo can pop back up here again. Um, specifically just some kind of general set the table questions. So that we have a creek going through the site but we also have an ephemeral drainage which are two different features I understand. So is there any um is there any function to the storm drain system that has anything to do with the with Ross Creek or is it just passing through the site separate and

essentially yes it's separate and so what we have done too is be able to work with the environmental consultant identify the repairage so that we are staying out of it so that it can be separate. I know there was a concern about um removing some water from the creek itself. So, we have implemented a swale to be able to have that water be reintroduced and so it's not being diverted because of it. And also understanding that there were past issues with drainage to the neighboring properties. Um what we are doing with our subdivision is helping to alleviate that by taking that water away into the storm drain system. Yes, goes into the bioell per local regulations for treatment of water to take out the contaminants before it goes to the storm dating system. But yes, all that was taken.

So the just real quick a recap there. So the so we've got the creek and then we've got the ephemeral drainage which is a separate swale. And you're saying that um and correct me if I missed it. So there's the uh drainage coming off the swale which I know is intermittent and probably driven by storm events. Is that being incorporated into that? Doesn't go to the creek then, right? That goes into the storm retention system. Okay. Um in terms of overall picture with respect to storm, what's the the pre and post uh condition? I mean, can you characterize whether um post project we're dealing with net increase, net decrease?

Uh so I don't have those numbers with me, but uh we can look at that and get that back to you. Okay. Um, I do have some other questions about the ephemeral drainage, but they're going to be more for the environmental consultants. So, I can hold on those for now or I can jump into them. Um, I would say that you should ask if there's anything relevant to that you want to hear back from the applicant team because once that's closed.

Got it. Okay. Um, I consider that the repairarian area and the ephemeral drainage to be kind of an area of pretty big concern. Part of the reason why is we've got a letter in the file from Brian Wines with the regional board which was a specific request to characterize that area um under the possibility that it could be a wetland. And from what I'm seeing in the record, it doesn't look like anybody actually went to the trouble of truly defining that. Um, and I've I've had some experience of doing this as a developer in the past and I've had to go through some of this painful process associated with working with the Army Corps and regional board. Um, so what I'm curious about is if there had been any analysis of that ephemeral drainage with respect to hydrophic soils or plant species that are wetland characteristic plant species. And that's my first question,

right? I think you were right the first time. That's a question for Rainey. Um, they did kind of go through their process and in their responses to Brian's letter, they talked about their efforts and and what they thought and we had some follow-up conversations with Brian on Zoom and kind of looked at the site. Um, I think post his letter, he may have been oriented a little bit differently as far as up and downhill and we kind of got all on the same same page with him with what he was looking at. And then he further asked us for clarifications about where that ephemeral swell meets the roadway and what the condition is. We're set back 10 ft. That's what's required. There's a retaining wall towards the end of it. Kind of put together some exhibits for him to explain that to him. I don't think he was necessarily satisfied. So, we're having an ongoing dialogue, but um our position is that whatever we've gotten back from Rainey, we're in agreement with that and we've completely avoided the area. the the entire subdivision has been moved downhill and there's a couple of lots sort of on either side of it and where the you know natural visible and then I guess even calculated delineation of the swale is kind of meets the road in between those two homes and then it just goes up the hill back into hillside in the backyards of the homes. That's all I can kind of speak to.

Okay. Is there anyone from Rainey available to speak to the issue? Are they on Zoom or are they here? Are they No, they're here. But but I don't know. Back and forth with a dialogue with the applicant and dialogue with consultants. Okay. So, hold off on that for now. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you.

Um just as a uh followup to that, I I understand the cost of the story poll situation. Um, did your team at all contemplate possibly doing something alternative so that you know when we went out and did a site visit, we would be able to determine exactly like where these lot lines are and where this is because, you know, we all did and we all have different levels of experience with like environmental surveying and development and um, just to be honest, it was difficult for us to to know like I I don't feel like I necessarily have enough information to confirm that where I saw this what I consider a wetland as an environmental scientist is not going to be is is avoided. So was was there any alternative considered? And if this is if we are continuing this item or in the future, would you be willing to put up some sort of not obviously not story polls but some sort of indicators of delineation between lots and structures or anything roadways?

Challenging question. So story polls are expensive, staking is expensive, visual simulations are very expensive. Um, I wish I could go out there and meet with you guys and tour the project and have study sessions out there. That's also something that may or may not be allowed, which I've for a long time said isn't always that helpful. I think the plans are pretty clear. Um, we're happy to to try to do something more. I think, you know, a week before we we had determined or heard that there was going to be planning commission site visits. Can you get the site staked? It's kind of last minute and and challenging to try to do that and also very costly. Um and it is a tricky site. It's a hillside site to get out there and as you know because you visited it. Um but we spent a lot of money um with our architect trying to create a very good visual representation. This is part of it here. We also I think spent $18,000. the town required visual simulations for I think four photos that they gave us. Um, and it's just really hard to get all that done and it's very it's very costly. So I as far as the part of your question, did we consider it? I mean, as a from a project perspective, yeah, we considered everything and we thought we did a lot. There's just been a lot that's gone into this as far as like kind of last minute doing site visits and and staking and things. it um I guess it just didn't come together. I wish we could have created something more helpful,

Vice Chair Burch. And then I have a followup to that and then I have some questions for the civil engineer. Um really I think it would honestly be the corner of lot 8 that needs to be staked and clearly your civil engineer has gone out and done a layout. That would not be very expensive. And I think if they could just lay out the corner so that we could stand against those. I don't think the entire property needs to be staked, but I think that's the one that would help. Okay. Um and then yeah, I've got some questions on water. Yeah. Drainage. Hey. Um my first question is on sheet 5.0.

You have them? I don't know.

Oh. Um, okay. Uh, it's this one. Okay. And it kind of maps out the um different storm water drains and the the path. Um, you said that it doesn't go into Ross Creek, but when you look at the um the path basically that goes past lot one, it actually looks like it goes into a storm drain at Ross Creek. Uh, so I'd have to I don't know if that sheet is up on the 5.0. Yeah. Okay. Um, okay. So, we can wait a second on that. Um my other question comes to the way the other lots basically 5 6 8 10 and I think that's seven seven um feed into the existing uh large storm drain at the corner of the property. was an assessment done on that storm drain taking into account that now there is going to be, you know, basically less open space, less open soil to absorb all that water that comes down. Um, and that most of that water now is going to probably get diverted into that line. Has there been a study done on that?

Yeah, and my colleague actually just reminded me to uh your question prior, Mr. Sordy, where what was the what is the delta between pre and post runoff? And I believe that is maybe getting to your question right now. Uh be because the site is in a hydro modification zone, we have looked at that pre and post condition to make sure that what is pre construction and post construction still is mitigated. We are providing that. So yes, that was taken into account with that calculation.

Okay. Okay. And so and so what you're saying by that is that existing 30 I think it's a 36 inch pipe is adequate to pick up not only you know what comes straight down from the ephemeral stream but the additional water not being absorbed in the ground that study has been done. You're saying that pipe is adequate. So what we yeah what we have looked at is the site itself how much water is tributary to the site hydro modification. We are installing a orifice to allow for the water to not ex exceed what is currently being discharged. And we've reviewed that with the city uh town engineer.

So on this um I don't know how easy it would be to like point this out, but on the bottom left corner. Perfect. So essentially if if you look along the yellow path the street and you go past lot one there's a note that says you know valley waters 110 foot uh flood plane easement there is a catch basin or storm drain right down there it is by DMAA to the left. Yep. Right there where the cursor is.

Yeah. However, it doesn't I I have no understanding of where that water actually then goes to and it appears to be by the creek. So, where does the water from lot the bio swells at lot 4 9 1 11 12 and three go and two go to? Can you jump? Can you jump that mic? I'm sorry. Repeat it for me one more time.

All right. So, if you take a look at the um I don't know bio swells, bio retention ponds, whatever you want to call them, that are for lots 4 9 1 112 3 and two. Those all kind of feed into some, you know, storm drains that are in the street there. And then that line goes over towards the node of BAA. And then it just ends. It doesn't really indicate where that water then goes to. Yeah. There. Now keep going down the down a bit. All right. Nope.

Right there. That's where it seems to end. There is no further line from that. So this is all and if you look at the topography, obviously it's going down. There's no way it's going to the corner storm system. Okay. So the so the water that's tributary to here, this roadway, this hatch here is pvious pavement for water quality purposes. The water and subdrain go to this catch basin and out to this existing storm drain system. Is that is are we understanding the question?

Well, into what existing storm drain system? this line right here. Um, it's Ross Creek. Yeah. So, so it's it's Ross Creek. So, so it is going into Ross Creek. Yes. Okay. Um, all right. I have another question then about the the bio retention ponds. There's a note in there that they're lined with an imperous liner. Um why would why would you do that?

So the impervious liner it um they're located to be able to allow the water to treat go through the media filter. We work with a geotechnical engineer to determine whether or not the soils are adequate enough to allow for water qu water to be able to permeate through the existing soil type. So that's based off recommendations that we work with the geotechnical engineer based off of the current standards. And were all of those studies then presented to the county engineer? because my experience with those have been that they accumulate silt pretty quickly and then those fill up and spill over. Um

and so there is a overflow that is built into it per the uh current standards that allow for the water it so it is intended to be able to treat the water in a subdrain and in a high flow situation there is an overflow and through the operation and maintenance plan there is a regularly scheduled um maintenance of it. Okay. Can I

um Okay. So, I'm sorry. Then I'm going to switch gears, but it's still for you guys. If you look at the backs of lot four and five, those properties, the backs of them, correct? Yeah. Are built up pretty high. Those retaining walls, they do step, but they go up about 12 feet. Correct. The existing properties on the other side are significantly lower than that. And I don't see any type of like water catch system or anything on the back sides of four and five that would catch any overflow water and divert it to the existing storm drain.

So all of this area here is sorry all of this area along back sides of both of the lots here are pvious. The water will infiltrate into the ground. This is not hardscape by any means. There is um a treatment system here um and I think this oh this treatment system here that ultimately will treat um both of these lots but back here it will be landscape etc that allows any of the surface drainage to basically infiltrate the ground. Did you do any type of study like you know how we have the hundred-y year rain out here that seems to like to happen more often than 100 years that when an excessive rain since that elevation is so high to prove that we're not going to wind up now flooding neighbors properties that that is enough pvious I don't know square footage for that amount of water. But there's a

uh so we did do the calculations but specific to that area that just focused on that um we do not have a calculation just for that strip. The way that we were looking to mitigate that and reduce the amount of water that is currently going to the neighbors is by grading these lots away from the neighboring property to help alleviate any of the overflow that was uh existing condition going that direction. So the look the what we could do is look at having a earth swale in that location to be able to address your concern. Okay. Okay. I'll give somebody else a chance back.

Thank you, chair. Uh pivoting um quickly from water. I think you guys can probably sit down to trees. Um, I'm sure you heard many of the members of the public uh are concerned about um trees, the removal of trees, relocation of trees, but I wanted to address two specifically. I think one neighbor indicated that there were trees on the Goldberg school side that you indicated needed to be removed and they seem to indicate were on the property edge and did not need to be removed. Wanted to get your thoughts on that. And then sec secondly, um, another neighbor indicated that there were trees that were going to either they disappeared from the plans or changed the plans and mentioned 35 trees that should have been used for privacy but no longer appeared in the plans. If you can address those two issues,

I think that's the same thing. I think those are the 35 trees that were down by Hillbrook that the gentleman was talking about screening his property. Do we have our consulting arborist on Zoom? Your consulting arborist, your landscape architect, our arborist through HMH that worked with your consulting arborist on the trees. Is that Michael? Is it Michael? Hold on. We're checking. It must be because he's raising his hand. Yes.

Is he on audio? Not yet. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Um uh first of all, this is Steve Raspby. Did you um hear my question for the applicant?

If you could repeat it, I'd appreciate it. And uh for our record, if you could also state your name for the record, but the question essentially was we had commentators indicate um concern about the trees and specifically the movement or removal of trees on the Hillbrook side that would have created privacy for the neighboring lots. Um there seems to be some concern that either those trees were removed when they didn't need to be or some other issue. If you could address that. My name is uh Michael Gladen and my firm is Mcccleintoch Landscape. And uh so most of the trees that I assessed uh were or all the trees that I assessed are in the report and I believe that um the trees that were slated for removal were ones that were in uh poor condition and uh and is all in the report. the rem the replacement of 35 trees. I think that's part of the uh landscape team, architecture team.

Uh chair, may I follow up? Yeah. If if do we have maybe uh it would be easier if we had a visual rendering. Um if applicant can point us to something we can look at uh in the drawings, maybe that would help us. And additionally through the chair, uh Sean Taylor, the landscape architect, also is able to speak. Very good. Um maybe while we're looking for that visual, if the landscape architect would want to speak. Hey, checking to see if you guys can hear me. Okay. Yes, please continue.

Hi, I'm Sean Taylor with HR Landscape Architecture. Uh good evening, planning commission and attendees. Um decisions were made for tree removal based on a few things. Uh first I want to point out that the majority of trees on this site are being uh kept and protected and remain. Um for that corner of the site and much of the site where we're uh developing, we did follow hillside wildland urban interface uh for dispens for defensible spaces uh per cowire requirements. So in keeping with that uh through zone three there was some thinning that's done through the site as well uh per those requirements so that you know we can control uh wildfire spread. We did try to we definitely looked at the value of each tree, the uh health of it, and tried to selectively remove and then keep larger trees to help with uh some of the screening and and view blocking.

Um I will reserve further questions. I think the chair has questions on trees. Oh, okay. Well, let me ask you this then. is what specific efforts are being made to provide privacy plantings for the neighboring. So we are maximized the number of proposed trees within our fire zones as well as uh locating shrubs retaining walls um to control those views as best we can with our limitation on planting density within these zones.

Um and let me redirect the question to you sir. Um, would you, assuming the project proceeds, be willing to work with the neighbors to directly address any privacy concerns they might have and tailor your planting needs to the extent to address their needs?

Yes, absolutely. I mean, this the corner in question, obviously, we've got a lot happening there. That's where there's grade. It's where there's multiple property owners, including Hillbrook. Um and just you know the general direction has been be sensitive to that with planting home orientation everything else. But if something was missed or there's a better solution proposed by a neighbor that would be better then of course I mean that's um same with the just the notion of which trees are being removed. We're not in by any means suggesting, you know, remove everything possible. Everything that we've relied on based on the feedback from the consultants is um, you know, preserve what we can and be sensitive to creating the neighborhood through there. So, uh, that still applies what whatever we need to do.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, okay. I have a follow-up question. Um, I'm sorry, the M is Michael the first M. Okay, Michael, I have a question for you. You said that you surveyed and recorded all the trees and then you said that most trees are being kept. Can you elaborate on what you mean by that? Because according to the stuff I have in front of me, that is not what I see.

I was referring to the area uh next to Hillbrook School. Okay. And the the retention numbers are in the report and I believe on the plans.

Okay. So I Okay. Yeah. I was confused because 35% of the trees are being removed and I I mean I guess there's not a definition for most but Okay. So you are referring to the trees specifically in that spot near Hillbrook that we just discussed. Okay. Thank you. Um I have a couple other tree questions. Um the tree um and Lou fees versus plantings. Can you can someone just um on the applicant team walk me through how we decided to only be planting 15% of the required trees, the replacement trees and where we chose to do this and the species. Thank you.

That's got to be for for Sean, our landscape architect who's on as well. Hi. Um, so again, we maximized the number of proposed uh trees that we could and that's based on the areas that we are developing. Um, and the maximum number is is being held by following our cowire hillside uh urban interface zones. So I can't really add trees, you know, within that developed area and maintain that defensible space area. The species of plants are of trees that we're using are in the plans. Most a lot of them are native. We've got blue oak, uh coast live oak, um arbutus, western red bud, and then we're supplementing some of the uh decorative trees with pineapple, guava, crepe myrtles, and the Columbia London plain trees.

Okay, thank you. And um we've had uh quite a few projects recently where we've had a lot of you know trees and it's obviously this is a very different site um but a lot of our recent applicants have been very amenable to planting native native species um actually. So, is that something that your team would be open to is planting native species unless it's a fruit tree, something that provides a a a food service?

Yeah, absolutely. I most of our our plant pella is native and we can review that and and utilize even more natives. That that would not be a problem.

Okay. Thank you. Um my last question about trees is that as of now the project um is requesting to remove 12 large protected trees. Were there any efforts in the development plans with the lot splitting and the home locations and structures and roads to try and avoid any of those trees that are being removed in order to like incorporate them into the into the development? So

yeah, I mean to the to the extent that we worked with Sean and the team to, you know, be the least impactful, there's a lot of levers that have to get pulled to figure out how we're going to navigate the hillside and everything else. Um, that was a just generally broad direction. I don't think we did did a deep dive analysis on a particular one or amount that I'm not I think I know what you mean like to the extent you drive down Santa Rosa and maybe there's something and there's a road and and that um I think that that as I know the topography I don't know that there's a circumstance like that um but if there is or again something had been missed we're certainly open to to taking a look at that because I think it's that goes along with the whole character and the design of the neighbor neighborhood is to be compatible with the hillside and what's there and um certainly not stick out like a sore thumb to any neighbor, any public view and that was all analyzed in our visual analysis and everything else. So um absolutely.

Okay, thank you. Um I there was I I'm done with trace, but I do have another question, but do you want to go? Oh, perfect. Okay,

one question for the landscape architect, please. Um, I'm going to go back to lot four and five. Um, it looks like behind those lots um where the uh retaining walls are and I I can see the line of grading. I'd like to know what plantings you're suggesting on the very back side of those that will anchor down the soils. that was a a pretty lengthy I don't know sprawl of trees of various sizes which obviously those roots were holding down the soils so that as water came down the hill it was avoiding erosion into the yards. So I'd like to know what kind of plantings you're going to put along that fence line to um maintain that.

Can you guys still hear me? Okay. Yeah. uh along those two lots that is being regraded. There are retaining walls going in and we know that slope needs stabilize. So, as part of this plan set, not going into too much detail, what we've proposed is a slope stabilizing um native hydro seed mix um that we would be defining or it would be defined later in your construction documentation. So that is recognized that as needing slope stabilization and the proper planting. Okay. Thank you. Yes.

Um okay. My next question is about the pvious concrete. Can maybe and I think that yeah the engineers Thank you. If you could just tell me about what that material is, what your experience with it is and how durable it is. Uh so it is going to be durable enough for emergency vehicle uh to be able to drive on top of it. That is per requirements. So we'll have to take that loading. Um and it follows the standards that are made for us to be able to adhere to per local regulations. Okay. Vice Chair Burch.

Sorry, I had a couple questions about that, too. So she's reading my mind. Um my ex my limited experience with peruse pavement is that it is a lot less durable and not as strong as pavement and so with frequent trips and and especially if it's heavier vehicles it actually breaks down faster. Um it can clog with silties and it has some issues with you know seeping into the groundwater. Um, one, I guess I'd be con curious if in the CCRs, what is the maintenance of that road look like? And, um, you know, have you really fully analyzed it? You've got it on the main in and-out spot right there. Right. So, it's going to get the bulk of the weight.

Um, and if you have done that analysis, is it a report that staff has? So, the it would be included as part of the operation and maintenance agreement and the frequency of that. We don't have that report or frequency yet. Um but will be provided at the time a construction documents are provided and prepared for

okay

Commissioner Sardy.

Thank you Chair. Um, I just I wanted to pivot back to discussion of the concessions and the actual and identifiable costs which uh, Commissioner Bernett touched on a little bit earlier. And what I wanted to focus on a little bit more was the the rationale behind um, no trails and no open space easements. And so my understand I mean I know that the the bar is relatively low with respect to builder's revenue. Um, you can just say it's expensive I guess. Um, I don't see any analysis related to actual and identifiable costs in the justification letter. Um, it's fairly brief. It's like five pages. I mean, not that it needs to be super wordy and long, but I just don't see any analysis at all with respect to finance. And I'm curious to know, I mean, if you can add a little bit more detail about what you anticipate would potentially be um an unacceptable cost or an excessive cost associated with a simple addition of a trail. And yeah, I'll ask I'll stick to that first question first, I guess.

Right. It's a hard one to quantify. I mean, we're very nervous in general of how long the project is taking to move through the process, what the market's going to be like. Um, it's razor thin all the time now on trying to deliver it. Um, a residential subdivision like this is a long project. Takes a long time to deliver it as well. Um, I can't quantify, you know, in in a dollar sense like, okay, hey, we hit a threshold of 100 or 200 or two million dollars and decided not to do anything like that. I think the overall proposal was to keep this project very simple. Um, you can see the loting plan. Uh, it's it's pretty simple. We've shifted some of the based on some of the feedback in 2018, we've shifted some of the homes down the hill. Um, we didn't have an elaborate culde-sac coming off of Zero Vista as they did before. There were different options that were proposed with open space and trails and whatnot. And we basically just tried to simplify everything in an overarching attempt to make it a feasible project. Um costwise I don't have a hey if we had proposed to put in a trail connection through the upper lots you know how that would look what the cost would be. Um there's a little bit of a marketability issue as well with I know it's nice for the neighborhood and everybody else but also for the home to have the public walking through the their backyard or how we design around that or how it fits into part of the topography that isn't impactful. um we didn't spend time or dollars reanalyzing that. So, I know I wish I could give you a more clear definitive like it was going to be this and it just

kic the project budget too too high, but I I don't think I have that for you. And then just to kind of follow up on that, the I'm thinking about just the notion of a conservation easement or an open space easement. It seems like a line on a map to me in its simplest form. Um and I know sometimes conservation easements can come with some maintenance. um would not necessarily be a cost now to the developer. It would be a maintenance cost to an HOA or to a um if it's not an HOA to a private homeowner. I don't know if you can elaborate any more on what would be actual and identifiable cost to a conservation easement.

So that that one's also challenging. We just ran into this issue on another project nearby that town staff helped us navigate um something that was done for different reasons and then something changed and it was something that we had to navigate and it was an impact. Fortunately, that situation worked out okay. Um I think we're a little unclear on what needs to be done there or what's being requested. There's some identified lots to say that there might be some features that should be protected or whatever it might be. I think we're open to like working with staff or at your direction on hey these are these are the things that we want to see there and I think that we might be able to get to a point where some of that doesn't have as great of an impact but it still going back to that high level it's drafting legal putting easements in place um engineering it maps civil you know ratcheting up so it was a decision of how we were going to present the to set that to the side if it wasn't going to be something that was necessary. If it becomes a really critical issue, like any of these, we're open to listening and seeing if we can take care of it.

Understood. Um I'm curious to know if so, a lot of the um the concern and the maybe the anxiety assoc associated with something like this is the unknown. And I I my mind keeps returning to this because I see a potential community benefit that just kind of leaps off the page at me. Um and I'll I'll disclose that I'm a cyclist and so I'm a little bit uh biased in that direction, but um Kennedy Road is particularly dangerous road and right now we've got um trails that are in the adjacent subdivision that almost connect don't quite make the connection but almost connect to Brookacres Drive. It doesn't seem to me that it would be too terribly expensive to align a pedestrian bike trail immediately adjacent to the EVA that comes off Brook Acres and then just connects to the roadway system and makes its way out to Long Meadow. And then you have the ability to have a cyclist hop off a really dangerous road and spend a considerable amount of time weaving through a beautiful path through neighborhoods and making their way back out to Kennedy. So, that's just something I'll throw out there. I I don't know if that's something that you would consider that that takes away some of the um ambiguity maybe to it and and may align well with some of the improvements that are already being done and keep the cost down. I don't know.

I see what you're saying logistically through there. I mean, again, we have a number of things that we're going to look at. We'll have to see at the end of the meeting what are the, you know, the things that we're need to look at for the council or for for you again or whatever. And um definitely open to to doing that. I just um all these decisions were predicated on the simplicity which is what you're looking at and some of the other things that have come up and why we made the decisions that we did and um along with our architect trying to keep I guess the design very very rural um it is luxury home subdivision but to that end I think it is like on the minimalistic side with um kind of downplayed architecture and really beautiful stuff and just the way that the driveways and how the private road is going to look and all that and I think it'd be a wonderful place to cycle and connect in through Brook Acres through the EVA trail whatever it might be. So if there's some kind of a design element or safety or feature that we need to put in place to allow for that of course if it's something more than that if it's taking property and um out of some of the backyards of the upper lots I mean again we can we can look at that. I just I don't know the logistics and what the cost implications are going to be right now.

Okay. Just something to think about. Thank you.

Just as a follow up to that, I understand the the maintenance in the long term could is something that is not that the cost is difficult to capture. But the I mean I think that would you be open to you know looking at some of these options and looking into either having some sort of open space conservation easement or trail easement that and possibly I don't know I know that there are land trusts out there there are resources there is like you can set up like this is a very large project I'm not an expert in this but is Is it possible to set up some sort of land trust and that you can collect money from now that can maintain that at least for the foreseeable future? Has any of that like financial aspect been considered?

We have not looked into anything like that. Um, you know, I'm I'm thinking of different conditions around town and how they are and whether they're owned by the town or they're public or they're easement over somebody else's property and um I haven't personally done anything like that on a project to to understand what what all the options are, but just like everything else, I mean, if there's a logical way that we can accommodate people or the needs and it isn't something that's going to prevent the project from going forward financially, and we're very open to to cooperating. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Um I did have one more question for I think the engineers again about the very corner. I'm sorry. Um Mr. Mullen, could you pull up the same 5.0? I guess probably um the very corner between lots uh five and six. That area is Can you just explain that kind of and talk through the engineering and the water situation with that large swell down there? Yeah. and that whole just that whole corner area because I mean on some of the plans it even says it's an existing wetland. So Oh yeah, sorry. Can you grab the microphone? Thank you. and the swell that's there and how it's going to function. And then in the very corner on some of the documents, it says there's an existing wetland to remain. So just, you know, does that change dur is it seasonal that it changes? Is it existing all year? or is that the maximum?

So this storm water bio retention here is collecting and treating through a hard pipes that are coming in this way. They are conveying water off of this hardscape as well as well as all the hardscape from lot six and lot five. All of it is being conveyed into this bio retention. Bio retention will treat it. Bio retention will contain it and then it will through hydro modification with an orifice release it out in this direction to this hardpipe storm drain system ultimately connecting to the existing system that you have coming out here. And so that will be all underground.

All of the connection. Yes. All of the underground under all of the storm drain system is completely underground. Yes. Okay. And so then that wetland, it shouldn't like impact or connect to the wetland area that's directly adjacent to it or so. This storm drain system here, which is actually tied into this one here, which picks up um lot 10, all of it hydraulically ties into the existing system and exits the site.

Okay. Okay, thank you very much. Um, okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant team at this time before we close the public portion? Um, okay. So, we will now close the public portion of the public hearing on item number one. Thank you for everyone also on Zoom from the applicant team that was here to answer all of our questions. And um I think that we will be taking a break, but before we do that, I just wanted to make a recommendation that about how we start our discussion when we come back. If we have some specific questions or big major questions for staff um that's fine but I am thinking that we should because there is a lot here. I think that we should go through and first talk about the zoning which I think will be our quickest conversation and then talk about SQUA so the initial study and the M andD and then talk about the state density bonus law aspects including the incentives concessions waiverss just making sure we're all on the same page with that and get questions answered about that. then the specific site plans and then lastly the conditions of approval. So, um I can repeat that for you guys, but if we could while we take a 10-minute break, if we can just make sure we kind of get our thoughts in order for that, that would be great. And then we'll be back at what was it? 9:15.

going to continue um with our hearing on item number one and we will open it up to comments and questions from commissioners and for staff. and we will first start with um any zoning questions or comments.

Thank you, chair. I I don't actually have any questions for staff. I thought the staff report on this issue was exceedingly clear. that is it's a currently a resource conservation zone and because it's a builder's remedy project town is required to reszone it to allow the development to happen and it's going to happen uh be reszoned to low density residential which uh again I think makes sense this particular topic zoning compliance I have no questions

anyone else have anything to say no okay Um great then let's move on to our second topic which is uh squa. So initial study M andd questions who would like to kick that off? Commissioner Bernett.

Thank you. So question for staff. Um I have some real issues with the definition of deferred mitigation. um meaning that specific details of a mitigation measure are not followed are not finalized until after project approval. Um is there a way we could they could coincide that when I mean I I don't understand how you can have an approval before the project is completed. Well, I'll start and then um probably defer to our representatives from Rainey uh the environmental consultants. Um but I don't recall when that or those letters were written, but the mitigation monitoring and reporting program um goes through each mitigation, who's the responsible department, and many of them do have timing associated with them. Um, so, um, as I recall, um, we don't believe there's any deferred mitigation that's being put off, but I just want to get confirmation from Rainey, from Angela D. Rosa.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. Angela D. Roza with Rainey Planning and Management. We are the third party consultants that um, the town hired to prepare the SQA document for this project. Um so as far as deferred mitigation um you are allowed under SQA to rely on a future study or standards so long as there are specific performance measures listed in the mitigation measure. Um and as long as it identifies the actions to make sure that those performance measured are carried out and we have included those performance measures in all of the mitigation measures. And I'd just add, I mean, one common one that we see in a lot of documents, um, even for projects that are ex exempt when they go through initial study, there's protected birds, protected bats, depending on what time of the year you're doing it, you know, you have to do them within specific timelines of when construction's going to start. Otherwise, you have to go back out and you get your biologist back out there to do another survey if you miss that, you know, gap. Um, so a number of those things do need to be uh handled after the fact.

Thank you, Commissioner Sordy. Thank you. Um, I'm wondering if staff could put up page 157 of the packet. report.

Yeah, it's that guy. Was this the um architectural report?

It actually is. It's what I'm trying to do is just it does a really good job in color of showing the proximity of the effal drainage to the lot number eight residence and it's just kind of helpful for the sake of discussion. There we go. Okay. So, I had a question for the environmental consultant and this goes back to um and I mentioned it earlier, the letter that came from Brian Wines with the regional water quality board. I think the the nature of his letter was um I think he disagreed with the analysis. I think that the specific ask was that the repairarian drainage um whether we want to call it ephemeral or repairarian maybe you guys can elaborate on it be better defined and that it be defined through the normal process that um the regional board goes through with respect to identifying whether something is a water of the state or not something in their jurisdiction that they control. And so it looked to me like at when I looked at the response to comments um and I'll just read from here there's this is I think written by the consultant. It says a site visit was conducted on May 14th, 2025 by LOA, a professional biological consulting firm under contract with the town's environmental consultant to confirm the characteristics of the on-site ephemeral drainage as part of the biological evaluation. Um, and so I guess my question on that is what I'm trying to get a sense of is that area that's kind of with a blob there that's dark gray and that has some white around it. I think the dark gray is basically the tree canopy and the white is supposed to be the limit of repairarian vegetation if I'm not mistaken. And we've got a house encroaching pretty closely into it. But who established the boundary of that to begin with? Based on my review of the report, it looks like it's possible that it was established by a surveyor or an engineer simply looking at at topo and looking at vegetation

and and then you guys might have gone out to just sort of validate that. Yes, that's exactly correct. It was shown on the site plan and the biologist that was hired for this project, uh, Live Oak Associates, went out and did site surveys to, um, check the conditions of the site and confirm those areas and um the limits of the vegetation associated with that ephemeral ephemeral drainage.

Okay. And and when you went out to confirm that, was there anything on the site that indicated the limit of development in terms of staking or the limit of the house itself in terms of you guys being able to envision or overlay uh the development against the repairing area?

Yeah, I believe uh the biologists had CAD files, so they were able to georreerence those and essentially overlay the site plan on the site to confirm those areas. Yeah. Okay. Um, so and then my my more pressing question I guess is is there um so was any analysis done by a biologist? Was any analysis done to establish whether there are hydrophic soils present? Did you dig into the ground? Did you look at the soils and evaluate them? And did they do any analysis of the plant species out there to determine whether or not they're consistent with a wetland or repairarian species?

Yes, there were two surveys conducted of the site. um exactly for those reasons to see the conditions of the site. Um map out any aquatic features and there was no wetland type of plants identified for that ephemeral drainage which is why they had classified it as an ephemeral drainage. Okay. So it's considered ephemeral drainage. Um it's got repairarian species but it's not a seasonal wetland by definition.

Correct. It's It's also not considered riparian vegetation, but it's not. It It's just oak woodland vegetation that's around it. Okay. Okay. So, I guess um it sounds like what the regional board person was asking for was some kind of delineation, but I suppose if you can confirm there are no wetlands out there, then you can draw the conclusion that there's no need for a wetland delineation. I don't know.

So, yeah. Go ahead. Yeah, there was one small area of wetland identified on the project site and it is in the southwestern most corner associated with Ross Creek and the project is completely avoiding that. Um, sorry I'm mixing it up. Northwestern corner of the site is the small wetland area. The southwestern area of the site is where there's riparian vegetation located and that's associated with Ross Creek. Okay. Sorry for the confusion. Okay. So I guess in your opinion then there wouldn't need to be a formal wetland delineation done for the site.

Exactly. And um the biologists did look at the old reports that were conducted as part of the uh 2017 EIR. And as part of that, the US Army Corps did write a letter confirming that the only wetland area under their jurisdiction is that small area in the northwestern corner. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

I have a couple follow-up questions to that. Um, when can you you said the biologist went out to confirm. Can you tell me when that when that was? Yes, I have that noted here. Give me one second. So, they did two site visits. One was in December of 2024 and they went back out to the site in May of 2025. Um, okay. And then so they went in December 2024 and May of 2025. Um and then the Okay, that's my only question.

Vice Chair Burch. Um I did have one quick question. Um as you can see that there's a 10-ft buffer that you guys have called for that goes down. I would like to understand why it's not consistent all the way down. Why does the 10-ft buffer kind of come and go? I don't I don't see any value in that. Why would we not just continue with the 10-ft buffer for the entire 10-ft buffer was not a requirement for the SQA process. It was what was on the site plan. So, we were just analyzing that the site plans included a 10-ft buffer around um the vegetated area. Okay. Thank you.

So, just as a followup to that, because there isn't a 10 foot buffer everywhere, how was that was that analyzed or did you assume that there would be a 10-ft buffer everywhere? In your analysis, it was our understanding that there would be at least a 10-ft buffer around the entire ephemeral drainage area. Okay. I will say that up slope farther of the ephemeral drainage there's no development proposed. So there the buffer is much larger.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So then I have a follow-up question for town staff if that because there are sites there are there isn't a 10-ft foot buffer on these proposed plans but it sounds like that is what was reviewed by the environmental consultants. So how do we remedy that? So these were the plans that were provided to the consultants to review as a part of that. Um and you can see with the dash line on the femoral drain, that's the 10 the 10 foot buffer. And um looks like there's a segment that's near lot eight that isn't showing that dash line. I think maybe if Mr. Rosa can explain, I think she tried to explain, but maybe it wasn't caught was some of these wider sections that have the 10 foot buffer around them, maybe there was some vegetation if I recall. Um, and where this other one is, there really isn't. It's really just the part of the channel. Um, so you know that buffer is is not as wide in that point because the if I mean you've all been out to the site even the gray area isn't you know what you see on the ground right so um if Miss D Rosa could provide just a little more clarification on that for the planning commission please

and if I could um interject uh Sean on exhibit 15 sheet. I get you to sheet number. Sheet six, the erosion control plan. That shows that delineation Yeah, just to clarify, the biologist the biologist analyze the site plan as proposed. So where there are 10 foot buffers shown, they analyze that and assume that

Okay. I have um a question about um what the process is. If a species that is on uh a species of concern is found on the site, what ends up happening? So, just to clarify, you're asking if a species that wasn't addressed in the amend.

Yeah. Yes. Like an Yes. An additional one that if it wasn't if something comes up because I did see in the in the biological report there were a couple that I have that were like this is the closest one is that this many miles away. But um like for example like Yeah. Anyway, so there were a few, but I know that I've seen them and other people have seen them closer than three miles to that site. So, just wondering.

Sure. Um, the species that were identified as potentially occurring on site were based on the biologist's experts opinion. Um, and the conditions of the site from their surveying. Um, of course, if they're out there doing the preconstruction surveys that are required for the special status species that were identified as by the biologist as potentially being there, the qualified biologist that would be doing that survey would follow protocol to address any other species that they see while they're out there, special status species that they see. And then just quickly for just for the public's understanding, can someone clarify in general I mean I know that it is in here but kind of what ends up happening when

what yeah what is the general protocol when a special species is a species of special concern is found. I think there just because I think that there's a misunderstanding about what happens next. Well, I can say I don't recall that ever occurring in town um because most of those species are already known with the rats and the bats and the raptors. Um but you know, we would defer again as Mr. Rosa said to the bi biologist. There is standard protocol for whether you're encountering that or you're encountering you know Native American artifacts or you know skeletal remains or any of those things. we would follow the required protocol.

Yeah, I'm sorry my I meant if anything even included happen in general the just the general protocol for when a special a species of special concern is on a site. You know, it doesn't mean that all everything ceases to stop. It can there's a couple of different again when we when something like that happens then we would defer to the expert whether it's a biologic issue or some other issue that also has the potential for creating a situation where something unknown is found. Okay. Um and then we would follow that you know generally state or federal required protocol but I do not have that with me.

Okay. Thank you. Um I had a question about the G it was in the geologic hazard uh appendix. So, in appendix D, just um again wondering on the timing of when this was done. And then I also could not determine where like I could not find a map of where the bore holes actually were that were being described. So, I was just wondering if you guys I mean it's probably in here, but again, this was a giant packet. So someone could just kind of refer me to where I should be looking for that. Yeah, the geo study, the geology study was attached to the ISM andd. Let me see. It was included as appendix D to the ISM and D and it was prepared in October of 2024. We're we're trying to pull up the map for you.

So, okay. Yeah, thank you. Um if Okay, go for it. while they're looking.

Uh just a quick follow up on um on the the geotechnical report and um the indications of slide areas on the site. From reading the report, it appears that there's no mapped known slides on the site. And I guess what I was curious about was what was used as um rationale for identifying areas in a slide zone versus not slide zone. Is this strictly based on slope or is it soil characteristics? And hopefully I'm right about the map slide zone. If if I'm wrong, let me know.

Yeah, so the Santa Clara County maps the site as being in a landslide hazard area, but as part of the geo study, they did a number of test pits and actually looked at the soils on the site in some of those sloped areas. Um and what they found was no evidence of landslide deposits. Um no field features indicative of slope failure and instability. So they found that landslide hazards were considered to be low to moderate and the majority of the proposed residents are outside of the steep slopes steep slope areas.

Okay. I'm just I'm looking at sorry trying to find the specific map. There's one particular map that shows I think it's most of lot eight as being kind of painted yellow and I thought it was indicating that it was in a slide zone, but maybe I'm not getting that right. Here we go. So, it's in the packet page uh 192. Um, anyway, it's uh lot nine, architectural and site review, and I'm just noticing that the area it just says landslide hazard zone, and it maps it in yellow, and it brings it um yeah, it looks like it's mostly a significant portion of it is on lot nine and lot eight. There we go. So, I don't know if I'm asking the same question, but I guess I'm just wondering what led to the characterization of that area to be in a slide zone versus not the rest of it. And if it's just based on slope or if it's also just based on the sub borings and the characteristics.

Yeah, I think those area those shaded areas I believe are from the county maps that are showing that landslide hazard area. Okay. So, the county map shows it, but we're not really sure why. It sounds like I mean I don't want to draw unnecessary conclusion or unsupported conclusion but if there were borings done it sounds like there were no mapped actual landslides found and that way we're not looking at a hazard that severe. We're just looking at a a resource and constraint map that looks at things from like a 10,000 foot level. So yeah.

Is that correct? It's definitely based off the borings and there's a mitigation measure included in the M andD that requires compliance with the recommendations of the geo study. So there are some recommendations to ensure that slope stability is addressed. Okay, thank you. And we found the map of the test borings. It's an attachment to the geotechnical report.

The second figure. There's no figure numbers on it. That's all I had on Gio. Okay. Well, she while she's looking for the document she's trying to find. I have a non geotechnical question. Um, we received um a couple letters from the Sierra Club and the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, and I have one dated October 17th. And in this letter, they they state a few concerns around the document um and that they feel that it doesn't properly address um certain concerns, some of them that we've talked about tonight. But one of them which was I don't know kind of the the biggie I thought was a statement that says procedural def deficiencies under SQA including reliance on deferred mitigation absence of required agency consultation and disregard of substantial evidence submitted by a responsible agency. Have you guys had a taken a look at this document and is there a way that you would answer to confirm for us that in fact those things have been done?

Yeah, I think included in your packet is detailed responses to that exact letter. Those might have been an addendum too or the desk item. Miss Walters,

it was an addendum too. It was part of the attachment there. And I think that comment in particular was related to the waterboard's comments. They were referring to the waterboard's comment letter. the paperwork up here. Um, sorry. So, you said that the uh geology report was done in October 2024.

That's correct.

Okay. So, I just have a kind of a follow-up question because there was, you know, it's we've been out to the site and obviously, well, we haven't had a lot of rain as of now, but um it's wet out there and there, you know, those holes would have been that those bore holes would have been done at when the water table's presumably the lowest because that's it's in October. So, um, how I mean, it does explicitly say in this part of the groundwater report that that's likely, you know, not represented at the stabilized levels, they can be higher than initial levels encountered, etc. encountered, etc. Um, so how is that taken into account or I mean, I just it just is a very wet area. So, how can we make sure that there isn't water really like the water table isn't at the surface in some of these spots?

Well, I can start and then if anyone else has any other questions, but um ultimately when you know if the project gets approved and development plans come forward um there'll be additional geotechnical work that will have to be done for the specific foundations and soils work. Um, but you know, as you mentioned, the water table can fluctuate. And so, we're not going to have them go out every week and and test the test the soil. And if they do encounter water, this happens all the time in town. Um, especially when folks do sellers, then they end up having to get a system to make sure they're dewatering uh that obviously in an appropriate manner uh so that it doesn't impact impact the site or off-site properties. And for did you do you have exhibit D with you? So if I think page 37 is the last page of the geotech report. So the second page after that is I believe what Mr. D. Rosa was. Yeah. So that shows the borings and

um Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else that Okay, Commissioner Bernett,

thank you. I'd like to uh ask a question representing uh SQA. Correct. So um um what did you base your findings on to believe that the mitigated ne negative declaration was all that was needed? um and any concerns were less than sign significant and that could be mitigated on this complex project. I mean this is a very involved project and then did you rely at all on an outdated uncertified EIR in 2017 and at that time that was based on a 55,000 square foot you know area and it did it did address uh it did site uh potential significant impacts. So my question to you is did you did you rely at all on that report even it was uncertified and it was an EIR report. I'm just finding that there's a lot of areas here that I think seem to have a lot of unanswered questions. So that that's my question to you.

The general answer is no. We didn't rely on the the prior EIR as you note it was uncertified and it was from multiple years ago. So this ISM andd is a full um independent analysis with new project specific reports conducted. So we did not rely on prior reports prepared for that EIR. And I'd be curious, you mentioned potent you mentioned potential significant impacts. So I mean all of all of these reports, whether it's an EI or an M andD have potential significant impacts, but to my recollection, even though that's many moons ago, that even though that project didn't, they were able to mitigate all of those impacts and less than significant. There were no significant unavoidable impacts even with the EIR. I believe I read that there that they did site in that EI report that there was some potential significant impacts.

Correct. Every every one of these looks at potential significant impacts. But if it can't be mitigated, it becomes significant and unavoidable. That's when you absolutely have to do an

EIR. We have had in the past and so the planning commission and council have seen that before a number of projects that have decided even though they don't have any significant unavoidable impacts and could get SQL clearance through a mitigated negative declaration, they have chosen to do an EIR because that has a higher bar from a lawsuit perspective uh for the applicant. Uh but in this case, the applicant didn't choose to go down that path and it's not necessary to go down that path because there aren't significant unavoidable impacts at this point. Um but I'll go back and look because I don't remember any that were from the previous project either.

Okay. Should we move on to the next? If we have any more environmental questions, we can come back to it. Um, our next I don't even have my list. What do we Oh, okay. So, next I think we should discuss the state state density bonus law, all of the, you know, incentives, concessions, waiverss, walking through some of that. Um, and so I think that before I open it up to everyone else, I just would like clarification again from the town attorney about the identifiable and actual cost reduction, the language and the findings that we need to make to grant these incentives. um for the sorry let me get this open to that page language that we need states um so I think I'm I remember what part of the presentation you're referring to so the burden is on the town to demonstrate that the requested concession or incentive would not result in a cost reduction. Um, and the way that we normally determine that information is we ask the applicant to give us a general explanation of how the concession or incentive results in a cost reduction. Um, there is a case out there saying that public agencies can't require pro-formas. Um and so the town doesn't require a proforma but we do require an explanation of what the cost reduction consists of.

Okay. And then it you know does provide for affordable housing. Is it I mean is that just what does that mean? So that language comes from the statute. um it's hard to interpret and so our position has been does this incentive or concession result in a cost reduction to the project overall because the project by definition has to include a component of affordable housing in order to even qualify.

Okay. So I Okay, I'm just curious because I think that the you know this is one of the findings that we have to make for the concessions or incentives for the um for the open space conservation trails situation and um in the staff report it just says to provide for a affordable housing costs and so I understand the project I clearly understand sidewalks, how expensive those can be and and it's very clear that that would significantly change the project financially. Um, but I think that um that I'm not sure that I personally have enough information about the just the actual cost reduction by avoiding that having an easement for open space. But I'm curious to see what other commissioners have to say about that.

And I would just remind planning commission um staff wasn't able to make the finding from our perspective for the open space component. We actually were for the trails. So you might want to discuss that one as well. Um obviously it's the initial installation of that. You've been out to the site. It basically comes into the site, traverses the perimeter and goes all the way up to Sarah Vista. Obviously there will be a cost associated with that. Yeah. Um, but you know, just wanted to throw that little bit of background for your discussion. Thank you. Can you expand on the trails? Expand on them, make them bigger,

I guess. Um, aside from maybe, you know, saying we have to do the physical trails, could we do an easement for trails? I think you could request that be part of your recommendation to move forward that you know at a minimum uh trails I mean obviously we heard tonight from planning commissioners that they don't necessarily have enough information on the monetary impact of the project for even going to the level of doing the trails. Um so definitely you know that could definitely be part of any recommendation moving forward.

Okay. And then as a followup to that, if there was an easement, if a, you know, land trust or community group or something came along down the line to fund and maintain and set up a situation for that, is would that legally is that how that would legally work or um the condition could be open-ended. It could require um the easement be dedicated and then it could specify that you know either the town would make improvements later or as you mentioned another group might make come along and make improvements.

Yeah. Thank you. Uh thanks chair. Um so I'm looking at our staff report starting at page 14 and going to page 15. It has a list of both the incentives and the waiverss. And so maybe good way to do it. We attack those in order. And so looking at the incentives u beginning with the story poles um and not providing sidewalks it seems to me that I understand the cost savings with those um and perhaps we can agree with the developer on that going to trails and the space ements again the open space easement I think conditions of approval which have part of our packet for lots 27, 8, 9, and 10. That's already part of our packet. And I would recommend that we incorporate that as part of any approval if we were going to have an approval. I would also encourage us to include the trail system. To me, it seems to be a way if cost really is an issue to the developer, it could be foisted back to the homeowners by way of making it an HOA cost um for maintenance for initial build and maintenance. I think we can find that it's not an insurmountable burden to the incentives. Okay, I think that we're in um we're all on the same page with regards to that. Um, okay. So then with the waiverss,

does anyone have any questions or want to discuss? I would just say that the, you know, the LRDA is something that we see very often obviously in the hillside. So I don't think that's even something that I think again maybe Sean if you can bring up the um finding because that one has a little bit different than the monetary. Yeah. Um and it really gets back to anything that's going to impact the project as it's proposed.

Yes. Um I guess that the I mean most of the time when we you know when we've been looking at these projects and everything it's just about obviously making sure that uh there's you know these waiverss are necessary for these projects and then just making sure that if there's anything that the applicant team is like still willing to address in a different way or has you know which I think that they stated that they want feedback on you know just so I just want to give them an opportunity to hear if we have any concerns with any of these even though we know that we would still not be able to make this finding to or you know we would not be rejecting the project because of that but if they're going to be providing us more information or making any additional changes or prioritizing things. So, Commissioner Bernett,

sure. So, the question would be to staff regarding the below market program that we have the Lascatus. Um, there are concerns over the size and location. Um, and um I know this is a waiver that is but uh under the state density bonus law, but wonder if if staff has any concerns over that the below market the three below market.

Yeah, it's um we debated it internally because it it is a question as to whether that physically precludes the development as proposed. Um, where I landed is that I think requiring a different configuration of the BMR units would physically preclude the development as proposed. Um, and then internally we also looked at it from the fair housing angle, like is this violating any state fair housing laws? Um, we did not locate any state laws that were being violated. Um, that said, you know, nothing prevents the commission from asking the applicant if they would be able to reconfigure the BMP units.

And I think the other challenge that we ran across was the language of our guidelines related to that area is not objective from what I recall. So, we'll go back and look at that language as well, but that's part of my recollection as well. So, you couldn't impose it anyway.

Thank you. Is there anything else related to the like I I mean assuming that the applicant is perhaps amendable to some of our feedback. Is there anything else related to any of the the waiverss that we feel like could be addressed in another way, you know, or mitigate or no? Okay, Vice Chair Burch.

Well, I think the the one that I had highlighted was actually the swimming pools on the slopes greater than 30%, but I saw that was addressed in the proposed conditions of approval. That was the one I had highlighted. Um, and the location of the BMPs, which Bernette asked. Um, aside from that, no, I don't I don't think so. I mean, okay. Um, Okie do. Then let's move on to the site plans. Um, starting yeah with Commission Commissioner Sy, go for it.

I think this falls into the realm of site plan. So this may be a question for public works city engineer. Um so I think the conditions of approval require CCNRs but not an HOA, right? And so right now um presumably the CCNRs would be written in such a way that put the onus and the responsibility on the individual lot owner to maintain the storm water facilities. And I'm interested to hear feedback from public works city engineer on that. Um, I know from time to time the regional board audits these things and it would be kind of a shame if we ended up getting fined because I think the fines get directed into the public agency, not to the individual and you just simply can't control who's going to own those lots and how they're going to treat those facilities. So, I would just be interested in your feedback on whether that's a practical

I'll start and then parks both work and correct me when I'm wrong. Um, ultimately, yes, it would be in the CCNRs. It is on the property owners. There are yearly uh inspections that are done um to address that. These are all over town. They're all over single family lots. Um so this is not a unique practice. Um this is just something that we have to do as part of our storm water permit. Um and then if there's anything else that needs to be added, I'd turn to Mr. Sparks or the town engineer.

Okay. And I am curious just a quick followup. So, if something's in disrepair or just, you know, uh destroyed or ruined and the property like what's the remedy? I mean, you um find the property owner. It's become a code enforcement issue. How do you impose the fix on them?

Yeah. I mean, we'd have both an engineer that does inspections and we also have building permit building inspectors that do some different inspections. So, it's kind of split from what I recall. Um but I imagine there are uh enforcement capabilities associated with that permit. Let me just look to Mr. Heap for a nod. So yes, there are enforcement provisions that we uh when necessary will handle.

Thanks. And then uh I mean it leads me to disclosures, I guess. I mean CCNRs are one thing. um a new homeowner that buys a lot doesn't necessarily have to well you can presume they read the CCNRS but the real way to really make sure they know that there's additional budgetary um restrictions associated with owning a lot having to maintain a storm facility would be like a recorded well maybe recording something would go pretty far but having a disclosure which I know is typically provided by the seller I guess it's just a suggestion so that it calls it out and makes it really crystal clear that somebody's going to have to dip into their pocket and maintain this thing from time to time.

Yeah. And we can we can work with parks and public works. Um, you know, they're generally not going to see the recorded subdivision map either, but you know, I could see that as being a note. Um, but we can definitely look into that recommendation and and see what options are out there. Okay. Thank you. Um, I was wondering if and I I don't know this might be staff or might be the consultants actually. I'm not sure. Was there any study done on storm water being drained into Ross Creek?

So, I think we definitely have parks and public works staff here. Um, our planning application checklist requires that preliminary grading and drainage plans be submitted. Obviously, you've seen the plans. They go far beyond that. Um, but there still are things that need to be ironed out. Um, and so that will happen again. It's one of those things where once we get down to um if the project gets approved and they're getting construction drawings, they'll have to get final sign off for C3 and other components. Um, and if any of those trigger any significant modifications to what was if approved uh by the town council, then they may be subject to coming back through for modification, which I don't know uh what, but there may be ramifications there. So, I know parks and both works has done some work on that. Um, but we're not in a final grading and and drainage plan. For instance, can

I actually ask a follow-up question to that because that was going to be one of my questions. What we actually have says a it's a preliminary grading plan. Um when do you guys typically see a more thorough grading plan? What

Yeah. So the process is after you go through the architecture and site, there's an additional grading permit that you go directly to parks and public works for and they have a completely separate process where they're nailing down all of those details. Right. So that's when that is going to get handled. Some of these requirements and we hear it a lot from architects and applicants of I don't even know if I'm going to get to build my house. Why are you going to make me spend tens of thousands of dollars, you know, getting even to the level we make we request them to get to? Um so it's a very significant risk from their perception um for any applicant that comes through our process.

Bernette. So question. So how can the planning commission recommend this to the town council if we don't have all that evidence especially regarding the drainage? And I mean if we're still waiting for reports waiting if you're not comfortable with with what's been proposed then you can always recommend denial. Thank you.

Okay. Are there any other questions or anything about the site plans that we have questions about? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Um, so yeah, the last thing is conditions of approval. Um, look at or discuss go through. So um it's a very extensive obviously always um in this area. So, um, are there is there anything specific that has come up tonight that we would or questions specifically about the conditions of approval or um, changes, additions, etc. Sure. marriage. Um I had one that I wanted to bring up that just did have to do with um the residential street. Um since this is a rather large lot, could can we or can I request that we would add a condition of approval that there be um conditions made to where construction vehicles and parking would be on the property, not on the street? and not have construction trucks parked or idling

on the street for, you know, longer than a five minutes or something. Okay. He nodded at me. So, I mean, I'm sure there's already something in there that discusses that, but you are potentially going to be recommending more specificity when they look through that construction management plan moving forward. Yeah, that I just added a couple things on top of what he had in here already. Okay. And then I think there was a question about the there was another one that I think the other two I heard was the something to handle the trails and then also the open space easements. Those were two other topics. Yes.

And then the other might have been related to trees. Yeah. The tree. Okay. Yes. If I can follow up on the trees then. Um I'm looking in the area of uh COVID 11 12 or 13. Um you heard our prior discussion about coming to some accommodation with respect to privacy that would satisfy neighbors. If we could incorporate some of those ideas into a Ca Ca uh probably in that one of those numbered areas, I think that would be helpful.

Yeah. And I think as you heard from the landscape architect, I think it it does get to be a challenge when you're in technically actually I think there was a speaker this evening. They're technically currently in the high fire hazard severity zone, but because they've ested to the previous maps prior to the recent modifications, they were in very high. They're still being subject to the very high requirements. Um so many of fire's requirements that are currently in there, if they came in today, they wouldn't have to do. Um that's an aside, but again it's was getting to that balance of you know how many trees can we plant? How dense can they be based on that defensible space uh based on the defensible space requirements that are out there. So but to the maximum extent feasible. Sure.

I think yeah we we all agree on the point to the extent allowed by applicable law etc. Thank you. Um and this may be in the conditions approval but again this is a lot of paperwork. Um, don't we have something in here about the type of fencing that can be allowed in like open space like this so that it maintains wildlife corridors? Um, it's not specific in the conditions, but that is a part of the town code and so they would be subject to the town code requirements. The town code does specify what's allowed in the hillside area.

Okay. Um, and then I did have one other one which is I know is going to be like weirdly specific. Um but what was said and what's on the plans are different. So um if you look on the plans between on at lot four and five and between the lowest retaining wall and the property behind them, the landscape architect actually said that there was like hydra seed and plantings that would avoid erosion. That actually isn't on the plans. It's shown on the upper tiers of the retaining walls. And I just want to make sure that there are plantings between those properties and the properties behind them because of the elevation change that avoid that type of soil erosion. Here, if I can just ask um my fellow commissioners, one of the issues is then the open space easement and I'm just curious as to what lots you think those would be 10 and eight and perhaps nine, but make sure we all kind of the same.

It's already in the conditions though, right? It's not in there yet, is it? It is. It is. Yes. Yeah. See page 40. Oh, you're right. Okay. And so two and seven also. It includes two, seven, eight, nine, and 10. Two already. Yeah, I think that's right. Already. So like two

and then seven, eight, nine, 10. Yeah, those. Yes. Yeah, I guess. Yeah. Do you have another Oh, chair. I was just wondering when when would be the appropriate time to bring up a different point of view on the subject this of the open space or of of the project?

Um, yeah. Let I just have a follow-up question about the open space and then um actually it's okay. Never mind. You can bring whatever you want.

Okay. So, I'm coming from a different direction. I I believe this project actually brings up the I went to a planning commission seminar that brought up the idea of fair argument standard and I really believe this this this project is you know really qualifies for that because you have documents from the coast bridge ecology report. You have the documents from the Sierra Club, the Luma Prietta chapter, documents from the Santa Clara Bird Alliance, all the neighbor concerns. You have um San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. I mean these are sophisticated reports and have a lot of issues and I feel are you know strong reports and that is why I feel we really need uh an EIR report and when you talk about a fair argument standard you ask when must an EIR be prepared when it and when it can be prepared when it can be fairly argued based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record that a project may have a significant environmental effect. And when you read all these documents and you read maybe the past EIR even though it wasn't certified uh the the residents their explanations and their lifelong experiences with this hillside I think that fairly argued means that there is evidence of the potential for impact in the administrative record before the agency. So I think I think there's enough evidence uh fair argument standard which is SQA that it really deserves to have a full

EIR report. I think there's too many questions regarding the water basins, the trees, the uh hillside slides. I mean and and we questions after questions we've gone over where does the water end? Where is it going into Ross Creek or where are the basins? I mean there's just uh for me uh one of the commissioners um those would be my comments. So um that would be the direction I would go but I'm just one commissioner here. So

yeah and through the chair I mean I think we talked about this a little bit earlier. I didn't go as in depth as Commissioner Bernett. Um but the fair argument is the legal standard I was mentioning that is much lower. So, if this goes to court, it's very easy to prove. It's not um you know, it's not as I think Miss Canana used bulletproof, which everyone wish existed even with an ER, but it doesn't. Um but, you know, it's a far lower bar to overturn a mitigated NEG deck than it is an ER, which is one of the things we discussed. So, if there was a court case following any approval related to SQA, then that would be the argument. Okay. So then if we didn't go that road then I would I would request a follow-up uh meeting. We have a total of five and I would like some more of these in-depth answers to some of these serious questions uh for our neighbors for the neighbors and for uh the fellow commissioners. I mean I don't feel like a lot of the questions were answered. So that would be my second. If you feel that way um about litigation or whatever, then my next my next uh plan B would be to have a second meeting because we can have a total of five with some of our questions answered and visiting to the site where the wetlands are. I'd like to see that as well. Commissioner Sorty.

Yeah, I just wanted to respond to that a little bit and maybe get into a little more detail. I I'm hesitant to uh require more process just for the sake of process. So, I think what we really need to do is focus on which questions haven't been answered and to what extent an ISMND is or is not the document appropriate to do that. If you think you're going to find more analysis and it's going to come to a different conclusion just by virtue of changing the process and moving to an EIR from an ISMND, I think you need to do you need to go into detail about what it is that you're going to uncover by adding process that is going to be a different conclusion from a technical standpoint, environmental standpoint.

Yeah. And I think again going back to what we discussed before, I mean I think it's you know initial study checklist. It's the same checklist whether you do a mitigated negative declaration. We've even done them for categorical exemptions as it is for any. So all the same topics are studied all the same impacts all the same thresholds and criterion for the various impacts. So the reality my opinion and um Mr. Rosa can speak up if she thinks I'm speaking out of turn. Uh is that it would it would be the same exact conclusions. There'd be no different conclusions. Um we would be uh including alternatives to the project and we've seen this with other other projects where they don't have to do an EI because they have no significant unavoidable impacts but we have to do alternatives. So you do an alternative so it has less less than significant impacts, right? So doesn't really hit that threshold. Uh the other thing that it looks like at I believe is a a little more different cumulative impact perspective, but we're talking about 12 lots here. That's not going to rise to a cumulative impact. Um so just a little more background from a planning perspective. And Miss Drosa, anything else to add? I have a question just about the mitigation and monitoring. Um, so obviously a project like this takes a while and so a lot of these like the implementation schedule is like you know for the the big bat for example it just is like up to one year prior and then within seven days prior to the start of construction. Are there any what happens if there's a delay in construction because of weather or you know another

pandemic or we can't get parts and the site is sitting there un halfdeveloped for a while. How do you how how does that factor in? So we um folks try to get it done really quick to get construction because they have to have those letters prepared by bio um certified biologists per the mitigation uh direction. And so those would have to be redone if there was a delay. And so there is a specific time frame that's attached to that through those conditions. So that one we do have a protocol and we run into that sometimes where if they don't hit those timelines, they have to start that clock back over, get the biologist back out there um for that specific one you mentioned. Okay.

Um Okay. So, I um I hear what Commissioner Bernett is uh saying and um I agree with Commissioner Sordy that I don't know what I mean I I would I need more information to make a recommendation a motion and to vote on this project as of now. But I think that it's important for us to explain what additional information and questions we have so that staff, consultants, applicant team can can provide that information um so that we can you know move forward with the project in whatever way, shape or form that's going to happen. So, I would like commissioners to express what additional information they would need um or like and then and questions open questions they still have before sorry before that though I do have a question about possib about site visits. Um you know as we said it was a little bit difficult when we went out there uh because the lack of story polls etc which I understand why that is happening and it's expensive. So is there a way that we could do some sort of site visits and be able to better understand lot delineations andor where structures are going. Also possibly like is it normal to be able to go out with any consultants to be able to ask some questions and get some answers about some of the space or is that not normal?

I think going out with going out with consultants would be unique from my perspective. Um this is a challenging site. Um I know you guys have all been out there. We went out there once or twice recently. Um or I did. Anyhow, um I think the applicant heard your request about the difficulty of trying to orient yourself and the different levels and capabilities from kind of orienting yourself while you're out there. Um without any real landmarks other than trying to identify, okay, I see this tree, right? So general idea of where this is. Um we can also work with the applicant to um you know see if they are willing to put some kind of even just staking for some general areas you know kind of generally delining the roadway maybe corners where the lots hit the roadway and then you can get a general idea of where that faces to see where those are. Ultimately that will be up to the applicant um to get that site access. Um, so those are what come to mind at this point, but I think that could be part of your direction depending on your decision this evening. And staff definitely can go back out there and more staff can go out there uh as well to just kind of help with the effort. We can have staff staff stand at the corners of lots, see how that goes.

Thank you. Yeah.

Um I Okay. Yeah. So I think that just as a followup to that, the reason I was asking about the cons the like consulting consultants is because you know the biologist that has been out there a couple of times obviously and done some surveying. I just like when we were just out there, I saw some very specific plants that grow in very specific conditions and I just don't I it would just be I it was just hard for me to tell if that was fully captured on what has been mapped. And so that just is my main concern I guess with regards to understanding where the water is, the soil saturation, where the actual edge of this area is. Um, and so that's something I guess from the environmental like review and your team over there if we could just get some if I could get a better understanding of that.

Yeah. And we can we can definitely look. I'm sure we're probably past budget already, so we're going to have to request additional funds from the applicant. Um, but at a minimum, we can probably get some additional information andor conversations with the biologists in this instance.

Okay. Also, if we have access to some of the like I mean the GPS or CAD data and stuff if that doesn't require like use from I mean some of us can can use that information to ourselves if we if we don't have the budget or we can't be get any more money for any of that kind of thing. if there is more if there's ways for us to to access it in that regard. So, I kind of agree that it does sound like a lot of people up here feel like there should be more information. For me specifically, um it still has to do with Ross Creek. I understand what you were saying, but having heard that it does flood rather, you know, regularly, um, and knowing now that there's a decent amount of storm water that's going to be dumped into that that probably was not before, I would like a little bit more information on that and and what that's going to look like and what the impact on the creek would be. Um, I also would probably like to know from you your experience with pvious concrete and its ability to handle the kind of weight required. My, like I said, my experiences have not been good. Um, so maybe, you know, look into if we could look into that a little bit and just sort of have a reassurance that this isn't just going to become like a horrible maintenance nightmare that could not withstand 75,000bs if an emergency vehicle had to drive through.

Um, thank you, Chair. I I am first of all I agree with um Commissioner Bernett's concerns about making decisions where we don't have all the information then her desire to have a full sequent analysis but I'm going to lean into Mr. Pollson's comments. Uh he's got far more expertise than I think most of us. So I I believe that the EIR process probably doesn't land us in a significantly different place. And so I think um I'm satisfied to go through with the NEGD subject to containing more information. And so I would echo my fellow chair and vice chair's information or request for a site visit with some delineation, a better understanding of the hydraology issues, um especially the creek, especially flooding into the neighboring properties. And then I would add to that the trails and open space issues whether um they are available to um the development and if the position is going to be that they are cost prohibitive. I'd like an an discussion of what those costs are so we can evaluate if those are serious um prohibitions to uming those. And lastly, I would like a further discussion or analysis of the trees privacy issues. Those would be the open issues I would add to this.

And um just I just want to add on to that with the trees most of the you know with the request to update to as many native species as possible. most of those species are less flammable or at least a little bit um or they they are fire adapted at least and so um that could be a part of you know I think that that ties into into that also um I did have a question just about the noise was brought up by one of the residents with the I don't know with regards to something I think related to Hillbrook or whatnot can Um you just quickly explain how we what the baseline the it's not cumulative now there's like a new baseline and then how we mitigate the noise beyond that.

Yeah we'll definitely bring that back as well. Um, I believe there's also discussion of that in the M&D if I remember correctly. But we also have town code that deals with it, but a single family home is not going to generate um a noise that is going to be more than the school. I know there's a lot of work went into the Hillbrook issue, but typically that's not going to be an issue from a, you know, another single family home, but we'll get you that information as well.

And the Yeah. No, it is in the um it is in the NMD or the M andd, but I think that the it's just that the new the baseline there's a new baseline because the Hillbrook situation already exists. So the current conditions is what is the baseline for then the next right they you know they don't like a new project doesn't have to take into account that Hillbrook is there and loud is what I'm trying to that that's correct and there'll also be other noise impacts but they're going to be short-term related to construction typically.

Yes. And there are restrictions on that too in town. Okay. Thank you Commissioner Bernett.

Thank you chair. So, my other concerns then would be if if we're going moving in this direction would be um I have concerns of the buffer zones around the homes, but I also would wonder if the applicant would be um look at maybe doing extra effort for the homes that are uh really impacted by the I think it's um lot. What lot is that? I think it's Lot five. Lot five. Um the lots that are really impacted by like if water is just an overwhelming amount, if you could do some extra kind of, you know, basins or work with the client, work with the homeowners just to sort of ease their uh fears, which which are good. I mean, reasonable. So that that would be my suggestion as well.

Okay. Are there Yes, Commissioner Sorty.

So um yeah, if we are going in the direction of continuing the item, I would support that. I think that um it's always a challenge when we're thrown like a 2,000page packet just a few days in advance. So I support my colleagues um desire to get more information on the items discussed. Um, I would encourage the applicant on the trails item to maybe consider some options and maybe be prepared to speak more u in detail about what might be on the table. I know that you don't want to negotiate in a vacuum, but um if we're going in that direction, I I just want to take note of the fact that I think the existing um alignment of a trail, if I understand it right, would sort of pass through lots 4, five, six, seven, make their way up to the top of the hill to Sero Vista. And that might be a little bit troublesome and possibly pretty expensive considering the slope you have to cover and the lots that you have to cross. and there's a possibility that you'd have to secure an off-site easement um versus the potential ease of coming through Brook Acres and just uh possibly placing a pedestrian bike easement right over the top of the the EV and connecting. So anyway, just wanted to put a a little more detail to that. Um that's it.

Okay. Um, is there anything else that we would like to say before we move on? Okay. Um, so it looks like we're in favor of a continuence of this item. I think that the goal would be to do that as soon as everyone is ready to come back with information, but I not with a date certain because there's a lot of I don't know. We have no idea how long any of this is going to take any of you. So, you can you all I think will decide that. I would I know it's a little unconventional, but I do want to ask the town attorney if we can open up public comment um just to ask the applicant if there is any additional things that they want us to provide guidance or feedback on before we close this so that they can get clarification on the additional information that we're seeking. Um, yes. If the commission does that, I recommend opening up public comment for everybody if it's not a specific question if you're just getting feedback.

Um, can I ask just a yes or no? No. Um, well, you could do you have a specific question for the applicant because you could open up the comment period just to get an answer to that specific question. I yeah, I just wanted a specific yes or no if we were able to provide enough information details going forward for them to answer some of our questions more in depth at our next at the continuence meeting. So is the question does the applicant have enough information to provide staff for the following meeting? Yeah. Yes.

Can I Okay. So can I open I will open up public comment just to ask yes or no. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um, okay. Thank you very much. Do we have what? Oh, reclose. I'm reclosing the public comment. And then do we have anyone want that wants to make a motion to continue? Vice Chair Burch. Yeah, I will make a motion to continue this item. um not to a date certain but when until staff feels they have the information gathered based on the conversation they heard here tonight

and second thank you and any discussion I'll call the question all those in favor please raise your hand and the motion passes unanimously and there's no appeal rights because it's a continuence that's correct

okay thank you Um, okay. We uh have no more items on our agenda tonight. Um, and it's a special meeting. So, we don't have any updates or anything, but I would just like to say thank you to staff, commissioners, public, the applicant team, uh, all the consultants, everyone that came tonight, and just give a, um, big thank you to Commissioner Raspby. This is his last meeting, um, as a planning commissioner. He's served for four years and we really tried to keep him, but he's going to enjoy his best life splitting time between here and somewhere else that I won't exp I won't expose you to everyone. Um, but I just want to say that you've been really great. It's really nice to have someone that has a unique perspective but has provided a lot of guidance. and you were a great chair last year and so I just want to say personally thank you.

Well, thank you chair. I want to say thank you to staff for all your support and to my fellow commissioners. Uh I'd like to think we started off as co-workers ended up as friends and I look forward to seeing you during verbal communications in the future meetings. So thank you all. Thank you. There being no further business of the commission, this meeting is adjourned.