ITEM 3.a.
ITEM 3.a.
1 Melissa Thurman
From:
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 9:06 PM
To: Melissa Thurman
Subject: Comment on Ordinance
Hi Melissa:
I am enclosing a comment as a member of the public regarding the proposed ordinance to limit postings of Town meeting notices to the Town website and at one physical place in Town, rather than on the website as well as at multiple physical sites in Town, as is currently the case.
I disagree with this proposed ordinance because I am concerned that this approach will limit visibility into, and access to, important Town information by those in Town who do not access regularly the website (whether due to power outages, technical issues or physical impairment), or visit the Town Center easily. Making meeting notices easily accessible as people walk by bulletin boards in a few areas in Town, in addition to posting these notices on line, as we currently do, seems an easy way to maximize access.
Please forward this to the appropriate recipients for purposes of the second hearing of this ordinance.
Thank you,
Judith
_________________________________
This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies including any attachments.
or any of its affiliates may monitor electronic communications sent or received by our networks in order to protect our business and verify compliance with our policies and relevant legal requirements. Any personal information contained or referred to within this electronic communication will be processed in accordance with the firm's privacy notices and Global Privacy Standards available at .
ITEM 5.d.
1 Melissa Thurman
From: Kristi Corley
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:33 AM
To: Melissa Thurman
Subject: Ordinance limiting postings of town meeting notices Melissa,
Please post in the digest.
I agree with all of Judith’s comments below. Residents need more communication not less. Please do not wave a second reading.
I’m concerned that many meetings are cancelled recently such as the Ad Hoc Housing committee, ASCC, Planning Commission and Conservation. These committees allow for resident discussion.
The sustainability committee and recreation committee were offered the within 1/2 hour of each other. Please spread out the timing of these meetings so residents can attend both meetings in the future. Thank you.
Best Regards,
Kristi Corley
“I am enclosing a comment as a member of the public regarding the proposed ordinance to limit postings of Town meeting notices to the Town website and at one physical place in Town, rather than on the website as well as at multiple physical sites in Town, as is currently the case.
I disagree with this proposed ordinance because I am concerned that this approach will limit visibility into, and access to, important Town information by those in Town who do not access regularly the website (whether due to power outages, technical issues or physical impairment), or visit the Town Center easily. Making meeting notices easily accessible as people walk by bulletin boards in a few areas in Town, in addition to posting these notices on line, as we currently do, seems an easy way to maximize access.
Please forward this to the appropriate recipients for purposes of the second hearing of this ordinance.
Thank you,
Judith”
ITEM 5.d.
1 Melissa Thurman
From: Rita Comes
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 1:01 PM
To: Melissa Thurman
Subject: Item on Consent agenda at tonight's TC Meeting Greetings,
I may not be able to make it to the Town Council Meeting 9/28/22 but wanted to comment on item D in the consent calendar. With the amount of blackouts that have been happening in our Town and cancellations of Town Meetings, I do not feel that this is the time to do less posting notices of our Town Meetings. As the transparency of Town actions is increasing not including the residents - why minimize our information posting of important Town Meetings or the cancellation of those meetings? I also feel that this item should have all of the readings it can have on this subject since we do have power outages and this change will directly change how people get information.
I stated these same things at the last Town Council meeting and this item was still moved forward.
This item should be pulled from the consent calendar.
Rita Comes Whitney
Westridge
CONSENT AGENDA PV TC 9/28/22
The following items are voted on at once by the body, unless a member of the body requests an item be considered separately. Members of the public are permitted to comment on any item on the consent calendar before the body votes on the consent agenda.
1. Approval of Action Minutes for the Regular Meeting of September 14, 2022
2. Approval of Warrant List
3. Adoption of a Resolution Confirming the State of Emergency and Need to Continue Conducting Town Public Meetings Remotely (a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Portola Valley Confirming Existing State of Emergency and Authorizing Continued Remote Public Meetings Under AB 361
4. Waive Second Reading and Adopt an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 1975-141 and Municipal Code Section 1.08.010 “Posting Places” of the Town of Portola Valley Municipal Code ITEM 5.d.
ITEM 6.a.
9/24/2022
To: Portola Valley City Council
In addition to our previous communications, we’d like to ask you to consider the following summary of the facts relative to our project:
I) Our plans have received 4 key approvals:
1. The City Planning Department. This approval was secured through close coordination with the City staff over several months and by resubmitting the plans 6 times.
2. Conservation Committee who all visited the site and spent considerable amount of time there unanimously approved our plans and provided positive feedback:
o Most significant findings: “The house as well as the landscaping plans are very minimalistic. Very little light emission expected from the new structures." o House appearance: “Low-profile, single-story house with minimal visual appearance from both Westridge and Cervantes Road. "
o Native Areas: “We appreciate that the owners intend to leave most of this area undisturbed."
3- ASCC unanimously approved our plans with the following key comments:
Commissioner Cheung:
o "It may not be possible to provide all of the amenities that the site provided to everybody all at the same time, or at various points in time throughout the site’s history.” o “they have made a meaningful attempt to follow the spirit of what is in the Design Guidelines with a one story and cutting into the slope.” o “it satisfies multiple neighbors”
o “this hill is the applicants’ hill.”
Commissioner Sill:
o “this project is well thought out. I think that the design is good, and from my perspective the sitting is appropriate.”
o “we have seen a lot of projects that had more of an impact on neighbors than this, and we’ve generally been able to address those concerns with some amount of additional screening”
o “I don’t think that the solution is to move the siting of this house. Because I think it does suit the lot.”
o “I think the staff analysis and the required findings, and the Design Guidelines were good. I thought it was a good analysis”
o “The site is a little bit exposed from Cervantes, and I think moving it back, moving the house back, help in that regard.”
o “I feel like this is a good proposal for this lot”
ITEM 6.a.
Commissioner Koch:
o “I do think, this us a better siting for this home on this lot so it’s complicated when you have so many surrounding neighbors looking up at it, right? As anyone who passes by on a horse, or a bike, or a car or walking, would as well”
o “I think it is a beautiful design.”
o “I could absolutely support this going forward.”
Chair Ross:
o “really thoughtful and well-crafted design.”
o “I do not disagree with anything I have heard …… I won’t repeat the things that have been said”
o “I do believe it complies with the Design Guidelines as designed” o “It is below the ridge line”
4 - The Planning Commission unanimously approved our plans with the following key comments:
Commissioner Targ:
• “I don’t see that as an infringement in and of itself on the guidelines or on the General Plan”
• “property in the middle with some pretty significant variation is going to be pretty jarring”
• “Is it on a ridge? It’s not on a ridge. “
• “It is subservient perhaps more so as planned and certainly as modified than it is now.”
• “with respect to process but I’m not sure that’s within this scope or the appropriate scope of this meeting. “
Commissioner Hasko:
• “The applicant has really tried to be thoughtful as we’ve heard about considering the balance of neighbors and that’s really hard”
• “from my point of view, I don’t know that there’s a different approach at this late juncture that is even possible and I certainly wouldn’t be the one to come up with it.”
Vice Chair Goulden:
• “people have property rights. And if they develop that property according to Code then they get to do that. You know, and the only way you stop that is by changing the Code and that by mean Municipal Code”
• “the objective codes that as long as people are meeting. They’re pretty much going to get to move forward.”
• “you can’t say you can have no impact on somebody’s views. “ • “it’s our purview in the Planning Commission to look at whether or not process was followed. And it looks to me like process was followed” • “This project meets the Code from a subjective perspective. It meets all the guidelines and directions and those types of elements associated with the General Plan and our Design Guidelines”
Chair Kopf-Sill:
• “I did think the house is well-sited given all the constraints” • “I’m actually glad it’s not so visible from Cervantes and Westridge. I think it could have been a lot more… a different plan could have been a lot more visible from those roads so I’m glad about that. “
• “I don’t think it’s reasonable that a new house that gets built has no impact on other houses and views.”
• “I like the changes the project team has made like lower the roof a little and adding these plants and I actually think it’s decent of them to put the plants well into their yard.”
II) Our highly respected, experienced and award-winning architect demonstrated in detail that the planned siting of our house is the most optimal location. This siting not only satisfies all the many city requirements and ordinances, but it also thoughtfully takes into consideration the impact on all passersby on the two nearby roads, Westridge Dr., and Cervantes RD., and all our neighbors and not just one neighbor.
III) Additional key points to consider:
1- Two of our key neighbors have serious concerns with noise and proximity issues. Both these neighbors i.e., 1180 Westridge and 118 Apache, who provided their input early, in Jan. 2022, have said that they will not accept moving the house any closer to Westridge or Cervantes. 2- Our proposed siting of the house ensures wildlife corridor due to the fact it ensures our privacy and therefore eliminates the need to install a fence. Maintaining Wildlife corridor is equally important to Ms. Ruiz and us.
IV) And, for Ruizes, to address their 1/13/22 comment as well as the issue with the siting of our house, we have generously offered several measures. Specifically, 1- By not installing a fence while all other neighbors have them, we ensure the maintenance of the wildlife corridor.
2- Extensive screening plants and placing them in the most thoughtful manner to ensure the best outcome for Ruizes. Please note that in their May, 2022 letter to ASCC, Ruizes offered planting trees as the solution: ”we would request that owners to screen the house with trees” but changed their minds later!!
3- Significantly lowering the building height in the area that is visible to Ruizes. Those parts are now only 4’-5’ above the natural grade.
4- Changing the building coloring scheme to further fade away the parts of the building that could be visible to Ruizes and others.
5- Removing all the windows, except one narrow window which its size was cut in ~ half, on the entire east side of our house.
V) The Ruiz’s appeal letter complain about the City Planning processes and guidelines. They further baselessly exaggerate their claim by saying: “we feel that this contest is a matter of public interest”. Neither of these points raise a legitimate basis of appeal. If the appellants contest the legitimacy or appropriateness of the City’s processes this is not the forum to challenge planning guidelines and/or processes. This appeal should be limited to merits of their claim only. They virtually concede their appeal lacks merit by challenging the City’s planning process and pretending this is a matter of public interest. The neighbors have had notice and right to be heard and the Ruizes are the only property owners who remain discontent.
VI) Finally, Ms. & Mr. Ruiz should note that we have been very accommodating and have done all we could to please all our neighbors including them. We hoped that all the many accommodations and changes we made to our plans to address the neighbors’ input and concerns would be self-evident of our cooperation, generosity, and thoughtfulness. Rather than provide us with a legitimate concern we could work toward resolution together, they would rather cost us significant time and money because they do not want this site built at all. Ms. Ruiz during the ASCC Public Hearing on 5/23/22 even went as far as saying “we lost our hill”!! Ruizes had to be reminded by Commissioner Cheung that this was not their hill but our, “the applicant’s”, land.
Ms. Irene Ruiz, herself, acknowledged the above in her email to us on 5/23/22, shortly after the ASCC approval; “Nevertheless, we understand that it is your property, and you have all the rights to build according to your desires. We will do our best to make it work.” Unfortunately, Ruizes have not tried to work with us at all. We are reasonable people which is why all of our immediate neighbors’ concerns were worked out, sometimes at significant additional expense to us.
Our land is zoned for residential development, and we should be able to fairly develop our property based on the exiting established rules & guidelines which we fully meet. This project has been unanimously approved by the Planning department and three other City Planning committees.
We respectfully request that the Ruiz’s appeal be denied.
Cordially,
Farro and Sue Kaveh