Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/2017Approved October 5, 2017 1 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2017 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, July 06, 2017, 7:00 PM Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Partridge, Chair Tankha Absent: None Staff: Planning Director Suzanne Avila, Senior Planner Marni Moseley, Consultant Planner Steve Padovan, Administrative Technician Veronica Flores 2. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION 2.1 Appointment of New Chair Commissioner Mandle nominated Commissioner Partridge as the new Chair. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Mandle moved to nominate Commissioner Partridge as the new Planning Commission Chair. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Couperus. MOTION CARRIED 5-0: AYES: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Partridge, Chair Tankha NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 2.2 Appointment of New Vice Chair Chair Partridge presented outgoing Chair Tankha with a parting gift. Commissioner Couperus nominated Commissioner Mandle for Vice Chair. Approved October 5, 2017 2 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2017 MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Couperus moved to nominate Commissioner Mandle as Vice Chair. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tankha. MOTION CARRIED 5-0: AYES: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Partridge, Chair Tankha NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 3. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Chair Partridge opened presentations from the floor. Seeing no one wishing to speak, he closed presentations from the floor. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ex parte disclosures: Commissioner Couperus said he spoke with the site supervisor and applicant from item 4.1; emailed and spoke to Roy Woolsey and walked the site with Commissioner Basiji regarding item 4.3; and spoke to Dan Cunningham regarding item 4.4. Commissioner Tankha said she spoke to Bridget Morgan regarding item 4.5. Commissioner Mandle spoke to the construction foreman of item 4.1; attended the Fast Track Public Hearing for item 4.3; and spoke to Andrew and Mimi Chang regarding item 4.4 and 4.5. Commissioner Basiji met with Commissioner Couperus regarding item 4.3. Chair Partridge spoke to the applicant and representative of item 4.1 and to Andrew Chang in reference to item 4.5. 4.1 LANDS OF CROLL; 14161 Miranda Road; File #39-17-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan for a new 7,109 square foot, two-story residence which was approved at the December 22, 2015 Fast Track hearing. In addition, the applicant is requesting a minor modification to the pool cabana location, an exception to the condition of approval related to the maximum light reflectivity value for exterior walls on the new residence, and an exception to allow multiple light fixtures within the required setbacks in order to provide a lit pathway to Miranda Road. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304 (b) - new landscaping; (Staff: S. Padovan) - continued from the regular Planning Commission meeting of June 1, 2017. Consultant Planner Steve Padovan presented the staff report. Approved October 5, 2017 3 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2017 The Commission asked questions of staff and received responses. Chair Partridge opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Tom Catalano, construction manager, introduced the lighting designer, architect, and landscape architect of the project. Mr. Catalano noted that the affected and surrounding neighbors submitted letters of support for the proposed exception to the house color. Commissioner Mandle inquired about the driveway lights and wattage. Fellow Commissioners provided clarification. The lighting designer spoke regarding the light quality and warmth of the proposed lighting and how that affects the glare. She noted that the lights are dimmable. Commissioner Mandle inquired about the 7-watt down lights and asked whether they were approximately 60-watt bulbs. Commissioners asked further questions of the light designer and received responses. Commissioner Tankha asked staff if the Town had a policy regarding up lighting. Mr. Padovan stated that the Municipal Code does not prohibit up lighting although it does discourage it. Ken Linstead, architect, spoke regarding the proposed house color and the inspiration that derived from the farmhouse concept. The Commission asked questions of Mr. Linstead and received responses. Commissioner Basiji commented on the proposed color and stated that the color was pleasing to the eye. Carol Gottlieb, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, presented the Committee's recommendation of having no up lighting. Commissioner Basiji spoke briefly about the story poles and asked the landscape architect if they were going to leave the dead eucalyptus tree in the back of the property in place. The landscape architect stated that the tree is on the neighbor’s property. The landscape architect stated the differences between the landscape plan presented today and the one reviewed at the previous Planning Commission meeting. Chair Partridge closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Basiji expressed his acceptance and praise for the project. He said his concerns with the color were mitigated by the significant screening. Further, he inquired about the pool house and staff stated that the pool house would be reclaimed wood. Approved October 5, 2017 4 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2017 Commissioner Mandle spoke first of the landscape and the wonderful job the applicants did in accommodating neighbor opinions. She stated that the brightness of the driveway lights was adequate but has an issue with the up lights and agreed with the Environmental Design and Protect Committee that those lights should be down directed. Her only hesitation was regarding residents that are high up on a hillside and would see a lot of light if all the lights are turned on at once. She stated that she was undecided on the total number of lights on the property but was in general agreement with the proposal. She said that she liked the proposed house color, but had an issue with it due to the fact that the Town has a light reflectivity standard and exceptions to that cause precedent. She said she would like to approve the color but was trying to imagine who was going to see it from up above. She stated that she was leaning towards saying yes to the color standard. Commissioner Tankha stated that the color lends itself to the architectural style of the property and is further reinforced by the fact that it is a flag lot, is very well screened, and has neighborhood support. Although she supports the color exception, she said she was concerned of setting a precedent. She stated that she supports the driveway lights but is concerned with the number of pathwa y lights and believes the up lights on the trees should be down directed. Commissioner Couperus spoke regarding the screening and said he believed the neighbors should be pleased with the existing and proposed screening. He spoke further regarding the lighting and the history behind the Planning Commission's concern. He stated that he is pleased with the proposed lighting and believed that the owners would change them if they found them to be excessive. Regarding the house color, Commissioner Couperus stated that he was ambivalent due to the fact that not many neighbors would see it but the Commission would be setting a precedent. He said that he could not find enough substance to object to the proposed color. Chair Partridge said that he agreed with his fellow Commissioners. He stated that the applicants worked well with neighbors regarding the landscape. He stated that he felt strongest about not having upward lighting and would like to see them turned to down lights. Commissioner Basiji asked questions of staff and received responses. Chair Partridge spoke regarding the precedent and believes that a strong argument has been made on the architectural style that sets the property apart from others. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Couperus moved to approve the Site Development Permit and grant an exception to the light reflectivity value of 50 for the walls of the residence and the outdoor lighting along the driveway as proposed, subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 1 with the added condition that all lights be down directed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mandle. MOTION CARRIED 5-0: Approved October 5, 2017 5 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2017 AYES: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Partridge NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 4.2 LANDS OF KALBALI; 13531 Burke Road; File #151-17-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development permit for landscape screening for a new 2,986 square foot, two (2) story residence approved at the May 5, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304(b) - Minor alterations to land - new landscaping (Staff: S. Padovan) Consultant Planner Steve Padovan presented the staff report. The Commission asked questions of staff and received responses. Chair Partridge opened the public hearing. Gina Jackman, owner, spoke regarding the proposed trees and species. She introduced landscape architect Charlie Wilson who was available for questions. Further, she stated that she has not received any negative comments from neighbors regarding the screening. Chair Partridge asked whether the applicant has been consulting with her new neighbors of the previous house she developed. Ms. Jackman stated the affirmative and that they have not expressed any concerns with their 24-inch box trees. Commissioner Mandle inquired about the current shade cloth on the property and asked whether Ms. Jackman could remove it. Ms. Jackman stated that it is only in place to mitigate the dust from the current construction to the neighbors’ property and will be coming down as soon as the landscape is completed. Commissioner Tankha asked whether there was a rendering of the proposed landscaping? Ms. Jackman stated that a rendering was not currently available. Commissioner Tankha asked whether the trees where currently in or not? Ms. Jackman clarified that the trees represented in color on the drawings were trees that were not yet installed. Carol Gottlieb, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, spoke regarding the Committee’s concern with the western boundary between the two houses due to the low plantings on the neighboring property that stand below the fence line and do not screen the house. She stated that the Committee recommended a few 48-inch box trees to be installed to provide landscape above the fence. They also recommended the trees be installed further away from the fence line to avoid future overlapping of the property lines. Approved October 5, 2017 6 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2017 Charlie Wilson, landscape architect, explained that the use of 48-inch box trees would be very costly and that moving the screening further away from the fence line would minimize the size of the proposed lawn area. Chair Partridge closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Couperus stated that the silence from the surrounding neighbors spoke volumes. He said that the proposal is not perfect but is reasonable and he cannot find anything wrong with the proposed screening. Commissioner Tankha concurred with Commissioner Couperus. She said she did not like the two homes glaring into one another but that time would take care of that issue. She believed the screening was adequate. Commissioner Mandle agreed that the house was well suited for the neighborhood and the problem with the lack of space along the driveway for screening is an issue because the Commission asked them to do so. She said that given that the two neighbors are cooperating with the screening they need, she could not argue with it and is in agreement with the proposed screening. Commissioner Basiji said that he felt the home stands out quite visibly and requires as much screening as possible. He said he agreed with the Environmental Design and Protection Committee's recommendation to increase the box size of the trees that are going to be along the western boundary. Chair Partridge said he felt the majority of the Commission is in agreement that the screening plan is addressing the critical problems, especially the western hedge. He stated that the Commission could choose to do something now with a bigger size tree box or plant something smaller that may root and grow faster. He said that after hearing both sides of the argument he is in favor of either option. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Tankha moved to approve the Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan, subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 1. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Couperus. MOTION CARRIED 4-1: AYES: Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Partridge NOES: Commissioner Basiji ABSENT: None Approved October 5, 2017 7 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2017 ABSTAIN: None 4.3 LANDS OF CHEN; 26653 Snell Lane; File #438 -16-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a new 5,552 square-foot two-story residence (Maximum height 24' 6") with a 3,746 square-foot basement and pool. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a) and (e) - construction of a new single-family residence and swimming pool where public services are available in a residential zone (Staff: M. Moseley) Senior Planner Marni Moseley presented the staff report. The Commission asked questions of staff and received responses. Chair Partridge opened the public hearing. Louie Leu, project architect, spoke regarding the site and the proposed project. The Commission asked questions of Mr. Leu and received responses. Jared Bowman, landscape architect, spoke regarding the future landscape screening plan for the site. He stated that the residence was designed for the owners to look out and enjoy their garden. He spoke in detail about the different species of greenery they are going to use. There was a question from the audience regarding tree height and the time line for the installation of the landscape screening. Mr. Bowman said that he had specified the heights of the trees in his report and that the homeowners have offered to begin the landscape screening prior to construction. Staff also provided clarification on the reason why the Town asks for the landscape screening once the framing is completed. Mr. Leu spoke regarding neighbor concern over the proposed lighting on the second story deck and the air conditioning unit noise level. The Commission asked questions Mr. Leu and received responses. Sean Misskelly, general contractor, spoke regarding the west side of the property that contains a 3-foot wall that has decent trees growing above it. He said he would be in agreement with setting up a tree protection fence. Applicant Wei Chen thanked the Town planning staff for their guidance and neighbors for their feedback. He spoke about the priority of an early screening plan and the importance of being mindful of neighbors. Roy Woolsey, Snell Lane, quoted the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. He spoke against the location of the Chen residence and spoke of noise concerns regarding the proposed air conditioning units. Further, he said the Chens should be required to use and establish a construction entrance separate from the common driveway that is shared and paid for by the three property owners so that construction does not block or damage the driveway. He also stated concerns with utility services. Approved October 5, 2017 8 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2017 Carol Gottlieb, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, stated that many of the committee's concerns have been mitigated. She said she believed the lighting modifications will please neighbors and that the most important feature will be landscape mitigation. Commissioner Tankha asked Ms. Gottlieb whether or not she was satisfied with the proposed screening. Ms. Gottlieb replied that opinion on the landscape would have to wait until the house was built to truly see the effect on the surrounding areas. She said she wants to see the landscape presented at a later date. Steve Combs, Snell Lane, highlighted a steep fall off on the slope that he feels should be addressed. He spoke further of concerns with current beehives, landscape screening provided by the pepper trees, light reflectivity off the glass during the day and concerns of light emanating at night. He said he supported the project as long as these issues were addressed and that he felt that the Chens have been responsive to neighbor requests. Commissioner Basiji asked for clarification on the concern over the slope on Snell Lane. Mr. Combs explained the location and configuration of the slope. Commissioner Couperus discussed the hillside further. Andreas Bibl, Snell Court, spoke in favor of the Chens project. He said he believed Wei Chen to be a considerate person and that the neighbors will enjoy the home design. Patty Woolsey, Snell Lane, commented on the Town's Fast Track Guide criteria. She believes that the proposed home will dramatically change the appearance of Snell Lane. She stated that the home will effectively be the highest home on the street made more prominent with a flat roof. Ms. Woosley said she disapproved of the plan as proposed. Irv Semenov, Snell Lane, welcomed the Chens to the neighborhood but feels that the proposed residence does not conform to the neighborhood. He stated concern over damage to the street which was recently paved and glass reflectivity emanating from the property. Staff responded to concerns of roadway conditions. Mr. Leu stated that the applicants and design team have made great efforts to address neighbor concerns and would continue to do so. He addressed construction concerns and presented a construction operation plan. Commissioner Basiji inquired further about the previously mentioned slope and received a response. Mr. Bowman and Mr. Misskelly addressed further concerns regarding landscaping and construction operation plan and answered Commission questions. Ms. Chen addressed beehive concerns and what they have done mitigate the issue. Chair Partridge closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission discussion ensued. Approved October 5, 2017 9 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2017 Commissioner Mandle thanked the applicant for reaching out to their neighbors. She said she was impressed with the applicants’ responsiveness to neighbors’ concerns and believes most of them have been mitigated with the exception of the style of the residence. She stated that she understood the concerns from the neighbors regarding style but that as a Planning Commissioner, it is not her place to regulate the style and believes the applicants have made a sincere effort to minimize the impact on neighbors. She stated that once the landscaping is installed the style of the residence would be softened and look more appealing. She said she was not comfortable requiring it be one story. Further, she stated her concern with the air conditioning unit and the proximity to the neighbor but does not have a solution for that issue. Commissioner Tankha concurred with Commissioner Mandle regarding the applicants’ efforts to address neighbor and committee concerns. She said that it could be difficult to take in a new style in a neighborhood such as Snell Lane but that in time the neighbors would appreciate the new style. She said she understood that it is not her role to dictate style as a Commissioner. She said she was inclined to support the project and asked staff to work with the neighbor impacted by the air conditioning unit and come to a solution. Ms. Moseley stated that staff could include a more specific condition of approval to mitigate concerns if so directed. Commissioner Basiji inquired further about the air conditioning requirements and received a response from staff. Commissioner Tankha stated that as long as staff believed the air conditioning unit did not pose an issue she would be satisfied. Commissioner Couperus spoke about different types of air conditioning units worth considering but believes that Town regulations work well. He said he was pleased to see the communication between neighbors and applicants and the changes made to the proposal in response to that line of communication. Further, he said that personal taste and style cannot be defined and the Planning Commission does not rule on either of those subjects. He believes that proposal meets all of the Towns requirements. Commissioner Basiji said he was in agreement with fellow Commissioners. He spoke in favor of the proposal. Chair Partridge agreed with everything previously stated by Co-Commissioners. He said it was clear that this project would be a change for the neighborhood, but the Commission is not making a judgement on the basis of design. He stated that the project meets all the Town requirements but is inclined to add a condition for a sound wall to help mitigate the noise concern of air conditioning units. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Mandle moved to approve the Site Development permit with the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 1 and two added conditions that a soft wall be installed around the air conditioning unit and that the landscape screening plan come back to the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tankha. Approved October 5, 2017 10 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2017 MOTION CARRIED 5-0: AYES: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Partridge NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 4.4 LANDS OF SIEMPRE TRUST; 27800 Via Feliz; File #12-17-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit to merge three lots and to construct a new 13,284 square-foot estate home (maximum height 31') with an 8,305 square-foot basement including a 1,500 square-foot bunker, a 2,491 square-foot detached two- story pool house (maximum height 32'), new swimming pool, driveway and related hardscape improvements and removal of one heritage oak tree; CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) and (e) and 15305(c) (Staff: M. Moseley) Ms. Moseley presented the staff report. Commission asked questions of staff and received responses. Chair Partridge opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Tony Sulco, project architect, presented an animation video of the proposed project. Commission asked questions and received responses. Pete Carlino, Lea & Braze Engineering, addressed question regarding the grading for the proposed basement. The Commission asked questions of staff and received responses. Ronald Van Buskirk, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, spoke regarding the proposed setback and height exception. Tim Warner, Via Feliz, expressed his concern with the size of the development; the length of time the construction will take; and the effect it will have on his family’s quality of life. He believes it will be extremely intrusive and is asking for tight control over the total length of time of the project. He spoke against the project due to past experience with previous development projects near him. Mimi Chang, Via Feliz, concurred with Mr. Warner's concern over the construction process and would like to maintain order during that period. Young Kim, Via Feliz, spoke about a prior project that created unsafe conditions due to construction machinery and equipment and producing a large amount of dust. Approved October 5, 2017 11 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2017 He shared with the Commissioners a previous accident that occurred on Via Feliz involving his wife due to the narrow road. He believes there should be a decent construction operation plan to ensure safety and neighbors opinion should be considered. Director Avila spoke of Town requirements that would mitigate many concerns expressed by neighbors. Commissioner Basiji inquired about parking issues on public roads and received responses from staff and Mr. Carlino. Mr. Warner requested that a schedule and advance notice of construction operations be provided to neighbors. Chair Partridge closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Tankha said she was concerned with the fact that a six-acre lot was asking for a setback exception. She asked staff to clarify expectations of the Commission to make this exception. Staff provided a response. Commissioner Partridge asked the reasoning for not requiring a variance. Staff provided clarification and the Commission further discussed setbacks and what they could justify approving. Commissioner Tankha stated that she was not convinced the proposed project warranted the setback exception. Commissioner Couperus took the opposite view and described the scenario of the applicant proposing a project that would require the removal of a large number of trees. He stated that the Commission would then ask the applicant to retain more trees, require them to reduce their proposal and possibly allow them to encroach into the setback in order to protect more trees. Commissioner Mandle spoke about her site visit. She said she foresees a conflict between one property’s privacy concerns and the other's desire for a view. She said that if the proposed house met the setback standards and was that close to the neighboring property she would hold the position that the rule was met and her job was to implement policy, not take make policy. She said she could not find the justification to make a setback exception. Commissioner Basiji said he believes that the majority of the house is one story and although one section has a different elevation the Town classified it as a two- story house therefore it needs to meet a different setback. He said there is nothing he dislikes about the project other than the need for a construction operation plan. Chair Partridge said that he would like to be clear that this is a two-story house with a 31-foot height and believes it should be treated as a setback variance due to setting precedent. He stated that he would be happy to entertain a variance request but would have a hard time justifying a setback exception. Approved October 5, 2017 12 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2017 Commissioner Mandle stated that she was in agreement with Chair Partridge and has not seen the tradeoff of removing oak trees and believes there is an alternative solution. Commissioner Tankha concurred. Commissioner Couperus said he was happy with the project to a certain extent. He said he was trying to find the wording for a finding in Attachment 4. The Commission further discussed making findings for a variance rather than granting an exception. Staff and applicant discussed their options moving forward with the Commission. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Tankha moved to make findings in Attachment 1 and approve the Site Development permit and parcel merger subject to the recommended conditions of approval in Attachment 2 with the added condition that the applicant work with staff to ensure that requirements of estate homes are met. In the event that the applicant and staff are unable come to a solution, the applicant shall come back to the Commission with a variance request. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mandle. MOTION CARRIED 5-0: AYES: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Partridge NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 4.5 MASTER PATHWAY MAP AMENDMENT: Consideration of proposed off-road pathway segments included on the draft master path map. Discussion is limited to the following segments: Story Hill Lane to Page Mill Road, Zappettini Court to Central Drive, and Via Feliz to Maple Leaf Court/Elena Road. CEQA review: General Exemption per Section 15061(b)(3) (Staff: S. Avila) Planning Director Suzanne Avila presented the staff report. The Commission asked questions of staff and received responses. Anne Duwe, Pathways Committee, stated that the current pathways were left unresolved when the 2004 master path update was done. Further, she explained the design objective of their recommendations. Committee, staff, and the Commission further discussed the expected outcome and action to be taken on item 4.5. Chair Partridge opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Approved October 5, 2017 13 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2017 Eric Clow, Central Drive, said that the proposed segments are terrific and would be exactly what he would propose. He further stated his support and said he was hopeful that the Planning Commission would recommend the proposed paths to the City Council. Linda Swan, Burke Road, agreed with Mr. Clow with the pathways near Central Drive but spoke of concerns with the proposed Via Feliz path and stated that she would like to see a dotted line on the map to ensure that section is not forgotten in the future. She had no comments on the Story Hill segments. Kathy Liccardo, Simon Lane, proposed that pathways are kept as potentials on the map. She further spoke of safety concerns from an equestrian point of view, specifically referencing the Maple Leaf and Via Feliz connection. Tim Warner, Via Feliz, spoke as a former member of the Pathways Committee and an active pathway user. He specifically spoke about a path on the back of Via Feliz and said he would never think of going up that specific route due to the steepness and does not consider it a horse path. He expressed his frustration stemming from the lack of consideration given to an easier pathway that he advocated for when he was on the committee. He said it is an issue of prioritization. The Commission asked questions of him and received responses. Stephen Pahl, Black Mountain Road, spoke representing the North Fork Vineyards. He referenced his letter previously submitted to the Commission and summarized the main points. He said he agreed with Mr. Warner and the negative effects of the proposed steep path on Via Feliz. He said he did not believe the path was appropriate. The Commission asked questions of Mr. Pahl and received responses. Mimi Chang, Via Feliz, referenced a supplemental letter she and other neighbors submitted and stated that the majority of the neighbors were not in support of the proposed pathway on Via Feliz. Carol Gottlieb spoke from the view point of a homeowner. She shared with the Commission her observations of each of the proposed segments. The Commission asked questions and received responses. Teresa Baker, Elena Road, spoke in favor of the proposed pathways because she believes the would make for safer conditions for pedestrians and equestrians and offer an alternative to Page Mill Road and similar roads in Town. Andy Chang, Via Feliz, spoke regarding issues with the Via Feliz proposal, including the difficulty it would cause to build and the steepness. Kjell Karlsson, Menalto Drive, stated that cameras could elevate safety concerns. Further, he said that pathways add to property values in Los Altos Hills and that they should be placed on the map whether or not they are built. Approved October 5, 2017 14 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2017 Mr. Warner stated that he does not believe the proposed pathway will be built for a long time and feels that there is a feasible and practical pathway that can be built in due time. Chair Partridge closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Couperus commented on residents that choose to live in Los Altos Hills for the rural environment but subsequently oppose pathways that run along their properties due to numerous reasons. Commissioner Tankha said she believes pathways are an asset to the Town and is in support of them. She agreed with Commissioner Mandle that in order to make any recommendation to the City Council, Commissioners must evaluate the proposal in terms of feasibility and efficiency per their instructions. She stated that she would like City Council to clarify the policy in designating pathways. Commissioner Mandle said she needed metrics before she would be comfortable bringing any of the proposed pathways to the City Council for approval. She stated that currently, she would feel comfortable moving forward with Central Drive due to its feasibility and resident support but that she would need more information to make a decision on Story Hill Lane and Via Feliz. Commissioner Basiji spoke of the process taken by the Pathways Committee in order to make their recommendations. He stated that feasibility is proven by the committee members that walked the proposed segments. He said that it is the Commission's responsibility to take the next step and possibly walk the paths in order to make a decision. Chair Partridge shared his conclusions of the proposals after listening to public comments. He agreed with Commissioner Mandle on the direction the Planning Commission received from City Council about not putting pathways on the map that are not feasible. He stated that the Story Hill Lane proposal would require more information regarding easements and feasibility. Further, he referenced back to a comment made by Mr. Pahl and stated that there are no property boundaries currently to install pathways alongside and is inclined to leave that for the future. He said he walked with Mr. Chang along his property line and can imagine how that can be an attractive pathway but cannot imagine investigating feasibility with the current ownership of the land. Ms. Duwe addressed the Commission once more and stated that the expected outcome of tonight's meeting was that the Commission would approve the proposal because they are conceptual plans and it is difficult for the Pathways Committee to move forward with feasibility without a conceptual frame work. She said she believed the Committee has done their best based on walking the paths years prior and Approved October 5, 2017 15 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2017 investigating them now from any vantage point they could to come up with the conceptual plan they hoped the Commission would take to the Council. She said all the metrics would come after a conceptual plan was agreed upon. The Commission continued item 4.5 to the August 3, 2017 regular Planning Commission meeting to allow the Commissioners an opportunity to consider the information presented tonight and to allow staff to do further evaluation of the feasibility of installing the proposed pathway segments. 11. ADJOURNMENT The remainder of the July 6, 2017 regular Planning Commission meeting was adjourned to the August 3, 2017 regular Planning Commission meeting. The meeting adjourned at 12:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Veronica Flores Administrative Technician The minutes of the July 6, 2017 regular Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented at the October 5, 2017 regular Planning Commission meeting.