AGENDA ITEM #4.E. TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Staff Report to the City Council. February 15, 2018

Transcription

1 AGENDA ITEM #4.E TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Staff Report to the City Council February 15, 2018 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION TO THE EXPIRATION DATE FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SETBACK VARIANCE; VISCAINO ROAD; FILE # MISC FROM: Suzanne Avila, Planning Director ~ APPROVED: Carl Cahill, City ManagerC (2. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Approve the requested time extension for the Site Development permit for a detached garage and a Variance for a reduced side yard setback (new expiration date: January 5,. 2019). BACKGROUND The proposed project was approved by the Planning Commission on. Due to a number of family health issues the applicant was unable to start the project prior to the expiration date and has requested a time extension. As specified by Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section ( d), time extensions that are requested after the expiration date of a permit or variance may be made by the City Council at a notice public hearing. Public notice was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property on February 2, 2017, and was posted in Town posting locations. DISCUSSION: The subject property is 1.14 acres with an average slope of 29.8% and is accessed from a f40 foot wide driveway easement that is shared by three other properties. The developed portion of the site is on a relatively flat pad while the remainder of the property has steep slopes. The new garage will be built on an existing concrete pad that was approved by the Town in Additional project details are included in the Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 1). There have not been any changes to Town codes or policies that would render the Planning Commission approval inappropriate or nonconforming, and staff supports the grating of the requested time extension.

2 Staff Report to the City Council Viscaino Road-Time Extension February 15, 2018 Page 2 of2 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On the Planning Commission considered and unanimously approved a Site Development permit for a two-car garage, and a setback variance to allow the structure to encroach into the 30 foot side setback (see Planning Commission minutes, Attachment 2). CEQA DETERMINATION: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 1530l(e) which allows for new construction of small structures such as garages and carports. FISCAL IMP ACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with Council action on the requested time extension. The applicant paid a time extension application fee and will pay building permit fees for the new garage. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report to the Planning Commission (eight pages) 2. Planning Commission Minutes (six pages) 3. Applicant's letter (one page), received January 16, 2018 Cc: James W. Abraham, Viscaino Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022

3 ( ( Attachment 1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: FROM: A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A 668 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE AND A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE GARAGE TO ENCROACH UP TO 20 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SIDEYARD SETBACK. LANDS OF ABRAHAM; VISCAINO ROAD; FILE # ZP-SD-V AR. Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit and setback variance per the required findings in Attachment #2 and the conditions in Attachment # 1. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the south side of Viscaino Road between Camino Medio Lane and Anacapa Drive. Vehicular access is gained through an easement that serves a total of four (4) properties. The site has a slope of 29.8%, a gross size of 1.14 acres and a net size of 0.9 acres due to the easement. The residence was originally built in 1960 with a two-car carport. The carport has since been converted to a non-conforming, sub-standard sized garage (18' x 20' interior). The applicant proposes to utilize an existing ten (10) foot tall retaining wall as the rear wall of the proposed two-car garage. The area of the proposed garage is currently paved with concrete and encroaches up to 20 feet into the required 30 foot side-yard setback. Both the existing retaining wall and the existing concrete paving were permitted in CODE REQUIREMENTS The proposal requires Planning Commission review per Section (Variances) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission must make findings for the variance in order to approve the project. Recommended variance findings for approval have been prepared (Attachment #2) for the Commission's review. The applicant has prepared findings for approval (Attachment #3). The variance findings require an evaluation of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances related to the physical characteristics of a property.

4 Planning Commission Lands of Abraham Page2 DISCUSSION ( ( Site Data: Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area: Average Slope: Lot Unit Factor: 1.14 acres 0.9 acres 29.8% 0.56 Floor Area and Development Area: Area Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Left Development 7,500 8,575 8,575* 0 0 Floor 5,000 4,426 3, *legal non-conforming Development Area per application # Garage The proposed garage totals 668 square feet of new floor area but will not add to the development area total or require any grading because the area was previously graded and paved. The building has a flat roof and would be nine (9) feet tall. Two standard 1 O' x 20' parking stalls can be accommodated within the interior dimensions. A flat roof and vertical siding to match the existing residence are proposed. Variance Variances provide relief from development standards where a particular property has a limitation or deficiency that disallows the property from being developed in a manner consistent with similarly zoned properties. In order to approve a variance, the Planning Commission must find that the site presents inherent difficulties. The existing homesite and driveway were constructed in The residence is situated on a cut/fill pad carved out of a 30% slope. The developed. portions of the site are basically flat while the undeveloped portions of the lot have an increased slope due to the site grading (30%-40%). Slopes over 30% generally preclude further development. The lot is a typical four-sided parcel; however, the natural slope crosses the lot diagonally and setbacks are measured from the edge of the driveway easement. The existing residence is oriented parallel to the contours which creates a near 45 degree angle to the setback lines.

5 Planning Commission Lands of Abraham Page 3 ( ( One feasible project alternative exists to add onto the existing nonconforming garage. The inside turning radius leading to the garage measures 11 feet where 10 feet would be the minimum per AASHTO residential standards. Therefore, an addition to the existing garage is possible but would be limited functionally to a one foot addition in garage width (1' x 20'). The alternative would require minor grading and relocation of the front walkway. However, the result would be a reduction of non-conformity (19' x 20' interior where 20' x 20' is required) General Plan The Los Altos Hills General Plan Land Use Element states: "126. Building Setbacks Setbacks regulate the placement of buildings with respect to their property lines in order to provide a minimum amount of open space between buildings on adjacent parcels and between buildings and street rights-of-way. Setbacks for single-family residences are generally 40 feet from the front property line and 30 feet from the sides and rear property lines." This General Plan passage describes a minimum amount of open space between buildings. The proposed garage location would maintain an approximate distance of 125 feet from the nearest neighboring residential building. The topography and vegetation on the adjacent lot to the west makes it unlikely that development would occur at the setback line nearest to the proposed garage location. Trees & Landscaping No heritage oak trees exist on the property and no vegetation would be removed with the project. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEQA) The proposed single family residence is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act by Section ( e ).

6 Planning Commission Lands of Abraham Page4 ATTACHMENTS c ( 1. Conditions of approval 2. Recommended findings of approval of the setback variance 3. Applicant's variance findings for approval 4. Environmental Design and Protection Committee comments, December 12, SCC Fire Department comments, December 13, Project Plans

7 Planning Commission Lands of Abraham Page 5 ( ( ATTACHMENT 1 CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AND SETBACK VARIANCE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: LANDS OF ABRAHAM, VISCAINO ROAD File# ZP-SD-V AR 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. All new exterior lighting fixtures shall have white/frosted/etched glass enclosures or be shielded light fixtures. Seeded or bent glass is not acceptable. No landscape or site lighting is approved with this plan. Landscaping and site lighting shall be reviewed with the landscape screening plan. All lighting must comply with the Town's Lighting Policy prior to final inspection. 3. After completion of rough framing staff shall determine if a landscape screening and erosion control plan shall be reviewed at a Site Development Hearing. All landscaping required for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection. 4. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction. 5. No roof decking, antennas mounted to the roof, or non-required railings around the roof are approved with this permit. 6. The garage roof shall be sloped such that at least one side shall be a minimum of 6 inches taller than the other side. The owner shall work with Town staff to incorporate the roof slope in the plans for building plan check. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 7. Two copies of a Construction Operation Plan shall be submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The Construction Operation Plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Viscaino Road and surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction

8 Planning Commission Lands of Abraham Page 6 ( ( vehicles; and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the Green Waste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 8. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance.of plans for building plan check. CONDITION NUMBERS 7 AND 8 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the action. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department on January 30, 2012 provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until January 5, 2013). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years.

9 Planning Commission Lands of Abraham Page 7 ( ATTACHMENT 2 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A SETBACK VARIAN CE LANDS OF ABRAHAM VISCAINO ROAD File # ZP-SD-VAR 1. Because of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this Title is found to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification, The subject property is constrained by a 29.8% slope and the orientation of the slope to the property lines. The lot size is a standard four-sided shape but the slope runs diagonally through the site from the low point at the north east comer to the high point at the south west comer. The existing residence was built in alignment with the slope and therefore is at a near 45 degree angle to the property line and setbacks. 2. Upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners. The intent of the setback requirements is to provide an undeveloped space between neighbors for noise, privacy, and aesthetic purposes. The requested setback variance on this property has little effect on the above three issues due to the location on the hillside and the proximity to surrounding roads and neighboring properties. Distance between the nearest building on another lot is also approximately 125 feet. Vehicular noise may be reduced with the enclosure of the parking spaces and the design incorporating a previously cut hillside. Granting of a variance does not set a precedent because this site is unique with regard to topography and the inherent location and orientation of existing buildings. 3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within th~ same zoning district. The granting of the setback variance will not adversely impact neighboring properties because the proposed building is in a location that has been previously cut by a greater depth than the height of the proposed building. The proposed garage is hidden and screened from view from uphill and downhill neighbors.

10 Planning Commission Lands of Abraham Page 8 ( 4. The variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the Zoning District regulations governing the parcel of property. Garages are permitted accessory buildings and uses in the R-A zoning district.

11 .. Attachment 2 \ j Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Approved February 2, 2012 THURSDAY,, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Fremont Road 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Absent: Staff: Chairman Collins and Commissioners: Abraham, Clow, Harpootlian and Partridge. None Debbie Pedro, Planning Director; Brian Froelich, Associate Planner; and Sarah Corso, Community Development Specialist. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR- none,.--., 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS- Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Commissioner Clow met with the applicant and neighbor Adler Yu for Item 3.1; Commissioner Partridge met with the applicant for Item 3.1; Commissioner Harpootlian met with the applicant and neighbors Adler Yu and Mrs. Corley for Item 3.1; Chairman Collins met with the applicant and neighbor Adler Yu for Item LANDS OF ABRAHAM, Viscaino Road; File # ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit and Setback Variance for a 668 square foot detached garage that would encroach a maximum of 20 feet into the required 30 foot side-yard setback. The proposed garage is located adjacent to an existing 10 foot tall retaining wall and over existing paving that were both permitted in (maximum structure height 9') CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section (e) (staff-brian Froelich). COMMISSIONER ABRAHAM RECUSED HIMSELF AS HE IS THE APPLICANT OF THE PROJECT AND LEFT THE DIAS. Brian Froelich, Associate Planner presented the staff report. The application is a request for a setback variance for a two car garage. The property is located on Viscaino Road on 1.14 acres, and is a slightly irregular six-sided property with a down slope of29.8 percent. The property contains a driveway easement that lends access to three other properties. The applicant is proposing a 9 foot tall, 668 square feet garage with a flat roof. Approximately 420 square feet of the garage will be in the setback, with a maximum encroachment of up to 10 feet

12 Planning Commission Minutes Page2 Approved February 2, 2012 from the property boundary. The proposed location of the garage is currently paved with concrete and has a retaining wall which is proposed to become the back wall of the structure. In 1962 the home was developed on a cut and fill foundation, resulting in an exaggerated slope. The residence is at nearly a 45 degree angle to the setback, which limits the options for additions. Commissioner Partridge asked staff about current parking requirements and if the applicant's current parking, which is located in the setback, was approved in Associate Planner Froelich explained that the retaining wall and flat concrete surface was approved in 1992 but was not identified as parking on the approved plans. The plans from 1992 do not identify the four required parking spaces. Because the proposed project is less than 900 square feet, the property is not required to be brought up to current parking standards with this project. Chairman Collins asked staff to address the applicant's intentions in developing additional parking and bringing the parking up to Town standards. Associate Planner Froelich explained that the applicant is choosing to develop parking spaces on his lot. The applicant is presenting the request per number one of the variance findings. Requiring strict application of the setback policy deprives the property of privileges enjoyed on other properties in the vicinity. The current garage was converted from a carport into a garage in the 1960s and is 2 feet narrower than the Town's standards for a parking garage. Chairman Collins asked staff to address the possibility of the applicant getting approval for a partial rooftop deck through the administrative process. Associate Planner Froelich confirmed that the portion of the rooftop that is not in the setback could be approved for a rooftop deck through the administrative process. CHAIRMAN COLLINS OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING Jim Abraham, applicant, presented his application to the Planning Commission. He has been parking his car in the paved location since he bought his home in To his knowledge, at the time the house was built there was no parking standards or designated parking areas. The retaining wall was added later to support the extraordinarily steep banks on the property. The existing garage is smaller than the minimum required conforming garage by two feet and is an impractical parking spot. He stated that his project meets all of the required findings to be granted a variance. Commissioner Harpootlian asked the applicant about his plans for the current garage as the two parking spaces are needed to meet the Town's parking requirements. The applicant explained that there will be a total of three parking spaces, excluding the current garage. Commissioner Harpootlian asked the applicant if the flat rooftop of the proposed garage is intended to be additional deck space. He addressed concerns brought up by neighbors regarding antennas and the removal of vegetation.

13 Planning Commission Minutes Page3 Approved February 2, 2012 The applicant stated that he does not intend to install antennas on the roof top of the garage and does not intend to remove any vegetation; however he said that a railing may need to be installed along the roof of the garage as a safety precaution. Chairman Collins asked the applicant if he would consider adding a condition to the project which requires that the applicant not be allowed to add antennas to the garage or convert the roof into a deck. The applicant explained that the condition would be tied to the property and may adversely impact the value of the property. Chairman Collins stated that if the applicant is not willing to forego a deck and the installation of antennas on the top of the proposed garage, then the. neighbors have a right to be concerned about potential future development. The applicant stated that he is not willing to forego the potential to construct other developments on the roof of the proposed garage because he does not want to encumber the property with conditions that will follow the land. He has no intention of installing antennas on the roof of the proposed garage. Commissioner Partridge asked the applicant if the roof, as proposed in the plans, would act as a deck with little modifications.. The applicant explained that there is currently a four foot railing that isolates a~cess to the proposed rooftop of the garage. Otherwise the roof will lack sufficient railing along its perimeter, rendering it dangerous to anyone who walks on it. Commissioner Partridge asked the applicant how he felt about constructing a sloped roof. The applicant explained that adding a sloped roof to a nine foot structure would increase its visibility and would be aesthetically odd as the back of the roof would feed into the hillside. Robert Leland, son of a neighbor on La Cresta, stated that the project is a variance which encroaches onto a neighboring property. He stated that the applicant and neighbor should discuss conditions for the project. He would like for an agreement to be reached with the acknowledgement that the roof will solely be used as a roof. Anna Yu, neighbor on La Cresta Drive, stated that she would like to see restrictions placed on the project so the garage will be nothing more than a garage. If the applicant is not willing to accept restrictions, then she and her husband do not support the yariance for the garage. Chairman Collins asked Mrs. Yu ifthe applicant is not willing to give up the right to come back to the Commission and ask for a variance to develop a deck, would she be amenable to the Commission asking the applicant to develop a sloped roof which would be slightly more visible.

14 Planning Commission Minutes Page4 Approved February 2, 2012 Adler Yu, neighbor on La Cresta Drive, stated that he does not want to see the project gradually grow into other projects. He stated that he supports his neighbor building a garage, but does not support the possibility of his neighbor being approved for other variances to do more work to the garage. He would be agreeable to a slightly sloped roof on the garage even if it is slightly more visible. Commissioner Partridge asked staff how placing a restriction on future modifications to the structure would impact the applicant in the instance he needs to pull a permit for maintenance. Debbie Pedro, Planning Director explained that one mechanism could be to place a deed restriction on the property. This could be written in a way that allows maintenance to be done. Another more common mechanism which the Town has used in the past is to add a condition to the project specifying that a roof deck is not approved on the structure and the owner would need to apply for a variance for any future development to the structure. The applicant clanfied that no part of his project is encroaching into his neighbor's property, the structures will have minimum visual impacts to the neighbors, and he does not have the intent at this time to develop a deck. He believes that the consideration of deed restrictions is inconsistent with Town precedent. He read from a State publication from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, which states that conditions applied to a variance must have an essential nexus to some legitimate public need or burden created as a result of the variance approval. He believes that this does not exist. Commissioner Clow asked the applicant how he feels about incorporating a sloped roof. The applicant stated that he is not opposed to constructing a sloped roof. Sloping the roof from south-east to north-west would resolve many of the drainage problems. Commissioner Clow also asked the applicant if he would be opposed to adding a condition to the project that restricts the placement of antennas on the roof. The applicant stated that he is not opposed to such a condition. CHAIRMAN COLLINS CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Harpootlian stated that there are many properties in Town with unique conditions where a variance is appropriate. He believes the applicant's property has unique conditions. He does not see the need to place a deed restriction against the property, but does support adding a condition of approval to the project which will restrict future development to the proposed garage. Commissioner Clow stated that the applicant's lot is extremely constrained and supports granting the variance. He acknowledged that the applicant has parked his cars in this location for about 20 years, which was permitted at the time of development. The applicant is simply requesting to place a roof on top of them. Commissioner Clow explained that the structure will be a visual nuisance to the neighbors but stated that the concerns of the neighbors' about the potential for future development is legitimate.

15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 Approved February 2, 2012 I I '. When speaking with the neighbors, they agreed that a condition should be added to the project stating no antennas or rooftop decks shall be constructed on the garage, and the roof of the garage should be sloped, not flat. He does not support a deed restriction being placed against the property. Commissioner Partridge stated that there are two main aspects to the application. The first is to identify if there is a rational need for the variance. He is reasonably convinced that the property is constrained and the current layout of the property does not allow for other opportunities to create a garage, which is a reasonable amenity to have. The other aspect is the opinions of the neighbors. The applicant is asking for an exception to the Town's setback regulations which acts as a buffer for the neighbors. As currently proposed, he believes the roof will result in minimal visual impacts for the neighbors. He supports giving the roof a slight slope; and the addition of conditions prohibiting future development on the roof as it would clearly identify the intent of the Commission to approve the garage without other features being added to or proposed in future variance request applications. Chairman Collins agreed with her fellow Commissioners. She would like staff to include a condition of approval to the project which identifies that if a variance were to be granted, it would strictly pertain to constructing the garage with a sloped roof. The garage is to be solely used as a garage without the addition of a roof deck or placement of antennas. As conversation ensued, the Commission discussed adding conditions to the project that would require the roof to be sloped, adding a minimum of six inches to the structure; clearly state that the current permit does not include the use of the roof as a deck; no additional building above the agreed upon height; and no antennas or antenna systems can be placed on the structure. Director Pedro reiterated the condition to be added to the project which identifies that the applicant agrees to not install antennas, use the roof as a roof deck, or install railings other than what is required by building codes. Also, the roof should be sloped a minimum distance of six inches and the applicant will work with staff on the details. MOTION MADE, AMENDED, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Commissioner Clow made a motion. The Commission first addressed the Recommended Findings for Approval of a Setback Variance, in Attachment 2 of Item 3.1, of the staff report. Commissioner Harpootlian expressed concern for the language in the third paragraph of the first finding in Attachment 2 and suggested striking the paragraph from the document. The 'fletjnested enet'etreh11ient inje the seth66ka 16 aeeemmedate a et:jn.ferming twt:j ear garage W6Nldpermit the site 16 aeet:jmmedate the reqnir-ed nlilwlber e-f e6~eredparking sp66cs. Commissioner Clow amended the motion to strike the third paragraph from the first finding in Attachment 2 of the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Harpootlian. AYES: Commissioners: Clow, Harpootlian, Partridge, and Chairman Collins

16 ... Planning Commission Minutes Page6 Approved February 2, 2012 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: None None Commissioner: Abraham MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Commissioner Clow moved to approve the requested site development permit and setback variance per the required findings in Attachment 2 and the conditions in Attachment 1. Two conditions will be added to the conditions of approval for the project. 1) The conditions will state that no roof decking, antennas, or non-required railings are approved on the structure. 2) The garage roof shall be sloped such that it adds a minimum of six inches to the height of the structure. Staff will work with the applicant to identify a design that is feasible. Seconded by Commissioner Harpootlian. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Clow, Harpootlian, Partridge, and Chairman Collins None None Commissioner: Abraham COMMISSIONER ABRAHAM RETURNED TO THE DIAS. ( 4. OLD BUSINESS - none. 5. NEW BUSINESS - Director Pedro explained to the Commission that there will be two Planning Commission meetings in February; the regular meeting on February 2 and a special meeting tentatively scheduled for February 23, The meeting on February 23 will pertain to the Arastradero Trails Improvement Project. Staff is hoping to have another public information meeting for neighbors prior to the special meeting. Commissioner Abraham expressed his support for having an informational meeting prior to the. special meeting on February 23rd. Commissioner Harpootlian requested that Richard Chiu, Director of Public Works and City Engineer, report to the Commission at the regular meeting on February 2, 2012, regarding the Arastradero Trails Improvement Project. The Chairman and all Commissioners concurred. Director Pedro told the Commission that she would discuss the status of the project with Director Chiu and add the item to the next Planning Commission agenda under old business. 6. REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for December 7 - Commissioner Harpootlian 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for January 19-Chairman Collins 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for February 16 -Commissioner Clow 6.4 Planning Commission Representative for March 15 - Commissioner Partridge

17 Attachment 3 Ktl.,;EIVt:D JAN January 16, 2018 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Suzanne A vi la Planning Director Town of Los Altos Hills RE: Garage Variance Viscaino Road File # ZP-SD-V AR Dear Suzanne: The past year has been a very difficult time for me and my family. I have been unable to devote the time necessary to get our garage project underway. I am requesting a one year extension for the project referenced above. I have enclosed a check for $169 with the hope that you will be able to approve the time extension. Thank you for your consideration, ( 1,.l- 7. / -..,...,,,)Ji.d'l (' I. ') Jim/ Abraham Viscaino Road Los Altos Hills, CA