Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS <br />MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING <br />August 24, 1970 <br />Chairman Priscilla R. Weisbart called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission <br />of the Town of Los Altos Hills to order at 7:52 P. M. at the Town Hall, <br />26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California. The following members answered <br />roll call: Present: Commissioners Corbett, Lachenbruch, McReynolds, Perkins, <br />Spencer, Chairman Weisbart. Absent: Commissioner Hibner. <br />COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE: Councilman Leslie Helgesson <br />APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 27, 1970 <br />Commissioner Perkins moved, seconded by Corbett and carried unanimously to approve <br />the minutes of July 27, 1970 with the following corrections: <br />Page 2, Divisions of Land, Item U1, Lands of Eshner: Insert between paragraphs 5 <br />and 6 - "MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Commissioner Spencer moved, seconded by <br />Hibner and carried unanimously to proceed with the check list." <br />{ Page 2, Divisions of Land, Item #1, Lands of Eshner: Paragraph 7, third line - <br />I change "at the end" to "just beyond the southerly limits". <br />Page 3, Divisions of Land, Item #I, Lands of Eshner: Paragraph 2 - change the <br />roll call vote to read: Abstain: Commissioner Perkins' (rather than voting "no".) <br />Page 3, Divisions of Land, Item N1, Lands of Eshner: Paragraph 7 add - "Motion by <br />Commissioner Weisbart to declare Lot #1 "not a building site" was withdrawn with <br />consent of seconder and unanimous concurrence of Commission." <br />COMMUNICATIONS: <br />1. Staff advised Palo Alto and Mountain View were establishing a joint community <br />CATV district. <br />ANNOUNCEMENTS: <br />1. LAFCO meets Wednesday, September 2 at 2:00 P. M. <br />COMMITTEE REPORTS: <br />1. Pathway Committee reported disapproval of proposed path ordinance as written. <br />See discussion below. <br />OLD BUSINESS• <br />1. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PATH OBSTRUCTION ORDINANCE. <br />Staff reviewed the City Attorney's comments on the proposed path ordinance as well <br />as the Pathway Committee's feelings. Commission discussion ensued and the <br />consensus was that Staff should submit specific questions posed by the Commission <br />to the City Attorney to obtain a legal reading and thus the Commission could then <br />4W better determine perhaps where current ordinances were inadequate to control path <br />encroachments. <br />