Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-16-1965 Planning Commission Minutes (2) .S. IINNAR. Y OF PlINUTES CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CCi~IISS~ON TI~E: Nonday, 16 August 1965, 7:30 P, N. PLACES City Council Chambers, Fruitvale '~venue, Saratoga, California TYPE.'.: Special Nesting - Annual aevtew of the General Plan The meetin~ was called to order by Chairman Norton at 7:30 P. N. Present: Commissioners Cowley, Crisp, Kellum, HcFall, Norton and O'Rorke. Absent: Commissioner Wright, Ch~irnm_n Norton briefly explained that 1) the special meeting had been called for the purpose of reviewin~ the General Plan 2) in vie~ of the unsettled situation with respect to the West Valley Junior Co'llege District~s proposed Saratoga campus, a typical annual review would be held in lieu of the scheduled five-year major re- view 3) while the Commission would hear comments, discuss various matters av~ an- s~;r questions where possible, no decisions would be made at this meetin~ 4) a re- port based on the findings of the public hearin~ and further study would be pre- pared by the General Plan Committee and submitted to the Commission at a later hea~in~ and 5) the report, as approved by the Commission, would then be transmit- ted to the City Council'for further hearin~ and adoption. He then introduced Com- missioner Kellum, Chairmen of the General: Plan Committee. Commissioner Kellum 1) called attention to the agenda~ copies of which had been made available to those present 2) expla]ined that each agenda item would be dis- cussed individually in the order in which it appeared on the a~enda and 3) invited c~ents and questions by the audience. Ch~,irman Norton declared the public hearin~ on the review of the General Plan open at j7: 34 P. M. lo .L. AND USE ~': A. GENERAL ... 1. Residential Chairman Norton observed that the question with respect to this item was whether we are Justified in adherin~ to the zoning now indicated by the General Plan, making Saratoga essentially a single family resi- dential city~ or whether there is established need or demand for a change. He called attention to the elimination (several years a~o) of some of the multiple zonin~ originally indicated by the General Plan and applications filed for same since tha~ time. Bo T. CALEB, Seagull Way, stated 1) there is much need for improvement throughout the City 2) the problems must be approached with an open mind and cannot be solved in One night 3) he felt there was need for a Citizens Committee to study'. the situation and 4) an appropriate land use should be established for' the area alon~ the Southern Pacific and PG~E rights-of-way so that iti could be developed properly. Chairman Norton concurred that perhaps a Citizens Connnittee might ba quite beneficial under a major review of the Ceneral Plan, but a~ain explained that only an annual' review was scheduled this year. P. J. PASETTA, Saratoga-Los G.atos Road, advised that on the assumption that the second West Valley Junior College campus would be located in Saratoga, he felt that .C0nsid.~ration should be given to makinz the v~o-- petty along Frui=vale' Avenue a general common =rein area. -1~ ..P.lannin~ Commission Minutes - Canetel Plan Review - 16 AuRust 1965 I, A. 2. Commercial Mr. PASBTTA called attention to the Kosich property on Saratoga Avenue and ~tated that he felt a chan~e to professional zoning was warranted to provide a gradual transition to the com~rcial zoning in San Jose, In answer to a suggestion by Mr. PASETTA that the C-S zone alon~ Sara- toga-SunnTvale Road be chartBed to allow automobile sales, Chairman Norton explain~d that this was now a permitted use in the subject zone. l~r. Pasetta then stated 1) he felt this would be an excellent source of increased sales tax 2) such agencies tend to locate in groups and 3) in view of this, perhaps an area such as that along Saratoga-Sunny- vale Road from Cox Avenue to .the railroad should be set aside and re- stricted to this use. Chairman Norton l) advised that consideration had been given to auto= bile agencies because of the 'sales tax 2) observed that the ordinance requirement that such an operation be conducted within a completely enclosed structure possibly p'resents a problem and 3) advised that he felt sure the Commission would cooperate as much as possible in con- nection with this problem.. D~r. GALEB stated that he felt everythin~ possible should be done to insure that Saratoga's business men ~ould be able to compete with those in neighborin~ cities. : RALPH RAMO~, Case Blanca Lane, stated that he felt there should be a re-evaluation of the professional zoning indicated by the General Plan. He explained that there were many professional men who would like to locate in Saratoga but were unable to find adequate facilities. 3. Industrial : Mr. PA~ETTA stated that he felt, as he had since incorporation, that the area along the railroad should be zoned for a research laboratory. He reasoned that 1) it would provide a fine tax base 2) it could not be considered a heavy industrial use 3) a ~vell designed research laboratory would utilize perhaps 20 acres and provide landscapir~ that ~ould be a credit to the area. and 4) he felt the choice bet~veen this and low-cost housin~ was obvious. SAM HERNANDEZ, Big Basin Way.; concurred with Mr. Paset~a and added that he felt small manufacturing firms would not be objectionable in this area. Mr. PASETTA stated that he was opposed to permittin~ m8~ufacturin~ firms because of the possibility of changes in o~mership. DR. A. OTTENBERG, Foothill Lane, questioned whether the City would actually benefit from the increased taxes from such uses since the services provided by the City] would no doubt have to be increased under such circumstances. He observed that an increase in services might prove very costly and suggested that this matter be studied thoroughly before such zonin~ was made available. B. STUDY AREAS 1. .F..r~.!~..v. ale Aver~4.e.--Allep~tale Avenue--Sobe.v Road Area Chairman Norton observed that'. the unsettled condition with respect to the West Valley Junior College made it difficult to anticipate future zoniD.g in this area. -2- Pi~nnin~ Cc~nnission Miuu..~es - General Plan Revi.ew - 16. ~a~.~a. st 196.5 1, B, 1. FLOYD DAVIS, who explained that he owned an interest in property along Allendale Avenue, stated that he felt a more appropriate land use, perhaps limited cu~h~ercial, should be designated for the parcels along this street. He explained that the publicity about the. schools to be located on Allendale Avenue had resulted in a lack of interest in the property by prospective home0wners. In answer to a question from Chairman Norton, Mr. Davis stated that he did not feel that a change from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 would prove to be a solution to the p~o- blem, since Allendale Avenue seemed destined to be a very busy thoroughfare. Counnissioner Kellum advised that the strip of R-1-40,000 zoning along the' north side of Allendale Avenue had consistently been brought to the attention of the Co~m~ssion in recent years. He explained that the lots were lon~, narrow and level, evidently making them difficult to develop satisfactorily as acre home sites. He advised that the Com- mission was interested in hearing comments with regard to a possible chan~e to R-I-20,000 zoning in this particular area. Mr. RAHO~ observed that since the West Valley Junior College District had already acquired property in this area, it was necessary to assume that a campus would be located there. He stated that, for this reason, he felt the entire area should be considered for half-acre residential zoning. Hr. DAVIS inquired as to whether the Co _n~n_~ssion had given any thought to the question of what type i zoning would be more beneficial to the people if the college did locate in this area. He stated that he felt it was the responsibility of the Con;nission to make the area as desira- ble as possible for the City. of Saratoga. ROBERT PLANE, Douglas Lane, stated that he felt the zonin8 alon~ Fruit- vale Avenue should be re-evaluated, too, if the college was to be cared in the area. DR, BR0~E, a member of the West Valley Junior College District Board, advised 1) the District had. purchased approximately 35 acres of the proposed college site 2) funds had been set aside to pay for the balance of the site, soon to go under condemnation proceedings and 3) ~hether it will be the first or second campus is undecided, but there ~ill be a college on this site. Mr. BERNANDEZ stated that he. felt a decision on the future zoning the area of the proposed college site would be premature at this time. 2. _S~a.to~a Avex~u.e--Cqx Avenue--West Valley Freeway Ar.ea Ca~m_~:ssioner Kellum explained that several applications for chan~e of zonin~ had been filed in connection with the Saratoga Avenue--Cox Avenue area. He invited con~ents from the audience with respect to · these proposals, I~. G. BARNES, representing the Westhope Presbyterian Church~ requested that consideration be given .to a change of zonin~ on the former church property, located across Cox; Avenue from the quito Shoppir~ Center. The Secretary read a petitioh with signatures of 24 residents of the DeHaviland Drive area opposin~ the l~.V.S.Company application ~or multi- pie zoning on Saratoga Avem:e. Mr. PASETTA spoke in support!; of the ~i.V.S.Company application. With respect to the two propozed three-story structures, he explained 1) they would give the appearance of 2-1/2 stories since the parkin~ was underneath 2) they were', proposed to prevent ~mvin~ so many ~wo- story structures on the site:i 3) they would make a much lar~er area .Plannin~....C.o.n=nission Minutes - C~.neral Plan. Itsview - 16 A. ugust 1965 I. B. 2. available for landscapin~ and 4) from an a~chitecttt~al viewpoint, ha felt the t-~o three-story str~ctures would look better th~n a greater number of two-story structures. I~RS. JEANNE JETT, I4ardell Road, suggested that the ~wo three=story structures be placed on the front of the propertys across the street from Paul Masson. Chairman Norton observed that the people on DeHaviland Drive had some right to complains but Co JuSt what extent onl~ further study of ~his matter could determine. CARL PETERSs DeHaviland Drive, inquired as to why 1) the original General Plan was changed to eliminate apartments in this area and 2) there was now discussion With regard Co chan~ing it again. He also questioned the proposed increase in density, Chairman Norton explained that the purpose of reviewing the General Plan was to determine if changes were needed as time passed and develop- meat progressed. He agreed, however, that perhaps the proposed increase in density was greater than had been anticipated. 3. Sarato.~a..Avenue--Prospect Avenue--Lawrence Expr. ess.w.a..y Area Mr. PASETTA again stated that he felt the Kosich property on Saratoga Avenue should be zoned for professional use to provide a gradual transi- tion to the San Jose connnercial area. MR, KOCH, who explained that he owned the property adjacent to the Kosich property~ stated that he felt these properties were no longer appropriate for R-1 zoning. He further stated 1) because of the proximity of the E~esC Gate Shopping Center, he had not really con- sidered connercial zoning 2)' he had given thought to the possibility of multiple zoning and 3) if there was need for additional profes- sional zoning, this would be .quite satisfactory. 4. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road--Prospect Avenue--Southern Pacific Railroad Area .... WILLIAM GAKCIA, Bonnie Ridge ~4ays requested that the Commission give careful consideration to elimination of the C-S zone along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road since the zoning appeared inadequate for the area. In answer to a question from Commissioner Crisp~ he advised that it was his suggestion that the area be as a restricted C-N zone. Chairman Norton observed that the southeast corner of the intersection of Sa=atoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Avenue~ ~hich has large trees and a creek running through its would make a nice park and would enhance that entrance to the City. I~RSo SAMUEL SFLITH of Hill Avenue concurred with Chairman Norton. She further stated that she wouldl like to see a nice redwood sign and benches in th~ park. ; Mr. HEP~NANDEZ also concurred with this suggestion. 5, Sarato~a-Su~..n.yva. l.e Road--~ardell Koad--Cox 'AX..e.~nue--Pierce Roa..~ Area JOlg~ TURNERs gardell Court, inquired as to whether the Commission felt that additional commercial and/or professional zoning was warranted ~n this area. : Chairman Norton advised that applications had been filed for such zoning and the question now ~-3s whethe_~ or not there was a need. _Planniu~ Co~mlssion Mi.nute. s - General Plan Review - 16 A~.~uet .19.6.5 I. B. 5. Mr. TURNER stated that he felt 1) there was no need for further com- mercial or professional zonin~ in this area 2) Mr. Garciass proposal for a Town & Country Shopping Center at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Avenue was quite appropriate and 3) the Commission should propose some way of up-grading the subject area. Mrs. SAMUEL SMITH concurred with Mr. Turner. 6. p. ie.r. ce ....R~oad--Wardell R.o.adT-Calabazas' Creek Area The Secretary presented an area map showing ~he existing zoning, the break in the topography and present development in the subject vicinity. He then read a petition signed by 125 residents of the general area opposing any down~rading of the existing R-I-40,000 zoning and reques- ting upgrading of the existing R-1-12,500 and R-l-15,000 districts. Chairman Norton reviewed a lengthy communication filed by the Finnegan Construction COmpany suggesting that the zoning districts in this area should be coordinated with the topography of the area. He then reques- ted that each of the Commissioners give further attention to this com- munication at a later time. 7. ,Village Area Mr. HERNANDEZ requested that the Commission re-evaluate the existing zoning alon~ Bi~ Basin Way from Fifth Street west. He also suresteal that the City investigate the possibility of acquiring the Youth Center property and Wildwood Parks and spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning of the Chase property on Saratoga Avenue. IIo C_IRCULATIO. N' A° THOROUGI~ARES 1. Cox Avenue--P ierce Road Connect ion Commissioner Kellum stated that instead of connecting Cox Avenue and Pierce Road at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road as originally indicated on the General Plan Nap, consideration was being given to connecting Wardell Road to Pierce Road. He explained that this would not only slimirate one of the existing intersections with Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. but would provide a combined intersection that could easily be signalized. He further explained ~hat the Cox Avenue-~Wardell Road connection would be a more practical approach to the situation since it would require less re-routing of existing streets. MRS. SHIRLEY DIEMERs Wardell Road, suggested that Cox Avenue be aligned on a diagonal to connect with the present Pierce Road,-Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road intersection. In answer to a question from JOHN TURNER, Chairman Norton explained that the purpose of the proposed connection was to 1) provide better general traffic circulation and 2) reduce the number of access points to the highway. After further discussions Mr. TURNER and Dr. OTTERBERG concurred with Mrs. DIEMER'S sugSestion relative to the connection of Cox Avenue and Pierce Road. -5- Pl~nnin~ Commiss.~.on Minutes - General Plan Review - 16 .August 1965 IX. A. 2. Bi~ Basin Way ByePaSs Connnissioner Kellum explained 1) the Big Basin Way by-pass was pro- posed under the original General Plan 2) no effort has been made to complete this plan and 3) the Conunission was interested in hearin~ comments as to whether or not this proposal should 'be given further cons ideration. Chaimn Norton observed that this by-pass would be a convenience for those in the Village and would enhance the appearance of the Village. After discussion of this matter, the consensus was that the land was available for this by-pass at the present time and that the question was whether or not it was economically feasible. 3. .F..rui..tvale Avenue .-.. Possible Futu.r.e 4-Lane ,Thoroughfare Commissioner Kellum explained that while there had been no official proposal, it had been suggested that Fruitvale Avenue be developed as a 4-lane thoroughfare. He then invited comments with regard to this matter. RALPH RA~ONA questioned the need for four lanes on Fruitvale Avenue since 1) Saratoga Avenue was proposed as only four lanes and 2) the major portion of the traffic volume would have been dispersed before reaching Fruitvale Aveme. D~. OTTENBERG requested that the Connission give serious consideration to development of an adequate street system to accomodate the college if and when it was determined that a campus would be located in Saratoga. B. COLLECTORS 1. Connection between Prospect and ~4ardell Road. s. west of Cala~azas Creek Commissioner Kellum explained that the major portion of the level land in Saratoga had now been developed and for future growth we must look to the hills. He then explained that the present General Plan provides no traffic circulation pattern for the subject area and that the Plan- ning Director and Director of Public Works had been asked to submit a proposal for the area. The Secretary then presented a map showing a proposed connection between Prospect and Wards11 Roads west of the Calabazas Creek. He also read a petition protesting such a connection which had been signed by 48 resi- dents of the general area, and advised that a proposed alternate circu- lation pattern bad been submitted with the petition. Mrs. JETT observed 1) the residents of the Wardell Road area are strivin~ to maintain a low density area 2) it seems impractical to construct a connection to Wardell Road that would brin~ traffic in from higher density areas and 3)'it would seem more logical to turn this traffic back to Prospect Road. Chairman Norton assured those present that this suggestion would be considered carefully, but explained that the extent to which any area could isolate itself from other areas is limited. Commissioner Kellum explained that a tentative circulation pattern is needed to help developers plan effective streets that eventually (as the various properties are developed) provide a good circulation pat- tern for the area in question. Pl~.n$..n~ Commission.Hi~u~qs - ~ene~a.~ Plan Revi.e..w. - 16 August 196~ II. B. 1. B. T. CALEB concurred that such a guide is essential to the City. He also questioned the proposed: Saratoga Avenue approach to the freeway. During the discussion that f011owed, it was brought to the attention of the Commission that while the State Highway Depart~nent (at the time of preparation of the original 6eneral Plan) had felt that a diamond interchange was adequate at Saratoga Avenue, Lawrence Livingston, Sara- toga's Planning Consultant, had felt that a clover leaf interchan~e was warranted. Chairman Norton requested that the Committee, in fur- ther reviewin~ the Ceneral Plan, check into this matter since con- struction of the West Valley Freeway is not too far in the future at this time. C. LOCSL BT14F, I~TB SHELLEY WlLLIAF~ Brook Ridge Drive, suggested that, for circulation poses, Montewood Drive be connected with Monte Vista Drive. Chairman Norton explained that there was a 12 foot emergency access to Saratoga-Los Catos Road from Montewood Drive. II1. POPULA~ION A. CHARACTERISTICS The Secretary advised 1) the 6eV~ral Plan estimates a population of 33,000 by 1980 2) the present population is estimated at 20,~00 3) the population has increased at the rate of approximately 1,000 per ~ear since the 1960 census and ~) this increase is somewhat greater than scheduled. famissioner Crisp observed thati while the reduction from one acre to 40,000 square foot lots in the acre zoning had increased the density some- what, the churches and schools had decreased the density in some areas. In answer to a question from the: audience, Chairman Norton commented that no one was su~estin~ that the density he increased although the maximum population estimate might be reaUhed sooner than expected. The Secretary advised that the average family per dwelling unit in Saratoga is now 3.85 persons, but that he had no current information as to .the a~es of the persons. B. ~RO~TH Commissiov~r Cowlay commented that because of the property developed or proposed for development by the Various schools~ churches and the West Valley Junior College District~ maximum density might never be reached. In answer to a question from Comm.'issioner O~Rorkes the Secretary explained that at the present time the City had no capital improvement p~ogram. Commissioner O~Rorke suggested that perhaps it would be wise to establish a schedule for capital ~mprovemehts since the population is increasing at a more rapid pace than anticipated, Commissioner Cowley suggested that the Commissicn recommend to the City Council that a comnuLttee be appointed to start work on such a program as soon as possible, IV. SCHOOLS No comu~ent, -7- Pl,nn!n~ Co~nission Minutes - General Plan Review - 16 August 196~ V, PARKS AND RECREATION A. YOUTH CENTER Commissioner. Kellum advised that plans for constructing a Youth Center building on the Civic Center property are making significant progress. B. PARKS ~l~e Commission concurred that a small scenic park on the southeast corner of Prospect Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and the acquisition of Wildwood Park would be an asset to the City. In answer to an inquiry from Dr. OTTENBER~ relative to the possibility of another bond issue for park and recreation purposes, Chairman Norton advised that such a proposal should be discussed with the City Council rather than the Commission. SAM HERNANDEZ concurred that the two park areas suggested would be a credit to the City, and expressed the desire to see Wildwood Park developed as a cultural center. B. T. GALEB stated that he felt there should be a. park and recreation plan for the entire City, and that Wildwood Park would be. an appropriate initial acquisition since it would serve all the residents. SHELLEY WILLIAMS expressed approval of the pathways that are being instal- led in the City and stated that he would also like to see more horsebacl~ riding trails which he felt would be a .step forward. VI, ANNEXATION Chairman Norton commented that at one time it was felt that Saratoga could trust the County to protect the hills, but that the time had come when .the City could not be assured of this. He then recalled that the Commission' (after 'the last General Plan Review) had recommended to the Council that all .requests for annexation be given consideration, and stated that he felt .the Commission Should reaffirm this recommendation to the Council. ' In answer to an inquiry from DONALD WEBSTER relative to the possible annexa- tion of Montgomery Highlands to the south, Chairman Norton explained 1) Sara-. toga's principal interest in annexation was with respect to undeveloped areas and 2) it would be required that all streets in a developed area meet City standards before consideration would be given to annexation of the area. Since there was no further comment from the audience or the Commission, Chairman Norton directed the public hearing on the' review of the General Plan continued until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission (23 August 1965). The Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 11:36 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Stanley M. Walker, Secretary Saratoga Planning Commission V -S- · ~GENERAL PLANEVIEW " ..... ~ .... ".l, .Fruitvale Avenue--Allendale Avenue--Sobey Road Area · '-'... :'*..'.~*' .*.. a, Review R-1-40,000'montng along the north side of Allendale ..".." · .' : ..... b, Review density standards for this general area. "'... ' **:'.""' ."...:..2, Saratoga Avenue--Cox Avenue--West Valley Freeway Area ~, a, Analyze feasibility of R-M ;oning on Sa=aCoga AvenUe*near · ' '! · Cox Avenue, (ABrams) · ' " b, Analyze feasibility of P-A zoning on Saratoga Avenue ~o~Ch · ' ..-.*:'n~.'. of Cox Avenue, (Maggiore) ~ . .'.'.. c, Analyze feasibility of P-A zoning on southwest corner of' .- ., .. ...~- .".I ' intersection of Saratoga and Cox Avenues. (Seagraves~' '. ...... ": .. 3, '~ara~o~a Avenue--Prospec~ Avenue--Lawrenc~ ExpreSsway Area " ".'... a, Consider commercial land use developmen~ of area eas~ Lawrence Expressway, (Cox) · b, Consider land use development of area sou~hwes~ of Lawrence ..' Expressway,...(Cox, Orlando a~ 1~ostch) ,.= I. B... 4. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road--Prospec= Avenue--Sou=horn Pacific Rail-' "' .. road Area .. ..."-'.: .. ".' Review C-S zoning a~ong Saratoga-SunnyVale Road from Prospec= · -' " "' ""' 5. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road--Wardell Road--Cox Avenue--Pierce Road " .... " . '.' '.' .. '. '°"'.f ....... 'a.:.. Analyze..'feasibil.i~y of .P-A zoning on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road .. .. at' Carniel Avenue. (Carniel) : ' . . .. -.. ........... '-.. .~ ':"'. . ..' '. · c Clarify area of. P-A zoning on southeasE corner of intersec- · . tion of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue. "" ..... '~' , :' Consider lot ·area requirements for development of area south'of '...-..- .. .~. Wardell Road, west of Calabazas Creek. (Finnegan) .. Analyze feasibility of R-M .zoning on Saratoga Avenue near Village.' ..... ' . · .:~! (Chase) . · 8. 0=her '. " Establish standards for site selection of church facilities.' .' ."j]' "' ' :'~:'" ""] 3. Consider development of Fruit-Vale Avenue as 4-lane thoroughfare. · ·" : ..... .-..... 1. Consider connection between Prospect and Wardell Roads west of. .. 2. Review other collector..streets set forth in General Plan "' C.. LOCAL STREETS' -. ... "' 1. Explore possible liarion Avenue-Paul Avenue connection.... ".?i'.. .. .-,. 3. Other .. . = " ....... """ ':. '. ""' [".'.' ":~' .'." ""' "' ' AGENDA " .........: ...=..,:..: .........:~=. -...=~ :... · ....: !...~ !~. ';...-~."'~.':~!..]!!....=.!.'.'.:" ....-1.'......... '........~. ,....=. .~~ ..~ .... "l: '-'..:.'.. .-!'. >..'-:."~.'..'.:'.....'.i ~.!?~:~.:~i~:~!=~.~!=~:~!~i~=~.~'~-' · ......:. . ,.. '.... ] .. . .. :.... ....~...,-...... .. .::~ .... ~ .. · """ ~ REVISIONS ' : '. · .' ..-.....:........: :.':::..'....'-.~ ....::".=":'...'.":.::'.:".i:'!:.i'''''' -':..:::':.."..~::":':'~.': :'.':.-'/~:.':'..'.':-.,-::i :'.'::':"':.".'..".'.:::" ..'.i .... .... · ...:....,....:..-........: :~:..'.:':..... :' !'..' .... . . ... !:.:-....:.:....:..::..~:'.....--..,-..... · - :: .. -.. .....:........:..................:'...... ,.. ".': ' "lo:. High Schools on Prospect Avenue. ... . ,.: ......:...:.......:.. -.. :. .......· ..... .........: :-': : .... ... . '... .:. ....: ......... ,.....-.. ..........,...:.. .. . .:-.... : ,:... .. ,.,.'...-..,...: ~ ... .." . ..' : ': :.!.' :...:.:~'.. :.-~.'.. '... ': ...... ..".-.:"-,:.:.'.'-...:..'..::::.::.::-"..........~:.'.· ~ "':'.:=':'-:~'.':.'.'.:"'..:' ~:"'.:/3,".'~-=~o, o= ~=o,~'~,= ~,~ '~.~ :~ .::.:.:..~:" .........:.::....'..::.~.:......:..~.::.::..:'..:.. :'., '.' .:. · . :' '. ' :':":' .' ': :".-'.:""~ ':: ~'::"~' '~ .. 4.: ~eaica~ ViZZ~se ac saratoga a~a cox Avenues.' ". '.." -. :'. '.';:':....:.;:..': :':':..-:"....:":.~:;.::.. :..'.'.' ":.:.'..."'. :.'.C' '..7 '.:'..:.' .:'... '..',' · .'.;-.":.';' .'-' '.':7.: :":"'~'..':.':";.~: :"' .:'" '·'. ..·. .. ' '.. :::~ .::..:.'. ~.~'..:..?...' ....7.:':~. ~. :..':~:.~ ...: ......-: .'...:' . ~ ' ':"':'.':/""~:"':":~"..":"~:.~'.'.". 5. ··'Extension of P~ul ~sso~ ~ciliCies on S~=~Cog&.Aveaue.':.:' ':".~:.::."'.'.'::::'~"::."'.-.':':.. :' "'..:'., '-:'.".:" ":'.:'. :.', .":::'=, ""::":' "':" "":':":'~"'~'~:"""': " .... "· '. '.' '.' '.... ':..<. .:.:""~'."'::':'~"?~".':~.'.::':7.',:: ::':-"';,. ':"."' ;''''''- '." :..':~.'. ' .' :. ;.:' ': "" ..'. ":':':"' ~." :..:.":'.":"':" ~' 6..' ~ o= ~o=ough~=es ~nd Col lecco= St=sets .'. '. "' :,j::. ::"..-'.":/,'-~.: .""-': '::.'." '~""C:.': .":.":' ?'.~:..... ':'..' ":'.:. ".; ..:.. "" ."'. ":' ..' :'. '. ': ..-.....:~7~'..-:..:,.........:... ...... , .... . . . . ... ...:. 2... : :.:.:,........:::...:....~:...~ , ...: :.... ....... ....:.. ... ....:.. ....... ..... ...~..:. :... :::.~..~.:'::.:~'~:: ..::.::..?. >:.::. :::....:::~:;~::.~.':.....: ......:.~..::'..... :.:....:':"....:..?..."':..: .::.....?...:......:..~:...'.:.:-..:..:.'~:~':.. :..:': :: :'~ · ' ~:::. '.':"'.~ ~{'::. ::" ':'::~.:.:7. {~:::.."' .:".".". '~:'::~..::.: '::';.:'.'~.':. ". ':::.::'.. ~:-..:'.:: ,'.':";..:.. ~'.':' :"..':'.-..' "' :":': ~: :': :'.".. '.~-'.:. :':"'~.'...'.' :'.:"'.~'~:'.. ;.' .~.". :'. :-",. '. :".-:."~.'.':.'.'::."-" .'...'..:..".':. :.:.. ".. "-:::, .':. '..-:'.':.'-'?~.:"...'-'-.'...::..'.,':: .= :.:'.:'..":...:.':".':.":':.,:'. ":".' '. . · .....' .... . ....: ':'.....~:.........:'.....'.......:. :.........'.' ....,4, ..:.......'....' .-....'::...:..":.: · ..- '.. '..:....." ....... '.. -.... . ..: :'-.:'." "'.' .:.."-" '..'.,' ".."'' ·"