HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-1975 Planning Commission Minutes OF SARATOGA PLA~]qING
~fINUTES
TI~: Wednesday, January 22, 1975 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers o 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Marshall, Martin and Woodward
Absent: Commissioner Smith
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the read-
ing of the minutes of January 8, 1975 be waived, and that they be approved as
distributed ~o the Commission subject to the following corrections:
(1)page 11 - Commissioner Woodward, not Commissioner Belanger, made
the motions on Items IV-B and IV-C
(2) page 12 - First heading of VII-Communications should read "Written"
rather than "Oral"
The motion was carried; Commissioner Martin abstained.
C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Commissioner Woodward gave an oral presentation of the City Council meeting
of January 15, 1975. Of special interest to the Commission were the follow-
ing items: (1) Third public hearing on the Housing Community Development Act
was continued to the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on January 21, 1975.
(2) Discussions relative to no-parking signs around West Valley College were
continued to the next regular City Council meeting.
Commissioner Belanger requested a report on the Community Development Act
discussions at the above-mentioned Committee-of-the-Whole meeting. The
Secretary reported that the priorities voted on and passed were as follows:
(1) elderly housing; (2) Arco service station demolition; (3) small-scale
neighborhood rehabilitation code enforcement project; and (4) urban beauti-
fication (landscaping street mediansl, ~tc.) and Phase II development of Quito Park.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C-172 - Blac~ell Homes (Parker Ranch), Prospect and Stelling Roads, Change
of Zoning Request from "A" (Agriculture) and "R-i-40,000" (Single-
Family Residential) to "R-i-40,000 PC" (Single-Family Residential
Planned Community); a 218-acre parceli Continued from October 23~ 1974
The Secretary advised the Commission that the developer's engineer, Mr. Heiss,
had submitted a letter requesting this matter be continued to the Commission
meeting of February 12, 1975. He noted that the iSubdivision Committee and Staff
had met with Mr. Heiss and requested various items and exhibits be provided;
he added, however that these materials had_yet to be submitted. The Secretarl~
stated that Staff recommended this matter be continued to the February 26th
Commission meeting in order to allow Staff and the Subdivision Committee adequate
time in which to review the applicant's material when submitted.
Mr. Heiss was present and indicated acceptance of this suggestion. Chairman
~rshall directed C-172 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
February 26, 1975, and referred this matter to 'the Subdivision Committee and
Staff for further review.
-1-
MINUTES DF JANUARY 22, 1975
B. C-178 - City of Saratoga, Change of Zoning of Certain Parcels to be Consistent
with the 1974 General Plan for the City of Saratoga, Zones #1, #3, #6,
~7 and ~23; Continued from January 87 1975
ZONE 1
Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing on C-178, Zone 1 at 7:41 p.m.,
· noting that the public hearing on this zone had been continued from January 8, 1975.
Mr. Loewke, Planner I, explained that Zone 1 was a single 47.39-acre parcel
owned by the Fremont Union High School District bound on the north by Prospect
R~ad and the Southern Pacific railroad tracks, on the east by Tracts 4508 and
4536 (both zoned R-1-12,500, medium density), on the west by the Parker Ranch
site (zoned A and R-I-40,000, agriculture and very low density), and on the
south by Tract 4886 and Tract 4887 (zDned R~!~12,500, medium density). He
pointed out that Zone 1 was presently zoned both R-1-12,500 and R-l-15,000
(medium density), and that the City proposed this parcel be rezoned to
R-i-20,000 PC (low density, Planned Community) in order to provide a transi-
tional zone between surrounding properties as well as in order to bring the
zoning into consistency with the 1974 General Plan.
One piece of correspondence was read into the redord: Letter dated January 22,
1975 signed by Jack Roper, secretary to the Board, Fremont Union High School
District opposing the proposed change of zoning to R-i-20,000 PC but requesting
the zone be changed to R-l-15,000.
Citizen Response
· Kathleen Coakley, 14664 Springer Road, 0~posed the proposed rezonin~ indi-
cating that she felt the property ~"should be planned for a park situation."
She stated that there were many tract homes~in the area, and by
/planning the property for parks and recreational use, people like herself
who c"0~rd'not ~f~'r'd~l%~in ~City would have an opportunity to enjoy
the property. Chairman Marshall explained that the change of zoning had
been initiated by the City in order to bring City zoning into consistency
with the General Plan as mandated by State law. He pointed out that the
number of homes which could be built on the propertX under the present
zone was a maximum of approximately 104 homes, whereas under the proposed ~
zone the maximum number would be approximately 69 homes. He further noted
Cit ~
that the y s Parks & Recreation Commission had been studying the parks
situation in the area, and had earmarked a small portion of the school property
as a possible future park site.
· Charles Hunter, 20846 Meadow Oak, asked why this property was proposed to
be rezoned to "PC" rather than straight residential zoning. Chairman
Marshall-explained that under a straight R-1 zoning a developer could
develop his land anyway he wished as long as he complied with the Ordinances
of the City. However, under the "PC" designation, an area must be pre-
planned, with a development plan submitted to and accepted ~X the Cit~; ..........
'f~'f~h~h~'d[VYl~per would be under time and legal constraints to build
;within the time frame and in accordance with the approved plan.
· Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, indicated concern with the "PC"
designation, stating that even though this designation gave flexibility
to the Planning Commission, the wording of "PC" ~ould also allow flexibility
in the direction of low-income housing. The Secretary pointed out '!.~he City
.cannot discriminate against low-income housing anywhere at any time."' Chair-
~man Marshall sU~g~'ted that Mr. Crowther had perhaps confused "PC" with "PDn
/concept, the latter of which allows variable types of development within a
zone. He called Mr. Crowther's attention to Section 4(A) of the Zoning Ordinance
~which defines "PC" as being a district which may be combined with any
=re~ential district. ~
· Jim Isaak, 18596 Martha Avenue, stated that he had been on ~e General Plan ..............
R~view Committee, and that the Committee had felt; , as ~p~ose~' to s~'~i~'t
zoning, would~llow the Planning Commission an opportunity to insure that
hillsides such as this would be developed with sufficient planning and with
-2-
'~.=- MINUTES OF JANUARY 22
B. C-178 - ZONE 1 - Continued
open space. He ~dded'that i't was the intention of the Committee 'by recom-
mending the "P~" concept to provia~'fb~ pre~l~ning a'n~'~"ehe same time pro-
- vide for aesthetic standards. Chairman Marshall added to these statements
that the density per se would be no greater under'PC than with straight R-1
zoning; h~ever, it would be possible to cluster or reshape properties in
such a way as to provide for common greens or better siting.
Commissioner Response
· Commissioner ~rtin stated that he felt the Fremon~ High School District
in its letter of January 22, 1975 made the assumption~ that the rezoning
this property would diminish the value of the property. He stated that
he felt this was an assumption-on the District's part, and that the City
was not necessarily deevaluating this property.
· Commissioner Callon stated that she was in favor of the "PC" concept, as
well as in favor of this "buffer zone" from a more developed area to a
very low density area.
· Chairman Marshall stated that the R-I-20,000 designation as opposed to
R-l-15,000 was the direct result of dialogues on the adjacent parcel and
the high school parcel with the Greater Arguello Homeowners Association,
'-He added that the "PC" concept, however, had been the notion of the
~ Subdivision Committee in that it would provide f~"~'~ s~'~{ngent ~et-
7f requirements in developing this property than straight R-1 zoning would
provide.
Commission Action
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the public
hearing on C-178, Zone 1 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and
the public hearing was closed at 8:09 p.m.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that pursuant
to Section 65860 of the California State Code that the Planning Commission
approve the change of zoning from R-1-12,500 and R-l-15,000 to R-I-20,000 PC
for Zone 1, C-178 per the Staff Report dated January 22, 1975, and that this
recommendation be fo~.~arded to the City Council for its approval. The motion
was carried~unanimously._
ZONE 3
Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing on Zone 3, C-178 at 8:09 p.m.,
noting that this hearing had been continued from January 8, 1975. Mr. Loewke
explained that Zone 3 was composed of 8 lots in Tract 4279, t .tot in Tract
4828 and 7 parcels comprising 8.22acres, bound on the north by Tract 4886
(R-1-12,500, medium density), on the east by Arroyo de Arguello (R-1-12,500,
medium density), on the south by Tract 4828 (R-I-40,000 very low density),
and on the west by Williamson Act Preserve Lands ("A," agriculture). He
further explained that in order to bring the zoning of this area into consis-
tency with the~%974 General plan,-staff proposed Zone 3 be rezoned from
R-l-15,000 (medium density) to R-i-40,000 (very low density).
Citizen Response
· Jay Croch, 12721 Arroyo de Arguello, asked what impac~_t_hi~s~hange of zoning
would have on homeowners in the area. He pointed out!homes in the area
had been existing for a number of years, and contended that the General Plan
did not ~sider this, To Mr. Croch's first '~uestion, Chairman Marshall ~
explained that there would be no effect on any of the property owners in
this zone relative to changing the maximum lot ~ield,iwith one exception.
He added, however, that if the property owners wished to expand, modify
or rebuild their homes if the structures were partially destroyed, certain
restrictions would be imposed under the new zoning; i.e., one could not
expand a structure in any direction which impinged upon the zone's setback
-3-
":.' ~ ~: MINUTES OF JANUARY 22
B. C-178 - Zone'~- Continued
limitations. In answer to Mr. Croche's latter point, Chairman Marshall ex-
'plained that the General Plan Review Conmaittee had been composed of a large num-
ber of citizens, and that the Committee had g.enerally bound the City area in
.a free-form fashion; further, that Staff had determined as consistently as
possible how the City zoning matched the General Pian. Mr. Cro~h went on
record as opposing the zoning change on the basis that the proposed zone
may effect his ability to develop his property in the future. He added
that it seemed peculiar to him that if housing had-been existing for several
years, why the Master Plan would be drawn inconsistent with that.
· Tom Fryer, 14029 Saratoga Hills Road, stated that it was his understanding
that if structural damage was 40%+, one must meet the new conditions of the
zoning; i.e., in this case, R-i-40,000 setbacks. He further stated that it
had been his understanding that the City was always trying to reduce the
number of legal non-conforming uses in the City, and that in this case the
City would be creating more. He contended that because of that reason
the General Plan should be changed to meet the zoning of this area. To
Mr. Fryer's first remark, Chairman Marshall explained that under the City
Ordinances, if a house was damaged in excess of 50% and the house did not
comply with the zone's setbacks (legal non-conforming), one would have to
either rebuild the structure in accordance with setbacks or apply for a
variance. In reply to the latter statement, Chairman ~rshall stated that
the reason the City had chosen the change of zoning process in lieu of
changing the General Plan was that the most recent changes had been with
the 1974 General Plan'. He added that one could assume that the large number'
of people who participated in that action meant what they said. He added,
however, that the purpose of public hearings was to determine what action
the City should take. It was pointed out that any element of the General
Plan could be changed three times a year, and that a decision~on this matter
~which must be made by the Commission would be whether to change the zoning
or th~74 General Plan.
· Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, asked, with regard to the interpreta-
tion of the General Plan and its relationship to the school property, what
_part of the General Plan designated these homesites to be rezoned. He
.stated that it was his understanding that the General Plan ~p was off the
~ press in October. He further stated that he had at'ten~'d' most ~f'~h'e
General Plan meetings, that he had handouts of those meetings, and that he
had found things in the General Plan document which did not occur in public
hearings. He added: "-Then-there are-things such as this map which was not
developed until October. Was there a public hearing held on those items?"
In answer to Mr. Crowther's first-question, it was pointed out that the
multi-colored General Plan Map was the source of the rezoning designations.
To the latter comments, Mr. Johnston noted that the school property was not
being discussed under this zoning. He pointed out for the benefit of the
audience that this matter had been brought up before the Planning Commission
and City Council on several occasions by Mr. Crowther, and that on each occas-
sion an answer had been given. Chairman Marshall added to this that in answer
to Mr. Crowther~s allsgation concerning matters contained in the General Plan
which were not discussed at a public hearing, that all zoning of individual
areas in the General Plan were covered in public hearings and public meetings,
and had been voted on in public hearings.~' He explained that the only interpre-_
tation made per se on the map was: "The consultant in attempting to inter-
pret what we collectively, the citizens of Saratoga and the Planning Commission,
ff~ally voted on could not necessarily guarantee that that line was within
~one-eighth of an inch of where we thought it would be. The map represents
to the best of their ability exactly where they thought we said it should be."
· Steve Pecsar, 20880 Wardell Road, contended that his 4.7-acre parcel would
suffer greatest from the proposed rezoning. He stated that he felt the
treatment of the rezoning was illogical, and that rezoning from R-I-15,0OO
to R-i-40,000 seemed to serve no purpose. He pointed out that it was his
understanding that the original zoning came by way of definition of'the 3~5th
segment line west of the ridge, and that he did' not understand the logic of
-4-
~RNUTES OF JANUARY 22 1975
B. C-178 - Zone ~ - Continued
including parts of Arroyo de Arguello in this area. Mr. Pecsar further
stated: "If those people who seem to prefer to view the hillsides and are
so against seeing high density development_-feel so strongly, I feel it
would be fair that they should band together and buy these properties rather
than let us carry the heavy tax burdens." He concluded his remarks by
stating that in concern for justice, the General Plan should be changed
in this case to be consistent with the current zoning.
Chairman Marshall explained that the City was mandated by the State to
bring the zoning and General Plan into consistency, and that the City had
chosen change of zoning as the most logical process. He pointed out, how-
ever, that a prejudgement should not be made that the Commission was going
to change the zoning, and that this decision would be made after public
testimony and all facts had been presented.
· Kathleen Coakle%~ 14664 Sprinter Road, stated that she felt that many people
~in Saratoga did not really understand what wasl=happening because the
~pbliC ~ibrary did not contain'adequate'information pertinent to the City.-
planning matters. She charged that the Planning Commission was n~t' reall~
hearing what the citizens were saying, and indicated that she would oppose
!the change of zoning because of this reason.
Chairman Marshall pointed out that the Planning Commission was an appointed
body who served in an advisory capacity to the City Council. He stated
that the Planning Commission~s decisions were based on a composite of the
total input received on a matter; and that once a decision on the zoning
was reached, it would be forwarded to the City Council at which time the
public may once ~gain be heard. It was further pointed out that the process
of the General Plan which put the City at this point involved months of
public hearings and participation by hundreds of citizens of Saratoga. It
was explained that there had been 105 people who originally signed up for
and who indicated a willingness-to participate in the General Plan Citi-
zens Committee in 1973; further, that by the time 'there was a consensus on
the General Plan, the number of participants had dropped to 25. The Secre-
tary explained that the City was now j~st trying to meet the State requirement
which~§tipulates that City land classifications must be consistent wiTh'the
General Plan, and added that what Ms. nCoakley was seeing this evening Was
how this General Plan affected the individual homeowners in the City. It was
further noted that a copy of the City'Code was available in both City libraries.
Commissioner Response
· Commissioner Belanger asked if there was a logical reason why the Zone 3
lines had included Arroyo de Arguello. The Secretary stated that the certi-
fied General Plan Map had been overlaid onto the Zoning Map and the proposed
rezoning lines were a result of this.
Ms. Belanger stated that she too was concerned that the City would be creating
more legal non-conforming lots, and further that the potential for the home-
owners to use their lots would change appreciably. She added that the City
should fit the zoning to the land rather than change the land to fit the
zoning, and that the lines should be drawn relative to topography rather
than parcel lines which were rather arbitrary. Discussion followed on this,
and it was the consensus of the Commission that Zone 3 should be further
studied with regards to changing the General Plan.
Mr. Pecsar suggested the City consider using the 35th segment line as the
dividing line. Mr. Fryer stated that the General Plan had previously been
defined as a gray area, but presently it was being very precisely defined.
He complained that the homeowners whose properties were 'affected by the
General Plan were never notified of this fact. He contended that by using
the argument that the General Plan had b~p_c~Rg~,_!~y~!~ge was being used
to change the zoning. Chairman Marshall pointed out that it would b~_physicall~
impossible to send General Plan notices to all residents within the City;
however, the City did go to great length to publicly notice General Plan hearings.
Commissioner Callon added to this that all citizens were given the opportunity
through public notices to comment on the General Plan, and further that
copies of the General Plan were made available in the City's libraries.
~fINUTES OF JANUARY 22~ 1975
=B. C-178 -TZone 3 - Continued
At this time, Chairman Marshall directed the public hearing on C-178, Zone 3 be
closed at 9:07 p.m., that it be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
February 12, 1975, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for
further review.
ZONE 6
Chairman }~rshall opened the public hearing on C-178, Zone 6 at 9:09 p.m.
Mr. Loewke explained that Zone 6 comprised 13 lots in Tract 3101, 2 lots in
Tract 4253, 3 lots in Tract 3461 and 4 parcels in between Verde Vista Lane
on the north and Malcolm Avenue on the south, bound on the west by R-i-40,000
zoning (very low density), to the east by R4!-12,500 zoning (medium density),
to the south by agricultural zoning, and to the north by R-I-40,000 PC zoning
(very low density, Planned Development). He further explained that in order
to bring the zoning of these properties into consistency with the General Plan,
Staff proposed Zone 6 be rezon~d from R-i-40,000 to medium density, which
Staff interpreted to be_R-l~I5,000.
Citizen Response
® George D~din~er, 20862 Sarahills Drive,__opposed this proposed change of
zoning because it would~devaluate his property. Chairman Marshall ex-
plained that there was only onei one-acre parcel in this ~one, and the re-'
imaining majority '5t parcels fell between .6 and .28 acre. It was further
explained that due to the average slope of these parcels, the maximum num-
ber of lot yield Would not change from the present zoning to the proposed
zoning; i.e., the maximum number of lots under the present as well as pro-
posed zoning would be one lot. With this explanation, Mr. Didinger withdrew
his objection to the proposed zoning.
· A gentlemen in the audience opposed the change of zoning in that lesser set-
backsrequirements could poSsibly'move a neighboring structure too close to
-
his home.
"e'7~g~ Fryer, 14~29 Sara[oga ~li~ad, stated tha['~e proposed zoning would
bring legal non-conforming lots into conformity and he felt this was a logi-
cal step to make.
Commission Action
Commissioner Woodward moved, geconded by Commissioner }~rtin, that the/public
hearing on C-178, Zone 6 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and
the public hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that pursuant
to Section 65860 of the California State Code that the Planning Commission
approve the change of zoning from R-i-40,000 to R-l-15,000 for Zone 1, C~178
per the Staff Report dated January 22, 1975, and that this recommendation be
fon.~arded to the City Council for its!i~pproval. The motion was carried unanimously.
ZO~ 7
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on C-178, Zone 7 at 9:22 p.m.
Mr. Loewke explained that Zone 7 was comprised of 64 lots in Tract 1318, and
3 adjacent parcels comprising 13.83 acres located directly south of Tract 1318.
He explained that Zone 7 was bound on the north and west by properties zoned
R-i-40,000 (very low density), on the east by properties zoned R-l-10,000
(medium density), on the southeast by property zoned R-M-3,Q00 (mutiple-family
residential), on the south by a portion zoned R-M-4,000X (multiple-family
residential), and the remainder properties to the south zoned R-i-40,000 PD
(very low density, planned development). He stated that in order to bring this
zone into consistency with the General Plan which called for low density resi-
density, Staff proposed Zone 7 be rezoned from R-I-40,000 to R-i-20,000.
Chairman Marshall read the recap chart on Zone 7 prepared by Staff into the
record which explained that of the 67 lots involved in Zone 7, the maximam
number of lot yields would remain the same under the present and proposed zoning.
~NUTES OF JANUARY 22~ 1975
B. C-178 - Zone 7 - Continued
It was further noted that only 6 parcels of the 64 lots in Tract 1318 were over
one-acre in size.- Three pieces of correspondence were introduced into the record
on Zone 7: (1) Letter dated January 19, 1975 from John and Sylvia Russ, 21121
Canyon View Drive, opposing the change of zoning proposed for Zone 7. '(2) Letter
dated January 22, 1975 from Edward and Lorna Panelli opposing the change of zon-
ing ~roposed for Zone 7. (3) Letter and petition received January 22, 1975
containing signatures of 6 homeowners residing on Canyon View Drive requesting
the Planning Commission to reject the proposed zoning of Zone 7.
Citizen and Commission Response
· John Haufe, 21210 Canyon View Drive, made the following points: (1) He
stated that the notice of hearing should read Tract 1318 not Tract 1319.
(2) Relative to the 13.83 acres located on-or near Canyon View Drive and
Sullivan Way, Mr. Haufe contended the map showed these acres located south
of Gl~nmont Drive and not near Sullivan Way; further that Tracts 3946 and
3729 (Staff Report should read Tract-3729 not Tract 372) were not involved
'n in this public hearing because they were not adjacent to the 13.83 acres.
(3) Mr. Haufe stated that according to his calculations based on the acreage,
the 64 lots in Tract 1318 would be zoned as follows: R-I-40,000 - 6 lots or
9%; R-i-20,000 - 23 lots or 36%; and less than R-I-20,000 - 35 lots or 55%.
He pointed out that on this basis, to rezone the 64 lots to R-I-20,000 would
be questionable in that most of the lots were less than 20~000 square feet.
(4) Mr. Haufe stated that he felt to rezone the lots in Tract 1318 accord-
ing to actual square footage would result in a hodge-podge effect. He
stated that Tract 1318 had been created without the benefit of a General
Plan and before the incorporation of the City, and suggested that a more
realistic zone would be "R-1-LNC" (residential, legal non-conforming), with
any future rezoning of individual lots being considered on the lot's merits
and based on the General Plan. (5) He pointed out that the Staff Report l~
referred to 7 houses having been built within the last 2 years in Tract 1318,
~'.l and contended that, as a retired president of the mutual water company in this area, only one house had been built in this area during that time.
(6) Mr. Haufe concluded his .r~k'~'B~'~'fng that he felt rezon~ng Z~'fe 7
would not be beneficial to the existingproperty owners; would not be
"reasonably applicable" to most of the lots; and would tend to mislead
future property buyers into believing they were purchasing lots of one-half
acre in size. (Chairman ~rshall noted at this point that the 64-1ot figure
in Tract 1318 was the figure the Commission was using.)
· Thorn ~yes, 21120 Sullivan Way, pointed out that Canyon view Drive essentially
was the dividing line which separated the flat country from the hilly country,
and contended that the zoning around Zone 7, with exception of the flat land,
was zoned R-i-40,000. Mr. Mayes pointed out that the present setbacks were
a very important factor to the homeowners in this area, and that he objected
to the proposed change of zoning because the people living in this area
wanted these.present setbacks retained.
· Judge Panelli, resident of Saratoga, contended that General Plans were for
general planning purposes, and submitted that in this case, the City would
be better to modify the General Plan as opposed to changing the zoning for
the following reasons: (1) Relative to the 13.83 acres of undeveloped
land, he stated that a potential developer would be tempted to seek variances
to get a greater lot yield. He pointed out that insomuch as the slope density
would not allow greater density, why should the City mislead someone into
thinking the densitE was lower than the resultin~ actual .~ield. He added
'that the'City could j~stify keeping the area in the present zoning because
~the boundary lines of those 13.83 acres ran down into the creek. '('~)' He
~contend~d that the setbacks were an important factor to the residents of
/this a~a and that this should be considered.
In response to these statements, Chairman Marshall .pointed out-that there
,were 6 of the 64 lots in question which presently were conforming, and that Under
the proposed zoning change the number would be increased to 32. He stated
that he felt this was a direction in which the City should aim, and added
that most of the variances requested in the~ast in this area had been be-
cause of the substandard widths of the property and the placement of"h0uses.
!It was further pointed out that maintaining an R-I-40,000 zone would not
_necessarily guarantee i~wer density. '
-7-
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22 )75
B. C-178 - Change of Zoning - Zone 7 - Continued
· James Hendry, 21305 Canyon View Drive, stated: "The City has an overriding
requirement for establishing density of residents regardless of zoning,"
and added it appeared to him that the General Plan was in conflict with this
concept. He stated that he felt the City should change the General Plan to
conform with the density requirements on hillside properties rather than
trying to rezone just to conform with a General Plan that might not have
taken slope density properties into consideration. He proposed that Zone 7
should be referred to the General Plan Review Committee and that the General
Plan be revised. Further he agreed with Mr. Haufe's suggestion of designating
the entire tract as legal non-conforming insomuch as over 50% of the lots
involved would not berbenefited by the change.
In reply to this, Chairman ~rshall pointed out that the City had a general
policy of attemtping to abolish all non-conforming uses, and that the pro-
posed zoning would lessen the number of non-conforming lots considerably.
Commissioner Belanger added to this that if the City were trying to bring
all of these lots into conformity, the zone would be required to be R-l-15,000
and not R-I-20,000. Discussion followed on these points, and it was the con-
sensus of the Commission that Staff should prepare a report onithe n~be~f~
'h'6uses in this area whihb met the present setback requirements.
~C.L. Taggert, resident of Saratoga, stated that he felt rezoning this area
to R-I-20,000 would be lending- encouragement to_potential development. He
contended/"the City should not lump this undeveloped land with an area
'Which was developed 20 years ago;" and suggested that the undeveloped land
should be taken out of this zone and left at R-I-40,000 which would provide
a deterrent to future development. It was explained that this would consti-
tute spot zoning.
At this time Commissioner Callon exRressed a concern that potential property
owners were sometimes misled into believing that they could obtain a greater
lot y~eld than the City allowed because of the aRplication of the slope!density
~formula. 7She asked whether there was a way in which Staff could attach
a notatio~ to the zoning explaining that a parcel would be subject to th[ slope
..~ensity formula. Chairman ~rshall explained that the only thing the City
could do was to request potential buyers to check with the Planning Department
prior to buying property. He pointed out that a problem was that many times
realtors were not always cautious about telling potential buyers everything
they needed to know about a lot.
· ~Bud Beaudoin, 13204 Pierce Road, took exception_~? ~his last remark stating
~that he, as a Saratoga realtor, had always been careful in referring buyers to
the City for information of this sort. He stated that a problem realtors
might have if the zone was changed on these 13.83 acres, would be trying to
explain the reason why the City r ezoned this property in the face of a
slope density requirement. He indicated that he felt it would be better
for the City to keep these 3 parcels zoned as they presently were rather
than rezone them. Mr. Beaudoin further pointed out that he had a map from
a title company on Tract 1318 which showed the tract as comprised of 70
parcels, not 55 or 64.
· 'Margaret Chapman, 21221 Canyon View Drive, stated that she was not concerned with
'what happened to the properties in Wildwood Tract per se, but that her con-
cern was with development of the undeveloped parcels into higher density
in that the roads in the area would not be able to handle a higher density.
· '~.~illiam Cunningham, 21070 Canyon View Drive, requested that Staff provide
information on how many houses could be built on the undeveloped 13.83 acres
if the zone was R-I-20,000 PC. H~ stated that a change of zoning from
R-i-40,000 to R-I-20,000 PC would be a "very significant thing, and it would
get the people informed that there was something going on that would effect
us. ~ereas if reduced to R-I-20,000, the slip from R-i-20,000 to
R-i-20,000 PC would be unnoticed by the people who live in the area."
-8-
~-'~ ~-='o ~INUTES OF JANUARY 22 775
B. C-178 - Change of Zoning - Zone 7 - Continued
Connnission Action
At this point Chairman ~rshall closed the public hearing on C-178, Zone 7 at
10:40 p.m., and continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of February 26.
He requested Staff submit details relative to the placement of houses and set-
backs on this area, and that ~a re~ormmendation be provided on whether the 3
undeveloped parcels were subject [o rezoning to a higher density zone.
RECESS: 10:45 to 10;55_D.m.
ZONE 23
Chairman }~rshall opened the public hearing on C-178, Zone 23, at 10:55 p.m.
Mr. Loewke explained that Zone 23 comprised 2 parcels l~Yfed on the west side of
the intersection of Rei'7-. Lane and Saratoga Hills Road, bound~d"on the north by
-propertie~ zoned R-1-12,500 (medium density), to the east by properties zoned
R-l-10,000 (medium density), and on the south and west by properties zoned
R-I-40,000 (very low density). He stated that Staff recommended this zone be
rezoned from R-i-40,000 to R-1-12,500 in order that this area bre-consistent with
'~h~ medium density lan~ use as designated by the 1974 General Plan. He further
noted that the maximum number of lot yield on these two lots would remain the
same under the present or proposed zone. He added that under the proposed rezoning,
the .350-acre parcel, which was currently non-conforming, would become conforming,
whereas the .282-acre parcel, which was also non-conforming, would remain substandard
by'.004 acre.
Citizen Response
;~ Mr. Tom Fryer, 14029 Saratoga Hills Road, stated that he was the owner of one
=of the lots in this zone. He stated that he would prefer to have the property
in this area conformwith the proper zone, and consequently would prefer ..
Zone 23 be rezoned as proposed.
Commission Action
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Betange~, that the public
hearing on Zone 23, C-178 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the
public hearing was closed at 10:58 p.m.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning
Commission approve the Staff Report dated January 22, 1975 on C-178, Zone 23, and
that this be fom~arded to the City Council with the recommendation that Zone 23
be rezoned from R-I-40,000 to R-1-12,500. The motion was carried unanimously.
C. GF-300 - Amendments to Articles and/or Sections of Ordinance NS-3, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga; Continued from January 8~ 1975
The Secretary explained that Sections 18.11 and 18.4 were approved and transferred
to the City Council at the January 8th Planning Commission meeting,...-~nd reported
that Article 15 and Section 4 had been continued to this meeting in 6rder that
a study session date be scheduled. The Secretary suggested January 30, 1975
at 7:30 p.m. in the Crisp Conference Room be the date of the Study Session,
and further suggested this matter be continued to the next Commission meeting.
Chairman ~rshall directed GF-300 be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of February 1~,i~97~ pending the Study Session on same scheduled for
January 30, 1975.
D. V-413 - Betty J. Rudd, 13387 Christie Drive, Request for Variance to Allow a
7-Foot Sideyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 10-Foot Setback, and
to Allow a 7-Foot Rearyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 25-Foot
Setback (Ord. NS-3~ Sect. 3.7); Continued from October 9~=1974
The Secretary:~tated that this had been continued pending completion of report
7on the general'~area problems, and that such report had no~ yet been completed.
He suggested this matter be continued to February 26th. Chairman ~rshall
directed V-413 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 26, 1975
and referred same to Staff for further review and report.
-9-
~...~ ..~.o MINUTES OF JANUARY 22 -~[
E. V-418 - Western Federal Savings and Loan Association, Big Basin Way - Request
for Variance to Allow a Free-Standing Sign Measuring 5' x 6' to be
Located at 14411 Big Basin Way (Ord. NS-3 Section 10.5)
The Secretary suggested the Variance Committee set a date to make an on-site
/{nspection of this Variance report, and recommended continuing V-41'8 to the next
Commission meeting. The Variance Committee scheduled January 26, 1975 at 9:00 a.m.
as the date for the on-site inspection. Chairman Marshall directed V-418 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February .12, 1975, and referred
same to the Variance Committee and Staff for further review and report.
F. UP-261 - Saratoga Cable Television, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Request for
Conditional Use Permit to All~ the Storage of Construction Equipment
and Supplies and a Signal Processing Antenna Site to be Located at
12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Ordinance NS-3, Section 7.3)
Chairman ~rshall opened the public hearing on UP-261 at 11:07 p.m. The Secre-
tary suggested this matter be continued pending an on-site inspection by the
Subdivi~_on Committee to specifically address some of the site problems of the
proposed antenna.
Chairman ~rshall in'troduced into the record a letter dated January 16, 1975
from D.J. Sifferman, president of the Saratoga Manor Homeowners Association,
12400 Greenmeadow Lane, opposing UP-261;on the basis that the(antenna would
be an unsightly structure, and because construction yards ~were not permitted.
under the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Callon asked the time limit involved on Use Permits, and it was
explained that a Use Permit would not expire unless ownership changed, the use
changed or the Commission placed a condition on the Use Permit with a time
limitation on it. Chairman Marshall pointed out that antenna structures were
not subject to the municipal codes, but that there was a 55-foot height limita-
tion on all structures within the City.
Citizen Response
· Ron Giorgi, applicant, pointed out that by Ordinance granting a cable tele-
vision franchise in Saratoga, the City required that a back-up antenna site
be constructed. He explained that the primary signal would be coming from
Gill Cable TV in Santa Clara, and that he was proposing=the following ~'~-
up system: Channels 2, 4 and 5 would be together on the highest antenna
:which would not be higher than 40-feet; Channel~ 7 and 9 would be on one
iantenna; Channel 8 would be on one antenna; Channel 11 w .uld be on one an-
~tenna; Channels 10 and 13 would be together on one antenna; and Channel 3 ,_
~would be on one antenna. He pointed out that the highest antenna would not
~be seen b% the homeowners on Via Roncole because of the existing homesite
;and trees directly adjacent to this proposed site. tte contended that only
'5 feet of the antenna would be seen from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road because of
/the existing hardware store and also because of the building directly in
/ front of the proposed site. He stated that relative to the construction
: yard itself, construction equipment in the yard would vary in quantity as
:tj__e_j~st_e_~__~a__s__~~_ and that there would be no construction vehicles
!traveling in and out during the.weekends. :
· Mr. Sifferman, 12400 Greenmeadow Lane, stated that relative to. the screeniSg
of the facility, he would argue that the lumber yard provided screening ~o'.
the San Jose area, but relatively poor screening to the bulk of Saratoga to
the south; further that there would be no screening provided at all to the
residents to the west along Via Roncole and to the south. Also, he contended
that the lumber yard would provide no screening to motorists driving north
on Saratoga-SunnyVale Road. Mr. Sifferman argued that the noise level would
be essentially the same at any repeater site in the City since the distance
from Santa Clara was negligible, and suggested a microwave link from Santa
Clara to Saratoga with a single dish of 2-feet diameter .be used which :
would have zero visual impact. Mr. Sifferman contended that ~hiie antenna
structures might not fall within the City Code, the fact that an array of 10
different antennas mounted on a large structure that was not an antenna
structure but..~at~'r a very large platform would. He suggested mounting the
-10-
~?.,.~ .,~ ~. MINUTES OF JANUARY 22~
F. UP-261 - Saratoga Cable Television~ Inc. - Continued
facility atop a building in the City, such as West Valley College or Paul
~s!son Winery, would provide less visual impact, or use a crank-up telescopic
antenna which would also have low visual impact but would make the antennas
available for emergency uses.
To the latter statement, Mr. Giorgi pointed out that there were no buildings
of this sort available in the City of Saratoga that he could use in that
there was a 55-foDt height limitation on all structures-Y~iih'i'~ the City.
Commission Action
Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on UP-261 at 11:45 p.m., and continued
same to the Planning Commission meeting of February 12, 1975. He referred the
matter to the SubdivisionsCommittee and Staff for an on-site inspe__ction~.. further
review and report, and requested Mr..Giorgi and Mr. Sifferman to submit reports'
summing up alternatives which might mitigate this situation.
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SD-1112 - Alan Chadwick, Pierce Road, Subdivision Approval - 8 Lots; (Expira-
tion extended to January 22~ 1975); Continued from October 9~ 1974
The Secretary explained this matter had been continued pending completion of
the Saratoga NorthWest Circulation Study. He pointed out that this Study would
be presented to the City Council at its meeting of February 5, 1975, and that
time would be required for the Council to adequately review the report. Conse-
quently, the Secretary suggested this matter be continued to the Commission meet-
ing of February 26, 1975, and noted that the applicant had submitted a letter
granting an extension to this meeting. Chairman Marshall directed SD-1112 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 26, 1975, and referred
same toYthe Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
B. SDR-1154 - Beck Enterprises, Walnut Avenue, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots
(Expiration extended to January 22~ 1975); Continued from Jan. 8, 1975
The Secretary reported that the Subdivision Committee and Staff had met with the
applicant~s representatives and representatives-of the Santa Clara Valley Water
District to discuss the Water District's requirements. He pointed out that the
Water District would require extensive improvements along the creek regardless
of the extent of the development, and consequently, the applicant was consider-
ing applying for a 7-lot subdivision in lieu of the 3-lot subdivisiDn. The
Secretary further reported that the applicant had submitted a letter granting
an extension of this application to the Commission meeting of February :12, 1975
recommended SDR-1154 be continued to same.
Discussion followed on whether the Water District's conditions to the City were
binding or advisory. Staff was requested to obtain a determination from the
City Council on the City's policy regarding the Water District's conditions, and
to report same at the next Commission meeting. Chairman Marshall directed
SDR-1154 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 12, 1975,
and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review
and report.
C. SDR-1158 - ~tt Vsros, Pierce Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires
February 4~ 1975); Continued from January 8~ 1975
The Secretary stated that a Staff Report had been prepared on this matter which
recommended approval. Mr. Voros, applicant, was present and indicated acceptance
of the conditions of the Staff Report.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission approve application SDR-1158 and tentative map (Exhibit "A") subject
to the conditions of the Staff Report dated January 22, 1975. The motion was
carried unanimously.
-11-
MINUTES OF 'JANUARY 22 _1975
D. SDR-1159 - John Carey, Fruitvale Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires February 8~ 1975)~ Continued from January 8~ 1975
The Secretary stated that the file was.not complete on this matter, and reported
that the applicant had submitted a letter granting an extension of SDR-1159 to
February 12, 1975. Chairman ~rshall directed SDR-1159 be continued to the
Planning Commission meeting of February 12, 1975, and referred same to the Subdi-
vision Committee and Staff for further revi~ and report.
E. SDR-1160 - Jerome Gilmore, Austin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires February 14~ 1975); Continued from January 8~ 1975
The Secretary stated that the file was not complete on this matter, and suggested
same be continued to the next meeting. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1160 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 12, 1975, and referred
same to t~e Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
F. SDR-1161 - Margolis, Chatsky and Dunnett, APC, 4th Street and Big Basin wal
Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires February 15, ~97~; Continued
from January 8~ 1975
The Secretary stated that the file was not complete on this matter, and suggested
same be continued to the next meeting. Chairman ~rshall directed SDR-1161 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 12, 1975, and referred
same to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
G. SDR-1162 - Vincent Cantacessi, Ten Acres Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires February 18~ 1975)
The Secretary stated that the file was not complete on this matter, and suggested
same be continued to the next meeting. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1161 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 12, 1975, and referred
same to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-447 - George Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review,
Tract 5408~ Lot #4
Mr. Loewke stated that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this application,
and a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval. He added that
the applicant's representative was aware of and approved the conditions of the
Staff Report.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the' Planning
Commission grant design review approval to Application A-447 per Exhibit D and
subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated January 22, 1975. The
motion was carried unanimously.
B. A-462 - Rividend Industries, Saratoga Avenue and Christie Drive, Final Design
Review - 14 Lots; Continued from January 8~ 1975
Mr. Loewke stated that the applicant had submitted a letter granting an exten-
sion to February 26, 1975 insomuch as considerations were being given to re-
location of several houses. Chairman Marshall directed A-462 be continued to
the Planning Commission meeting of February 26, 1975, and referred same to the
Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report.
V. E~zlRONMENTAL I}~ACT DETEP~IINATIONS
The Secretary reported there were no environmental impact determinations filed
between the period of January 9, 1975 and January 22, 1975.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
A. SDR-1047 - John McLaughlin, Pierce Road and Via Re~i~a - 2 Lots; Request for
One-Year Extension
The Secretary stated this was th~ first request for extension, and recommended
a one-year extension be granted.
-12-
~'= --~-~RNUTES OF JANUARY 22 )75 '
A. SDR-1047 - John McLauShlin - Continued
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission grant a one-year extension to SDR-1047. The motion was carried
u~animously.
VII. CO~%~ICATIONS - WRITTEN
The follm~ing written correspondence was introduced into the record:
A. Memorandum from Parks & Recreation Commission dated January 15, 1975 relative
to recommended changes of the 'Subdivision iOrdinance.
B. Letter dated January 13, 1975 from Donald K. Norling, 21000 Comer Drive, rela-
tive to the 6-month extension granted R.J. Hunter (SDR-1037) by the City Council
at its meeting of January 7, 1975. It was noted this letter had been directed
to the City Council, with a carbon copy to the Planning Commission.
C. Letter dated January 14, 1975 from Dr. Henry Smith, 21029 Bank Mill Lane,
relative to C-178, Zone ~7. Staff was directed to place this in File C-178.
D. Letter dated January 16, 1975 from D.J. Sifferman, 12400 Greenmeadow Lane,
opposing approval of UP-261. Staff was directed to place this in File UP-261.
E. Letter dated January 17, 1975 from Helen Ulrich Hall, 20865 Wardell Road, in
reply.to Mr. Charles Hunter's letter relative to the Parker Ranch development,
as published in the January 15, 1975 coR!_of the SaratoSa News. Staff was
directed to place this letter in File C-172.
F. Planning Policy Committee of Santa Clara Minutes of November 21, 1974, and
Agenda of January 23, 1975.
G. Northwest Saratoga Circulation Master Plan Study dated December 17, 1974.
H. Letter dated January 20, 1975 from William E. Heiss, representative of Blackwell
Homes, requesting extension of C-172 to February 12, 1975. Staff was directed
to place this letter in File C-172.
I. Letter dated January 20, 1975 from Clifford Beck, Civil & Construction Consul-
tants, Inc., ~ranting an extension of SDR-1154 eo February 5, 1975. Staff was
directed to place this letter in File SDR-1154.
J. Letter dated January 19, 1975 from Sylvia and John Russ, 21121 Canyon View
Drive, opposing the zoning change of C-178, Zone 7. Staff was directed to
place this in File C-178.
K. Letter and petition received January. 22, 1975 from 6 residents residing on
Canyon View Drive opposing the zoning change of Zone 7, C-178. Staff was
directed to place this in File C-178.
L. Letter dated January 22, 1975 from Edward and Lorna C. Panelli opposing the
change of zoning of Zone 7, C-178. Staff was directed to place this in File C-178.
M. Letter dated April 16, 1974 from Santa Clara Valley Water District relative to
Parker Ranch development. It was noted that Mr. Nichols of the Water District
requested this letter be brought to the attention of the Commission with the
explanation that the Water District's comments had not changed on this matter
since April 1974.
N. Letter dated January 22, 1975 from Fremont High School District opposing the
change of zoning on C-178, Zone ~1. Staff was directed to place this in File C-178.
O. Letter dated January 21, 1975 from Judy vance,-'t9363 Athos Place, opposing the
rezoning of the Parker Ranch Site. Staff was directed to place this in File C-172.
P. Letter and petition received January 22, 1975 from Vicki Vance and 52 other
individuals opposing development of the Parker Ranch Site. S[aff was directed
to place this in File C-172.
-13 -
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22. 975
VII. WRITTEN CO~RINICATIONS - Continued
Q. Letter dated January 21, 1975 from C~mmissioner Charles Smith, 15270 Norton Road,
noting that the JanUary 22, 1975 Commission meeting would be last meetinB he
~would serve as Commissioner. Mr. Smith explained that due to health reasons he
~would be unable to attend this meeting, but added: "I'm sorry, for I wanted to
personally thank all of those who worked so conscientiously for the good of o~r
.City." He~further added: "The years have taught me that true service can result
~_o~!_y.__wh__e_n_~.~r~_o~al and local aims are not allowed to influence o~r thinking in
i deciding what is best for the entire City. I am confident that under the guidance
of the present Commissioners, the new Commissioners will continue to serve as
effectively as in the past." Chairman Marshall, on behalf of the Commission,
proposed a Resolution expressing appreciation be drafted by the next Commission-
:meetin~ for__presentation to Mr. Smith. Further, the Commission requested Chairman
7Marshall write a letter to Mr. Smith "expressing our appreciation and good feelings."
VII. COMMUNICATIONS - ORAL
A. REORGANIZATION
Chairman Marshall pointed out that the second meeting of January each year had
been set aside for election of a new Chairman, Vi~=e-Chairman and Secretary;
further, zthat reorganization of each Committee. Should also take place.
(1) ELECTION
a. LThe Secretary opened the floor to nominations' for Chairperson.
Commissioner Belanger nominated Mr. Marshall for'.Chairperson, and in
so doing expressed the Commission's appreciation for the work 'done
by him in the past year.
Commissioner ~rtin moved, seconded by Commissioner Belange_lr~_that
the nominations for Chairperson be closed. The motion was carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that
Mr. Marshall be reelected _to position of Chairman of.of the Planning
~Commission. The motion was carried; Commissioner Marshall abstained.
'~Chairman ~rshall stated that he felt honored for the reelection, and
that he al-so felt an obligation and responsibility for carrying out
his duties. He stated that he hoped he would always try t9 the best
interest of the total of the City, and at the same time be fair to each
individual. He concluded his remakrs by soliciting comments and inpu~
~from each Commissioner during the course of his term.
b. Chairm~n Marshall opened the floor to~nominations for Vi.c~-Chairperson.
Commissioner Woodward nominated Commissioner Belanger for~Vice-Chairperso~.
Chairman ~rshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, ~hat the
nominations. be closed for Vice-.Chairperson. The motion was carried
unanimously.
Chairrmn Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that
Commissioner Belanger be elected to the position of ViceSChairperson
of the Planning Commission. The motion was carried; Commissioner
Belanger abstained.
c. ~h~irman ~h~rl opene~"~h~fl~Y to nominations '~ S~cretary. %
Chairman }~rshall nominated Marty Van Duyn for Secretary, adding that
the nomination was not on the basis of his: being required to be Secre~
.tary but rather on the basis of the good job he had done in ~he past.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that
Marty Van Duyn be reelected to the position of Secretary of the
Planning Commission. The motion was carried unanimously.
-14-
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22 [975
VII. ORAL CO~RINICATIONS - Continued
(2) Committee Reorganization
Chairman Marshall suggested that insomuch as there were two vacancies on the
Planning Commission which were yet to be filled by the City Council,
Committee reorganization be postponed until these vacancies are filled.
He did, however, ask for !comments relative to Committee organization, and-
the following comments were made:
a. The General Plan Review Committeezshould be treated as a Committee-of-
'the-I~ole meeting to be held four times per ~ear.
b. Commissioner Belanger volunteered to representsthe Saratqga Planning__
Commission at the Planning Policy Committeetof Santa Clara Count%
zmeetings. Commissioner Woodward volunteered to be alternate,.and Staff
was requested to notify PPC of this change.
c. Commissioner ~rtin was asked to remain'as Chairperson of the Variance
Committee, and he indicated. acceptance of this position.
d. Commissioner Belanger was asked to become Chairperson of the Subdivi-
sion Committee, and she indicated acceptance of this position.
Commissioner Callon and Chairman ~rshall both indicated an interest
of serving on this Committee.
e. Commissioner Woodward ~as asked to remain ias Cbairpers0n of the Design
Review Committee, and she indicated acceptance of this position.
f. Commissioner Callon suggested~that Commissioners consider rotating
Committee positions on a monthly basis in order ~t every Commissioner
be given the opportunity to serve o~'~ach Commi[tee.
g. Chairman Marshall suggested.that instead of each Commissioner serving
in an observatory capacity at City Council meetings, each Commissioner
serve as a representative'and spokesman of the Planning. Commission in
order that he may offer assistance via public testimony at Council
meetings. Chairman ~rshall requested the Secretary to query the Mayor
on changing the role of Commission observer to one of Commission
spokesman, and report his determination at the next meeting.
B. Commissioner Woodward proposed Staff request allocations for covering fees
for the Commissioners to attend.Commission-oriented seminars and meetings.
The Secretary reported that he had been investigating the possibility of budgeting
such an allocation in next year's budget, and would keep the Commissioners
posted on the development of this budget.
C. Commissioner Woodward reported that relative to the CC&R's of Tract 4768,
Osterlund Enterprises~ had been located,. reviewed and aRproved by the City
Attorney as requested at the January 8, 1975 Commission_meeting.
D. ~ouncilwoman Corr was present at the Commission meeting of Jsmuary 22, 1975,
and Mrs. Maus of the Good Government Group served coffee.
VIII. ADJOLrRN}~NT
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission meeting 6f January 22, 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried
unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 1:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
rty V'i~nDuyn~/
-15-