HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-23-1975 Planning Commission Minutes~ ~._~-~-i ~[INUTES OF FEBRUARY ii975
VI. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Continued
B. PPC minutes of January 23, 1975 and PPC agenda of February 27, 1975.
C. Letter dated February 19, 1975 from Richard Gardella, attorney at law, request-
ing copies of the Commission minutes of meetings held on January 22, 1975,
January 30, 1975 and February 12, 1975, as well as copies of the two examples
of application relative to GF-300. It was noted that the City Manager had
replied to this request and that he had explained that there had not been a
Commission meeting of January 30, 1975 and as a consequence there were no
minutes; however, copies of the other materials requested were sent.
D. 'Letter'received February 25, 1975 from the Board of Supervisors, County of
Santa Clara, relative to adding to the County PlanL~Scenic Highway Element.
E. Memorandum from the City Manager referring to the Commission for its review
a proposed Slope Conservation Zoning Ordinance submitted by John Weir, president
of the Greater Arguello Homeowners Association. Staff was directed' to make this
part of the proposed Slope Conservation Ordinance file.
F. Amended City Council schedule for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Callon
asked the status of the request to the City Council on whether the Commissioners
could act in a representative capacity at Council meetings instead of just an
observing role. The Secretary reported that he had forwarded a memorandum to
the City Manager regarding this inquiry, but had not yet received a reply.
VI. CO~ICATIONS - ORAL
A. Committee Reorganization. Chairman .Marshall requested the Commissioners give
consideration 7~ ~'~ ~C Committees ~h~ W~dl~ pre~r'~'~'~v~'~n,'
him regarding these preferences before the next Commission meeting. He indi-
cated that Committee assignments would be made at the Commission meeting of
March 12, 1975.
B. The City Attorney reported to the Commission that effective March 1, 197~ a
new Subdivision Map Act requirement would mandate that Staff Reports on all
subdivisions and building site approvals be delivered to the applicants three
days prior to the Planning Commission meeting on ~,~ich their matters'were
agendized.
C. Chairman Marshall requested Staff forward a letter to all homeowner associations
within the City requesting the following information: (1) who represented the
association; (2) what authority did he have, as well as a copy of minutes
'ahth'or~zing his authority; (3) the number of residents within the association;
(4) was the association incorporated and whether it had bylaws; and (5) how
often general meetings were held and how frequently votes were taken.
D. Commissioner Belanger pointed out that there was a pending application from
Mr. Margolis (SDR-1160) and at the same time the City had continuing code vio-
lations by him with regard to his law business. She asked how these two
matters were to be treated, and the City A~torney responded that they would
be handled as two separate items.
E. The Secretary recommended a Committee-of-the-I~ole meeting be scheduled to
discuss the proposed Hillside Slope Conservation Ordinance. It was agreed
that this meeting would be held in the Crisp Conference Room at 7:30 p.m.
8n March 13, 1975.
F. Chairman Marshall acknowledged the presence of Councilman Krause, and expressed
appreciation to Ms. Aberle of the Good Government Group for serving coffee.
VIII. ADJOLrI~\~NT
Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission meeting of February 26, 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried
unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
Marty Van Du~Secretary
/
-13-
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~fISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, February 12, 1975 - 7:30 p.m.
PLAEE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGA2NIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Marshall, ~rtin and Woodward
Absent: Commissioner Callon
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the read-
ing of the minutes of January 22, 1975 be waived, and that they be approved
as distributed to the~Commission subject to the following corrections:
page 2, last sentence of Ms. Coakley'S response: 69 homes not 94 homes;
page 2, last sentence of Mr. CrowtherZs response: Section 4(A) not Section r(A);
page 4, fourth sentence of third paragraph: misspelling of word "allegation;"
page 5, fifth sentence of third paragraph and second sentence of sixth para-
graph: misspelling of word "affected';"
page 9, Item GF-300 was continued to the Commission meeting of February 12,
1975 not February 5, 1975; and
page 10, third sentence of sixth paragraph: microwave link not microwave length.
The motion to approve the minutes of January 22, 1975 was carried;- Con{missioner
~rtin abstained.
C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
The Secretary stated that Commissioner Callon had submitted a written report of
the City~CSuncil meeting of February 5, 1975. Of special interest to the
Commission were the following items:
(1) Presentation was given by ~. DeLeuw, traffic consultant hired by the
City, on the Northwest Saratoga Traffic Circulation Master Plan Study.
A joint session between the Council, Commission and Staff was scheduled
for February 25, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Crisp Conference Room to re-
view this Study.
(2) City Council delayed action on the Parker Ranch EIR (CE-172) until a
recommendation was received from the Planning Commission regarding the
change of zoning request (C-172). The Secretary explained that the
Council wished to hold all public hearings on the Parker Ranch change
of zoning application at the same time.
(3) City Council took under advisement a suggestion made by Mr. Crowther,
20788 Norada Court, to provide an interpretative document explaining to
the .layman proposed changes to various City documents. It was explained
that as a basis for this request, Mr. Crowther felt that preliminary
statements made at a public hearing in support of the Hillside Conserva-
tion Ordinance adopted two years ago by the City Council were not carried
out in the Ordinance itself.
~: ~ ~INUTES OF FEBRUARY 12~ 1975
D. RESOLUTION
The following Resolution was read into the record:
RESOLUTION 119
RESOLUTION of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga in appre-
ciation to Commissioner Charles H. Smith for his service to the City of
Saratoga.
WHEREAS, Commissioner Charles H. Smith has served with distinction on
the Planning Commission since 1957; and
WHEREAS, by his devotion of time and energy, dedication to the goals of
the City and proficiency in a~plying-ordinances and policies to planning, he
has made major long-term contributions to all of the residents of Saratoga;
and
I~EREAS, his leadership of the Subdivision Committee and dedication to
high standards of ethics and conduct have served to train and inspire his
fellow Commissioners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, :that the members of the Planning Commis-
sion of the City of Saratoga hereby expresses their gratitude for Commissioner
Smith's many contributions to the City, to the Commission, and to the indivi-
dual Commissioners and extend their best wishes for the future.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of
California, on this 12th day of February 1975 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Belanger, Marshall, }~rtin and Woodward
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Callon
The Resolution was signed by Chairman Gerald S. Marshall, and attested to by
Commissioners Belanger, }fartin, Woodward and Secretary Van Duyn.
Chairman Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission adopt Resolution 119 dated February 12, 1975. The motion was
carried unanimously.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C-178 - City of Saratoga, Change of Zoning of Certain Parcels to be Consistent
with the 1974 General Plan for the City of Saratoga, Zone #3; Continued
from January 22~ 1975
The Secretary reported that upon reexamination of Zone 3 and its status with
respect to the 1974 General Plan, it was determined that Zone 3 would be con-
tained within the proposed Hillside Conservation District. It was pointed out
that the Hillside Conservation District would make Zone 3 consistent with the
1974 General Plan, and on this basis, Staff recommended C-178, Zone 3 be re'-
moved from the agenda.
Chairman Marshall directed C-178, Zone 3 proceedings be discontinued, and
further directed Staff advise Zone 3 property o~ners of this action.
B.' GF-300 - Amendments to Articles and/or Sections of Ordinance NS-3, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga; Continued from January 22, 1975
The Secretary reported that a Study Session had been held on this item January 30,
but that a quorum of Commissioners had not been present. He explained that the
three Commissioners present however had proceeded with the discussions, and
that Staff presented an anlysis of examples for consideration of applicability
to the proposed Ordinance. It was noted that the City Attorney had been requested
to investigate some of the comments raised at this meeting, and that Staff
-2-
~NUTES OF FEBRUARY 1 975
B. GF-300 - Amendments to Articles of Ordinance NS-3 - Continued
reconmended GF-300 be continued to the next Commission meeting pending comments
by the City Attorney and further review by the Commission. A brief Study Session
was scheduled immediately following the February 12, 1975 Commission meeting.
Chairman ~rshall directed GF-300 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of February 26, 1975,~and refe~d'iame to the Commission and Staff for further
review at the Study Session scheduled February 12, 1975.
C. 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 (Ordinance NS-3, Section 10.5);
Continued from January 22~ 1975
Chairman ~rshall opened the public hearing on V-418 at 7:58 p.m. The Secretary
reported that Staff and the Variance-Committee visited this site on January 25,
and that no justification was found for granting a variance under the Ordinances
of the City. He further reported that a Staff Report had been prepared recom-
mending denial of V-418 on the basis that: (1) the sign would be illuminated;
(2) the sign would constitute a commercial advertisement sign rather than a
parking directional sign in that the sign was proposed to read '~tern ~ederal
Savings and Loan" in 10" letters with "Parking" below in 7" letters; (3) the
sign would be freestanding, and the area of the sign would exceed 6 square feet,
two factors which could result in a sight-distance problem.
Mr. Carl Lux, representative of the applicant, explained that the 15-foot high
sign had been proposed in order to allow bank customers. ~'{~ ~'~ driveway
entrance adequate sight distance under the sign. He stated that the illuminated
feature of the sign was not necessary in that the building would be flood lit in
the evenings, and in that the bank would not be open in the evenings very often.
Mr. Duque, another representative of the applicant, explained that the parking
sign was intended for the use of Western Federal Savings and Loan clientele only,
adding that the applicant felt a readily identifiable sign was needed because
Western Federal was a new business in the community, and the location of the
business was near a ~usy intersection. He added that at a future time it might
not be necessary to have a parking sign if the proposed parking district was
adopted by the City.
Discussion followed on these remarks, and it was the consensus of the Commission
that an alternative parking sign should be investigated. It was felt that a free-
standing parking sign could be erected which met the 6-square-foot limitation
thereby voiding the need for a variance; further, that the sign should hot be
of an advertising nature but only a parking directional sign.
Chairman ~rshall closed the public hearing on V-418 at 8:15 p.m., directed
same be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 26, 1975, and
referred this matter to the Design Review Committee, Varianc~ Committee and
Staff for further review and report.
D. UP-261 - Saratoga Cable Television, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Request for
Conditional Use Permit to Allow the Storage of Construction Equipment
and Supplies and a Signal Processing Antenna Site to be Located at
12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Ord. NS-3, Sec. 7.3); Continued from
January 22~ 1975
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-261 at 8:16 p.m. The Secretary
stated that the Subdivision Committee and Staff inspected the site on February 8,
and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval of UP-261.
Commissioner Belanger reported that two members of the Subdivision Committee had
/'inspected'~'site on FebrUary'B, and had'been primarily concerned with re-
Viewing the site from the back property lines of those homes directly adjacent
to the site. She reported that two two-story homes presently had bad v~ews
from their backyards of the railroad tracks, and that the Committee had not felt,
the antenna site would have sufficient additional impact in changing those
home~ners' present view. It was pointed out that the Committee had felt
with the screening provided by the Hubbard-Johnson building, the antenna would
-3-
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12 1975
D. UP-261 - Saratoga Cable Television~ Inc. - Continued
would have a low impact on the horizon to the remainder of the residents in the
area. It was added, however, that this did not mean the C6mmittee endorsed the
homeowners! present view, but that the Cox~f~ittee had discussed ~ith the applicant
the possibility of planting trees along the inside of the cyClone-fence for
screening purposes. It was noted that in considering other locations within the
City, such as Quito, the Committee felt the impact on the large number of homes
would be greater than in this proposed location; further that..it felt the visual
impact of installing an antenna system atop West Valley College or Paul Masson
Winery would be much greater than installing it closer to the ground.
7'O~'piece ~f' corres~'~e was ~'6F~oduced into the record: letter ~e~eived
February' 7, 1975 from D.J. Sifferman, president of the Saratoga Manor Ho~eowners
Association, opposing granting a Use Permit on this application.
Citizen and Commissioner Response
· Russell Cr~¢ther, 20788 Norada Court, stated that he-'represented the Arguel~lo
'H0meowners Association and would like to support Mr.'Sifferman's letter. He
stated that they were concerned with the open storage yard and would like to
see requirements placed on this application requiring a closed storage
facility; further that they would like to see the antenna structure designed
in such a way that it could be raised and lowered.
· Mr. D.J. Sifferman, 12400 Greenmeadow Lane and president of the Saratoga
Manor Homeowners Association, made the following points:
(1) As residents of the City, they were not so concerned about this Use
Permit per se, but were more-concerned about the whole Gateway area
of the City. He stated.that they felt the tide should be turned
' about doing somethix{g; constructive about improving the view motorist~
have when entering the City from the Gateway entrance.
(2) He contended that the sight Of this facility could be in another
location within the City wh~e there would be a minimal visual impact.
(3) He pointed out that the City's Zoning Ordinance allowed televisim
and radio broadcasting studios in the City's C-C zone, and that in-
somuch as this antenna facility was associated with this use, a C-V
zone was not the proper district for this site.
(4) He suggested that a solution to the negative impact this antenna site
would have in any location Within the City would be to require a sing-
.gle dish micro-wave antenna.
· Commissioner Martin stated that he had visited the site on his own, and
had determined that he'did not feel the antenna structure would be that
detrimental to the area. However, he questioned whether this proposed
location was the best site from a viewpoint of economics to the residents
of the City. Further, Commissioner Martin expressed a concern that this
secondary signal source could possibly become a primary signal source if
something happened to the Gill Cable T.V. Company.
In answer to Commissioner Martin's remark regarding the location of this
facility, Mr. Giorgi explained that an antenna site could be as much as
5 miles from the farthest user and still meet the mandated specifications
of the FCC. Regarding the question of a primary signal source, it was noted
that the Saratoga City Council required a secondary signal source within
'the City in the event that something happened to the primary source. It
was pointed out that fundamentally this antenna system could be, from an
Ordinance point of view, a primary-'antenna system in the City; but tech-
nically would be a backup antenna system in that the primary electrical
signals would be piped from Santa Clara. Mr. Giorgj!_~licap~.'.~_!~presen-
tative, explained that negotiations were still in;progress between Saratoga
Cable T.V. and Gill Cable T.V., and that a contract had not'yet been signed,
adding that the length of the franchise would be 15 years.
In light of this comment, and in order to provide p~otection to the City that
' the antenna site would remain a secondary system, Chairman Marshall suggested
a condition be added to the Staff Report which stipulated that the primary
-4-
· ' . .~ ._MY_MT~T~s nF ~EBRUARY 12.1975
·, e
D. UP-261 - Saratoga Cable Television, Inc. - Continued
signal source would be p~oy~_. f__r_om Gill Cable T.V. in Santa Clara. i'~p~n'.';
consideration of this suggestion, it was recommended that the UP-261 Staff
Report ~e modified to include Conditions (4) and (5) under Recon~nend~a Action
as follows:
(4)No change or increase in size or complexity of backup antennas on
site allowed.
(5) The primary signal Source will be Gill Cable Television in Santa Clara,
California.
· Fred Tator, 20577 Manor Drive, stated that he felt the Commission was being
asked to make a decision on this matter without the benefit of a formal
documented plan. He further pointed out that the applicant had indicated
eventually using this antenna facility as a broadcasting studio, adding that
Cit '
according to the y s Ordinance~ as he understoo4/T~'~broadcasting
studio could be placed in a C-C zone not a C-V zone. He urged the Commission
obtain answers on these points before granting a Use Permit on an antenna
"which we will have in the City ;for a long time."
Commission Action
Discussion followed-on the above comments, and it was the Commission's consensus
that this matter be continued pending further investigation of other locations
within the City. Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on UP-261 at
9:24-p.m., directed same be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
February 26, 1975, and referred this' matter to the Subdivision Committee and
Staff for further review and report.
..... RECESS: 9:25-9:40 p.m.
III. BUILDING SITES AND SLYDIVISIONS '--
A. SDR-1154 - Beck Enterprises, Walnut Avenue, Building Site Approval - 4 Lots
(Expiration Extended to February 12, 1975); Cont. from Jan. 22, 1975
The Secretary reported that a letter had been submitted from the applicant grant-
ing an extension of SDR-1154 to the Commission meeting of March 12, 1975, and
recommended this matter be continued. Chairman Marshall ~irected SbR~IrS~'be
continued to the Planning Commission meetin~ of March 12, 1975, and' referred same
to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
The Secretary stated that letters granting extensions to the Commission meeting of
February 26, 1975 had been received on the following applications, and recommended
these matters be continued:
B. SDR-1159 - John Carey, Austin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires
February 12~ 1975)~ Continued from January 22~ 1975
C. SDR-1160 - Jerome Gilmore, Austin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires
February 12~ 1975); Continued from January 22~ 1975
Chairman ~rshall directed applications SDR-1159 and SDR-1160 be continued to the
Planning Commission meeting of February 26, 1975, and referred same to the Subdivi-
sion Committee and Staff for further review and report.
D. SDR-1161 - Margolis, Chatzky & Dunnett, APC, 4th Street and Big Basin Way,
Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires February 15, 1975); Con-
tinued from January 22, 1975
The Secretary stated that many problems associated with this application had not
as yet been resolved by the applicant, and Staff recoum~ended this matter be con-
tinued. He pointed out that the applicant was aware of, but had not submitted,
a letter granting an~extension to the Commission meeting of February 26, 1975.
"'7~"'~ ............. ' ......... °" ~-""~-'~"?"":"-'
...... ;.~-.Z_Z_ .-~- --: .' --""' - "';:'-- -_. - -~ -- ~--'.~.- -7 - "-- - .,
-':Y-'
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10975
D. S~DR~ll61 - Marg~lis, Chatzky.& Dunnett,.APC - Continued --
Conmissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission deny application SDR-1161 subject to receipt of a written extension
to the Planning Commission meeting of February 26, 1975 prior to the expiration
date of February 15, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
E. SDR-1162 - Vincent Cantacessi, Ten Acres Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires February 15~ 1975)~ Continued from January 22~ 1975
The Secretary stated that the Subdivision C~m~,ittee had reviewed this matter,
and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval be granted to
this application. The 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 SDR-1162r~and the tentative maps (Exhibits A and B) subject to
the Staff Report dated February 12, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
The Secretary stated that the files were not complete on the following applications,
and recon~nended these items be continued:
F. SDR-1163 - Albert Dutton, La Paloma Way, Building Site Approval - 2 Lots (Expires
March 4~ 1975)
G. SDR-1164 - Frank C. Shepherd,. Douglass Lane and Taos Drive, Building Site Approval
4 Lots (Expires 18~ 1975)
Chairman Marshall directed applications SDR-1163 and SDR-1164 be continued to the
Planning Commission meeting of February 26, 1975, and referred same to the Subdivi-
sion Committee and Staff for further review and report.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-464 - James B. Murphy, Pike Road, Final Design Review Approval - Single-Family
Residence - 1 Lot
Mr. Loewke, Planner I, stated that this matter had been reviewed by the Design
Revi~ Committee on February 4, 1975, and a Staff Report had been prepared
recommending approval be granted. The applicant was present and indicated
acceptance of the conditions of the Staff Report.
Discussions followed on the amount of cut and fill required on this lot, and
Commissioner Woodward recommended Condition (1) be added to the Staff Report
under Recommended Action as follows:
(1)Landscaping of cut and fill areas with suitable planting material for
erosion control subject to Staff approval.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Plan-
ning Commission grant final design review approval on Application A-464,
Exhibit A, subject to the Staff Report dated February 12, 1975 as amended.
The motion was carried unanimously.
B. SS-80 - Osterlund Enterprises, Fruitvale Avenue and San ~rcos Road, Final
Design Review Approval - Subdivision Identification Sign
Mr. Loewke stated this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee,
and a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval be granted. He
noted that a temporary identification sign had been approved by the Planning
Commission on December 11, 1974 calling for a 3'x6' single-facing sign on the
north corner of Fruitvale Avenue and San Marcos Road. He explained that said
sign was not visible from the north along Fruitvale Avenue, and the applicant
had consequently submitted new drawings showing the location of the sign
straddling a portion of the tract fence being 3-feet in height, and showing
the sign to be double-faced.
_6-
1~.975
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY
B. SS-80 - Osterlund Enterprises - Continued
~l~cussion followed' on whether this sign would create a sight distance problem,
and Mr. Trinidad, Public Works Department, assured the Commission that no
problem would exist at the present street alighment. Commissioner Woodward
recommended Condition (1) be added to the Staff Report under Rec~fm~ended Action
as follows:
(1)Sign approval to expire within one-year of date of approval of thi~
Staff Report.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Plan-
ning Commission grant final design review approval to Application SS-80,
Exhibits B and B-l, subject to the Staff Report dated February 12, 1975 as
amended. The motion was carried unanimously.
V. ENVIROnmeNTAL I}~ACT DETERMINATIONS
The following Negative DeClarations were filed between January 22, 1975 and
February 12, 1975:
A. SDR-1163 - Albert Dutton,-La Paloma Way, Building Site Approval - 2 Lots
B. ~S~i~ - ~/~'~'~'~'~pher~"/'~6~'gi~ Lane and Taos Drive, Buildlng Site
Approval'- 4 LOts
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
A. SDR-1064 - C.J. Hinderman, Victor Place - 1 Lot - Request for One-Year Extension
The Secretary stated this was the first request for a one-year extension on
-this matter, adding that the t~ative 'b~{l'di~g site approval had been granted
by the Planning CommiSsion on August 13, 1973.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that a one-
year extension be granted on SDR-1064. The motion was carried unanimously.
VII. CO~I~ICATIONS - WRITTEN
The following pieces of correspondence were introduced into the record:
A. Letter dated January 28, 1975 from Margolis, Chatzky and Dunnett, APC, expres-
sing a desire to enter into an agreement with the City under which the City
would consent to the proposed development of the property without the neces-
sity for access to the creek and slope area by the City. The letter continued
by stating that if this proposal was granted, the property owners and law firm
would assume all responsibility and liability for such maintenance and erosion
control. It was noted that response to this proposal would depend upon the de-
cision made by the City Council on whether the Santa clara Valley Water District
was serving in an advisory or binding capacity to the City, insomuch as the
Water District had placed the stringent creek-improvement conditions to which
Mr. Margolis referred. Staff was directed to place this letter in SDR-1161 file.
B. Letter dated January 27, 1975 from the Fremont Union High School District re-
questing the Commission reconsider its recent decision to fezone C-178, Zone 1
fromR-l-15,000 and R-1-12,500 to R-i-20,000 PC. The letter requested the
Commission rezone this property to R-l-15,000. The Secretary pointed out that
this matter would be automatically forwarded to the City Council with the
Commission's recorf~f~endation for rezoning to R-I-20,000 PC. He added that the
Fremont Union High School District would have the opportunity to present its
case at the City Council public hearing on this matter. Discussion followed
on this letter, and it was the Planning Commission's consensus that Staff
notify the Fremont Union High School District that within the framework of
the Ordinance, the Planning Commission elected not to reconsider its decision
on Zone I, C-178, but rather would forward the School District's letter to the
City Council for its consideration.
-7-
'- ,- ~NUTES OF FEBRUARY 12...~75
VII. CO}R4UNICATIONS - WRITTEN - Continued
C. Memorandum from the Planner I, dated February 12, 1975, revising the tentative
schedule for the Commission public hearings on the remaining proposed General
Plan rezonings as follows: Zone 7 - February 26, 1975
Zones 19, 20 and 22 - }~rch 12, 1975
Zones 11, 13 - 17 - March 26, 1975
Zones 8, 9, 10, 24 and 25- April 9, 1975
D. PPC Mini Minutes of January 23, 1975. Chairman Marshall reported that the
Committee approved the Technical Advisory Committee Report On the Solid
Waste Management Program.
E. Memorandum dated January 24, 1975 fromGeorge Hagevik, Chie~ of Environmental
Resources Division, Association of Bay Area Governments, r~garding parking
management workshops.
F. Letter from Mr. Harry ~yfield, president of the Good Government Group,
published in the February 12th issue of the Saratoga News, commending Commissioner
Charles Smith on his contributions as a Commissioner in the past.
G. Letter published in the February 12th issue of the Saratoga News from}~rs.
Gayle Frizzell, 21291 Canyon View Drive, opposing the proposed change of zoning
on C-178, Zone 7. Staff was directed to place this letter in the Zone 7,
C-178 file.
H. Memorandum from Planner I dated February 12, 1975 regarding a County referral
for rezoning of 13.25 acres ~ned by George W. Day presentl~ zoned "A"' (Agri-
cultural) to "RHS" (Residential) located west of Mr. Eden Road approximately
500 feet from the corporate limits of the City of Saratoga. The Secretary re-
ported that Staff had scheduled a meeting with the COunty Planning Department
to discuss a possible environmental impact report requirement, and would report
the results of this meeting at the next Commission meeting. The Planning
Commission endorsed Staff's actions regarding an environmental impact report
requirement on this matter.
VII. COM~fONICATIONS - ORAL
A. Commissioner Belanger stated that Ms. Mary Moss, a property o~mer of undeveloped
property on Canyon View Drive in Zone 7, had met with the Subdivision Committee
regarding a possible land-lock situation of her property. She asked if the City
[~a'd"a'~SpB~iSility fo re~olve this situation. The City Attorney replied that
resolution of an access problem was not the responsibility of the City; it was
note~ however, that Staff was investigating this matter for a possible solution.
It was pointed out that Ms. Moss had 16-feet of right-of-way, and that she had
access along the extreme southeast side of the lot;;further, that legally and
theoretically there was access on the property, but there possibly was not a
physical access.
B. The Secretary-drew the Commission's attention to ~h~' ~mrn~nf6~ Development Act
application recently submitted to the county. He invited con~nent from the
Commissioners after they had time to review the application.
C. Chairman Marshall recognized the attendance of Councilmen Matteoni and Kraus,
of Mr. McDaniel of the Good Government Group, and Mr. John Power, citizen of
Saratoga.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning
Commission meeting of February 12, 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried
unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
R~'spectfully submitted, "
~rty/'~/Van Duyn, Pla~ CommiSsion Secretary
-8-