HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-1980 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA,PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, February 27, 1980 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, ]_3777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners King, Laden, Marshall, Schaefer, Siegfried,
Williams and Zambetti
'Absent: None
Minutes
.With the correction of the word "drawing" being substituted. for "photo-
graph" in the fifth. paragraph. under SD-1368 on page 2, it was moved by
Commissioner Marshall to waive the reading of the minutes of February 13,
1980 an.d. approve them as.distributed. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the
motion, which was carried unanimously;
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was noted by Staff that Condition III-N should be added to the Staf~
Report for SD-1339, to read: ."Erosion within Prospect Creek is to be
evaluated and appropriate measures undertaken to reduce it." With that
change, Commissioner Siegfried moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to
approve the following items on th.e Consent Calendar. The motion was carried
unanimously.
1. SD-1339 - Parker Ranch, Tentative Map Approval, Request for a One-Year
Extension
2. SDR-1450 - O. Sohns (M. Reed), FrUitvale Avenue, 1 Lot, Final Building
Site Approval
3. A-702 Peter Noonan, Pike Road,.Single-Family Resid. ence, F'inal'Des.'~7'~
Review Approval
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. UP-424 - Saratoga Foothills Developmen~ Corp., Request for Use Permit
SDR-1439 - and Tentative Building Site. ApproVal to allow the construction
of a 36-unit multi-family condominium project, on Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road; Continued from February 13, 1980
It was reported by Staff tha~ t~e applicant has submitted. a letter on
the project expl-aining the unit sizes, and has submitted a revised plan.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to deny
SDR-1439 subject to a letter'of-extension. The motion was carried
unanimous ly.
The pub 1 i c hearing was ,'~2~:Sp~.~"f~T.~X"iT~':
Jerry Lohr, the applicant, discussed the density of his present proposal
for 36 units.
COmmissioner Zambetti commented that he felt the density of this project
would be too high even with 28 units.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he felt the density was too high with
Planning Commission ~. Page 2
Minutes - 2/27/80
UP-424 (cont.)
36'units and it should be in line with the neighboring developments.
Commissioner Marshall added that he would prefer to see a greater
number of 1,000 and 1,100 sq. ft. units.
Commissioner Laden pointed out that~ even though the applicant's plan
meets the requirements of the City, the site is unusual and has limited
ingress and egress. She stated that she would agree that the number of
units should be reduced, and hopefully, by doing that, some of the larger
units could be reduced and eliminated. '
-COmmissioner King stated that the traffic seems to be more related to
the number of bedrooms, as opposed to the number of units. He added
that he would suppo'rt the fact that it is consistent with the Housing
Element to have smaller units.
Comm'issioner Williams stated that he favored the mix in.Table I and
would. like to see as many units aS possible to help solve the housing
crisis in the community.
Joan Greene, 12350 Goleta Avenue, stated that she opposed this project
and cited the traffic problems already existing on Prospect and Sara-
toga-Sunnyvale Road. She also discussed the problem of parking and
areas for the children. It was pointed out that Mr. Lohr has incorporated
in his map a swimming pool and recreation pool.
Andrew Beverett, 19597 Via ~onte, spoke on behalf of himself and the
Saratoga Area Senior Citizens Coordinating Council. He stated that the
Board of Directors had not yet had an opportunity to review this project;
however,.a small group had discussed it and they feel their position
would be concurred by the Board; that the 36-unit proposal would tend
to meet the needs of seniors and emerging young families. He added that
he felt this proposal would be better than none at all. and he would
heartily endorse the 36-unit project. Mr. Beverett stated that the
greatest need would be 2-bedroom units for seniors.
Russ Crowther, Norada Court, stated that he was concerned about the
layout of the streets. He also'Stated concern with adequate parking
· and the fact that people would have to park along Arroyo de Arguello
in order to compensate'. He ques.tioned the acreage of the site and
the setback from the creek and railr.oad tracks.
It was clarified to Mr. Crowther that the streets in question do dead-
end.bu~ will not cross the railroad tracks., and they are not public
streets. Staff also explained that the setback for this project has
been approved by the Flood District,' and the access was co.mputed as part
of the acreage.
The applicant discussed'the parking and explained that the laundry
equipment' will not be in ~he garages and that will allow more parking
Space.
Commissioner Siegfried moved, seconded by' Commissioner Marshall, to
close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously.
The size and number of bedrooms were discussed.. It was the consensus
of the Commission that the intensive use of the site should be reduced.
Commission~er Marshall stated that he had sympathy for the economics of
the situation, but this would be a good opportunity to get some lower
cost housing to satisfy the senior citizens and the younger family.
Commissioner Zambetti stated that he would like to recommend that there
only be 18 units because of the traffic, and he felt the full impact of
the other two adjacent.developments has not yet been felt.
Planning Commission Page 3
Minutes 2/27/80
UP-424 (cont.)
Discussion· followed on what would be a reasonable compromise. Com-
missioner Siegfried pointed out that having 18 units would simply
raise the price to a level that does not serve the needs of the
Housing Element, and he did· not feel this was realistic. It was
sug.gested by Commissioner Marshall that the total number of bedrooms
be 75 or 76, and the applicant could recalculate the square foot. age
of the units within that framework.
Commissioner Williams ·commented that he felt the proposed project as
shown in Table I is a mix of units and choice that seniors and young
families can use. He added that he favors·keeping the price down
and, as-a compromise, would go along with 36 two-bedroom units.
However, h~ added, he would prefer the·proposal in Table I.
Chairman Laden stated that She felt it was the consensus of the Com-
mission tha·t, in an effort to provide housing for senior citizens and
perhaps emerging families, and. by maintaining a price that would suit
the needs of these particular people in our community and still be
unaffected bE traffic and parking considerations, the Commission is
looking at reducing the size of the units and in some probability the
number of the units, so that there is more open space,. more parking~
more recreational facilities, and a less traffic density.
Mr. Lohr stated that he would prefer Commissioner Marshall's suggestion
of 7·5 or 76 bedrooms to that of Commissioner Williams' ·since they
could all be condominiums. However, he stated he would like the Com-
mission to vote on the 36-unit proposal rather th~n continuing the item
for further discussion. The Commission stated they could not approve
36 units with a total of 76 bedrooms without submittal of another plan..
Commissioner Zambetti moved to de.~y UP-424 for 36 units. Commissioner
Marshall seconded the motion .~'~H~cH"~v~'~'~-'F~~'junaHi~0~'l~i'f]F"~.
Commissi'oner Williams diss'ent£ng. -~ .....·
5. GF-324 Amendment of the General Plan Housing Element of the City-Of
Saratoga; Continued from December 12, 1979
Chairman Laden gave the history of the workshops and meetings on the
Housing Element. She stated that.hopefully this has been a community
effort and the intent of the element is to reflect the wishes of the
citizens of Saratoga.
Meg Monroe, consultant from Ironside and Associates, was introduced.
The public he·aring was continued at 8:30 p.m.
Diana·Parham, of the Oak Creek Homeowners Association, stated that she
was more impressed with this document than the previous one. She
discussed the Knox-Boatwright· Bill, which was submitted in April of
1979 and·is up for revision. Ms. Parham explained that this bill would
allow the State guidelines.to be advisory only and not mandatory. She
urged everyone to Write concerning this bill. It·was determined by
the Commission that Staff will write a letter regarding this bill.
The·problem of absentee landlords was discussed. The possibility of
having an action program was discussed, and it was pointed out that if
the City code i's violated.in this regard it should be reported immedi-
'ately to the City offices.
Georgiana Flaherty,' 21285 SaratOga Hills Road, stated that she works
with the Catholic Social Se·rvice and was was happy to see that' Saratoga
is having some feeling for the needs in·the County for housing. She·
added that she felt the existing second units were great resources to
us for the elderly and asked why that section had been deleted in the
element.
3
Planning Commission Page 4
Minutes 2/27/80
GF- 324 (cont.)
Chairman Laden explained that they had discussed that item at great
length. She stated that the Commission realizes there .is a need
for smaller dwellings in the area and that many of the homes do now
have gues·t homes. Chairman Laden added that policing of these units
is difficult and it could· lead to multiple £amilies living in the area
if ·the kitchen remained.
Commissioner Marshall stated that he felt there is a difference between
tolerating-a condition which exists in the City and which hurts
and encouraging a condition which then might' cause problems. He
explained that the present ordinance prohibits more than one kitchen
on a residence; however, it does not prevent.people 'from having guest
cottages or expanding their homes to accommodate more people.
Joan Greene, Goleta Av'enUe, stated that she and her husband oppose·
high density. She commented that when a'new site is .to be developed
homeowner's should be notified. It was explained to M~s. Greene that
the ordinance requires that homeoWners within .a 500 ft. radius be
notified when there is new development of 2 or more lots.
Guenther Machol, 13957 Ronnie Way, stated that he felt there were a
number o~ policies that were revised and acceptable to the Planning
Commission which are not .reflected in this document. Meg Monroe
discussed the changes that had .been made and explained the rewording
of some sections."Mr. Machol pointed out that Section-No. 24 under
Policies on page 16 and that section Under' 0bjectiv~s on page .21 s'hould
be' consistent. It was noted that the wording would be changed to
reflect this. Mr. Machol' discussed 'the adequate sites listed on page
21 and 'felt that possibly it 'Should be a proper matter for the Land
Use Element. He. stated that he questioned' the entire section because
it is s.o vague.
' St~ff explained that the Housing'Eieme'nt will establish certain policies
'and obje. ctives, and the Land Use..Element has to -reflect what is actually
happening within t'he Housing Element. They added .that the zoning'has
to be consistent with the Land Use. Element.
Page 21 was discussed regarding the Adequate Sites section. Mr. MachO1
stated that .there is no criteria there and it might be be'tter if
nothing was said. Commissioner'Marshall stated that to say nothing
would be ignoring the 'desire to p'rovide housing for certain people
while ~hose sites are not yet defined. Commissioner Siegfried commente.d
that he felt to a certain extent you set criteria in terms of con-
sist~ncy with a neighborhood.
Mr-. Machol. st'ated-that he would like. to formally request that an Environ·-
mental ImpaCt Report be made for this Housing Element. He explained
that he based this request on the fact 'that this element is considered
a project under the California Environmental Quality A. ct guidelines.
He added that he felt the element has some growth inducing impact and
felt this should. be addressed. Mr. Machol added that he felt various
alternates need to be evaluated. He stated that the State guidelines
~all for the addressing of various factors that .can impact the City
and the environment and also to provide for analysis o~ alternatives.
Staff explained that if there was a selection of a site there would
be ~publiC hearings if it .is necessary to rezone or change the General
Plan.
The City Attorney stated that the Dist'rict ~ou'rt of Appeals has ruled
s'
· :,~me~'~""'~'~.'a .~b~.eral?~n should h'~e ~ .E~', t~ are cate~bricallv"~
Planning Commission Page 5
· ~.' Minutes 2/.27/80
GF-324 (cont.)
Mr. Machol indicated that he did not think that there had been enough
time or deliberation spent on assessing the negative impact or con-
sequences that might occur. He stated that he strongly feels that
kind of effort'should be, expended by the City before any decision is
made.
A lette'r was read into the record from Jackie Spillane, President of
the League of Women Voters, approving in main the Housing Element.
They i. ndicated that the measures regarding increased residential
densities under the Housing Goals'and Policies section, and the item
of. being responsive to new ideas for providing units to' lower and
moderate income needs un. der the Affordability section were supported
by tl~e~ and they felt t!~ey shouldjbe in'c].uded in the element when it
is forwarded to the City Council.
It was pointed out that the Commission was striving for a balance
in the element that would satisfy the majority of the people.
Andrew-Beverett, of the SaratOga Area Senior Citizens Coordinating
Council, stated that he felt the City has made progress in drafting
and refining this element. He indicated that he felt the present draft
allows.considerable flexibility in planning fo'r the needs of the
Saratoga senior citizens.
Meg Monroe explained to Mr. Beverett that each program is required to
have a target, and it was determi.ned that a footnote would be placed
to indicate that the target ~uotas listed do not represent maximums of
a given.type of housing.
.Eincoln Bradley, 19201 Portos Drive, stated that the sentence on page
6, stating "It i-s possible the future could find many households with
'few people at'tempting to afford housing units which are much.bigger
than' they need and. costing more to purchase and heat than they want or
can reasonably afford to pay" was purely speculation and should not be
pa.rt of the element~ He stated that he felt the community has a
reSponsibility.to be r'esponsive to the needs of all residents, not
particularly the elderly and.newly forming families. He added that
he felt.~h'F"fz~'~"'e'n'~e'~.rise system should determine the housing prices
without"a%~j~'~'~g"'~'h'e area. by'increased density. Mr. Bradley stated
he did not feel low cost housing developments should be encouraged in
Saratoga, since the need is not here'.
Chairman Laden pointed out that Mr'. Bradley was quoting a list of
'concerns that' were identified at the workshop as some items that
should be dealt with. Mr. Bradley stated that he did not feel these
concerns t~uly refl°ect the attitude of the community and he felt
there should be ~ore study and consideration on them.
Carol Macho]', 13597 Ronnie Way, stated that she did'not feel that the
workshop reflected the thinking of many resi. dents si. nce people were
not aware of it. She indicated .that she felt most of the citizens
are very much against high density growth in this community. Mrs.
Machol stated that there has. been a tremendous amount of target sites
based.on a proposed. need that has not been specified.
Chairman Laden commented that it is a concern of the Commission
that the'people of our community can continue to live here. She added
that she felt that there. is some obligatipn to thes'e people. Mrs.
Machol stated that she-fe~lt the'first obligation comes not to 9% of
the community, but to the people that make .up the majority. She added.
that the reason they moved here and the effor~ they put in to get
here should be the first primary consideration.
Chairman Laden stated that the quality of life is very important to
'Pl~nni.ng Commission Page 6
Minute's' 2/2.7/8.0.
GF-324 (cont.)
this community and that also.has to be considered. Commissioner
Marshall pointed out that the mix of the City has changed and will
probably continue to change. He stated that the basic problem to be
faced is how to accommodate change in some fashion that does not
destroy us all and keeps the City as a viable place to be. He added
that .he is sympathetic to the person who would like to continue to
live here but cannot afford it, and also sympathetic to the fact that
a lot of the people who built this city have been chased out.
Mrs. Machol stated that the people who'back into these listed sites
are not going to live a satisfying life and their quality of life
would. be changed. She added that many people moved here to get away
from a high density, and now this City would be the same as what they
had left.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not feel., in approving this
Housing Element, that a high density development on any smte in the
City was being approved. He added that be'felt that it would indicate
that the City sees some needs that should be addressed in terms of
having a variety of housing.
Staff explained the landbanking program, which is part of the HCDA
"Program. Mrs. Machol indicated. that, since that program was not
mandatory, it should be taken out of the element.
Russ Crowther, Norada Court, stated'that he felt that the City should
identify what sites are going to be considered and work out an overall
plan. He indicated that if all of the sites were considered together
the impact on traffic and public safety could be huge.
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Appropri-
ate changes in the wor'ding of the text in several sections were dis-
c'ussed with Meg Monroe, the consultant. She was directed. to make these
changes and return the amended element to Staff as soon as possible.
Commissioner Marshall moved .that Resolution GF-324 be recommended to
the City Council, and that the new Housing Element be adopted, as
amended. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously.
'Commissioner Zambetti moved to write a letter as a Commission in support
of the Knox-Boatwright Amendment', allowing the guidelines to be
advisory. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, with the addition
that the City Council.also be encouraged to send a letter. The motion
was carried unanimously.
Break - 10:40 - 10:55 p.m.
6. GF-325 Amendment of the General Plan Circulation Element of the 'City of. Saratoga; Continued from February 13, 1980
'Chairman Laden gave the background of the'element. Staff reported
that there had been several offers of dedication for right-of-ways.
The letters received on this'matter were noted into the record.
The public hearing was continued at 11:00 p.m.
Mrs. M. Venator, Wardell Road, emphas. ized again that they would refuse
to give a right-of-way for the extension of Wardell. Chairman Laden
.stated that th.e letters-received from Mr. and Mrs. Venator would be
forwarded to the City Council. Mrs. Venator added that the easement
that Mr. Guichard has offered is a steep downhill drop and is not
buildable. Mrs. Venator stated that the're are also three houses at the
foot of Wardell, and that property would also have to be condemned if
- 6 -
~!~ ~.'Pl'~nni.ng Commission Page 7
'.Minute's 2/27/8.0~
GF-325 (cont.)
Wardell was extended.
Cheriel Jensen, 1·3737 Quito Road, stated that, according to CEQA,
this is a project. She quoted the description of a project from
Section·· 15037. She added that the action taken on the Housing was-
an illegal act without an Environmental Impact Report, and an EIR
is needed on the Circulation Element also. Mrs. Jensen stated that
the case cited by the City Attorney does not have anything to do with
the fact that CEQA·sa~s that a·General Plan Amendment requires an EIR.
Mrs. Jensen indicated. that she ·has done .extensive studi~s on the road
costs for·maintaining~hillside roads versus maintaining flatland roads.
She stated that hillside roads cost five to six times more in this
county to maintain than flatland roads. Mrs. Jensen stated that she
'felt-it is'important to have an anal.ysis o~ that before the City proceeds
to build ajll thes~ hillside road. s, because the ~citizens of this City
cannot afford it. She explained that if Jarvis II passes there will
be less money than we need to maintain this city~ Mrs. Jensen commented
that ~t is an insult to the citizens to ignore these facts and it is
~lSo an insult to all of us when we don't see an Environmental·Impact
Report on these two e·lemen·ts. Sh~ commented that she feltsthe whole
hillside road system is something:that needs to be examined in total;
'the citizens need an EIR t~o determine the cost estimates on.the main-
tenance of the roads; how 'they interface with the geologic report;
how they interface with erosion studies. Mrs. Jensen added that the
private roads' are not being maintained and there are endless problems
because ·of them.
The City Attorney stated ·that he would send Mrs. Jensen a copy of the
case he cited. He added that it held the Administrative Code 'Section
that Mrs. Jensen read'as being void and contrary to the Government Code.
~ermit Etbody, Carniel and Wardeli, stated that she has seen the
traffic·prOgress more and more, and the road will not handle any more
traffic.
Joan Greene, 12350 Goleta Avenue, asked for a traffic count'of the
present amount of cars using Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. It was explained
to Mrs. Greene that she· could obtain this information from the Public
WOrks Department.
Bev Javaheri, i2881 Corte·de Arguello, stated that she had written a
le'tter to the Commission, discussing the problems they have with
runoff and mud. She added that if Wardell was widened there would
be more problems. She stated that she was also concerned about the
drainage on Comer.
· Shirley Diemer, 20751 Wardell Road, stated that she lives ne~t to "
Calabazas Creek. She stated that water recently rushed down Wardell
an~ up their dirveway. Mrs. Diemer indicated that she was opposed to
any connection of Wardell Road up to the new proposed subdivision in
the hillsides. She added that'she felt any improvement would have to
be borne' by the property owners, and the traffic situation is already
terrible.
Russ Crowther, Norada·Court, noted that the Circulation Element was
plotted on the zoning map on the exhibits. He stated that he objects
· to this because this is a General Plan change and. th·e Zoning map
happens to be· inconsistent with the General Plan Map. It was reported
by Staff that ·the zoning indications will be~taken off the exhibits.
Mr. Crowther noted that the initiative calls for a citizens task fo'rce
to study this area and develop a plan. He stated that it would seem
appropriate to suspend all of thi. s discussion and leave it for that
· cit·izens task force after the initi·ative passes.. Commissioner Marshall
pointed out that the City .~ouncil has the right to suspend the dis-
cussion. at that level; the Commission has the obligation to get the
- 7 -
~.-.~Pl~nning Commission Page 8
'~Minutes 2/27/8.0.
%
GF-325 (cont.)
information back to them ....... ~--~-~ .......... _ .... . ........
Mr. 'Crowther stated that he questions if many o.~ these streets would b. ave
to go through if the initiative passes and the density i.s. reduced.
'Chairman Laden pointed out tbat the streets would not be developed if
there is no development in that area since th.e developers have to pay
for them. She added that the exception'would be the Wardell extension
'at this point, since no developer is conditioned under a tentative
map f'or that road. Chairman Laden stated .that the Commission is trying
to preplan circulation instead of waiting until a development comes in.
Caivin Tang, 12721 Arroyo 'de Arguello, stated that his house is only'
20 ft. away from the proposed Wardell e.xtension. He said that cu'rrently
part- of his back yard. is given 'a'way as an easement, and he will not
give any more. He added· that if the City condemns his property' to
widen Wardell he will fight 'it legally.
And. re Bogart, 20800 Wardel.1 Road, stated that he is against the exten-
'sion. of Wardell Road into the foothill. s. He commented that he felt.
there should be a road Up there so that the people can develop tbeir
property, hut it should 'not extend ba~k into Parker Road, Mt. Eden
Road and the Garrod property; he does not think it sbould go that far.
It Was pointed out to Mr. 'Bogart that tbis iS the first input from the
Wardell people that the Commission has received.
Mr. F61ge~, 21502 Wardell Road, st'ated that there were 18 accidents
during the first year they lived there, on Cox and Wardell. He stated
that if, Wardell is extended it will create traffic problems.
Lawrence Roben,' 20685 Wardell Road, indicated that be opposed the
extens.ion. FIe stated that he.sees notbing that is going to prevent
traffic from other cities coming down Cox and Wardell as a through way,
and it would. beco~e.. an alternate to Prospect. Mr. Robe'n stated that
we might put in 'Fa~.~'d.ji."~'jj~d~= jogging path on Wardell instead.. He
'a.dded that there should be more traffic lights at .the major intersections.
'Linda Sterling, 12675 Arroyo de ArgUello, stated that they have had
approximately five automobiles in their front lawn in the last three
years. She added that the resYdents run 4-way stop signs, knock down
trees, tear out lawns,. and speed excessi.vely.. She stated that she
objects ·very strongly to th'is ext'ension since there a. re already
.problems there that are not ~eing solved.
Bob Sayor, 12664 Wardell. C6urt, d~scusse. d the flooding that occurs in
that area. He indicated' t~at he felt it was 'a very dange'rous road and
more traffic would cause a lot of t'raffic.
Madonna Coffman, 1·2755 Arroyo de Arguello, stated that tbey live at the
bottom of the extension., and tbey would lose most of tbeir back yard,
.patio extension, and the slide to their pool if the road were extended.
· R0n Knapp, 20885 Wardell Road., stated that he lives at the juncture
between-the dedicated'Wardell Road and the Wardell· extension. He
stated that they had appeared. at meeti. ngs' in 1970, not in opposition
to development, but recommending that before developments in that area
occur, the City should look forward to the fut·ure development in the
· hillsides above there and try to preclude such problems as we are now
facing. Mr. Knapp stated that the plan at that time showed that Wardell
was not a good through street from a traffic flow pattern.
· Bev·Javaheri commented that, if Comer were· to go througb, why ca'n't
. people come off of Comer and onto Pierce, and go out Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road? She stated that Pierce is quite narrow now, but there are ease-
ments on either side all the way down to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. She
- 8
~'~'P~nning Commission Page 9
~ Mi'nutes 2/2.7/.80
GF- 325 (cont.)
added that no one's front yard would be disrupted, since the easement
is free and clear.
Janet Harris, 21083 Comer Drive, stated that they had come to the
meetings two years a'go and had believed things had been resolved.
.She commented that everybody's viewpoint~-~hj.'6~_'~~_'~'~"~'~_,~a~d.'~.~om an
overall· planning view, several accesses are needed. and-n~-~"']ust a few.
Doris Tougas, 20604 Wardell Road, stated that they oppose the' extension
of Wardell Road on the basis that they cannot tolerate the extra
traffic it would create.
.Mr. Bogart 'pointed out that the people on Pierce ROad certainly knew
it was going to get bigger and it was developed as a. through road.
He explained that nothing was ever left open on Wardell to extend it.
Bill Heiss, engineer, commented on the section in the element regarding
the maximum of 15 lots on a cul-de-sac. He indicated that he did not
agree with an arbitrary number as a maximum, since the circumstances
would be different ifi-~a hillside situation versus the flatland configura-
tions. Mr. Heiss suggested that possibly some criteria could be set
in the fl'atlands and the overall view could be considered.
Commissioner Marshall .stated that if the Commission were to depart
from that standard now it would open the door to .'~fHe"i~fi'l'l~i~'~'~H~'on
.:,,~j~'~j~'~-a-~ become quite problemat-ic.
Steve 'Pescar, 20880 Wardell Road, at the Wardell limit, stated that
this is a 40 ft. right-of-way which is private and is not a legitimate
County through road. Mr. Pescar proposed that, if the need be, serious
~'~'H~tj"~"~=given to changing the route by putting a road away from
the hil]~'ide so there won't be the runoff.
designates a circulation pattern, it has nothing to do with whether or'
not the City has any right to use the ].and or whether they have to buy
the land, condemn it~ or if it is going to be.dedicated. He explained
that the purpose is to determine what is a viable circulation pattern,
and after that has been determined, .then the City decides how it is
going to acquire the land. H.e.~ comme~ted that most o~ the north-south.
road that is shown in this circulation plan runs all through private
property and the City has no rights whatsoever to it at 'th. is stage.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
-It was the consensus of the Commi'ssion that they h. ave now taken testi-
mony from people who wanted to put Wardell through and also those who
oppose it; DiScussion followed on the revision of the Wardell Extension
section of the element to reflect the input gained. Staff was directed
to amend the element, to include the pros and cons for the extension,
as stated by the testimony received during the public hearings, and
listing the concerns of the Commission with regard to this extension.
Some' of these concerns were acquisition of rights-of-way, and the cost
of the engin'eering design and construction of the road..
Commissioner Marshall· moved to. recommend Reso'lution GF-325 to the
City Council, and that the Circulation Element be adopted, as amended
.Flanning Commission ..... Page· 10..
Minutes 2/27/80
DESIGN REVIEW
7.' A-70'l· -· Park Saratoga Associates, Kirkmont and Saratoga-Sunnyvale·
Road, Commercial Building #C, Final Design Review; ·continued
from February 13', 1980
It was. reported that the appl'icant has submitted a new plan and has
reduced the square footage to slightly over the original size.
Commissioner King moved to approve A-701 per the Staff Report dated.
t:ebruary. 5, 1980 and the ·Addendum dated February 21, 1980. Commissioner
Marshall seconded the motion which was carried unanimously.' It was
pointed out that no sign is approved at this time.
8. A-703 -F Medallion Development Corp., Landscaping·Plan for Teerlink
Ranch, ·Mt. Eden Road, Final Design Review Approval
Mr. Tsugawa', the architect, discussed the size of the plants and
~an. dscaping. The planting and irr. igat.ion were also discussed, and
':i.t' was determined that a c.ondition should be added, to read: "Irr. i-
gation' system will 'be maintained until such time as landscaping is
sufficiently established."'
Commissioner Siegfried moved, secon'd'ed by Commissioner Marshall, to
approve A-703, per the amended Staff Report dated Feb'ruary 21, 1980.
The motion 'was' carried unanimously.
COMMUN I CAT IONS
Wr it ten
1. Let'ter from Robert K. Thompson, dated February 23, 1980.
Oral
-1. City Council Report - Commissioner King gave a brief report on
the City CounCil meeting held on .February 20, 1980'. A copy of
the minutes of this meeting is on- file in the City Administration
Office.
.2. Chairman Laden thanked Councilwoman Corr for attending the
meeting and the Good Government Group 'for attending and serving.
coffee'.
ADJOURNMENT
C'ommission. er King moved, seconded by Commissioner MarShal=l, _t-o~a'djourn the
meeting. The motion was ~arrie~nanimou~'~""~nd' t'h'~' meeting was adjourned
at 1 :.0'1 a-.m.
Secretary
RSR:c'd