Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-1982 Planning Commission Minutes· ~' CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSI6N MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, July 14, 1982 - 7:30 p.m. PI,ACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 F. ruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TypE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZAT ION Roll C.all Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowthe'r, King, Monia and Schaefer Absent: None 'Min. utes It was noted that Randy Schneider's name was misspelled in the minutes of June 23, 1982. Commissioner King moved to waive the reading of the minutes of June 23, 1982 and approve as amended. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously., Commissioner King moved to waive the reading of the minutes of June 1, 1982 and approve 'as dist. ributed. Commis- sioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Monia and Schaefer abstaining since they' we're 'not present at the meeting. Resolution Chairman Schaefer presented Resolution No. PC-143, commending Eugene Zambetti for his outstanding service to the' City. of Saratoga. CONSENT CALENDAR The two items (#1 and #2) regarding site modification were removed for discussion. Commissioner Monia moved to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Bol'ger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. 3. UP-504 - Mr. and Mrs. Gwin, 19621 'Juna Lane,"Request for One-Year Extension 4. A-7.53 D.F. Scolari, Lot 5, Tract 5924, Request for Modification to Design Review Approval .... On Item #1, Thomas and Norma Coe, 15217 Sobey Road,.it was clarified that the structure to be 'constructed is a storage shed rather than a garage. It was determined that a condition should be added that the' area' underneath the structure will be enclosed so as to avoid fire hazard. It was also 'deter- mined tha't Staff will review 'the'material to ensure 'that it is appropriate. Commissioner Bolger' moved to approve SDR-311, Thoma's and Norma Coe, Request for Site .Modification, per Exhibits "B" and "C" and the Staff Report d'ated July 8, 1982, as amended. Commiss'ioner'Monia'seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Regarding Item #2, Gerald Butler, it was determined that a condition should be added that no further division is allowed on this parcel. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve SDR-1375, Ger'ald Butler, Request for Site Modifi-' cation, per Exhibit "B" and the Staff Report dated July 8, 1982, as amended.. Commissioner Bolger' seconded' the motion wh'ich was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. SD-1521 - Gerald Butl'er, Lira DriVe (aCceSs from Lira Drive and emergency access to Vickery Avenue)~ Request for Tentative Subdivision Approval -'8 lots; continued from June 23, 1982 6. SD-1522 - Gerald Butler, Lira Drive!and Montalvo Road, Request for Tenta- tive Subdivision Approval - 6 lots (and Negative Declaration) The two' above projects were discussed' simultaneously. The correspondence received on the projects was noted and the issues summarized, i.e., traffic increase, water runoff, geo!ogy, tree' removal, driveways and access. Discussion followed on the'traffic counts in the area. - 1 - ~.=L. Pl'a'~nin. g ~ommission ~ Page 2 'Me'eti~g Minutes 7/1~/82 SD-1521 and SD-1522 (cont.) The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. Harry Lalor, civil engineer for the applicant, spoke in support of the projects and noted that the issues have been debated at previous public hearings. Mike Kern, from Terratech, discussed the landslides in the area. Bill Ziebron, Urban Planning Consultant, stated that he was representing the Arata family and concerned citizens in the Montalvo area. He sub- 'mitted and read a statement addressing the traffic counts and impact and General Plan consistency. He questioned the legality of the City appfov- ing these projects since the Housing Element has not been adopted. He added that he felt the decision should be delayed on the projects until a.comprehensive study can be done of cumulative impacts, especially on traffic, of the proposed subdivision and future development surrounding the project. Discussion followed on the traffic study. It was determined that the increase by this subdivision would be 36%, and the total possible maxi- mum increase with future development would be· 82%, based on the data base and. 'as sumptions'. Leo Shortino, 15252 Montalvo Road, ~poke'in opposition to the expansion of Lira Drive. Mrs. James Marino, 20553 Montalvo Lane, addressed the traffic and noise issues, noting that the trees are a. wi·nd and sound barrier. Howard Allen Sharek, 25220 Adams Road, spoke in favor of the projects. He commented that the· people buying the homes will be older people and will not be wild drivers. He added= that the applicant wishes to build beautiful homes. Margaret Dennis, Hill Avenue, addressed the traffic to Villa Montalvo and spoke against the project as proposed. Marjorie Ann Warner spoke in favor of the proposal. She stated that she would like to live in one of the homes, and commented that the people who have purchased property on Montalvo Road should have expected traffi·c be.cause of progresS. John Constantine spoke in favor of the development, stating that the new · homes will increase the value of the other homes· in the area. Charles Aring, Hill and Mendelsohn, discussed' the traffic and the acci- dents in the area. He asked about ·the slope density. Commissioner · Crowther stated th·at directly adjacent to ·the higher part of this pro- posed subdivision is HCRD zoning, and it would have· to be developed at a lower density. He questioned whether it is fair to require these people ·to develop at a lower' density and give this particular parcel high density. He indicated that it. may set a precedent which may ulti- mately result in neighboring properties feeling that they should be permitted to develop at. the ·same density. He added that he feels that this area should be developed at'a lower density consistent with 'the hillside type of subdivisi·on that it is. He also 'expressed concern that most of the parcels directly adjacent to this area are all considerably larger. Staff discussed the density if consider'ed under the HCRD formula. James Cohe·n, 14920 Vickery Lane, stated that any increased value to.the neighborhood from the new· homes' wou~d only be.= in dollars, and would not improve the value of the environment.' Mrs. Sa~nuel Smith, Hill Avenue, commented that she feels that the fact has to be accepted that Villa Montalvo is there and all decisions made in that area should have that in mind. She described the beautj~ of the area and commented that all of the ·neighbors are united in keeping it the way it is. Jack Christian, 20230 Bonnie Brae Way, appeared to represent a concerned · group of the Montalvo-Mendel·sohn Homeowners Association. FIe discussed the Lira extension and commented that they feel strongly that the 1978 EIR on the 8-lot subdivision is not adequate, primarily because of the - 2 - ann~n Commiss ion Page 3 Meetfng Minutes 7/14/82 ..... SD-1521 and SD-1522 (cont.) traffic. He suggested that the whole development as a 14-unit sub- division be reviewed and that a new EIR be prepared for the entire subdivision. · He stated that the issues of the amount of concrete, water pressure, landslides, and fences for privacy also should be addressed. Fred King, 15159 Montalvo Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal. Harry Lalor, civil engineer, described' the area and addressed the issues of traffic and conformity with th.e General Plan and land use. He also addressed the issues of runoff, water pressure and access of the homes. David Smith, attorney for the applicant, gave the history of the projects and referenced the economics experienced by the applicant. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. 'Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which wa's 'carried unanimously. Gerald Butler, the applicant,' clarified that one of the tentative maps previously approved showed Lira Drive going through to the Young property and, as a condition of the previously completed 4-lot sub- division, he was to.open up the emergency access when completing the 8-lot subdivision now before the Commission. The density of the area was discussed. C'ommissioner Crowther commented that one of his major concerns is the location' of the road, in addition t'.o the issues brought up by the public. Commissioner Monia commented that the Commission should address (1) Is increasing the traffic load by the ~estimated percentage appropriate, and (2) the whole area' regarding traffic. lie added that he felt traffic should be addressed primarily at this point as to~what the Commission feels is a maximum amount of vehicle trips per day for that road. Commissioner Crowther. commented that the General Plan essentially states that the .development density should' be related to the issue of traffic, and he feels that might be a factor in setting the density. He added that one of the major reasons that. '.there is a reluctance to move the road is that it would eliminate a lot, and if the area was at a lower density t'hat probably would not be a concern. He ,indicated that he feels that the runoff issue 'is related to' the amount of'impervious surface, which is a'l'so' related to density. Commissioner Bolger' stated that, after visiti'ng the site, he feels that there would be more than seven trees removed. He added that he feels .it is inappropriate to have the road across the swale because of the necessary fill, and the logical place for the road would be more on' the Olavarri property. He indicated that he fe~ls that re~ovin.g the grove and putting a road in a place that could potentially lead to a long term maintenance and financial problems for the City is inappropriate. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he personally would be willing to approve SDo1522 with 5 lots, including the home already on it, with 2 lots on a cul.-de-sac and 2 getting access off of Montalvo. He stated that he felt it should be a cul-de-s'ac since ther'e 'doesn't appear to be a good plan for ex'tending Lira D~ive. He added that he would like to see the 'two lots near MOntalvo made larger so there is space for a turnaround. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels the idea of having one less lot so the lots would' be larger would be very appropriate. She indicated ~hat she would like to save the grove because of the wind currents and noise' factor in that area'. She 'explained that she feels that ~he extension should' go 'through only because the City should not land lock the Young property. She added that if both proposals were reduced by one lot, she would like 'to see' if the other problems could be mitigated, and then perhaps look' at the rest of the area for the HCRD zoning. Commissioner Monia asked about the restriction .of impact if a minimum access road was constructed' from Lira Drive to the Young property. Staff explained that under' the standard conditions it would reduce the - 3 - ..... Plan~ing Commission O Page 4 Meeting Minutes 7/14/82 SD-1521 and SD-1522 (cont.) number of lots to 4. Discussion followed on a possible emergency access out to Lira along the route of the proposed extension, and taking access off of Vickery. It wa's noted that that option was closed off when Mr. Butler developed the 4 lots of the original part of the Young property. Commissioner King stated that 'he feels that the applicant has worked through the process of the' City for many years and has reached a state of approval, because in fact he had received prior approval. He suggested that, as a matter of courtesy, the Commission vote on the proposed applications at this point before further discussing alterna- tives. He moved to approve SD-1521, per the amended Staff Report dated June 15, 1982. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Monia moved to deny SD-1521. He indicated that he would not move to deny without prejudice~ because he feels there are some real major concerns that need to be addressed on this application, such as traffic and the number of lots~' Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried, wi'th Commissioners King and Schaefer dissent- ing. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels that, with some slight alterations, the project could be approved. The 10-day appeal period was noted to the' applicant.. Commissioner Crowther moved. to deny the Negative Declaration on SD-1522. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which'was carried, with Commis- sioners King and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Monia moved to deny SDi1522 without 'prejudice, stating that he feels the basic plan as proposed is suitable with the following modification: r~ductim~' of 1 lot, keeping it a cul-de-sac, and keeping the 2 lots accessing onto Montalvo~ He 'added that he 'feels the overall traffic plan has to be addres'se'd. He indicated that h~ would like to see the Commission come up with'a formula that is going to be acceptable not only to the Butler development~ but any additional developments in the future. He stated that he 'feels that clear direction should be given now that the Commission is concerned about the traffic pattern. Commiss.ioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner King dissenting. The 10-d. ay appeal period was noted to the applicant. 7. Consideration of Amendments to the~1974 General Plan of the City of Saratoga; continued from June 23, 1982 Staff explained that before the Commission at this time is the voting on the Action Programs for each 'of the area plans. in the City that have not been resolved previously;'specifically, Areas J and I. The public hearing was opened at 10:40 p.m. · Warren Heid, the CAC represen'tative 'for Area J, submitted a memo relat- ing to the 'a~ea beyond 5th Street'. It 'indicated that it was the consensus of the people in Area J that that area remain at the present zoning of C-V, but that condominiums be a permitted use. Mr. Heid explained that the' people in that area felt that there should be a greater' density someplace in the Village 'for people who enjoy that type of living. Discuss'ion followed on noise re 'outdoor dining facilities. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he was going to propose that a general statement be added, that 'development in the Village should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and should minimize noise and other disruptive influences. Mr. Heid suggested that the matter be studied further at a study ~ession, since he did not feel he could make such a statement without it going back to the people in the area for their thoughts. Gene Zambetti, Marion Road, addressed the concept of the overlay to be included' in the General Plan review of Area J, which would establish a use permit process. He asked that the Commission adopt an overlay plan when they adopt the Area J plan. Discussion followed on the overlay for thi's area. Commissioner Crowther commen'ted that he feels that an overlay is going to require a lot of time and work, and he would prefer to see a statement in the General Plan that essentially says that a specific plan shall be developed. for the -4~ ..F~n~ing Cornmiss ion Page 5 M~eeting Minutes 7/.14/82 " SD-1521 and SD-1522 (cont.) Village which' integrates the overall longer term planning aspects, establishes use per. mit procedures and resolves planning for traffic, police protection, etc. He added that the next step then would be to develop a specific plan for the Village, wh'i'ch is in essence the overlay. It was noted that at a previous study session the Commission had indicated that, prior to addressing the overlay district., they would first address the objectives and goals of the General Plan and then deal with 'the overlay district. Commissioner Monia pointed out that that was not the direction given by the Commission when' discussing the rezoning application C-199 in April, at whi'ch time a motion was made to include the overlay in the General Plan. He added that he felt that unless an overlay of the ' Village is included in the General .Plan, it will not be a comprehensive program. Commissioner King agreed, stating ~hat the Commission' had committed to the applicant in April that an overlay would be done. He added that he feels that consistency by the COmmission is something that is owed to the' public and the applicants.. ~.Discussion followed on the overlay, and it was clarified that there was 'a consensus to direct Staff to define the boundary of the' Village .and the uses that would be allowed on a conditional use' per'mit for all zoning designations. Discussion followed on the history of the amendment 'of the' 'C-V' zoning to allow condominiums with a use permit. Russell Perry, representing a few property owners between 5th and 6th Streets on Big Basin, stated that he felt that his clients would agree that the C-V base zoning should remain in that area, per the clarifica- tion that Mr. Heid had made. It w~s determined. that the sentence re Multi-Family Residential zoning should be stricken from page 233. Th.e Commission then considered the' 'followi'ng action programs: Area A - Commissioner Crowther moved to adopt the proposed Policy #1 submitted by the' CAC for Area A. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. Discussion followed on this 'item re possible amendment of the Specific Plan. The vote was taken and the 'motion was carried, with Commissioners King and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Crowther' moved to adopt #14 with the addition of the phrase "excepting applications under the Robinson Act". Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. Discussion followed on 'adopting this program when it may be in conflict .with' State law. Commissioner Crowther commented that in most cases cities can adopt programs t.h. at.' are more .r__eS..trictive than State' law. The vote was taken..and the motion .-'w'a's 'Ca~r-~ie._d_, .'.Wi£i~. 'co'm-m{~ i.o~'~'s "'S'C_'t{~efer and King dissent ing. Staff commented that they feel #16 should be removed. Commissioner Crowther moved to adopt #16 with 'the phrase ."this area" changed to "lands of known instability" Commissi'oner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried, wi'th Commissioners King 'and Schaefer dissenting. .Area C - Joyce Hlava, the Area C representative, suggested that #6 '&ould be deleted with the addition :of "Master planning for this gateway area will be done". Commissioner Crowther moved, seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to alter Proposal #1 to read as it does, with the addition of "A master plan of this area shall be developed to carry out the remain- ing action items listed below."' The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to adopt #9 wi'th "residential" deleted and the word "or" added between commercial and office. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners King and Monia dissenting. Are a D There 'was a consensus that programs' #2, #3, #4 and #S will be dealt with after the overall circulation goals 'and policies are dealt with. Commissioner Monia moved' to adopt #'8, per Staff's recommendation that the property continue to be 'designated' R-l-10,000. Commissioner King S -~lann~ing Commiss ion = O Page 6 Meeting Minutes '7/14/82 General Plan (cont.) seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. Commissioner King moved to delete #10. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting and Commissioner.Monia abstaining. Commissioner Monia stated that he did not understand the issue and asked that it be voted on again at the next meeting. It'was directed that this issue be 'continued to that time. Margaret' Russell, represen'tative from Area D, addressed the Commission regarding the 'freeway policy. She questioned .the fact that their policy was not accepted; however, the policy for Area B was accepted. CarOl Machol, represen'tati've from Area L, indicated that Area E also makes a statement regardin~ the freew~y, and'she.-ffeelS that everyone should be held back regarding thi's statement until the circulation goals are accepted. Commissioner Crowther moved to adopt a statement in the policies of the General Plan, to read that "The fr~e'way corridor shall be zoned Very Low Density Residential, Recreational or Agricultural." The motion failed for lack of a second. Mrs. Macho]. also questioned whether' Action PrOgram #5 had been adopted in Area' E. Staff was to review and report back. Commissioner Bolger' moved to add the amendment statement re Brookview to #11. It was determined that this statement had been previously added as an action program. It was the'n moved and seconded to adopt #11 as originally written by the area rep'~es'ent~tive. The motion was carried unanimously. : It was.moved and seconded to leave #12 as written. The motion was carried unanimously. "~ .....]'.!Area F Programs #3'and #5 were removed for discussion. Commissioner King moved to approve hi, #2, #4, #.6,'~':and #8. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on #3 and #5, after which Commissioner King moved to approve #3. Commis- sioner Crowther stated that he felt that Family Residential should be designated where it is planned and that the P-D category should be eliminated'. He moved to eliminate the P-D category and replace it with either Multiple Family Residential or Commercial. Commissioner Monia stated' that he could support the motion if the Com- mission were to study further what .should be ~eplaced. Commissioner Crowther amended his motion to eliminate the P-D category from the General Plan and replace it with 'specific zoning designations which will be determined at a study session for those areas now shown as P-D in the General Plan. Commissioner Monia se'cOnded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner King dissenting. Area I - The density .issue was discussed for Area I. Staff described the area and the various options. .Commissioner Crowther stated that he would be in favor of Exhibi't B, except designating all land with a slope greater than 10% on the southern boundary as HCRD. Commissioners Bolger and King stated that they favored Exhibit C. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she favored Exhibit ,B, except for the fact that there would be an island zoned R-i-20,000. surrounded by R-i.-40,000. Discussion then followed on the Rivoir propert'y lots of record which predate the zoning on a particular parcel. staff explained that these lots are now nonconforming and would remain so, 'regardleSs of the zoning. Commission ~ing then moved to adopt Exhibit B. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was 'carried' unanimously. It was directed that the balance of the' issues be continued to an adjourned regular meeting on June 27th at 7:30,. because of the long agenda. 8. V-541 - J. Brozda, One-Year Review of a Variance granted from parking requirements for a restaurant/retail sales operation in the C-C District at 14503 Big Basin Way; continued from June 23, 1982 Staff reported that the applicant's. attorney has had contact with the 6 -.~= j~P'~nr~ing CommisSion Page 7 ~ ~eeting Minutes 7/14/82 ' V-541 (cont.) bank relative to th~ joint use of parking spaces; howe.ver, he has.no agreement in wr'iting at this time. It was directed that this item be continued to'the meeting of August '25, 1982. 9. .A-830 -'Scott McGraw,' Request for Design Review Approval to construct a single family dwe'lling on a hillside lot off Ten Acres Road; continued from Jun'e 23, 19'82 Staff described the current.proposal. The public hearing was opened at 11:55 p.m. No one appeared,. and Commissioner Monia moved to close the' public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Bolger moved to approve A-830, per the Staff Report dated July 6, 1982 and Exhibits B-1 and C-1. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous. ly. 10. UP-519 - Frank and Robert Edwards,.Request' for a Use Permit to locate a banking institution (Saratoga National Bank) in the C-V zonin~ district 'at' 12228 'Sara't'oga-'Sunnyval'e"R'o'a'd" The proposal was described by Staff. The public hearing was opened at 12:00 p.m. No one appeared, and Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried.unanimously. Commissioner Monia moved to approve UP-519, per the Staff Report dated July 2, 1982 and Exhibit B, making.the findings. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, wh'ich was carried unanimously. 11. V-581 - Rina Veerman, RequeSt for ~ Variance to allow the construction of a deck which maintains.a 2' rear yard setback where 60' is required' at 14178 Palomino .Way, in the NHR zoning district Staff explained the circumstances 0f the 'proposal, stating that they were recommending approval per' the Staff Report whi'ch includes some conditions t'h~t will mitigate the' ~ppearance of the 'deck from the south. The public hearing wa's 'opened' at 12':04 p.m. No one appeared, and Com-. missioner King mov'ed to close the 'public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded' the motion, wh'ich was carried' unanimously. Commissioner Bolger moved to approve V-581, per the Staff Report dated July 8, 1982 and Exhibit B, making 'the 'findings. It was noted that decking should be~ consi'dered at the' time of pool approval in the future. 12. VZ582 Michael Rohleder, Re'q'uest f, or a Variance to construct an addition which would maintain a 19'6." exterior side yard setback where 25" is ~equired at 1'3435 Wa~rd' Way Staff noted that they were 'recommending approval and described the pro- ject. Commissioner Schaefer commen'ted ~hat she "felt the homes in this area were being made quite a bit larger and the setbacks are being ignored because it is in the SHARP area. Staff indicated that there are many.homes' in~.that area which already encroach into the setback. The public hearing was opened at 12~:06 p.m. No one appeared., and Com- missioner Bolger moved to close the publ'.ic hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner CrowtHer moved to approve V-582, per the Staff Report dated July 6, 1982, making the findings. Commissioner ~ing seconded the motion, whi'ch was carried, wi'th 'Commissioner' Schaefer dissenting. 13. GF-328 Consideration of Amendment of Various sections of the Design Review Ordinance (NS-3.4~) for single family structures, including the possibiZlity Of 20% variation in floor area allowed and the ·addit·ion of· access·~ry structures' as floor area; con- tinued from' June 9,' '19'8'2 It was reported that the City Council has asked that the Planning Com- mission meet. with them at ·a study session on this matter. It was 7 ~ ·~P~l~nni~g Commission Page 8 :'~Me.~ting Minutes 7/14/82 GF-328 (cont.) directed that this item be continued· to a future public hearing after that session. MISCELLANEOUS 14. Consideration of 1982-85 'Ca'pital Improvement Program It was directed that this item be continued to the meeting of August 11, 1982. 15. A-826 Grover Sinsley, Lots ·1, 2 and 3, Parker Ranch, Review of Land- s·caping Plan Staff reported that the Commission had requested that ·the landscaping plan on this development be ·returned for review, and the applicant has provided that plan for their consideration. Commissioner Monia moved to approve·~he landscaping plan for A-826, per the conditions in the Staff Report.' Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, wh·ich was carried, wi·th·Commissioner Crowther abstaining. I6. Chris and Thomas Lerone, 20190 Ranch~o Bella Vista, Request for Amendment to CC&R's and Site Modification to a~llow the construction of a pool Staff described the request, stating· that no trees would be removed to accommodate the pool. It wa·s noted that the developer still owns the balance of the subdivision and has 'given his approval for this amendment. Commissioner Monia commented that he would rather see the entire CC&R's changed ·for the development for that' area, provided it would still be the same criteria, since the future owners would then have the equal process. Staff stated that, because· of the nature of this particular wooded sub- division, it would be appropriate to handle the changes on an individual basis. It Was noted that the removal of trees had been an important issue during the previous discussions of this subdivision; therefore, pools were restr.icted in the CC&R's. Discussion foilowe·d· regarding setting a precedent. Nino Gallo, the developer, indicated that he had suggested this restric- tion in ~he CC&R's to control removal of trees; however, in this case he feels there is no damage to the ·trees and the pool is extremely shallow. Commissioner King moved to recommend to the 'City Council the amendment of the CC&R's regarding this site, to allow ·a pool, with the condition th·at no trees are ·removed. Commissi'oner Monia seconded· the motion. Commissioner Bolger stated that he could vote for the motion if a caveat could be attached saying·that ·no precedent will be set that other pools will be constructed if there is any possibility of removal of oak trees. Commissioners King and Monia accepted the amendment to the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner King moved to recommend. the site modification to the City Council, per Exhibit ·"B-I" and the Staff Report dated· July 9, 1982. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS Oral 1. G. Butler discussed the zoning in Area I ·and specifically the Toyon Lodge, wh·ich has a use permit (UP-9). I~ was noted that there may be possible code violations. Staff was requested to· give a status ·report at the next meeting. 2. Commissioner Bolger gave a brie:f report on the City Council meeting held on July 7, 1982. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file with the City Administration Office. 3. Chairman Schaefer thanked the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee'. 8 - '~ I~'~j'~lan~ing Commission Page 9 ... M6et'ing Minutes 7/1.4/82 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Monia moved to adjourn to the regular adjourned meeting on July 27, 1982. Commissioner' King seconded the 'motion, wh'ich 'was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at '12:'31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert S. Shook Secretary RSS:cd