Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-27-1983 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~B4ISSION MINUTES DATE~ Wednesday, July 27, 1983 - 7:30.p.m. PLACE:' City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call P.resent: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Bolger arrived at 7:40 p.m.) Absent: None Minutes The following changes wer. e made to the minutes of July 13, 1983: On page 2, the first s~n~.~.~ce-of the second paragraph should read "Commissioner Nellis stated that the intent of the wordage is not to prohibit or restrict employees from mentally thinking but to prohibit prototypes for production models from being constructed." On page 7, the first sentence in the fourth paragraph should read "Commissioner Nellis commented that he still has a concern that the applicant's aggregate roof materialsmay not match the existing shingle roof- ing material now on the shopping center."' Commissioner Hlava moved'to waive the reading of the minutes of July 13, 1983 and approve as a~ended. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried with Commissioner Schaefer abstaining since she was not present at the meeting. CONTINUED MISCELLANEOUS : 1. A-807 - Calderone, 12651 Saratoga, Reconsideration of Conditioning for One- Year Extension of Design Review Approval Chairman Schaefer explained that the applicant has asked for reconsideration of the conditioning for a landscape plan relative to his request for a one-year .extension. Discussion followed on the trees that have been removed. Mr. Calderone explained that he is only responsible for Lot A and discussed the bond and six-month time limit condition placed on landscaping. It was the con- sensus that the conditioning will stand as approved with the one-year extension. It was noted that the extension is for Lot A only. CONSENT CALENDAR 2. SDR-1443 - Vernon Cole (Reed), Quito Road, Request for One-Year Extension 3. Dave Liggett, 18656 Vessing Court, Request for Site Modification Approval for a cabana and pool Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar listed above. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. C-202 Consideration of Amendment to the Zoning Map to Conform to'the General Plan' 6. GPA-83-2-A Consider Amending the General Plan designation of various par- cels These two matters were discussed simultaneously. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Karyn DeBoer, '13495 Sousa Lane, addressed ~10, stating that almost all of the' property in that area now'is commercial. She described the properties and stated that the area should either be improved or sh!ould be commercial. Staff clarified that Ms. DeBoer's parcel is now designated Medium Density Residential on the General Plan and is not part of t.his General Plan amendment. They also clarified that this amendment is not dea'ling with 'the Costa property. There Planning Commission Page 2 ~Meeting Minutes 7/27/83 C-202 and GPA-83-2-A (cont.) was a consensus to continue #10 to a study session on August 2, 1983. The correspondence received on this matter was noted. Mr. Carpiac, attorney for GASCO, addressed.#2. The various options were dis- cussed by Staff. The City Attorney explained that the City is working on an .amendment to the Nonconforming Or.dinance'that will hopefully alleviate some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Carpiac at the previous meeting. The current ordinance and the. proposed amendment were discussed. Mr. Carpiac gave the history of the site and operation. Don Eagleston spoke on behalf of the Saratoga Village Association regarding #23 (Fitzsimmons property). He reiterated that they strongly recommend that the. Commission not adhere to the General Plan in this si.tuation. He added that the property in question is now surrounded by condominiums and there is a sub- stantial buffer zone in that area. Dr. Ann Fitzsimmons stated that she plans to treat both pieces of her property as commercial and rezoning one would split them. Alan Ashby spoke on #.24 (Oak Street). He stated that he owns a lot on Oak Street and is concerned about what.will happen to the low income housing that has been in existence for many years in that area if it is rezoned. It was clarified that if the rezoning is approved the use that is now there can remain. Louise Cooper, Chairman of the Legislative Committee of Saratoga Area Senior Citizens Council, commended the Commission for recommending that the zoning be changed to P-A on #5 (Challenger). Gary.~Hack,.Russell Lane, inquired about'#33 and Staff explained the proposed change. Cliff Beck inquired about #21 and #42 (Hincks), relative to the criteria used in the rezoning. Staff explained the purpose of the change. Mr. Beck des- cribed his property and questioned the rezoning, stating that he did not feel that the topography of the property ]has =been considered. Commissioner Schaefer suggested possibly continuing #21 to a s. tudy session. Commissioners Crowther and Bolger commented that they agree with the Staff Report on this item and would be in favor of the rez'oning. Mr. Beck added that he felt that the City has to be liberal to some extent when working in the hillside area because of the substantial road improvement costs.: Gerald Pole spoke on behalf of Mr. Beck Zand offered to submit pictures of the subject property~ It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing on C-202 and GPA-83-2-A. The motion was carried unanimously. It was clarified that #39 is undeveloped and that R-1-12,500 zoning is consis- tent with the surrounding area. Commiss'ioner Hlava moved to recommend approval -to the City Council of Items #1, 3, 4, 6., 7, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31a, 32, 36, 37 and 39, making the findings attached to the C-202 Staff R~port dated July 19, 1983. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Commissioner Hlava moved to recommend approval o£ #8 (Willamette Univ.) from A to RM-5,000. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to discuss #21 (Hincks) at a study session. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which failed 4-3, with Commissioners Nellis, Crowther, Bolger and Hlava dissenting. Commissioner Crowther moved to recommend approval o.f #21 per the.C-20'2~ S.taff' ~ep~'..."Co~m~s.~.~'oner....Hl~v~"~onded the motion, which was carried 4-3, with Commissioners Siegfried, Schaefer and McGoldrick dissenting. Di'scussion followed on #38 (Ci~own'ed proper.ty). The 'City Attorney commented that this particular property ~s now"Under specific study by the City Council in terms of possible disposition. Commissioner Crofther indicated that he would favor the General Plan amendment. and he. feels.that making it C-N would' create too much commercial along tha't side~jof the street'. Commissioner Hlava stated that she understood that the 'General Plan ]has already been changed to a PD mixed use and she"does' not feel the R-1'-.1'2,500 zoning is very appropriate, - 2 - ~Planning Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 7/27/83 .C-202 and GPA'-'83--2-A (con't.') especially in that location, when the· General Plan is PD mixed use. Staff noted that since ·it ·is ·PD mixed use it 'has to have some kind of commercial zoning to allow· commerci·al uses' and they suggested C-N because ...t_he_ re~.~j"'p'f' the commercial zoning in that ·area· is C-N. Commissioner· Siegfried moved to recommend approval of the rezoning on #38 to C-N. He commented· that ·he fee'l·s the ·C-N zoning allows·a mixture of ·c~ommercial and residential and pointed out that the·re ·is no PD mixed use zoning. Commis- sioner Hlava se·conded· the· mot·ion·. The 'motion was carried unanimously 7-0. Commissioner· Siegfried· moved to rec·o~me. nd appr_9. va.1. of #5, 9, 17, 22, 28 and 31b, Regarding Items #113, 14, 15, 16, and 40 along Allendale, it was clarified that the General Plan amendments ·are ·to preserve what is currently there. Commis- sioner Siegfried moved to ·rec·ommend approval o·f these items per the Staff Report. Commissioner· Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Staff clarified that th'e recommended ch'ange on Items #34 and 35 is ·:~' 6. e con- (aD'6'~SVa'i ~']F' ~,3'~ "ar~d"=3'S' '~jf 'GPi'2'8'3-.2'rh',' ~F'v~a~j' 4' 0"~"th'~' glaff';'Re~ort .' Co~mis- · .;s_:.:iT~j.hf.~'F 7iyt~l'a'Va' .s.: e'csfn-4ea '~'H~7 '~'0 ffb' H', .' ~!~'i cHi 'W'a~ c.a rr.i ed'~"~'~an'{moU'~ 1 ~' '7- o." Discussion foliowe'd' on #2 (GASCO). The options and timeframe were discussed. Sfaff commented' that if this is designated Retail Commercial it can maintain its C-N zoning as 'long as the City Council agrees to make that amendment. They explained that Under' the 'current nonconforming ordinance, if this site were rezoned to RM-5,000 PC and this particular use was allowed with a con- ditiional use permit, there 'could be a time limit placed on it. If the non- conforming ordinance is changed that might change that particular limit. The City Attorney indicated that if the 'General Plan is changed to Retail Commer- cial it will legitimate 'the use; the 'applicant would still need a use permit but h.e would not be nonconforming. There was a consensus that this should be residential with some reasonable long timeframe. Commissioner Nellis moved to recommend rezoning #2 to RM-5,000 PC, with the timeframe dealt with at the time. of the use' permit. Commissioner Crowth.er seconded the motion, which was carried 6-1', wfth' Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. She stated that she would not vote for it with an unknown timeframe. Discussion followed on #23 (FitzsimmonS)'. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he 'feels it should be' left C-V, which wo'uld retain all of the options, allowing for the' 'possibility that, since the' owner' owns both 'pieces of proper- ty, there 'might be some joint use of the property which would make this multi- family. CommissiOner Schaefer suggested the option of P-A, stating that that would allow to have uses that perhaps are 'not as intense on parking in that area. She added that she has some concern about traffic and the curve. Com- missioner Hlava stated that she feels it should be multi-family, partly because of the General Plan hearings and the strong feeling that was expressed there, and she also does not feel that on this curve and in this location it is appropriate for either P-A or Retail Commercial. Commissioner' Bolger agreed. Commissioner Neilis commented that he feeIs it should be left C-V'. He commented that:"".~alt. of?th'eL adjacent parcels are zoned C-V now and he feels the General Plan should be amended for Retail Commercial with the C-V zoning. Commissioner Siegfried moved to recommend amending the General Plan to Commer- cial Retail, keeping the zoning C-V. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, wh i c h f a i 1 e d ~' 4.:,4 SY;y"~- i 't ~ c'0'mm i'~ S i ~ ne. r s "H~.~ ~ ~. ;.'..~ 0'!-g ~'r ~r~d'...-s'ch'a~ e f~.r" d .if~ ~ e'~t i n g. commissioner Crowther moved to recommend changing #23 ~rom C-V zoning to RM-S,000. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which failed 4-3, with Commis.4ioners Siegfried, Schaefer, Nellis and McGoldrick dissenting. Commis- sioner Schaefer stated that she felt it should be P-A. There was a consensus to send all of the recommendations to the City Council. .... Commissioner Crowther moved to recommend approval of- II24 .(Oak St. ), per the Staff Report, page 3, for GPA-.83-2-.A'. Commissi'oner Siegfried seconded the motion, which' was carried' unanimously 7-0. Staff ex'plained the recommended change 'on #33. Commissioner Crowther moved to Planning Commission Page Meeting Minutes 7/2.7/83 C-202 and GPA-83-2-A (cont.) recommend approval #33, per the Staff Report dated July 18, 1983 for GPA-83-2-A. Commissioner Hlava seconded' the motion, which Wa's carried unanimously 7-0. Staff explained the changes on #41 (Lauer) and #42 (Hincks). Commissioner Crowther commented' that since 'all of the Lauer property within the City is steep and has geologic problems, he did not understand the adjustment of the lot lines. He indicated that he felt the more appropriate action would be to make the entire parcel NHR. Staff commented that"the subdivision was approved und. er R-i-40,000 standards and to make it NHR Would change those standards for the subdivision. Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels maybe that should be done, not necessarily for just this property but other property through that area that is quite 'steep and should be NHR.' Staff indicated that the Commission could study the whole area and determine if the General Plan designation for these parcels should be changed. = Commiss~i'0ner Siegfried commented that he Would like to remain consistent with what h~s already been .appr0ved. He moved to recommend approval of #41 (Lauer), per the Staff Report f'or'.'GPA~83~'2~ "'Co~mi'sSim~r Hlav~ SeConded the motion, M~-i Ch' W'~'s" '~ a.'r~i e d' ~=~' ! ',"'~=.f~ ~ 6~mi s s ~ o~'r..!..~.~t~er' d i s s ~i'Hg:. :"" Commissioner Siegfried moved to.recommend 'approval"of #42, per tiff'staff' Report fo'r'GP~'l"83-21A..'HO s~at"e~' t]~at'he::had ~.t~d"'~g~'inSt 'ti~e'previous items .... ...- rega'rding the Hincks Estate, but since they passed'~e feels the'Commission should be consistent. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 5. GPA-83-1-C - 14498 Oak Place (Napkin Ring), Consider Amending the General Plan designation of the'subject property from Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M-10) to Commercial-Professional Administrative The public h. earing was opened at 9:43 p.m. Dr. Hugh Lorshbough described the area, stating that the neighb. orhood was essentially residential and should be rQSidential with a conditional use permit and 'amo'r~i'~atio~'.s'dhedUle'.'f6r. tt~e'N~ki.n.'Ring. Mr. DeVille, property owner next door, spoke against P-A. He stated that he feels there had been disregard for the neighbors and cited the increase in traf-':.'. fic. Betty Maas, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, expressed concern regarding the traffic. She stated that this should be residential with'the 'provision that the Napkin Ring can continue at very low key. : Linda Protiva, Oak Place, urged to keep this residential with a use permit. She cited safety factors and traffic. She commented that a neighborhood associ- ation has been formed and they are unanimously against the P-A zoning. Norm Matteoni, representing the owners of the property, stating that they still stand on their previous points and would like this to be commercial. Discus- sion followed on the previous use, General Plan designation and zoning. Chairman S~haefer stated that she had suggested P-A as a compromise which would allow the Napkin Ring to remain. She noted that she feels that since the previous meeting there has' been an increase in traffic and signage. She ques- tioned the current operation and stated that she feels there may be more pro- blems that need to be addressed. Mr. Matteoni commented that there has been no increase'in signage or operation. He noted the controls of the City. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner' Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels this should be residential as pre- sently designated with the appropriate use permit. Commissioner Siegfried commented that his original vote was for commercial. Ite stated that he would 'vote for P-A because the uses up to this time have been P-A uses and it would allow catering to be brought in as a conditional use. He added that he does not see it as a viable residential property. Commissioner Nellis moved to recommend that the General Plan designation be changed to P-A. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried ~lann'ing Commission Page 5 Meeting Minutes 7/2.7/83 GPA-83-1-C (cont.) 4-3, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Hlava dissenting. Chairman Schaefer commented that the full intention of the recommendatio~n is that ther~ would be tight controls and note·d that catering does not i'nvolve eating· on the premises. It was clarified that the motion did not include adding catering to the P-A zone, but it ·is the intent ··to have Staff go forward and add cateri·ng as a .conditional use to the P-A zone. The· City Attorney indicated that this would be a separate amendment to the· Zoning Ordinance. 7. C-203 --T. Lauer, Consideration to rezone a portion of a 7+ acre parcel (APN 517-22-30) at 15840 Peach Hill Road from R-I-40,000 to HC-RD consistent with the General Plan and previous subdivision appro.val and pr.e-'zone certain parcels (APN 517- 23- 20."~:.. ~:f)'~ 'H~j-R~'~'that. j~i~_~'j~be annexed to the· Ci·ty Staff explained the application. The public hearing was opened at 10:.17 p.m. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to recommend approval of C-203, per the Staff Report dated July 19, 1983, ·making the findings listed therein. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which wa·s carried unanimously 7-0.· 8. SDR-1540 - Floyd Gaines, Request for .Tentative Building Site Approval, Design A-879 - Review Approval, and Variance Approval to construct six (6) V-616 townhouses which maintain a front yard setback of 19Z~ ft. where 25 ft. iS required and a rear yard setback of 20 ft. where 25 ft. ~ is required and an 11 ft. retaining wall in the RM-3,000 zoning district at the ·northerly corner of the Fourth Street Stairway and Oak Street Staff described the project, noting that they were recommending denial because of the inconsistency wi·th the General Plan. Issues of concern were noted: (1) screening of the wall and placement of structure above it, (2) access, (3) setbacks, (4) appearance of retaining wall, (5) walkway and balconies, (6) on-site parking, (7) size of units,. and (8) turnaround. 'The public hearing was ·opened at 10:25 p.m. Sergio Ramierez, project leader, gave a pr~esentation on the proposal, discussing the wall and landscaping. Pat Jenkins, Twin Oaks Condominiums, Oak Street, explained the difficulty · in getting across Big Basin Way or turning left from 4th Street. She asked if it would be possible to h~ve no parking in that area.' She added that she felt this project would be an improvement over wh·at is existing. Staff noted that there had been a proposal by Staff to the City Council sometime ago to eliminate park- ing on one si'de of the street and it was rejected. Joel Fitzpatrick, TWin Oaks Condominiums,' stated that he was in total support of the Staff Report. He cited the lack of screening on the structure and its size. The setback in front was discussed. Mr. Fitzpat'rick stated that he was anxious to clean up the slum but felt that this proposal was not adequate. He added that the setbacks sho~ul·d not be shortened and an adequate planting area in back is needed. The civil engineer for the .p~j~e~'.c'·t stated that they '·Would be agr·eeable to no parking on 4th Street. He discussed the setbacks an~ turnaround. He commented that the Fire Chief had ·stated that the elimination ·of a fire truck turnaround would be alleviated by installing sprinkled garages. The size of the structure and proper screening were discussed. There was a con- sensus that there was concern regarding the screening of the wall, ·the three- story structure and setbacks. The possibili'ty of moving the building was dis- cussed. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on August 2, 1983.and the regular meetin~ of August 10, 1983, in order to discuss 9. A-890 -·John Poutre, 14360 Elva Ave., Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second-story addition to an existing one-story, single family' dwelling in ·the R-·I-10~000 zoning district Commissioner Siegfried gave a Land Use Committee, describing the proposal. He 5 Planning Commission Page 6 Meeting Minutes 7/2.7/83 A-890 (cont.) commented that .there WOuld be"no Visual impact on the neighbors. The public hea'ring was opened at'10:45 p.m. John Hofstramd, 14331 Paul Avenue, stated that he basically does not oppose the addition of the second story. He 'asked that the 'Commission consider the impact on the privacy of the neighbors and hoped that th'e windows would be high enough so it would be difficult to look down into back yards. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the bay windows look into the-hills and not down. Commissioner McGoldrick.moved to close' the 'public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded'the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Commissioner Bolger moved to approve A-890, per the Staff Report and Exhibits "B", "C" and "D". Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. Commissioner · Hlava commented that she did not fee'l that the condition was necessary regarding the obscure 'glass"on the bay wi'ndows since they don't look at anything but the hills. Commissioners Bolger and McGoldrick amended their motion to eliminate the condition. The motion was carried unanimously 7-0. 10. A-891 - William Kalanta, 14340 Elva Ave., Request for Design Review Approval to construct a se'con'd-story addition to an existing one-story, Single 'family dwe'll'ing 'in the R-l-10,000 zoning district Commissioner Siegfried gave 'a Land Use COmmittee Report, nothing that there are a number of windows on the 'three sides'. tte commented that in viewing the site the windows th'at look s~p~'~ly~will have.'no view other than on the roof of the single story house below; in th'e rear the're 'is nothing visible, and on the other side of the proper~y the wi'ndows will look into the back yard but there is no · fence there· now. He stated that they had concluded that there was not a sig- nificant impact. Staff noted that they could not make the privacy findings and were recommending denial. The public hearing was opened at 9:50 p.m. John Nixon, the architect, discussed the:wi'ndows and submitted letters from the next door neighbo'rs saying they' have no Objection to the project. John Hofstramd again stated that he had no objection to this second story but wo.uld like the Commission to consider' the 'impact to privacy of the neighbors. Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which wa's carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-891, per the Staff Report dated July 20, 1983 and Exhibits "B", "C" and "D", making the findings based on the fact that the home on the one side is so close so that all you see is the roof, and on the other side is the 'fact that the existing home is closer to the road and ~ the back yard is totally visible. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion. .Commissioner Bolger suggested that the two windows facing the rear yard should be obscure glass. It was also determined that Condition No. 1 should be deleted, regarding the windows on the north and south elevations. The motion was amended to reflect these two changes, the deletion of the present condition and the addition that the rear yard wi'ndows are to be obscure glass. The motion was carried unanimously 7-0. 11. A-892 - Bing Lee Tsai, 18691 Vessing Ct., Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-s~ry'.single family dwelling in the R-i-40,000 zoning district COmmissioner Siegfried gave a Land Use Committee Report, describing the lot and the design. Staff described the grading and noted that there was a second kitchen. The public hearing was opened at 11:00 p.m. James Chen, the agent, indicated that there was no second kitchen. He described the proposal. His desi'gner described the roofing material and color. - 6 - P~lanning C'ommission Page 7 Meeti'ng Minutes 7/27/8.3 A-892 (cont.) Lillian Kirkham, 18630 Sobey Road, objected to this proposal, since it would obstruct her view. The posi'tion of the proposed home relative to her home was discussed. It was determined that the proposed home will be much below her property and that her view would not be 'obstructed. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-892, per the Staff Report of'July 21, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C", adding the condition that the roof shall be of earthtone colors, s~ubj'ect to approval of the Permit Review Division. Commis- sioner McGoldrick seconded the' motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 12. A-893 Gerald Butler, Montalvo Road (near Montalvo Lane), Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single family dwell- ing in th'e R-i-40,00'0 zoning district It was directed that this item be continued to an adjourned regular meeting on August 2, 1983 because' of the length of the agenda. 13. UP-536 - S. Simonsen, .18433 Montewood Drive, Request for Use Permit Approval to construct solar collectors which exceed 6 feet in height and maintain.an 8 ft. setback' wBere 25 ft. is required It was directed that thi's 'item be continued to an adjourned regular meeting on August 2, 1983 because of the 'length of the agenda. 14a. SDR-1542 - Abel and Leila Carreia (Public Storage), 12299 Saratoga-Sunny- 14b.A~883 - vale Road, Request for Design Review Approval and Building Site Approval to allow 'a mini-storage facility in the C-V zoning dis'trict (north of Manor Drive) It was directed that thi's item be continued to an adjourned regular meeting on August 2, 1983 because of the length of the agenda. MISCELLANEOUS 15. SDR-213 - Montrol Corporation, 15065 E1 Camino Senda, Request for Site Modification for the construction 'of a 13 ft. retaining wall, 280 s'q. ft. gazebo and three fish ponds It was 'directed that this item be continued to the meeting on August 10, 1983 to allow time for an adequate soil and foundation investigation. COmmUNICATIONS Oral 1. Commissioner Bolger asked th'at the Resolution adding Office/Electronics to the P-A zoning district be reconsidered. He explained that he had been on vacation when it was on the agenda for approval, and would like to request one of the Commissioners voting against 'the ~es'o'lution to move for reconsideration. He stated that he feels very strongly abOut'the Owen si'te 'and is concerned about their response to the resolution. He added that he feels that an application for a zoning change by them is going to cost the Owen Companies a great deal of money and will encourage'them and prOllong the situation. Discussion followed and the City Attorney indicated that,'prior to doing any work on the EIR, the Owen Companies were requested to sign a.l:etter, acknowledging that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would be required'; no guarantee was being made that such an amendment would be given, and they are, therefore, paying the fee for the EIR with the full understanding that they may not have approval of the project and they are not acquiring any particular rights or privileges by reason of the. City starting work on the EIR. 'I'~'.~"~e.=~e~U~"~'~j~..~'~i.~e~'~-.~.scussion, that a conditional reconsideration would be brought up after the planned field trip with the Owen Company and prior to their submittal of an application for a zoning amendment. 2. Chairman Schaefer thanked the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee and the Saratoga News for attending the meeting. .ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to continue the meeting to an adjourned regular meeting on August 2, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. The motion was carried unanimously and the meet- ing ended at 11:29 p.m. '°b'~r~t%'~ 'p !tf mit d, RSS:cd tary u} ~ - G I~ U~ · 0 :~ 0 ~ ~ rD HI 0 ~ ·