Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-1974 Planning Commission Minutes =- CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ***********~********* '. TIME: Wednesday, May 8, 19'74 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting **~W¢***************** .I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL : Present:Commissioners Belanger, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni, Smith and Woodward Absent: None B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the reading of the minutes of April 24,.1974 be waiyed, and that they be approved as distri- buted to the Commission. The motion.was carried unanimously. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Belanger presented an o~al report of the City Council meeting of May 1, 1974. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City Administration office. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. V-404 - Robert Miller, Lomita Avenue - Request for Variance to Allow a New Two- Story Residential Structure on Property Not Opposite or Contiguous to the Same (Sec. 3-7-2 of Ordinance NS-3); Continued from April 24~ 1974 Chairman Marshall informed those pre§ent that a letter dated May 3, 1974 had been received from the City Attorney.containing his interpretation of the Two- Story Ordinance. It.was noted in this letter that Mr. Miller's lot was contiguous to a site on which there was a singl~-story house as well as to a site on which there was a two-story house. The following provision in the Two-Story Ordinance was cited: "Where a mUlti-story residential structure already exists on a lot or site, a new multi-residential structure may be erected opposite or contiguous to the same; where a single-story residential structure already exists on a lot'or site, no new multi-story residential struc- ture shall be allowed opposite or contiguous to the same." Mr. Johnston contended in his letterlthat this provision was ambiguous in that consideration had not been given where a lot was contiguous to both a single- story and a two-story house. He recSmmended the following: (1) the original Staff interpretation should be upheld that this matter would not require a var- iance, and the ambiguity of the Ordinance should be construed in favor of the '-.. property owner; (2) the Two-Story Ordinance should be amended to eliminate this ambiguity; and (3) the distance of the contiguous two-story house was farther from the proposed Site than..the contiguous one-story house, and this distance factor was not presently specific in! the Ordinance. Chairman Marshall explained that in ~he light of this interpretation, a variance would not be required on this matteri, and consequently would not require a public hearing. He added, however, that in fairness to the public, he would open the public hearing on V-404; this was sol done at 7:40 p.m. The Secretary stated that the VarianCe Committee had met with the applicant on- site on May 4, 1974, and that they had concluded if this was to be interpreted as a variance, the Committee would b~ in favor of granting same. Commissioner Minutes of A. V-404 - Robert Miller - Continued Martin confirmed this statement and. added that he felt this matter was more of a legal problem than a variance. He:further stated that the Committee indicated that a single-story structure built With the legal setbacks on this property would obstruct·.the view and invade the privacy more than a two-story structure located where it/was proposed. Mr. R.H. Sudholt, 20610 Lomita Avenue, stated that there were a number of com- ments he would like to make for the ~ecord: (1) the law was ambiguous and he could see why there was confusion; (2) his own lot was more contiguous than the applicant's and he did not understand why preference should be given to "homes on paper rather than those homes which had been in existence for ten to twenty years." He stated that his own lot was more susceptible to damage than a normal situation where the lot was level intomuch as his lot was 8 feet below the applicant's. He objected to the reasoning that two-story structures did not do more to invade privacy and distruct the view than a single-story structure, and he contended that a single-story str~cture would be more acceptable to the neigh- borhood. Mr. Miller concluded his statements by drawing attention to a petition containing 17 signatures of residentbo~.LOmita Avenue, and by asking what nature of action could be taken by these pe[itioners against this matter. Chairman Marshall stated that the logical course of action should be for the Commission to abandon the variance action, and accept the City Attorney's opinion that the Ordinance was incorrectly written and must be construed against the governmental agency rather than the applicant. He explained that insomuch as there was no variance involved, the ~pplicant could apply for building site approval, and any objections to this' could be heard at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He further pointed out that after an on-site review, the Variance Committee·'·S findings were in~support~ of the applicant, and that the only difference between the variance and building site procedures was the right of appeal to the City Council. Ms. Virginia Kerr, 20620 Lomita Avenhe, stated she owned the property next to the applicant, and that the possibility of another two-story structure being con- structed behind her~would be made available if Mr. Miller was granted· approval. She pointed out that the owner of the property behind her had indicated he ~Lmight·b6il~'~ two-story sturcture, and she complained that this would hem in her zproperty. the statedT"'~ one two-story house i's b'~'flt"~here will be no stop- ~ing ~h'e~V,"~d'~'d~d,""'~ are ·0p~ning up s~n~hi~"~h~ ~ins privacy of homes ~as we enjoy ~h~m now. ''· Commissioner Martin stated that the Variance Committee had determined from this neighbor that he was not presently e~tertaining plans for constructing a two- story structure. He added that was a non-conforming lot involved there, and it would not be technically feasible at' the present time to build a two-story house on the property. There were no further comments made By members of the audience. Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin,that the public hearing on V-404 be closed. ·The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on V-404 at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Belanger contended there were'two inequities in this situation: (1) the ambiguity of the Ordinance ~s pointed out by the City Attorney; and (2) when the decision was made to construe the provision in question against the City, it was also made against many .homeowners. She stated that she would like to handle this matter as a variance ~hich she would be in favor of granting, and thereby provide an appeal process for those neighbors who objected to same. It was'pointed'out that the City Att. orney had felt a variance was not appropriate in this situation; Chairman Marshall and Commissioner Matteoni voiced opinions that they were not in favor of treat'ing this matter as a variance based on Mr. Johnston's opinion. Commissioner Martin stated those neighbors who objected to ~ ~" Minutes of A. V-404 - Robert Miller -'Continued this might possibly seek a Writ of M~ndate. He further pointed out that the draft of this Two-Story Ordinance, a~ he remembered, had not contained this anomaly, and he suggested a typographical error might have been made. He urged the Ordinance be amended as suggested earlier. Connuissioner Belanger agreed with th{s latter statement, but she felt that in order to rectify an error made by th& City, it would be necessary to incorporate the variance procedure,-ln this matter in order to assure the appealt process. At this point, Connuissioner Matteoniimoved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Commission accept the Staff's and City Attorney's interpretation that a variance would not be required in the matter of V-404. The motion was carried: 4_~yes, and Commissioner Belanger voted no. ~.. "~i'?"': Commissioner Smith moved, 'secOnded b~ Commissioner Belanger'~ that" dhe' commission j ~ .;:.~ recommend to the City Council.that.the Two-Story Ordinance, as.structured in the [~ ..~'.~ City Attorney's letter of.May 3,.1974,"be revi'ewed and appropriate amendments be {. .,~. 'made. The motion was carried'unanimOuSly .... - .... · .... ~"' ",'~.._i ..............i.~ ......: ......'..' ......'~._'~_.'i..'._..=..' ...........................:"..'Z~Tl'ZT.:"i"-'.'-"il ....Z~jL'7'i.~.'iL;'Z.Z-'-'i~'~-'--'-".'-i-i ...........'.Jr"' ~'or~n'i~S'i0~'~arii~'~dded t'~t he w~dld like to request the City Council ascer- tain that there were no ambiguous statements nor typographical errors contained in the amended Two-Story Ordinance. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1100 - A.R. Woolworth, Brandywine Drive, Building Site Approval - 4 Lots; Continued from April 24,'~974 The Secretary stated that a letter from the applicant had been received dated May 6, 1974 which granted an extension to the next meeting of the Planning Com- mission meeting. He explained that the applicant had been advised of the Sub- division:Committee's opinion relativ~ to a 4-lot subdivision on this property, and that he had requested time to review this further. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1100 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of May 8, 1974, and referred thi~ matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. ~ B. SDR-1103 - Fred Marburg, Saratoga-Su~nyvale Road, Commercial.Expansion; Continued from April 24~ 1974 The Secretary stated this was a proppsed expansion to the Argonaut Shopping Center. He stated that a Staff Report had been prepared on SDR-1103 dated May 8, 1974, and he corrected the Report to include Condition "W" as follows: "Design Review required." The Secretary added that. it was Staff's recommendation that the tentative building site approval be granted in accordance with the Report. The matter of adequate parking spaces was discussed, and it was determined that if the bank was constructed, the parking lot would be inadequate by i0 spaces, or 4%. Commissioner Smith stated he felt that the developer should be required to decrease the size of the building! ~rea by 4%, or 2,000 square feet as based on the City Ordinance. It was suggelsted that insomuch as the parking lot had never been completely filled, the'm~nus te~n spaceS..~ight never be felt. Commissioner Belanger stated she felt the ingress/egress from Blauer Drive should be widened in order to handle increa;sed traffic; and that Blauer Drive contained an island which only allowed for a one-car, left-hand-turn stacking lane. She contended that the developer should be required to improve Blauer Drive in that improvements were being made to the Zshopping center, and added that this would be consistent with the Commission po'licy of asking people who impinged on an area to make improvements thereon. -3- Minutes of B. SDR-1103 - Fred Marburg - Continued Mr. Marburg, applicant, stated that he felt traffic flow would not seek Blauer Drive as an exit in that traffic flowed away from Biauer rather than to it. He suggested this be a matter requiring.a traffic count, and added that there was also an exit onto Pierce Road to help handle increased traffic. Mr. Trinidad, Assistant Director of Public Works, ~equested that before adding any traffic- oriented c~nditions to the Commission recommendations, he would like to make a more thorough investigation of the Blauer Drive matter. Mr. San Filipo, the developer, stated that he did not feel he should be required ~' ', '~to contribute anything on Blauer Drive because the City had specified their .=-? 'i ["building conditions on B%auer Drive. in I960 when the'shopping.center was being' i ~ .constructed.. He added that the bottom of Blauer 'Drive was 35 feet wide, which '; i was 3 feet wider than PuBlic Works' specifications called. for.: He explained ~..~.~to ~'eparate' the ingress/(~gr~ss' ~I~'~-' Mr. Gary Baker, representative of Safeway, requested clarification of Conditions (h~, (i~ and (j~ of the Staff Report!. ~e protested that in dedicating 8 feet of property for the purpose of'a bikepath,would mean crippling the present land- scaping along the frontage as well as requiring that planter islands which con- tain mature plants be removed. Commissioner ~atteoni explained that Condition (h) was included in the Staff Report as a ~m'~'d~'ice had made a decision on the Bike Path! issue~"~and ~ndicated tha't' the Council would be making this decision within. a week. He added that.' he felt Condition'(h) was "generally ~easonable." Chairman ~arshall recommended SDR-1103 be continued to the meeting of ~ay 22, 1974 pending further review by Staff, Department of Public Works and the Subdi- vision Committee. ~t was noted that a letter from the applicant granting an ex- tension to this meeting would be required prior to the expiration date. Mr. ~arburg asked if at the Ma~ 22 m~eting, design review. as well as building site approval would be considered; Commissioner 5elanger replied that design review should be ready by that date.' Mr. Marburg indicated acceptance of the continuation. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that application SDR-1103 be denied subject to receipt of a written extension from the applicant to the May 22, 1974 meeting of the Planning Commission prior to the expiration date. The motion was carried unanim0usly. C. SDR-1106 - Mary Lynn Dutro, Big ~asin Way, Building Site Approval - i Lot; Continued from April 24~ ,1974 The Secretary stated a Staff Report dated May 8, 1974 had been prepared on SDR-1106 which recor~nended approval be granted. 'There were no further comments. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that ~he Commission approve application SDR-1106 and the, tentative map (Exhibit A filed ~arch 18, 1974~, subject to the Staff Report dated May 8, 197~ including General Conditions ~ and Specific Conditions T~ (a) through (.n) of the Report. The motion was carried unan imo u s i y. D. SDR-1109 - John Terrill, Pierce Road, Building Site Approval - i ~ot; Continued from April 24~ 1974 The Secretary stated that a Staff Report dated May 8, 1974 had been prepared on SDR-1109 which recommended approval be granted. He further corrected the Report by adding to Condition (g) the folloZwing: "... engineered improvement plans." There were no further comments. -4- Minutes of D. SDR-1109 - John Terrill - Continued Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by CommiSsioner Belanger, that the Commission approve application SDR-1109 and theitentative Map (Exhibit A filed March 25, 1974), subject to the Staff Report dated May 8,-1974 including General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (a) through (~) of the Report. The motion was carried unanimously. E. SD-1110 Dividend Industries, SaratOga-Los Gatos Road, Subdivision Approval - 18"L'Ots; Continued from April 24~ 1974 The Secretary stated that a revised plan had been requested depicting a 15-lot cul-de-sac subdivision. He further stated that the Department of Transportation in their ~ter of May 8 had expressed an unwillingness to grant an encroachment permit because 0f the number of poorly aligned intersections in the vicinity, and that Public Works had requested this matter be continued until this circulation problem had been resolved. It was also noted that the Santa Clara County Archaeo- logical Society had submitted a letter dated May 6, 1974 appealing to the City Council the Negative Declaration filed on this application.. It was recommended by Staff that SD-1110 be continued t0 the meeting of May 22, 1974, and that a written extension be granted by the applicant to the May 22 meeting prior to the expiration date. Mr. Cecchi, representative of the applicant, stated that a meeting had been held between himself, the State Departmen~ of Transportation and the Department of Public Works relative to the encroachment permit which had resulted in a prelimi- nary proposal to provide a left-handllane from Highway 9 onto the development. He added that he felt this would resolve the encroachment permit matter. Chairman Marshall requested that the iapplicant submit a revised map which reflected the result of this meeting along with a letter from the Department of Transpor- tation explaining same. He further directed the Secretary to send a map of Saratoga to the Santa Clara County Archaeological Society with the request that for future reference, they i'ndicate ~hereon potential archeaological areas. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Commission deny application SD-1110 subject to ~eceipt of a written extension from the applicant. to the May 22 Planning Commission meeting prior to the expiration date. The motion was carried unanimously. F. SDR-1113 - Carolyn Buehner, Allendal~ Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from April 24, ~974 The Secretary stated a Staff Report dated May 8, 1974 had been prepared relative to SDR-1113 which recommended approval be granted. He added that there were a number of conditions which needed to .be revised on Exhibit A per the Santa Clara Valley Water District letter of May ~, and added that the applicant would be required to submit these revisions t6 the file. Mr. Trinidad added that p~ior to.granting final design approval, the Department of Public Works would receive a letter from the Water District confirming whether the conditions specified in their May 6 letter had been met. The Memorandum from the Department of Parks & Recreation dated April 17, 1974 was discussed. The Secretary stated the %recommendation pertaining to a trail along Vasona Creek was a matter of clarification, and that the 10 foot sanitary ease- ment would not be used.for trail purposes. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Commission approve application SDR-1113 and the ~tentative map (Exhibit A filed April 4, 1974), subject to the St~ff Report dated May' 8, 1974 including General Conditions I and SpeCific Conditions II (a) through (n).'.!Th~i. motion was carried unanimously. -5- Minutes of G. SD-1114 - Ruth & Going, Montalvo Road, Subdivision Approval 5 Lots; Continued from April 24~ 1974 ~ ; The Secretary stated that a Staff Report dated May 8, 1974 had been prepared on SD-1114 which recommended approval be granted. It was noted that this was a re- application of a previously approved.subdivision application which expired, and that the conditions set forth were the same as those Originally approved. A question was raised as to the tapered strip of land located on the easterly side of the property. Mr. Lamberg, representative of the applicant, explained that this was the result of the readjustment of parcel lines, and he indicated that at the time this property was sgld, new maps would reflect this added strip. Condition "Q" of the Staff Report relative to requirements specified by Parks & Recreation Department was next discussed. This Memorandum specified that~' (1)'a trail easement be granted along the sanitation sewer easement located on the south side of Wildcat Creek; and%(2) "the Master Plan calls for a trail easement along Montalvo Road on the east side of the lot, and this should be retained." Questions were raised as.to whether the latter called for a dedica- tion of land, and it was determined that the Memorandum requested retention of a trail easement on Montalvo Road and did not specify dedication of land. Commissioner Woodward requested that'Exhibit A reflect where this trail was to be located; she further pointed out that locations of easements and land dedica- tions should be made clear on futureZParks & Recreation memorandums. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the CommisSion approve a~plication SD-1114 and the tentative map (Exhibit A filed April 2, 1974), subject to the Staff Report dated May 8, 1974 including General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (a) through (~) of the Report. The motion was carried unanimously. In order to clarify the Parks & Recreation.memorandum, a motion was made by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Martin that the condition cited in the Parks & Recreation Memorandum. dated April 17, 1974 relative to the trail easement along Montalvo Road was interpreted by the Commission to not include dedication of land. The motion was not passed: Commissioners Smith and Martin voted aye; Commissioners Woodward and Matteoni voted no; Commissioner Belanger abstained. Chairman Marshall moved, seconded by. Commissioner Woodward, that the Memorandum dated April 1'7, 1974 from the Parks & Recreation Department be returned to Barbara Sampson for further elarification. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Belanger questioned that if the Commission interpreted the Parks & Recreation condition differently from Ms. Sampson's intent, would it result in informing the applicant later that the conditions had been changed. Commissioner Smith pointed out that the .Staff Rep.ort had been passed by the Commission granting approval to the applicant based on the Commission's interpretation that dedica- tion of land was not required. To avoid future misconceptions, the Secretary was directed to request that a representative from the Parks & Recreation Department be present at Shbdi~ision Committee meetings when easements were being sought, and that exhibit maps be marked to depict their requirements. H. SDR-1115 - Marvin Kirkeby, Saratoga%Sunnyvale Road, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots; Continued from April 24, 1974 The Secretary stated that the applicant had requested this be continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission pending further review of a full street right-of-way. : Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1115 'be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 22, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. ~ -6- L Minutes of May 8~ .... III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS - Continued The Secretary stated that the files on the following applications were not complete, and recommended they be continued: I. SDR-1116 - Roger Ross, Saratoga Hills Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot J. SDR-1117 - S. Tom Barton, Pierce Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot K. SDR-1118 - Robert Johnson, Oriole Road~ Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1116, SDR~lll7 and SDR-1118 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 22, 1974, and referred these matters to the Sub- division Committee for review. ~ IV. DESIGN REVIEW ~ A. A-433 - Grace United Methodist Church~ Prospect Road - Identification Sign Mr. Don Burt, City Planner, read the;Staff Report dated May 8, 1974 relative to A-433 which recommended approval of the request for an identification sign. He further corrected the Staff Report's Condition (e) as follows: "...from dusk until 10:00 p.m." Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, thatl,the Commission ~a~prove'-application A-433 subject to the Staff Report dated May 8, 1974 including Conditions (a) through (e). The motion was carried unanimously. BREAK: 9:45 p.m. REOPEN: 9:55 p.m. V. MISCELLANEOUS A. SD-1055 - Robert Communities, Inc., ~aratoga Avenue & Dagmar Drive - 42 Lots; File Amendment Revised Tract Map Depicting New Easements and a 41 Lot Subdivision ~ The Secretary stated that the initial approval had been granted for a 42-1ot subdivision, but that upon negotiating easement requirements with PG&E, the applicant had been required to modify his plan to reduce the number of lots to 41. Mr. Cecchi, representative of the applicant, explained that PG&E had required that the transmission tower ~ither b~ relocated or tubular construction put in; and in order to comply with this request, a shifting of lots had ~esulted: there was one vless 20,000 sq. ft. 10t than originally planned, and one cul-de-sac had been eliminated. ~ Commissioner Smith moved, seconded b~ Commissioner Belanger, that the amended map (Exhibit A-3, filed April 12, 1974) on SD-1055 be accepted by the Commission as the exhibit of record. The motioD was carried unanimously. B. Referral from the City Council: Council's Preliminary Decision to Accept, With Revisions~ the Planning Commission's Recommendations Relative to the General Plan Chairman Marshall explained that as ~ procedural matter, the Council Was required to refer the revised General Plan tol the Commission for endorsement. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the 1973 General Plan~(Objectives, Policies, Actions portion and the Sphere of Influence portion) as revised by the City Council, be endorsed by the Commission and returned to City Council. The motion was carried unanimously. -.7- Minutes of May 8~ ..... C. Matter of Model Homes Sales Office P~licy Chairman Marshall stated the Model Homes Sales Office Policy had been revised to reduce the number of lots from twent~ to ~ore than ten lots. as suggested at the /~'~f'~ Planning Conmaission meeting~ There were no further comments. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the suggestion by the Subdivision Committee dated May 8, 1974 on the Policy for Model Homes Sales Offices be adopted, and that the Staff be instructed to incorporate the suggested form for future reports on such use. The motion was carried unanimously. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATIONS A. Consideration of Revisions to Resolution No. 653: EIR Criteria & Procedures The Secretary stated that Resolution]653 relative to EIR Criteria and Procedures incorporated changes made by the City Attorney, Planning Staff and.State law. He stated that the most significant thange provided that when an EIR was necessary, the developer would be required to pay the cost of an independent analysis pre- pared by a consultant chosen by the applicant from a list of/'Planning Director- lapproved professional consultants. He added that it was Staff's recommendation that'this ~evised Resolution be apprgved and forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded b~ Commissioner Matteoni, that the revised Resolution 653 be adopted' by the. Commission and be forwarded to City Council for consideration and adoption. The motion was carried unanimously. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. Letter dated April 30, 1974 from. the Acting Planning Director to Robert and Jeanne Sheffield relative to the! Commission's decision that the Palo Alto Foothill Study did not pertain to the Painless Parker project. 2. Informational memorandum from th'e Acting Planning Director to.the Commission dated April 30, 1974 relative toz the Monte. Bello, Ridge Traffic Study and the Water District fencing i~sueZ. 3. Memorandum from the Acting Planning Director to the Commission dated May 1, relative to reagendizing the Painless Parker Ranch application (C-172) to the Planning Commission meeting 'of June 12, 1974. Chairman Marshall directed the Secretary to issue proper public notices on this matter. 4. Letter dated April 20, 1974 to the City Planning Director from West Valley Community College which stated that two Negative DeClarations had been filed relative to the Off-Street Parking construction contract (speCifically for the construction of Parking Lot #3) and which invited comments for further · consideration by the Governing B.oard by May 9, 1974. Councilman Kraus stated this mat'ter had been discussed at the last City Council meeting, and he explainezd that an injunction had been issued against this construction but that West Valley was seaking relief from same. Commissioner Belanger requested .Staff to reaffirm comments made at the March 27 Planning Commission meeting, and forward same to the Governing Board. She pointed out that the Design Revi. ew Committee had not given the parking lot design review approval "because we did not want to indicate that our approval implied approval of the project 'but only that we had some Conditions in mind if they went ahead with the cons'truction." She cited these conditions as (1) lighting be either lowered Qr cast downward; (2) circulation prSblem'~"'~ addressed; and (3) landscaping o.r screening be required. Chairman Marshall directed the Secretary to submit a letter to the Governing Board of West Valley Community College prior to May 10, 1974 reaffirming the Design Review Committee~s comments. ~8- Minutes of A. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Continued 5. Letter dated May 6, 1974 from Nicholas and Kathleen Fedeli to the Commission encouraging expedition of the ChUrch of Ascension design review application. B. ORAL ' 1. Commissioner Belanger questionedZif the James Day subdivision off Quito Road was being issued building permit~ in that ·the emergency access easement re- quirement was outstanding. The Secretary was directed to request the developer to comply with this requirement prior to issuance of further building permits. 2. Commissioner Belanger asked if permission had been granted to the Commission-· for attending the "Short Course for Planning Commissioners" in San Francisco. The Secretary stated that as soon as the City Manager made a determination on same, he would notify the CommisSioners. 3., Mr. Greeley, a gentleman in the audience, asked if the EIR on the Painless Parker property would be filed on the June 12 Commission meeting. The Secretary explained that review Of previous discussions on C-172 would be held at the June 12 meeting, andlthat a separate hearing would be scheduled at that time for discussions of the EIR. 4. Mr. Miles Rankin, Big Basin Way, ·stated that the following wording had been included in the 1973 General Plah Statement of Policy concerning architectural design review: "Architectural Design Review will.be applied on all develop- ments in Saratoga as far as legally possible." He urged the use of the Architectural Design Review Committee, especially on matters involving commercial ~rojects. 5. Chairman Marshall welcomed Councilman Kraus·~ to the May 8 meeting. ~ VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission meeting of May 8 1974 be adj5urned. The motion was carried unanimously. , ~ Chairman Marshall adjourned the meetingat 10:30 p.m. R~spectfully submitted, ar e S . . owe ' Acting Secretary -·9-