HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-1974 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
TIME: Wednesday, July 24, 1974 - 7:30 p.m..
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
yPr~vSe~t:.commissioners Belanger, Callon, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni, Smith
and Woodward
Absent: None
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the reading of
the minutes of June 26, 1974 be w~ived, and that they be approved as distributed
by the Commission. The motion was carried; Commissioner Woodward abstained in
that she was not present at the June'26th meeting.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the reading of
the minutes of JuLl'y 10, 1974 be waived, and that they be approved as distrlb~ted
to the Commission subject to the following correction: page 11, paragraph 3, use
of the word "challenge" instead of charge. The motion w~S carried; Commissioners
Belanger and Martin abstained in that they were not present at the July 10th meeting.
C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Commissioner Matteoni gave an oral report of the July 17, 1974 City Council meeting.
Of special interest to the Commissioh were the following items:
1. SD-904, George Day Construction Company, request for reconsideration of
Condition 6 regarding unimproved.path on Douglass Lane. It was noted that
the request was received too late for reconsideration, but the Council set
a hearing for the August'~':fd"City Council meeting, stating that perhaps the
city was partially at fault in this matter in that the path had not been
reflected on the map.
2. Appeal by the Pride's Crossing Homeo~ners Association of the granting of the
Planning Commission final design.review for the Church of Ascension. The
appeal was withdrawn because the 'Homeowners acknowledged that they should have
chosen as the v~[iq{~ of their appeal was the .~se Permit application not the
Design Review application. They indicated their concern was the re-review of
driveways through the Church's property relative to internal circulation,
parking lots and landscaping. Cqmmissioner Matteoni reported that the home-
owners had indicated after the meeting a resolution between themselves and
the Church had possibly been reached, but they recommended that the only way
this matter could be finally resolved was for the Planning Commission to
reopen the public hearing on ~se Perm_it_ application .UP-80~
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C-171 - Mel DeSelle, 5th Street, Chan~e of Zoning Request from "R-M-3,000"
(Multiple Residential) to "C-C" (Community Commercial); a .2024 acre
parcel; Continued from June 1~ 1974
The Secretary recommended this matter~, along with C-176 and C-177, be continued
to the August 28, 1974 Planning CommiSsion meeting pending review and approval of
the Saratoga Village Plan. He notified the Commission that a study session on same
would be held on July 30, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. in the Crisp Conference Room, and he
requested all interested parties be p~esent at that time.
Chairman Marshall continued C-171 to the Planning Commission meeting of August 28,
~'1'9'7~7'~d' ¥~ferred"~is matter to the' Sub~i~f6~'C~r~i'~t~f~further revxew. "'
~: ~' MINUTES OF JULY 24
B. C-172 - Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch), Prospect and Stelling Roads, Change of
Zoning Request from "R-I-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to
"R-I-40,000 PC" (Single-Family Residential Planned Community); a 218 acre
parcel; Continued from June 12, 1974
The Secretary recommended this matter be continued until resolution of the EIR
matter (CE-172). He explained that at the special meeting on the EIR on July 16,
the developer had been requested to provide a schedule at which time he could
address those ~qde~t-i~ns raised to date.
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on C-172 at 7:50 p.m.
Mr. Zettler Greely, 21450 Prospect Road, Cupertino, asked if the Planning Commis-
sion and Planning Department would refer to the request for rezoning from
R-I-40,000 and agricultural to Planned Community rezoning, adding "I believe the
record shows it is R-l~40,000 and agricultural." The Secretary indicated he would
investigate the matter.
The Secretary raised the question of scheduling the next public hearing on CE-172
and C-172. He 7explained tha.~ after talking with the developer, the recommendation
was that the cutoff date for r~ceiving input from public agencies relative to the
EIR should be August 5; September 5 would be the date for the consultants to pre-
pare a revised EIR based on those comments received; the revised report would be
forwarded to ENVIROS for review and Comment by September 26; the revised report and
.. input from ENVIROS would be distributed to public agencies and the public for
review and Comment; and the next pubiic hearing on CE-172 would be scheduled for
October 3, 1974. He emphasized that'by scheduling the meeting for October 3, the
Planning Commission would in no way be closing the door on public input as the
public hearing could be continued if.necessary.
After discussion of same, the consensus of the Planning Commission was that the
public desired and should be given more time to review the revised EIR. They
directed that upon receipt of the EIR from the consultant on September 5, the
public and ENVIROS should both be forwarded copies of same, and that the next
public hearing on CE-172 ...would be scheduled for October 3, 1974. It was felt
that ENVIROS' review of the EIR was primarily for the Planning Commission's gui-
dance, and it was further indicated by representatives of the Friends of Painless
Parker that they would prefer having the extra time to make their own reviews
rather than having ENVIROS' input. The Commission further scheduled the next
public hearing Dn the change of zonin, g request (C-172) for October 23~ 1974.
Mr. R.L. Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, expressed concern that there was a lot of
work which had been requested be done relative to the EIR;(i.e. studies on traffic,
floods and geology), and he protested that by setting a Septamber 5 deadline the
Commission would automatically limit 'the amount of work which the consultant
could do. He al~O asked if the Planning Commission planned "to explicitly state
to the developer. those items that mu~t be included in the EIR to make it acceptable."
The Secretary stated that September 5 was a target date only, and that the
October 3 public hearing would not be the end of public response. In response to
Mr. Crowther's/question,CChairman Marshall explained that at suc.h time as the
majority of the Commissioners determined they had adequate information, they
would vote to ad~p~t some form of a preliminary EIR. Upon adoption of same, the
report would be forwarded to the City Council for adoption of the final EIR. He
pointed out that all of the various comments received to date were being addressed
by the preparer of the EIR, and the Commission could n~t predict to what degree
the consultant would respond. He added, "we will look at what they come back with
and decide whether it is adequate or %not." Commissioner Matteoni inserted, "we
will have to be satisfied or otherwise it will not be acceptable."
Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on C-172 at 8:25 p.m., continued C-172
to the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 1974, and referred this matter
to Staff and the Subdivision Commission for further review. He added that the
public hearing on CE-172 would be held at a special hearing on October 3, 1974.
~._.., "'~! ~
.. · . I ..... ~__~
,_ ....., .....
-2-
MINUTES OF JULY 24
C. C-176 - Gene Zambetti, Oak Street, Change of Zoning Request from "R-M-3,000"
(Multiple Residential) to "C~C" (Community Commercial)
The Secretary recommended this matter be continued to the August 28th meeting
pending resolution of the Saratoga Village Plan.
Mr. Gene Zambetti, 14570 Oak Street,'corrected the public notice.'~'~h~i-z~'[~'~'.
· '~?~_-~.~'v~a change of zoning request for l the lower 80-feet of his property"instead
of the entire parcel as was shown in:the Saratoga News. He further asked what
type of ordinance had the Village Plan consultants arrived at relative to mixing
residential and corf~f~ercial uses, to ~hich Chairman Marshall replied that the best
vehicle for discussing same would be at the July 30th Study Session on the
Village Plan.
Chairman Marshall continued C-17i~ to=the. Planning Commission meeting of August 28,
1974, and referred this matter to th~ Subdivision Committee for further review.
D. C-177 - Mary Jane BrQwn.,.~Third Street, Change of Zoning Request from "R-M-3,000"
(Multiple:~Re~dential) to "C'C" (Community Commercial)
Chairman ~a~shall directed C-177 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of August 28, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for review.
- E. V-410 - Frank Ryder, Richel~eu Court'- Request for Variance to A.11'0w an Addition
to a Residence at 13777 Richelieu Court to be Constructed .within 15-Feet
of the Front Property Line in Lieu of the Required 25-Feet (Ordinance NS-3,
Section 3.7) ; Continued from July 10~ 1974
~heiSec~etary stated that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval
be granted. Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on V-410 at 8:27 p.m.
Mr. Bruce McGilaway, 13730 Richelieu Court, introduced a letter to the Commission
dated July 24, 1974 rescinding disapproval earlier expressed by him, and recom-
mending approval of V-410. Chairman'Marshall further introduced into the record
a letter dated July 22, 1974 from Mr. Lyle H. McCarty, 19235 Harleigh Drive, with-
drawing objection to the proposed variance.
There were no further con~nents.
Commissioner Martin ~oved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the public
hearing on V-410 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Marshall
closed the public hearing on this matter at 8:30 p.m.
Commissioner Smith objected to the c6nditions of the Staff Report contending they
were not~S'~'ffi'~i'entf~orggrant~Bgia-.~a'rian~e~ He explained that Ordinance NS-3,
Section'17.6 interpr'eted..b~d§h~'p'a~Tbeihg "irregular ground, Or something of that
sort, which prevented bh~lH~gd~ngth~tsite proposed." He further explained that
this would be granting a special privilege to the applicant other than rights-
generally awarded to other property owners in the district.
On this basis, Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Chairman Marshall, that the
Cormnission reject the Staff Report dated July 24, 1974 relative to V-410, and
that the request for variance be denied. Chairman Marshall explained that he felt'
there had been a dual mistake made by the applicant and the City, and he felt this
matter should be referred totthe City Council.
Commissioner Matteoni stated that he would vote against the motion because he felt
a hardship did exist in that this was not a usual situation, adding "in my view
the Ordinance has to be tempered with the equity of what has happened." He pointed
out that the applicant had halted all work done when informed he was not in com-
pliance with City ordinances; he attempted to comply with the ordinances; he im-
posed strict architectural standards on himself; the addition fitted along-side a
neighbor's garage and the applicant had landscaped along there; and th6se neigh-
hor's who formerly opposed this had Withdrawn their objections.
Commissioner Smith stated that the Ordinance specifically stated a physical hard-_
ship, adding "in my opinion this is a financial hardship which is jointly create~
-3-
MINUTES OF JULY 24.
E. V-410 - Frank Ryder - Continued
by the owner and by the City. I believe we should pass this on as a denial to the
City Council, and if the owner wishes to appeal, it would be up to the Council to
make a financial adjustment to the owner or override our denial."
The motion was not passed: 2 ayes a~d 5 nos.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Commission
accept the Staff Report dated Ju!X 2~, 1974 relative to V-4!0, and that the request
for variance be granted. The motion was passed: 5 ayes and 2 nos.
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SDR-1115 - Marvin Kirkeby, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Building Site Approval - 3
Lots; Continued from July 10p 1974 (Expiration extended to July 24~ 1974)
It was noted that the applicant granted an extension to the Planning Commission..f"'7!
meeting of August 14, 1974 pending resolution of access problems. Chairman Marshall
continued SDR-1115 to the Planning Cdmmission meeting of August 14, 1974, and re-
ferred this matter to the Subdivisio~ Committee for further review.
B~ SDR-1129 - Christine Pace, La Paloma.Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot;
Continued from July 10~ 1974 (Expires July 27~ 1974)
The Secretary stated that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended
approval be granted.
After some discussion as to whether [he offer 'of dedication to provide a 20-foot
half-street for La Paloma extension would be sufficient, it was determined that
this half-street would be adequate far secondary access.
Mr. Faber Johnston, City Attorney, contended that Condition (n), a standardPublic
Works condition, should be more detailed, and recommended that future Public
Works conditions reference the engineering standards regarding the degree to
which fill should be compacted. Staff was alirected to look into this matter.
. After ~ggestion was made t.o change the Note on the Staff Report to Condition (r),
Staff' 'm~di~i~d" same. ~
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by. Commissioner Woodward, that the Commission
approve application SDR-1129, subject' to the Staff Report dated July 24, 1974
including General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (a) through (r). The
motion was carried unanimously. :
C. SDR-1130 - Donald Perata, Pike Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued
from July 10, 1974 (Expires August 10, 1974)
The Secretary stated the applicant granted an extension on this matter to the
Planning Commission meeting of August! 14, 1.974 pending further review by the
Subdivision Committee. The Chairman continued SDR-1130 to the Planning Commission
of August 14, 1974, and referred this'matter to the Subdivision Committee for
further review.
<~} SDR-1131 - Brooks Terhune, Carniel Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot;' (Expires AuSust 28~ 1974)
It was noted th~ file on SDR-1131 was'not complete. Chairman Marshall continued
SDR-1131 to the Planning Commission m~eting of August 14, 1974, and referred this
matter to the Subdivision Committee for review.
E. SDR-1132 - J. Michael Wharton, CanyonzView Drive, Building Site Approval- 1 Lot;
(Expires August 28~ 1974)
It was noted the file on SDR-1132 was'not complete. Chairman Marshall continued
SDR-1132 to the Planning Commission meeting of August 14, 1974, and referred this
matter to the Subdivision Committee for '~eview.
MINUTES OF JULY 24
F. SDR-1133.- .Barrett Anderson, Jacks RSad, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot;
(Expires August 29~ 1974);
It was noted that the file on SDR-1133 was not complete. Chairman Marshall con-
tinued SDR-1133 to the Planning Commission meeting of August 14, 1974, and referred
this matter to the Subdivision Committee for review.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-435 - Alberto Perez, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review - Id~ntifica-
tion Sign; Continued from July 10, 1974
Mr. Burr, City Planner, read the Staff Report into the record which recommended
approval be granted.
The question was raised as to what the legal status was of the sign policy in the
Blue Hills Shopping Center. Mr. Burr explained that the Code Enforcement Officer
had requested that people who start ~igns come into City Hall and make legal their
signs via permits. It was further nqted that the Sign Ordinance allowed 10-years
during which time all non-conforming .signs would be removed on a sliding scale de-
pendent upon age. Chairman Marshallzsuggested that because signs had been up in
the Shopping Center for 5 years, the owners should be notified that time was ex-
piring on their permits.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded b~ Commissioner Woodward, that the Commission
approve application A-435 request for identification sign subject to the Staff
Report dated July 24, 1974 including'Conditions (1) through (4), and subject to
the sign permit not exceeding 5 years or shorter if a general sign policy was
adopted for the area. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. A-440 - LeRoy Pangrac, Saratoga-Sunn.yv~ie Road, Final Design Review - Identifica-
tion Sign
Mr. Burr read the Staff Report into ~he record which recommended approval be
granted.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconde~ by Commissioner Woodward, that the Commission
approve application A-440 request fox identification sign subject to the Staff
Report dated July 24, 1974 including ~Conditions (1) ~[dO~2). The motion was
carried unanimously.
C. A-441 - Saratoga Avenue Baptist Church, saratoga Avenue, Final Design Review -
Identification Sign
Mr. Burr read the Staff Report into the record which recommended approval be
granted. :
Chairman Marshall asked if a cross w~s considered an advertising vehicle, to
which Mr. Johnston stated that "the s~ign is only a sign," and that the cross was
considered an accessory structure which met the 25-foot setback and the 12~foot
heig~t~~'~'!
Commissioner Be!~pger moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Commis-
sion approve ~pplieation A-441 requeslt for identification sign subject to the
Staff Report dated Jut~ 24, 1974, including Conditions (1) through (3). The
motion was carried unanimously.
D. A-391 - George Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review;
Single-Family Residence (Tract 5327~ Lot 3)
Mr. Burt read the Staff Report which recommended approval be granted. A letter
dated July 23, 1974 from William G. Felice, attorney for the applicant, was also
read into the record stating they felt the present water sprinkler system in
Tract 5150 was adequate and complied ~ith plans where were previously approved.
Mr. Felice st~ed he felt the problem'was that the plans had been approved and
were also amb~hous. He added that th~.~pplicant had put up bonds to guarantee
their work, "and we have done what we't'th~ught we were supposed~"d'~.!~~
-5-
~" 5! MINUTES OF J~
D. A-391 - George W. Day Construction Company - Continued
It was pointed out that the intent of the Staff Reports relative to Tract 5150 had
been understood by all parties involved. Chairman Marshall stated, "the fact that
those words were not absolutely precise and demanding has been used to advantage..."~
by Mr. Day. If it is necessary to write very speC{fic language, then we can do ","
that, but that would be designing the system for Mr. Day." Chairman Marshall
further pointed out that the same staff Report terminology had been used with
three other developers in the City, and "they have come out consistently alike
and 180° opposite of that which was done by the George Day Construction Company."
Again Chairman Marshall emphasized, '.'the intent was not to burden your client
with detailed specifications that would be so cumbersome because we thought he
understood and we felt he would comply, and we found out lateral. he had no inten-
tion of complying with what we thought we were both looking for."
Commissioner Belanger stated she fel~ that Mr. Felice's letter indicated that if
an irrigation system was deemed not to be in compliance with the plans, it would
be replaced; however, it if was deemed to be in compliance, there would be no
reason to replace it. She added, "I:can conceivably see that when the City decides
it is not an adequate system and it is time to call in the bonds, the George Day
Construction Company will challenge our ability to do that and we will end up
without an i~K~gation sprinkler systen." She further pointed out, "'it would seem
that the ~gation system would~:~'~'~the planting~"~i~.t think Mr. Felice is
suggesting we do the planting in November whether or not we solve the irrigation
system." Chairman Marshall added that the homeowners association of Tract 5150
had specifically avoided accepting responsibility for the greenbelt because of
~their c9~plaipts that the system wa~,n0t.adequate. Mr. Johnston further inserted
that the Planning CommisSion had already indicated that it did not deem the
sprinkler system adequate, and asked."who else do you want to tell you that?"
Mr. Felice replied that his position:was that they felt they had complied, adding
"there is ambiguity in the condition, and the place to solve this is in a court of
law." He then complained, "how can you say that Lot 3 of T~act 5327 has anything
to do with the greenbelt of Tract 5150." Chairman Marshall explained that.l"T~t
~1'~75~_~.. greenbelt ;a'~d'fih'~'~h~r two tracts "~b'~l?s were to be done concurrently
but were not. t{~'stated~ "'we find that a I0t of lip serV.~ce has been paid to the
conditions,and the planting of Tracts5150 is the most at~8'cious case of wedging
plants, which is not planting by any iacceptable standards, and this is the reason
so many of them have died."
Chairman Marshall stated that his view of the Staff Report on Tract 5327, Lot 3
indicated that a timetable should be 'submitted prior to the issuance of a building
permit. He explained, "I construe that the timetable would be the date when you
correct the deficiencies of the greenbelt, and these deficiencies are the lack of
a permanent irrigation sprinkler system composed of Lunderground pipes, valves and
permanent sprinkler heads which cover the entire area'that is to be landscaped,
the replaq,ement of plants and the inclusion of plants which show they have a
reasonab!~':~H~ae for survival."
Mr. Felice S.[ated, "it seems to me that my client and the Planning Commission are
at an impasse on this matter. We h'~ve already given a maintenance bond on these
matters. I think these landscaping plans should be resolved apart from landscaping
on other tracts, and perhaps we shoul~d get together and resolve it. I was saying
in.~y letter that the City has protec2tion of a maintenance and improvement bond
guaZantee that the greens are going t.o be maintained, and I think that they should
be considered apart from design review of lots in other tracts." Chairman Marshall
replied, "if your client would stop b'eing so obtuse in facing the issues and face
up to the obligation that his.~p~'~a'~fftative, at least verbally, indicated accep-
tance of the conditions by him whi~h':le~, to the written documentation, then I would
be willing to face up to your desire to build more houses. But until that happens,
I do not know any reason to allow mor. e of a bad condition to continue. I have
seen little response from the George Day Construction Company to the City, the
Planning Commission, or to the homeowners association that indicates good faith
Da '
.~on y s part to comply with what he ~aid he was going to d~'i~h'~'f~YFf'~la'~."'
,..~ ...... ..... - ........~,...-
-6-
MINUTES OF JULY 24
D. A-391 - George W. Day Construction Company - Continued
Commissioner Martin agreed with this statement stating, "I believe that the plants
are.dieing and that iinfers th~'~' is an i~dequate spri~ler system, and this letter
does not represent!a timetable of doing an adequate!~'~aping job before it'is
turned over to the homeowners. I agree that we should stop all construction until
this is done." Commissioner Matteoni added that he had disagreed in the past on
this, but that.'~rom Mr. Letors comments and Mr. Felice's comments, he felt it was
"n.~7~i~';"'Day's ~ntent 6o provide a's~{~kler system. He'sC~'edV "ai[hough'I
not think it proper to play one subdivision tract against another, I may change
my mind simply to bring this matter to a resolution so that we can finally.,i~solve
the i~rigation sprinkler system probiem."
Mr. Larry Royal, current general manager of George Day Construction Company,
stated that he thought that Mr. Day wanted to set and freeze the design and have
no further changes at this point. H~ explained that the three units were
originally to be built together, but.there had been several reasons why they
were not: (1) the land had not beenpurchased completely at the time;(2) they
had not been approVed as a subdivisi6n per se; and (3) when the initial requests
were made, all three green areas were to be planted at one time and the Planning
Commission approved one prior to having accepted the other two areas. He added,
"I did not see any red marks on the plans that said we want water sprinklers.
Your City Staff should have said this was not a good design." He indicated
that their timetable was November 1,!and stated that they could meet with Staff
in a few weeks to present a design which would show what they intended to do.
Chairman Marshall pointed out that the City's letter to George Day dated July 11,
1974 had asked for a written response declaring when and to what degree improve-
ments on Tract 5150 would be made; specifically, a timetable for the proposed
improvements, an analysis of the typ~ of planting and ground preparation materials
to be used, and the extent of the watering system to'be incorporated. Chairman
Marshall added, "we are asking for essentially a combination of drawings and text
properly signed by an officer of George Day Construction Company with the power to
commit that organization, and what it is your organization is going to do and when
they are going to do it with respect~to replacement of plants, methods of plant-
ing, the types of plant materials, and the sprinkler system. The type of water-
ing systemwe are talking about is permanent, underground, of material that is
permanent in nature with permanent gate valves and fittings appropriate to the
irrigation of the entire landscaped area." Chairman Marshall further stated that
Mr. Leto had said he was not empowered to commit the applicant, and asked if
Mr. Royal or Mr. Felice had the authority. Mr. Royal stated he was not sure;
Mr. Felice said no.
Mr.>'Felice added, "we are all looking. for leverage. IC~:~ems to me we can sit
down and resolve those issues separat'ely and apart from iandscap~=ng design review
of Tract 5327. The last thing that the George Day Construction ~bmpany wants is
the City to sit down and call in the ~onds." The Secretary pointed out that
at the last session between the City land the applicant, "wemade these same re-
quests but nothing happened. The City realizes it has a bond but the City is
responsible to those people out there." Commissioner Woodward added to this that
the homeowners invested in good faith~ a large amount of money on the assumption
that the greenbelt areas would be upheld. She state~7, "we have met with the
applicant and the homeowners on many pccasions, and we have not seen any act of
Da '
good faith on George y s part. All we are asking is you to tell us something
more concrete than just sitting and talking. We have been talking to you a year
and we feel an obligation ,~6~those people who are in that area."
Mr. Royal requested that as a condition, all three tracts not be required to be
replaced at the same time. After some discussion, Chairman Marshall called a
recess to give Mr. Royal an opportunity to contact Mr. Day and ask if he had the
power to commit, and when and what he~ was planning" to do on Tract 5150.
BREAK: 10:05 p.m.
REOPEN: 10:20 p.m.
Mr. Royal stated that he was not ableto contact Mr. Day.
-7-
MINUTES OF JULY 24
D.,! A-391 - George Day Construction Company - Continued
IT ....
~u/
Chairman Marshall stated that the StAff Report on Tract 5327, Lot 3 stipulated
that the issuance of a building[p7~rmit would be subject to certain conditions,
and that the applicant was not able to indicate whether he could comply with these
conditions presently. On this basis; Chairman Marshall moved, seconded by
Conmissioner Smith, that application A-391, Tract 5327, Lot 3 be continued to
the Planning Commission meeting of AUgust 14, 1974. The motion was carried
unanimously.
Chairman Marshall suggested that the,applicant determine the degree to which he
would be willing to come to an agreement with the City with respect to the green-
belt of Tract 5150, and on behalf of:Mr. Royal, that he be given some indication
of the latitude he had to commit to the City.
V. MISCELLANEOUS - Se~'tin~ EIR Hearing on Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch)
It.~.~.~eCted' August 5 wo~ be the deadline date for receiving input from public
agencie'S;"thir~y ~ wodid'~"~e~ to'~e c~nter fo~'~ironme~al Desig~ for the
incorporation of the total comments into'a modified report on or about September 5;
the modified report~_o.~d; then be distributed to ENVIROS' and all interested parties
for review and comment; and the public hearing on the EIR would be scheduled for
October 3, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. in the City.C~il Chambers. It was noted that the
public hearing on October 3 would not be:ci~'sing the door on public comment, and that
this could be continued if necessary. The Secretary added that he would keep all
interested parties informed.of the progress to-date.
VI. "'ENVIRONM~NTAE.'i~M~,~C~'DETERMINATIONS - Negative Declarations
The following Negative Declarations were'filed by the City between July 8 and July 19:
A. SDR-1131 - Brooks Terhune, Building Site Approval - Carniel Avenue - 1 Lot
B. SDR-1132 - J. Michael Wharton - Building Site Approval - Canyon View Drive - 1 Lot
C. SDR-1133 - Barrett Anderson - Building Site Approval - Jacks Road - 1 Lot
D. SDR-1134 - Rolf Kirsch - Building Site Approval - Pierce Road - 1 Lot
Commissioner Be!anger asked if it was automatic that single-family developments on
one lot were ex~'~'~i~om being required to file an EIR, and asked on what basis the
Secretary had awarded a Negative Declaration on SDR-1133. The Secretary stated that
single-family developments could be required to have an EIR, but added that he felt
it would be a misuse of the California Environmental Quality Act to require an EIR
on a one-lot building site approval on the basis that it was a legal-subdivided lot.
Mr. Johnston explained that Resolution 6~3 adopted by the City Council set forth
certain suggested criteria for the Planning Director to follow. He stated that the
theory of the criteria was that if a piece of property was already properly zoned for
a particular use, and by reason of the fact that it had already been looked at the
time of rezoning, normally it would not be expected to have an adverse impact. He
continued, "once the City zones a piece of property, you are telling a man that he can
build there. An EIR could tell you if y~u would have a substantial adverse impact,
~'iit would be an extreme situation if you told a person that he could not use it
at all at the use we have set in our Zoning Ordinances. Your solution is not to have
an EIR and based on that say 'no, we wil~ keep the zone that way but you cannot build.'
Your""~l.ution is to rezone it into something else."
Commissioner Matteoni added that an EIR was an informational document, and "in this
case you get the information you need through Subdivision Committee review." Commissioner
Belanger expressed concern that thef~ might not be proper follow-up by City Staffs
of certain conditions. It was noted, however, that prior to issuance of a building
permit, all conditions of Staff Reports must be met.
VII. COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN
The following pieces of written correspondence was received:
A. Letter dated May 31, 1974 from Florence Dennis requesting permission to sell a
small/House located at 13755 Saratog~ Avenue aloBg with an acre of land. It was
MINUTES OF JULY 24.
krRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Continued
noted the present zoning was;c~-l-40,000, and that by granting this request would be
in violation of the City Zoning Ordinances in that it would create two illegal
lots. It was further noted that thi~ was presently a legal non-conforming situation.
Chairman Marshall directed Staff to write Ms. Dennis and notify her of the Commission's
decision, point out to her she could.apply for a variance or request for change of
zoning, and further point out that there was not much of a chance of approval of
same by the Commission.
B. Environmental Geologic A~lysis: Santa Cruz Mountain Study, Monte Bello Ridge
Study, County of Santa Clara, California.
C. Letter dated June 24, 1974 and a Memorandum dated July 18, 1974 fromMr. Tom
Upson, Code Enforcement Officer to Mr. Harry Margolis advising him that he was
not conforming to a legal non-conforming use relative to his law office.
D. Letter from Mr. Zettler Greely and Mr. John Weir to the City Council appealing
the Planning Commission's declaration .~b~_t_.'JVe h~ve jurisdiction to rezone property
located in the City that is currently erLcumbered by a Land Conservation Contract."
E. Letter dated July 22, 1974 from Mr. ~ohn Weir submitting supplementary informa-
tion to the oral presentation given at the special EIR hearing on July 16, 1974.
F. Letter dated July 23, 1974 from Faber Johnston advising the Commission on the
proper procedure in making motions. 'Mr. Johnston stated that in making a motion,
the Planning Commission ad~pts the application and not the Staff Report. He
further pointed out that the Staff makes a recommendation via a Report, and the
commi ss i on can
VII. COMMUNICATIONS - ORAL
A. Mr. Brian Unter, 21192 Maria Lane, thanked the Planning Commission on behalf of
the Friends of Painless Parker for th'eir "time and courteous consideration at
the presentation on July 16," and informed the Commission supplementary informa-
tion would be submitted prior to AugUst 5 which should be attached to the Citizen's
EIR.
B. Mr. R.L. Crowther asked if the City Was planning to adopt the Monte Bello Ridge
Study. It was noted that this study had been adopted by the Planning Policy
Committee of the County with a reques.t that it be circulated to the cities for
affirmative action by September 30. Upon receipt of th~s input, it would be
forwarded to the County Board of Supervisors for adoption. It was further noted
that the City had not received extra 'copies of this report for general circulation.
C. ReorSanization of Committee Assignments:
Commissioner Belanger stated that she. felt there were problems of getting the cart
before the horse in terms of subdivision approval before design review approval.
She said that before an application got to design review, it was a moot question
of design review as to whether "the roof should have s~iBgles on it." She suggested
the Commission consider an Architectural and Site Review Committee which would
deal with all of the problems together r~h~"'~than separately and in sequence as
the Los Gatos Planning Commission does. Commissioner Belanger stated that the
~ommittee-of-the-W~ole idea was another way in which to handle these problems,
!hut expressed concern that there was a lot of detail attached to subdivision
approvals which could be time consuming. She pointed out that the Commissicn
never had time for policy-making ~et~ngs, and that all they did was stamp out
"et
grass fires and react to applicationsi rather than g ring our heads together
about broad general planning. We let. the applicant set What the parameters of
our decision-making process will be instead of our providing guidelines in advance
of that application."
Commissioner Matteoni agreed with these statements, adding that he would be in
favor of select Committee-of-the-Whole meetings on occasion to discuss such things
as EIR's, the General Plan, etc. He stated that in order to move in the direction
of larger planning, the Planning Commission must schedule in extra ~essions to
handle it, and added that if Staff wa~ not adequate to handle the "nitty-gritty
matters,"/~he Commission should insis~ that it be brought up to capacity. He
'~ ..... ~;:' ~MINUTES OF JULY 24,
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Continued
suggested a Committee-of-the-Who~e .m~.~ing be held on the matter of the Subdivision
Committee prior to Commissioner'~.~{',th~ ?~nd of term "to allow for his input and
guidance on the Subdivision Commftt~e/"' He further suggested.that the General
Plan Committee meet on a quarterly"p_._ommittee-of-the-Whole basis to review the
General Plan structure through the year.
Commissioner Woodward stated that he~ concern was the overlapping and serving on
two committees simultaneously on the same matter. She stated, "many times design
review is after the fact, and George~Day is an excellent example of that." She
further suggested that the Design Review Ordinances be updated.
Commissioner Martin specifically requested he not be placed on any Committee:"bther
than Variance Committee, because of time limitations on his job. Commissione~
"Callon' stated tha~'sh~"fei~"~h'er'e ~a~"a n'ee~'f0~ C'0mm{tteer0f~th~-Wh01e type
meetings occasionally for philosophy :and policies in planning, and she stated
she felt the overlapping should be i~oned out.
Chairman Marshall pointed ~ut that a :general Committee-of-the-Whole system similar
to the one City Council uses would n~ be feasible in that the Commission would
have to participate in every application, as well as placing the.'aD~i'~!i~
a position of not wanting to express.himself on simple design revi~W'matter~
before a microphone in the City CounCil Chambers. He added that he was convinced
every member of the Commission would be useful if they had the exposure of being
on all of the committees because there would be better overall participation and
a more intelligent reaction to the history of things. He pointed out that Staff
was not presently able to provide the cohesiveness between the Subdivision Committee
and Design Review Committee because ~t was new, and added "Staff should be alert
and sensitive to what is going on in .both committees though," and part of the
problem was that there was a different Staff member at each of the meetings.
~ was noted~h~'~ City was ~n th'~'jz~6~s of hiring a new associate planner which
would help alleviate th~s'sit'~ation7''~''
After further discussion, the new CommitteeS.= members are as follows:
Subdivision Committee Design Review Committee
Commissioner Smith - Chairman Commissioner Woodward - Chairman
Commissioner Belanger Commissi.oner Callon
Ch'~[r~a~'~hall CommissionerMatteoni
Altern~t~v'~ommissioner Matteoni Alternate: Commissioner/pelanger
Variance Committee General Plan Committee
Com~ls'~o~er Martin - Chairman Commissioner Matteoni - Chairman
Comm~'ibn~r Callon Commissioner Smith
Corm~issioner Woodward Commissioner Martin
Alternate: Chairman Marshall
Planning Policy Committee: Chairman Marshall
Alternate: Commissioner Matteoni
D. Chairman Marshall expressed appreciation to Mrs. Tyler of the Good Government
Group for serving coffee.
VIII. ADJOURNMINT
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by ~ommissioner Martin, that the Planning
Commission meeting of July 24, 1974 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. ,
~.S..P-~. TFULLY SUBMITTED,
Mar ty Van Duyn, S~~'~ ...... " "'~
.
-'10 -