Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-1974 Planning Commission Minutes CITY SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TIME: Wednesday, August 14, 1974 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Chairman Marshall opened the meeting of August 14, 1974 at 7:45 p.m. A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni and Smith Absent: Commissioner Woodward B. MINUTES (1) Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the read~ ing of the minutes of the Special Meeting of July 16, 1974 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following corrections: (1) page 3, lines 3 and 20 - change the word impasse to impacts; (b) page 4, line 3 - correct the spelling of excelleration; (c) page 9, section (5), line 4'- correct the spelling of kite; (d) page 13, section (16), line 4 - change CUpertino to Saratpga. The motion was carried unanimously. 'i2) Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the read- ing of the minutes of July 24, 1974 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following correction: page 3, line 11 - change C-171 to C-176. The motion was passed unanimously. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Belanger gave an oral presentation of the City Council meeting of August 7, 1974. Of special interestZto the Commission were the following items: (1) Appeal of the Douglas Lane pathway was continued to the City Council meet- ing of August 2;~, 1974 at the request of the people appealing same. (2)Appeal~:,~. Hortense "Rozman of the Commission's..d~p.~i .0f~application V-409 was continued in that the 'council wished'~o make an on-site inspection of the property. A de-novo hearing on this matter was scheduled for August 21,1974. (3) ,The request by Almaden Development for financial assistance by the City for the development of the Fourth Street walkway was denied on the basis that the cost of the walkway was less than the cost of installing a half-street. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-245 - Steve J. Stevens, Quito Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow Tennis Court Fencing within Required Setbacks (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1) Continued from July 10, 19'7'4' The Secretary stated that the Subdivision Committee had requested the applicant apply=,for a Variance in order to meet the minimum side-yard setback requirements prior'.~,t'o hearing the Use Permit application. He noted that the Variance applica- tion had not been received in time to place it on the August 14 agenda, and suggested that both the Variance andzUse Permit applications be heard concurrently at the August 28th Planning CommissiOn meeting. He further suggested that the Variance Committee make an on-site inspection of the property on Saturday, Au$.ust 17, 1974 at 9:00 a.m., to which Commissioner Martin, Chairman of the Va~'iance Committee, agreed. Chairman Marshall directed UP-245 be.continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 28, 1974, and referred this matter to the Variance Committee for further review. ~ _~ - _ MINUTES OF AUGUST 14~ B. UP-248 - P.H. Morton, Old Wood Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow Tennis Court Fencin~ within Required Setbacks (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7-1) The Secretary stated that the applicant had been requested to submit revised plans for the August-8~' Subdivision Committee meeting. He noted that the plans had been received on August 13, and the Subdivision Committee had not reviewed same. He recommended this matter be. continued. Chairman Marshall directed UP-248 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 28, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1115 - Melvin Kirkeby, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots; Continued from July. 24~ 1974 (Expiration extended to Aug. 28) The Secretary stated that the applicant was still unable to resolve the access problem with neighboring properties, and that he had grab.ted a written extension to the Planning Commission meeting of August 28, 1974. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1115 be continued to the Planning Commission'~eet- ing of August 28, 1974, and referred. this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. B. SDR-1116 - Roger Ross, Saratoga Hills Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from July 10~ 1.974 (Expiration extended to August 14~ 1974) The Secretary stated that the appliczant had not submitted engineered plans as requested by the Subdivision Committ:ee to-date, and that he had granted a written extension to the Planning Commission meeting of August 28, 1974. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1116 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of August 28, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for fu~..ther revi'~. ' C. SDR-1130 ~LDonald Perata, Pike Road, 'Building Site ~pproval - 2 Lots; Continued from July 24~ 1974 (Expiration extended to AuSust 14~ 1974) The Secretary stated that this appli:cation had been reviewed by ~he Subdivision Con~nittee on several occasions. He noted that the lot areas had been realigned to the present configuration in order to comply with Section 10 of the Subdivision Ordinance, and that the development plan adhered to the slope density formula of the City. He further noted that the plan provided for 4-lots with access to an 18-foot private road and cul-de-sac,' and that further/S'ubdivision of the property would not be allowed in that this w~'s the maximum number of lots allowed on a minimum access street. The Secretary stated that a Staff Report had been pre- pared which recommended approval be granted. Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision Committee feelings that "the extra land acquired by the applicant considling'of a strip of land extending beyond the existing property with two ears on each side is pretty much ~.~gimmick to satisfy the area requirements for the lot. We do not think it is good planning and design, and I am in favor of voting against this." Chairman !Marshal! further added that he felt the additional land was totally useless, and that the width of the lot was les~'~an hal~ the.i.dimension of the length_~.f_the.l~t. Section 3.4-1 (Lot Area) of the Subdivision Ordinance was cited as the basis for the Subdivision Committee's objection: "All lots shall have an area, w~dth, frontage and depth equal to or greater than the minimums prescribed by the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance for the dis- trict in which the subdivision,. or the portion thereof in question, is situat'ed. In controlling the design of subdivisions, the Planning Commission may require lots to be of an area, width, frontage or depth greater than such minimums, but in no event can it either require or allow the same to be any less than such minimums unless a Zoning Variance for the same has been ob- tained prior to tentative map approval." -2- MINUTES OF AUGUST 14~ .~.'~ SDR-1130 - Donald Perata - Continued. Fir. Perata, the applicant, explained that he had purchased the land in 1965 and ~./.~'that time had four lots approved by the Commission. He added that he was un- able to develop the property due to financial reasons, and time on the applica- tion had expired. He explained that in 1971 he reapplied to the City with the exact plan, but was informed that he did not meet the slope density formula. In order to comply with this requirement, Mr. Perata stated that he purchased addi- tional land, -~'~ding "this additional: area is not buildable but it helps to meet the minimum land standards, and I am attempting to meet the City regulations." Mr. Perata further pointed out that ~the land was heavily wooded and there were parts which were quite flat, and that hiking and picnicing could be possible uses thereon. Commissioner Martin asked if a Variance would be required on Lot 4 which had a 20-foot fron_tl-yard setback if the pr:ivate street was broug.h..t' up to public-street standards. Mr. Trinidad, Public Works Department, repli~d~71.~-that a Variance would be required. ~ ~ ~ Commissioner Belanger objected to th'.e application, stating "there seems to be an effort to consider planning as a mathematical formula where you can read a formut. a into getting an extra lot, and I intlen~i'to vote against it for that reason." Commissioner Martin pointed out that' the Ordinances were pr0..vided for normal- shaped lots, and "when we have a lot'~ which is irregular shaped, I think it is difficult to ap_ply_ the measurements zof the width of the lot being half the .dimension Of the length of the lot. It seems that if he has the area which is required, we cannot apply th~se mea~'uremen~S'r~g~ously." He further added that he did not feel that an irregular-s~aped lot in itself should be considered a reason for judging it poor planning.= Chairman Marshall pointed out that although Staff contended the parcel conformed to the Ordinances, the Subdivision Committee felt the parcel suffered from bad p!anning, adding "where it meets the letter of minimum standards of the Ordinances,~ it does not constitute a good subdivision." The Secretary stated that the prope~.ty was zoned appropriately, it met the slope density formula and all of the Ordin. ance~Trequirements. He stated he felt that if the Con~nission wished to deny this application on the basis that it was poor planning because they felt one more llot on that private road was too many, then perhaps that was a good planning principle and good grounds for denial. He added, however, "if the denial is based on :the fact that you do not like the way the lines run,I__a.m__at a_ lost to find where_g_o_gd p_l_anning_p_rincipl_es wo.u__l_d__dictate denial." Chairman Marshall stated that Staff ~was charged with the responsibility of find- ing out if plans complied with the Qrdinances. He pointed out that there were 4 lots on a private road and a private cul-de-sac, and because it was private "we cast aside all requirements that we .would normally impose on a public street; /~"'~'~.~'l.minimum frontage, parking and access. As a matter of fact, City policy 'i~.'~8="~ry to convert p~ivate street~ to City streets. We are in essense perpe- trating more of that which in other zincidences we l;are trying to get rfH'~fT'Th'~.t is rather inconsistent to my view, and that is why I see it f~ poor planning."' Commissioner Callon stated that she '.did not object to someone adding a strip of land to meet the City Ordinances because "in this '~.ase he met Ordinances at one point, we changed the Ordinances, a~d he now meets' the Ordinances again." Mr. Johnston, City Attorney, stated ~that he had no legal comment to make, and added that the section of the Ordinance cited permitted the Commission to approve or disapprove a design on the basis :of whether the design was proper or not. However, he added "I am not suggesting that you do so." "~n'~B~h~'~here was a difference.of view between .the Commissioners, Commissioner · B'elanger requested that the Commissioners wri.te down for .future reference what .they considered to be an unusual lot 'configuration. She stated, "we were trying to rule out a no-{nan~s land~ I am willing to agree as to what is regular, but what is 'regular in your minds?" Commissioner Martin replied that he was sympathetic to a no-maneS land type of thing, ~"]~ut we have a heavily wooded area. I ~'i[~ fs not build~Bi~"°~id'~h'~l"'~Sdid"B~ '~0~"~'~'~"'r&~'a~dl~'ss' b'f ~h~ 6~n'e'd :"" ~o~e'~'~;7" ......... ' ' ;3- C. SDR-1130 - Donald Perata - Continued: Mr. Perata stated that he was still at a los~..to understand specifically why his application should be denied, adding"but I have no further comments." Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission deny application SDR-1130. and!'reject~ Staff Report on same. The motion was carried; Commissioner' Callon abseained for lack 'of backgFoUn4, 'and Commissioner Martin abstained..in that he would rather decide on the basis of ~_an..o~si..~? inspection rather than by judging plans on paper. Chairman Marshall informed Mr. Perata that he had 'the' ~ighC'0~ appeal to the City'~0~ncil. D. SDR-1131 - Brooks Terhune, Carniel A~enue, Building Site Approval -.1 Lot; ContinUed from July 24~ 1.974 (Expires August 28~ 1974) The Secretary stated that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted. ~he applicant"s representative was present and indicated a~ceptance of the Staff Report. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission approve SDR-1131 and adopt the Staff Report dated August 14, 1974 and the tentative map (Exhibit "A" filed July 9, 1974),-.subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (a) through (1) of the Report. The motion was carried unanimously. E. SDR-1132 - J. Michael Wharton, Canyon View Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Continued from July 24, 1974 (Expires August 28~ 1974) The Secretary stated that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted. Commissioner ~elanger 'stated t~at she felt the application street name on the Staff Report should be entitled Elva Avenue instead of Canyon View Drive because the location of the house could not technically front on Canyon View Drive. Mr. Wharton, the applic~t.;-'-.~pdicated acceptance of the Staff Report. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission approve Application SDR-I132 and accept the Staff Report dated August 14, 1974 and the tentative map (Exhibit A-1 filed July 12, 1974), subject to General Conditions I and Specifid Conditions II (a) through (p) of the Staff Report, and subject to the design showing the location of the house facing Elva Avenue. The motion was carried unanimously. F. SDR-1133 - Barrett Anderson, Jacks Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Continued from July 24~ 1974 (Expires August 29~ 1974) The Secretary stated a Staff Report.had been prepared which recommended approval be granted on this matter. He ~dded, however, that the Subdivision Committee ha requested an on-site inspection.',be made of the property prior to making a decision. CommissionerSMartin questioned the asterisked note on the Staff Report as to the correct title of the'Uniform Buildihg Code. Staff was directed to look into this, and to correct the Staff Report if necessary. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-11337be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of AUgust 14, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. G. SDR-1134 - Rolf Kirsch, Pierce Road~ Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires September 3, 19%4) The Secretary stated that even though the Subdivision Committee had not yet re- viewed this application, a Staff Report had been prepared on this matter which recommended approval be granted. He explained that there had been a previous application on this (SDR-1117) which had been withdrawn, and that the conditions of the Staff Report on SDR-1134 wer'~ basically the same as the conditions the SDR-1117 Staff Report. -4- MINUTES OF AUGUST 14~ G. SDR-1134 - Rolf Kirsch - Continued Mr. Jack Metzger, the applicant's representative, explained that the previous applicant had been interested in purchasing the property, but due to financial reasons the conditions of the Staff Report had not been acceptable. He added, "we stipulate to all conditions of the Staff Report and request that the Planning Commission approve the application subject to those conditions." Staff was directed to correct the asterisked note on the Staff Report relative to the Uniform Building Code. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the P!'anning Commission approve application SDR~l134 and accept the Staff Report dated August 14, 1974 and the tentative map (Exhibit A filed July 15, 1974), subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (a) through (s) of the Staff Report. The motion was carried unanimously. The Secretary stated that the files wereznot complete on the following files, and recommended they be continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission: H. SD-1115 - Barbara Caldwell, Big Basin Way, Subdivision Approval - 6 Lots; (Expires September 10~ 1974) I. SDR-1136 - A.H. Brolly, Fruitvale Avenue,..~B~{l'ding Site Approval - 4 Lots; (Expires September 10~ 1974) J. SDR-1137 - Frederick Keep, Garrod Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; (Expires September 11, 1974) K. SDR-1138 - AVCO Community Development, McCarthy Place, Building Site Approval; 3 Lots; (Expires September 12~ 1974) L. SDR-1139 - Willard Lynch, Big Basin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; (Expires September 18, 19.74) M. SDR-1140 - Michael Conn, Vacquero Cohrt, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; ~Expires September 19, 19774) N. SDR-1141 - Ronald Eack, SaraView Court, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; (Expires September 19~ 19174) Chairman Marshall directed that SD-1135,: SDR-1136, SDR-1137, SDR-1138, SDR~l139, SDR-1140, and SDR-1141 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 28, 1974, and referred these matters to the ~ubdivision Committee for review. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-391 - George W. Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue - Final Design Review - Single Family Residential (Tract 5327~ Lot 17) Chairman Marshall introduced into the record a letter dated August 7, 1974 from George W. D~y Construction Compan% outlining the plan~lng and irrigation specifi- cations ~and tim_e~t_apl.e.._for~the_9ommon g.~ee~ areas of Tracts 5150, 5327.~and 5408.__ -~ Chairman Marshall recommended that the words "is to" in paragraph %~.~g~._l _0~ .... the letter .should be substituted wi~"~'~o~"'~"~'i'i"~'~ "~o ~hi~h Mr. Felice,. .attorney for the applicant, agreed. After discussion on what ground cover was to be used, Chairman Marshall further recommended that the words "ice plant" in paragraph 4 on page 1 should be slubstituted with the word "baccharis." Mr. Royal~ representative.of.the applicant, concurred with this change. zo. Commissioner Belanger asked to what 'degree the various tracts had been built. Mr. Royal explained that the last h~use in Tract 5150 would be completed within two months; that 16 houses out of 21 had been completed in Tract 5327; and that all houses remained to be built in Tract 5408. It was noted that the planting schedule would be completed before Tract 5408 was finished.: 15- A. A-391 - George W. Day Construction C~mpany - Tract 5327~ Lot 17 - Continued CommisSioner Belanger expressed concern over having a hose bibb with the sprinkler system, stating that when the maintenance responsibility of the cou~f~on green areas were t'~ken over by-the homeowners, they might be required to replace lost hoses. Mr. Royal explained that the hose bibbs were necessary in order to hand-water __spe·cific_a~e~s_if needed~_a.s well as to mix f~rti!iz~s_and_ins_e¢~icides-.-- A gentleman from the audience ~g~eSt~d ~h~t t~e word "shall" in the letter be changed to the word "will," ~xpt~i~ihg~7.."innconfractual agreements, the word ' shall ' is binding, not the word 'will"." '~hairma~"Ma~bhall pointed out "as a responsive note on the part o~.George Day Construction Company, I see nothing wrong with their using the w0rd~·'will'.'' Mr. Johnston suggested the Planning ~ommission move to accept the letter and proposal contained therein insomuch as George Day had presented a precise irrigation plan. Chairman Marshall moved, seconded byeCommissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission accept the response from George Day Construction Company in their letter ~[~d.·August 7, 1974 which describes the proposed actions on landscaping, planting and irrigation on the common open space areas of Tracts 5150, 5327 and 5408, subject to modifying page 1 oftthe letter by substituting the word "~il~, in lieu of "is to!~~'' and substituting'the word "baccharis"~in lieu of "ice pia~.'i' The motion was carried unanimously. At this time Mr. Burt, City Planner,~stated that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted on Tract 5327, Lot 17, and stated that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this application. Mr. Royal=indicated acceptance of the Staff Report. Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant final approval on Application A-391, Tract 5327, Lot 17 and accept the Staff Report dated Augustl4, 1974 and Exhibit G-G, subject to Conditions (1) and (2) of the Staff Report. The motion was carried unanimously. B. A-391 - George W. Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue - Final Design Review - Single Family Residential (Tract 5327, Lot 3) Mr. Burt stated a Staff Report had been prepared on this which recommended approval be granted. Commissioner Belanger asked if the condition that all windows and doors to be fully wrapped with wood trim had been depicted on the plans, to which Mr. Burt replied they had. Mr. Royal indicated acceptance of the Staff Report. Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant final design approval on Application A-391, Tract 5327, Lot 3, and accept the Staff Report dated August 14, 1974 and Exhibit F-F,.·subject to Conditions (1) and (2) of the Staff Report. The motion was c~ried unanimously. C. A-445 - Hubbard & Johnson, Sarae'gga-Sunnyvale Road - Final Design Review - Identification Sign Mr. Burt stated that this matter was' not ready, and recommended this be continued. Chairman Marshall directed A-445 be Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 28, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for further review. V. MISCELLANEOUS A. SD-1019 - Malachy J. Moran, Saratoga Avenue - 6 Lots - Request for Extension of Tentative Buildin~ Site Approval The Secretary stated that letters had been received from Louis M. Bini Associates dated July 19, 1974 and Mrs. M.J. Moran dated AUgust 14, 1974 requesting a one- year extension on Application SD-1019. It was noted that tentative building site approval Sad been granted SD-IO19 on. February 26, 1973. -6- MINUTES OF AUGUST 14. ' A. SD-1019 Malachy J. Moran - Continued Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission grant SD-1019 a one-year '=extension on its tentative building site approval. The motion was carried unanimously. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS - Negative .DeClarations Filed The following Negative Declarations were filed between July 22, 1974 and August 9, 1974: A. SDR-1136 - A.H. Brolly, Fruitvale Av. enue - Building Site Approval - 4 Lots B. SDR-1137 - Frederick Keep, Garrod Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot C. SDR-1138 - AVCO Community Development, McCarthy Place - Building Site Approval-3 Lots D. SDR-11'39 - Willard Lynch, Big Basin ~Way - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot E. SDR-1140 - Michael Conn, ..V..aquero Court - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot F. SDR-1141 - R. Pack, Saraview Court - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot VII. COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN The following written correspondence was' acknowledged: A. Letter dated July 30, 1974 from Brian Unter, representative of Friends of Painless Parker,_ forwarding. s.up_plementary material to be attached to/th_e__C_i.tizen~_s_ EIR. iStaff. W_as. di_rected to ..f_orwa_rd same .tp the Center.f~r_._Environment~! D_esign~'. B. Letter dated August 5, 1974 from Da~ Hauer, 19707 Douglas Lane, objecting to the proposed pathway on Douglas Lane. I~t was noted that the City Council will be hearing this matter at its August 21Zst meeting. C. Mini minut·~'S of the Policy Planning Committee dated Ju·~y.. 25, 1974. Chairman Marshall reported that a presentation on solf. d waste had been given at this meeting. D. Letter dated July 29, 1974 from Dennis and Peggy Paldi, 20685 Wardell Road, protesting Blackwell Homes' change o'f zoning request. Staff was directed to place this in the C-172 file for fut·ure consideration. E. Letter dated August 9, 1974 from Nicholas J. Barisich, 108 Montclair Road, Los Gatos protesting the traffic conditions on Quito Road from Pollard Road to Highway 9. It was noted that thi's was a letter for consideration by the City Council, and Staff was directed: to forward same to the Council. VII. COMMIBriCATI6NS - ORAL , A. Commissioner Belanger asked if input. from the Los Gatos Planning Department had j~een received for consideration by the Saratoga Planning Commission on how the road and cre~' are to be treated in Zreference to the spanish-s~yled condominium PS'li·~rd and Quito Roads. The Secretlary reported that input had not been 'receiverS' but indicated that Staff would look into the matter. B. Commissioner Belanger pointed out th'at in connection with the Perata matter, she felt that an inequitable situation was in the making relative to requiring road- widening improvements. She explaine.d that the only frontage this!·~n~tterz·"had~"·6~· Pike Road was on the access road which would require widening of the ~'Sad By '24- feet, but yet the application was fo.r 3-4 lots. ~She stated theoretically a situa- f/tion could develop where there would b_e .an..·.__a_PPlicati°n f. or one lot which happened to be 100-feet along Pike Road, and the City would require improvement on the road for i00-feet. ~r'L"'~ohns~0n"~g~e~'[h{S wa~'~ot ~qui'ta~le~"B'Ut sta·[~a ~hat the present Ordinance was not geared to handle this situ~·tion. He noted that in the Pike Road si~.~l[ion, there had been unsuccessful attempts to create an assessment district, whl~·Ch he felt was the most! equitable solution to the problem. It was further noted that on the Perata matz. ter, the Staff Report had conditioned the applicant to participate in any futu~re improvement of Pike Road. C. Mr. Andy Varardi, 20566 Wardell Road,, asked if there had been any changes on dates on the CE-172 matter.. The Secretary replied that the matter was on schedule, but that if any changes did occur, M~. Varardi would be notified. -~7- MINUTES OF AUGUST 14~ 1! ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Continued D. Chairman Marshall welcomed Councilman Kraus to the meeting, and expressed appre- ciation to the Good Government GroUp for serving coffee. E. The Secretary informe~! the Commissiloners that there would be a joint session between the Planning ~ommission, the City Council, and the Parks & Recreation Department on August ~'7, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council ChamB=ers to discuss and hear a presentation on .the Santa Clara County UDOS Plan. F. The Secretary further noted that th!e public hearing on the Village Plan was scheduled for the August 28th Planning Commission meeting. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner"~rtin, that the Planning Commission meeting of August 14,~.!974 b%e adjourned. The motion was passed uH~nimou4~l~. The meeting was adjourned at 9:2·~; p.m.: Respectfully submitted, M!rty Van Duyn,~ -8-