HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-26-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
I~ffl~RITES
DATE: Wednesday, May 26, 1976 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
_present: Commissioners Belange~,.~on, Lade~_, Lustig,..~rshal~. and Zambetti
Absent: Commissioner Martin
B. MINUTES
Connnissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the reading
of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of May 12, 1976 be waived, and that
they be approved as distributed to the Commission. The motion was carried
unanimously.
II. FINAL BUILDING SITES
A. SDR-1233 - Saverio Vaccaro~ Sobey Road~ Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
Staff explained that all conditions of tentative site approval had been met,
and the recommendation was made that this item be granted final site approval.
After'b~i~f'disc~ssion, Con~nissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lustig, that the Planning Commission grant final building site approval to
application SDR-1233. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. Tract #5462 - Parcel Map Approval f0rTLots #41 and ~42
Staff pointed out that this request involved a lot line adjustment on the par-
cel map of Tract ~5462 between Lots 41 and 42. Staff explained that the founda-
tion on Lot ~42 had been erroneously poured too close to Parcel 2's property
line, and that the developer had requested advice from Staff on how next to
proceed. Staff recommended a lot line adjustment, pointing out that both lots
would still remain legal as to minimum size r~qulrements. CommisSioner }~rs~all
requested that matters of this nature be referred to the Subdivision Committee
for review prior to being agendized for Commission consideration.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning
Commission grant approval to amending the parcel map for Tract #5462 by adjust-
ing the lot line between Lots 41 and 42. The motion was carried unanimously.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn (G.N. "Jerry" Renn, Inc.), Marion Avenue,
Request for Use Permit to Allow for the Continuation of a Non-Conforming
Commercial Use in a Residential Zoning District in Accordance with
Article 15 of Zonin~ Ordinance NS-3~ Continued from Ma7 12~ 1976
Commissioner Marshall pointed outsthe Subdivision Committee had reviewed this
matter on two occasions, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recoupending
approval of this use permit for a period of 10 years.. Note was made that a _
~'~'~d'been received'fr~~County Fire ~rshall's office dated May 17,
1976 rep~ti~g_on an on-site inspection made of this.Rr_op~.~y on ~y 13, 1976. .
The letter reported that the operation was "nea~ and orderly," and recommended
· that "~o ;minor hazardous conditions" be cOrrecte4:_..the installation of 2 fire
_extingUishers0 and "No Smoking"'signs to be installed in all dispens'ing areas.
-1-
... .... ~FINUTES 0F MAY
III. A. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn - Cont'd
Commissioner Marshall stated that although he agreed with the Fire Marshall's
statement that protective measures had been taken with the high flash point
materials stored on site, he had concerns with the storage of low flash point
materials on site. He stated that if, in the future, there was an intensity
of development around this property, a hazardous fire situation could be
created by the storage of these products. He explained that low flash point
products usually were the most terrible of fires and were the most difficult
to put out. Con~nissioner Marshall stated: "Consequently, ~nere I would vote
in favor of the use permit, I would do so ~ith the personal reservation that
if there is further development around that property, I would reserve the
right to review the use permit with the idea of lessening the amount of time
it should be in effect if development starts to look as if it is in danger
from this use. I would remain with the condition that the developer is
prohibited from maintaining the use if he develops his own property as
residential. I am not arguing against low versus high flash point materials.
I am arguing against the danger inherent in a fire should it occur."
At this time, Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on UP-300 at 7:40 p.m.
® Chairman Belanger asked how much u~developed property remained on }~rion
Avenue. Mrs. Patricia Renn, applicant, roughly pointed out those lands
presently undeveloped along Marion Avenue. Mr. Donald Stamper, 20562 Marion
Road, was asked how much property he had undeveloped. He responded that
he had approximately 2~ acres which he could split into 1/2 acre lots.
Relative to the Renn.!-s undeveloped property, Mrs. Renn stated that they
had no intentions of developing their land as long as their business was
located on Marion Road.
e The question was asked as to the extent of truck traffic on Marion Road,
as well as the type of petroleum products stored on site. Mrs. Renn ex-
plained that they had 4 1,000-gallon underground storage tanks on site:
one tank for the storage of diesel fuel, one for stove oil, and two for
the storage of gasoline. She stated: "The major reason for those tanks
originally was for our own use."~tive to the truc~'~'~f~'C~ she ~
stated: "Our products are all picked up at what w~ call the pipeline.'It
is not our place of business; it is a storage place for products from the
refinery for sale to all oil companies. We pick up our stove oil fuel
by truck and disperse it to our customers. Therefore, Marion Avenue is
not our place of storing our products, but is just a dump~off use. We
are not retailers. We are wholesalers. The type of business we have is
mainly small construction companies. We have some "stover" accounts for
heating oils which our customers pick up during the ~inter months. We have
had several accounts that have had fueli trucks come in if they run short
and pick up fuel. The majority of these have storage at their own yards,
but this is a convenience for them if they run short. On the weed killer,
we sell it by barrels and deliver it from our pick-up truck. We do not
deliver on weekends; it is stricly a 5-day-a-week business. The storage
of greases in barrels also was put there for the convenience of our custo-
mers, but the majority of oils and greases are stored with our main ware-
house in San Jose."
· Relative to relocation of the business, Mrs. Rerm stated that they felt
10 years would give them ample time to make the adjustments they needed
to make in order to relocate their business. __Sh~ explained that they
wanted to give their 21-year old son as much time as possible to learn the
business before they had to relocate. She explained, further, with regards
to relocating their business to their other 2 sites, that the property in
San Jose was owned by Southern Pacific Railroad and could not be enlarged.
She stated that it would not be feasible for them to put in storage tanks
to take care of their own equipment. She pointed out that their San Jose
trucks go in every morning and pick up what they need for sales during the
day. Relative to their site in San Carlos, Mrs. Renn explained that it would
be way out of range from their Santa Clara County deliveries, as well as
being an inconvenience for their employees x~ho now reside in San 3ose and
Saratoga.
-2-
MINUTES OF MAY 26
III. A. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn - Cont'd
The question~-cwas asked as to whether it would be possible to discontinue the
yard sales at the end of the amortization period and continue to operate the
business on an office-basis without vehicular traffic. Mrs. Renn stated:
"If youzwere to have us discontinue our yard sales, I would say that it would
be no great impact to our business due to the fact that it is a convenience
to our customers that they would have to do ~¢ithout. But for us to have to
park our vehicles elsewhere would be bad. Our San Jose yard is not big
enough for our 4 trucks."
Conmissioner Lustig suggested that the option for the Renns to continue
their business after the 10-year period as an office without vehicular
traffic be included in the Staff Report. Commissioner }~rshall explained
that this matter had been discussed at the Subdivision Committee level,
and the point had been made that should the Renn's cease to operate the
sale of products from their residence rather than as a point of dispatdhing
trucks, it then by definition would become a home occupation and would only
need a home occupation permit rather than a use permit.
e Chairman Belanger asked how much of the $1 million in sales came back to
the City. Mrs. Renn explained that since most of their business was
generated off their trucks, it was recorded as sales for Saratoga. She
explained that the City collected 1% of the total sales annually.
o Cormnissioner Zambetti asked how long the business had been in operation on
the Marion Avenue site. Mrs. Renn explained that they had lived at this
site for 23 years, and had been in business since 1955.
o Co~issioner ~rshall asked what Mrs. Renn's reaction would be if there was
a stipulation in the use permit for annual review of this use~npermit.
He expressed concern that should there be more intensive development in
the surrounding area, the proximity of a substantial amount of petroleum
products and residents were not compatible. Although Mrs. Renn responded
that she felt such a revi~ was only fair, s~e noted that the petroleum
.products that were underground now had been OK'd by the County Fire Marshall
She stated that if they were to~stay, they would still use the products.
She explained that they had their orchard to cultivate and that they cur-
rently use these products for their o~m use.
Mr. C. Airhouse, 20659 Marion Avenue, explained that his property bordered
this site, and that he had been a resident in his home for 8 weeks. He stated:
"I am concerned about the flanmable products and the traffic. I think in the
terms of flammability, oneof the major concerns is that there are empty
tankers which can explode. The other concern is the truck traffic on the road.
What is the consequence and who ~ill help maintain that road because of the
truck traffic? I think there is more traffic than what you usually see in
a residential area. I think there should be more aspects on how the business
should be limited and what or h~ it should be reviewed." He asked what the
annual review would encompass, and asked what recourse he would have if the
condition of Marion Avenue became bad.
Commissioner >~rshall explained that an annual review would be appropriate if
residential development should occur in the surrounding area.and change the
character of the neighborhood. He stated that he was not in favor of this
review b~ing an annual review, but merely a revi~ by the Planning Staff of
the nature of the business and change of residential character. He pointed
out that all records in City Hall were public, and explained that Mr. Althouse
could address the Planning Commission at any time regarding this matter.
Relative to the maintenance of Marion Avenue, the point was made that two-
third's of the road was oxmed by the Renns, and that the appropriate course
of action to take with regards to maintenance was to discuss this matter
~ith the Renn~s.
In additional response to these questions as well as others raised previously,
Mrs. Renn stated: "Since the gasoline crunch, we have been on allocations.
Therefore, any great increase in new accounts is impossible for us. Our
-3-
': ' I, SNUTES OF~Y26~
III. A. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn - Cont'd
yard sales are kept track of daily; and at the end of the year when you get
ready to review it, you can look at the records. As far as the road.go_~s_.~a~l.~
of the homeowners in the past have ~ried to maintain that road. We have al-
ways maintained up to and including_our property, but we do not go beyond
that. Everyone should realize that it is a private road, so the balance of
the road will still have to be maintained by us, and we will do our share due
to the fact that we own so much of that road."
At this point Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti';
that the Planning Commission close the public hearing on UP-300. The motion
was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:20 p.m.
C~ission Response
® Commission Callon stated: "Regarding the annual review, I do not think
we would want to reopen to the public these same issues every year because
that puts a precarious situation on the Renns, as well as on the neighbors.
My feeling is I would rather compromise on the number of years that the
business might be allowed to continue in its present form, and perhaps
restrict the business to the number of their own trucks now and eliminate
the odd sales. I would have to take the Fire Marshall's professional
judgment that there is not an excess of fire hazards."
~ Commissioner Zambetti stated: "I think it is a hardship to 'these long-
time residents to give them any less than 10 years to operate their
business. As I look around at the property m~ners and the adjacent area,
I find that the large tracts of land that are still vacant are owned by
people who seem to be in agreement with the use of the Rennproperty. They
are the ones who are going to control the growth on Marion Avenue. Marion
Avenue is a great street to drive down because it has tb~t visual retief of
an orchard. The reason it is an orchard today is because Renn's business
has been profitable enough to pay the taxes and keep it as an orchard.
The gasoline that is being stored there is such that it has unde~riter's
approval. It has been there 22 years, and there has never been a problem
in the past with fires. I do see a problem if adjacent properties develop.
I think if a new subdivision comes in, we should de-amortize the operation
out, but I do not think you will see a subdivision in the next 5-7 ye~s
on that street.
· Chairman BelaDger expressed concerns that an annual review without a guarantee
;~[6'~he Renn~s"for the continued use of their business for 10 years was not
appropriate. She argued that it would be a disservice to the Renns and to
the surrounding neighborhood to grant the use permit for a 10-year period
subject to an annual review which might result in an earlier discontinuance
~ of the business. She stated that she would rather lessen the amount of
time that this use could continue, rather than continue the use permit for
annual reviews.
After conferencing briefly ~ith Commissioners Callon and Lustig, Commissioner
~rshall moved, seconded by Conmissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission
approve in;principt~ the ideas expressed in the Staff Report dated May 26,
1976 relative to use permit application UP-300, and direct the City Attorney
to prepare a resolution on same for adoption at the next C~m~ssionmeeting,
subject to the following amendments:
~The time frame stipulated in Conditions (A) and (C) shall be 7% years
from the date of the initiation of the non-conforming use ordinance.
® Condition (E): There shall be no increase in the size of the business
in terms of the amount of capital equipment, stored materials or number
of employees on the Marion Avenue site.
Considerable discussion followed on this motion. Connnissioner Laden asked
why the annual review provision had been deleted from the motion, and Commis-
sioner Marshall explained that Conmissioners Callon, Lustig and himself felt
the reduction in time to be a fair compromise for the annual reviews.
-4-
· MINUTES OF MAY 26.
III. A. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn - Cont'd
® Commissioner Laden stated that she felt 10 or 7~ years was excessive, and
that she felt 5 ~ears was sufficient time in which to give the applicants
ample time in which to relocatesthe business. She asked whether another use
permit could be issued after the expiration of this use permit. The City
Attorney explained that it could be issued if the Planning Commission could
make the necessary findings. The point was made that the Staff Report con-
ditioned the applicants to'enter into an agreement to discontinue their non-
conforming use. The City Attorney pointed out that if one of the conditions
of this use permit was the entering into of a contract to cease the use,
then the only body which could permit a modification to the contract would
be the City Council, not the Planning Commission.
® Chairman Belanger expressed concern that the time limits imposed upon the
4 non-conforming use applications reviewed by the Commission were all
different, and she asked if it was proper to have this type of sliding scale
conditioning. The City Attorney explained that the Commission was not talk-
ing in terms of amortization of non-conforming structures, but rather whether
the Commission, in granting the use',permit, wanted to extend the time limit
beyond the provisions of the Non-Conforming Ordinance, Section 13.9(a),
which was one year. He stated: '~Where you have the continuation of a "C"
use in an "R" district, you can make certain findings to permit the c~nt~"'~
uation of such use for 'a reasonable period of time beyond the time limits
of Section 15.9(c) hereof, upon a finding that under all the circumstances
and the other conditions of such use permit that such a continuation would
not be contrary to the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the general
purposes of this Article."' Fir. Johnston explained that the Commission had
the discretion to go beyond the time limit of one year for non-conforming
use matters, but he contended that this was not a sliding scale.
At this time, Chairman Belanger moved for an amendment to Commissioner Marshall's
motion by reducing the amount of time to 5~ years rather than 7~ years. The
motion died for lack of a second.
The motion made by Commissioner Marshall was carried: 5 ayes, 1 no from
Chairman Belanger.
Staff was directed to agendize the Resolution to be prepared'by~ Eff~A~fo'F~ey
for the June 9, 1976 Planning ConmLission meeting. ~
B. GF-303 - City of Saratoga, Proposed Amendments to the 1974 General Plan for the City of Saratoga; Continued fromMay 12~ 1976
Note was made that this matter had been reviewed on several occasions, and that
two Staff Reports had been prepared: one dealing with consistency items of the
General Plan, and one dealing with an independent request by the WildWood Heights
Homeo~mers Association relative to the Canyon View Drive extension. Note was
also made that a new General Plan Map had been prepared, and for the purposes
of better graphic illustrations, Staff recommended that circular dots be used
to reflect the proposed Canyon View Drive extension.
C~m~issioner Marshall stated that he felt the use of circular dots, which was
not a normal display, was the best manner by which the City could illustrate
the general theme and be in conformance with the concerns of the people
living in Wild~{ood Heights.
Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. As there was no
public testimony given, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lustig, that the public hearing on GF-303 be closed. The motion was carried
unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:49-p.m.
Commissioner Marshall made note of the Staff memorandum dated May 20th report-
ing that the City Council had reviewed and agreed to the Commission's inter-
pretation of consistency. Based on this, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded
by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Con~nission adopt GF-303-A Composite
Report dated May 20, 1976 relative to the Annual 1975 Amendments to the
Saratoga General Plan, specifically amendments 1-5.
Before the vote was taken, Chairman Belanger pointed out that the consistency
-5-
~ENUTES OF MAY 26, 19Z~
III. B. Proposed Amendments to the 1974 General Plan - Cont'd
policy for low density ranged doomward to R-1-15,000, and she asked whether it
would be advisable for the Commission to rezone the front portions of the par-
cels on Allendale Avenue in order to make sure that an R-i-20,000 corridor along
Allendale Avenue was preserved. After brief discussion, Staff stated that it
would investigate this matter and determine how many lots could be subdivided
on Allendale Avenue.
At this time, the motion to approve GF-303-A was carried unanimously.
Note was made that a letter had been received from Marlene Duffin, president
of the Wildwood Heights Home~ners Association, dated May 18, 1976 supporting
the conceptual use of dots to show an emergency access easement from the end
of Canyon View Drive, with the understanding that the dots did not represent
the actual easement but did allow the Association's right to an emergency egress
when a developer built on the hills behind Canyon View Drive.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning
Commission adopt Composite Report GF-303-B dated M~.y 20, 1976 relative to the
extension of Canyon View Drive modifying the 1974 General Plan, and that the
graphics reflecting this amendment be shd~m in the form of circular dots. The
motion was carried unanimously.
C. V-454 - Thomas HonE, 19308 Zinfandel Court, Request for Variance to All~q for
the Reduction in the Required Sideyard Setback of 20 feet to 7 feet for
the Purpose of Locating a Tennis Court Fence (Ord. NS-3~ Section 3.7)
Staff noted that an alternative plan had been worked out on this item, and that
a letter requesting this item be wlthdra~m had been received.
Cormnissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Plan-
ninE Commission accept the letter of withdraw~l~relative to V-454. The motion
was carried unanimously.
D. UP-307 - Thomas HonE, 19308 Zinfandel Court, Request for Use Permit to Allow
for the Construction of a Fence in Excess of 6 Feet in Height for
the Purpose of Enclosing a Tennis Court (Ord. NS-3~ Section 3.7-1)
Staff pointed out that this matter was directly related to Item V-454, and re-
quested this matter be continued pending further review.-f
As there was no public_\testimony to be given, Chairman Belanger directed UP-307
be Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 1976, and referred
this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review.
E. GF-308 - Proposed Ordinance 60.2, An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 60~
the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, by Adding Article
Four Thereto Relating to Special Subdivision Situations, and Sections
Series 30 under Said Article Four Governing Community Housing
(Condominiums~ et al) Conversions
Staff gave a brief presentation regarding this proposed ordinance. Essentially,
Mr. Burr explained that this proposed ordinance was a standard condominium con-
version ordinance ~ith the following exceptions: (1) a stipulation of 2% total
housing stock must be rental units before condominium conversion would be
allowed; and (2) a stipulation of 3% vacancy rate must be reached prior to a
conversion.
Mr. Burr explained that the 2% total housing stock figure had been established
as a minimum standard based on an equilibrium situation between multiple-family
and single-family dwelling units in 1966-67. }k. Burr pointed out that currently
the City h~d 9/1Orbs of 1% of the total housing stock as multiple-family dwelling
units, and he noted that no conversions could take place until approximately
100 more rental units were constructed in the City. He explained that
characteristically, Saratogan's multiple-family dwelling units served as a
housing alternative for senior citizens, and he argued that the 2% projection
was necessary in order to accormnodate these needs.
-6-
MAY 26, 1976 ~NUTES
III. E. GF-308 - Proposed Ordinance 60.2 - Condominium Conversions - ContJ.d
Regarding the 37° vacancy ~ate figure, Mr. Burr noted that this was a standard
figure used throughout the planning practice as a determination for an abundance
of family dwelling units. He explained that anytime a vacancy rate exceeded
37°, there was an oversupply. He stated: "In other words, if you have 3% of
the multiple-family dwelling units vacant, then you can convert to condominium
conversions if you have more than 2% of the housing stock in Saratoga as
multiple-family dwelling units."
Conmissioner Callon stated that she f~lt the 2% figure was too 1~¢. Conmissioner
~rshall pointed that that while the figures from adjacent cities would impli-
cate that Saratoga was deficient in rental housing, the rental housing was
quite different in Saratoga than in other cities in the Conty. It was pointed
out that the proximity of industrial and cormnerdial centers had to be taken
into consideration when discussing this 2% figure, and note was made that
Saratoga was one of the most isolated communities in the County relative to
the proximity of employment centers.
The question was raised as to whether the representative of Saratoga Foothills
Development Corporation, who had applied for a condominion conversion of the
Saratoga Creekside Apartments, was aware of this proposed ordinance. Staff
explained that he was aware of this proposed ordinance, but had not felt it
necessary to comment to the Commission on same. Note was also made that none
of the apartment dwellers of Saratoga Creekside Apartments appeared at the
Commission meeting to protest this ordinance.
Brief discussion was had on the provision~allo~ing tenants to vote for condo-
miniurn conversions by a 2/3 vote, and concerned was expressed by several ConmLis-
sioners that financial coercion could be used to generate such a 2/3 vote.
After additional discussion, it was the consensus of the Con~.~iission to delete
provisions 30.3(a) regarding the 2/3 vote, and to change Item 30.3(b) to
Item 30.3.
At this point, Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on GF-308 at 9:15 p.m.
As there was no public testimony given, Conmlissioner Marshall moved, seconded
by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing
on GF-308. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was
closed at 9: 16 p .m.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Co.~-.~issioner Zambetti, that the
Planning Conmaission accept GF-308, as amended, and fo~¢ard same to the City
Council with the reconnnendation for approval. The motion was carried unanimously.
IV. ~[ESCELLANEOUS
A. UP-299 - Saratoga Horticultural Foundation, Verde Vista Lane, Resolution for
Use Permit to Allow the Continuation of a Non-Conforming Conmercial
Use in a Residential Zoning District
'Note was mad~'~hat a R~l~'t~'ff'h~d'b~'~ prepared by the City Attorney at the
direction of the Con~nission, and the. reconnnendation was made that formal action
be ~aken on UP-299 by ehe Co~m~is§i0n.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by ComnLissioner Zambetti, that the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution UP-299-1 per Exhibits "A" and "B".
The motion was carried unanimously..
B. UP-239 - Boething Treeland Nursery, Prospect Avenue, Request for Amendment to
Original Use Permit
Commissioner Marshall noted that the original map sent to the Cc~aission
erroneously showed the change from the location of the office trailer from the
north side of the site to the south side of the site. He explained, however,
that the location of the office trailer was actually porposed to be in the
middle of the property, as far away from adjacent homes as possible. Con~nis-
sioner M~rshall pointed out that the applicant had agreed to plant evergreen
-7-
.~ ;. }FINUTES OF ~Y ~6, 1976
IV. B. UP-239 - Boething Treeland Nursery - Cont'd
trees surrounding the trailer, and that a condition had been put in the Staff
Report prohibiting the use of power tools.
At this point, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti,
that the Planning Commission adopt the amendment to UP-239 per Exhibit "X."
The motion was carried unanimously.
RECESS: 9:30 - 9:45 p.m.
V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Environmental Impact Determinations - None
B. Other
1. Letter received from Sylvia Jean dated May 26, 1976 requesting a variance
on a minimum access road. Also attached to this letter was a petition
signed by residents on a private lane near Ms. Jean's property. This
matter was referred to the Subdivision Committee for review, and Chairman
Belanger directed this matter be continued to the Planning Conmission meet-
ing of June 9, 1976.
VI. ORAL CO~IUNICATIONS
A.City Council Report - No City Council Report of the meeting of May 19, 1976
was given.
B. Other
1. Commissioner Callon gave a brief report of the PPC meeting of April 29,
1976. She directed the Commission's attention to the PPC meeting minutes
of April 29, 1976 included in the Cor~L~issioners' packets.
2. A brief status report was given by Commissioner Marshall regarding the
development plans of the Garcia/Kirkorian property located on Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road and ProspectL~Road. Staff noted that the EIR would speak
to the issue of the best type of anchor stores which should be included
in the proposed shopping center, and that subsequent status reports would
be given to the Commission and Subdivision Committee.
3. Commissioner Zambetti requested that revi~ of the drive-up window matter
be agendized for Subdivision and Design Review Committee meetings.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Cor~nissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission meeting of May 26, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
D6na~l'd ~o~Bu"i~~
Acting Secretary
-8-