PC 05-12-86CTrl OF CU~, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10300 Torre Avenue CUpertino, CA. 95014
(408) 252-4505
MINU.I'ES OF 'llIE REGVIAR MEE'I'ING OF TI·JE PIANNING a:M!ISSION
HEID ON MAY 12, 1986 Meet.in; Held in the Council Cbmnbers of CUpertino City Hall
SAI1J.I'E 'ID 'IHE FI.AG;
R:>I.L CALL:
a:mnissioners Present: Vice Chail:man Mackenzie a:mnissiClfY>...r .Adams
O"mnj ssicner Cl.au::ly canmi.ssioner SOrensen
7:30 P.M.
Staff Pr.asent: Rebert ~ian, Di.rector of Plannirg & Devcl.opoont sttwe ·Piasecki, Ms.ist:m'. Pla.nnirq Di.t"t'rtor Travice Whitten, Assistant City En;Jinaer: Charles Kilian, City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUI'ES
mrION: can. Adams, to approve the Minutes of the regular :iooetinJ of April 28, 1906, as sul'lnitt:OO.. SECOND: Can. Sore11.sen
l)'(,l'E: Passed 4-0
~ OR NEW PQlIDA ITEMS:
-Mr. CclWan entered one item, to be labeled Item a, 'Iha Plannin;J camnission's Review of the Five Year capital Improvement Program for
c.on..c;ist-mcy with the General Plan.
-Mr. Cowan requested that Item 6, l-EXC-86, be continued due to the fact that fUrther review of this ~lic.ation is required. Item 6 will b heard at the Rsgular Meetirq of Ju:ne 9, 1986
MJITON: can. Adams noved to continue Item 6, l-EXC-86, to the Planning Cc.:m1mission Meeting of June 9, 1986 SECX>ND: can. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 4-0
-1-
•'i •.
.f,
PU\NNIOO CCfff.ISSIW MINl'.)'l'E9
Regular Meetin:J Of May 12, 1986
PAGE 2
PC -493
WRIT1'EN WMJNICATICNS
-Can. Mackenzie ackrx:lwl~ a written petition regarding Item 7, Nunzio Cicero's :requoot for zonin;J interpretation.
ORAL caHJNICfu""'IONS
-None
M::tl'ION: Can. sorenaen m::wed for approval of Consent calen:iar Itam 2 J\Wlicaticn 13-U-84 -l'.kl1 L. Beck: Hequestin:;r awr.aval for an extension of time for a previa.ialy approved use permit. · '!he
property is lcx::ated on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard
an:i CUpertino Road.
SEO:tID: can. Adans
VO:rE: Passed 4-0
ITEMS RF.MJVED FF.Qi a::NSENT CAT.ENil~R
ITEM 1
Application 8-U-86 -J. T. Kant.rabeck.i O::iropany: Requestil-q approval of a minor amet~ to remove existing Pina trees on sitP.. 'lhe property is located an the no~ oorner of Miller Avenue an:l Richwood Drive.
can. Claudy stated tha.t basically he has rx:> problems with this Application; however, he did wish to state that the proposed :replacement
trees sho.lld be above am. beyand the landscapi."'l<"J already provide:l on their plan.
can. Adams requeste:.:l that the o:mnission provide for the preservation and protection of these trees. can. Sorensen concurred, statirq that she is
concerned aba..1t the presezvation of trees in OJpertino and wish.es the O::mnission to be assurecl. that trees of similar quality atrl scale will be
used as the i~laoexoont for any trees rerocr;rOO. fran this site. ·
MJITOO: can. Claooy noved that the requested Minor Amerdment to use Permit 8-U-86 be approve:i subjex..."t to the urd.erstar..ding that the replacement trees are to be provided in addition to any of the
landscapj,m already required. an the. site.
SEOJND: can. sorensen
VOI'E: Passed 4-0 ·'
PLJ\NNIN:; CXH!ISSIOO' MINOmS
Regular M9etin;J of May 12, 1986
PAGE 3
PC -493
RJBLIC HFARilGS:
At the request of Staff, the o:mnission agree:.i to hear Items 3 and 4
tcX]ether.
ITEM 3
~licatian No(s) Applicant:
Property owner: Location:
USE ~ cperation. To operate a 1,200 sq. ft. pizza deliveiy an:i take-a.rt
FIRST HEARING
ENVn~:t~MENI~.L DEI'ERMINATION: categorically EXempt
TENrATIVE c:rr'i CXXJNCIL HEARING DM'E: May 19, 1986
ITEM 4. Application No(s) Applicant:
Property c:Mner: location:
lO=U-66 .QgQQrah Needell
I:tIDter Properties -southwest. .corner of ~wa BoW.ervai"d wP
~ellan Road
USE PEmIT (lO-U-86) To operate an 880 sq. ft. san:lwich and salad store.
FIRST HEARING
ENVIRONMENTAL DET.ERMINATION: categorically Exempt
TENTATJ.VE CITY CUJNCIL HEARING DM'E: May 19, i;a6
Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan stated that both Use Pe.rm.its involve the · new camnercial deve1Cll'Jlrel1t at DeAnza Blvd. and McClellan Road. 'lhe Use Pennits are required per the General camoo.rcial zone which requires Use Pel:mit control for irost focxi establishments. 'lhese Applications are presented to the G:Amnission ber...ause these establishments provide take-out
sei:vice.
'As. noted in the Staff Report, the two Corrlitions that a:r:ply to these applications are designed to protect the residential area to the west. '!hose conditions relate to 1) hours of operation, and 2) parkin:J.
Staff has suggr.:!Sted that the number of seats in Ar,.plication 10-U-86 be reduced by eight to ensure that the parking deficit in the center is kept to an absolute m.inimJrn. EVen with this rf:rlucti.on, there is a deficie.ncy of one parking space which ~ staff does not find excessive .
• 0 \
PT.ANNING a:JJJMISSICN MINt1.l'ES
Regular Meet.irq Of May 12 1 1986
PAGE 4 Fe -493
ITEMS 3 an:i 4 (cant' d)
Afplicatic:n 9-U-86 (Danin:>'s Pizza) provides take-out eervice exclusiw.J.y. s~ there will not be any OXlS\..lll\?tion of focxi on the pre.mises, parking is not a critical issue. Also, parking of delivexy vehicles to appear as a defacto sign is prdtlbitOO by a. section in the Sign Ot'di.nance.
Can. Mackenzie c::a:nmented on the parkin:J p:rOOle:ms that currently exist, arrl
asked if the secon::'1 };i1a.se of this deviel.opnar1t will relieve the existing parkin:J prd:>lem. Mr. Cowan stated that the solution deperrls . upon the proportion of space designated for offiaa use in !?base II. 'Ibe secord phase was oi~iginally sul:lnitte:l as 5300 square feet of office space; the applicant requested a:::wmercial use potential an:i t.he square footage was
:reduced to 4700 square feat; th.era. is :l..nsuffic:i.ent parkin;J space on this site to enable the applicant to Wild oot th.a entire 4700 sq\.\are feet of
Fhase II as cx:mnexcial retail oocupan:::y ..
~licant'a Prooent.atJ.Qlli. Mr. stel.'e Bux.a of Damino'a Pizza statei that after ssarch.:i.ng for tlw. past year, the prcposed location is acceptable to IX:mi.no's Pizza and to him.
Mr. Buxa restated the fact Ulat this i$ a take-out setVioe; there is no sit down se.rvice1 no video ~ or alcohol, no food consumption on the premise arrl delivecy is made with.in 30 minutes. In regard to noLc:;e
generated by the b.lsiness, he stated that he will have one delivery person am. does not see that this will generate much ooise. · · .
'Iha Applicant requested that the hcm-s of operation be exton:ed one additional hcur on saturday night, on a trial basis. ecm . .Mmns stated that the conditions as presented in the Awlication will be conaide:l::OO. for
ai;:proval or :rejection; at the Anrn:ial Use Review a request for exterrled
hoors of operation may bA p~i.nt.u:l.
'lllere was oo speaker for A.wlication 10-U-86. 'Iha PUblic Hear.in;J was tl'lel1
~. 'll1ere were no speakers.
MJI'ION:
SECJtID: VOI'E:
o:m. Adams lOCIVed to close the Public Hearirq. can. Sorensen
Passed 4-0
can. Adams cladfiErl that the·Cca:mn.ission is free to review either of these A.Wlications durin:;r the ye.ar am is not obligated to wait tmtil the Annual Use F.eview s;_:A.."'Cif.Lcally in reg--cu:d t.o the hours of opP...ration or the noise ganerated by these operations. Mr. Cowan stated that the body of the comition, labeled Annual Use Revi€!\1, allows review as needed; hcwever, be sugg-ested strik.inq the word Annual if the camnissioners wish t.o makB this con:iltion IOC>re ~licit.
~ a:MfiSSICN MINtJl'ES
Regular Meetin:;J Of May 12, 1986
PAGE 5
PC -493
ITEM 3 ard 4 (Cont'd) . 0
can. Claudy is favorable to these Applications in general; the location is reasonable, there is limit.ad aocess to the back of the prcparty, . parkinJ is canoentrated in front, am is located an a bJsy strset.. 'Ihe sam:i barriers will pt."cl:>ebly provide the adjoinir:q residents with less noise than previously experienced.
can. Sorensen noted that bear ar.d wine is for sale at t.M sarxiwidl shcp (Application 10-U-86). '!he Review process will remedy aey misuse of these awlications.
MJl'ICN: can. Claudy noved to :recamooni appi:oval of Application 9-U-86 per t.he Model Resolutian with ccniltions 1 ard 2 therein, ard Coniltim 3 m:xilfied to remove the word Annual f:r:an Use Permit
Review".
SEXXl'1D: can. SOl."eflSel"l
VUI'E: Passed 4-0
mr:rw: o:m. Cl.au::iy mvro to ~approval of Application 10-U-86
per the M:del Resolution with Cor.ditions 1 and 2 therein, and Corrlition 3 nx:xiified to :rercove the -word Annual fra.u Use Permit
Review.
SEO:>ND: can. Sorensen
VOI'E: Passed 4-0
ITEM 5
Application No. ll.,wlicant:
Prcperty owner: I.Dcation:
Parcel Al.-ea (Ac)
ll-U-86
USE PEl\MIT To construct a 2,400 sq. ft. addition to an existing
retail l:uildin:J.
FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENrAL DETERMINATION: Cat.e:;}orically Exempt
TENTATIVE CITY OJONc;:L HEARING D.l\TE; May 19, 1986
staff Pr.gsentaticn: Mr. Piasecki presented exhibits to shc:M the location of the Ge.:roc:o facility on the site. 'llle Applicants are recpestirq awroval to construct a 2400 square foot addition tot.he exi.stirq building. 'Ihe· e:rt::ry canopy will be redesigned and additional c.harqes to exterior materials are proposed.
PI.ANNING Ol1MISSIOO MINUrES Regular Meet.in;r of May 12, 1986
PAGE 6 J?C -493
ITEM 5 (C'ont'd)
'lhere have been a number of applications for this site since 1975 when it was zoned a:mventional en ard did rm require a Use Pe.unit. sirY::e rezoned
to a Planned Davelc:poont District, cbarq .. · Im.lSt rv::M cane t.hrcu;Jh the Plannin:J camn.ission arrl the City camcil.
'Iba issues raised by the staff, and rci:ed in the staff Report, are:
1) Charqes in the type of parking area t-ree selections: 'Ihey request a
c::hange to a 100re carpact canopy tree as ~ to a broad qanopy tree which ~d provide more shaclir)3' aixl greater screening of the site. 2) 'llloS roof equipnent tl1.C1.t is visible; the applicant plans to supplement their e.xhibita with diagrams depict~ screening of roof equi:tmmt.
staff suggests that this be returned to ASAC or continued· if the o=mnission has reservations about the roof equipnent isBOO.
Finally, AS.AC has transmit.tad it<:J o:ince.ms about tlw prq:x:>sed cx:>lor of the tile at the remodeled entry; staff does not share this concem, however.
Mr. Piasecki stated, in response to Cctn. Sorensen's question, that sane
trees at the entran:::::e of the site will be rem:r..red.; the frontage trees will remain. It is the previa.isly approved trees to be located in the parldn;J area for which a c.hange in type is requested.
can. Mams requested th.-;,.t ASAC's concerns be stated for the reconi. Mr. Piasecki said that their concel.71 was that the tile oolot: is too bright,
an:l that it would attract attention to a specific area of the l:uildirq. Alao, there might be a sheen or glare given off by the proposed tile.
staff feels that sane of these concerns are actllally positive elements sirx::e t.ha tile accents the ?Jblic entry an:l cor1CE"..ntrates attention at the center, thus reducirq the strorg linear mass of this buildin;:J.
'llle grcrurrl sign is belng processed separately through ASAC and is not part of this Use Permit application. 'ille C' .. ommittee has asked the AWlicants to redesign the sign, requestirq changes in its height and lCX"..ation.
Can. Mackenzie questioned the status of the 1983 approval for e.xpalision.
Mr. Piasecki stated that Gem.::o lli.'.S started this project and that this is a valid application; the project is almost complete. Same of the required
improvements have not ber'>..n installed and the Plannirq Department is
wo:tXiTXJ wit:'l the Awlicant to complete them; final approval will not be
granted until completion of these improvements. ·
~lkant's Presentation: Ms. Mary Ransom, representing the architect,
presented drawings of the roof scree.n arrl shO"w"ed };:hotographs of other
Genco stores in scA..rthe.n1 Otli.fornia.
. ;
PI.ANNIN:; a:MfiSSICN MINUl'ES
Regular Meetin; of May 12, 1986
PAGE 7
PC -493
ITEM 5 (Cont'd)
'Ibo aw:.lcants propoae a new ad:iltion with new roof:.:.cp equipnent screen
that would oovar the equipnent. 'lhis screen varies in height dependin:f upon the size of the equ.i.pnant and will be painted to match the oolor of
the b.lildirXJ; the screen will bs apprax:i.mate.J.y 15 feet inset fran t.11a edge of the .buildirq ..
Mr. Piasecki suggesta:i that the o:mn:i..ssioo indicatt! that the ?:OOf. sct"'eal'l shcul.d be: - a consistent height
- a continuo..ls screen -painted to match the bu.ilc:lirg -referred to ASAC for final review prior to issuance of build.:l.rq permits
can. Mackenzie suntnarized the ~ of the o-mni saion, stating that it
has been a policy that roof acreena be an integral architectural elerr.ent of a l:uild.in;J; this application prcpoaes to J:uild boxes to screen equipnent. Mr. PiaaecJd. 's ~ions are good; how\'wer, since a p.lblic hearin;J has been scheduled, if people arG he.re to address the camnission
on this ar::plicatian, testi'l'OCJl'lY will be heard.
'!he p.lblic hearing was then opened.
Mr. Mrian Var.lotta, representative of Iucky store.s Incorporated, the parent c::arpany for Geroc:o, stated that the ocmpany has 00 oojections to the prq::ioeals of the canmission ani the sta£f. '!hey recognize the need. to
improve the prc.perty ard apologize:.i for the de.lays in c:~letin;J these improvements.
'Ihe pictures presented at the Hearing show the I1e'W corporate image adopted
by the carpmy in the last two years. 1be blue tile arrl the :new sig.nage
will be used in all the stores; the carrpany intends to remodel the entire chain within the next 4-5 years an:l establish a revised corporate identity.
Mr. Varlotta requested clarification on:
-Public !rrq;)rovenenta: Dedication of the right-of-way necessary to install a b..ls ducko.lt on Saic.h Way. Gem:o is a tenant arrl does not own the pre.party; they cannot agree to corrl.i.tions \tJh:l.cl1 would bind the property c:rwner.
-Deferment Policy: nu.a proce..<JS of persuacUrg the ~· ·.-;party owner to awrove this dedication may be le.rqthy dTd Wt:Uld dE>..lay the project
fl.trther.
Mr. Piasecki stated that the Public works ~t has requested
ilrunediate dedJ.cation; Mr. Whitten c::x:n::urred arrl added that it is conceivable that the City may wish to construct the duckout prior to Gem::l6
reac:hirq the 25% valuation of improvement level. With reg-drd to the point that Getnco does not cwn the p:roperL-y, th.e City could con::lemn the duckout at Geroo 1 s expense if the Pla.nnilxJ Ccmn.ission wished to proceed with the right-of-way.
PlANNllG o::HIISSICN MINUl'ES
Regular Maet.irg of May 12, 1986
PAGE 8 R:: -493
ITEl1 5 (Cbnt'd)
can. Mackenzie~ that if Items is oontin\m, the Applicant shoo.ld investigate the i.ntarast of the property owner in dedicatin;J the right-of-way.
can. Claudy asked how the camnisaion oould ensure that Geno:i will use the
trash erx::J.osures by rsturnin:J tha t.rash oontainers within them after pickl.lp. Mr. Varlotta stated that it is the responsibility of the store manager to maintain . the prq;erty. '100re is oo guarantee that it will be.
~. ~ \ .
can. Adams req.iested that the staff reassess what is bainJ done in regard .. to trash enclosure requirements an finished sites.
'll1e o::mni ssiane.rs accept the prq;1osed tile color; ~, the roof screen shoold be of materials that integrate with the build.L~. Gene.rally,
acceptable roof screens have not been painted liKX:d.
Mr. Piasecki summarized tli.at the Commission wants additional infonnat.ion on: l) the trash ~01't\ll:'e locaticns run elavatialS; 2) the roof screen;
3) status of the 00.s turnout dedication.
IDI'ICN: can. Cl&.uc'ly noved for conti.nua.tY;e of Application ll-U-86 to June 9, 1986 Planning camnission 'lllE?tS't.in:;.
SEO:JNI): a:m. SOrensen
\UTE: Passed 4-0
OID WSINESS -None
NE.W BUSINESS
ITEM 7
Nunzio Cie.ro (Burger Pi.t Restaurant) : Requesting interp1-etation that a pizza parlor is an equal or less .intensive use than the previous non-cx:mform.ing restaurant use located at 20010 Stevens Creek
Boulevaxtl.
staff ~.:l&ni Mr. O::Man statoo that the purpose cf this discussion is to determine 'Whether or oot the oonvemion of the Burger Pit Restaurant
to a pizzu parlor represe.rrts an equal or less intensive ch.an;e of use. A
chart entitled "Intensity Comparison" was presented. An on-site traffic generation study was conducted by staff durin;J the peak hoor· of 5-6 P.M. Friday, May 12, 1986. It would ~ to Staff that the prcpose::l pizza cperdtion is vecy similar to the former EUrger Pit Restaurant in peak hour use intensity.
Pl1\NNIN:i c:x::M1ISSICN MINUTES Regular Meetin:;J of May 12, 1986
PJ!IGE 9
FC -493
!'I'm 7 (Cont'd)
Mr. Piasecki exp~· ained t.Mt the ModEtl Resolution which \'JOUld be used to state the Q:mnjssion's fi.rrlirqs that the proposed pizza parlor use is
slln.ilar or less :J.ntensive in nature is uniqwa to this particular case:
there is no intent to create a cx:mm.mitywidte p1"ee:Erlent.
'1be Vice Chainnan opened the Hearing to canments frau the l,?.lblic.
Mr. Jim Jackson, 10401 S<::marset ct., Cllpel:tioo, repra...c;ented Cicero's in this matter. He analysis inclOOe:::l:
-Legal aspect.a: 'Iha grandfatlkll'irq concept is c:U3signed to protect an .in:ilvidual :fran unfair chan';Tes of zonirg arrl taking rxway of legitimate use. It is the use that is in question in this case and not the particular owner of the business.
-'1be Non-canformin:j Use ordinance, first paragrali't, deals with non-oonfonnin;J use of the land an:I. states in effect, th.at such non-canfonninq use shall not be enlarged or increased, nor shall any
· such oon-canform.in; use be exterrled to ocx::upy a greater area of lam. 'Ibis does 1'X)t apply to this application.
-'Ille second paragraph of this ordinance states that the lawful use of a
l:W.lding existing at the tiloo of the effective date of the ordinance may
be oontirued and arry such use nay ba extendOO. thl:u.lghout the building proviciirq no structural al tera.tians, except those required by law, are made therein. In effect,· the ordinance is saying that if you have the
saioo kirxi of use that existed before, then the law implies that that use can even be enlru:ged wlthin the bourrlaries of the building arrl not be in
violation of the Non-confonnin;J Use Ordinanoe.
-'Iha critical issue is, is Mr. Cice.ro' s use the same kirrl of use as the Burger Pit had? As the Ordinance states, if no structural alterations
are made the non-oonfo1"1llin;J use of a bui.ld.ir.q can be ch~ to aoother non-confonnirq use. It is the canteJ:rt:ion of Mr. Jackson that these two operations are similar uses.
-Factual Argument: Comparision of business charact:eri&tics ccmfirm the similarity of use. It is rare to fine tr.«> uses so similar in seating,
parking, employees, hours of operation, liquor licen...<>e, Wilding area
and traffic generation.
-Personal: Mr. Cicero is sarethirg of an institution in Olpe.rtino. He
has be:E>.n a CUpertino resident arrl bus.iness owner for 18 years.
-Mr. Cicero is bein;J evicted fran his current place of b.lsiness. Jn preparation for this loos of p1-esent. location, the land presently occupied by au:ge.r. Pit was purchased by Mr. Cicero; however, t.be zonin:J
thereof was chan::Jed after t.he acquisition was <X£rpleted. It was assumed that no further application procedures ......ere required, havirq received ve.rbal pennissian frarn the City to establish the pizza b..ls:i.ness thE're
when the Burger Pit was :r;urchased in June of 1984. 'Ihus, this.
application ~ filed quite late.
PU\NN'lNJ a:H1ISSICN MlNUI'ES Regular Maetin;J of May 12, 1986
PAGE 10
PC -493
ITEM 7 ( a:mt Id)
Mr. I:avid ~' 10320 I.as on::las Way, Olpertino, cammen::3ed the staff an their on-si~ revie'# of traffic ger~tion and patitiorm the caumission to approve this awlicaticn.
Mr. Paul Gocx:iley, 19990 B.ren:la Court, eupertino, stated that a'traffic problem exists in the area due to two existing restaurant;dril·1kirg establishmentD. 'rhe addition of another restaurant will flll.ther carplicat.e the parking problem an::l wished to have the O:.mJ.ssion inf orrood of these difficulties. Sin::e the Burger Pit has probably not bean a financially viable operation for tllG past ye.ar or two, the traffic generation c:iooparisons :may not be acx.::urate. Mr. Goodley fU.rt.her suggested
~ that W'OUJ.d oon::eal the ductwork in the buildin;J.
Mr. Elliot Bcni, 20970 Pefp:>J.1:.ree I.ana, OJ:pertino, c:x:muoonted on Mr. Cioaro's cooperation with the City in deali.rg with suq:;re.stions and
requests fran ASAC and t.hat this ~tion ahould be taken into cxmsideration.
can. Mackenzie stated that a petition signed by 15-20 people in fa:vor of this request was received by the Commission.
cam. Claudy favors allowin;J the cl1anje of business operation, an:i does agree With Mr• Goodley IS ccmnents 011 the nP...ed for improveioont.s to the roof of the bull~. Mr. Kilian noted that if there are structural
improveirents to the 'b.l.ild.in:J the non-C'Ol"l.formi~ use cmnot be continued. 'lhe reason for non-confonnin:J use controls is to discourage continuation of such activities in the cam:m.mity. To the e.\.tent that l:uilciin1 .i.rnproveme.nts of a permanent nat.u.ra are made, continuation of a
non-oo.nfonnin;J use is en:x:m--aged.
Cctn. sorensen has no objections to allowing the pizza parlor operation on this site.
Com. Mackenzie o:mnnent.ed on the cancerns regarding other restaurants an:i bars in the area, statin;J tl"lat it is precisely for this reason that the
area has been zoned to prch.ibit eat:in;J establishments ar:rl bars •. HO#E.rver, since there is currently a I-e.staurant at that location, Mr. Cice.ro 1 s wish to occupy this space as a use of similar intensity will not impact existir:q circumstances.
M:fl'ION: can. Clatrly xwved to adopt a Minute order fir.ding that the
proposed pizza: restaurant use is of an·equal or less intensive nature than the previcus sit-dcM1 restaurant arrl will constitute an appropriate continuation of a non-~onning use.
SECOND: can. Sorensen .
vorE: Passed 4-0
"'?:
PiANNrnc; <n1MISSICN MrnUIES
Regular Meeti.N;J of May 12, 1986 PP.GE 11
-.t(: -493
ITEM 8
'!he ReView of the Five Year capi~"ll I:rrprovement Program for o:msistency with the General Plan.
Staff P;resentation; Mr. COWan stated that the purpose of this discussion was to determine whether or not the capital Inq;lravement rt.ems listed are consistent with the General Plan.
Mr. Whitten stated in response to O::Jm. Adams question that cilere nuroe:rous reasons why the actual costs do not match the .budget projections.
Deperx:Un:J on the projects thElllS:llves, the figures will vary considerably.
Mn'IOO: Cam. Claudy moved. to grant a Negative Declaration c:oncerning the capital Inprovement Program.
SECX>ND: Cam. Adams wm: Passed 4-o
M>TION: Com. Claudy m:ived that the Planning Com:nission fird. that the fiscal years 1986-1987 to 1990"""1991 Capital Improvement Program is consistent with tho General Plan.
SEC:>ND: Com. Sorensen vorn: Passed 4-o ,
REPORl' OF 'IHE PI.ANNING o:J1MISSIOl~
-None
REroRI' OF 'IBE PI.ANNING DIRECIDR
-Mr. cowan submitted in writing 'Ihe Planrtl.rq Director's Report with the addition of the City Co..mcil's decision on the F..a.ton neighborhocd issue.
ADJOORNMENT: Having concluded its business, the Plannirg Commission adjourned at 8:55 P.M. to the ne.x:t: F.egular Meetin;J of May 27, 1986 at 7:30 P.M.
ATTEST:
Approved by the Planning commission
At the Regular Meet~ of May 2 7 ,
L)LJwP~c:~
Nicholas Szabo, Olairman
I 1986:
. •,:
'i '