Loading...
PC 06-11-79 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA l0300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 TeJ.ephon.e: (408) 2-52;;:.i+5G5. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON .ruNE 11, 1979 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG Vice Ch. Koenitzer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: STAFF PRESENT Commissioners Adams & Koenitzer Blaine Ch. Gatto arrived at 8:00 p.m. Absent: Commissioner Claudy Assistant Planning Director Cowan Associate Planner Piasecki Assistant City Attorney Kilian Deputy City Attorney Akins Assistant City Engineer Whitten & POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS Item #1, Application 9-TM-79 - Martin Hall/James Boghosian - postponed at Staff's request. Item #4, Application 9-Z-79 and ll-TM-79 - J. Guy Farthing: Re- zoning. Postponed at Staff's request. Item #5, Application 10-Z-79 and 12-TM-79 - May Investment, Inc., Rezoning. Postponed at Staff's request. Item #7, Application 13-TM-79. Mildren Shelton: Tentative Map. Withdrawn at Applicant's request. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained to the Commissioners that Items #1, #4, and #5 had to be postponed because of lack of adequate geological impact information. Item #7 was withdra>m by Applicant because it was expected problems could be solved between the parties through easement ~reements. Items #1, #4, and #5 would be back to the Planning Commission on July 9, 1979. MOTION APPROVED UNANDlOUSLY: Com. Blaine Absent: Ch. Gatto ªecond: Com. Adams Vice Ch. Koenitzer advised the interested parties in the audience of the postponements. He said that an effort had been made to contact them through Homeo>mer Association and personal notifi- cation; however, they had been only partially successful. He invited those who wished to do so to address the Planning Com- mission at this time. And, he stated that the items postponed would be back to the Planning C~mmission at the regular meeting of July 9, 1979. ¡;>C"':309 Pagel ML"WTES OF THE JUNE 11, 1\1'(9 ¡¡iliJö'J:l1~U l;~' 'l'l"Ì.!!; rLlillIUl1U l;UI'll'll.¡::;ù.LV" PC- 309 Page 2 WRITrEN COMMUNICATIONS: Assis;t;ant pþ""i"g Director Cow:an. ÌJl- tormed t~ CanmU:ssion of having recai.ved a letter in the mail from Mr. Rance Braden (dc) regarding Item #4, and he gaid a copy of the letter would be in the packet the next time the mat- ter came before the Commiggion. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEMS ITEM #2, Application 7-Z-79, 10-TM-79 and 8-U-79 of GRIFFIN & MURREN CONSTRUCTION, INC.: PREZONING approximately- one grogs acre from Santa Clara County Rl-8 CRegidential, gingle-family, 8,000 S'l. ft. minimum lot gizeJ to CitY' of Cupertino P (Planned Development with :ringle-family' res-idential intent) zone or what- ever zone m~ be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commigsion; TENTATIVE MAP to con¡rolidate three parcels- cons-ig"ting of approxi- matelY' one acre into nine s-ingle-family clugter lots; USE PERMIT to congtruct nine :ringle-family' clugter homeg and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental. Review CÐmmittee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property ig located at t~ northeagt corner of Granada Avenue and Bryne Avenue. Firgt !fearing. CitY' Council !rearing 7/2/79. Cb- Gatto as-ked Aggociate Planner Piasecki to present the Staff Report . Ass-ociate Planner Pias-ecki presented the Applicant's map plans on the ab.ove-identified property, and also located the citY-Frepared map of the Stevens Creek Plan Line. !fe pointed out that the Ap- plicant's request was for 8 units of density, consistent with the small-lot cluster-type development (as approved for property to the north and wegt) on 1.5 grosg acres. The exception '<as the proposed two attached units and then the three separate units. Associate Planner Piasecki said the Staff had concentrated on three items for review: 1) adjustment (s:hortening) ot the cul- de-s:ac, 2) modify"ing the units (by jockeying) the last unit on the s-ite, and 3) adequacy of privacy and activity area in yard Sþaces-. The whole concept, he s-aid, was scheduled to be pre- sented to the Architectural On-s:ite Committee for preserving the thematic design to fit it in with the overall concepts, which had been accomplighed with great diligence and success by other de- velopers: . Associate Planner Piasecki indicated there are no conditions: and that the Applicant had a.greed to work -,rUh the Architectural Reviev Committee to blend gtyles: to achieve compatibility. Re- ferring to the cul-de-s:ac issue, ha informed the Commis:sion that the Applicant w:e,s being encouraged to n,;gotiate with otp.er property owners tor sharing the respons:.ibility with the three hous:es to the east - the Applicant making full improvements to the cul-de-sac. Ih the event that was: uns:ucces:s:ful, they proposed to widen the pavement area 5 ft. lJ;>roviding 20 ft. of pavements) . MINUTES OF THE JUNE ll, 1979 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION shifting the units to the west. (A. map plan vas exhibited to illustrate the jockeying that would provide additional roadway). Com. Koenitzer expressed concern for the closeness of the homes, garages and abutting yard space that it might impt:.nge on the privacy of the home owners. He pointed out a 5 ft. space between units in some instances; and, also, he said, another concern was in the two-story unit backed up to fences with no indication as to whether or not windov areas would conflict with privacy. He asked if other property had not required lO ft. to l5 ft. spaces . to alleviate those impacts, particularly the mass and closeness. Associate Planner Piasecki advised that the shifting of the homes would provide more privacy and that the front yards would be re- quired to be shortened in order to extend the back yards to pro- vide more activity space and privacy. The houses, he explained would be 5 ft. from the property lines, thus assuring the lO ft. requirement, and he added, the plan actually had more flexibility than was apparent in that the shifting of units would provide for Com. Koeni.tzer's concerns. He added that a representative of the applicant vas in the audience and could provide information. Applicant, Roger Griffin, 19660 Junipero, representing Griffin & Murren Construction, Inc. said the site is occupied by two homes and storage building, which are close to the road. The proposed nine single-family residential l/3 of the structures would be of single level to reduce visual impact. He pointed out that the garage locations provided privacy, and that the living areas were located to focus on backyard areas and that windows could be so placed that they would not impact with adjacent homes. He advised the Commission that each home would have a lot, and all landscaping would be installed by the developer. Reduction of the cul-de-sac area could be achieved by commensurate footage on the home sites. He said, with the shifting of the home, the 5 ft. at the corner of the building in clearance with the fence line, would be going avay from the joint property line and thus be creating additional space and privacy. Com. Adams inquired as to what would happen if the adjoining property owner (s) decided not to participate in the cul-de-sac arrangement, and he was told that the above-outlined plan would provide for that contingency. Associate Planner Piasecki said it would be considered a mini-cul- de-sac with 30 ft. width -- 20 ft. on the property shown, and another lO ft. on the property across the street at the time it might be developed. Ch. Gatto pointed out that this application was a pre-zoning, including a tentative map, and a use permit; and, he asked hov this would develop under City control. PC-309 Pa.ge 3 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 11, 1979 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PC-309 Page 4 Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that the development could not go forward until the property had been annexed. In effect, he said this application reflects a Pre-Tentative Map & Use Permit. Assistant City Attor ley Kilian said, when asked by Ch. Gatto, that it was kosher; although, he said he was not aware of precedent. If the Use Permit terminated at the end of a year, he felt that in the absence of completed annexation, the permit could be extended. Ch. Gatto stated that the Annexation was submitted in October 1978, was in suspension pending processing of this development, and then ·would go forward to final decision. COm. Koenitzer requested that the Architectural Review Committee take a look at the change in architectural style to bring about more compatibility with neighboring development and the Monte Vista area. Com. Blaine said that wood construction tended to blend or soften style. cOm. Koenitzer advised that he hoped style compatibility could be accomplished without impacting costs. MOTION: MOTION: MOTION: MOTION: Com. Koenitzer: Recommendation to support a Negative Declaration to the Environmental Impact Report. Second: Com. Adams Vote: Unanimous Absent: Com. Claudy Com. Koenitzer: Recommend to support Approval to the City Council of 7-Z-79 with standard conditions, ex- cept #15, per Second: Vote: Absent: findings and Com. Adams UNANThlOUS Com. Claudy conclusions of Staff Memo. Com. Koenitzer: Conditions #1 to #15 and #16, per Staff Memo. Second: Com. Adams Vote: UNANThlOUS Absent: Com. Claudy Recommend approval of 10-TM-79 with #14 standard. findings and sub-conclusions of Com. Koenitzer: Recommend approval of 8-U-79 with all the standard conditions -- #15 and #16, per provisions in Staff Memo Second: Com, Adams Vote: UNANIMOUS Absent: Com. Claudy ML.'WTES OF THE JUNE 11, 1979 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Assistant Planning Director said the Applications would go to the City Council on July 2, 1979. PC-309 Page 5 AGENDA ITEM #3 - Applications 8-Z-79 and 9-U-79 o~ HASSAN AMER: REZONING approximately .6 gross acres from ML-rc (Light Industrial) to P (Planned Development with commercial and o~~ice use intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct an 1,300 sq. ft. o~~ice buildin and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee rec- commends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the southwest corner o~ Stevens Creek Boulevard and Bubb Road. First Hearing. City Council hearing 7/2/79. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said he'd use "the Sta~~ Repo~ ~or the pertinent in~ormation concerning this application, pointing out the southwest corner o~ Bubb Road & Stevens Creek Boulevard, immediately contiguous to the Southern Paci~ic Railroad right o~ way, Spur Line. The second part o~ the application, he pointed out was ~or a Use Permit ~or a 11,300 sq. ft. building on the lot. He said the design was consistent with the downtown Monte Vista Plan. Assistant Planning Director Cowan called the attention o~ the Planning Commission to the orientation of the building as· to activities and design. A key ~eature o~ the Monte Vista Plan was to orient buildings toward the sidewalks, and he said it was pos- sible the proposed plan ~or the corner made a good transition be- tween the industrial and o~~ice uses on Bubb Road and the retail uses on Stevens Creek. Because the design o~ the building had a tendency to isolate sidewalk activity (by design and appearance); and there~ore, doorways and store ~ronts had been recommended in order to create a blending into Stevens Creek, and make it more inviting to pedestrians. The Applicant, he said, agreed and was willing to work with the Architectural Review Committee on such plans. One consideration should be pointed out, and that was the curb-side business on Stevens Creek Boulevard, he said; and there was general agreement in review with the City Tra~~ic Engineer that a second access to the site would be advantageous. Accord- ingly, he in~ol"med the Committee, that the Sta~~ and the Applicant had agreed to a curb-cut. He pointed out that the building did angle away ~rom the corner ~or the purpose o~ screening parking as much as possible to help implement the intent o~ the Monte Vista Plan. Com. Koenitzer asked about the City plans ~or improving the rail- road crossing, whether or not it would be done within the next year Assistant City Engineer Whitten in~ormed the Commissioners that a meeting was scheduled ~or Wednesday, July 13, 1979, at 2 o'clock to widen the street on the south side (as shown on the plan). A pending project on the north side is awaiting a clearance ~rom t~e HCD o~~ice, and he expected it to come through in two to three mont s. PC-309 Page 6 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 11, 1979 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION And, he. advö:s.ad the.t the. ~l= call ,or a· ra,ÌÂe.d di::ri..der with la.nds;c a]?ÏJ:1$ 8.n alon¡:¡. Com. Blaine asked if it was possible to consider other businesses than the lot-approved restaurant in order to avoid parking prob- lems and traffic. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained the 2,500 s~. ft. limitations that provide a cushion for parking problems. He said review of parking in jurisdictions other than Cupertino indi- cated the City re~uirements are for too much parking space. The 3/thousand is adequa.te, he said, and in this case, the 4 to 1 ratio prevails. CH~: Ordinance presently calls for 5 to 1 ratio. Coß. Blaine said that although she felt some kind of lunchroom could be used in that area, she also felt people would not be in- terested in making the walk. Com. Adams objected to the two-story "awesome structure" on the corner and right up against the sidewalk. Com. Koenitzer agreed that the flat, industrial facade was unpleasing, and he recom- mended a re-thinking of the design; possibly parking in front. Ch. Gatto invited the Applicant to speak. Safwat Malek, 23801 Camino Hermoso, Los Altos Hills, representing the Omler, said that they are in agreement with the Staff Report; and although he had nothing to add, he would be happy to answer any questions. Com. Adams asked why they had decided to place a two-story build- int on the corner with parking to the rear. Mr. Malek said, first, he agreed with Com. Koenitzer, and he too falt a building was a more suitable element on the street than a parking lot. Another factor was that the parking re~uirements precluded turning the building around. Mr. Malek said the design was to have fit into the Monte Vista Plan and in addition be transitional with the West Valley Industrial Park. Assistant Planning Director Cowan commented that the Monte Vista Plan was designed to get buildings up to the front, adjacent to curbs, to create a dOmltoml feeling. In response to Com. Adams, he reminded the Commissioners that the site was not a part 0' the West Valley Industrial Park, which he indicated did have a couple of two-story buildings. Com. Koenitzer added that the industrial park buildings were in the range of twenty to forty feet in height. PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE CLOSED Com. Adams asserted that he felt the Applicant should do something to dress up the structure. lie said that even granting it was the policy of the Monte Vista Plan to place structures on curb lines, he said he felt this was too massive for the corner. He asked if more detailed plans could not be made available. MINUTES OF T1iE JUNE ll, 1979 MEETING OF T1iE PLANNING COMMISSION Ass:ï:sta.nt PJ.a.nnïng D:irector Cowan ran through one spec:i.f":i.c of" Saction I of the dutiel> of thß Planning Commission on plans..... "tba plan shaJ.1. include the :f'ollow:ing: tba architectural theme of the development and thß locations of thß buildings., building configurations, building heights, and building square :f'ootage..," and he said thßt certainly- a decision on two-story vs. one-story structure should be discussed and decided. Ch. Gatto as1i:ed boTO:: ~ uni.ts. of parking had been looIœd at and . the relative s::izes:. Mr. Cowan gave information :f'rom· a Cal Trans puóJ.ication that the sües range :!'rom 30,000 &q. ft. to 180,GGC sq. ft. for large structures- Gmich. influenced the decision to go to limi.tati.on on commerciBJ. proje.ctl>L He used the example of t Tow Center, W!.ch rlth. a haa.v:ter rat:to to office, >ias. about 3.15 Ca working ratio) for approximately 80.,000 sq. ft. The m.miher of spaces; cou1.d range :from 2.1 to an a.s:tronom:tcal rat:to o:f' 1 s:pace per tbousand. The. average in seven Cal Trans: surveys, he said, ;œ,s. 3.3. He reminded the Cmnmi=i:oners. that thì.s. particular s::ite had. a ra.tio of 4 to L Com. Blaine felt that the building repres.ented a transition betwe the rest of Monte Vista, the. railroad, and the freeway; however, she decried. the concrete up agains.t s.ide'\ffilk. and curb. concept, \lhi.ch precluded landscaping. She sugge.s.ted setting the huilding back.. And, she was curious as to why a tie-in was required for and rlth. other areas. Ch.. Gatto as.lœd the AJ>plicant if he. s.till rl.shed to continue the item after hearing the. comments. and dis.cus.s:ions of the Comm:ts;s.ion members. Mr. Malèk said that the matter shDuld continue. PC-309 Page 7 Mr. Malek returned to the. podium to ask. a question of the Comroisri nerEt. Reminding them that the architecture of the. building was. supposed to b.e in line rltp. a 194o. concept to ti.e. Bubb Road into the plan he \li.slied to know if they ;ære still re.quired to comply- in v:tewof the Commis.s:i.on's discuEtsion and comments.. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised the Commissioners that the so-called 1940 Concept had provided the inspiration for the Monte Vista Plan. Ch. Gatto said that in his estimation, in interpreting the discuss ons of the development, a good design, a set back for the second story landscaping, and parking in the rear cou1.d enhance the property and provide transition styling. MOTION: Com. Blaine: Recommend a Negative Declaration on Application 8-Z-79. Second: Com. KOenitzer VOTE: UNANIMOUS Absent: Com. Claudy MINUTES. OF THE JUNE ll, 1979 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PC-309 MOTION: Page 8 Com. Blaine: Reconnnend approval of 8-Z-79 with the Standard l4 condi.tions. #l5 and #l6, as reconnnended by Staff. Second: Com. Koenitzer VOTE: UNAND10US Absent: Com. Claudy Assistant Planning Director Cowan advis;ed the Zoning matter, the 8-Z-79, would go to the City Council for the July 2, 1979 meeting. The next Planning Commiss;ion Meeting would hear the Use Permit on July 9, 1979 (Application 9-U-79). ITEM #6 - Applications l3-TM-77 and lO-U-79 of USHIRO ROSONO/NICK PAPAGEORGIOU: TENTATIVE MAP to s;ubdivide approximately l.l5 acres into two parcels equaling approximately .878 acres and .27l acres each; USE PERMIT to construct a 3,000 sq. ft. connnercial and office building and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Re- view Committee reconnnend¡¡ the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the northeast corner of Alves Drive & Bandley Drive in a P (Planned Development with Light Industrial, General Connnercial and Residential (4-l0 dwelling units per acre) intent 1 zoning district. First Hearing. City Council hearing 6/lS/79. PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE OPENED Com. Koenitzer s;aid he had one question of staff, and he wished to know whether or not there had been any delayed requirement for a wall on the part of the property where the res;taurant was located. He explained that it was hi.s understanding that in instances when vacant property adjoined connnercial property, it was usual to put the onus; of wall construction on the connnercial property developer. In most of the cases he said he could recall, the residential area had already been zoned. In thí.s case, he pointed out, the nature of tha use of the northern property being uncertain might indicate a requirement should be set down. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that an application on file would be before them, but since its disposition was in doubt, it would be unwise to speculate about the Use for the northern property until it was settled. He s;aid he could recall a cas;e of a bonding arrangement guaranteeing future construction of a wall as a buffer. Re added that the guarantee was occasioned by a time limitation situation. Com. Adams volunteered that he thouglt Condition #lS held a solution to the problem. Ch. Gatto invited Mr. Bandley, representing the owners, to come forward to provide information and comments;. Mr. Don Bandley, 6610 Alves, Cupertino, said he was representing MDillTES OF THE JUNE 11, 1979 MEErING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. & Mrs.. Rosono, the pra!ten-b ow-ers of -bhe building and -bhe operators- of the Gifu restaurant. Ire :õaid it wa:õ their intent, :tn o:f'f'eri.ng the parce~ for S&l.e on the open market, that :it s-tand independent of their restaurant operation. There were in accord with th.. cond:i:tìoIl5, except that they were aga:inst acces" to or crolr5ing of their property by traffic. The property, once divided off, would have to stand alone with its own entrance and exit areas. Re said he thought there would not be difficulty in a- graeing to a wall for the newly developed property in case of need Ifcwever, the restaurant should be recognized a:õ having no conditio s for a wall placed upon it previously. Although Ch. Gatto had stated that a wall might be required along the entire length of the property, he said he was not certain of the problem there. PC-309 Page 2 Com. Adams as-ked for identification of the 15 ft. enclosure to the. north of the trash. area. Mr. Bandley would not identify the en- closure. Ifcwever, Ch. Gatto s-aid it appeared to be a landscape space and two parking '5I'aCe5. Com. KOenitzer suggested discus5ing.the access situation before clo5ing the public hearing. By agreement the Commission continue the Public Hearing Open. Com. KDenitzer said hi5 recollection of discussion on the property called for integration of the parcel to be split off with the Gifu parcel. Jre noted that a curb cut came very close to the existing curb cut; and ha said, with traffic coming along Alves Drive, a problem with traffic flow might develop. Putting a curb cut into tb.a.t site would interfere with entrance unloading lwhich :Ls some- thing people aJ.way:õ 5eem to wish to do l; therefore, he said he much preferred having acce:Õ5 to J?arking through the present curb cut going to the parking in too rear. One other suggestion 00 felt might "õe a solution was too flipping of the building with- the parking. Com. Adams: pointed out that in most instances- where parking areas bordered each other, it was requested that traffic could move through by reaaon of reciprocal easement, whtch seemed to him to be most reasonable. Com. Blaine noted that the curb cut would mean more asphalt and less landscaping. She said she agreed with the easement concept. Ch. Gatto informed Com. Koenitzer, in response to his inquiry, that with 5 cars/thousand, the project was already a car short in requirements. Com. Adams agreed he would prefer an easement to integrate the two developments. The carwash provided a massiveness, but it appeare to him that further back there was a 6 ft. "pace (lane) available. Ch. Gatto asked Mr. Bandley if he, having heard the consensus of the Planning Commission, wished to pursue the Application or to take it back for revision. MINUTES OF THE JUNE li, 1979 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PC-309 Page 10 Mr. Bandley said that without having knowledge of Mr. Papageor- giou's opinions or intenti.on, and only in behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Hosono, tha.t he '<lOuld prefer to continue on to 6:ouncil -- their obligation in the matter 1>eing s.iJnply a parcel split. The layout and design would òe up to the developer. Time being important, he said he'd prefer to bring the matter to a conclusion. He ad- vised the Planning Commission that if they continued along the lines of ea.sements, then the property just would not be developed. PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED Com. Koenitzer and Ch. Gatto agreed tha.t a tentative map would require the easements in addition to the land division; and also should include a wall along the entire property. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said an application on file for a 60-unit condominium development was concerned about traffic along De Anza Boulevard and the carwash, but that it might be poss.ible to direct attention to back-line noise. Com. Adams inquired as to whether or not a residential developer would be asked to provide an accoustical report to allow the plans to stand alone. Com. Blaine added that the major reason for walls was protection from parking lot noise and activity. She and Com. Adams agreed that conditions should be added to have the developers work together to provide the wall. Com. Koenitzer said some provision should be made to provide for the contingency of an 8 ft. wall being needed. He also suggested it might be simple to remove the parking along the back line, turn :!.t around, and provide a driveway to integrate the properties. Com. Blaine said she understood Condition #12 covered the situation, a condition she said she felt had always been there but had not been enforced. Com. Adams pointed out that a wall along the total property line could be required; for, after all, he said, until after the split, it is one property. MOTION: Com. Koenitzer: Recommend granting of a Negative Declaration. Second: Com. Gatto VOTE: UNANllÆOUS Absent: Com. Clau~ MOTION: Com. Koenitzer: Recommend approval of 13-TM-TT to the City Council with the standard conditions, and #15, #16, and #17, per Staff Memo. #18, to state "in the event property located north of parcel B is developed for residential purposes, owner of parcel B shall be responsible for the construction of a masonry wall along the northerly property line of property B. MINUTES OF THE .ruNE 11, 1979 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Second: Ch.. Ga.tto PC--3Ca. J;'aga II Can¡. Ad= a.s:k.ad ~ the:JIIOtion. did not :(.nclud~ Parcel A and B., pointfng out that i.f the propert:r to tha. north. beca.¡¡¡e. r~ent¡13J. it would reqùìre a. ;œJJ.. Com. KDeni.tzer Eœ.i.d ñ.a did not thínk. it nos; fair to req,uire. the 'liundfng of the wall re.troactival.:r. VOTE:: Aye~: Com. Gatto and Com. Koenitzer Noes: Com. Blaine and Com. Adams MOTION FAILED Ab~ent : Com. Claudy MOTION: Com. Adams moved for approval of 13-10-77 subject to Conditions #1 through #18, #18, change "subdividers" to "owner (s)" #18, subject to the findings and conditions in Staff Report . Second: Com. Blaine Ch. Gatto asked permission to add to the motion, under #18, the dascription of "6 ft. high masonry wall along the property lines along the entire length, in accordanoe with agreement with tha ¿e.veJ.opers. Gom. Adams and Com. Blaine agread to the amendment. VOTE:: Ab.sent: UNANJMOUS Com. Claudy-o MOTION: Com. Adams movad for approval of lO-U-79 subject to conditions #1 through #18, #18, to add the wording "solid 6 ft. high mason!"'J wall, and in accordance with findings and conditions of the Staff Report. Second: Com. Blaine VOTE: UNANJMOUS Absent: Com. Gatto As~i.stant Planning Director Cowan said the i.ssue would go to the City Council on June 18, 1979, at Wïch time the applicant would be permitted to raise his objections regardíng the conditions. UNFINISHED BUSTImSS NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Ch.. Gatto reported his attendance at a Mayor's Meeting on Thurs:da;y, at which. the. maj or concern was the flasher at the public library. He.. ass:ured everybody that the flasher had been apprehended and was in re.s:traint. He spe.ci:::'ically askéè. the reporter from the Courier to write an article for {nf'orming the public of the happY' ending to the pro'bJ.em. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 11, 1979 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PC-309 Page 12 REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Ass:ï.s:ta.nt nanning Director Co101ai1 a,dyi.¡:¡ad th~ Planning Con¡n¡iM;[Qn rQen¡bera that the CLt~ Counc:L¡ h<J,d choaen June 19, Tueada:y', for the joint meeting of the two bodies. ' He reminded them that June 18 was the date for the General Plan Consolidation Meeting in the Conference Room. He said the meeting of the 19th wo~d enwhasize onl,' the highlights of the Pla.n, most of the information embodied in the Plan being either the wT:Î.tten or unwritten policies of the past. After going over th.e Plan on the 19th, he said the Council wolùd then have about ten day's in which to concentrate on it. The 150 pages of the Genera] Plan ,.ras scheduled for delivery to them on Friday afternoon. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised Com. Adams, in response to an ing.'.!Î~y, that the Connnission ia funded for League of California and The Planners' Institul;e expenses; but that other courges- oX' seminars would have to be at their expense, out of personal budgets. Assistant Planning Director Cowan provided the good news that the mileage allow~ce was raised to 18¢ a mile (from 17¢). He added that the only other thing he wished to say was that the Planning Director ~"Ìshed to discuss vacation schedules with them in order that he might know whether or not he could expect 'luorums at meetings later in the summer. ADJOURNMF..NT at 9: 30 p.!n., Monday, June 11, 1979 APPROVED: N· Gatto ATTEST: ¿/ì /-;J ~(~í2;"~ City Clerk -.