Laserfiche WebLink
Paul Hogan, Mr. Vidovich's attorney, stated that they did not object to annexing <br /> gibr to the Town but would like the processing done quickly. For this reason <br /> they suggested going through the County as there was a larger staff and <br /> less staff turnover. The problem with option #4 was that it seemed to be <br /> deferring judgment in his opinion. Mr. Hogan also commented that they <br /> would welcome clarification of the Town's position and would also <br /> welcome working with the Town and the County toward a resolution of <br /> the project. If this involved a development agreement that would be fine. <br /> Mr. Hogan observed that a development agreement would involve <br /> environmental review. <br /> Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill, supported option #4 noting that the Town <br /> could give guidelines to the County. <br /> Robert Nevin, Los Altos, commented that he was a retired civil engineer and <br /> he believed the safety and water supply issues needed more study. There <br /> were no water rights existing and he did not see that filling a quarry was a <br /> beneficial use. There was a detriment to Hale Creek due to the quarry and <br /> with the unstable soil and filling the lake there was a possibility of a slide. <br /> Dr. Howard Martin, 11666 Dawson, believed there were geologic hazards to the <br /> project even if the lake had been reduced in size. He also commented on <br /> the impact on Hale Creek, sewer problems, adequacy of road widths and <br /> adequacy of entrance. Dr. Martin stated that he supported option #4. <br /> Charles Latadie, 10933 Northcrest Lane, commented on his concerns which <br /> included geotechnical issues, flood plains, drainage and grading. He stated <br /> that he supported option #4. <br /> Hugh Graham, Senior Planner with Santa Clara County Planning Department, <br /> stated that presently the area under discussion was zoned hillside and Mr. <br /> Vidovich could probably get two lots. He was presently requesting a <br /> General Plan amendment and the probability of his getting this <br /> amendment would depend on whether or not he had services from the <br /> Town. In response to a question from Casey whether or not the County <br /> would be as concerned about the issues raised as the Town in their <br /> discussion of this project and whether or not the application would get the <br /> attention it deserved, Mr. Graham responded that they would be as <br /> concerned and would give it the attention it deserved. In response to an <br /> inquiry from Siegel about whether or not the County would require <br /> detailed conditions on the project, Mr. Graham stated that the application <br /> before them now was for a General Plan amendment for a twenty five lot <br /> subdivision. <br /> December 4, 1991 <br /> 4 <br />