Laserfiche WebLink
Siegel commented that not necessarily just the affluent would support this project and <br /> suggested that the wording of the brochure be carefully reviewed to relied that if the <br /> funds were not raised, the House would be torn down. <br /> Dr. Smithwick, Foothill College, noted that this was not the first time this issue had <br /> come up. Space on the campus was critical and there were certain State requirements <br /> being imposed on the college. As it was now, the building was a fire hazard. They <br /> were at the point where they needed to use it, move it or tear it down. <br /> 3. REPORT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Commissioner Carico reported that the following items were discussed at the 12/13/89 <br /> Planning Commission Meeting: 1) Lands of Ng, request for a site development permit <br /> for a new house - approved; 2) Lands of Ashman, request for a variance - denied; 3) <br /> Lands of Raman, removal of site development permit requirement for a pathway <br /> dedication - approved; and 4) site development process modified to include the <br /> following: 'All new residences, additions over 900 square feet or 15 feet in height and <br /> secondary units would be reviewed by a Committee of the Whole of the Planning <br /> Commission at 6:00 p.m. before their regularly scheduled meetings. <br /> Councilmembers discussed certain issues raised by Commissioner Carico. van <br /> Tamelen noted that the report indicated for site development issues not brought <br /> before the whole Planning Commission, no notices would be sent to neighbors. Mrs. <br /> Carico responded that she understood the procedures in place would remain the same <br /> except for those now going before the whole Commission. Siegel commented on the <br /> appeal process. The Council could not appeal after the ten day appeal filing period. <br /> However, there could be times when the Council would not have met within this ten <br /> day period and would not know of the applications which had been approved. He was <br /> further told that he would have to pay the appeal filing fee. <br /> MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by van Tamelen <br /> and passed unanimously to note that all items under the new Site Development <br /> Process would be agendized. <br /> MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Tryon and <br /> passed by the following roll call vote to appeal the Planning Commission's approval of <br /> Lands of Ng, Site Development Permit for a new house and Lands of Raman, removal <br /> December 20, 1989 <br /> 2 <br />