03/05/1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1975 ftr SPECIAL ORDERS (cont'd): 4. Requests for Exemption from Subdivision Moratorium CcoM:'d): b) Appeal by Land Resources, Inc., File NTM2020-75 re Planning Commission denial of recommendation of request for exemption (cont'd. from 2/19/75): Mr. Crowe presented the background information on this parcel of property and Planning Commission actions. He said the Commission had voted 4-3 to deny the request for exemption from the subdivision moratorium because the land concerned was fairly steep and could possibly fall within the concerns outlined in the subdivision moratorium Resolution. City Engineer Alex Russell explained that the property in question was adjacent to the Lands of Dawson and the Lands of the Palo Alto Unified School District, and addressed the access road problems. Commissioner Brown summarized the concerns of the Planning Commission when this matter was discussed. Speaking from the Floor: Mr. Jack Leudeman of Arastra Ltd., a subsidiary of Land Resources, addressed Council concerning the issue before Council, and spoke of the maximum cuts t which were planned for the proposed lands, which sere not excessive. Nr. Dave Holmes of George Molte Associates, also addressed Council, stating that tree removal, which was also a concern of the building moratorium, would be minimal, and requested that Council bear in mind that the issue before thein was only a request for exemption from the moratorium and not a tentative map approval. City Attorney Frank Gillio spoke regarding the wording in the Resolution, and listed the items of concerns specified therein. Counrilwomen Miller moved that the request for exemption from the sub- division moratorium be denied, which was seconded by Councilman Cheney. Councila3a +elgesson expressed concern over this property and its relation to Arestridr;,o Creek, and thought that Staff and Council should receive a recr,;,ror-.elaCion from the Santa Clara Valley Water District regarding the lower ;:rr:ia, oP this property. Councils: :r. Ch—ey also expressed concern over the creek, and thought there were sa�icient questions raised that he would not be willing to grant a waive, on i;, -.s property. Councilr;,. Rc'eyir,-:is stated that the City Attorney's statement prevailed regarding thin property, and felt there was no other way to go. 4 The question was called, and the motion to deny the request for exemption for Lands of Land Resources, File NTM2020-75, because the property in -5-