SA 72-27CITY OF CAMPBELL 1901 S. BASCOM AVE. SA 72-27
1901 S. Bascom Ave.S.A * 72-27
Sahadi, Fred (Withdrawn)
hdrawn)
-1
APPEALS
Appeal from Decision of Planning Commission re Sign -
Fred Sahidi -
This appeal has been continued at the request of the
applicant from the last two regular meetings because
there have been only four Councilmen able to be present
at the meeting. The appeal is submitted by applicant
Fred Sahadi from an adverse decision of the Planning
Commission on their regular meeting of July 5, 1972.
The Planning Commission denied the oermit for the sign
by a vote of 6-0-1. At the request of this office the
Planning Staff conducted a survey to determine what
other cities in the County practiced in regard to on -
site signs that would be vietsed from a freeway. The
results of this survey are enclosed with this item.
1J `I
I
AGENDA: September 11, 1972
M E M 0
TO R. C. Stephens, City Manager
FROM Planning Staff
SUBJECT: ON -SITE SIGNS TO BE VIEWED FROM A FREEWAY
DISCUSSION:
A survey was taken this dare to determine
what other cities
in the County
do in regard to on -site signs
that are to be
•dewed from a
freeway. The following is
the result of
said survey:
Cupertino
No distinction between
on -site signs co be
viewed from freeway or
any other street.
San Jose
No distinction between
on -site signs to be
viewed from freeway or
any other street.
Santa Clara
No distinction between
on -site signs to be
viewed from freeway or
any other street.
Sunnyvale
No distinction between
on -site signs to be
viewed from freeway or
any other street.
Mountain View:
'Jould be permitted but
must be "low key"
:.n nature, not garish.
Milpitas
No distinction between
on -site signs to be
viewed from freeway or
any other street.
Los Gatos
No distinction, but all free-standing signs
are subject to mandatory architectural control.
Palo Alto
No distinction between
on -site signs to be
viewed from freeway or
any other sign.
AAK:BRP:pka
L
iF-
D. T APPEALS
Appeal from Decision of Planning Commission
a ra. Sian - Fred Sahadi
Thit appeal and hearing has been continued
from two previous meetings at the request
of the applicant. The appeal is from an
adverse decision by the Planning Commission
at their regular meeting on July 5, 1972.
Staff will be prepared to brief the Council
on the basis for the denial by the Planning
Commission, The Planning Commission denied
the permit for the sign by a vote of 6-0-1.
Agenda: August 28, 1972
f
C. APPEALS
Appeal from Decision of Planning, Commission re Sign -
3. Fred Sahadi Cont'd from 7/24/72)
This Appeal was continued from the last meeting
at the request of the applicant. Mr. Sahadi is
appealinp the adverse decision by the Planning
Commission on his application for a sign.
Mr. Kee will give a brief presentation on the
position that the staff took on this request.
The Planning Commission denied the permit for the
sign by a vote of 6-0-1.
{( i
'V
7
M
AGENDA: August 14, 1972
L_ �
I:
n, I APPEALS
Appeal to Planning Commission -Denial of Sign Applicatioa-
Vr. Fred Seha.di is appealing the adverse decision
by the Flanninp Commission on his repplicatinn fnr
a nip.n. Since Cr. Sahadi's letter datad July 10,
1472, v received, Hr. Sahadi trtF requested that
the Appeal lfearinr be continued to the City Council'n
rep,ular meeting on Mondov, August 14, 1972.
A;�enr:a: July 24, 1�72
_I
I
4
I
(-.. Oz
July 13, 1972
Mrs. Dorothy Trevethan, City Clerk
City of Campbell
i5 North Central Avenue
Campbell, California 95008
RE: SA 72.27
Dear Mrs. Trevethan:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of
July 12, 1972, to Mr. Sahadi and will confirm our
telephone conversation wherein I requested that the
matter be continued to the regular City Council
meeting of August 14, 1972.
Thank you for your cooperation.
very truly yours,
,
SUE CAM
Manager
SC:bp
.d1a../ d--40-1 e.Y
,P.O. mat
July 10, 1972
..a
N
0
n � n
9 .d
City Council
City of Campbell u'
75 N. Central Avenue rr o+
Campbell, California 95008
Gentlemen:
Let this letter operate as an appeal to the City Council from an adverse
derision by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of July 5, 1972,
for SA 72-27. It is my feeling that the policy position set forth by the
City Council was the basis for the denial at the Planning Commission level
and it is further my feeling that the policy set forth by the Council may not
apply to this sign application when a serious consideration of all of the
subtleties are presented to the Council as a whole. It is further my feeling
that in the evert the application for the sign had been made at the inception
of The Prunevard or any time prior to the last six months, the application for
the sign would have been considered on its merits because the City Council s
policy number 22.05 was not then in existence.
I
Would you kindly schedule this matter for the July 31,7 1972, meeting.
Very truly yours,
FS/sc
.V-d M.Ad." w W ,A..y
g:�. der .:ifi ./rrn��asr. SRa� u.w .95i.in �%�i'er 4lAf; J71-C'6//
n
1 Jt,1•, 12. 1 72
N' I
i
I,
Mr. filed bahsdi
11. U, i:ox 5441
San Jose. Ca. 45150
Dear 'Ir. :anadi:
ke dcknouled+;e receipt of your Apr sal fror :jecision
of tLe plarniny Coronission for LA 72.27., Which you
aak le l,cerd on July 11. 11,72. In.ibnuc` as we do not
have a Council meting. on that data. tl:e City Council
tlll consider your 6;,real at ti.eir regular tzeetInp of
July 24th. 1972. it H 1'. t:. or at soon thereafter as i
the sane nay l-e l.e-rd, in tl:e Council Chamlers of the -
City hall. 75 North Jentral Avenue, Ca:rplell. Calif.
dill you or your aut.l.or' ee representative please is
yrecent it the said neetinp.
Yours very sincerely.
cc: cit; �anarer
i'lanninp Clrector
I,
"It.. ioroth.y Trevethan. City Clerk
t
F-
e�; � � O � I� QF<iS
Ll