Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-1983 Planning Commission Minutes ~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION · . ~:~INUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 9, 1983 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fru~tvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUT INE ORGANI ZAT ION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: Commissioner Crowther Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of February 23, 1983: On page 2, the last sentence in the first paragraph under A-853, add "at the rear" The last sentence in the last paragraph on that page should be added to the first paragraph. 'iln the second paragraph under A-857, Commissioner Hlava noted that all of the houses on that side of the street have garages un'derneath. On page 7, in the first sentence, "this" should be replaced with "the idea of businesses sharing parking" On page 9, the first sentence should read "rela- tively flat lands". Commissioner Hlava moved to waive the reading and approve the minutes of February 23, 1983 as amended. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Nellis and Siegfried abstain- ing since they were not present at the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS la. Negative Declaration - SD-1509 - Peach Hill Development (Lauer) lb. SD-1509 Peach Hill Development (Tom Lauer), Request for Tentative Sub- division Approval for a 4-iot subdivision for a site at 15840 Peach Hill Road; continued from February 9, 1983 Staff gave the status of the application, explaining that the applicant has sub- mitted a new map showing 3 lots in the C:ity area and 2 existing lots in the County. They stated that they had received information on the access from Sunset late this afternoon, indicating that the· dedication of Sunset Drive, which was made in 1919, was accepted by the ·Board of Supervisors on February 10, 1941. Chairman Schaefer gave the history of the project and noted the existing home that is partly in the City and partly in. the County, listing options of (1) a lot line adjustment or (2) removal of the home. Commissioner Nellis inquired as to what .juriSdiction the City has over the roads traversing the County property and the retaining walls proposed on the County property. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the City has no direct jurisdic- tion but ·the City does have control in the sense that t-he map takes into account those improvements in the County area. Therefore, the City would not allow construction of the improvements t.o proceed on the City property until they have received indication from the County that they have approved the road and the retaining walls and other improvements o'n the County land. Commissioner Nellis indicated that he was trying to clarify the fact that if the City approves the map, could the County change the location of the road in the County area. The Deputy City Attorney stated that he could not anticipate exactly what the County may or may not require, but he would recommend to the Commission that the con- dition of their approval should be receipt from the County that they have in fact approved the location of the road and other improvements anticipated to be done on County land. If the Commission 'requires that indication from the County that they have approved the improvements~ as a condition of the map, and then the County says they're not approving them, the applicant is going to have to resolve the situation either by coming back to the Commission or: t'ry_ing .to ·get the County to change its mind. The public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Lauer gave a presentation on the project, addressing the retaining walls, the road and access. He indicated that he did not have an easement on the - 1 - :~P!an~ing Commission _ Page 2 Meeting Minutes 3/9/83 - SD- 1509 (cont.) Molineux property and was intending to build the road in a 40 ft. right-of-way. He stated that he would not be able to put the road anywhere else without a slope easement or access to the MolineuX property. The possibility of using the 40 ft. reservation behind the Molineux property was discussed. The access of the other site in the County, if developed at a later time, was also a~ldre'ssed. Staff noted that they do get County referrals for conditioning. The~' 'commented that they would suspect the site would have to be annexed because it is con- tiguous to the City. Commissioner Hlava questioned the layout of the subdivision, particularly the location of the road in the middle of the lots, and asked the applicant if he had considered shortening the cul-de-sac. Mr. Lauer explained that he had looked at it but felt that the problem was the minimum depth requirement of 160 feet. Staff indicated that they would recommend conditioning for precluding any activity on the area of the property following. the creek. Dr. Kim, 19977 Sunset Drive, stated that he was still researching some of the issues and would like to address them at a later date. It was pointed out that this matter will be continued to the March 23, 1983 meeting. Lester Sachs, Sunset Drive, discussed the proposed access. He cited the dangerous traffic situation on Sunset and indicated that there is a consensus of residents on Sunset that they are willing to accept a 4-lot development, with 2 lots accessing from Sunset and 2 from Peach 'Hill. He commented that the City And County should get together so that the residents can review one set of plans. He added that as a compromise they would be willing to.withdraw their objection to the 1800 ft. cul-de-sac on the basis that there would only be 2 residences that will be served off of it. Bill Elving, Peach Hill, spoke in favor'of the present plan in terms of access. He noted the traffic from Montalvo and the DiManto site on Peach Hill, and commented that it would be most fair and logical to have access off of Sunset. It was directed that this matter be continued to March 23, 1983. 2a. Negative' Declaration- SDR-.1527 William Johnson 2b. SDR-1527 - William Johnson, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for a 2-lot subdivision at 18935 Monte Vista (near E1 Camino Grande) 3a. Negative Declaration - SDR-~1533 James & Michael Foley 3b. SDR-1533 - James & Michael Foley, Monte Vista and Sobey Road, Request for 3c. V-604 - Subdivision Approval to a 3-lot subdivision for a site with access on Monte Vista Drive (between Montewood and E1 Camino Grande) and Sobey Road .in the R-i-40,000 zoning district and Variance Approval to al.low an existing garage to continue with nonconforming side (10' where 20' is required) and rear yard (23' where 50' is required) setbacks The two' above 'applications were discussed simultaneously. Commissioner Siegfried gave a report on the previous on-site visit. He stated that the issues were: (1) whether or not there should be a cul-de-sac at the end of Monte Vista Drive; (2) whether the barrier should be moved' and preservation of the trees; and (3) whether there needs to be any improvement of t. he private road. He discussed the existing' garage on the Foley property. The public hearing was opened at 8:26 p:.m. Jim Foley', th~ applicant, discussed relocation of the barrier. He also dis- cussed the cul-de-sac and the turnaround, stating that the Fire District has indicated that the turnaround that is t.here is adequate now for their needs. Mr. Sven Simonsen, 18433 Montewood Drive, spoke on the barrier, stating that the barricade has been knocked down many ti'mes and repaired by the City. He ex- pressed his concern about moving the barrier. It was determined that a con- dition could be added to the Staff Report to require Design Review Approval for the barricade and appropriate landscaping. The applicant stated that they share the concerns regarding the barricade and want to make sure that the inte- grity of it is maintained. 2 ~,~;.. P~'a~ning Commission Page 3 ~-~.Meeting Minutes 3/9/83 SDR-1527 and SDR-1533 (cont.) Dr. Lipton, owner of the house closest to the barricade, requested that atten- tion be paid to the drainage while designing the barricade and road. James Foley, Sr. stated that he had insisted that the original barricade be there and agreed that it has to remain and be a practical. barricade. Tom Coe stated that he is adjacent to the Foleys on the northern boundary at the other end. He expressed the follow=ing concerns: (1) increased density, (2) requirement of a variance, (3) drainage, and (4) more than 4 homes on a roadway. He explained t'hat the subdivision will have tO go through four right- of-ways that already exist for access. Staff noted that they did not consider the Andersons' taking access off of the'minimum access road, since they are essentially fronting on Sobey Road and taking direct access to Sobey. Bob Berry, 15225 Sobey, expressed concern about the drainage, stating that there is a drainage problem now and this will' add to it. Mr. Foley stated that he shares the concern and the access'will be engineered with that in mind. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried commented that h'e did not have any great concerns with either site except for (1) the condition for a cul-de-sac at the end of the public part of Monte Vista Drive shoul~ be deleted to retain the natural appearance of the site, (2) a condition' that the developer bring back to the Commission a design plan for the barrier and driveway, including any berming on his property, should be added, and .(3) the drainage problem at the Coe and Berry sites should be taken care of. He noted that the size of the lots are well within the comparable sites within the neighborhood. He pointed out that one of the Foley accesses on the minimum access road w'ou'ld be deleted~ but one · would be added from the Johnsons; therefore, he does not feel that that is in- consistent with past actions in the sense that there will be no' addition to the existing condition on that minimum access road. Commissioner Bolger commented.that, even though he recognizes that the neighbors of Dr. Johnson are in favor of this lot split, it does place more than 4 lots on a minimum access road and he has concerns with that. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR-1527. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion,! which was carried unanimously 6~0. Commissioner Siegfried moved to.approve SDR-1527, subject to the conditions of the Staff Report and making the findings. Commissioner Schaefer suggested that Condition VIII-D b'e eliminated, regardi. ng the removal of the corral, since it is near the existing house and will not affect any neighbors. Commissioner Siegfried accepted that amendment. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Bolger dissenting. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the Negative Declaration'for SDR-1533. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion,~·which Was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve V-604, making the findings because of the terrain involved in these sites. He explained that the terrain from the Johnsons' site slopes down quite dramatically to the Foley property at that point, so that the roof'of the existing garage is hardly visible from anywhere other than the Foley house. He added that it is surrounded by a considerable amount of foilage and existing vegetation. Commissioner Bolge~ seconded the motion, which was 'carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SDR-1533, subject to the conditions of the Staff Report and making the findings, with the additional conditions added: (1) d~i'gn'. r.e'vieW ~on't~"'bar.~ie"r ahd'.the".-~Vew'a~""'~'cess onto Monte Vista Drive to preserve as m~ch as possible the natural appearance and existing trees and foilage, (2) the drainage problem at the Coe-Berry end of the property will be taken care of, (3) deleting-the requirement for a cul-de-sac at the end of Monte Vista Drive, and (4) elimination'of the condition that states that the road must be improved to 1.8 feet, leaving i.~·~·l~s···~:is. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Staff expla·ined to Mr. Simonsen that, with the relocation of the barrier, the Foleys can be required to make an additional dedication such that the barricade - 3 - e~=?Pl~n~ing Commission Page 4 M~eting Minutes 3/9/83 SDR-1527 and SDR-1533 (cont.) would be on City property or'they could'be conditioned for the maintenance of that barricade. Commissioner Siegfried suggested that that could be done at the time of design review, since the:Commission does not know at this time what the plan will be. The Deputy City Attorney commented that the Commission could condition it at the time of design review, or if it is not on City-owned property the City could record some sort of agreement pertaining to the maintenance of the barri- er, assigning a responsibility and have it recorded to run with the land. 4a. Negative Declaration SDR-1S12 Saratoga High School 4b. SDR-1512 Saratoga High School, Request for Tentative Subdivision Approval for a 5-lot subdivision for a site off of Herriman Avenue near River Ranch Circle in the R-1-12,500 zoning district It was noted that the applicant has asked for a continuance to explore all the alternatives for access. The public hearing was opened at 9:0'0 p.lm. No one appeared,'and it was directed that this matter be continued to April ~3, 1983. S. UP-528 - Dwight Caswell (San Jose Symphony), 15095 Fruitvale Avenue, Request for USe Permit Approval totconduct a "decorator's showhouse" for a one-month period in the R-I-40,000 zoning district (near Alondra Lane) Chairman Schaefer described the proposals. Traffic and parking were discussed. The public hearing was opened at 9:05 p..m. Charles Robbins, 19348 Monte Vista Drive, expressed concern about parking on .Valley Vista, stating that it is a very narrow road. Staff noted that one of the conditions is for the applicant to post no parking signs along Valley Vista and Alondra. Carolyn Salciccia, legal adviser to the San Jose Symphony, requested a change of dates to April 30-May 31, due to problems with getting the house prepared. She addressed the parking and the shuttle system. DiscuSsion followed on the enforcement of parking, and Staff commented that they would expect that expense to be borne by the applicant. Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer suggested that the no. parking..signs oB valley Vista and Alonda be placed 40-50 ft back and ,' pa.rki'~"'~'].l'0w~d' ih"~]~e'.S~.r'~et-, of older people who find it difficult to wait for shuttles. Commissioner Bolger noted that the organization has done a good job of organizing the shuttle aspect~ and he would prefer-that there '~ot be parking in those~streets because of possible property damage to people's lawns or fences. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve V-528, making the findings in the Staff Report dated .9, 1983, with the condition added that any enforcement expenses would be borne by the applicant.' Commis. sioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 6-0. Break - 9:10-9:30 p.m. 6. UP-530-- St. Andrews ~Chur~h, Request: for Modification to the Use Permit to allow the construction of a 5,800 sq. ft. playground at 13601 Saratoga Avenue (near Crestbrook) in the R-I-20,00'0 zonihg district Staff described the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 9:35 p.m. Father Snary, Head Master of St. Andrewsi ChUrch, discussed the application. Warren Heid,.architect, no'ted that Mr. and Mrs. Jorgensen have requested that the cyclone fence be extended parallel with their fence. The existing trees were discussed. Mr. Heid suggested that:, if the Commission feels that the improvement of Saratoga Avenue is necessary, a Deferred Improvement Agreement should be entered into, so that the improvemen'ts would happen for both the ~Fla~ng Commiss ion Page Meeting Minutes 3/9/83 UP- 530 (cont.) Jorgensen property and the corner 'at.'..the".appropriate time. The improvement of Saratoga Avenue was discussed. Bert Toevs, Senior Warden of St. Andrews, spoke in favor. of the project. Bill Puder, Crestbrook and Saratoga Avenue, stated that in the original plans of the church it had shown that there would be a barrier across the road of shrubbery and trees, but instead they have a chain link fence directly out to the curb. FIe cited the traffic incidents that have occurred at that corner. He noted that Crestbrook does not have any sidewalks and discussed the additional traffic and congestion. Mr. Heid discussed the planned landscaping and a possible walkway. Commissioner Schaefer suggested a dirt pathway or a grass pathway that is 'free of planting, so that the children can get off of the street and have a 6 foot width to walk in safely. She added that she was not p'roposing a sidewalk or paved area. Bob Kuechler stated that he lives on the~ north end of the present playfield. He indicated that he thought the playground should be done but that a lot of thought should go into the safety of it from automobiles coming around the corner. He inquired about the kind of shrubbery and trees being proposed for the north end of the playfield, since a great deal. of trees have been lost over the years. Father Snary commented that the trees are on the County property and they have dealt with them. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she fee'is that Saratoga should not be widened to a 50 ft. half street, but would encourage that it be wide enough to allow a walkway if deemed in the future.. She explained that not widening it to a 50 ft. half street would keep down the speed of traffic. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he: felt the City should retain the provision of the offer of dedication but agreed that no improvement should be required at this time. He added that he felt the. City's option should be retained.. Commissioner Bolger commented that, having been a resident of Saratoga Avenue, he would share Commissioner Schaefer's concern about the width of the street. He added that he understood Commissioner' Siegfried's point, however. Staff reported that there is an official plan line approved by the City which wo'hld be the guideline here. They stated that if there was an interest to reduce that or modify it, that .should perhaps be reviewed and recommendations made to the City Council. There was a consensus to retain the provision of offer of dedication', and the subject of 'changing that plan line for Saratoga Avenue should be taken up at another time and directed' to the City Council. There was also a consensus to have the applicant enter into a Deferred Improve- ment Agreement. : Commissioner McGoldrick asked about the playground --surfaC'e. 'Father .Snary 'stated that their plan at the present time was .to have a turfed playground. He added that they would come back to the Commission at a l'ater time if they decide to asphalt it. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve UP-530 per the Staff Report and Exhibit "B", with the additional conditions that (1) the applicant enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement in connection with' 'the 50 ft. half street on Saratoga Avenue, (2) fencing along the Jorgenson property be included, (3) design review of landscaping, barrier and fence design's, (4) playground to be turf, .(5)'h'dV'ing a 6 ft. wide' walkway. Commissioner Si.eg.fried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. It was clarified to Mr. Heid that the design review of the landscaping, barrier and fence designs will not come back under a separate application. · 7. A-858 Robert Araldi,' ReqUest for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single. family dwelling on Canyon View Drive (southwest of Glenmont Drive) in the R-l-4'0,000 zoning district The proposal was described by Staff. They noted that there had been previous discussion regarding the modification of the driveway, which had been graded -..~,..Pl~n~.~ing Commission Page 6 "M~eting Minutes 3/9/83 A-'858 (cont.) illegally. They explained that the applicant has requested, if the Commission approves the site modification, that certain conditions that have been placed on the site approval' be 'reconsidered. Staff noted' that the conditions are in line with the typical emergency access road conditioning', and since this por- tion of Canyon View does provide for emergency access both from Canyon View and from Tollgate, they were recommending that the conditions not be waived. They added that they did speak with the Fire Chief relative to the need for a turn- around of Canyon View, and it is hi's fee'ling that inasmuch as there is going to be an emergency access gate, they would not be in need of the turnaround on the Canyon View si'de. Commissioner Siegfried gave an on-site report, stating that he feels that the new driveway is a significant improvement. The correspondence received in favor of the modified driveway was noted. It was also noted that a petition had been received asking that there not be an irrevocable offer of dedication of the upper Canyon View Drive. The public hearing was opened at 10:22 p.m. Mr. Araldi, the applicant,' clarified that he does have an easement from the McBain and Gibbs site. Commissioner Bolger indicated that he had a concern regarding the method by which the new driveway was done. The previous illegal grading was discus.sed. Mr. Araldi spoke to the reconsideration of conditions regarding the i. rrevocable dedication and the improvements of upper Canyon View Drive. He explained that he did not feel it was practical for this road to be widened to a standard City street. He noted the discussion during .the past years from the residents of Canyon View against extension of that road. Bill Martin, 21327 Canyon View Drive, spoke against the 40 ft. dedication requirement, .stating that he did not feel there was a need if the road is not going to go through. He explained that nobody uses it; it is his private drive- way and the last 60 feet of the access road is on his property. He explained that dedication of that road was made 14 years ago and 'was rejected by the City. He added that very reluctantly he has said that it could be an access road for the McBain & Gibbs subdivision. Marlene Duffin, Canyon View Drive, spoke for the residents of that road and asked for confirmation that it will not be extended. She urged the Commission to not require the 'applicant to dedicate 40 feet of his property for the road. Commissioner Bolger commented that the Commission was primarily looking to keep the emergency access open for the:'.the '.beH'6fit of the residents. Dora Grens, 13451 Old'Oak Way, pointed out that the City Council will be voting on the General Plan and one of the policies is that the emergency access roads will be 20 ft. maximum. She commented that the Commission might want to defer this matter until after their vote. Regina Martin, Canyon View Drive, asked how their driveway was designated as an emergency access road. Staff indicated that by definition roads that are private and serve more than one site are2 minimum access roads. John Haufe, 21210 Canyon View, submitted a petition from 13 neighbors in support of the application. Discussion followed on the portion of Canyon View Drive which is on the Ar.aldi property and the maintaining of the emergency access. It was pointed' out that there was no intention by the Commission to create circumstances leading to a through road. A compromise 'was suggested by Commissioner Siegfried of a 25 ft. dedication for purposes of an emergency access road, and not for purposes of a through road. The Deputy City Attorney stated that he has no problem with a dedication for a specific purpose. He asked Staff if there would be any change in the nature of improvement work required, given that modification, and Staff answered that there would be no change... Co'mmissioner Bolger commented that the situation should be clarified with the Martins regarding the 'use of a portion of their driveway as. part of this emergency access. The Deputy City Attorney commented that ~wha-t' 'Mr.. Mar-tin inay have perceived as a rejection of the dedication may not have been a legal rejec- tion' and that offer .of dedication may still be open. He stated that he would res'e'arch 'that issue. ~" ~'~Fl~n~'~ng Commission Page M~eting Minutes 3/9/83 A-858 (cont.) Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consensus that Mr. Toppel should research the issue of Mr. Martin's relationship; however, the Commission did not feel that that issue was relevant to this application and therefore they could proceed wi'th a vote. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the Site. Modification, approving the change in the siting of the driveway, and also approving the amendment to the Staff Report for SDR-1496, changing Condition II-C to read 25 feet instead of 40 feet, for purposes of maintaining an emer'gency access road, and deleting Condition II-E regarding the 'turnaround, per Exhibits "B" and "C" and the letter of March 3, 1983 from the Fire District. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, wh'ich was carried unanimously 6-0. 'Commissioner Bolger moved to approve A-858 per the Staff Report dated March 2, 1983 and Exhibits ."B" and "C". Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 8. A-859 - Sami & Lucine Asfour, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second story addition to a single story structure at 20522 Sevilla Lane (near Thelma) in the R-1-12,500 zoning district Commissioner Siegfried gave an on-site report, noting that it appears that no surrounding homes are directly impacted.. Discussion followed on the proposal. The letter from the neighbors, in favor of the application, was noted. The public hearing was opened at 11:05 p'.m. Condition No. 2 of the Staff Report was clarified to Mrs. Asfour, the appli. cant. Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion. Commissioner Nellis suggested a condition requiring land- scaping along the western property in addition to th~ southern property line. He 'moved to approve A-859 per the Staff Report of February 20, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C" with 'the added condition for that landscaping Commissioner Bolger , · seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 9. A-860 M. C. Johnson, Inc., Request for Design Review Approval to allow.the construction of a two-story single family dwelling on Lot 5, Tract 6526 (near Burnett Drive) in the NHR zoning district Commissioner Siegfried gave an on-.site report. The public hearing was opened at 11:10 p.m. The applicant appeared to answer questions. Since no one else appeared to address the Commission, Commissioner Siegfried moved to.close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous ly. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-860, making the findings in the Staff Report dated March 1, 1983 and per Exhibits "B" and "C". Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously-.6-0. COMMUN I CAT IONS Written 1. Letter from Steve Scialabba dhted February 24, 1983 regarding recon- sideration of A-831. Staff gave the history of the request. Commissioner Hlava moved to reagendize A-831 for reconsideration. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. It was directed that this matter will be agendized for the meeting of ~4arCh '23, 1983. 2. 'Eetter from H. Campbell and .V'. Van Valer dated March 4, 1983 regard- ing reconsideration of V-605 and A~857. Commissioner Schaefer moved to reagen- dize V-605 and A-857 for reconsideration. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, 'which was carried unanimously 6-0. It was directed that this matter will be renoticed and agendized for .the meeting of April 13, 1983. 3. Letter.'from Mike Cocco and Tom Ph'ipps dated March 1, 1983 regarding proposed berry and tree farm operation. . Staff' noted that the area being proposed is the area that has the use permit by the Horticultural Foundation. After con- siderable discussion it was the consensus of the Commission that they are favora- ble toward thi's type 'of operation in concept. Howe'Ver', they noted concerns of ~a~-ning Commission Page 8 Minutes 3/9/83 Written Communications (cont.) traffic, parking and ability for public access, with no access to any hazardous materials. Mr. Cocco and Mr. Phipps gave presentations on the proposal, describing the operation. The timeframe of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was discussed. Staff was directed to review the proposal and determine the proper device for handling such an operation; ther'ea'fter a public hearing will be scheduled. 4. Letter from Pl'umed Horse ~'e'ga'rdin'g' parkin'g' zone. Staff reported that the City Council has requested input from the Commission regarding this matter, and it will be agendized for the'neXt meeting. Oral 1. Cha'irman~Schaefer gave a brief report on the League of California Cities meeting in Monterey on March 2-4. 2. Chairman Schaefer thanked zthe Saratoga News for attending and the GOod Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bolger moved to adjourn the~meeting. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The 'meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, RO~Ok~~~ Secretary RSS:cd