Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-26-1986 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 26, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, Guch, Harris, Peterson, Pines and .Siegfried Absent: None Minutes The first sentence of the third paragraph on Page 3 of the minutes of February 12, 1986 should read that Commissioner Pines does have a problem with the driveway approach. Commissioner Burger moved to waive the reading of the minutes of February 12, 1986 and approve as amended. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Harris abstaining since she was not present. Chairman Peterson introduced Yuchuek Hsia, the new Planning Director and Planning Commission Secretary. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR la. Negative Declaration - SDR-1616 - Prince of Peace Church lb. UP-590 - Prince of Peace Evangelical Lutheran Church, Mod. - request for modification to a use permit and design lc. A-1160 - review approval for a new 39 ft. two-story sanctu- ld. SDR-1616 - ary building without providing additional parking and tentative building site approval for 50% expan- sion of existing church facilities at 12770 Sara{oga Avenue; continued from 2/12/86 2a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1601 - George Flynn 2b. 'SDR-1601 - Mr. and Mrs. George Flynn, request for tentative building site approval for one (1) lot with an average site slope of 32% on Comer Drive, approxi- mately 700 ft. west of the intersection of Arroyo de Arguello and Comer Drive 3. UP-538 - Joseph Montgomery, consider revising an existing use permit for Toyon Lodge to conform with the newly revised Zone Ordinance at 14950 Vickery Avenue 4. UP-596 - Elizabeth Scriver, request for use permit approval for an existing garden shed to maintain a 3 ft. rear yard setback where 25 ft. is required at 13238 Paseo Presada Items #1, #2 and #4 were removed for discussion. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar, #3 listed above. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6- 0. The public hearing was opened on Item #1, Prince of Peace Church, at 7:35 p.m. Bob Varrelman, the architect, addressed the conditions of the Staff Report. He requested, relative to Condition V-A from the fire district, that a phrase be added to read, "or as approved by the Fire Chief." Mr. Plan'ning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 2/26/86 UP-590 Mod., A-1160 and SDR-1616 Varrelman addressed the setbacks, requesting a setback of 24'4" instead of 25'. Bob Warling, Committee Chairman from the Church, addressed the existing and proposed landscaping. After discussion it was determined that Condition #2 relative to landscaping should remain. It was noted that the Commission would like to see a landscaping plan that might mitigate the massive bulk of the building, and they would like to see more landscaping near the sidewalk area. Staff stated they would like to add a condition requiring 25% compact car spaces on the site, which would be Condition #3 of the use permit. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Pines moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR- 1616. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Pines moved to approve UP-590 Mod., adding Condition #3 as previously stated by Staff. Commissioner Guch seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Pines moved to approve A-1160, changing Condition #1 from 25' to 24'4". Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Pines moved to approve SDR-1616, with the amendment to the condition from the Fire District, as previously discussed. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. The public hearing was opened on Item #2, George Flynn, at 7:47 p.m. Commissioner Guch gave a Land Use Committee Report, describing the site and building pad. She stated that she had removed the item because she would like a condition added that would restrict the height of the house. She suggested 22 ft., which would allow for a two-story but would not be as objectionable as a home with a greater height. Commissioner Burger concurred. At Commissioner Harris' inquiry, discussion followed on a the possible splitting of this lot. Staff indicated that it had been determined that a variance could not be granted to split a lot. Bill Heiss, the civil engineer, indicated that no scenic easement was proposed for this site. The City Attorney clarified that accessory structures could be put on the one side of the lot west of Comer- Staff noted that a modification for the building site approval would be needed to put accessory structures there. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR- 1601. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Burger moved to approve SDR-1601, adding Condition VIII-D to state that the building of a future home would be restricted to a height of 22 ft. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. The public hearing was opened on Item #4, Elizabeth Scriver, at 7:55 p.m. The applicant referenced the petition from the neighbors relative to the - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 2/26/86 UP-596 setback and submitted photos taken of the garden shed from the neighbors' yard. She described the shed and indicated that if it were moved per Staff's recommendation, it would be in the center of their lot. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee Report, describing the lot. She indicated that the neighbors and the applicant have placed their storage and garden sheds in one area because of the small and irregularly shaped lots. She stated that it was the feeling of the Committee that the shed in its present location is the best for the applicant and the neighbors. Commissioner Guch agreed. Commissioner Pines moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Pines moved to approve UP-596, allowing the garden shed to remain as it presently exists and deleting Condition #2 relative to the landscaping. Commissioner Guch seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 5. A-1157 - Gerald Butler, request for design review approval to construct a two-story, single family residence which exceeds the allowable floor area standard on Lot 5 of Tract 6732 on Montalvo Heights Court; con- tinued from January 22, 1986 (to be continued to March 12, 1986 ) It was directed that this matter be continued to March 12, 1986. 6. SD-~595 - Murray Dey, et al (Gypsy Hill Farm Residential), request for tentative subdivision approval for a 23-1ot subdivision on a 27.85 acre site located at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue; continued from January 22, 1986 Staff explained the application and background of the project, stating that they were recommending denial. They commented that if the Commission wishes to approve the project exceptions will need to be made relative to the cul-de-sac length and the use of the minimum access road. They added that the Commission must also find that the project is in compliance with the General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. Bill Heiss, civil engineer, gave a presentation on the project. He indicated that they have made studies of the drainage and have concluded that additional drainage work will be necessary. He discussed the proposed drainage system. He addressed the trail, stating that the logical place is as shown on the tentative map. He indicated that they were going to take that recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Heiss commented that the applicant is ready to agree to the condition that an emergency secondary access be provided between lots 7 and 8, extending to Sobey road. The conditions of the Staff Report and the mitigation measures were discussed. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SD-1595 per the conditions of the Staff Report, with the submission of an amended tentative map showing an emergency access road between lots 7 and 8, extending to Sobey Road, and the condition that the equestrian trails be subject to approval of the Parks and Recreation Commission, making the exception to al low a subdivision to be accessed by a minimum access road. - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 2/26/86 SD-1595 Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was. carried unanimously 6-0. 7. A-1155 - E.J. Henry Kopatschek, Inc., request for design review approval for the construction of a two- story, single family residence which exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. allowable floor area and approval of the grading permit to move more than 1,000 cu. yds. combined cut and fill on Parcel C at the northerly end of Blue Gum Court; continued from February 12, 1986 Staff explained the application and the background. They indicated that the applicant has submitted revised plans, which substantiall increases the grading on the site to mitigate the height of the rear elevation, without redesigning the home. Staff stated that they were still recommending denial of the application, being unable to make the findings. The public hearing was opened at 8:21 pom. Richard Sanchez, the applicant, stated that he felt they had addressed the concerns of the Commission. It was pointed out to Mr. Sanchez that the Commission, at the study session, had suggested that there should be some modification to the design of the home. Mr. Sanchez noted the irregular lot and commented that he felt the Commission's concern had been the three-story effect. Commissioner Peterson noted that the grading had been increased, and he did not feel that was the way to solve the problem of a three-story house. He added that the Commission wanted the applicant to take the natural contours of the lot and step the house down. There was a consensus to that effect. Commissioner Burger stated that she was reluctant to accept the statement that it was impossible to modify the design of the home because the Commission has seen creative approaches done in other areas of Saratoga with very difficult lots. Commissioner Harris noted that she had not been at the study session; however, she could not vote for the proposed home which is too high and vertically designed for a hillside lot. Chairman Peterson explained to the applicant that they could take a vote this evening, which would be a denial, or continue the matter to a study session. The applicant agreed to study session, and it was directed that the matter be continued to the Committee-of-the-Whole on April 1, 1986 and the regular meeting of April 9, 1986. 8. SD-1454 - John DiManto, request for modification of Con- dition V-G (relating to water requirements for fire protection) to tentative subdivision map approval for 5 lots between Madrone Hill and Peach Hill Roads; continued from February 12, 1986 Staff explained the condition, commenting that the applicant wishes to place the home within 770 ft. of the hydrant and to provide a sprinkler system with a separate 10,000 gallon tank to service it. They reported that the fire flow at the preferred higher home site would be 480 g.p.m. and at the secondary alternative site it would be 730 g.p.m. They commented that if the Commission grants the modification to the condition it would set a precedent to allow others, possibly in the western hillsides, to ask for a similar modification. They reported that the Central Fire District has agreed to the modification; however, there is a letter in the packet from the Saratoga Fire District, stating that this decision might impact development in their district. Staff - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 2/26/86 SD-1454 recommende~ denial', "having been unable to make the findings. The public hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m. Bill Heiss, civil engineer, discussed the condition and the water flow relative to the modification. He stated that he did not feel the modification would set a precedent, noting that this is an unique set of circumstances. He added that they are bringing 1,000 g.p.m. to this project. He noted the approval of the Central Fire District. He discussed the system and clarified that there could be pumping out of both hydrants at the same time. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he finds it difficult to believe that a situation that delivers 480 g.p.m. from a fire hydrant, 200 g.p.m. or more from another hydrant, plus an immediate sprinkler system, cannot be better than what can be done without it. He noted that houes in Saratoga are not conditioned for sprinkler systems; therefore that is a plus in this situation. He added that if there is a swimming pool there is another 30,000 gallons of water. Commissioner Pines concurred. He added that if anyone considers it a precedent, it is nothing but a good precedent. Mr. Heiss explained the pumping process to Commissioner Harris to clarify that water would continue to be pumped to the tank from the main water line if the sprinkler system was being operated. Staff suggested that if the Commission approves the modification it should be subject to a condition to have annual review by the Central Fire District of the tank, and with the finding .that the subdivision is serviced by 1,000 g.p.m. Commissioner Pines moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Pines moved to approve the modification of condition V-G of SDR-1454, adding the conditions for annual review and annual maintenance of the tank, making the finding that the subdivision is serviced by 1,000 g.p.m. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 4-2, with Commissioners Guch and Harris dissenting. 9. V-721 - Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Levy, request for variance approval to exceed the permitted maximum 15,000 sq. ft. impervious coverage at 19800 Glen Una Drive; continued from February 12, 1986 Staff explained that this item had been continued from the previous meeting, at which time the Commission directed the applicant to revise the proposed circular driveway. They indicatd that revised plans have been submitted, which show an increase in impervious coverage on the site by approximately 350 sq. ft. They noted that the driveway has not been relocated within the trees on the site, similar to the driveway approved with the Tentative Building Site Approval. Staff stated that they are still recommending denial of the variance, having been unable to make the appropriate findings. The public hearing as opened at 8:56 p.m. Ken Levy, the applicant, explained the revised driveway, stating that it fits in with the landscape plan and meets the Commission's intent. Discussion followed on the landscaping. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consensus that the Commission has no problem with the impervious coverage and the redesign of the driveway meets the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Pines moved to approve V-721, making the findings based on the fact that the zoning is HCRD in a - 5 - Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 2/26/86 V-721 district where the lots are not zoned HCRD, and the slope on this site is only 4%. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Break - 9:00 - 9:20 p.m. 10a. Negative Declaration - V-720 -Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Brozda 10b. A-1165 - Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Brozda,. r.equest for design 10c. V-720 - review approval for a new parking deck and. exterior remodeling of Tollgate Barn, and. vari- ance approval to allow 15 substandard (9' x 18' and 9' x 16') parking spaces where approxi- mately 66 spaces (9.5' x 18') are required for the restaurant and retail-type uses on-site and to allow no loading facilities or handicap park- ing spaces where a minimum of one off-street loading space and one handicap space would be required at the northwest corner of Third St. and Big Basin Way; continued from February 12, 1986 Staff explained the application and the background of the project. They commented that the Heritage Commission reviewed the barn this afternoon, and has no problem with the proposal. They added that the Heritage Commission would like to review any exterior changes. They noted the letter from the Fire Chief, requesting that the barn be conditioned for sprinklers if the variance is approved. Staff indicated that they were unable to make the findings for the parking variance on the site and recommend denial. It was clarified that the employees are now included in the parking standards. The public hearing was opened at 9:28 p.m. Doug Adams, representing the applicant, commented that the application on file is identical with the former variance granted in 1984. He stated that the findings that they had made for the present application are those findings made for Variance V-627 in 1984; these findings were discussed. He addressed the former and present uses on the site. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Pines inquired about the schedule for the project, and Commissioner Guch commented that the Commission had asked for more specific information on the timeline. Discussion followed and Mr. Adams indicated that they could submit an updated schedule. Commissioner Peterson stated that he would not support the variance. He commented that he was still upset over the way the matter was handled. He indicated that the only way he could support the project would be if the applicants come up with six additional parking spaces, or it is conditioned for in lieu fees. He added that possibly the other property owned by the applicants behind the barn could be used for parking. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he has no problem going forward with what was approved the last time; however, at that time the employee parking was not included. He commented that he feels the employee parking should be included and he would approve what was previously approved; however, that will not give the applicants the same use. Further discussion followed on the parking spaces and the use. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny V-720. Commissioner Guch seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-1165 for the exterior remodeling of Tollgate Barn. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6- 0. - 6 - Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 2/26/86 V-720 and A-1165 It was noted that the denial of the variance makes the Design Review Approval for the parking deck moot. The appeal period was noted. 11. SD-1567 - Dividend Development, roequest for modification to conditions of subdivision approval request- ing private gated street and clarification of light and air easement along western property lines (Lots 13 through 18) of SD-1567 (Tract 7763) south of Prospect Road and the S.P.R.R. tracks; continued from February 12, 1986 Staff explained the request. The public hearing was opened at 9:48 p.m. Dick Oliver, of Dividend Development, discussed the request, along with a third issue relative to clarification of the zoning on the site. Staff explained to the Commission that the site is zoned NHR because of a negotiated settlement, and it was allowed to have approximately 20,000 sq. ft. lots. Staff commented that they and the City Attorney have agreed that when a house is developed per the settlement agreement, when it gets final occupancy then the actual NHR zoning will occur. They stated that Mr. Oliver is concerned about that because the setbacks for NHR are substantially larger than those for 20,000 sq. ft. lots. They added that, because of the settlement agreement and the fact that it is zoned NHR, there is no clarification possible from the Commission on that issue. The City Attorney explained the settlement agreements, noting that they were executed in connection with the Measure A litigation. He agreed with Staff that the issue is not really a planning issue. He suggested that Mr. Oliver coordinate with his office to work out the language needed by Dividend in their report to the Department of Real Estate on this issue. Mr. Oliver described the proposed entrance and fencing of the subdivision. He also addressed the condition regarding the light and air easement, stating that he would like to remove the easement on the right hand portion of lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 because of the height limit within the easement. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed by the Commission relative to the preservation of views of the residents in Parker Ranch. Mr. Oliver stated that he was restricted to a 20 ft. height on lots 1, 4, 8 and 9, and requested that he have the same limitation on the light and air easement just for those lots. Commissioner Burger stated that the Commission had spent a lot of time working on the conditions for this subdivision and were very sensitive to all of the impacts that could occur. She commented that she is not convinced that a condition should be changed because the land has now been purchased by a developer and he is unhappy with some of the conditions on some of the lots. There was a consensus to that effect. Commissioner Burger moved to deny a modification to the condition on SD- 1567 relative to the light and air easement, and to have Staff approve the change in the fencing and median strip at the entrance. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 12a. V-724 - Mr. and Mrs. Richard Amen, Eequest for variance 12b. SM-26 - approval to fence an area in excess of 4,000 sq. ft. and. site m. odification to locate a swimming pool on the site at 21510 Saratoga Heights Drive The application was explained by Staff. They stated that the CC&Rs were amended to state that no fencing should enclose more than 4,000 sq. ft. - 7 - Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 2/26/86 V-724 and SM-26 or variance approval is required. They indicated that they were unable to make the findings for the variance and recommend denial. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee Report, describing the lot. She stated that it appears that a chain link fence of the proper color would be invisible from any direction. The public hearing was opened at 10:15 p.m. Mrs. Amen, the applicant, described the fence, commenting that it would not obstruct any view of the neighbors. Hank Helbush, landscape designer, indicated that a reason to extend the fence was because of security reasons. He described the lot, commenting that the property cannot be seen because of the slope and vegetation. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The zoning was discussed. There was a consensus that the issue of fencing in this subdivision should be studied at a Committee-of-the- Whole. Staff pointed out that this is a condition of the subdivision approval, and the CC&Rs were amended to allow variance approval. It was clarified to the applicant that the fencing of the pool is in addition to the 4,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Harris commented that this is one of the few lots in that area that is not visible, and she is concerned about the precedent that would be set. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SM-26 per the Staff Report dated February 19, 1986. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. The options available to the applicant were discussed. It was determined, with the applicant's agreement, that the variance should be continued until such time as the Commission has had an opportunity to study the general issue of fencing in this subdivision. Staff was asked to come up with some alternatives relative to this issue. Commissioner Siegfried commented that the Commission needs to set some basic guidelines, and they can then deal with each site individually. It was directed that the subject of fencing in this subdivision will be studied at a Committee-of-the-Whole on March 18, 1986 and V-724 will be continued to April 9, 1986. 13. V-726 - Paul and Geraldine De Vos, request for. variance approval for an existing 10 ft. wall to be located within the side yard setback 11.5 ft. from the property line at 14681 Farwell Ave. Staff gave the background of the project and the present application. They stated that they were still recommending denial. The public hearing was opened at 10:35 p.m. Richard Stowers, the architect, commented that they are reapplying for the variance. He stated that in their original application they were asking for a modification of the grades adjacent to the bottom of the wall that would allow a wall to be built within the 8 ft. configuration that was originally shown on the drawings that were submitted. He gave the background of the building of the wall. Mr. Stowers indicated that the neighbor had objected to the color, but not the height of the wall. He noted that the neighbor now likes the color of the wall. Commissioner Pines stated that he had not been on the Commission at the time of the original variance. However, he feels that if the wall is - 8 - . Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 2/26/86 V-726 between two neighbors and they agree that it is not a problem, he does not understand what is gained by requiring something to happen to it. He added that he is not willing to ask the applicant to take down 4 ft. of fence. He stated that he might feel differently if he had been involved in the original application; however, the wall is built. Commissioner Peterson stated that he can understand Commissioner Pines' point; however, he feels that if that would hold true, then an applicant could get denied by both the Commission and the City Council; wait a year and come back to a Commission with some new Commissioners, and get approval. He commented that that is unacceptable to him. Commissioner Harris added that that could be carried a little bit further, whereby the applicant could built whatever they want to build, and then say that they are sorry but it is already done. She added that that is the part that bothers her. Preston Hill, attorney for the applicant, disussed the application. He stated that physically nothing has changed on the property. However, a lot has changed in the relationship between the neighbors and, if he is not mistaken, in his client's attitude toward the City. He addressed the background of the wall, stating that the owner, the architect, and the contractor did think that they had approval for an 8 ft. design element that was integrated with the house. He described the wall, noting that the neighbors have decided that they like the color of the wall. Mr. Hill commented that there are special circumstances; there is great difficulty in knocking the wall to 6 ft. He addressed the findings relative to a variance of an 8 ft. wall at the very least. Mr. Hill noted that he did not have authority to say that the applicant will agree to take off 2 feet; however, he would try to get authority. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. After discussion there was a consensus that the Commission had no problem with the wall being 8 ft. Commissioner Pines reiterated that he had no problem leaving it at 10 ft, and seeing that the neighbors are agreeable to leaving it at that height. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve V-726, conditioning it to be 8 ft., and making the findings based on the topography of the site; mainly the fact that this is not a wall on the property line but is a wall for purposes of screening the bathroom. He stated that the topography moves up rather quickly from that site, and that a 6 ft. wall placed on the property line would probably have more impact on the neighbors. He added that if the wall were taken down to 6 ft. it could impact other design elements of the house. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Pines dissenting. He stated that he was voting no because he feels. that the fence should be 10 ft. The appeal period was noted. The City Attorney commented that his office should be notified by Mr. Hill if the applicant is going to appeal or accept this decision. He explained that if the applicant accepts the decision of 8 ft. and it is finalized, any pending litigation would be dismissed. 14a. V-728 - Gilley Jacoby, .request for approval of existing 14b. SC-3 - illuminated signage and. variance approval to exceed the sign square footage allowed by ordi- nance for a use within a building and to recon- sider the approved sign program for the entire building at 14471 Big Basin Way Staff explained the application. They commented that they are unable to make the findings to approve the signage and recommend denial. They indicated that the size is not a problem, but they do have a problem with the material and the illumination. - 9 - Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes - Meeting 2/26/86 C-3 and A-749 The public hearing was opened at 11:07 p.m. Mr. Jacoby, the applicant, submitted pictures of the signage and explained the request. He indicated agreement with Staff's suggestion to work on the signage or wait for the Village Plan. Commissioner Siegfried suggested continuing the application until the Village Plan, stating that the signs are not so obtrusive that they are causing a great deal of problem in the Village, and he feels that there is a problem with the restaurant in the back without some more reasonable signage. There was a consensus to that effect. James Rosenfeld, the owner of the property, apologized for not following up to ensure that his tenants got the appropriate permits. He discussed the location of the restaurant, pointing out the need for an exceptional sign. It was directed that the matter be continued until the Village Plan is in place. COMMUNICATIONS Written Oral by Commission and Staff 1. City Council Report - Commissioner Pines gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on February 19, 1986. A copy of the minutes of that meeting are on file in the Administration Office. 2. Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Pines moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Guch seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. YH:cd - 10 -