Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-12-1994 Planning Commission minutes• • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 12, 1994 - 7:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Moran. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Moran, Commissioners Asfour, Caldwell, Jacobs, Kaplan, Murakami and Wolfe Absent: None City Attorney Riback was present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES Minutes of the meeting of December 8, 1993. Commissioner Caldwell had the following corrections: Page 3, 1st paragraph, 6th line (parenthetical) the word "for" should be inserted immediately prior to the words "which a variance.." Page 10, the bolded sentence which reads "Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m." should be corrected to reflect that Chairperson Moran opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Page 15, 2nd paragraph, 7th sentence, should begin "Responding to Commissioner Murakami's concerns regarding applicants approaching and/or calling individual Commissioners to discuss..." Page 16, 1st paragraph, the following sentence should be added to the end of the paragraph: "She requested that the Staff/City Attorney/Planning Commission relations be addressed at the retreat." • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 12, 1994 Page 2 Commissioner Asfour had the following corrections: Page 10, 6th paragraph from the bottom, should be corrected to read as follows: "Commissioner Asfour noted the existence of an accessory structure on the property and stated that he felt that this structure had at one time been used as a second living unit and that this should be prohibited." Page 13, 3rd paragraph from the bottom, should be corrected to read as follows: "Commissioner Asfour explained that he had driven around the shopping center and was initially concerned with regard to the location of the sign. He stated that he is primarily concerned with setting a precedent by granting an approval thus triggeri~ other businesses to apply for a similar exception to the sign program or for similar sign placement on other locations. He stated that he favored denial of this application as the allowable location afforded adequate visibility." WOLFE/ASFOUR MOVED APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 12, 1993, MINUTES AS CORRECTED (ABOVE). PASSED 7-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Moran inquired if there was any one wishing to address the Commission with regard to anything not on the January 12th agenda. She stated that she knew that Mr. De Regt was interested in addressing the Commission and explained that if no one else wished to address the Commission, she (Chairperson Moran) would like to move the Oral Communications portion of the meeting to after the Public Hearings. There was no one wishing to speak (other than Mr. DeRegt). Chairperson Moran's suggestion was acceptable to all and the Oral Communications segment was moved. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 7, 1994. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET There were no technical corrections. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 12, 1994 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LL-93-009 - Eitzen; 13269 Old Oak Way, request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to transfer 19,166 sq. ft. of land from Parcel A to Parcel B, pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The existing Parcels A and B are 31 acres and 4.6 acres respectively. Parcel A is located within an Agricultural Preserve (AP) zoning district and Parcel B is within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated January 12, 1994. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she wanted to be sure that Parcel B could not, at some future date, be subdivided. Planner Walgren stated that Parcel "B" could not be subdivided at a future date because the parcel ("B") was too small to be subdivided in compliance with the City regulations. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:40 P.M. There was no one wishing to speak. KAPLAN/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:40 P.M. PASSED 7-0. CALDWELL/JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE LL-93-009. Commissioner Asfour stated that everything with regard to the application seemed legal and within the City regulations, but that he felt that there was something fishy about the proposal. He stated that in spite of his feelings he would be voting in support of the application. Commissioner Caldwell stated that as long as it was clear to everyone that there could be no further subdivision (of the new parcel), she was comfortable voting in favor of the lot line adjustment. Chairperson Moran stated that the size of the increase would add about 80 additional square feet to the maximum square footage of the structures that may be buuilt on the lot. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 12, 1994 Page 4 THE MOTION PASSED 7-0. 2. V-93-028 - Vick; 14137 Squirrel Hollow Ln., request for Variance approval to allow a 269 sq. ft. one-story addition off the back of an existing 2,748 sq. ft. one-story home to encroach 2 ft. and 4 ft. into required rear and side yard setbacks, respectively. The subject property is 15,300 sq. ft in area and is located in an R-1-12,500 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated January 12, 1994. AT 7:45 P.M. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Patricia Ann Vick and Gary Vick, applicants, spoke in favor of the application and submitted a picture board depicting the existing house and the proposed addition. Mr. Vick stated that the basis on which the variances should be granted were hardship and equity. He noted that the rear-yard setback was minimal (approximately atwo- foot encroachment). He stated that due to the lot and the house location further development required a variance and thus created a hardship. In terms of equity, they explained that their home was one of the smallest in the area relative to the lot size. They explained that they had consulted their neighbors with regard to their project and that neighbors did not voice any opposition or concerns. The Vick's submitted a letter of support signed by the neighbors. The applicants explained that they had explored various other options (two-story and etc.) with regard to adding onto their home. They explained that the proposal was the only one that seemed to meet their needs, be cost-effective and would not change the character of their existing home. Mrs. Vick stated that due to the existing restrictive floor plan the proposed location of the addition was the only feasible place to add the new rooms. They urged the Commissions to approve their. application. There was no one else wishing to speak. KAPLAN/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:53 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Commission Kaplan stated that she had visited the site and recognized the restrictions on the lot as to where the addition could be located. She stated that she could support the variance request. • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 12, 1994 Page 5 Commissioner Asfour explained that he had initially agreed with staff's recommendation (to deny the rear yard setback variance & approve the roof height variance), but that after visiting the site he (Commissioner Asfour) could support both the variances. He commended the applicants for maintaining aone-story home and addition and stated that he did not feel that granting the variances would extend a special privilege to the applicants. COMMISSIONER ASFOUR STATED THAT HE COULD SUPPORT THE VARIANCES AND RECOMMENDED THAT STAFF AMEND THE RESOLUTIONS SO AS TO APPROVE BOTH THE REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND THE ROOF HEIGHT VARIANCE. Commissioner Wolfe noted that the subject site was larger than the required lot size in that area. He stated that he could support the variances and that the variance would not result in an adverse impact. He noted the existence of a home down the street which encroaches into the setback and, in his opinion, has a greater impact than the proposed addition on the subject site. HE STATED THAT HE COULD SUPPORT THE VARIANCES AND WOULD SECOND COMMISSIONER ASFOUR'S MOTION. Commissioner Caldwell inquired of the Commissioner's voicing support for the rear yard variance, if their support was based on the location of the house on the property. She noted that the back yard property line was actually at a slant to the way the house was situated on the lot. Commissioner Asfour stated that there were a number of reasons why he could support the variance -That granting the variance would not grant a special privilege; A special circumstance exists in that the property line is at a slant relative to the location of the house on the site. He also stated that the proposed location for the addition was really the only feasible location and that adding on at another location would not be practical, cost-effective and, also, would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the proposed location. He also noted that the neighbor's house to the rear of the property was within 5 feet of the fence. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he felt that a practical difficulty resulted from the location of the house on the site and that there are other physical conditions of the site. He stated that he could support the variances and would move to approve both the rear yard setback variance and the roof height variance. He inquired if any of the Commissioners were opposed to the roof height variance. Chairperson Moran stated that she did not sense any opposition to the roof height variance. She noted the fact that .the side yard of the neighboring lot abuts the rear yard of the subject lot. She also pointed out that this neighborhood has a number of irregularly shaped lots. Chairperson Moran stated that she felt that sufficient findings had been made and voiced by the Commissioners to support both of the variances. ~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 12, 1994 Page 6 Commissioner Murakami stated that he was in agreement with the comments made by the other Commissioners in support of both the roof height variance and the rear yard setback variance. He stated that he had initially agreed with staff with regard to the rear yard variance request, but after visiting the site he found reasons to support the variance. Chairperson Moran inquired of Director Curtis how the Commission should proceed with regard to their support of both the variances. Community Development Director Curtis stated that he felt that the Commission had made sufficient findings to support the variances;and that an approval could be granted at the current meeting and there probably was not a need for the Resolution for approval to come back before the Planning Commission. City Attorney Riback recommended that the Commission direct staff to draft up a resolution for approval and place the resolution on the Consent Calendar of the January 26, 1994, Planning Commission meeting to allow the Commissioners to confirm that the correct findings had been included in the Resolution. Chairperson Moran reiterated City Attorney Riback's recommendation and noted that the approval date on the Resolution should be January 12, 1994, but that the resolution would be put on the Consent Calendar of the January 26th Planning Commission meeting. This was agreeable to the Commission. COMMISSIONER ASFOUR/WOLFE MOVED APPROVAL OF V-93-028 (BOTH THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND THE ROOF HEIGHT VARIANCES). Chairperson Moran asked staff to review the findings aloud which the Commission had made (and voiced) in support of this application. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the following findings had been made by the Commission in support of the rear yard variance: 1. Location of the house on the lot; 2. The irregular lot configuration; and 3 The angle of the lot line in conflict with the house location. THE VOTE WAS TAKEN AND THE MOTION PASSED 7-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 12, 1994 Page 7 Commissioner Asfour clarified that the approval had been granted at the current meeting (January 12, 1994) and that the resolution would come back on the consent calendar of January 26th for the Commission's review of the language. Planner Walgren stated that Commissioner Asfour's statement was correct and noted that the appeal period would be based on the January 12th approval date. Commissioner Caldwell requested that a discussion regarding "How to better communicate City Codes to local designers and architects" be added under the Commission Items section of the meeting. Commissioner Caldwell stated that it was her understanding that part of the reason for the variance request was because of a misunderstanding of the setback regulations. Chairperson Moran accepted this suggestion and indicated that this issue could be discussed at that time. 3. DR-93-038 - Vukosa; 14281 Paul Ave., request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,788 sq. ft. two-story residence and demolish the existing on-site structures per Chapter 15 of the City Code. An exception to the floor area reduction requirement for structures over 18 feet in height is also requested. The subject parcel is approximately 7,500 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-10,000 zone district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated January 12, 1994 and answered questions with regard to the application. Planner Walgren also noted that 2 letters of support had been received -one from Tom King and the other from Marc Van den Berg and Kathleen Kennedy. With regard to #2 on Page 18 of the Staff Report, Commissioner Kaplan asked City Attorney Riback to define the phrase "predominantly two-story neighborhood". City Attorney Riback stated that there was no definition of "predominately two-story neighborhood". AT 8:07 P.M., CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 12, 1994 Page 8 Kathy Vukosa, applicant, spoke in favor of the application. She explained that she wanted a home with an open character/feeling. She stated that in order to design a home which would be in conformance with the 1.5% floor area reduction, the rooms of the home would be very small and the open feeling of the home would be eliminated. She stated that she preferred atwo-story design instead of a one-story design because asingle-story home would occupy a great deal of the lot. Anthony Andrich, project designer, spoke in favor of the application. He explained that compliance with the 1.5% reduction requirement would eliminate 210 square feet of the house thus changing the open character/design of the home. He noted the existence of other two-story homes in the area and next to the subject lot. He stated that aone- story home on this lot would be out of character with the existing neighborhood. He also pointed out that the proposed home would be under the height limitations for this area. He urged approval of the request and explained that during the design phase of the project the 1.5% reduction rule had not been clearly communicated and understood. Commissioner Asfour asked about the 30" pine tree on the lot and stated that he could not support any proposal which called for removal of the tree which the City arborist had indicated was in good health. Anthony Andrich, designer, explained that the pine tree was located in the middle of the lot, is messy, very flammable and not a native tree. He stated that the proposal is to remove the tree and plant two replacement oak trees. Commissioner Murakami inquired if the driveway could be re-located to the right side of the lot and made to curve around the tree. Anthony Andrich, designer, stated that the driveway could be relocated to the right, but that this would require extensive trimming to the tree and would not be very aesthetically desirable. He discussed the option of flipping the floor plan so as to locate the garage on the right side of the lot. But, again, he explained that this option would not be desirable due to the placement and light issue of several rooms in the proposed house. Commissioner Caldwell suggested that a semi circle or tree well be constructed to protect the tree. Designer Andrich reported that the tree was not a desirable tree and that its roots are shallow and tend to be invasive causing damage to foundations, sidewalks, driveways and etc. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 12, 1994 Page 9 Kathy Vukosa, applicant, stated that the lot is only 50 feet wide and the tree is located in the middle of the lot and presents difficulty with regard to developing the property. She expressed concern regarding the potential damage the roots of the tree may cause. Ms. Vukosa stated that she would like to remove the pine tree and replace it with two oak trees. Robert King, 14271 Paul Avenue, reported that he had resided in the neighborhood for several years and explained that the pine tree was a "weed-tree" (had not been planted intentionally). He stated that he felt the tree was a problem tree and was located too close to the street. With regard to the 1.5% floor area reduction rule, Mr. King stated that the rule must have been implemented after development of most of the homes in that area because many of the homes do not seem to be incompliance with that particular regulation. He urged the Commission to approve the application and allow removal of the pine tree. There was no one else wishing to speak. ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Caldwell requested staff's opinion with regard to saving the tree via tree well or some similar way. Planner Walgren stated that this was a possibility. He reported that the driveway width could be decreased or, as the designer mentioned, the floor plan could be flipped. He noted that the arborist had stated in his report that the tree was in good health, but in a very difficult location. Commissioner Caldwell asked if staff felt that the arborist's opinion with regard to the pine tree would have been different if the tree had been an oak tree. In response to Commissioner Caldwell's question, Planner Walgren replied that the opinion may have been different if the tree was of a different species. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the driveway could encroach into the required side yard. Planner Walgren replied yes. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the tree roots and limbs were invading the street and the sewer lines. • ~ Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 12, 1994 Page 10 Planner Walgren stated that he was not aware of any root invasion or damage, but due to the location of the tree it would not be surprising if the roots were causing damage to the street and the sewer lines. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she could support the two-story design. She stated that many of the newer homes are two-stories and due to the size of the lot the only way to develop the lot and retain the property owners investment is to construct a two-story home on the site. Commissioner Murakami asked if the applicant was aware, during the design phase, of the 1.5% reduction rule. Planner Walgren stated that according to the project planner the rule was explained. However, Planner Walgren stated, that the designer had indicated that the regulation was not fully understood. Planner Walgren explained that the Code does permit the Planning Commission to make an exception to the 1.5% rule if all of the Design Review findings could be made and the Commission could find that there is a predominance of two-story structures in the neighborhood. Planner Walgren stated that the designer may have believed that the neighborhood was predominately atwo-story neighborhood and therefore felt the Commission could make the findings and grant the exception to the rule. Commissioner Asfour stated that he had no problem with the proposed floor area and could support the application including removal of the pine with the condition that two replacement oak trees be planted. WOLFE/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-93-038 AS SUBMITTED. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she would like to further discuss the application. She stated that she felt that the area was a difficult one because of the fact that there are two-story homes placed on lots that seem to be a little too small for the homes. She stated that she felt the neighborhood was moving toward a predominantly two- story neighborhood and inquired if this was what the Commission desired for this area or if they wanted to encourage a mix of one and two-story homes. She stated that she felt there was an issue of scale that existed -scale of homes to lot sizes. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he did not feel the additional 209 square feet would harm the neighborhood nor would it be inappropriate for the area. He explained that he felt that if the Planning Commission did not grant the exception and approve the application a hardship would be created. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 12, 1994 Page 11 Commissioner Caldwell stated that she was concerned with creating a wall effect on that street. Commissioner Asfour noted that anything would be an improvement to what is currently on the lot. He also pointed out that the proposed home would be a lower (in height) two-story design, and would provide a variety of lines and would break the visual impact of the two story home to the left. Chairperson Moran stated that she was in agreement with the comments made by Commissioner Kaplan and could support the application. She stated that she felt that the design was appropriate in this location. Commissioner Wolfe pointed out several design features of the proposed structure and stated that these would provide a variety of lines and visual breaks in the area. He expressed support for the application. Commissioner Caldwell commented that she felt that the arborist's report would have read differently if the pine tree located in the middle of the lot had been a native tree. Commissioner Jacobs expressed agreement with Commission Caldwell's comment. As Chairperson Moran started to call for the question, Director Curtis interjected that the resolution before the Planning Commission was for denial of the application. He inquired if the Commission would like staff to draft a resolution for approval and bring it back on the Consent Calendar at the next meeting; or, another option, he explained, was to make slight changes to the resolution currently before the Commission. He noted that the changes would be very minor. The Commission agreed to amend the resolution as follows: Page 19, 3rd WHEREAS, should read: "WHEREAS, the Design Review application is dependent on an exception being granted to the floor area reduction requirement of 1.5 percent for each one foot of building height exceeding 18 feet and the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said exception, in that there is a predominance of two-story structures in the neighborhood. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 12, 1994 Page 12 And add the following conditions of approval: That development be consistent with the site plan (Exhibit "A") including approval to remove the 30" pine tree located in the middle, front portion of the site with the condition that two (2) replacement oak trees -size as specified in the arborist's report be planted on the site. 2. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. THE MOTION (INCLUDING THE ABOVE) PASSED 7-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Tom DeRegt, Bank of America Properties, representatives for the Paul Masson Champagne Cellars Properties, explained that since development of the Specific Plan for the site his company has worked with City staff and has submitted an application for a conceptual development plan. He explained that after submitting the application he had attempted to contact the members of the Planning Commission for the purpose of introducing himself and the proposed builder of the project and to update the Commissioners on the process that has taken place since City Council's approval of the Specific Plan. Mr. DeRegt announced that he had been advised that a more efficient way to meet with the Commission would be to address the Commission at a public hearing, during the oral communications segment, and request that a worksession be scheduled. Mr. DeRegt noted that it is the company's goal to have the conceptual plan application before the Planning Commission toward the end of February or early March, take advantage of the upcoming building season and move forward with the project. Chairperson Moran stated that she spoke with Mr. DeRegt and was not aware at that time that an application had been filed. She suggested that a public meeting be scheduled which would include noticing and. inviting the neighbors so as to keep them informed. She explained that she thought such a meeting would be beneficial in that Mr. DeRegt and the developer could provide both the Commission and the neighbors with information on the project and the pending process. Also, • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 12, 1994 Page 13 she stated, that this meeting would provide the applicants.an opportunity to gather feedback/input and inform them of any concerns with regard to the proposed development. Chairperson Moran noted that she felt that it was also the Planning Commission's responsibility to help keep the neighbors informed of the development plans for the site. Chairperson Moran commended Mr. DeRegt for his efforts to make information on the development available. Mr. DeRegt informed the Commission that the neighbors had already been contacted and. one public meeting for the purpose of providing the neighbors with information on the development plans had been held. Chairperson Moran suggested taking public testimony at a public hearing and then continuing the item to a worksession or just holding a straight public hearing. She stated that she did not see the benefit of holding a meeting solely for informational purposes. She explained that she felt both the Commission and the applicants would be better served if public feedback could be given at such a meeting. Mr. DeRegt agreed that public comment/feedback would be beneficial. He stated that either one of Chairperson Moran's suggestions would be acceptable. City Attorney Riback commented that either one of the suggested procedures would be appropriate. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he had been contacted by Mr. DeRegt and did meet with the potential developer and found the meeting to be helpful. He endorsed the suggestions of holding apublic/group meeting. The Commission discussed various meeting formats and dates and reached a consensus that the item should be placed on the February 1, 1994 public hearing/worksession. Director Curtis announced that public notice would need to be faxed to the newspaper and that staff would need to move quickly with regard to mailing out individual notices to the neighbors. He explained that there would most likely be additional costs involved. The Commission expressed their desire to place this item on the February 1st public hearing/worksession. Staff also noted that there would not be sufficient time to prepare a full staff report on the project for the February 1st meeting. Commissioner Jacobs requested that any written information available on the proposal be forwarded to the Commissioners. • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 12, 1994 Page 14 DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission of the following upcoming events: January 25, 7:30 p.m. -City Council/All City Commission meeting -Changes to the Brown Act. League of California Cities Planners Institute in March -Director noted that there was a limited budget for this meeting. Commissioners Asfour, Kaplan and Moran expressed interest in attending the seminar. Commissioner Caldwell requested that the attendees bring back any literature that is distributed at the conference. The Director stated that he thought the budget would allow for all three interested Commissioners to attend and that this matter could be discussed at a later date. Commissioners Asfour and Jacobs inquired about the March 10th Planning Commission meeting. Planner Walgren stated that the March 10th Planning Commission meeting had been moved to March 8, 1994. COMMISSION ITEMS Chairperson Moran inquired if "Staff/Planning Commission Relationships" would be discussed at the Planning Commission retreat as represented on the draft agenda under item #7. Director Curtis stated that this issue would be discussed. He explained that entry #7 on the draft agenda would be an introduction to this topic of discussion. Chairperson Moran asked if this met Commissioner Caldwell's request for this particular discussion. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that this would satisfy her request. There was some discussion among the Commissioners and staff regarding the number of items on the retreat agenda and the allotted time for the meeting. Commissioner Caldwell initiated discussion regarding communicating City codes to applicants, designers and architects. Commissioner Kaplan inquired if there was any presumed level of skill and/or ability when people take on the job of designing a house. t Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 12, 1994 Page 15 . Planner Walgren explained that the level of skill/ability of those who design homes for clients range anywhere from being self-trained. to licensed architects. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she believes that if one is asked to do a professional job that he or she should know the rules and regulations which apply to the project. She wondered if the City staff had to "hand-feed" all the applicable regulations to those designing homes in the City. Commissioner Jacobs explained that there are professionals who do know the' rules and regulations with regard to developing in Saratoga and have had plenty of experience either in Saratoga or in other areas. Planner Walgren interjected that the staff tries to explain to all parties involved in the planning/developing stage that the City staff is there and willing to assist with any questions regarding codes and etc. He explained that designers and architects are made aware of the various regulations applicable to their specific projects. There was some further discussion with regard to this issue and it was agreed that applicants/designer/architects should be given clear explanations of the codes and that applicants and etc. should be encouraged to consult the staff if there are any questions. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she understood that the City Council at their last meeting decided to reconsider their vote on the Ebrahimoun application (15170 EI Camino Grande). City Attorney Riback explained what had taken place at the City Council meeting (to which Commissioner Caldwell referred) and the events leading up to that reconsideration. He also explained the Council's reasoning for the reconsideration. In response to the Commission's inquiry, City Attorney Riback explained the purpose of and the circumstances in which a "reconsideration" can be made. City Attorney Riback answered questions from the Commission with regard to this issue. Commissioner Asfour stated for the record that Commissioner Kaplan had been speaking on his (Commissioner Asfour's) behalf at that City Council meeting since he was ill and could not attend. _~ ~ Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 12, 1994 Page 16 Discussion of the action of the City Council led to a discussion of whether or not the City Council was aware that the Planning Commission would be discussing (at the retreat) the issue of Planning Commission representation at City Council meetings. Chairperson Moran stated that she thought the Planning Commission would be receiving a letter from the Council with regard to this issue. City Attorney Riback confirmed that the Council was planning on handing out a policy letter to the various Commissions. He stated that he had recently reviewed the first draft of the letter. The Community Development Director announced that it was his understanding that this letter maybe distributed at the January 25th meeting (announced above). The Commission expressed an interest in receiving this letter, at least a draft, prior to their retreat so that the discussion of this issue at the retreat would be productive and not move in an entirely different direction than that prescribed by the Council. City Attorney Riback and Director Curtis stated that a draft of this policy would be available at the retreat. They asked that the Commission keep in mind that this letter is a draft only. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 12/1/93 & 12/7/93 2. Letter to City Council from Robert & Daisy Stark 3. League of California Cities Planners Institute 4. Planning Commission Notices for 1 /26/94 Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT At 9:12 p.m., Chairperson Moran adjourned the meeting. Andrea M. Chelemengos Minutes Clerk