Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-1995 Planning Commission minutes~,AiN~"ING COMMISSION MIl\'U~ FEBRUARY 22, 1995 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Asfour. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Caldwell, Kaplan, Murakami, Asfour Late: None Absent: Patrick, Siegfried City Attorney Riback and Community Development Director Curtis were not present this evening. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES February 8,1995 COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 8, 1995 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 4, paragraph 4, second sentence amended to read: "...Mr. Lewis responded that the reason he did not utilize more of his backyard was due to the fact that there were two large maple trees located 25 feet from the rear fene~. " - Page 5, paragraph 6, the addition of the following to the end of the paragraph: "Harry Goldberg, 13298 MacCulloch Avenue, ... He felt that two story additions needed to start somewhere because in the~past,. neighbors h~kve tried. to:.adc~ secv.nd.sturies to~C#1ei.r hotnes ?hut; wire not~~successi'ui .in'receiv.ng ~approva#. " THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. ORAL COMMUITICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTI\TG AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 1995. PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES S FEBRUARY 22, 1995 PAGE - 2 - Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren state that there were no corrections to the agenda. However, he informed the Commission that a letter was received from by J.R. Harris, 21083 Comer Drive, expressing concern regarding Consent Item No. 3 as his property is located just below the Ruehle/Lee design review application on Comer Drive. In the letter, Mr. Harris expressed concern regarding the amount of run off that occurs from the upper lot to the two lower lots and the potential for mud sliding in the area based on past occurrences. Planner Walgren indicated that these issues were addressed at the time of the original design review application approval and that there were specific conditions that addressed these concerns in the original design review resolution as well as last year at the applicant's first one year extension. He felt that the items addressed in the letter have been addressed by the City's Public Works and Engineering and Planning staff. PUBLIC HEARING C0ITSENT CALENDAR Chairman Asfour noted for the record that Consent Item 2 is required to be continued because City ordinance stipulates that when the City issues a notice of merger between two properties, there has to be a minimum 60 days notice. 1. 5-95-001 - Kelly/Cornish & Carey; 12241 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for Site Modification approval to modify the provisions of an existing sign program in order to construct an awning identification sign per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is in the Oak Creek Shopping Center located within a Commercial Visitor (C-V) zoning district (cont. to 3/22/95 at the request of the applicant; application expires 6/22/95). 2. Constantin; 20855 Kittridge Rd. & 15261 Norton Rd., Hearing on Community Development Director's "Notice of Intention to Determine Status", the purpose of which is to consider merger of an existing lot of record and a contiguous "remnant parcel" into one lot as provided for the State Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance (cont. to 4/12/95 at the request of staff and the applicant; application expiration N/A). . Commissioner Kaplan noted that paragraph 3 of the resolution makes reference to a letter dated February 9, 1994. She asked if the February 16, 1995 letter should also be referenced in the resolution or was the letter duplicated? Planner Walgren recommended that the February 16, 1995 letter be referenced. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that her concern with the February 16, 1995 letter was not knowing the history of the past and that she did not understand the problem. If appears that Mr. Harris was asking the City, in some way, to enforce a maintenance agreement. She did not feel that the City wanted to go on record as supporting a private agreement between landowners. She was not sure if the original letter also referenced the maintenance agreement. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the previous letter also addressed the maintenance agreement. It was determined that it was not the City's obligation nor responsibility to become involved with enforcing property owners private PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • FEBRUARY 22, 1995 PAGE - 3 - ingress/egress easement agreements or maintenance of private roads. The condition imposed addressed the drainage and mud sliding concerns that were cited. He recommended that the Commission differentiate between the two issues this evening. Commissioner Kaplan requested the removal of Consent Item 3. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT ITEMS 1 AND 2 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). 3. DR-91-026.2 - Lee/Ruehle; 21097 Comer Dr., request for a second one-year extension of a previously approved Design Review application to construct a new 5,221 sq. ft. residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is currently vacant, approximately 1.9 acres in size and is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. Commissioner Kaplan felt that it needs to be determined whether or not the Commission should amend the resolution to reference the concerns raised by Mr. Harris in his letters of February 1994 and 1995. However, she expressed concern as to whether or not there would be any inference in accepting the letter and making it part of the record that the Commission would be dealing with the private property and maintenance issues. Commissioner Caldwell felt that the City had the authority to require that property owners not cause significant erosion or sedimentation to the storm drain system. Planner Walgren recollected that at the 1993 approval, the concern pertained to the amount of run off and sheet flowing. He also stated that there exists a problem with the older private storm drain system. That is why one of the conditions requires that should this lot be developed, the builder would have to contribute up to $7,500 towards the improvement of the existing storm drain system. That would alleviate some of the concerns on the Comer Drive storm drain system. In addition, as part of the development review of the final grading and drainage plans, staff would have the engineer design the drainage plan so that the run off from the development itself would be collected and directed to Comer Drive, away from the down hill properties. He did not feel that the development would intensify the amount of drainage and should alleviate a lot of the existing problems. Commissioner Kaplan asked what the City could do with any empty parcel where there is an observation that erosion would occur? Planner Walgren responded that should the property become a public nuisance, there could be steps that the City could take. He stated that he did not know what the situation was with regards to the mud slide that went onto a private driveway from the recent rains. He informed the Commission that he reviewed both the February 1994 and 1995 letters and that they appear to address the same issues with the exception of the middle paragraph in the 1995 letter which references the recent mud slide. Commissioner Caldwell recommended that the resolution be amended to reference both letters because the City does not have control over private maintenance agreements. PLANNING COMMISS# MINUTES • FEBRUARY 22, 1995 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Kaplan clarified that the issue raised regarding the water run off could be addressed even though the City had no control over the maintenance agreement. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Virginia Fanelli, representing the Lee's, current property owners, informed the Commission that there is a recorded agreement that would allow the use of the same driveway but that there is no agreement for mutual maintenance recorded. It was her understanding that there was a mutually understood agreement among the three parties who would be using the driveway that they would be maintaining the driveway but that there was nothing in writing to that affect. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. Planner Walgren recommended that the Commission limit the issues addressed in the letter to the drainage and run off concerns and that it not address the easement concerns. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-91-026, WITH THE MODIFICATION AS SUGGESTED BY STAFF (INCLUDE REFERENCE OF LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 16, 1995 IN ITEM 3 OF THE RESOLUTION, LIMITING THE ISSUE TO THE POTENTIAL RUNOFF). THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. DR-94-057 - Miranda: 20151 Rancho Bella Vista, request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,012 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is approximately 21,216 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that a question relative to the development of the site was that in 1978, when the subdivision was initially approved, there was a condition in the resolution that did not prohibit two story homes abutting Highway 9 which is a State designated Scenic Highway. The resolution stated that no two story homes were approved. Staff has relayed this restriction to the applicant. Upon reviewing the project and visiting site, acknowledging the fact that it provides a much larger rear yard setback than most of the homes along Highway 9, staff felt that it could support a two story home in this particular case and was recommending approval of it. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Eva Miranda, applicant, stated her concurrence with staff's recommendation and all the conditions set forth. Commissioner Caldwell informed the applicant that there is an issue in the south bay area relating to urban run off which contain metals. The primary metals of concern designated as PLANNING COMMISSl1 MINUTES • FEBRUARY 22, 1995 PAGE - 5 - toxic metals were copper, chromium and nickel. She stated that recent engineering studies have shown that the majority of the copper found in the bay was not coming from industry but was coming from urban run off. She asked Ms. Miranda if she would be willing to use an alternate material that can be used so that there is no degradation of the copper gutters with water running over it. Mr. Miranda informed the Commission that she would agree to use galvanized gutters instead of the copper. Commissioner Caldwell appreciated that Ms. Miranda agreed to use an alternate material to copper because it is voluntary at this time. She commented that the Regional Water Board was trying to disseminate information about urban run off issues to local jurisdictions. She felt that the Commission should be more conscientious about these issues in its land use decisions. Commissioner Kaplan commented that at the land use site visit, it was noted that the tree branches overhung the property and that the tree(s) were located on the adjoining lot. She asked if there has been discussion with that adjoining property owner regarding tree preservation. Ms. Miranda informed the Commission that the adjacent lot was currently for sale. Once sold, she would meet with the future property owner to determine how best to preserve the tree. Commissioner Kaplan commented that it was her observation that tree may be in danger by what was happening underneath it (stack of wood on top of the dripline). She inquired if staff had the opportunity to discuss the impact of the wood on top of the dripline with the City arborist. Planner Walgren responded that staff has not had an opportunity to follow up on the pile of wood on top of the dripline with the City arborist. Commissioner Kaplan felt that the tree was an asset to the property and that everything should be done to preserve the tree. She asked what the City arborist, Barrie Coate, was requiring in terms of tree preservation and maintaining the location of the driveway? Planner Walgren responded that the requirements that were listed in the City arborist's Tree Protection Report were incorporated as conditions of the resolution (i.e., how much the soil for the driveway can be compacted and pervious pavers would need to be used as mitigation measures). Mr. Coate had recommended that the plan be flipped with the driveway located on the other side of the parcel. However, this recommendation was not feasible from the applicant's point of view. The applicant has requested that the other alternative be considered for the pervious materials and compaction. Staff and the City arborist have concurred with the alternative condition. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the applicant would be willing to accept a condition of a copper substitute? Ms. Miranda stated her agreement to the recommended condition. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-057 BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH AN ADDED CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT THE GUTTERS BE CHANGED TO ANON-COPPER PLANNING COMMISS•1 MINUTES • FEBRUARY 22, 1995 PAGE - 6 - SUBSTITUTE. Commissioner Murakami stated that the applicant's two story home was well designed. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). 5. DR-92-033.1 - Farsio; 14930 Vintner Ct., request for gone-year extension of time for a Design Review approval to construct a 1,400 sq. ft. guest house per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The structure will be detached from the main residence. The applicant is also requesting to modify the Design Review approval in order to increase the size of the guest house from 1,400 sq. ft. to 2,147 sq. ft. The property is approximately 3.5 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Staff recommended approval of the one year extension of time for the 1,400 square foot building but denial of the second part of the request to modify the original approval. Chairman Asfour stated that it was his understanding that there were no changes proposed. Planner Walgren responded that nothing has changed from the original approval. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the guest cottage was scheduled to be placed closer to the existing house. Planner Walgren responded that the initial application depicted the guest house further to the west, away from the main house on the large vacant meadow where it is proposed. Staff's recommendation was to move it closer to the main house, attaching it to the main house. Due to easements and setback requirements, it ended up where it is currently approved. Chairman Asfour informed the Commission that there was a Measure A settlement agreement that prohibited having more than one structure on the lot. In order for the Commission to approve it as a guest house or as an addition to the house, it has to be located on the same lot, not on the adjacent lot so that it is not perceived as a second house. The second lot is to remain vacant as part of the settlement. Commissioner Murakami asked staff regarding the request for modification. In comparing the two plans, the request is to move the original pad further from the original approval. Planner Walgren responded that the applicant prefers to locate the pad where it was originally shown and that moving the guest house closer to the house was a compromise. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Ali Farsio, 14930 Vintner Court, applicant, informed the Commission that the reason for requesting the guest house was due to the fact that his mother in-law and father in-law were living with him and his wife who are handicapped, including alive-in care taker. The in-laws would be moved to the single story guest house designed to meet handicapped requirements. He requested that he to be allowed to place the guest house as close as possible to the main residence but that the slope would not allow it. As far as the Measure A settlement, the two lots are now considered as one lot. He stated that it was never mentioned by the City Attorney that PLANNING COMMISSMf MINUTES • FEBRUARY 22, 1995 PAGE - 7 - a guest house or structure could not be built and that only mention was made regarding the main residence. This lot is not subdividable and so stipulated in the title report. He informed the Commission that the reason the guest house was placed in the area shown was because it would be feasible to build. He would have to move it as close as possible to the main house as recommended by the City staff and engineer. He stated his appreciation to any assistance which the Commission can provide. Shahmaz Farsio, 14930 Vintner Court, confirmed that her parents reside with her and her husband and that they are both handicapped and in wheelchairs. She requested that the Commission consider the living conditions that exist as 24-hour care is required for her parents and that the existing facility does not accommodate her parents needs. She noted that the property is not dividable and that the guest house would not have a kitchen. Commissioner Abshire asked why the modification was not acted upon at the time of the original approval. Mr. Farsio responded that there was not sufficient space in a smaller guest home. He vas requesting the increased square footage with this extension of time request. Commissioner Kaplan noticed that the property was up for sale. Mr. Farsio responded that should the guest house not be approved, he would need to sell the house and find another location which will accommodate their needs. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she empathized with the family situation. However, she found a credibility problem with the kind of house that is being proposed. She was not sure whether an entertainment, card room and a pool table room were necessary to meet the needs of the family. Also, she found it difficult to understand how you can house two handicapped individuals so far away from the main residence with no food services available. She felt that the proposal went beyond the normal arrangements one would make for handicapped individuals. Mr. Farsio responded that these were the same set of plans that were proposed three years ago. The only change was the addition of the square footage. Regarding the food services, he stated that his parents cannot cook because they are handicapped and cooking would be conducted in the main house. As far as city ordinances, he felt that all the requirements have been met. Chairman Asfour commented that the purpose of the settlement of Measure A was to allow for open space and that should the City allow the second structure as proposed, the City would be going against the settlement. He stated that he did not feel that anything has changed to allow the Commission to alter the previous approval. The Commission is still restricted by the same requirements. The Measure A settlement stipulates that there is to be no construction in the area previously known as parcel B. The City has allowed part of the structure to be built on parcel B, moving it closer to the house. Mr. Farsio responded that the City Attorney reviewed this issue for over six weeks. He agreed to relocate the guest house to parcel A and maintain the size at 1,400 square feet. However, he requested that the original location approved for the guest house be maintained and that he be allowed to build the 2,147 square foot guest home. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • FEBRUARY 22, 1995 PAGE - 8 - AT 8:17 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan stated that based upon prior history, she would concur with staff's recommendation. She could not see any justification to exceed the size as was originally approved and would deny the request to increase the square footage of the guest home. Commissioner Murakami stated that he remembered the history of this lot. He also stated his appreciation of the applicant's concern and felt for the family situation as far as the parents being handicapped. At time of original approval, the applicants appealed the Commission's action to the Council and that the Council turned down the appeal. He felt that the approved 1,400 square foot guest house was adequate for the purpose indicated. In reviewing the floor plans, he could not justify the additional square feet. He stated his concurrence with Commissioner Kaplan and staff's decision on this request. Commissioner Caldwell noted that the intent of Measure A was to limit density and that allowing the guest house creates a perception of increased density. She knows for a fact that there are numerous families that live in homes of 1,400 square feet or less in Saratoga. She felt that the applicants can meet the needs of their handicapped parents and make it work with 1,400 square feet. She did not see that anything has changed from the original approval. Commissioner Abshire stated that he was sympathetic with the applicant's situation. He would support the request to increase the 1,400 square foot guest house to 2,147 square feet if it was moved closer to the main house and that the applicants have indicated that they would be willing to do so. Chairman Asfour commented that he previously stated his concerns and that no new information has been presented. He felt that the rules have already been bent to approve the 1,400 square foot guest house. He stated his support of staff's recommendation and would not support the request to increase the square footage. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 92-033.1, APPROVING THE ONE YEAR EXTENSION BUT DENYING THE REQUESTED INCREASE SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. Commissioner Abshire stated that he opposed the motion on the basis that he felt that the guest house could be increased to 2,147 square feet. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's items. COI~iMISSION ITEMS 1. DR-91-006 -Chadwick; 21152 Chadwick Ct. Review of proposed revised driveway location PLANNING COMMISS`1 MINUTES a FEBRUARY 22, 1995 PAGE - 9 - Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the Planning Commission approved an extension of time request last November and that there was discussion initiated by letters from the neighbors concerned about the appearance of the driveway. The applicant was asked if he would be willing to consider the relocation of the driveway further up on the knoll per the neighbors' request. The applicant agreed to accommodate the neighbors, therefore the basis for this item being placed on the agenda this evening. He stated that a lot of work went into this project when it was first approved from a design and layout perspective, still allowing for fire protection access and saving numerous Coast Live Oak and Blue Oak trees that are located on the property. Relocating the driveway up higher on the hill would require the removal of the 19 dbh Blue Oak tree that was identified in the City arborist's original report. The city arborist has visited the site recently and felt that the tree was still healthy, in good condition and has provided a replacement value for that tree in his report should the Commission direct staff to pursue the relocation of the driveway. He informed the Commission that staff is recommending against relocating the driveway finding that the benefits of moving it up the hill were not significant enough to require the removal of a significant native oak tree. Should the Commission feel that moving the driveway further up the hill satisfies the neighbors' concerns and achieves a greater benefit, staff should then be directed to pursue modifying the driveway plan administratively. Staff would ensure that replacement trees are incorporated in the final plan. He informed the Commission that this application was approved four years ago and that it has one more one year extension available. Whether the home is ever built or not is not certain and therefore it is not recommended that the tree(s) be removed prematurely. Chairman Asfour commented that he did not believe that the proposed relocation of the driveway would correct any concerns that were expressed by the neighbors and that he would not support the removal of the oak tree. He recommended that the applicant negotiate with the issues of concerns with the neighbors. He concurred with staff's recommendation and would not support the relocation of the driveway. Commissioner Caldwell commented that this subdivision was not approved with a tree protection in mind. She concurred with Chairman Asfour and staff because the benefits would not out weigh the cost. Commissioners Abshire and Murakami stated their concurrence with the comments expressed by staff and their fellow Commissioners. Planner Walgren noted that pages 58 and 59 contained a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Stark which show their preference for moving the driveway up the hill. Staff was not able to contact the Starks or Pionteks by telephone, but that staff did send them an agenda with the memo on Friday and that staff has not heard from them since. Commissioner Caldwell stated that Blue Oak trees are rare. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMEN- DATION. COMMU\TICATIONS PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES i FEBRUARY 22, 1995 PAGE - 10 - Written Letter from Virginia Fanelli requesting Work Session re: LL-94-008, V-94-012 & DR-94-031 -Constantin; Kittridge Rd. Chairman Asfour stated that he was reluctant to have a study session with an applicant because it has back fired in the past. Recommendations are taken by the applicants as being preapprovals. He further stated that he did not want to design the project for the applicant during a study session and would want to review conceptual plans rather than a detailed plan. Commissioner Caldwell expressed concern that there seems to be legal issues associated with these applications at this time and that she did not feel that the Commission should entertain a study session when the legal issues have not been fully resolved. She recommended that the City Attorney be consulted regarding this issue as to the best way to proceed. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with Commissioner Caldwell and would not move to do anything with this project until the merger issue has been resolved. Commissioner Caldwell noted that in the past, study sessions were less helpful than more helpful because one persons perception of how a Planning Commissioner was looking at a project and was taken as an indication of support for the project at the study session. On the other hand, she felt that there have been some instances where the information has assisted the applicants. One thing that bothered her in the letter from Ms. Fanelli was that she indicates that City staff supported the original site when in fact, City staff did not support the site. The fact that there have been zoning and geotechnical clearances does not necessarily mean support, it means that the applicant has passed through the various stages that are necessary in order to get to the point of a public hearing. She indicated that she would not totally preclude a study session for this project because she felt that this was a very difficult one, but that she ~vould prefer having a discussion with the City Attorney prior to moving into a study session format. Ms. Fanelli informed the Commission that the reason for the request for a study session was because the applicants have paid application fees twice, once in 1990 and later in 1994 and to avoid legal issues. After the City indicated that the lot line adjustment was resolved, the issue then became the legality of the lot. The City Council was not willing to review new information and denied the applications without prejudice. The study session would indicate whether or not the Commission would consider a proposal. Commissioner Caldwell felt that Ms. Fanelli's letter misrepresented the comments of the technical experts and staff. Ms. Fanelli responded that in October 1994, staff recommended approval of this project in their staff report. Also, staff felt that approval was a way to resolve the lot line adjustment. She further stated that the City Council has given her their agreement that the applicant can return with a proposal. Commissioner Caldwell corrected Ms. Fanelli by stating that staff did not recommend approval but a different alternative courses of action. Chairman Asfour asked if Ms. Fanelli was prepared to bring some ideas for its consideration should the Commission agree to a study session. PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1995 PAGE - 11 - Ms. Fanelli responded she would agree to provide the Commission with more than a footprint on the site and if the Commission wants to see a house cemented that she would be more than happy to do so. She stated that she understood that the Commission would not be giving an approval at the study session. Should the Commission indicate that it does not agree with the proposal, she would move onto the next step. Chairman Asfour stated that he was not prepared to go into a work session until the legal issues were resolved and that certain layouts were provided and that he would not want to have the Commission design the project. He requested that Ms. Fanelli temporarily withdraw her request until such time that the merger issue is resolved. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she did not want to make a decision regarding the request to the affirmative tonight without consulting with the City Attorney about the appropriateness of the study session. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with Commissioner Caldwell. She felt that if anything was going to happen, that it would happen after the merger issue was resolved. Commissioners Murakami and Abshire stated that they would not object to a study session following resolution of the merger. Ms. Fanelli withdrew her request for a study session at this time. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the letters addressed in item 2 about the merger were addressed to someone that she could not find listed in the City roster of employees. She further stated that she did not believe that the individuals understood the nature of what the merger was all about. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the letters were addressed to the ex-Planning Director. 2. City Council Minutes - 2/1/95 3. Notices for the 3/8/95 Planning Commission Chairman Asfour informed the Commission that he would be out of the country on March 7 and 8 and that he would not be in attendance of the next study session nor the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she wanted to make the record clear when statements are made that are not accurate because when people look at that the statements are correct. She commented that it would be helpful if staff could be clear whether it supported a proposal when such characterizations are made. She recalled that the staff was giving the Commission choices. Planner Walgren felt that Ms. Fanelli was referring to an earlier report of the chronological breakdown that refers to private discussions with Community Development Director Emslie. Commissioner Caldwell stated that the Commission was not a party to those discussion and that it troubled her that you have a series of letters that are never refuted. PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES , FEBRUARY 22, 1995 PAGE - 12 - Oral Citv Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, March 7, 1995, Senior Day Care Center, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED, IRMA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK it`:.PC022295.SAR