Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-28-2002 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Planner Christy Oosterhous and Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of July 24, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the regular Planning Commission minutes of July 24, 2002, were approved with corrections to pages 7 and 17. AYES: Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Garakani and Zutshi REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 23, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #02-175, APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE WALL WITHIN 10 FEET OF AN OAK TREE AT 14480 OAK PLACE (397-22-051) – APPELLANT, WILLIAM F. BRECK, 20375 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD: The appeal is to have the Planning Commission revise an Administrative Decision to conditionally allow the construction of a concrete wall within 10 feet of an oak tree pursuant to Municipal Code section 15-50.110. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Read a portion of the letter of appeal from Mr. William Breck. • Explained that Mr. Breck is appealing per Code Section 15-50.110 for setback of new construction from existing trees. • Added that Code prevents construction of paving or a structure within 10 feet of an oak and 8 feet of other protected trees, unless otherwise permitted by the approving authority. • Said that the Commission would need to make a decision whether the concrete wall is pavement or a structure. Pavement is not defined in the City Code • Said that fences and walls are not considered structures under the Zoning Ordinance if under six feet in height. • Stated that the Commission would have to consider and make a determination as to whether the horizontal footings adjacent to the concrete wall constitute pavement. • Informed that there is an unwritten Building Department interpretation of the Uniform Building Code to require permits for concrete walls when they are over four feet tall. • Advised that the Notice of Appeal was filed in a timely fashion. • Stated that the construction originally proposed by Mr. Cutler was a wood fence along this 300-foot section. After pouring concrete footings for the wood fence, Mr. Cutler changed his mind and commenced construction of a concrete wall. The Building Department then informed Mr. Cutler that he was required to obtain a Building Permit for the concrete wall. Mr. Cutler then obtained a permit from the City. Mr. Breck appealed the Administrative Decision regarding tree protection necessary for this Building Permit. • Said that new footings for the concrete wall have been put in place, including pier construction. • Advised that a Stop Work Order was issued for a section of the concrete wall, which had not been poured. However, Mr. Cutler allowed that section of the wall to be poured. This work has resulted in a Code Enforcement Action that will be treated separately. • Said that the Commission must make its determination on the definitions and may become the approving authority, one that can grant exceptions, or can deny the appeal. If the Commission does not find the concrete footings to be paving, there would be no grounds for an appeal. • Stated his availability for questions. Commissioner Hunter asked for the dimensions of the wall. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 3 Director Tom Sullivan: • Replied that the wall is six feet high or less by the tree. The property owner had a survey performed to determine the accuracy of the top of the forms and the City accepts that professional verification. The wall will have to be surveyed again once the concrete is poured and prior to final sign off by the City. • Added that the structural design of the wall was reviewed by the Building Appeals Board and found to be structurally sound. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the drawings show a cross section of the platforms and piers, which is signed by a registered engineer. Commissioner Hunter inquired whether other trees are within the purview of the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Staff Report mentions all the Ordinance-protected trees that are closer than ten feet. Mr. Breck’s appeal seemed to read as addressing a singular tree. He informed the Commission that if it wants to address other protected trees and some mitigation for those it has the authority to do so Commissioner Kurasch asked what the Code provides for when there is damage inflicted on a neighboring property’s trees. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Tree Ordinance states that one cannot kill or destroy a tree without a tree removal permit, but the Ordinance doesn’t address whether it is your tree or another’s tree. If this becomes an issue, it would become a Code Enforcement action. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the City’s policies are enforceable. Director Tom Sullivan replied that they are enforced as far as requiring permits to and inspections. He added that per his interpretation of the Code, this wall does not constitute a structure under the zoning ordinance definition. Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Sullivan why he approved the wall. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the footings were in place for a six-foot high wood fence. These footings had done as much damage as was going to be done. He added that he is not certain that the proposed wall is pavement Commissioner Zutshi asked if the construction of the wall up to the tree area is was permitted. Director Tom Sullivan replied that work on that portion of the wall was performed after issuance of a Stop Work order. Commissioner Barry asked if this has become a Code Enforcement issue that will be pursued. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 4 Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the five-foot wide concrete paved area is located above the original footings. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the footings are four-feet wide, but above the original footings. Commissioner Barry mentioned having asked Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Cutler during the site visit about the depth of the original footings and was informed that it was about one to two feet in depth. Director Tom Sullivan agreed with that information. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:29 p.m. Mr. William Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commissioners who visited the site. • Stated he wanted to provide some clarifications. • Said that his appeal is in regard to damage to all trees along the entire periphery of the wall. • Said that the Commission has seen but one Arborist Report although two were prepared. • Added that there has been a lot more damage to trees subsequent to the Arborist reports. • Advised that his neighbors have reported problems to the City rather than the City discovering the problems. • Introduced his wife and asked that she be allowed to speak in order to return home with their two young children. Ms. Eileen Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Said that the character of Saratoga has not been preserved and trees have been killed one after another and that she is hoping to leave this meeting with a changed impression. • Said that Mr. Cutler should work with existing trees to create a more beautiful neighborhood for everyone. • Advised that friends have expressed shock and surprise at the damage they have seen. • Implored the Commission to reinforce Saratoga’s character. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Breck what she would like to see happen and/or change. What would be a satisfactory resolution since the wall is already installed and not coming down. Ms. Eileen Breck said that she wants the tree to be preserved. She added that a satisfactory resolution would be some plan to let people live together peacefully. Stated that it would be sad to see this tree die within a few years. Mr. William Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Pointed out that 11 neighbors surround this property and presented a diagram with dots to show trees damaged as a result of construction on Mr. Cutler’s property. • Said that three trees were previously cut down without permits and that he wears black tonight to mourn the loss of those trees. • Said that this is a whole mess and it is time to clean it up. • Distributed a copy of the opening statement from the Tree Ordinance. • Stated that trees are a reason for buying in Saratoga. • Asked the Commission to consider this situation from a high level perspective. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 5 • Advised that most of his neighbors are present this evening. • Pointed out that he has a previous letter from Mr. Sullivan in which it is stated this is pavement Asked for protection for remaining trees, passed out proposed resolution having four sections. • Declared that there have been threats made by Mr. Cutler and attempted to play a tape recording of a recent threat, and stated he would send a transcript. Mr. Mitch Cutler vehemently objected to the playing of this recording, which he says was made without his permission. Declared the use of this tape to be illegal and asked for the City’s attorney to make a determination of that fact. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Cutler to be seated and for Mr. Breck to turn off the tape player. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Breck what he is proposing be done. Mr. William Breck: • Stated that his neighbors will also testify and report any threats they have received. • Added that it is time to put teeth into the City’s control of this project. • Requested stop work on all work when there is a violation. Commissioner Barry pointed out Mr. Breck’s recommendation to remove the existing footings under the City Arborist’s supervision and asked if he believes it is possible to remove these footings without doing further damage. Mr. William Breck replied that it is worth looking at Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Breck what he would like to see happen. Mr. William Breck replied that they need relief and said that he had asked the City to issue injunctions to prevent tree trimming. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the wall is built and the limbs have been removed. Mr. William Breck replied that if the wall is removed there will be room to allow more trees to be planted. Commissioner Jackman asked if he is proposing no wall between neighbors. Mr. William Breck said that this is not a problem. He added that the wall was built before tree protection was put in place. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out Code Section 16-5.030 that states the Building Official can refuse to issue permits for a project when there are violations. Director Tom Sullivan advised that that Section says the Building Official can issue permits if a date for correction is established and that with respect to the remodel permit the City Manager, Building Official and Mr. Cutler have reached an agreement on a time frame for when the necessary corrections are to be completed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 6 Ms. Anita Schiller, 14470 Oak Place, Saratoga: • Read a brief letter that detailed the concerns of Alan and Carolyn King over the potential for 150- 200 year old trees that could die as a result of this construction. • Said that now she speaks on her own behalf and for her husband, Jim Abrams. • Explained that she moved into the area due to oak trees and the quaint and quiet atmosphere. • Said that while her property does not touch the Cutler property she has a view from her rear yard that is now a concrete wall. • Added that she has had no direct interaction with the Cutlers. • Said that she takes exception to the comments of Commissioner Kurasch about the wall not coming down. • Questioned why bother having a Building Code if it is not going to be enforced. • Cautioned that allowing them to continue in this manner will set a precedent. Ms. Holly Davies, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga: • Said that she speaks with some trepidation as she received a threat at 3:21 p.m. this afternoon from Mr. Cutler that he will tear down a fence along the alley that she needs. • Added that this fence is entirely on her property. • Said that she has a civic right to address the Commission tonight. • Stated that she is upset and frustrated. • Advised that since January 2002 she began going to the Planning Department to express concerns. • Informed that 13 oak trees have been damaged and many will not live through the experience. • Added that Mr. Cutler has cut the canopy of her trees out of pure maliciousness. Bores were augured into her oak tree roots and these trees cannot take that abuse. • Asked the Commission to try hard to get control of this project as right now it is completely out of control. Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Davies what the appropriate resolution is given this situation. Ms. Holly Davies replied restitution for assessed value to damaged trees and to enforce the Tree Ordinance by not allowing this seven to eight-foot wall so near oak trees. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that a licensed survey has verified the height of the wall to be six feet. Ms. Holly Davies replied that from her property, the walls are from seven to eight feet high. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the initial part of the wall was not given final approval. Commissioner Kurasch reminded Ms. Holly Davies that there are civil remedies available. Ms. Holly Davies said that she is aware that some of these issues are actionable. Ms. Beverly Goldman, 20360 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Identified her property as sharing a portion of property line with the Cutler property. • Stated that a threat was made by Mr. Cutler, of which she distributed a copy to the Commission, that says he will do as he wishes since he has had no response from her to his request. • Said that concrete was poured at the base of oak tree #1. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 7 • Stated three things she would like to see happen. One, she would like to see the harassment by Mr. Cutler stopped. Two, she wants a stop to the killing of yet one more oak tree. Three, she wants no further installation of the concrete wall. • Pointed out that on one occasion, Mr. Cutler cut branches from a tree and dropped the debris onto the Davies property, leaving it for them to clean up. Mr. Fred Shumaker, 14561 Westcott Drive, Saratoga: • Said his property is to the east and backs up to the Cutler property. • Said that the oak tree in question is on the property line. • Added that he came home several months ago to find that a huge limb had been removed from the Oak tree, reducing the tree by one third, and found a concrete wall with large footings in place. • Stated that it is a shame that this was not prevented as Mr. Cutler has a history of cutting back tree limbs. • Said that he would like to see everything possible done to preserve what is remaining of the Oak tree. • Added that the footings should be removed and have an Arborist determine what can be done to keep the tree alive. If not, the tree will be dead in five years. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Shumaker what tree he speaks of and if it is the tree mentioned in the appeal. Mr. Fred Shumaker replied that he believes so. Commissioner Hunter said that the wall is already around it. Commissioner Barry asked if Mr. Shumaker would like to see the wall and footings removed. Mr. Fred Shumaker replied that he would like to see the wall and footings removed if the City Arborist thinks that is what should be done. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Shumaker what should occur if the Arborist says removing the wall and footing would be worse than leaving it. What would he like to see happen in that event. Mr. Fred Shumaker said that he must defer to the experts. Mr. Mitch Cutler, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga: • Stated that the first part of the wall was passed with permits and finaled with approval by Zoning and Building and that he is giving the documents showing this to the Commission. • Said that there are lots of unhappy neighbors but when Mr. Sullivan sent them a letter for a Mediation, he was the only one who agreed to mediation. • Stated that he has a letter from Holly Davies in which she gave written approval of the wall. • Said that he has a permit that is signed, approved and finalized by the City. • Pointed out that every single neighbor has a walls over six feet in height except for him. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Cutler if he believes he has made a good will effort to deal with his neighbors given that his letters are threatening. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 8 Mr. Mitch Cutler said no and that they are being looked at out of context. Mr. Frank Mattis, 20385 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Asked who at the City has the authority to permit a wall being constructed on an easement. • Stated that he had a survey, which shows the wall has been constructed on his easement. Director Tom Sullivan replied that no one gave permission for construction in the easement. He added that the application was for the placement of the wall on the property line as depicted on the plans. Commissioner Roupe suggested that it is possible there is an error on the plans. Director Tom Sullivan said that the easement is a turnaround area on property that is owned by Mr. Cutler. Two other property owners have access rights. Mr. Frank Mattis stated that the concrete wall is located two feet onto his easement and suggested that the wall be knocked down. Ms. Delores Smith, 14560 Westcott Drive, Saratoga: • Identified herself as someone who once lived on the subject property when she was a girl. • Said that she recently discovered that her fence just disappeared. • Advised that Mr. Cutler has been gracious to her about the noise from construction on his site. • Expressed dismay at the acrimonious atmosphere that has developed in their neighborhood. • Said that she has to work to keep calm. • Said that all the neighbors are impacted, even Mr. Cutler, and the situation has escalated. • Stated her concern for the tree mentioned by Mr. Shumaker. • Said that she has total admiration for past efforts to preserve trees and support for continued preservation of trees. • Stated that neighbors have expressed fear of retaliation and that she hopes it does not come to that. • Asked the City to reexamine its codes so this sort of situation does not happen again. • Said that once its roots are cut, a tree dies in about five years. Chair Jackman thanked Ms. Smith for her calming comments and expressed her personal support for existing trees and for the planting of new trees for the future. Commissioner Hunter advised that a Tree Committee is under way. Ms. Delores Smith said she is delighted to hear that fact. Ms. Anita Schiller, 14470 Oak Place, Saratoga: • Stated that she has a six-foot fence with one-foot lattice. • Added that she is willing to remove the lattice, if necessary, to reach equal enforcement. Commissioner Barry asked if there are any piers within 10 feet of an existing large tree as part of her fence. Ms. Anita Schiller said that there is an oak tree in the middle of her fence but that the fence was already in place when she purchased her home. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 9 William Breck: • Stated that he has addressed Council on four occasions. • Pointed out that the five-foot wide concrete footings constitute pavement. • Said that while they had considered Mediation, the earliest available opportunity was in early July, which they felt was too late. • Stressed the importance of the big picture and the importance of protecting trees. • Said that he wants to see penalties, protection and full design review. • Reported that Mr. Cutler demolished a barn and rebuilt it and that he believes the Cutler project is over on allowable square footage. • Added that the Cutler project needs tight control as there has been a lot of non-permitted work done. • Said that this has been an endless pattern that cannot continued. • Asked the City to take an aggressive stand as this situation has been going on for months and is out of control. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Breck if there was any satisfaction with Council actions. Mr. William Breck replied that they have been asking for construction tree protection fencing for months and months. Asked the Commission to step up to protect trees although there are lots of additional issues. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the Commission has a narrow focus that does not include the entirety of the wall around the Cutler property. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:39 p.m. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that there is a fairly narrow issue the Commission is asked to address. That is the one tree the Planning Commission looked at during their site visit. • Suggested that the Commission stay with a narrow focus. Commissioner Hunter asked if the Commission could levy fines. Director Tom Sullivan: • Replied that the Commission does not have fine levying authority. • Said if the Planning Commission finds it is pavement, the Planning Commission becomes Approving Authority. The Commission’s first function in this matter is to make a determination as to whether the concrete footings constitute pavement. If it is, the Planning Commission’s options, at the approving authority, include the authority to require the removal of construction within 10 feet of this oak tree. If not defined as pavement or structure, he explained that they should deny the Appeal since the Appeal is of an Administrative Decision regarding placement of pavement within 10 feet of an oak tree. Cautioned that the Commission does not have authority to take a more global act in this matter. Commissioner Roupe inquired about allegations made that the wall is over six feet tall. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 10 Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the first 190 feet of wall is still moving forward as a Code Enforcement violation. The action of tonight’s appeal pertains to portions of a second permitted wall section. Commissioner Barry asked if the Commission has the discretion to say no further work can occur until the Code Enforcement action is resolved and to say no further work can occur until there is a determination whether mitigation will be accomplished with all trees and make that a condition of moving forward with the project. Director Tom Sullivan said the Planning Commission does have authority to require mitigation prior to moving forward, but he does not believe the Commission has the power to rescind permits but that he would ask the City Attorney for an opinion. Chair Jackman reminded that the first question to answer is whether the Commission feels that the wall constitutes either pavement and/or a structure. Director Tom Sullivan read the definition of a structure from the Zoning Ordinance and advised that fences and/or walls less than six feet in height are exempt from the prohibition of structures within 10 feet of an Oak tree. He reiterated staff conclusion the wall is less than six feet per the surveyor. Commissioner Roupe said that the footing is apparently necessary to provide stability for this large wall. Chair Jackman pointed out that it is five feet wide, but it is a substantial wall if it not a structure. Commissioner Roupe said that per the drawing, it is four feet wide. Commissioner Hunter said that the applicant was allowed to remove three trees because of the footings for his wall and is now going beyond that. Commissioner Kurasch said that if this wall installation had been done correctly perhaps it could have been done without damage to surrounding trees. She would like to look at mitigation for all the trees. She stated that possibly in some situations a ten foot separation would not be necessary. Questioned how best to assess damage and said that she would like to see an updated Arborist report. Chair Jackman said that she would like report from Barrie Coate to see four to six new oak trees planted as well as an updated report by Barrie Coate. Commissioner Roupe: • Suggested assessment of value of tree and the requirement for a long-term bond to cover if it does not survive after five years. • Reminded that the issue before the Commission was limited. While the Ordinance needs to be looked at, that cannot be solved tonight. • Agreed with Director Sullivan’s assessment that this is a wall and could be found not to be a structure or pavement. • Suggested that the dirt currently piled around the tree be removed and that the required tree protection be put in place. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 11 Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the wall plans included engineered drawings. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that this situation goes to the intent of the Code. • Said that she cannot imagine it is necessary for this wall design to have such large footings. • Added that she feels it is a wall structure, such as a retaining wall or barrier, rather than simple a fence. Commissioner Barry stated that she feels it is pavement and that the significant amount of cement impedes the health of the trees. Said that this is way over and above what is considered either a wall or a fence. Even if we conclude this is pavement, there is still room for an exception. She wants Planning Commission to determine this is pavement. Commissioner Roupe disagreed, saying there is no intent for passage of people and the footings are part of the structure. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that there is need for a consensus on the pavement definition. Commissioner Roupe moved to accept the definition of “pavement” attached to the Staff Report by the Community Development Director and find that this is not a structure or pavement but part of the a wall and its construction. Commissioner Garakani said that if it is part of the wall, what is the height of the wall and does it include the depth of the footings. Commissioner Barry said that it would look like a massive structure. Commissioner Kurasch asked how far down are the footings and stated that the footing constitutes the bottom of the wall and the wall would exceed six feet in height. Commissioner Roupe disagreed, saying that it is the portion above grade. Director Tom Sullivan said that the height is measured from the top of the wall to the natural or finish cut grade. It disallows measuring to fill grade. Staff determined height excluding the fill dirt. Commissioner Barry stated she is ready to interpret the construction as pavement or structure or both. Commissioner Zutshi asked what if the dirt is removed and this becomes pavement, a walkway. Commissioner Roupe stated that removing the dirt would not make it pavement. Motion: Commissioner Roupe moved, seconded by Commissioner Barry, that the Planning Commission approve the definition that this wall is not pavement nor is it a structure as defined in the City Code and is therefore exempt. AYES: None NOES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Hunter ABSENT: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 12 ABSTAIN: None Motion failed. Commissioner Barry asked if the Commission wishes to exempt this wall as she is does not. Commissioner Roupe said that the question pertains only to the 10 feet to the left of the tree. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the Commission is dealing with the wall constructed under the second permit and that the Commission cannot address the 190-foot was and that there is no exemption from the 10-foot rule for that wall. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the scope of the appeal. Director Tom Sullivan stated that the Administrative Decision was with regard to the entire 300-foot section. Planning Commission can read the whole appeal letter and come to a conclusion as to what is the scope of the appeal. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that Mr. Breck’s letter of July 3, 2002, mentions the portion of the wall within 10 feet of one specific tree. Commissioner Jackman said it is important to know the intent of Mr. Breck versus his letter. Commissioner Garakani said the Commission should ask Mr. Breck his intent. Commissioner Zutshi said that Mr. Breck’s letter states his intent as being the whole wall. Commissioner Kurasch said it appears clear the appeal is over the footings within 10 feet of an oak tree. She sees this as regarding “trees” (plural). Commissioner Hunter said that the intent stated in the Appeal Letter is to consider all Oaks within 10 feet of footings. Commissioner Barry agreed that Mr. Breck is concerned over trees and footings (plural). Commissioner Roupe says that the scope is more narrow and that this item was only advertised as an appeal for one tree. Anything else is beyond the scope advertised for this Public Hearing. Chair Jackman said that she thinks the letter refers in the lower paragraph to several trees, not just one Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 9:15 p.m. for the limited purpose of inquiring of Mr. Breck the intent of his Appeal. Mr. William Breck: • Said that when he filed his appeal, a portion of the wall had not yet been poured. However, that portion was later poured despite the Stop Work order. He stated his intention was to address trees in area not poured at time he filed his appeal • Added that he does not understand why his appeal does not pertain to the 190 foot wall. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 13 Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 9:16 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the Planning Commission action can include protection as far as bonds, assessment of the trees and Arborist supervision and that the Stop Work order continue to be imposed on the section not yet completed until these things are done. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the Stop Work order was ignored. He suggested that one method of remediation would be the removal of the portion of work installed in spite of the Stop Work order being issued. However, it is important not to “throw the baby out with the bath water” and do more damage with this step. He proposes talking to Barrie Coate about this. Chair Jackman expressed support for a bond, an assessment by Barrie Coate (to leave or remove footings and wall) and then bringing this matter back to the Commission for further action. Commissioner Roupe: • Suggested that Barrie Coate assess all oak trees impacted and come up with mitigation. • Added that the assessment should include an assigned value for all trees for use in determining an amount for the long-term bond on the livelihood of those trees. Commissioner Hunter stressed the need for protective fencing. Commissioner Kurasch asked for a time limit in coordination with other remediations and suggested that remediation needs to be done prior to more work taking place on the wall. Commissioner Barry agreed that remediation and further work have to be linked, with remediation occurring first. Commissioner Zutshi questioned what guarantees the City will have since the rules have not been followed before. Director Tom Sullivan replied that staff cannot provide guarantees beyond the rules and regulations and staff’s best efforts to enforce them. Chair Jackman reminded that if removal causes more damage, it may be best to retain the wall. Commissioner Barry expressed interest in finding out if part of the wall should be removed. Commissioner Hunter said that this is an unfortunate precedent and has caused so much damage to so many trees. The result should not be simply a slap on the hand. This is setting it up for people to misbehave throughout the City. She said it is important to find out what would happen if this wall were to come out. Commissioner Kurasch agreed that it is unfortunate that this was done the way it was, but states that Mr. Cutler does have some permitted uses. It is just the way it was done and the damages. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 14 Commissioner Roupe suggested considering all oak trees have been impacted, what mitigation can be done, up to and including removal of some portion of the wall around those trees, and, then, given that the damages may have been done that values be determined and require long-term bonding. Chair Jackman said she wants to see trees planted in addition to long-term bond. Commissioner Garakani asked if trees are planted where portion of wall is removed, what about privacy concerns. Commissioner Roupe stated that there are ways to address privacy. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that remediation and further construction require Arborist supervision at applicant’s expense. Commissioner Barry said that the intent is to complete fencing and some sort of plan needs to be brought forward that is a mutually agreeable solution. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the neighbors that abut the Cutler property should be allowed to agree on the nature and height of the fence. Commissioner Kurasch said that she would like this matter to be brought back before the Commission with the updated Arborist report. Commissioner Garakani asked if neighbors are notified when a shared fence application is considered. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Code has no direction for notification of neighbors for installation of a fence (as opposed to a wall) if it is under six feet in height and on the applicant’s own property. It would involve only a ministerial building permit. Commissioner Garakani asked who determines the length of time for the bond. Director Tom Sullivan replied the City’s Arborist will recommend the term of the bond Commissioner Kurasch asked if the work will still be stopped until the Arborist’s assessment. Commissioner Roupe stated that not only is the work stopped, but he is concerned over the tree with a dirt pile beneath it. Commissioner Kurasch inquired as to a deadline to address the removal of fill dirt around that tree. Director Tom Sullivan recommended a deadline be established for completed Reports after consultation with the City Arborist. Commissioner Hunter requested all interested parties be given a copy of the City Arborist’s updated Reports. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that there is a 15-day appeal period. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 15 Motion: Commissioner Barry moved, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, that the Planning Commission: • Grant the Appeal; • Find that the footings constitute “pavement” and that the totality of the concrete wall constitutes a structure; • Find that the Appeal applies to all Ordinance-protected oak trees potentially damaged or impacted by the construction of the concrete wall pursuant to City Building Permit No. 02-00001510 and the footings located adjacent thereto; • Link future work authorization to prior resolution of the existing Code Enforcement issue; • Require an Assessment Report of the damage to and current health of all trees within ten feet of the footings and concrete wall to be prepared by the City’s Arborist and provided to the Planning Commission for its review and further action; • Require a Mitigation Plan containing remediation recommendations and bond values for all impacted trees, to be prepared by the City’s Arborist, and provided to the Planning Commission for its review and further action; • Require that any/all future construction on the wall will be performed under the supervision of an Arborist at the applicant’s expense to assure adherence to each condition imposed by the Planning Commission; • Require that all tree protective measures identified by the City Arborist in his April 22, 2002 Report (including removal of all fill dirt within three feet of Ordinance-protected trees) be completed immediately; • Require that the remaining walls, footings and/or fencing proposed between the Cutler property and the Breck property be brought back to the Planning Commission for determination of compliance with City Code Section 15-50.110; and • Require that the final decision as to the conditions to be imposed on the construction of the Cutler concrete wall and footings under the second Building Permit be brought back to be made by the Planning Commission. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion approved. Chair Jackman called for a break at 9:40 p.m. before going to the next Agenda Item. Chair Jackman reconvened the meeting at 9:48 p.m. *** Chair Jackman proposed consideration of Agenda Item 4 out of order as it is fairly routine and should not take long. She also asked the applicant for item No. 3 if he would accept a continuance for two weeks since Item No. 2 will be more complex and take a long time and therefore run the meeting quite late this evening. The applicant for Item No. 3 stated that he would be willing to return in two weeks. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 16 *** Chair Jackman recused herself for Item No. 4 since she resides within the notification area. She turned the gavel over to Commissioner Kurasch to serve as Chair during this item. PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION #UP-99-021 (51-10-015 & 009) – OUR LADY OF FATIMA ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road: Resolution UP-99-021 requires the applicant to return to the Planning Commission prior to issuance of grading and building permits in order to address: 1. Affordable living units and preference to Saratoga residents; 2. Sound levels at laundry facility; 3. Construction period traffic and parking; 4. Evening shift parking; and 5. Twenty-four hour contact for complaints. The public hearing is being scheduled to address these issues. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that on October 11, 2000, a Use Permit application (UP-99-021) was approved for an assisted living facility. There were five issues that were required to be returned to the Commission including below market rate units with first preference to Saratoga residents; mitigation for the sound of the laundry facility; construction traffic management and parking; evening shift parking and 24-hour availability. • Advised that the applicant has provided written response including the fact that 10 studio units are counted as low-income units and that a preference will be given to Saratoga residents for those units. Additionally, an acoustic consultant was retained to reduce noise impacts from the laundry facility and hours of operation for the laundry facility are effective immediately. The construction parking plan incorporates use of public transportation and off-site parking. Compliance with the parking plan will be reported every 60 days. Evening shift parking will include chaining off parking areas closest to adjacent residential properties. Staff met with adjacent property owners and reached consensus. • Recommended final approval of the Use Permit and issuance of building and grading permits. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:54 p.m. Mr. Andy Barker, Project Architect, made himself available for questions. Commissioner Barry asked about the plan to ferry workers to the job site. Mr. Andy Barker said that they have entered into an agreement with West Valley College for parking spaces when needed. Said that he did not actually believe off-site would be required but they have this formal arrangement with West Valley College for 10 spaces if they are needed. There are 20 on-site spaces available for workers and an additional 14 for employees. Commissioner Barry asked what hours the workers could park at West Valley College. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 17 Mr. Andy Barker replied within Ordinance allowable hours and reminded that classes begin as early as 7 a.m. Commissioner Barry said that the neighbors on Allendale need to be consulted and approve the proposed use of these parking spaces. Mr. Andy Barker said that he is willing to address the issue with neighbors. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that Mr. Barker provide City staff with the assigned parking spaces and staff can provide the addresses of neighbors within their proximity. Mr. Andy Barker said that he would do this within the week. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Barker if he understands the limitations on noise. Mr. Andy Barker assured that they plan to comply with all Ordinance requirements. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if this off-site parking would be used only during construction. Mr. Andy Barker replied yes, the parking would be available during peak construction periods. The agreement with West Valley is for a full year, which is more than adequate. Commissioner Barry pointed out the letter from Mr. Bob Dunnett regarding the good faith agreement to use the laundry facility within the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Planner Ann Welsh said that this language could be added to the agreement. Commissioner Roupe warned Mr. Barker that something must be done about the intercom system that was so offensive during the site visit. Mr. Preston, CEO for Our Lady of Fatima Assisted Living Facility, assured the Commission that this intercom system was fixed this morning. Commissioner Barry stated that the spirit reflected in this agreement is wonderful. Mr. Preston stated his appreciation for staff’s help, particularly Ann Welsh and Tom Sullivan. There was a lot of cooperation and a good job was done with the neighbors. Ms. Erna Jackman stated that this project will be a big asset to the community and that she is happy to see it go forward. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:06 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission approved the recommendations for the five outstanding issues for UP-99-021 with two added conditions that the West Valley College parking agreement be reviewed with the affected neighbors and that the good faith effort for the operations of the laundry facility be inserted into the Conditions for Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 18 the Our Lady of Fatima Assisted Living Facility located at 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Jackman *** Chair Jackman resumed the gavel at 10:08 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 DR-00-051 & BSA-00-003 (503-30-002) – WALKER, 13800 Pierce Road: Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct a two-story single-family residence on a 19,210 square foot vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 3,609 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential. (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for a Design Review and Building Site Approval to allow a two-story single-family residence on a vacant triangular lot. The proposed structure is 3,324 square feet with a maximum height of 26 feet. The zoning is Hillside Residential. • Reminded that this proposal was before the Commission on July 10, 2002, and was continued to allow the applicant the time to install accurate story poles and to provide additional information on the site slope in the building area. • Pointed out that three letters have been submitted expressing concerns about the stability of Pike Road and the adequacy of off-street parking. • Stated that the proposal does not meet privacy findings. Staff is recommending that French doors be replaced with two by two windows at header height; that a proposed wraparound porch be eliminated; that fast growing landscaping be incorporated and that the dining room window be obscured. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff if they agree with the point made in the Rose letter regarding FAR. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the allowable FAR mentioned in the letter is based on gross while the Municipal Code requires that FAR be calculated based on net square footage. Commissioner Roupe clarified that the letter is in error. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the average slope. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the slope of the building site area is 30 percent and the average slope is 20 percent. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 19 Commissioner Zutshi mentioned the letter from Jean Lundeen, which states that the building pad must be moved 50 feet rather than 20 feet due to liquefaction. Asked if this is true. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that she would have to check the geotechnical report. Chair Jackman clarified for the audience that staff summarizes letters received after the packets are distributed. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that at the last meeting the Commission gave direction for changes. Asked why there are no proposed changes. Chair Jackman remembered a requirement for a 500 square foot reduction. Planner Christy Oosterhous reminded that staff’s recommendation had been for approval. Mr. Tom Walker, Applicant, 13800 Pierce Road, Saratoga, thanked staff and expressed appreciation for their recommendation of approval. Made himself available for questions. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Walker if his architect is present. Mr. Tom Walker replied that his architect is ill with the flu. Commissioner Barry: • Stated that his architect has done him a disservice with his letter in which he stated that since minimum Code requirements have been met the Commission should leave the project alone. • Clarified that the Municipal Code is a beginning. It’s what is expected to get through staff review and to the Commission for final consideration. • Pointed out that Section 15.45.455 codifies design review standards and that this is a legitimate review. • Declared that this architect does no favor with such a letter and it is good he is not here. • Acknowledged that she is aware that Mr. Walker himself did not write that letter. Mr. Tom Walker expressed regret that the Commission was offended. Chair Jackman replied that it is not a question of being offended but his architect was incorrect in his assumption. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the design is the same and that there are still letters of concern from his neighbors. Mr. Tom Walker: • Stated that he understood he was asked to consider a 500-foot reduction and he did so. However he felt the reduction would adversely impact his home. • Pointed out that most new homes are larger than he is proposing. Commissioner Kurasch clarified that they are not necessarily on a similar size lot. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 20 Mr. Tom Walker stated that the proposal is less than allowed and that his story poles demonstrate that the house will be set back in the area with trees. It fits in there and he hoped that fact would sway the concerns of the Commission. Commissioner Roupe asked about the stability and impact of construction on Pike Road, Asked Mr. Walker if he has looked at the geotechnical report. Mr. Tom Walker replied yes. He added that the geotechnical report was submitted and reviewed by the City and accepted. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 10:20 p.m. Mr. Tom Copenhagen, 14430 Pike Road, Saratoga: • Said his interest is in the stability of Pike Road, which serves 35 houses and is a privately owned and maintained street rather than a public City street. • Stated that what is on paper versus what is actually constructed in the field does not always coincide. • Asked for guarantees on protection for Pike Road to ensure that it won’t crack and crumble. • Questioned how the protections called for in the geotechnical report will be enforced. Are they recommendations or are there teeth in these recommendations. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Planning Commission’s action would change them from recommendations into requirements. Added that these recommendations also get peer reviewed by the City. Mr. Tom Copenhagen asked that their interests be assured. Asked about a hold harmless for the residents on Pike Road such as are included within Condition 18 to hold the City harmless. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the hold harmless simply means that the City is not a party to a suit if damage occurs. Added that a performance bond is a possible solution to concerns over the road. Commissioner Roupe reminded that the residents also have a right to civil action. Commissioner Barry asked if Mr. Copenhagen is recommending a construction supervisor. Commissioner Roupe asked if the City Engineer serves in that capacity. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the project engineer supervises the work on site. Mr. Tom Copenhagen said that his concern is for the cut for the house and the potential impact on Pike Road. Said that he seeks protection of their access road. Commissioner Roupe said that a bond could be imposed during construction but there is a finite time duration for said bond. Said that he believes the hillside will actually be more stable after the basement is constructed than it is now. Mr. Tom Copenhagen replied that this sounds reasonable. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 21 Chair Jackman suggested that this be worked out with Mr. Walker. Commissioner Roupe reiterated that a reasonable bond should be put up during the construction period. Mr. Tom Copenhagen said he is willing to work this out with Mr. Walker. He said that he has no problem with engineers and plans but rather with the actual adherence to those plans during construction. Ms. Dorothy Miller, 14440 Pike Road, Saratoga: • Identified herself as a 45 year resident. • Expressed concern over rain and the fact that they have experienced five dry years. • Added that she has seen damage occur after a first rain following a dry period and that when the rain comes, the dirt slides. Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Miller whether she would find this project acceptable as long as drainage is properly addressed. Ms. Dorothy Miller replied that she is fine as long as she does not slide down the road. Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Miller when the last slide occurred. Ms. Dorothy Miller replied four years ago when 14,000 cubic yards of dirt had to be removed from her property. Commissioner Zutshi said that it is in the Walkers’ interest to make sure a slide does not occur. Ms. Jean Lundeen, 13810 Pike Road, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for its time. • Said that the home appears bulky and large for the property. • Said that she will see a massive wall from her property. • Identified herself as an engineer and said it is worthwhile to get a second opinion from another engineer. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there has already been a second engineer’s opinion of the plans. Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Lundeen if she has looked at the landscaping plan and whether additional trees would make her happier. Asked for her suggestions for a solution to her concerns. Ms. Jean Lundeen said that she would like to see trees. She added that she also would like to see a house set back and of a size more compatible with a Hillside lot. Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Lundeen about her letter stating the fact that the house must be moved further back because of liquefaction. Ms. Jean Lundeen said that she has no confirmation of that fact but had heard of it. Mr. Lars Borg, 13845 Pike Road, Saratoga: • Expressed concerns about Pike Road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 22 • Said he bought his home in 1994 and has drainage problems on his own property. In 1995, a tree fell down. In 1997, water drainage from a neighboring property was a problem. His driveway has settled by one foot. • Sought assurances that they won’t have to pay for another landslide. • Reminded that Pike Road is their only access. • Pointed out setback requirements and said that the road easement is six feet wider than the actual road, which may impact the placement of the home to meet required setbacks. Planner Christy Oosterhous clarified that Pike Road is 60 feet and per the record of survey the property line is 30 feet from centerline. Mr. Lars Borg expressed doubt about the 30 percent slope. Ms. Julie Wise, Perralta Court, Saratoga: • Suggested that the bond be issued for more than the construction phase. • Pointed out that Pike Road consists of 50,000 square feet of roadway. If it slumps, it will affect them. • Advised that a previous four foot cut in the early 1980’s was enough to result in a major landslide in 1983. • Added that she does not want to have to sue as the process is time consuming. • Stressed the importance to have protection in place for people living on Pike Road. Commissioner Barry asked if water comes from some of the neighboring properties. Ms. Julie Wise said that the water came from one property, across the road and onward. Commissioner Barry again asked if water is from the Pike Road homes. Mr. Tom Copenhagen said that although Pike Road has a drainage culvert, the properties are still on the Hillside. Mr. Tom Walker said that he has owned this property since 1975 and has seen it through rain and floods and has experienced no adverse water on site. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 11:05 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that she wants to see the house off the slope as much as possible. • Stated that this is a smaller property than others. • Added that it is hard to visualize a house of this size on the property and that she would like to reduce the size and bulk of the house as it is too large. Commissioner Garakani: • Advised that he has no issue with the bulk and mass of this home as it is situated inside of the hill and some trees will cover its visibility from Pike Road. • Said that if landscaping is done correctly, this house matches the area and makes it better. • Stated that putting a house here will prevent landslides due to footings and the basement. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 23 • Assured that nice landscaping will resolve most issues. Commissioner Barry: • Expressed mixed feelings. • Said that she finds this to be a difficult lot and that she is concerned that this proposal is too much. • Said that the Commission cannot mandate drainage and that the neighbors must get together. • Mentioned the neighbors on Bohlman Road who have worked together to resolve water drainage issues. • Recommended that the Public Works Department review the safety and line of sight at the point of Pike and Pierce Roads and that any recommendations made be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. • Said that she has not yet made up her mind about the size. Commissioner Roupe: • Stated that this project is appropriate with conditions. • Said that the findings made by staff for approval are appropriate regarding bulk and size. • Added that the project meets guidelines. • Said that landscaping will address view issues. • Offered that the house would look big from Pierce Road but from Pike Road it will be hard to see it from beneath the canopy of trees. • Said that he relies on experts regarding geotechnical and engineering considerations. • Expressed support for a bond during construction to protect Pike Road. Chair Jackman: • Said that this house is big for the site but that she will support it. • Added that she wants to see good sized trees in front of the house itself. • Supported the review by Public Works of the line of sight at Pierce and Pike Roads. • Said that it appears there is a very good drainage plan although one cannot always predict and/or prevent things from happening. Commissioner Kurasch said that it is hard to see how a two-story home is compatible. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that houses in the area are quite subdued. Planner Christy Oosterhous pointed out that there is a two-story home on the other side of the Lundeen property. Commissioner Barry asked how far that house is set back. Planner Christy Oosterhous did not have the answer to that question. Commissioner Hunter stated that the bulk is too great, the slope too much and that, unless revisions are made, she will not support this proposal. Commissioner Zutshi said that she sees this house as really bulky for the area and especially from Pierce Road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 24 Commissioner Barry: • Agreed that the bulk would appear to be too great from Pierce Road. • Reminded that the Commission had asked for some reduction in size regarding the length of the second story so that it is less than the first story. • Said that she would support some reduction. • Proposed a Condition of Approval requiring some reduction of the second story. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this home has to be a two-story due to the slope but supported the proposal to pull in the second story. Commissioner Barry said that the Commission can’t design the home for them but had asked for a voluntary reduction. Restated her proposal to approve with a Condition to reduce the second story. Commissioner Roupe suggested the need for a measurable distance in reduction of the second story from both ends. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct a two-story single-family residence at 13800 Pierce Road with the following conditions: • That the second story of the house shall be reduced in length on both ends so that there is no immediate overhang to the lower floor and to equal at least 10 percent or 300 square feet; • That no windows directly overlook neighboring homes; • That fast-growing screening landscaping be installed with particular attention to the landscaping between the house and Pierce Road; • That a safety study on the driveway and the confluence of Pike and Pierce Roads be performed by the Public Works Department with any recommendations to become Conditions of Approval; and • That the issuance of a bond be required during construction to protect Pike Road; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: Hunter and Kurasch ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 3 – CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2002, DUE TO THE LATE HOUR APPLICATION #02-013 (503-69-002) – AMINI-MOAZENA, 13815 Pierce Road: Request for Design Review to demolish an existing single-story house and construct a new two-story house with 6,099 square feet on the main and upper levels and 2,569 square feet in the basement. The property is a 1.72-acre lot in the Hillside Residential District. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. (LIVINGSTONE) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2002 Page 25 *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Gateway Task Force Commissioner Roupe advised that he has attended two Gateway Task Force meetings and that the Commission would be well advised to have a Study Session prior to the item coming to Public Hearing before the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan suggested perhaps having the Study Session prior to the September 11th meeting and asked the Commission to advise of their availability. Commission Terms Chair Jackman advised that beginning in May 2003, the terms of the Planning Commissioners would be staggered. Tree Committee Commissioner Kurasch announced that the Tree Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 10, 2002, at 3:30 p.m. Timing of Site Visits Commissioner Garakani expressed continued concern about the timing of site visits. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 11:42 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, September 11, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk