Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-24-2000 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairman Page. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe, and Chairman Page Absent: None Staff Present: Director Walgren PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES - May 10, 2000 COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 10, 2000, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. PASSED 7-0. Page 5, paragraph 2: “Commissioner Patrick Barry said the commission needed to make what the….” Page 7, last paragraph: “Commissioner Barry was interested in a asked if imposing a condition on a lot split was appropriate and thought that a condition requiring that the second lot be a one-story house because of the views and maintenance of the neighborhood character would be worth discussing.” Page 12, insert a new paragraph after paragraph 5: “Commissioner Barry asked if a lesser fine could be imposed and if it was possible to impose and then waive a fine.” Page 10, last paragraph, sentence 3: “….square footage was cut back, and more natural elements….” A discussion ensued regarding page 12 of the minutes, the last item under Written Communications, (correspondence from Commissioner Barry regarding a project at 14471 Springer Avenue and precedence- setting), and whether the Minutes should reflect any comments made or not made regarding that issue. Consensus was to leave the Minutes as written and that the item could be addressed under Commission Items apart from approval of the minutes. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Annette Woolsey, 19952 Durham Court, Saratoga, addressed the Commission regarding the cleaning of a riparian easement along the creek bank near Douglas Lane and Saratoga Avenue. It was her understanding that the easement’s conditions included that no building be allowed and that undergrowth would be conserved and not removed. She said that the new owner had removed the undergrowth and continued to do so after being told by officials not to do so. She said she had spoken to the adjacent owner and learned he had been solicited to clear his area of the creek bank. She expressed concern that further development was going on and new owners needed to be educated about the restrictions on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 MAY 24, 2000 Responding to a question from Chairman Page, Director Walgren said that the City was notified when the work began within the riparian open space easement. He said the easement was recorded on this two-lot subdivision and seven-lot subdivision across the creek. He said that prior to the City adopting a creek and riparian area protection ordinance, the easement was dictated on a rear setback number which resulted in the easement going right up to the edge of the building. He noted that the easement is very specific that it does not allow tree or significant vegetation removal, structures cannot be built in the easement, and prohibits ornamental plantings. However, he stated the easement is not as specific on the issue of removing underbrush. He conveyed that the property owner was advised not to remove any vegetation and to work with the City and the Department of Fish & Game (DF&G) to develop parameters on what they should or should not do, but chose to go ahead and take out what they refer to as poison oak. The owner felt that the poison oak was coming up to the back of their home and in contact with their children. They are working under the oversight of the DF&G who is allowing certain underbrush to be removed which is not native underbrush. Explaining what has been done on other developments since the ordinance was adopted, Director Walgren stated that it appeared that the property owner was within his right to remove the vegetation under the oversight of the DF&G. A discussion ensued and Director Walgren responded to Commissioners’ questions. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Director Walgren said that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has jurisdiction over creeks that carry a certain volume of water, and that this was a tributary over which the Water District had no jurisdiction. Commissioner Jackman suggested a ruling to cite people regarding this issue. Commissioner Kurasch proposed a permit process. Director Walgren said that a permit process would not prohibit taking out poison oak from a creek bank, and that the City needs to rely on DF&G on issues of wildlife habitat; whereas the Water District looks at the engineering and erosion aspects of the creeks. Commissioner Barry thanked Ms. Woolsey for bringing this issue forth, and proposed that the City in concert with the DF&G send educational information to property owners located along the creek banks as a means of prevention. Director Walgren commented that the City is now sending out a newsletter twice a year and could include an article pertaining to this subject in the newsletter. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Walgren announced that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 19, 2000. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Director Walgren reported the following corrections: Agenda Item #2: Page 3, the setbacks table states the proposal maintains a 10 ft side yard setback and it actually maintains a 16 ft side yard setback. Additionally, the table does not indicate the allowable versus permitted floor areas. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 MAY 24, 2000 said the existing square footage with the detached garage is 3,551 square feet. The removal of the detached garage and construction of the pool cabana adds approximately 500 square feet for a total of 4,069 square feet. The maximum permitted for the property is 4,518 square feet. Agenda Item #3: Page 9, Condition #12 under Public Works should read, “A $500 deposit shall be submitted for technical review of the legal description in conjunction with condition #11. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD-99-003 & UP-00-001 (517-13-018, 517-13-019 & 517-12-001) – SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and the SARATOGA CEMETERY DISTRICT, 14800 Bohlman Road (site of the former Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur) and 14766 Oak Street (Madronia Cemetery); Request for Tentative Map approval for the subdivision of the 23.5 acre site into 11 lots ranging in size from 6.3 acres to 40,200 square feet. Minor road widening and the development of a sidewalk along Bohlman Road are proposed. Two acres (the 11th lot of the subdivision) will be transferred to the Saratoga Cemetery District for the expansion of the Madronia Cemetery. The site is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 6/28/00 TO BE RE-NOTICED) COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. UP-00-006 (366-22-002) – PUN, 20684 Ritanna Court; Request for Use Permit approval for the demolition of an existing 251 square foot garage and construction of a new 769 square foot pool house within the rear setback of the property. The 20,976 square foot site is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that this application would normally be reviewed administratively by City staff if it met all height, floor area allowable, lot coverage and building requirements. He said the structure meets all of those requirements but it is located within a rear yard setback. Certain accessory structures and uses such as a pool, pool cabana, detached garage, workshop, etc. are allowed within a rear yard setback but they are subject to the conditional use process to allow the City to notify the neighbors to express concerns about the project. He said the project was advertised to the neighbors within 500’ of the property, and reported that staff is recommending approval. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 8:05 p.m. Mark Taylor, PlanIt Right, 8725 La Honda Road, La Honda, appeared as the project architect and agent for the applicant. Commissioner Patrick noted that when the front gate is open there is no fencing surrounding the pool to protect people from falling into the pool. Mr. Taylor responded there was nothing in process to address the issue, but if the Commission so PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 MAY 24, 2000 conditioned, he would raise the issue with the applicant. Commissioner Patrick stated that it appeared the Monterey Pine tree directly in front of the existing garage is leaning at a precarious angle, and asked if it would be removed. Mr. Taylor replied that there was no plan to remove any significant trees; however, it was his understanding an arborist was going back to the site and recommendations from an arborist would be accepted. Commissioner Jackman referred to three pine trees of which one was leaning quite badly and looked unstable. She proposed that the trees be reviewed by an arborist. Commissioner Barry commented that a discussion had been held with Mr. Pun about the fence to enclose the pool, and hopefully it would become a condition of approval. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:10 P.M.) PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Kurasch stated she had no objection to the proposal. Commissioner Jackman commented that there should be a fence around the pool. Commissioner Patrick concurred and would approve the proposal with the condition that an arborist review the tree situation and recommend trees be removed as appropriate, and that the fencing be rectified so it is appropriate to code to protect the neighbors and applicants. Commissioner Barry had no comment. Commissioner Bernald stated she could support the motion. Commissioner Roupe concurred with Commissioner Patrick. Chairman Page concurred with other Commissioners. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/BARRY MOVED TO APPROVE UP-00-006 WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT ALL THE MONTEREY PINE TREES BE REVIEWED BY AN ARBORIST AND THAT A PLAN FOR BETTER PROTECTION OF THE POOL BE INCLUDED. PASSED 7-0. 3. DR-99-058 (397-02-110 & -111) – BELLICITTI, 18500 Marshall Lane; Request for Design Review approval for the demolition of a residence listed on the City’s Heritage Resource Inventory, known as the Bellicitti Ranch, and the placement of a new 2,595 square foot pre- manufactured home. The 9.4-acre site is located within an Agricultural zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the application is to demolish an existing structure located on a 9.4 acre parcel on the corner of Quito and Sobey Roads. He said its current use is agriculture. The family has owned the property since the 1940’s, and the original building on the property was built in 1870. The property is currently within a California Land Conservation Act (or Williamson Act) contract that allows for a tax consideration as long as the property is kept in agricultural use. He said the property and existing building on the site are listed in the City’s Heritage Resource inventory PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 MAY 24, 2000 (historic buildings, sites, and lanes that are eligible to become designated or landmark properties), and the next step to become a landmark property is voluntary. Director Walgren reported that the property owners submitted an application early this year or late last year to renovate the existing farmhouse. However, as a result of the bid estimates they obtained and the amount of work it would take to renovate the house; and the fact that the house would be reduced to bare framing to renovate, the applicants’ preference was to purchase a prefabricated house, which they could bring on the property at a substantial lesser cost. He explained that this was not something that staff encouraged or felt would be necessarily easy to get through the design review process but worked with the applicants, understanding their constraints, and submitted that plan to the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). The HPC reviewed the project, and HPC Commissioner Peepari is in the audience this evening to comment if the Commission has any specific questions regarding their review. Director Walgren referred to the HPC minutes, noting that the conclusion was that though it was unfortunate to lose the original farmhouse, it had been modified significantly over the years, and it was the continued use of the Bellicittis’ agricultural use of the property that was more relevant to the property’s historical listing than the building itself. Furthermore, the HPC felt that removing the building and putting in a prefabricated building on the site would allow the property to remain as agricultural use, which was the HPC’s ultimate goal. Director Walgren explained that this would have been an administrative application but given the nature of the property, its age, and the issues involved, staff required that it come through tonight’s public hearing process. He said the project was advertised to the neighbors within 500’ and published in the Saratoga News. He noted that prefabricated homes are not common, and this is the first one that he can recollect seeing being proposed in Saratoga. He described it as a low structure with assimilated wood siding, fairly well articulated, would seem to meet the City’s design review findings test to be supported, and noted that staff is recommending approval of the project with the conditions attached to the resolution. Director Walgren conveyed that at the site visit yesterday, a discussion was held about requiring a pathway along the frontage of the property. Following the site visit, he spoke with the City’s Public Works staff, and they have required as a result of Conditions #11 and #12, a right of way for the path to be dedicated and a future pathway to be installed by the City as a capital improvement project. He explained that if this were a subdivision project or a significant net increase in building area, the City could ask for those types of improvements. He said in this case the Public Works staff felt that this was an appropriate way to handle the issue of connecting a path for the Marshall Lane Elementary School children to Quito Road. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding the foundation, Director Walgren said that it was standard parameter foundation. Commissioner Bernald asked if the City Attorney had been consulted regarding the Williamson Act and the possibility of the Mills Act assisting the applicant if they were to remodel. Director Walgren responded that a discussion was held and he posed the question to staff at the County Tax Assessor’s Office. The official said that they probably could be overlapped and he was going to pose the question to County Counsel; however, he did not have a response yet. Director Walgren said that the Williamson Act affects the valuation of land and the Mills Act would affect the valuation of the land and the building. Commissioner Bernald asked when the current Williamson Act ends. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 MAY 24, 2000 Director Walgren replied that Williamson Act projects automatically renew annually, and before automatic renewal, one has to petition for non-renewal. Once the City and County Tax Assessor are notified of the non-renewal, it takes ten years to withdraw from the program. Commissioner Bernald asked if it takes ten years to withdraw from the program and whether the taxes begin at that point, with nothing paid back for the time the property was in the Williamson Act. Director Walgren said he did not have an assured response. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 8:22 p.m. John Bellicitti, 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, stated that the project started out as a remodeling project; however, building costs swayed him to look at another alternative to reduce building costs. He said tax costs are not an issue. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Bellicitti why he chose a pre-manufactured home over a standard constructed on-site home if the materials were comparable. Mr. Bellicitti responded that the square footage costs for a prefab home is approximately $75 a square foot whereas the building costs for a house could range from $100-150 square foot. He said the original remodel was going to be 3,200 square feet. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Mr. Bellicitti described the materials to be used. Commissioner Bernald expressed that it was her understanding that if the applicant entered into a Mills Act agreement with the City, the City then agrees to forego collecting taxes on the house, not only on the property, and that money can go into refurbishing an old house to the standards that it was first built. She asked Mr. Bellicitti whether he had explored this possibility. Mr. Bellicitti responded he was not aware of this program. Director Walgren explained that currently the City does not have a program in place to provide for Mills Act participation. He was not certain that the City is required to have a local program; however, this is something that the HPC has had on their agenda for a long time and there is no definitive answer. He said the City might not necessarily be able to provide the program until it adopts implementing ordinances, and it would have to comply with State standards. He said the City’s percentage of the property tax it would be foregoing is approximately three percent of what is collected. Commissioner Bernald said it was her understanding that school property taxes could also be impacted. Commissioner Roupe commented that the applicant was looking at $100,000 difference in redoing the old and new homes, and there was no amount of tax upfront that would equate to $100,000 or more. Commissioner Bernald asked Mr. Bellicitti if he had explored whether the new home would be taxed at the current rate as the existing structure. Mr. Bellicitti responded that the tax on the house would be readjusted based on the additional square footage according to the Tax Assessor, and he would be credited the square footage of the existing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 MAY 24, 2000 building but there would be no lapse in tax assessment. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Bellicitti if he would want to explore the Mills Act or other resources if they were available to him. Mr. Bellicitti said he would not be interested. He said the property is deeded to five owners in his family and he is the only one living on the property. He said this was his own investment, noting that in the event the other family members decide to sell the property, he could relocate the house to another location and take his investment with him. Mr. Bellicitti commented that the arborist report covering the requested walkways or pathways around the trees to support high foot traffic. He said he did not believe they would have high foot traffic, and requested to be relieved of that requirement to allow him accessibility to bring the 69 ft. long unit in. Chairman Page suggested that the arborist re-do their recommendation related to Mr. Bellicitti’s concern. Robert Peepari, Historical Preservation Commissioner, stated that the HPC has reviewed the original application to remodel and the new application. The HPC considered the manufactured home and felt that the property - ten acres of open space vineyards – overrides demolishing the building. He said the HPC had some concerns about a manufactured home going in, and noted that those types of homes have changed considerably over the past five-ten years. He said the design of the house planned for the site is very good and compatible with any standard construction in the area. He said a manufactured home is very limited in making any changes, and it has to be purchased the way it is made and shown. He said another concern of the HPC was that being the first manufactured home would set a precedent and many others would come in later, but they felt that would not happen. For those reasons, the HPC approved the demolition and design. Responding to Commissioner Bernald’s question, Mr. Peepari said that the house has had quite a bit of remodeling since it was built in 1870. He said there was no record of what the house looked like originally, and the only photograph available is one taken in 1988, when the inventory was taken. Mr. Bellicitti stated that his grandparents purchased the home in the mid 1940’s and extensively remodeled in the 1950’s, removing the existing double-sash windows, hall doors, and high ceilings, placing ‘50’s vintage appliances, and wallcoverings. He said any of the original or vintage style construction is gone, and the only feature that looks old is the exterior. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:35 P.M.) PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Jackman commented that it made more sense to replace the house with a prebuilt home than trying to rehabilitate it, and what she sees in the photo is very attractive. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern with the proposed house. To her, the house does not blend in with the barn, the farmhouse, and with the 9.4 acres of farmland. She said it is basically a tract home which can be taken out. She understands this makes sense to the applicant financially and she can appreciate it, but it is not her issue as a Commissioner. She said she cannot approve this as the style is not suitable for the area and she will be voting against it. Commissioner Barry stated she appreciated Mr. Peepari’s comments and how the HPC evaluated the project. Comparing other extremely large, ornate projects which have come before the Commission, she PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 MAY 24, 2000 said this is a modest proposal which results in keeping the 10 acres in working production. She was concerned about this, and the applicants have assured her that this will remain. She asked the other Commissioners to consider landscaping screening as a condition. She expressed appreciation for Mr. Peepari raising the issue of a precedent, and commented this would not be setting a precedent. She said special conditions existed here, and she hoped the Commission would approve the project. Commissioner Kurasch conveyed that she saw two issues - the land and the house - noting that keeping this in one big chunk was the applicant’s wish and right, and it also seemed to be a community wish. She said if the applicant cannot proceed with the project and live the way he needs to, he may opt to sell the property or divide it or risk losing the property. She noted the farmhouse is prominent and is a historic landmark. She said she would agree with the HPC in their view. She saw this as a planning problem, and there are avenues that may not have been explored. She cited other sources, such as the Mills Act and the Peninsula Open Space Trust, which have bought development rights on open space or certain types of properties to allow people to continue their way of life if there is a financial incentive to take the money out of the land and not develop it. She said rather than voting tonight, she would like to explore if there is any interest in continuing this one meeting to consider other possibilities. Commissioner Roupe doubted that the Mills Act would provide significant financial undermining to look at the alternative. He said that further exploration of the Mills Act would probably not offer more information, and the Peninsula Open Space Trust is a long process. He stated that he did not find the house to be incompatible with typical ranch style housing in the neighborhoods, and would support the project. Commissioner Bernald conveyed that to make a decision tonight, as Commissioner Kurasch has said, may be premature without looking at all the options; no discussion has been held regarding what the Mills Act provides; and the applicants have not looked into it. She said that as Planning Commissioners, every time a project is considered, one has to think beyond just the current applicant and what this is going to mean to Saratoga and what precedents are being set. She said that Saratoga has enough interest in its past to set up a historical resource and a preservation commission, and while this farmhouse is modest, it is a prime and rare example of history of this part of Saratoga. She agreed with Commissioner Patrick who said that the prefab house did not fit in an agricultural site. She said it sets a dangerous standard for the City that it honor its past on this side of town. Approving this project would allow a mobile home and it destroys a part of Saratoga’s history. She said this location is a gateway to Saratoga from Campbell and Los Gatos. People driving in on Pollard Road see the home there and other individuals come many times during the year to paint that land. She read the notes from Willys Peck stating he didn’t feel that this house had any historical significance. She asked the Commissioners to consider what he wrote in 1967 or 1989 in Saratoga’s First Hundred Years by Florence Cunningham, and quoted: “In these times, when the population explosion and urbanization of our countryside impress us as the dominant characteristics of our society, the study and understanding of local history take on a new importance. “A community that mushrooms into a city without consciousness or regard for its historical antecedents too often is a community without character, a community which, to its thousands of new inhabitants, has nothing to distinguish it from others in which they have lived. It is, too often, just another city. “But when the life of a community can be seasoned with tradition and an awareness of the contributions of its past citizens, the benefits extend far beyond the momentary interest stirred by the revelation of some particular historical fact. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 MAY 24, 2000 “For then there is identity, a standard to maintain, a stimulus for further creative effort. Of such ingredients is that most desirable of municipal traits, civic pride. “Few California communities have more to offer in this regard than has Saratoga. In its beauty of setting, in the variety and color of its historical background, in the richness of its cultural heritage, Saratoga has been singularly fortunate.” Additionally, Commissioner Bernald said she heard that at any point the Bellicitti Family can ask for this property to withdraw from the Williamson Act. She also heard the applicant saying he would want the option of removing the mobile home if circumstances within the family change later. She said in allowing the destruction of the existing home, she saw the future possibility of the Bellicittis pulling out of the Williamson Act, and all the property that has been protected would be sold to a developer for brand new homes, and the history and character of Saratoga will be lost. She said she could not support the project. Chairman Page stated he, too, was torn. He said the owners of the property should be allowed to live they way they need to as long as it meets the requirements of the City code. Yet, he feels that if the house is approved to be demolished, there is no saying what can happen in the future. He said that tabling the issue or continuing it to another meeting would add anything. He noted it could take a long time to go through the Peninsula Open Space Trust process. Commissioner Jackman expressed that the existing house was not particularly an attractive home. She acknowledged that the house was on the historical register and she valued history; however in this case she felt the people who want to live there are being penalized. She did not find the house objectionable. She referred to the HPC notes, and expressed that the Commission was trying to preserve something that would be nice to preserve but not all that important to Saratoga’s past. Commissioner Patrick said she did not see a real value in continuing this item. She said she did not like the style of the proposed house. She did not feel any open space was being preserved by agreeing to something that otherwise might not be agreed to, because the applicants are not agreeing to keep this in open space in perpetuity. The applicants want to build a house and keep it for as long as they and their co-owners decide to do it, which apparently is ten years maximum. She said this was a poorly designed house that is not a farmhouse. Commissioner Barry stated that even though she did not agree with the issues raised, she felt the applicants were hearing resistance to the proposal, and suggested a return visit would be beneficial for all. COMMISSIONER BARRY MADE A MOTION THAT THE ITEM BE CONTINUED. THERE WAS NO SECOND, AND A DISCUSSION ENSUED. Commissioner Kurasch commented that she had to consider the historical value of the land. She proposed rather than denying the application, that a continuance would allow for looking at other possibilities. Director Walgren stated a continuance would not be very productive. The applicants have indicated they are not interested in participating in a Mills Act type program, which is a voluntary program. He said the item has been on the HPC’s agenda for a year already and there are no definitive answers on what it would take for the City to participate in that program, which could result in a very indefinite extended continuance. He noted there was clearly no room to modify these plans, which is what the Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 10 MAY 24, 2000 could commonly focus on. This is a pre-manufactured home, and if the Commissioners were to vote on this plan and find that retention of the farmhouse outweighed their desires and the building truly was incompatible with the neighborhood, then a fallback plan could be to go back to the original plans to redevelop the original farmhouse. He said a vote is probably a better action this evening than postponement, which could become indefinite on the issue. Commissioner Kurasch stated she would want a continuance to get more resources or choices to assist in making the decision. Director Walgren responded that it is known that the Mills Act Program is available which would reduce property taxes over the long run. However, he said it is unknown how long it would take to get such a program implemented in Saratoga. Commissioner Bernald conveyed that the house has been on the property since the 1800’s and to act quickly on it would not show respect. She said the heritage home is on the register, and would be taken out for the mobile home, which even though it will have a base, can be moved in and moved out. She stated that when older homes have been remodeled, the Commission has ensured that they stay, and many times a better product results. She said this was not a grand estate, but representative of Saratoga’s beginnings. She understood that the details of the Mills Act process was unknown, but at least it should be given a try. She also stated that the HPC has grappled with this same issue for years. She reiterated that she felt that the home needed to be respected and that the Commission is doing the best thing for an area of town that is a gateway, encompasses 10 acres, and speaks to the local vision for Saratoga. A discussion ensued regarding the historical register. Director Walgren commented that the inventory list was created in the late 1980’s by the Heritage Preservation Commission and was done individually case by case. He explained how they are eligible to become landmark properties, which is voluntary. He said many of the properties are on the list because of the history of the property, some because of the architecture, but mostly the history of the site, who lived there, or use of the property. Commissioner Roupe remarked that he disagreed that this is a house with great historical significance. He said the only historical significance remaining is the siding, noting it has no great architectural feature. He said the applicants are being denied the right to use their property and have a reasonable place to live at a reasonable price. He did not view the proposed home as totally incompatible. He said it would be reasonable to let the applicants get on with their lives, and for the Commission to vote on the issue. Commissioner Bernald clarified that she was not saying the architecture of the house is historically significant; however, the site and the fact that the house has been there since 1870 is of great significance. COMMISSIONER BARRY REPEATED HER EARLIER MOTION TO CONTINUE THE ITEM. COMMISSIONER KURASCH SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Page requested that during discussion of the motion, that reasons for continuing the item be stated. Commissioner Barry stated that a reason to continue the item was that a strong case had been made to completely investigate the financial options that exist. Other reasons she cited were that the applicants PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 11 MAY 24, 2000 might find another pre-constructed home that looked more like a farmhouse, and that perhaps a landscaping plan that obscured the house would solve the problem. Commissioner Patrick commented that if the item were to be continued, a reason would have to be cited, and the applicant given an opportunity to respond. She reiterated that the financial options are not the Planning Commission’s issue. The Commission deals with design and construction. She said if the item is to be continued it should be for the applicants to redesign the existing structure, not to go out and buy a new set of plans. If the issue is a landscaping plan, it could be imposed as a condition. She suggested a vote be taken unless the applicants want to continue it. Commissioner Kurasch stated she would want to continue solely for the possibility of finding a solution that would be amenable. She said another reason for continuance would be for something that would help the applicants achieve what they really want and have community benefit. Commissioner Bernald augmented Commissioner Berry’s list by saying that continuing the item might give the Planning Commissioners an opportunity to meet with the Heritage Preservation Commission and exchange ideas. Chairman Page repeated that the motion and second was to continue the item with actions to investigate other options, the open space, look at another design that looks more like a farmhouse, add a condition regarding landscaping, and an opportunity for the Planning Commission to meet with the HPC. He asked the applicants if they were willing to agree to this, and the applicants responded that they were set and not willing to continue the item. Chairman Page indicated that the feelings of the applicant are known and that in all probability, the applicants would appeal the continuance. Responding to a question from Commissioner Bernald, Director Walgren said that if the applicants are opposed to continuance and if that were the Commission’s formal action, the action would be appealable. Director Walgren said it would be impossible to research and find a potential open space program within a short period of time. He suggested that another reason for continuance could be to investigate other versions of a pre-manufactured home. COMMISSIONERS BARRY/ROUPE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:20 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Chairman Page asked Mr. Bellicitti whether he was willing to investigate other designs. Mr. Bellicitti said he looked at quite a few of the designs available from different manufacturers, and they all follow the same style. The difference that he sees in the proposed house from the existing house is the roof line. He described the similarities in the present house and proposed house. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:22 P.M.) PASSED 7-0. A VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE ITEM. MOTION FAILED 2-5 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, PATRICK, JACKMAN, ROUPE, AND CHAIRMAN PAGE OPPOSED.) COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/BARRY MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-058 WITH THE CONDITION THAT A LANDSCAPE PLAN BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 12 MAY 24, 2000 PASSED 4-3 (COMMISSIONERS BERNALD, KURASCH, AND PATRICK OPPOSED.) Chairman Page declared a recess at 9:25 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:35 p.m., the same Commissioners and staff were present. 4. DR-99-016 & V-99-003 (503-72-033) – ASHER, 14754 Pierce Road; Application for Design Review approval to add 1,922 square feet to an existing 4,983 square foot residence. Variance approval is also necessary to allow the expansion of an existing non-conforming three-story element. Variance approval is also necessary to allow a portion of the addition to be 29 feet in height when 26 feet is the maximum. The structure is listed on the City’s Heritage Resource Inventory, and is known as the Paul Masson Mountain Lodge. The parcel is 3.12 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting the property is on the City’s Heritage Resource Inventory. He said the structure was built in 1936 as the mountain lodge to the original mountain winery property owned by Paul Masson. The property is currently maintained as a single-family residence, which is proposed to be preserved. The addition is compatible with the existing structure, site, and surrounding environment. He said staff is recommending approval of the design review and variance request. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 9:37 p.m. John Lien, 196 College Avenue, Los Gatos, addressed the Commission as architect for the applicant. He said he reviewed the arborist report of April 1999 and had no disagreement with it, except for condition #1 which recommended moving the garage. He contacted the arborist for alternatives to moving the garage and to mitigate concerns for the tree. They came to a verbal understanding of how the plants might be left intact; however, there was no correspondence or evidence of the alternative plan. He has since obtained written confirmation wherein the arborist has agreed that condition #1 can be removed, and distributed copies to the Commissioners. Director Walgren commented that the condition could be modified by stating that the garage shall be moved 15’ or other such means to ensure that the tree is preserved subject to the arborist report. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Mr. Lien said he would be able to carry out the other mitigation measures. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:42 P.M.) Commissioner Patrick stated she had no objections. Commissioner Jackman expressed that the plans looked good. Commissioner Kurasch said that matching the roof level and keeping the integrity would be the natural goal, and stated it was a good application. Commissioner Roupe conveyed that given the condition of an appropriate arborist review and mitigation, he had no other concerns. Commissioner Bernald concurred with other Commissioners and stated she was very pleased to see the building would be maintained. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 13 MAY 24, 2000 Commissioner Berry concurred with other Commissioners. Chairman Page agreed that findings could be made for the design review and variance. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/BARRY MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-016 WITH THE WORDING “…OR OTHER SUCH MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME END SUBJECT TO ARBORIST APPROVAL” BE ADDED TO CONDITION #1. PASSED 7-0. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE V-99-003. PASSED 7-0. 5. GPA-00-001 – CITY OF SARATOGA; Saratoga Community Development Department staff is updating the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City’s General Plan. The document will act as the City’s long-range traffic management plan. The update is intended to assess existing traffic conditions and to develop a goals and policies document to address changed conditions. The Planning Commission will hear the Element study objectives, findings and recommendations and solicit public input. A recommendation towards adopting the Element will then be forwarded to the City Council for final consideration. An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Director Walgren reported on the staff report, noting this is a City-initiated project, an update of the City’s General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highway Element. He said the update is intended to assess existing traffic conditions and to develop a document to address change conditions. He noted the document was last updated in 1983. The Circulation Element is one of seven required elements of the local jurisdiction’s General Plan. This particular element is a long-range traffic management and traffic infrastructure plan. He said that State law requires the plan be consistent with the other elements of the General Plan. The Circulation Element is a goals-and-policies, long-range planning tool – and not in itself an implementation measure. It results in goals and policies and suggested implementation measures. He said a discussion was held with the Planning Commission last week, and cited examples of implementation measures and long-range plans that could derive from the document. Director Walgren said the element is not required by State law to be updated at any certain time such as other elements, but State law does require that it be current and valid. He said with the change in conditions such as Highway 85 and growth in the valley, the element is no longer current and valid. Director Walgren reported that the City contracted with consultants Fehr and Peers Associates and its project manager and traffic manager, Sohrab Rashid. He stated that community outreach meetings were held last fall, and input was incorporated into an administrative draft report. He sated that the draft report was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineer, Public Works Director, Public Safety Commission, and himself. The process is to generate comments from the Public Safety Commission, Planning Commission, and the public to take to the City Council with a recommendation to adopt the document. Director Walgren described the noticing and community outreach which has been done to generate input from the community including publishing in newspapers, and mailings to organizations, regional agencies, local service provider agencies, and City and County planning agencies. Commissioner Barry asked Director Walgren to describe the substantive change to Pierce Road. She asked PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 14 MAY 24, 2000 if the change had to do with keeping Pierce Road as a collector rather than moving it to an arterial road. Director Walgren responded that the focus of the discussion was the table showing the capacity at which Pierce Road was operating and the number of vehicles that the roadway would contain within a 24-hour period. He said Mr. Rashid would address the issue later. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 9:55 p.m. Sohrab Rashid, Fehr & Peers Associates, conveyed that some changes to the document had been made, including modifying the truck route map to current truck route designations in the city. He said he would not call the Pierce Road issue a substantive change as much as a refocus or a new focus on Pierce Road, and the text will be modified to include safety issues on Pierce road and adjusting the daily roadway capacity. He has he had taken another capacity run earlier this evening, and he will be working with City staff to revisit the capacity. He explained that the issues affecting capacity are almost two separate issues and will be clarified based on comments received. Commissioner Roupe noted that the vast majority of traffic moving through Saratoga neither originates nor is destined to stay here, and is a transient traffic problem. Looking ahead to the year 2025, he asked whether that would continue to be the major exacerbating element of the traffic problems of Saratoga. Mr. Rashid responded that that was a correct assumption, stating he did not have a specific number of what the percentage might be city-wide. Commissioner Roupe conveyed that considering the City has a through traffic problem, which will probably get worse, he could not understand why the City would tend to accept a standard less than what is in the best interests of the citizens of Saratoga. He said it appeared that the plan drifted towards a “D” level standard, although a “C” level standard would be more in keeping with the City’s General Plan – a rural, residential, quiet, pleasant place to live. Mr. Rashid responded that given the type of city that Saratoga is, the Commission would probably want to go with the “C” level; however, he noted that although the General Plan is a vision document, it comes back to implementation measures in order to achieve that vision. He commented that because of issues related to where the city is located and the thoroughfares that run through the city, it would be difficult to divert that through traffic. He said the City could decide to go with level service “C” knowing that through traffic is coming, and the impacts would be that additional pavement and additional rights of way would be required, which goes against the City’s rural character. Additionally, he said that a precedent has been set in that the City has used a guideline for level service “D” in terms of the minimum acceptable standards for individual developments. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the consultant had explored deterring traffic through traffic damping, such as reducing speed limits to make it less attractive, photographic radar systems, tolls, etc. He commented that building more roads is never a solution to a local traffic problem Mr. Rashid responded that the speed limits are set on the flow of traffic, and would involve another whole set of legal ramifications. He said dampening traffic and making it a little more difficult on arterial streets increases the likelihood of increasing neighborhood traffic. He conveyed that the document includes policies on improving the flow on streets like Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga Avenue, and Prospect Road to facilitate that travel and to discourage people from traveling through the neighborhoods PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 15 MAY 24, 2000 Commissioner Jackman stated that most of the increase in future traffic will be through traffic not originating or ending in Saratoga and suggested coordinating the plan with the Cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, and Cupertino. Mr. Rashid responded that this was more of a regional problem. He said coordinating with other cities from a financial standpoint would be difficult, and is not typically done through the Circulation Element process. It would be done through the Valley Transportation Agency and regional planning agencies. Commissioner Barry commented that it is the Planning Commission’s province to decide on its policy of preference and the wording and concepts may be difficult, and there is a lot of work to be done. She said it is very clear that the City does not want to set itself up to improve the design characteristics of the road so that they can handle more traffic. She said the City wants the roads to handle less traffic because the goal is to keep the area rural, but at the same time the dilemma is if level service “D” is allowed, when a new project comes before the Commission, the new project only has to meet level service “D” standards. She would like to see the Commission craft a policy statement saying that the goal is level service “C” or above, where attainability is not possible because of limited funds. She noted the Commission needs to move forward from the technical report. Referring to page 118 of William Fulton’s Guide to California Planning, she said he talks about the importance of a technical report, and he makes a point that a technical report is only a starting point for most general plans. She said Mr. Rashid’s report is a starting point and the hard work of the policy decisions falls back on the Commission. Commissioner Patrick asked whether by policy Commissioner Barry meant implementation measures. Director Walgren clarified that the report focuses on the future and long-term projections based on growth in the valley. He said the document could and should accommodate both. The policy should clarify the level of service acceptance, such as a development application resulting in a level of service “C” could be reduced to a “D” and different thresholds for its acceptance would be crafted. Mr. Rashid indicated that other cities use that policy and it can be crafted as such. Director Walgren stated that development impacts would be separated from what is going to occur with regional growth. Commissioner Bernald conveyed that the Commission is looking at the higher impact of traffic on the roads, and the level services are categories, not grades. She said she would not want to see a road level higher up on the system by enlarging it because then the rural character would be lost. She would like to see the traffic slow down and be safer, but would not want a freeway. Commissioner Barry said that she would not want logjams and gridlock and the policy would have to be crafted to say that traffic flow as smoothly as possible. She said the impact of that on a future project has not been discussed. Mr. Rashid said that it would be a question for staff to identify what the significant criteria would be for a development project. If volume of traffic from that project changes from a “C” level to a “D” level, that would be a significant impact and must be mitigated or the Commission would have to use over-riding considerations to accept the project. Commissioner Barry commented that one additional option not mentioned is that a project might be denied, and that needs to be clearly reflected in the document. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 16 MAY 24, 2000 Responding to a request from Commissioner Bernald, Director Walgren stated that all major development applications are subject to an environmental analysis of which a traffic analysis is a major component. He said the idea of adopting a statement of over-riding consideration has never been done in Saratoga. He noted it would be necessary to show there was a public benefit to the project to lower the standards for a project if it truly could not be mitigated. Additionally, he said a mitigation measure does not necessarily have to be accepted. The kind of project where over-riding considerations would be adopted is one which has great public benefit that over-rides the traffic impacts, such as building a new public school or library or community center. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern with a planning document which is so specific it precludes a certain amount of flexibility in planning in the future. Commissioner Kurasch stated that it is important to define what policies are to dictate or to see the direction of the technical choices. Viewing the report as a technical report, she said she would like to balance it with other issues that the public can understand. She would like to begin a concerted effort to get people in certain areas to express what their particular problems are. Mr. Rashid responded that the issues coming out of the public hearings included neighbors not being able to get out of their street, delays in getting to a destination, issues with trails and providing alternative roads, closing gaps on sidewalks, issues with safety, etc. He referred to the public’s perception of what the document is supposed to do, and it is not supposed to identify specific projects, but focus on making the pedestrian system and equestrian system better, project what the roads might be like and what needs to be done. He said holding additional public hearings was out of his purview, and noted that the public hearings held did accommodate almost everybody’s request in the document. Commissioner Kurasch proposed articulating what the people really want out of their city services. Director Walgren reported there was a separate study underway using the area north of Prospect bound by Route 85 and the creek as a study model to develop a work book for neighborhoods wherein a specific neighborhood that has certain geographic boundaries or similarities can look into assistance from the City for a traffic management plan for the specific neighborhood. Commissioner Jackman asked whether Measure A would have to be voted on if the character of the road (Pierce Road) were to be changed. Director Walgren said that having the discretion between arterial and collector, collector would be the choice, with goals and policies developed to discourage any attempt to increase capacity or increase speed. Commissioner Barry blamed the low turnout of citizens tonight on poor marketing. She proposed going back to additional marketing efforts to get input from citizens. She recommended scheduling a series of neighborhood meetings to get a definition of the problems and reaction to the document, especially to the proposed addition of a Highway 85 interchange. Mr. Rashid said that the document advocates an additional Highway 85 interchange based on improvements at Saratoga Avenue and based on traffic that could be drawn from arterial streets. Norman Martin, 12524 Miller Avenue, Saratoga, addressed the Commission, noting he was expressing his own views. He commented that figure counts on Saratoga Avenue shows a higher volume from SR 85 to Fruitvale Avenue than there is from Prospect to Cox Avenue and nearly as high from Cox to SR 85. He said PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 17 MAY 24, 2000 it seems more reasonable that Saratoga Avenue from SR 85 to Fruitvale would be designated as a major arterial and not a minor arterial. Chairman Page, noting that this document would become a guideline for the Commission and other bodies to direct implementation plans, commented that no matter how much marketing was done, not many residents would come out to address a generic document versus a document of specifics. Mr. Rashid responded that a large turnout is generated when a controversial project is proposed. He said the input from Saratoga residents was extremely specific. He said most Saratoga residents might be able to visualize level service “C” and “D” and the public could be educated more on that. Commissioner Barry expressed that she believed the neighborhoods should be involved in the solutions and expounded on the problems that only the citizens could resolve. Chairman Page asked Mr. Rashid whether the neighborhood traffic plans were outside of the scope of what he was asked to do for this project, and Mr. Rashid responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Bernald stated she had a draft of Saratoga’s 1966 Circulation Element, which was very helpful to her. She said the Government Code states that the General Plan shall include a Circulation Element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities. Additionally, it stated that more than a transportation plan, the element is intended to address and discuss the circulation of people, goods, energy, water, sewage, storm drainage, and communications. The provisions contained in the Circulation Element represent the transportation infrastructure of Saratoga, and generally support the goals and policies of the required land use element. The Circulation Element also has direct and indirect relationships with the housing, open space, noise, and safety elements of the City’s General Plan. She said that the Circulation Element documents Saratoga’s physical, social, and economic environment She said the document provides a springboard for going forward for carrying out all the issues raised tonight. Commissioner Roupe agreed with Commissioner Bernald’s observations. He said it would not be unreasonable to set goals regarding levels of service and the criteria against which deviations are measured. He expressed that no attempts should be made to integrate a neighborhood input into the document at this time, and use it to set goals and criteria against which goals can be measured and deviations taken. Commissioner Kurasch noted this is a complex issue and stated she would like to see an extended review and comment period for Commissioners and the public. She would like to solicit opinions from regional agencies and other groups, and she would like to see minutes from the Public Safety Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission. She proposed a form letter going out informing community leaders, churches, West Valley College, schools, sports groups, etc. inviting them to a meeting to discuss traffic in the neighborhoods. Chairman Page commented that the public is more concerned with specific issues and this is only general, with specifics being the next step. Mr. Rashid addressed the issue of previous public meetings held. Director Walgren commented that if an implementation measure from this document were seriously pursued, it would go through extensive environmental review and public hearings which would generate a significant amount of interest from the public. He reminded the Commissioners that this is only the beginning of a 30-45 day review period where comments can be generated and forwarded to the Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 18 MAY 24, 2000 Department and City Council. Additionally, he said the City Council would most likely hold two public meetings on the subject. Director Walgren confirmed Commissioner Barry’s comments that it is the Planning Commission’s primary responsibility to maintain the City’s General Plan as a land use document. Commissioner Bernald noted that the next step is to go forward and answer the concerns raised tonight. She said whether or not policy is set, Commissioners are looking at items that are going to cost more money than was put into the budget for the Circulation Element, and is something that the City Council is going to have to determine. Commissioner Jackman indicated she would like more time to study the issue and to finalize a more polished product to send to the City Council. Director Walgren proposed continuing the item until June 14. He said he would do an expanded direct mailing and make it date-specific for that meeting, and send it to all the homeowners groups and the residents groups. He noted public testimony could be taken at that meeting and Commissioners can be prepared to craft specific goals and policy language. Commissioner Roupe said it that it would be constructive to have another meeting after noticing it. He proposed either Director Walgren, a subcommittee, or individual Commission members try to develop the levels of service or criteria before the next meeting. Chairman Page proposed that each Commissioner come back with specific language of the document so that the public and the Commission has something from which to work. Commissioner Kurasch said her interest was to set a format for the approach to the document. Chairman Page said the specific language in the document would not set policy, but would set a guideline or direction that the City Council can or cannot approve. Commissioner Barry proposed getting public input and turn it into specific policy statements to share at the next meeting. She would like a review of the substantive changes to the document before it is sent to the City Council, and requested that the changes be underlined. Responding to a question from Chairman Page, Director Walgren said that the portion of the document to be addressed is the goals and policies section, not the entire document. He said the next meeting would focus on public input, and he asked the Commissioners to be prepared to submit proposed language changes. Commissioner Kurasch asked what it would cost to send out copies to community groups. Director Walgren responded that notices had been sent out, and the document is available to anybody by contacting the City. Public copies of the document are at the Library and City Hall and are available for purchase for the fee of photocopying costs. Mr. Rashid said he would look into putting the goals and policies and implementation measures and the maps as a separate document. CONSENSUS AMONG COMMISSIONERS WAS TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO JUNE 14, 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 19 MAY 24, 2000 Mr. Martin commented there is public apathy, but it is very difficult to know where the documents are available for public view. He would like to see the public advised beforehand where the copies are available. He proposed a newspaper article indicating where the document is available for public view well in advance of the public meeting. DIRECTOR ITEMS − Housing Element update - Director Walgren reported that the State Legislation is considering a six-month extension to adopt the Housing Element. The ABAG Board is reconsidering the allocation number and should be in favor of the City. He said he had sent correspondence challenging the original number allocations and supporting the reallocation hearing proposal. He distributed the information to the Commissioners. He said approximately 18 Requests for Proposals (RFPs) were sent to update the Housing Element, and only one proposal was submitted. He plans to interview the firm next week and develop a contract with them if appropriate. He invited the Commissioners to participate in the interview process. − Library / Heritage Orchard / FY00/01 and 01/02 Budget updates – Director Walgren reported that the Library Bond was successful, and RFPs are being developed for that project. He said there is interest in pursuing a gymnasium or community-serving facility in the Heritage Orchard. He distributed budget summaries, noting that the City Council has endorsed revenues, projections, expenditure plans, and a five-year outlook plan. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Roupe wanted to address the issue of precedence noted in Commissioner Barry’s letter during discussion of the minutes earlier tonight. He said he would hope that the Commission would look at each of its decisions as non-precedent setting. He summed up his comments by saying that each application will be reviewed on its own merit and that precedence is not an issue that needs to be cited at each consideration. Chairman Page asked the Commission to provide input and reasons related to recent suggestions about making the Planning Commission meetings less formal. Suggestions had been made including calling Commissioners by first names and a couple of others. He commented that his goal as Chair is if one Commissioner feels a lack of respect by being called by first name, then a first-name basis will not be used. He cited other guidelines in the Code of the City of Saratoga which apply to Commission meetings. Commissioners discussed the agenda for June 14, which should include the Quickert Road issue, Circulation Element, and discussion of the Commission retreat. Commissioner Bernald stated she received a letter regarding St. Andrews School whose modular classrooms were removed and replaced with new modular classrooms. She indicated that the neighbors were surprised because the replacements were much closer to the property than the previous buildings. She asked whether the school had different setback requirements from residential standards. Director Walgren responded that the same requirements apply, and noted that that the buildings met the setbacks. He said the project did not require any discretionary permit. He advised staff to notice the neighbors, and staff is currently negotiating with the school regarding removing the modular buildings. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 20 MAY 24, 2000 Commissioner Bernald expressed she was interested in meeting with the Heritage Preservation Commission to discuss their vision and the Planning Commission’s vision. Commissioner Bernald requested that staff provide a report regarding a remodeled building on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Williams. Commissioner Bernald referred to the item on the Consent Calendar, and said she had discussed with Director Walgren that individuals had asked about not receiving notices for the item. She said the City’s process verified that a certain number of notices did not go out, and the item is being re-noticed. Director Walgren explained the process and verified that an honest mistake had been made. Commissioner Bernald conveyed that she was impressed with Commissioners who commented and offered opinions and expressed support regarding Ms. Woolsey’s concern stated earlier tonight. Commissioner Barry requested that the Director’s Report include a carry-over summary of outstanding items on which Commissioners are awaiting a report. COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN − City Council minutes for regular meetings of April 5 and April 19, and adjourned meeting of April 25, 2000 - Noted. − Correspondence to Community Development Director from Richard Taylor, City Attorney, clarifying the term “denial with prejudice” - Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairman Page adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m. to Wednesday, June 14, 2000, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk