Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13-2000 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting Chairman Page called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe, and Chairman Page Absent: Commissioner Patrick Staff: Director Walgren, Assistant Planner Pearson, and City Attorney Taylor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES - August 9, 2000 COMMISSIONERS KURASCH/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2000, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. PASSED 4-1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) Page 4, paragraph 9, add: “Commissioner Barry declined to state further comments until she heard from the remaining Commissioners.” Page 10, paragraph 4, line 1: Commissioner Bernal asked if the discussion went further than the road accessing only lots #3 and #4, because it is less than lots #3, #4, and #5, and that would make the road narrower size of the driveways. Page 14, paragraph 3, line 7: “….save the trees and keep the nature of the property.” Page 14, paragraph 3, line 10: “….and how much easier it was to for them to accept inconveniences them in other ways….” Page 14, paragraph 5, line 5: “She said she is not stating placing a value on that statement;….” Page 16, paragraph 4, line 4: “….related, not necessarily to how large the building is going to be….” ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There was no one from the audience who wished to address any issues not on the agenda. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Walgren announced that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET There were no technical corrections to the agenda packet. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-99-052 & UP-99-021 (517-10-015) – OUR LADY OF FATIMA, 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; Request for Use Permit and Design Review approval to replace an existing Convent, Priest Quarters, Chapel and Visitor’s Apartments with an Assisted Living Facility for the elderly, and the interior conversion of an existing Skilled Nursing Facility into Assisted Living units. Total number of existing units is 41; total number of Assisted Living Units proposed is 42. Existing floor area is 50,372 square feet; proposed floor area is 68,955 square feet. An Environmental Initial Study has been prepared, and adoption of a Negative Declaration is also requested. (CONTINUED TO 9/27/00 TO RE-NOTICE) 2. DR-00-019 (389-12-007) – SABIC, 18817 Devon Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing single story structure and build a new two-story structure. The existing structure is 1,061 square feet, and the proposed new structure is 2,909 square feet at a maximum height of 23 feet 6 inches. The 10,000 square foot site is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 7/26/00) 3. DR-00-013 (517-18-062) – FREDERICKSON, 20470 Montalvo Heights Drive; Request for Design Review approval for the addition of a detached 1,530 square foot garage and pool house with a maximum height of 14 feet. There is an existing 4,630 square foot residence proposed to remain. The parcel is 1.9 acres (net) and located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Commissioner Barry removed item #3 from the Consent Calendar for discussion. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/BARRY MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS #1 AND #2. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISIONEER PATRICK WAS ABSENT) Commissioner Barry questioned whether it is possible to relocate the garage and swimming pool addition to avoid losing the oak tree. Although the current owners are not in any way responsible for the previous illegal removal of two protected oak trees, she asked if there was any opportunity to save the remaining oak tree. Director Walgren responded that the tree is in the center of the pool, and there are always design alternatives, but it would be a significant redesign of the pool location. However, the question could be posed to the applicants. Rick Guidice, 9 Park Avenue, Los Gatos, representing the owners, stated he prepared the plans presented this evening. He said other alternatives had been considered, but the actual area of the pool, pool house, and garage are right up against the setback on the back side of the tree and also against a significant grade on that hillside, and it is rather tight. There is no room for alternatives on the site. He said the recommendations for approval include supplementing those trees with a large 36” box, 3” minimum trunk, and the applicants are willing to help mitigate the loss of the tree. He said they hoped to significantly landscape the hillside area to give privacy from the road and neighbors. Commissioner Bernald stated that in the past, developers have come in and picked up trees and moved them. She asked if this came down to a concern about losing another tree, would the applicants consider picking up the tree and moving it elsewhere on the property. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Guidice said he would if somebody like Barrie Coates agreed that the tree had a likeliness to survive after that sort of movement. Commissioner Barry said she would be willing to approve this proposal with the condition that Commissioner Bernald suggested, with Barrie Coates’ approval, and if the owners would be willing to move and replace the tree, she would agree to this. Mr. Guidice said that speaking on behalf of the applicant, they are looking forward to getting approval for this, so he would agree to give it a try. Director Walgren suggested that the condition be written so that it is subject to the City Arborist recommendation whether it is preferable to try to remove this tree. COMMISSIONERS BARRY/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE DR-00-013 WITH THE CONDITION STATED BY DIRECTOR WALGREN THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY ARBORIST (BARRIE COATES) BE FOLLOWED. PASSED 6-0. (COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. SD-99-003, UP-00-001 & GPA-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 6.2 acres to 40,913 square feet. Minor road widening and the development of a sidewalk along Bohlman Road are proposed. Use Permit approval is requested to transfer two acres to the Saratoga Cemetery District for the expansion of the Madronia Cemetery. A General Plan Amendment is necessary to change the General Plan designation from Quasi-Public Facilities to Residential- Very Low Density. The site is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (CONTINUED FROM 7/12/00) Assistant Planner Pearson presented the staff report, noting that 10 lots would be for residential use and the 11th lot would be transferred to the Saratoga Cemetery District, for which a use permit is pending for the expansion of Madronia Cemetery. He reported that all of the components of the application have been presented and discussed at two previous public hearings. The prime issue to be resolved remains the improvement of Bohlman Road. Although traffic will be reduced as a result of the project compared to the previous use of the property by the Sisters of Notre Dame and Montessori School, the applicant has agreed to improve this existing substandard road to a width of 18’ with one-foot shoulders on each side. Many neighbors have been commenting at the previous two public hearings that most of them are in favor of road safety improvements and that as many trees be retained as possible. Mr. Pearson conveyed that the applicant had originally proposed widening the road on the eastside of the property (project side of Bohlman Road), and many large mature trees would have been lost under that scenario; however, the current proposal would widen the road on the westside, the opposite side of the project. The difference in tree removal is that 14 ordinance-protected trees will be lost in the current proposal, Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 4 whereas 44 trees would have been removed by widening the road on the east side. The road improvement plan indicates the trees that will be removed and indicates two significant oak trees that will be retained. He said an adequate right-of-way exists surrounding the property, and a parcel map was recorded in 1978, when the right-of-way was offered to the City. That offer was not accepted by the City, but will be upon improvement of the road by the Public Works Department. Mr. Pearson stated that some neighbors and citizens would still like to see a downhill lane as previously discussed at meetings, and this would result in the existing road remaining the same and a new downhill lane being created where the existing driveway to where the current facility is located. He said the Public Works Department has recommended against this alternative and the City Attorney has warned against making such a requirement. The applicant has submitted a revised landscape plan which shows a wooden fence similar to the one installed at the Saratoga subdivision across from Saratoga High School, and shows a meandering path to allow for more landscaping between the path and proposed fence. The plan also shows 9’ tall entry columns at the intersection of the new cul-de-sac; staff is recommending those be approved at 8 feet so that no variance is necessary for that height, and the applicant has agreed to that condition. Mr. Pearson noted that the Saratoga Cemetery District has also submitted a landscape plan, which shows the gate columns at 10 ½’ tall, and staff is recommending an 8’ height; however, the additional height could be approved as part of the use permit application. Staff is recommending approval of the cemetery 7’ tall gate and 6 ½’ tall columns proposed as part of the wrought iron fencing around the cemetery portion of the property. Mr. Pearson reported that staff had received several letters regarding this project since the memo in the agenda packet was prepared. He said a letter dated September 13th from Keith and Cyndy Riordan indicated they did not wish to see any widening of Bohlman Road. They are in favor of keeping all the trees on the property and believe that making the road wider would allow people to drive faster on the road. Another letter dated September 12th from Frank and Laurie Nemec suggesting that a gated connection from Norton Road through the development to connect the Montalvo Heights be used as an emergency access. They also recommend as an option that a separate downhill lane be created on the existing driveway of the property. They are willing to pay part of a fair purchase price of the developer’s land to accomplish this alternative. A letter dated September 7th from Dave Holt supports leaving the existing road unchanged and creating an additional one-way downhill lane. He would want to see the tree tunnel remain and increased safety. Reggie Holt submitted a letter dated September 7th stating that she believes the widening of Bohlman Road would still not make the road wide enough for two lanes of traffic. Another letter from Gail and Doug Cheeseman expresses a desire to preserve Bohlman Road as it is; protect the oak trees along the road; consider runoff created from widening the road; and note that the Bohlman Road hillside is unstable. A letter dated September11th from Joyce and Vincent Nola supports adding the second lane to carry the downhill traffic for fire safety reasons. Another letter dated September 10th from Mr. and Mrs. Williams wishes to see a downhill lane on the other side of the existing trees. They believe that the proposed road widening would create 6-8’ retaining walls and question whether there is an adequate easement on the property to accommodate the road widening. They also question whether the proposal would increase the litter along the road. A letter dated September 13th from David Pearce notes that he brought his property from a developer who developed the property across Bohlman from the project. Mr. Pearce noted that that developer was required to give up one of five lots for the Hakone Gardens parking lot and also required to install a private water system, and questions why one developer on one side of the street was required to make far more substantial concessions than is being asked of the developer on the other side of the street, and for that reason prefers seeing the divided road as a fair requirement asked by the City. However, if the proposed alternative or the applicant’s proposal is approved, he would like to see the retaining walls kept to a minimum and guard rails eliminated where possible. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 5 Mr. Pearson noted this is the third public meeting on this project, and staff is recommending that an action be taken this evening. Staff is recommending that the Commission vote to adopt the Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration; that the Commission recommend approval of the General Plan amendment to the City Council; that the Commission vote to approve the subdivision resolution with one of the road improvement alternatives; and that the Commission vote to approve the use permit application by the Saratoga Cemetery District. Mr. Pearson noted that the Saratoga Fire Chief was present to answer any questions regarding fire safety on Bohlman Road. Responding to Commissioner Bernald’s inquiry regarding the width of the road, Mr. Pearson responded that the road ranges from the narrowest point of approximately 12’ and goes to about 17’ wide. Commissioner Roupe expressed regret that he was unable to attend the previous meetings; however, he had an opportunity to review both the videotapes and minutes of the June 28th and July 12th Commission meetings. He said he was prepared to act on this application tonight. However, he asked exactly what was the opinion of staff regarding the relative level of traffic on this road arising as a result of this project, and asked for the database reference. Director Walgren responded that first of all, the amount of traffic being generated by this project on the local roadways is typically determined by – and this is completely separate from the road safety issue – how that road traffic impacts the level of service of that road and what percentage of the roadway vehicle numbers the development is generating. In this case, 10 new homes generating approximately 100 traffic trips per day or a little bit more because of the estate home anticipated in the original staff report. The traffic amount that this development is generating onto Bohlman Road is relatively negligible given the volume that the road can carry in a capacity sense. The second way to address the question is the amount of traffic being generated by this project as opposed to what could currently be generated by the property, or the net increase in traffic. He said it is understood that the Montessori School has not been operating for sometime, though they could legally reopen the school and recommence class activities, and what the traffic analysis has noted is that with school traffic and with the novitiate traffic at full usage - which it has not been in many, many years - this project is reasonably expected to generate less traffic than would have been generated if the school had continued and the novitiate had continued in some capacity. And that is the baseline under which the city is required to operate. Lastly, he noted the traffic analysis prepared, which was one of the many studies that were done as part of the Environmental Initial Study that was first presented back in June. Commissioner Kurasch asked if that was a typical line of analysis for other projects or if an example was available. Director Walgren responded that one needed to start with what is the baseline, then what is a particular project generating to that baseline. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it was not something that was not necessarily existing, but perhaps something in the past. Director Walgren responded that it is something that is existent and that is based on the fact that the school facility has the right to continue to operate as a school. If, for example, this application did not go forward, the Montessori school could take up right where they left when they vacated the premises when this application was submitted, so that is a current potential activity. Commissioner Kurasch stated she wanted to get a little perspective on the controversy on the trees, the road, and the placement, and asked if Mr. Coates was present today. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 6 Director Walgren responded that Mr. Coates was not present today. Commissioner Kurasch commented that she wanted to get a synopsis to better understand the impacts of the proposals on the trees. Referring to the rural redwoods along Bohlman, she understood from part of Mr. Coates’ analyses that the problem with one or the other proposal is the impact on the tree routes and the placement of the road. She said the existing road is not buildable because the roots is something she would like explored, and the other is the placement of a secondary road. She asked whether Mr. Coates gave an idea of, or whether it was possible for him to give an idea of, the area affected. Director Walgren conveyed that from the outset the desire has been to retain as many of these significant trees as possible. It is known from driving on Bohlman Road, there are sections of the road as narrow as 12’ where two cars have to come to a stop to get around each other. It is an unsafe condition. The design objective of the City, and therefore, the applicant, has always been to retain as many trees as possible and to have as little impact as possible. The first go-around of this project, widening the road to 20’, which was the absolute minimum acceptable standard, was designed to retain pretty much all of the trees. A handful of trees came out, but when the City Arborist looked at that, it is not possible to build a new road up to the edge of the tree and expect it to survive. Upon a more careful review by the City Arborist, 40 trees in the interior of the development would have to be removed if the road was widened to the interior. One of the several alternatives that were investigated yesterday in detail with the City Arborist was going up Bohlman Road and literally identifying each of 14 trees on the westside that would have to come out, so the comparison based on that very careful review is approximately 40 trees to the east, approximately 14 trees - which the arborist generally feels are of lesser value - to the west and that does not preclude the other alternative of not doing anything if the loss of 14 trees is too great of a canopy loss along Bohlman. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the other alternative of the second road was explored. Director Walgren responded that the other alternative that has been discussed is using the existing novitiate driveway as a secondary one-way road, and the most immediate constraint to that is that at the north end of the property where the significant redwoods are, extensive roots grow across the driveway into the lawn area. A secondary road would not be able to put out that driveway location. It would have to be put 20-40’ interior and then have the merging convergence issues. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether there was any number to quantify that or a particular area that would have to be left for the trees. Director Walgren responded there was, and the Arborist felt that would be approximately 30-40’ to start the roadway away from those redwoods. From where that driveway is visually seen, the new road would then have to be another 10-20’ interior before that edge would start to remove significant roots of the redwood trees, which again would destroy the trees, which defeats the purpose. Commissioner Barry reinforced what Mr. Pearson said about the concerns at issue here – the safety concern that was widely stated by the neighbors, and the concern to preserve the trees. She asked if Mr. Coates inventoried the trees on the downhill side prior to yesterday’s site visit, and Mr. Pearson responded he had not. Commissioner Barry said she would appreciate it if Mr. Pearson would go over in more detail than Commissioner Kurasch the comment that Barrie Coates made about the really large redwood trees that are at the boundary of the Sisters property. She wanted to make sure that every body hears, before getting into the Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 7 public hearing, what Mr. Coates said would happen to those heritage trees on the Sisters’ property if a second road is put in. Mr. Pearson replied that the point that Mr. Coates tried to convey to the Commission was that if the road were widened or a new road built on either side of those redwood trees that were within 20’, it would be degrading the structural components of the tree so that the tree is going to be susceptible to falling down in a windstorm; however, if the road is moved far away enough from the tree so that the structure is preserved, it could be a problem with the way the roots are growing toward the lawn area on the other side of the existing driveway. They are all rather shallow roots, and even if the road is built at possibly 30-40’ away from the trees, a lot of the roots that bring water to the tree could be damaged. He said Mr. Coates’ comment was that the trees may be in danger even if the road were moved 30’ from the trees. Commissioner Barry asked what was the total size and width of the path that the applicant is proposing, and Mr. Pearson responded the width of the path is 4 ½’ and it meanders between the roadway and the proposed wooden fence. He would have to check the cross sections to see exactly what the distance is from the road to the fence. He said the 4 ½’ was a total combination to accommodate a pedestrian pathway and a bicycle pathway. Commissioner Barry commented that the main issue to decide tonight is the roadway. However, she feels there are a number of issues about the subdivision itself that also have to be addressed, but she will hold those until later in the discussion. Commissioner Bernald raised two questions. She is curious to know how safe it would be when the two roads merge at Bohlman and 6th or through the cemetery if there is a good line of sight to create a clear advantage, or would that be a safety hazard. Also, would this still permit the cemetery to attain the land that they had hoped to attain from the purchase of acreage. Mr. Pearson responded that the cemetery could still acquire some land, although their portion would be smaller, but it is up to the applicant, Mr. Sobrato, and the cemetery district, if that arrangement is still going to be feasible. Regarding whether the downhill lane intersection has been studied, a traffic engineer has not studied the safety of the road diverging and converging, and although the Public Works Department has been presented with the idea, they do recommend against it just on the fact that it is a windy road. He said it is a relatively short section of road that would be divided that they feel that it would not be a safe situation in this case to have the road separating and then rejoining at the bottom of the hill. Commissioner Bernald asked Mr. Pearson if he recalled whether Mr. Coates did or did not point out definite signs of diseases on the oaks on the westside that would indicate that the trees might be in a failing situation Mr. Pearson responded there were several, probably half to two-thirds of the trees that are proposed to be removed, which Mr. Coates noted as having poor structure and medium health because a lot of the trees are already being crowded by the road, and due to the fill from this side of the road, the trees are not growing in ideal conditions, and a good portion of the trees were not rated very high. Commissioner Bernald asked Mr. Pearson if he could agree with her that there were some trees with obvious signs that cars and trucks have already run into them and have been removed. Chairman Page asked Commissioner Barry whether she had a question of the City Attorney, and she responded she was going to wait until later. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 8 Director Walgren said the City Attorney is available to answer any specific questions the Commissioners may have. Commissioner Barry preferred to wait until after the public hearing. Chairman Page opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. Phil Boyce, 21000 Boyce Lane, representing the Saratoga Cemetery District, expressed concern with lowering the height of the pillars going into the historic cemetery. The cemetery has been around since 1856, making it the oldest public institution in the community. It has been recommended that it come down from 10.4’ on the drawing to 8’. It presently has a 12’ arch on the property, and lowering it down is fine and works; however, they think it still makes the representation for the community and the representation for the cemetery significant and attractive. They would have concern if it went any lower than that. It is important to keep the heritage of the cemetery as much as possible. He requested consideration in that regard. In addition, the gate is also in proportion to the size of the pillars, and he requested consideration to allow use of the pillars. Commissioner Barry asked if there was presently a gate, and Mr. Boyce responded there is a gate and a very large arch, but it is unknown when it was put in. Chairman Page asked whether the arch would remain, and Mr. Boyce replied that the arch would come down, and is the reason they are concerned with taking it down so low that there is no representation of the cemetery which contains the historic remains of many folks who had lived in this community for a long, long time. Responding to questions from Commissioners, Mr. Boyce said they have been asked to take down the arch that says Madronia on it, noting it is as much a safety issue as anything else at the present time. It has been there a long time. He said it is not supported as well as it should be in today’s world. However, the intent is to put in 10’ arches which are two feet lower and put plaques on them identifying the cemetery and its hours of operation. John Sobrato, 14420 Evans Lane, Saratoga, applicant, said he had plenty of questions of staff, beginning with a question to make sure he was accurate. He asked if the 18’ width that he proposed to widen Bohlman Road with the 1’ shoulder on each side was the City standard for a hillside road because it was not clear to him from some of the remarks that were made. Mr. Pearson replied that it is actually below the standard, but it was seen as a compromise from what the road currently exists today, and to bring it up to a full standard would probably be 11-12’ travel lanes rather than 9’ travel lanes, and 9’ was agreed on to try to preserve as many trees as possible. Mr. Sobrato commented he was under the impression that the hillsides had a different standard for streets than elsewhere. Director Walgren stated that the Subdivision Ordinance requirement is 26’ in the hillsides for brand new roads which is two travel lanes and a parking lane, but with 20’, 18’ with opposing one-foot shoulders is the minimum fire safety code requirement. It is also the minimum requirement for a private access road, and it is an accepted minimum standard that allows two travel lanes, but it is less than the 26’ width which is in the subdivision ordinance for hillside roads. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 9 Mr. Sobrato thanked staff for clarifying that. He said in working with City staff, a solution was developed that addresses both the aesthetic and safety concerns associated with the substandard condition of Bohlman. By constructing a 1-3 ½’ retaining wall, which is relatively small in stature and would not be visible from the street as it will face downhill, he can widen the road where necessary to create this minimum acceptable 18’ width road with one-foot shoulders. He said he would be improving the situation even further by the construction of the path as was proposed originally on the eastside of the redwood trees, to remove both bike and pedestrian traffic from the road. He said this is a dramatic difference from what exists today. The present situation has a 12’ wide road enforced in places with no provision for pedestrian or bike traffic, and there is talk about changing that from 12’ minimum to 18’ with a one-foot shoulder and there are many, many roads in Saratoga where bike lanes consist of one-foot shoulders, plus he would be providing essentially what is a sidewalk 4 ½’ which is probably best described as a meandering sidewalk on the other side of the trees, which is also a City standard width for a sidewalk. Mr. Sobrato said that the solution requires removal of approximately 14 trees as was described in the staff report. For the benefit of those in the audience, a tour was held yesterday with the Planning Commission and the City Arborist and they went tree by tree. He noted that Mr. Coates can very quickly assess the health and the structure of a tree by looking at it, almost instantly he can point out flaws and problems with the growth, and he concluded unequivocally that it was the decision of the Planning Commission to widen the road, leave it as it is. He asked the Commission to make a decision. He said if the road is widened, it should be widened to the downhill side. The redwood trees are more valuable than the oaks which have a variety of problems stemming from the fact that they’re adjacent to the power lines and have been hacked back by PG&E, and due to the fact that when Bohlman was constructed or repaved over the years, there is a situation where the trees that exist on the Westside of the road bases are below grade and that is a very poor situation, at least as he understood it listening to Mr. Coates regarding the trees’ long-term survival. On the issue of safety, he thinks it is very safe. There are some in the neighborhood who have willingly purchased homes at the end of a long substandard road, knowing that their safety would be compromised over other locations in Saratoga, and now, all of a sudden having done that, having elected to purchase a house on a non-hillside road, they come down and cry that their lives are in jeopardy, and while he does not necessarily believe that they are entitled to improved safety at his expense, he has agreed from the very beginning if it was the desire of the community and the desire of the Planning Commission to improve the safety condition on Bohlman Road, that he would widen Bohlman Road to 18’ to do that. He has agreed to do that unilaterally from the beginning, and unfortunately, there are still people apparently in the community that feel that this is not good enough, that they want two roads that will then lead to the same substandard three-mile road up Norton and Bohlman, and he feels this suggestion is nonsensical, and that is why he has refused to study it or consider it, also knowing full well that the City has no legal authority to demand that kind of dedication. What has been most disappointing for him and again, really directed more at the neighborhood than anything else, he frankly expected to be praised for solving the safety problem, and read in the Saratoga News that he is insensitive; inflexible, yet he’s taking a 12’ road that is clearly a safety hazard and making an 18’ road and pulling the bikes and pulling the pedestrians off the road in the process. He said it is very unfortunate for many in the community that that is not good enough. At this point, after three meetings, obviously he has gotten to the point where he has given up trying to please everyone. He said the Commission had before them a subdivision that meets every single requirement of the General Plan and your zoning. He has played by all the City rules, and after 18 months of study, three Commission meetings, he respectfully requests that the Commission finally take action and approve his application with the conditions that have been recommended by staff, all of which he has agreed to. Commissioner Roupe commented that the site visit yesterday was focused on the trees on both sides of the road. It was observed by Mr. Coates that the trees – which everyone is so sensitive about - the redwoods and evergreens along the eastside of the road were suffering apparently from lack of watering or some other Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 10 problems. He asked Mr. Sobrato whether he would be willing to accept a condition of the development is that during the construction period that he would initiate a program of irrigation and feeding as would be recommended by Mr. Coates to assure the continued survival of those trees. Mr. Sobrato responded he would, and would need to engage in some sort of periodic watering before the construction occurs, and, as part of his proposal, the landscape path that he is creating will provide the opportunity to install some sort of irrigation system on the trees. Commissioner Roupe asked if Mr. Sobrato would be willing, as part of this road renovation activity, to have a professional arborist or tree person come in and look after the care and pruning of the trees that will remain on the westward side of the road. Mr. Sobrato replied he would be willing. Commissioner Kurasch referred to the road, and asked Mr. Sobrato if he had engineer calculations done for the estimated size of the retaining wall that would be necessary. Mr. Sobrato responded that they had been done. He said it had been two months since the last Planning Commission hearing and that was partly because of scheduling and partly so he could take the time to analyze what was requested. In the package of documents in the agenda packet, sections have been created for the road at various stages along Bohlman and from those sections, one can see both the height of the retaining wall as proposed, the amount of fill that would be involved, the increase in the paved surface, as well as the change from the current conditions. They are not engineered plans to build from, but they are very detailed conceptual plans and capture the critical facts and figures pertaining to retaining walls and those kinds of things. Commissioner Kurasch commented that until soils tests and other geologic tests are done, it really will not be known and that may change. Mr. Sobrato responded that an extensive geologic study of the entire area has been done. Commissioner Kurasch commented on the staff report, which says that at the last meeting, the Commission concluded that some of the standards that reflect the hillside residential zoning could be applied to the higher sloped lots in one subdivision, and one is over 38 percent average slope. She said Mr. Sobrato was disagreeing or objecting to that and the limited easement around the drainage to the west of lots #1 and #4. She asked him to explain his objections. Mr. Sobrato responded that his objections were based on the fact that they were not applied to all equally. He said the focus appears to be on the two things he has objected to instead of the 65 conditions he has agreed to. He acknowledged that he did object to the divided road and to applying hillside standards. He said the purpose of a scenic easement is for a ridge top or something that is visible from the public, assuring that the public maintains a continued ability to view that area. Here there is no portion of the property that is visible from public rights-of-way. He has proposed not to develop in those areas and very carefully sited the building lots and building envelope so as to avoid any heavily treed, sensitive environmental area. One of the reasons for only ten lots on 23 acres is that he went to great pains from the very first day to lay out this project in such a way as to not impinge at all on the seasonable drainage canal or channel in other areas as well as to make sure he had very significant setbacks from the adjacent neighbors, which is why he had the support of every single adjacent neighbor. The only people who have opposed it are the people that are up Bohlman Road and want him to solve a hundred-year old safety problem. That is the opposition, as he sees it. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 11 Commissioner Kurasch noted that the opposition were his neighbors, too, and Mr. Sobrato responded that was the reason he proposed to solve it. Commissioner Jackman, noting the sidewalk is a City standard sidewalk, said it was not wide enough to put bicycles there, too, and asked if Mr. Sobrato would be willing to go another foot or so. Mr. Sobrato replied that one of the problems is that without further study, he is trying to meet all of the City standards for lot requirements and with 48,000’ corner lots, 40,000’ full lots and the proposed dedicated land, etc. the plan has gotten tight, and as the fence continues to be pushed back, he may not meet City standards. Commissioners Barry and Kurasch thanked Mr. Sobrato for all his effort and work he has done. Commissioner Barry said that hopefully, the Commission will arrive at some conclusion tonight. She was unsure that it would, but it would make a good faith effort to do so. She said there are some issues and it is only natural to bring up those issues to Mr. Sobrato. She asked him not to take offense because the Commission is bringing up what it sees as legitimate issues. She asked him if he had an estimate of the longevity of the trees on the eastside, the downhill side, and the cliff side. Mr. Sobrato responded that Mr. Coates said, for example, where there is a grade that is above the base of the trees, those trees get beetle-infestations and their life expectancy is shorter than those not impacted. A discussion ensued regarding the trees. It was noted that no one asked Mr. Coates for an estimated life expectancy of the trees, but the scale was 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest. Mr. Sobrato agreed that Mr. Coates was not asked. He said he did not think those trees were in imminent danger of failing. The more critical thing in Mr. Coates’ mind was 4 for structure because by looking at the trees, they have been completely hacked up. He said these are not beautiful, graceful oak trees that are in many locations throughout the property that he is proposing to preserve. In many cases, they were stubs of an oak tree from PG&E pruning them back to avoid power outages. Commissioner Barry agreed with Mr. Sobrato that there were some trees that looked better than others. She referred to Commissioner Kirsch’s question regarding hillside residential requirements. She said some of the Commissioners hiked up to the subject lot and asked if it would be fair to say it was quite a hike. Mr. Sobrato replied that there was no question it is a hike to get up there now because there is no road access. But it also has the exact same topography as the Montalvo Heights Court and Montalvo Heights Drive homes that abut it, none of which have hillside zoning. Commissioner Roupe asked if Mr. Sobrato would be willing to commit to lots #1 and #4 (which may be capable theoretically of subdivision) be subject to no further subdivision. Mr. Sobrato responded yes, noting he had offered that several months ago. He said there were some technical issues about how that would be done, but he is fully willing to record something that would prevent it in the future. Responding to an inquiry from Chairman Page, Director Walgren said if the Commission could simply adopt that as a condition, it would, but there are Subdivision Map Act prohibitions against putting those kinds of conditions on a subdivision. It is something that has been tested in courts previously, so if the applicant is Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 12 agreeable to it, it can certainly be done, but it has to be done through some kind of a development agreement or deed restriction which staff can certainly follow up on if the applicant is agreeable to it. Chairman Page said there was a discussion by staff to reduce the height of the entrance towers of the current road, and asked Mr. Sobrato if he was agreeable to that. Mr. Sobrato answered that he proposed 10’ to 8’. He did not think 10’ was inappropriate for the entrance to the subdivision, but in the grand scheme of things, that’s a minor issue with him. Chairman Page directed a question to City Attorney Taylor. He said since Mr. Sobrato raised the issue of the Commission’s ability to take some land for this road, it would have to be at least 30’ away from where it is according to what he heard Mr. Coates say. If the project is moved 20’ in, there is going to be significant damage to the redwoods. He asked to understand what rights the City has and what the basis for those might be. City Attorney Taylor responded that based on the facts as he understands them it would be difficult to impose that condition. The courts have held in the Supreme Court in the last several years that local government exactions of land from property owners in connection with development approvals have to be roughly proportional to the impact that the project is having on the community, and the data currently available indicates that there is very little impacts with respect to Bohlman Road. It is not as though this project is itself generating the need for expansion of Bohlman Road. It is a preexisting problem, and the courts have taken local government’s to task for asking developers to entirely shoulder the burden of preexisting problems. He said that is not to say that the City does not have the power to look at the extent to which this project is creating problems and to get reasonable dedications, but from his discussions with the Planning staff, it does not appear that there is a sufficient nexus to support a complete dedication. The City would be free to negotiate with the property owners that it would be interested in buying this land, and the City could establish some kind of financing mechanism to do that. It would change the project, but in terms of imposing a condition on the subdivision application, under these particular facts might be difficult. Chairman Page asked from a legal purview, what would be reasonable. City Attorney Taylor replied that the pathway would require going into a whole different set of questions. Focusing only on the roadway, the data that he has seen is that this project increases traffic by 8 percent. That’s a starting point. One would need to consider the factors that make the problem maybe a little bit worse than 8 percent, and at the same time, ask if there are there factors that would make it a little less than 8 percent. He said the City would want to go through and engage in a detailed nexus study and typically, local governments require those kind of improvements where there is a clear evidence of an impact. Commissioner Barry asked if it would be a fair statement that before asking the City Attorney about amounts that the Commission ought to on its own decide what it thinks it needs, given health and safety issues and other kinds of issues City Attorney Taylor stated that the question to ask is what are the impacts that the project is having to the community on health and safety and then looking at those impacts, what are possible solutions to those problems and to the extent that those solutions require exactions from the property owner, remembering that the exactions that are imposed have to be reasonably related to the impacts themselves. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 13 Commissioner Barry asked whether the City giving of the existing quasi-public use of this property be considered a potentially negative impact on the City that in perpetuity if the Commission gives this over to residential property, it has lost the quasi-public designation that it has now. City Attorney Taylor replied that would be a legitimate consideration. Commissioner Barry asked if she was correct that in law, the City is legitimately able to consider things like tree preservation on at least an equal footing with safety. City Attorney Taylor responded that yes, the City is entitled – there is a principle of design immunity – and the City is entitled to make judgments that it values this more than safety or it values safety more than something else, and to make those determinations. The City cannot be completely arbitrary in doing it, the City cannot decide that it’s going to have a youth bonfire in the height of fire season in the middle of a forest, but the City is entitled to considerable discretion. What the City needs to do is be consistent with whatever policy determination it makes. The City may say it values narrow winding roads, and it recognizes there are safety impacts with that, but that is what the City as a policy judgment have decided to live with. The City then needs to be sure that it manages those narrow winding roads in a way to make them as safe as possible under the circumstances. Commissioner Barry stated that if the Commission were to decide that it values the tree canopies that many of the neighbors have talked about, and wanted to be responsible about safety, if there were mitigation measures, whether stop signs or warning signs or speed bumps, and with respect to the liability, would the Commission be on firm ground considering those things City Attorney Taylor responded that he was not guaranteeing any immunity, but the general principle is that local government should be free to make those determinations. With respect to the specific implementing measures, that becomes more of an engineering judgment than a Planning Commission judgment in terms that it would want to be consulting with the professional engineers, given the circumstances of what is needed to make this road as safe as possible. Commissioner Roupe asked if somebody wanted to buy one of these lots and put a Montessori School on it, would there be anything to prohibit or be taken away by making this an R-1-40 and putting up a Montessori School. He asked whether it would have to come back to the Commission and how the underlying provision of an R-1-40,000 from the beginning would impact it. Director Walgren confirmed Commissioner Roupe’s question. He said the property is zoned R-1-40,000, single-family residential, with a minimum lot size requirement of 40,000 square feet, as is the case with all schools in Saratoga, the fire station, the library, and public and quasi-public buildings. They are located almost entirely in residential zoning districts and they are permitted in residential zoning districts, subject to a conditional use permit to assure that it is appropriate for that particular residential district. With the community being built out, it is very difficult to go into an established neighborhood and propose putting in a new library, or a new school, but when the City did incorporate, this facility, among most of them, already existed, and the General Plan designation of quasi-public facility was just acknowledging that is the use of the facility. If the quasi-public facility designation is amended to residential very low density, which it should be to be consistent with this project, and the quasi-public facility designation removed, it would then be very difficult later to re-intensify that back to a school use. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 14 In response to Commissioner Roupe’s question, Director Walgren said it would not be precluded; however, it would be necessary to go through the conditional use process and request to amend the General Plan back to a quasi-public institution. Mr. Sobrato commented that he was not the one asking to change the General Plan to quasi-public to the extent Commissioner Barry thinks the City is giving something up. He said he is perfectly happy leaving the quasi-public designation in place, and expressed that a convent is not a very public use. He said it is probably about the most private use he can think of. Comparing it to a library or a public school or a baseball stadium or an arena, which are true quasi-public uses, is not particularly fair. It is a private use, and it is going to remain a private use consistent with the zoning, which is R-1-40,000. Commissioner Jackman inquired about the amount of space between the property line and the redwood trees. Mr. Sobrato said he did not know how the distance there compares with the distance in terms of total width as it meanders, but perhaps Mr. Walgren could help out with that. Director Walgren responded that it is a good comparison and it is very comparable. The example that staff gave the applicant to use as a design objective was the Heritage Oak improvements on Saratoga Avenue. He said the cross sections in the landscape plans in Exhibit B more clearly shows the amount of landscaping that occurs between the roadway and the walkway itself. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Sobrato how he planned to water trees when the building pads are less than 30’ from their roots. Mr. Sobrato responded that the root zone ends up in people’s back yards so that they could get water to the landscaping in people’s back yards, just like they are getting water now through the lawns that are on the Sisters’ property. They have to contend with an asphalt road up against them which is going to go away, so it is going to be a much improved situation for those redwood trees. Commissioner Kurasch, noted that from the analysis, 30’- 40’ is the critical area for the root. She asked for the measurements of the rear yard setbacks, and Mr. Pearson responded that the area abutting the redwood trees is actually the lot that is being proposed to be turned over to the cemetery district; however, the rear yard setback for the residential lots is 50’. Mr. Sobrato said that the rear yard setback is 50’, plus Planner Pearson pointed out that most of the biggest redwood trees will fall on the cemetery land as proposed. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the setback is on lot #8. Commissioner Bernald called for a point of order, noting that the Commission was not talking about the placement of homes tonight, but merely voting on a subdivision. Chairman Page commented that it is a good question and it may answer a couple of other questions. Commissioner Barry called for a point of order, stating that this issue was raised at the last Commission meeting with respect to the other subdivision development to be discussed tonight and Commissioners have been given reference material with respect to the map that makes it clear that all of these conditions and potential conditions are appropriately discussed at the Tentative Map stage. She said the reference material Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 15 clarifies that, and so Commissioner Kurasch’s issues are clearly within the bounds of what the Commission is supposed to be considering here. Director Walgren responded that because of the configuration of lot #8, the setback facing Bohlman Road is 25’ to the edge of the road right-of-way because of the orientation of that particular lot. He said it is a side, and not a rear setback, and it is 25’ plus the distance from the property line to the redwood trees, which is beyond the root zone of the redwood trees being considered. Commissioner Barry asked what the total was if one measured from those heritage redwoods and the walking path, and Director Walgren responded that exact number would be obtained by scaling it off the full-size plans. Carol Mauldin, 15345 Bohlman Road, stated that she was at the gathering yesterday and saw the tree arborist and heard his opinions on Bohlman Road. She said the Fire Department is correct to say safety issues are a big concern of Bohlman Road, but she wanted to know where the water district is when it is needed. The water is worse than the road. No matter how little the road is, there is going to be no water. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding what she would like to see, Ms. Mauldin responded that she was conveying not to touch the road as it does not need to be done. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the two pine trees Ms. Mauldin referred to. Ms. Maudlin responded there are two pine trees the arborist said that are dying, next to the redwoods. It has a big enough opening to go right into the Sobrato development and right out where Norton and Bohlman connect and just make a left turn lane. She proposed putting a stop sign at Hidden View. Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Maudlin, as she observed Mr. Coates, did she not observe that his primary judgments were being made as if one had to choose between one side of the road or the other. Ms. Maudlin responded with a no. Commissioner Roupe commented that the Commission would defer to Mr. Coates’ judgment. Ted Cheeseman, 20800 Kittredge Road said that Oak trees can live 350 years or so and redwoods over 1,000 years, and the arborist should not be contradicted; however, with diseases and all, these are pretty durable trees. He said his main points are safety, aesthetics, and preserving the ecology. He referred to the crush- graveled bike and pedestrian path. He said this is not a bike path, and as a biker, he represents bikers. He said by widening the road, cars will travel faster, and the one-foot shoulder is less of a shoulder for bikes to escape on, which creates a more dangerous situation in the end. Road bikes coming down Bohlman Road aren’t going to divert to a crush-gravel path because it is not tenable. He said he would rather see it as open space or preserving the school that he attended. Commissioner Kurasch asked why crushed gravel is bad for bikes, and Mr. Cheeseman responded that it takes 2-3 pebbles to make a skid out and a biker is tumbling; although a mountain bike could do it. He said it is a safety thing. Director Walgren clarified that a typical CalTrans dedicated bicycle path and pedestrian pathway – there are specific standards that would require a much different proposal than what the Commission is considering - is typically about a 6’ dedicated bikeway with physical barrier or at least markings in a 4’ pedestrian pathway Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 16 and that is not what this was intended to do. What this arrangement allows is a 4-6’ wide pathway that young bicyclists or casual bicyclists can use or what a serious bicyclist would use is still the roadway. Bicycle planning encourages that if one is a serious cyclist and riding down the roadway at vehicle speeds, the biker would use the vehicle lane David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, read a statement to the Commissioners: “The issues involved concerning the Sobrato-Bohlman Road situation have become far more critical than anticipated. What is now at stake is not only the beauty of a road, but the health and safety of 130 homes upwards of 400 people who all use this section of road as the only access and egress to their homes. In an emergency, all of our lives may well depend on the ability to vacate the hillside as well as the ability of emergency crews and equipment to access the hillside on Hanford. One accident, fallen tree, or stalled vehicle on this section of Bohlman would not only endanger our property, but possibly our lives. At this junction of the developmental process, we have the ability to meet the needs of the people at minimal cost. If the situation is not resolved now, it will never happen and the problems will compound as more people move on to the hill. I personally know of 8-10 homes now in the planning stage. The residents involved agree on the need for another road. Logic dictates another road. The Saratoga Firefighters Local 33875 agree that there is a need for improved egress. The firefighters have also concluded that the widening of Bohlman Road may not be an adequate or acceptable solution to the problem. Hopefully, you as Commissioners, will arrive at the same conclusions. On the other side is the Planning Department, Mr. Sobrato, and Fire Chief. They are of the belief that the widening of Bohlman is an adequate solution. This is not the case. The Fire Chief was one of the most powerful individuals in the City. His decisions and those of his superiors, the Fire Commissioners, are usually accepted without questions. They dictate policies everyone in the City blindly follow. This is neither right nor fair. It is apparent to myself and others that the Fire Chief’s opinion regarding Bohlman Road is wrong. The residents involved know this is wrong. His workforce, the Saratoga firefighters, know it’s wrong, and the Commission, if just, should come to the same conclusion. It is now apparent that the Fire Chief and the Fire Commissioners are becoming more at odd with the community served and the staff they work with. This situation is unacceptable. They no longer seem to have the best interest of Saratoga residents as their primary goal. The Bohlman Road situation needs to be resolved at all costs. If it takes a petition for a recall election of Fire Commissioners, that is what we will do. We need to have people in office who are willing to work without bias with the community to solve problems such as Bohlman Road. We also need people who are willing to work with and listen to their employees in an honest and straightforward manner. The community cannot afford a rift in the Fire Department. They are our lifeline in emergency and disaster situations. If the Bohlman Road-Sobrato situation is not resolved responsibly and to every one’s satisfaction, we are setting ourselves up for a major disaster. Whose fault will that be? Thank you.” Commissioner Bernald suggested that perhaps this might be an appropriate moment for Fire Chief Kraule to be able to respond to what has been heard tonight. Commissioner Barry asked if the second road alternative were not feasible because of the amount of distance that would have to be dedicated to preservation of the redwood and if the junction did not work for safety reason, what alternative would make sense to Mr. Dolloff for a secondary egress. Mr. Dolloff responded there is going to have to be something involved within the planning situation of the Sobrato area that is going to allow that to occur, but he did not know exactly how. The situation of a secondary egress is mandatory for the safety of the residents on the hill, and so this need is going to have to be brought into the planning stage. Commissioner Barry was wondering if he had an alternative, and Mr. Dolloff said he would bring something up through Vickery with a gate or such, but Bohlman needs to be left as a road alone. If it is widened to 18 Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 17 ½’ the situation is the same as it is now, and it would not work. He said a second road would be best, and more land given over to the second road so it can stay clear of the redwoods might also work. Commissioner Jackman ask Mr. Dolloff what he proposed to do about Bohlman Road above Norton Road, and Mr. Dolloff responded to do nothing about Bohlman Road above Norton Road because it cannot be done. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Dolloff if he would agree to an assessment or district where these types of projects could be paid over a certain amount of time Mr. Dolloff replied that if an assessment district were set up with a leeway given by Mr. Sobrato so that this is not an “I’m getting all the money I can” situation, he is sure that the people on the hillside would be very willing to go for such a situation. Commissioner Roupe inquired about another road out the backside, over the hill. Mr. Dolloff said he has lived here for 50 years and the last he saw of that, it was a fire road. Director Walgren commented that the Fire Chief could answer that question. Fire Chief Kraule stated he is in charge of the Fire Code that is also the State Fire Code, which he administers. He said he is a sworn Assistant Deputy Fire Marshal for the state and is sworn to uphold the code. In dealing with Mr. Sobrato’s property and the questions that were raised at the last meeting, he took it upon himself to look up the Fire Code for what the code actually recommends, and that is a 20’ wide road, exactly what the applicant is asking for, an 18’ plus 1’ for shoulders. It also designates a 13’6” vertical clearance and this is an unobstructed roadway. He is not in a position to go and direct the Commission to come up with either one alternative or another. He asked that whatever the Commission does, that it be a safe drivable road. He spoke of the two major fires in the area, indicating that they had a large potential of becoming open-type hillside fires. The said the firefighters in his district put every effort they could forth to control the first fire which occurred at the corner of Bohlman and Norton, the eucalyptus grove, and they had some assistance from the neighbors to control that fire and it went out. Subsequently, a lot of the eucalyptus trees were removed and some roads were put in there. They also did some tree removal to lessen the fire danger. The other fire occurred at the corner of Bohlman and on Orbit which was a typical type of fire that started on the side of the road from a truck that started to progress up a canyon. The fire had enough momentum and wind, and it began to crown, which is the worst part of a fire. At that time, they called in the County Mutual Aid Plan and Department of Forestry who assisted in putting the fire out. He described the orderly evacuation which is done in concert with the Sheriff’s Department. He also described the fire road which is about 25-30’ wide road, as a fire gate at the end of Bohlman Road is. Keys and lock access it. The road is drivable during the summer and eventually ends on Highway 17, and is an excellent access exit/entrance for the fire department and exit for folks. He said another fire road not used as much is called John Brown’s Fire Trail which takes off from the old Boy Scout day camp, goes through the Cinnabar Winery and ends on Highway 17 and is not as improved as the other road at the top. Commissioner Barry said she heard that the fire road is passable in the summer, and asked about the rainy season. Chief Kraule responded it is a dirt road, is compacted, an it is not advised to be used during winter months. Commissioner Barry asked if it could be used as a controlled evacuation in the winter, and Fire Chief Kraule said it could, depending on the weather conditions at the time. He has mudslides have occurred in the area Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 18 during the winter months. The road could be used during the winter months but only by a four-wheel drive vehicle. Commissioner Barry asked Fire Chief Kraule is he would object to an alternate route from Norton to Bohlman, and whether he would see that as a gain if it were possible to have one designed Fire Chief Kraule replied that any extra road would be of help, although he does not know how much help it would be in percentage of evacuation. He said his experiences with the folks who live in that area are very well disciplined and are very well aware of the situation they live in. He said that in the last fire, the folks that live in that area were very orderly and evacuated them as asked. He said he did not see it as a road being 100 percent required, but a secondary access road is not a zero percent, so there is some value to it, depending on what is put in as far as how many people are going to get up and down the road. Widening the road and controlling the traffic is what is normally done in a mass situation. Responding to a question from Commissioner Barry, Fire Chief Kraule said normally the shoulders are compacted to withstand the same weight as the main road itself. It is only a shoulder, and one does not drive closely. Commissioner Kurasch referred to the existing Novitiate road that comes from Bohlman at Madronia, and asked why that road is now unsafe when it was safe for the Sisters of Notre Dame. Fire Chief Kraule responded he is not a traffic engineer, and to him going up the hill one has clear visibility of both of the roads; exiting from the Sisters property gives one a blind spot to the left because of the way Bohlman intersects there. Commissioner Kurasch asked if a 30,000 pound piece of machinery cantilevered over a side of a hill created a problem, and Fire Chief Kraule responded that any time that something is cantilevered, it is a safety problem, but it is up to the engineers to design it. He gives engineers specifications of weight, dynamic weight, load weight per axle to the engineers and engineering departments will design roadways to support his vehicles or the fire district’s vehicles. Chairman Page announced that it looked like the Commission would probably not be addressing Item #5 and Item #6 on the agenda due to the late hour and the number of speakers remaining on the Sobrato project. Chairman Page declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff were present, except for Director Walgren who was checking on an item the Commissioners had asked about earlier. Brad Belleville, 17080 Bohlman Road stated that he has enjoyed the trees at the beginning of Bohlman for many years. He wanted to assure Mr. Sobrato and the Commission that the comments from some of the neighbors do not speak for the whole. He hoped that Mr. Sobrato and the Commission, and his neighbors would hear how much those trees mean to him, and figure out a way where all can win on this issue, the trees included. He said to put the trees first, noting that no amount of money or replanting will ever replace those trees that are cut. He would rather have a narrow road and a wider connection to the Internet, keeping those trees just as they are. Robert Berger, 15550 Wildcat Ridge conveyed that he would be willing to put up with pretty much anything on that road to keep and preserve the beauty of the trees. He said most of the people he has talked to that live up Bohlman are willing to put up with having the slowdown and having to go through the ups and downs to keep this beauty Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 19 David Arnold, 15291 Norton Road, noted he is very interested in preserving one of the last vestiges of he beauty of Saratoga. He has been at all three meetings and there are three main concerns. One is safety which has been discussed somewhat at length tonight, and two, is preserving the historical beauty of this entrance to the mountains. The third area of concern, which hasn’t been discussed tonight is the amount and speed of the traffic out of the mountains, because this is the only way to get in and out of the mountain. The fire road that was discussed is at the very top of the mountain and is gated, blocked, and is not really a way of doing anything other than dire emergency. It seems that the only real way of preserving this tree-lined area is by not removing any of the trees just because the trees on the westside happen to be oak, they still contribute to the beauty of the overall road. The redwood trees are not the only beauty factor of the road. The alternatives that have been discussed are putting a second road through the subject property, a lot of it centered on what it would do to the roots of the trees. It does not necessarily have to come right back out to Bohlman Road It could come out on Vickery or Montalvo Heights Road or one of those other roads. These are things that just haven’t been looked into, and he thinks that any one of these things is still just a band-aid for the overall problem because all this traffic still runs through very high density areas of residents on Oak Street and Sixth Street. He said the Commission should take a look at what is happening to the mountain. As has already been mentioned, many more houses are being built there, the traffic is going to increase no matter what is done, whether the Sobrato entity increases or decreases the traffic, there is still going to be increased traffic, and over the long run, he would suggest that the Commission look at the possibility of building a new road down in the canyon above Norton Road that would exit out around the vicinity of Jack’s Road directly on to Big Basin, that way it bypasses all the residential area. Responding to Commissioner Barry’s request, Mr. Arnold said that the canyon where they plan to remove trees and build out over it to widen Bohlman Road is pretty steep and there are no houses on that side of the canyon. If the road was built just above Norton Road that would dip down into the canyon and come out above Jack’s Road, it would not go through any housing areas, and it could be made as wide as necessary to meet all the safety requirements. Nyal McMullin, 20915 Hidden View conveyed that the worst trees that are going to fail are those with the pavement right up to the roots on the eastside. He said there was another solution than making this the Embarcadero Highway of Saratoga. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Director Walgren said that in the site visit, prior to the June hearing, the developer took a look at the possibility of building a public road on top of the roots, and he indicated that there are means to build the road up 3’, perhaps a little bit more, to build it up over those roots, but that would be a condition that would have to be maintained throughout the future. It is not a permanent fix. As the roots continue to grow, one would continue to need to readjust the road to accommodate that, but none of these scenarios have gone to the engineering level as to whether these roads can merge, diverge and converge and meet traffic engineering lines of sites and be that close to the existing driveway. It is unknown if through traffic engineering, the roadway might have to be moved a significant degree interior in any of them, just to get adequate merging of the lanes and lines of sight. It certainly cannot be as acute as they currently are if they are going to be public roads with people traveling at them at much higher speeds than people coming out of that driveway. In response to Commissioner Barry’s inquiry regarding the cemetery and its intended use impinging on the feeder roots, Director Walgren said it is unknown how close the plots are going to be. Mr. Pearson commented that one thing to consider is that the plots are going to be randomly dug at different times, and only a few roots would be damaged here and there over many, many years, and the trees would Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 20 have a good likelihood of surviving a little bit of damage. It is not like cutting a trench across like a road where the roots are crossed all at one time. Commissioner Roupe clarified that all of the trees that are under consideration and the expansion would be within the right of way that is currently an easement to public land. Commissioner Roupe asked if it was private land, and Director Walgren responded it is within roadway right of way. Because it is an old road that has been created in patch-meal manners, parts of it are publicly dedicated roadway, parts of it are private ingress and egress easements, but it is within the legal right of way of Bohlman Road that these improvements could occur Commissioner Jackman asked if widening the westside meant going into private property of other people. Director Walgren responded it would be within the roadway right of way, but there are portions of it that are private ingress/egress easements, which is an easement on private property, but there is not a standing offer of dedication, which is what Planner Pearson referred to very early in tonight’s comments and is referenced in the parcel map in the back board. Those have never been accepted, but if the City did widen the road, they would then be accepted to take in this additional roadway width. Richard Crouch, 15668 Bohlman Road said he liked the tree canopy on Bohlman Road; however, he rarely can enjoy it because he is more concerned about running into somebody, and if one is watching the canopy, one is not watching the road. He said that is a significant issue. He said bicyclists and pedestrians certainly cannot enjoy the canopy because they cannot safely be on that road unless they are focusing on their tires and on the pavement. With the proposed 14 trees removed, there is a beautiful mountain. As far as a second lane, that would be a wonderful thing, it would be great, an ideal solution, but he asked if anyone here tonight, other than perhaps a few people, have actually driven on that road recently. He said it is like a roller coaster and there is no way a road is going to be built anywhere near without probably taking half of Sobrato’s property. He expressed his respect for Chief Kraule. He said if this project is not approved, no improvements will occur, and no improvements means less safety for all. Property values will be less, and that is important for everybody. Beverly Phipps, 15270 Norton Road, spoke on three topics. Regarding zoning, it seemed to him that the hillside zoning and slope is a site which is on average about 40 percent slope. The neighbor across the street from there is zoned as a hillside; it is about the same slope. He stated that hillside zoning could not be mitigated by combining one site with another one to get an average slope. Another point he made is that he would like to see the trees on the westside of this narrow section maintained. He said the Commission was focusing on the wrong thing – attempting to destroy those trees to the minimum extent. He would like the Commission to consider restricting the pruning which is done by the utility company. He would like to see a proper discussion of the runoff of the road so that the future life of those trees is sustained, even if some of them are diseased and do die, even if some minor widening is necessary. He noted there is a great body of people who would like to see this road maintained with its natural rural feel. The third thing is really the major issue. Many people are understandably very concerned about fire safety, and he has a suggestion for a road which could be put in. He described the artist in residence property and proposed road on Villa Montalvo and linking a road to the side entrance to Montalvo, noting that such a road would improve the safety of the people up the hill, and the safety of the residents on the Sobrato development. He said should there be a fire in the redwoods or the roads, it would completely block off the hill, and he believes it would be reasonable to request this of Montalvo. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Phipps whether he had any opinion on a double road or widening the road. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 21 Mr. Phipps expressed that a double road would be needed if there were no alternative way of escaping the hill He proposed a better alternative would be to have an unpaved road going from the trail creek entrance down to the artist in residence road which will be put in. He said it is a minor thing; it is not a steep slope; and its advantage is that it follows the track of the river. Mary Ann Sawyer, 15495 Quickert Road stated that it seems like this issue really comes down to two different points – one is safety. This is something that the residents of the Saratoga Heights share overall, and it is an opportunity as the development of this property is reviewed to be able to finally fix something that is a huge problem, not only from a safety standpoint as far as getting up and down the road on a normal day-to- day basis, but in addition, if there was an emergency the residents could get off the road safely, or off the mountain safely. She said she would like to not see the trees removed. She proposed stepping back and realize that the discussion is not only about the Sobrato property, but the overall area, and what is done in one place affects everybody else. Commissioner Bernald commented that the City has County development up there as well as City development. It also has individuals who have built there knowing the situation and are now looking to this project to satisfy their needs. The question is where is the appropriate forum for these questions to come, and does the Planning Commission have the authority to answer the questions being asked this evening Director Walgren responded that the City and the County, the City’s counterparts at the County work with the Fire Marshall, the Saratoga Fire District, and the County Fire District to insure that improvements are made such as widening roads to get to those properties. Once those properties are built, driveways are constructed without exceeding grade so that vehicles can get there, fire hydrants are installed, fire retardant materials are placed on buildings, early warning alarm systems are installed, so it is looked at project by project. The question is if the County was reviewing a 20-lot subdivision up in the hills that fed down into Bohlman Road, would they be responsible for coordinating that review with the City, and he said they should be. Commissioner Bernald reframed her question and asked where do citizens like Ms. Sawyer go and ask for a moratorium, or whether it is essential. She asked if the Council could form an alliance with the County to address these types of issues. Director Walgren responded the City does have agreement with the County. It is a joint powers authority agreement with the County for typically major subdivisions, which is five or more lots. There is typically an EIR process and the City is involved with review of that process, which is for the purpose of coordinating primarily City impacts from a County development. Commissioner Bernald asked about the extent of responsibility Mr. Sobrato has for the building that is going on above him, the conditions that already exist now, and the conditions that will exist in the future. City Attorney Taylor responded that the Commission has to look at the changes to the conditions that Mr. Sobrato’s project have occasioned to the extent that his project is worsening conditions, is increasing safety problems. It is within the City’s power to regulate his project to alleviate those concerns, so that would be the number of homes, the effect of those homes on the existing circulation system, and the changes in the neighborhood affected by the use that is being proposed compared to the use that is there now. All those are relevant questions for the Commission to consider. Commissioner Bernald asked if the focus was on the homes or conditions that exist above his development. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 22 Mr. Taylor replied that it was only to the extent that this development makes those conditions worse. In other words, it is not this developer’s responsibility to the extent that there are problems that have been caused that exist whether his project goes forward or not. Those are not conditions that the Commission can require him to resolve. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether anyone had approached Ms. Sawyer about a study, a traffic study, or any kind of comprehensive look. Ms. Sawyer responded she had not, and that everybody says it is somebody else’s problem. Commissioner Bernald encouraged Ms. Sawyer to discuss with her neighbors forming a homeowners association and looking into a homeowners district to explore alternatives. Diane Greene, 17056 Bohlman Road, proposed that the first place to go for land use is the General Plan. She said she has had to evacuate three times due to fires, and her main point is that this is a City problem. She said the building of this should not be on a developer, and it should not be on the residents living there from the standpoint of this particular development. She said it was not Mr. Sobrato who proposed this plan, it was the City Manager, and she believes that this is a convenient way to correct a safety problem at this end of the road. The neighbors up there have already indicated that they would be willing to be assessed. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/KURASCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) Chairman Page asked if the Commissioners had any additional questions of staff or counsel before proceeding with discussion. Commissioner Kurasch asked City Attorney Taylor about the two of the tests of reasonability and asked him for an idea in this case what the test of reasonableness would be. Mr. Taylor replied that the kinds of conditions the Commission is talking about fall outside the area of the types of conditions that are subject to that rough proportionality standard that similar principles apply. The Commission is not talking about exactions of dedications of land for public use, but about conditions that are necessary to protect public health and safety, to protect resource concerns. It is the Commission’s job to look at the physical characteristics of the land involved to decide the best way of regulating the land use on that land in light of those characteristics involved. Commissioner Bernald asked that, given the fact that the property contiguous to this area is similar in style and topography and is not zoned hillside residential, would there be difficulty coming to a conclusion that this should be then zoned. Mr. Taylor responded that the Commission has a fair amount of discretion in applying those and just as there may be properties in one district that have characteristics, there may be individual property that has characteristics more similar to land in another zoning district, the courts give flexibility. Creating an island of hillside residential in an area that is not zoned hillside residential could be problematic, but if there was evidence to support that determination, it could be upheld. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 23 Commissioner Bernald asked if the Commission has experienced this in the past, does it have precedence in Saratoga where it has done such a thing. Director Walgren responded they were not talking about rezoning the property, but talking about putting conditions on it that would be consistent with the hillside restrictions Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren said that this is the relevant time to consider putting conditions on the subdivision above and beyond the zoning regulations. Anything that is outside of the standard zoning regulation should be made clear now so that a future owner is aware of them before a home is designed and plans are completed. He was referring only to special exceptions. Director Kurasch clarified that some of the surrounding lots were hillside residential, and Director Walgren noted it was on the other side of Bohlman Road. He said the parcels themselves are contiguous with R-1- 40,000 and the other side of Bohlman Road is hillside zoning. The zoning designation “hillside residential” because it has the term hillside in it, does not mean that if it does not have hilly terrain, it’s an R-1-40 zoning. The hillside residential designation came out of the Northwestern Hillside Plan that was a result of Measure A, which took in all of the western hills, and then the City developed the specific plan and developed hillside zoning regulations for that specific plan area. Responding to Commissioner Barry’s inquiry, Director Walgren said that the fencing restriction, the grading limitation, and the impervious coverage restriction should not be considered because the current hillside impervious coverage ordinance includes driveways which is awkward for lots that have such expansive driveways. Commissioner Jackman commented that when it comes to the individual permits, specifically for lots 1 and 4, the most hilly lots, some discretion should be used on the amount of cut and fill on the safety of those lots. She said it would be okay not to make a blanket rule, but have it come up on an individual basis. Chairman Page asked whether the potential homeowners should not know beforehand what the Commission is going to allow them to build. He said that is why Director Walgren was saying that the Commission has the purview to do that now, and the Commission could give them direction at the time they subdivide as to what the conditions will be. Commissioner Jackman said she would agree to that. Chairman Page asked Commissioner Barry to begin deliberations. Commissioner Barry stated she would like to put a proposal on the table for discussion and a vote that would separate the larger Bohlman Road issue from approval of the subdivision. She says what would stay in the subdivision discussion would be what Mr. Taylor said – impacts of the subdivision on that portion of the road so that circulation, ingress and egress, and those kinds of things would be part of the subdivision discussion - but the proposal is that the Planning Commission not decide one road, two roads, or no road as part of the subdivision discussion or approval, but that it recommend to the City Council that a special task force be formed to have a larger review of the Bohlman Road issue, which might end up in assessment district. If it did end up in an assessment district, then certainly Mr. Sobrato’s properties would bear their share of the burden, so if the issue that is of concern to the City and to the Commission that Mr. Sobrato contribute to the solution would not be lost. She said the Commission has heard alot of discussion on the trees, balancing the trees and safety, and what is in fact the best course to make safety on Bohlman Road. She asked whether it was traffic calming or was is it widening the road and potentially increasing the speed. She said those issued Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 24 need lots of discussion and with respect to the subdivision, not respect to Bohlman Road, more discussion is necessary. She said if the larger Bohlman Road issue were separated from this approval, asking the City Council to form a task force and work out a solution would be the best method. She proposed that that discussion begin and see if a consensus can be reached. Chairman Page asked whether Bohlman Road would be left alone as part of the subdivision. Commissioner Barry responded that the changes on the road itself, whether trees are cut down, whether the road is enlarged or not would be left to the decision that the task force arrived at. Issues such as where the ingress and egress should be, should there be more than one, what should be the internal circulation in that subdivision would stay on the table, because as Mr. Taylor said, there is a direct connection there. Commissioner Kurasch said that as far as separating the issues, she would like to discuss it a bit more. As far as voting, it is not obviously a directive, action item until it is put in some form of conditions. She would like to talk about the road, but also the subdivision because she feels that the basis of this land use has not been discussed. Commissioner Roupe supported Commissioner Barry’s suggestion. A lengthy discussion ensued, and Commissioner Bernald noted that Mr. Sobrato was never given the option to respond to all the speakers and new ideas while the public hearing was still open. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/ROUPE MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6- 1 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) Mr. Sobrato responded to the various ideas. He suggested that perhaps one way to go, and assuming this would work, if the Commission approves the development and conditions it to widening it to 18’ so the Commission has him committed to doing that with the proviso that should this special task force within a period of time, determine that they want to scale back the widening and approach it in a more selective fashion, that the Commission has a right to reduce what it is requiring him to do. He said the Commission has heard plenty from public hearings and from him. He said this could be debated forever, and stated he is leery about the subdivision approval tied to a task force process that potentially involves the widening of Bohlman Road all the way to the City limits, or even one that studies the Bohlman issue right along the property. He would like to move forward with the subdivision, let the Commission form the task force, take as much time necessary, condition him on the maximum improvement, which is presumably a uniform 18’ and the Commission can always scale it back. To the extent it is scaled back, it costs him less, and if it is desirable to preserve a few key trees, and the community is willing to live with less than 18’, and the Fire Chief is willing, he would accept be willing also. He said he has always been flexible in terms of what he would do. It is just after three meetings and 18 months, that he is trying to move this process along. He would like to get this subdivision approved and necessarily, if the subdivision is approved, that eliminates the divided two-lane road, because if he proceeds with the subdivision, the construction, the streets, and the lots, that is going to lock him into a full or selective service or none, but some widening program within the existing right of way, and since that is acceptable to him, that might be a good way to go. He has committed to do it. It would not make a lot of sense to let him off the hook on something that he has already agreed to do, unless after the study, there is a reason to cut some of that back. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak again. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/KURASCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6- 1 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 25 A lengthy discussion ensued and Director Walgren and City Attorney Taylor responded to Commissioners’ questions. Director Walgren suggested a framework for a condition. Mr. Sobrato’s offer could be accepted to widen the road to 18’ with the one-foot shoulders, but defer the final decision until some type of a task force review takes place or a neighborhood traffic management review takes place, and then give a timeline that a decision needs to be made prior to accepting the subdivision improvements. He proposed using as much as possible the Public Safety Commission for this purpose and not necessarily try to create a new body to consider this. The PSC is the most diverse in these matters and they will be just wrapping up the Pride’s Crossing neighborhood traffic management program towards the end of this year and early next year. They could then model an apply it to the subdivision in this project vicinity, and hopefully an answer could be available within a 12-month timeframe. Commissioner Roupe proposed that the PSC bring in a few more people such as the Fire Chief and neighborhood people. Director Walgren stated that staff would provide the PSC with the support they need to fully analyze this. Following lengthy discussion, the Commissioners took the following actions: COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/BERNALD MOVED TO PROCEED WITH A SINGLE ENTRY POINT AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSAL. PASSED 4-2 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY AND KURASCH OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) Following additional discussion, Director Walgren read the conditions that would be attached to the resolution, which are: HR fencing and grading restriction for lots #1 and #4; no further subdivision agreement; defer improvement agreement on Bohlman Road per discussion; native landscape plan required with each Design Review application; riparian ravine easement investigation subject to further restrictions and easement recordation; redwood tree and all trees along the right of way to be attended to and cared for and a certified arborist to oversee their pruning and cleaning; develop a protection plan for the redwood trees that would be tied to the conditional use permit (cemetery district); and to vote on a continuous 6’ path. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/BARRY MOVED TO HAVE A CONTINUOUS SIX-FOOT PATH. MOTION FAILED 1-5 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, BERNALD, JACKMAN, ROUPE, AND CHAIRMAN PAGE OPPOSED; COMMISISONER PARICK WAS ABSENT.) COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/ROUPE MOVED TO INCORPORATE THE RECOMMENDATIONS READ BY DIRECTOR WALGREN, APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SD-99-003. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE UP 00-001 WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STATED REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF THE TREES IN THE ARBORIST REPORT AND THAT AN EXCEPTION BE GRANTED TO THE PILLAR HEIGHTS TO MAKE IT 10 ½ FEET AS REQUESTED. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) COMMISIONERS BERNALD/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE UP00-001 WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STATED REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF THE TREES IN THE ARBORIST REPORT AND Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 26 THAT AN EXCEPTION BE GRANTED TO THE PILLAR HEIGHTS TO MAKE IT 10 ½ FEET AS REQUESTED. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) 5. SD--99-014 (503-29-057) – CHANG, 22005 Dorsey Way; Request for Design Review approval demolish an existing 3,317 square foot residence and construct a new 4,203 square foot, two-story residence on a 40,032 square foot parcel. Maximum height proposed is 26 feet. The parcel is located within an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 7/26/00) Due to the late hour, this item was continued to the September 27, meeting. 6. SD-00-002 (397-21-022) – HOWELL & MCNEIL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 20251 Saratoga- Los Gatos Road; Application for Subdivision approval and adoption of a Negative Declaration to split an existing 3.7 acre lot into five lots. The parcel is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 8/9/00) Due to the late hour, this item was continued to the September 27, meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. DR-99-059 (503-30-022) – LUSTENADER, 14220 Pike Road; Request for Modification to an approved Design Review application. The modification involves an increase of 208 square feet of floor area and the addition of 683 square feet of second story decks. Director Walgren stated that this was an informational item, which was self-explanatory in the staff memo in the agenda. Commissioner Bernald stated that at the time this item came before the Planning Commission she had expressed concern that this was a conceptual rather than a detailed presentation, and she said it seemed the Commission was getting more and more applications from Rockwood Design. She said she would entertain any further comments from the Commission that it would like to see perhaps something in greater detail because when conceptual plans are received, it leaves out certain things that call for further scrutiny once building begins. She would request that the Commission send a message to Rockwood Design that it the Commission would like to see better detailed designs to avoid revisiting the project and that they give better thought to what they are doing in their presentations and that they take the City’s system and review process seriously. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Kurasch distributed information on a housing seminar on October 11-12. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Walgren reported that the first Housing Element update public workshop is scheduled October 5, 7 p.m. in the Multipurpose Senior Room. He distributed the consultant’s proposal for the project to the Commissioners. Director Walgren reported that the Circulation Element draft will be going to the City Council next week, with a revised July 21st response memo which includes Commissioner Kurasch’s June 24th e-mail letter. He said Commissioners have until September 20th to submit comments. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 Page 27 COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Page announced that he had received a notice that the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group is having a meeting on September 28th regarding the Housing Leadership Council, and Senator Byron Sher is hosting a housing summit on September 15th. Commissioner Kurasch requested that a representative or liaison from staff attend at least one of the housing seminars coming up. WRITTEN 1. Public Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting September 27, 2000 – Noted. 2. Library Expansion Community Meetings Announcement – Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairman Page adjourned the meeting at 12:55a.m. to Wednesday, September 27, 2000, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Minutes Prepared and Submitted by: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk