HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-10-2007 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, January 10, 2007
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Rodgers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
Absent: Commissioner Cappello
Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Therese Schmidt, City Arborist
Kate Bear and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of December 13, 2006.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava seconded by Commissioner Kundtz,
the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of December 13,
2006, were adopted with an edit to page 16. (4011; Commissioner
Cappello was absent and Commissioner Nagpal abstained)
ORAL COMMUNICATION
There were no Oral Communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the
agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 4, 2007.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Rodgers announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by
filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of
the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 1590.050(b).
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 10, 2007 Page 2
***
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION #07143 (51001030) Silverstein, 19896 Park Drive: The applicant requests
a Modification to a Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Commission at their July
27, 2005, hearing, which consisted of demolition of a residence and construction of a one
story, singlefamily, residence with a total floor area of the 4,828 sq. ft. The proposed
modification would change exterior materials and colors. The gross lot size is 28,750 square
feet and the site is zoned R1 20,000. (Therese Schmidt)
Associate Planner Therese Schmidt, presented the staff report as follows:
• Explained that the applicant is seeking approval for a Modification to a Design Review
Approval that was granted by the Planning Commission on July 27, 2005.
• Reported that the Design Review Approval allowed for the demolition of an existing single
family residence and the construction of a new singlefamily residence consisting of 4,828
square feet.
• Said that the proposed modifications relate to the exterior materials of the building. There
is no proposed change to the floor plan or building height.
• Stated that the original approval included beige with textured stucco, white trim, brown
shutters, and a garage door painted dark brown. Additionally there were whitewashed
brick accents.
• Distributed the original color board to the Commission.
• Continued by stating that the applicant is now requesting a change in materials. This
change would not change any original findings for approval. The new home would still
blend in with the neighborhood. There is no change to the approved landscape plan that is
extensive in the front of the home.
• Explained that a revised resolution would supercede the original resolution with all of the
original conditions of approval retained from the July 27, 2005, approval.
• Recommended approval.
Commissioner Hlava asked if a part of the original circular driveway is coming out to
accommodate landscaping.
Planner Therese Schmidt replied yes, this would become more of a sidewalk area with
extensive landscaping.
Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. David Silverstein, Applicant and Property Owner:
• Said that they are asking for this modification of approval.
• Explained that vines are intended to grown onto the wall to soften its appearance.
Ms. Barbara Silverstein, Applicant and Property Owner:
• Explained that the original paint color was white not beige.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 10, 2007 Page 3
• Added that they thought the appearance would be softer and look better if it was not white
adding character and depth
• Stated that they came to that conclusion as they watched the house elevate on the
property.
• Said that limestone surrounds gives the house a country look instead of dark shutters on
stucco.
Commissioner Nagpal thanked the Silversteins for their time during the site visit.
Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Commissioner Nagpal said that she likes brick but this materials change is an improvement
that she can support.
Commissioner Zhao agreed that the new colors will blend in better and that she can support
this change.
Commissioner Kundtz said that he too likes brick facades but that this one was whitewashed
brick. He said that the findings can be made and that he is looking forward to seeing this
house completed.
Commissioner Hlava said that she can make all findings and that these new materials and
colors are an improvement over whitewashed brick.
Chair Rodgers said that she too prefers the new colors. She said that this is a lovely home
and she hopes the Silversteins enjoy living in it. She asked the maker of the motion to
determine if any of the conditions need to be made permanent.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal,
the Planning Commission approved a Modification to a Design Review
Approval (Application #07143) to change exterior materials and colors for
a new onestory, single family residence on property located at 19896 Park
Drive, without designating any of the conditions as permanent, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cappello
ABSTAIN: None
***
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2
APPLICATION #07205 (50327068) Martin, 14261 Springer Avenue: The applicant
requests an appeal of an Administrative Decision to Approve a Minor Modification of Approved
Plans, granted by the Director of Community Development. The Administrative Decision
pertains to a concrete walkway adjacent to trees. (Kate Bear)
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 10, 2007 Page 4
City Arborist Kate Bear presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that the issue here is a walkway.
• Explained that the appellant has appealed a Minor Modification of Approved Plans that
was granted on November 27, 2006, by the Community Development Director to allow a
portion of this walkway to remain concrete while requiring a portion of it located under an
oak tree to be removed and replaced with pervious materials.
• Said that the appellant lives next door to the subject property and that olive trees near the
walkway are located on the appellant’s property.
• Said that the original report from Barrie Coate & Associates mentioned that trees #6 and
#7 may require removal but did not recommend that the house be redesigned to retain
them. However, the property owner retained all of the trees.
• Stressed that the focus this evening should remain on the walkway although other issues
may come up.
• Said that the focus needs to be whether to require the entire walkway to be removed and
replaced with pervious materials as specified in the original Planning Commission
resolution or to allow the Minor Modification of Approved Plans to be upheld. This allows
the use of pavers on sand underneath the oak tree while allowing the concrete portion to
remain adjacent to the olive trees.
• Reported that in November 2006, the property owner retained an arborist, Mr. Mark
Bedoin, to provide a recommendation about whether it was necessary to replace the
concrete with pervious materials. Mr. Bedoin provided his report to the City and staff
reviewed it. Staff concurred with the recommendations in the report to replace the
walkway with pervious materials under the oak tree and to allow the concrete to remain
next to the olive trees.
• Added that this report was provided to the Community Development Director prior to
making the Minor Modification to Approval Plans.
• Said that the staff arborist concurred with the report that was provided to the City.
• Said that in December 2006, the property owner requested that Barrie Coate reinspect the
trees and the walkway again. Barrie Coate provided the property owner with a letter
clarifying his statements in his original report. That letter recommends pervious materials
under the oak tree within seven feet of the trunk and states that the concrete pathway will
not adversely affect the olive trees.
• Stated that to date, she (Kate Bear) has inspected the trees and has found that the
walkway will not impact the olive trees negatively if the provisions of the Minor Modification
to Approved Plans are followed.
• Said that an independent arborist hired by the property owner has made the same
recommendation, as has Barrie Coates who was the original arborist for the City on this
project.
• Recommended that the Commission approve the attached resolution with added findings
per the staff report and said she was available for any questions.
Commissioner Kundtz pointed out that if the property owner had followed the original approval
for pervious materials instead of concrete, the Commission would not be here this evening
discussing this.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 10, 2007 Page 5
Arborist Kate Bear said that this is true.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if Condition 8 from the original resolution is based upon
recommendation from Barrie Coate.
Arborist Kate Bear said yes, it was Barrie Coate’s recommendation from his original report.
Commissioner Nagpal asked how he can reconcile the difference between his original report
and what he is now saying?
Arborist Kate Bear suggested she might best respond by reading from his most recent letter.
Director John Livingstone said that arborists tend to be very conservative to start with.
Unfortunately, the impervious concrete walkway did get put in. Now that the walkway is in
place, the arborist is interpreting its impacts.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the oak and olive trees are viable and will do fine.
Arborist Kate Bear replied that is her opinion.
Chair Rodgers asked how long since the walkway was put in?
Arborist Kate Bear replied she did not know. She inspected 10 months ago.
Chair Rodgers asked how long before impacts to trees are visible?
Arborist Kate Bear:
• Replied that impacts for an oak tree can take a few months to three years.
• Added that she has not seen olive trees go through deterioration and die. They can be put
through some pretty traumatic situations. They are frequently dug up and replanted as
mature trees.
Commissioner Zhao asked how big an area has to be changed to pervious materials?
Arborist Kate Bear estimated a seven feet long section.
Commissioner Zhao asked what was the entire area of walkway?
Arborist Kate Bear said that she would have to guess that it is approximately 20 feet long.
Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that trenching occurred at the site. She asked if impacts
from that trenching would have already been seen?
Arborist Kate Bear said that the trenching occurred before she was on staff so she did not
actually see it. A letter from David Babby says that this trenching did not damage the trees.
Chair Rodgers asked Arborist Kate Bear if ivy beneath an oak tree is compatible.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 10, 2007 Page 6
Arborist Kate Bear said that she couldn’t rule it out specifically without consulting a specific
resource she uses. She added that she tends to not put ivy under an oak but can’t rule it out
automatically.
Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Ms. Yolanda Martin, Appellant and adjacent property owner:
• Stated that she is here to save her trees and to call attention to her neighbor’s construction
project.
• Added that there have been detrimental impacts from this construction on the health and
future preservation of her trees, specifically one maple, two olives and one oak tree.
• Said that the trees have been subject to several impacts including cutting roots, soil
impaction and change of grade. In the summer off 2005, the roots at the drip line were cut
during the trenching process. She said that her maple tree was considered fair prior to this
trenching but now is dying. Her two olive trees now show signs of stress.
• Added that soil compaction occurred when trucks and heavy materials were driven over
the root zone and/or having materials stockpiled over a trees root area.
• Said that the change of grade occurred with the addition of soil, which smothers the roots.
On the other hand, removing soil exposes the roots. The grade was increased on one side
of the trees.
• Cautioned that construction damage to trees can take two to three years before they can
look like they are declining and can take between five and 10 years for that tree to die.
• Stressed that her trees need help and that this was recognized in 2003. This project was
based on several conditions to protect the trees that were incorporated into the resolution.
• Stated that the walkway was not constructed per the approved plans.
• Said that Code Enforcement staff told her in October that the owner would be issued a 30
day notice to comply. That was never sent. Instead the owners hired their own arborist
and on November 27, 2006, the Community Development Director approved a Minor
Modification to Approved Plans. This was done three years after the fact and eight months
after final inspection.
• Opined that the City’s action was not in favor of tree preservation but rather self
preservation to mitigate its mistakes since the site was approved per incorrect plans.
• Pointed out that pervious pavers are the common standard for Saratoga.
• Said that the site was approved before the walkway was installed.
• Stated that the Community Development Director overstepped his bounds in approving
this Minor Modification to Approved Plans as per Code only the body that originally
approved a project can modify that project. Since the Planning Commission granted this
Design Review Approval only the Planning Commission can issue a Modification.
• Suggested that this is not a minor modification but one with major impacts.
• Stated that basically her trees are doomed.
• Said that she is requesting a refund of her $250 appeal filing fee and that the Planning
Commission reinstate the previous walkway requirement.
Commissioner Nagpal said that she appreciates Ms. Martin’s effort. She added that Barrie
Coate says that the tree would be okay as does the City’s current arborist, Kate Bear. Several
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 10, 2007 Page 7
independent arborists have acknowledged that the trees should be fine, including the original
arborist.
Ms. Yolanda Martin said that she did not believe that Barrie Coate is independent when the
applicant hired him. Kate Bear represents the City.
Chair Rodgers asked whether if the oak tree declines Ms. Martin could apply for the tree bond.
Ms. Yolanda Martin said that she was told that the bond had been released. She added that
the walkway is the only mitigation measure that can be introduced to possibly ensure the
survival of trees.
Chair Rodgers said that that might be the case with the City but that perhaps Ms. Martin could
work with the neighbor.
Ms. Yolanda Martin said that the roots are gone with the olive trees. That can make them less
stable. She added that her neighbors’ arborist told her that if the walkway were to be replaced
with pervious materials those roots would regrow and stabilize the tree. If it remains cement,
the roots are not going to grow.
Chair Rodgers said that if there is damage in the future litigation is an option although not a
pleasant one. She asked Ms. Yolanda Martin if she feels strongly about the need for these
pervious pavers.
Ms. Yolanda Martin said that it is the only possible action that can be taken to save these
trees.
Chair Rodgers pointed out that what the Commission is hearing from the City Arborist is that
the trees will be fine.
Ms. Yolanda Martin said that everything she has researched says that this is not necessarily
the case.
Commissioner Zhao asked Ms. Yolanda Martin if she has a report from the arborists she has
talked to?
Ms. Yolanda Martin replied just one letter.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if Ms. Yolanda Martin had discussed with that arborist the
possibility of a partial pervious pavers walkway?
Ms. Yolanda Martin said that she understood that the walkway near the oak would be
replaced with pavers.
Chair Rodgers asked Ms. Yolanda Martin if the olive trees were located on her property.
Ms. Yolanda Martin replied yes, the olives, a maple and an oak tree are on her property.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 10, 2007 Page 8
Commissioner Nagpal asked Arborist Kate Bear if the walkway was installed when final
occupancy was granted.
Arborist Kate Bear replied that she did not remember but it may not have been.
Chair Rodgers asked if this is an error on the part of the City.
Director John Livingstone said that it is clear that they wanted it to be a pervious walkway.
Ms. Yolanda Martin said that it was determined in 2003 that the olives were on her property.
Chair Rodgers pointed out that the tree was leaning at that time. She asked staff how long
the property owners should be given to present their case.
Director John Livingstone replied that 10 minutes would be appropriate.
Mr. Paul Qian, Property Owner:
• Introduced his wife, Suying Yang.
• Assured that the best effort was taken to protect trees including protective fencing and a
tree bond.
• Added that the tree bond has been released.
• Stated his support for the decision made by the Community Development Director for the
Minor Modification to Approved Plans.
• Said that when his neighbor, Ms. Yolanda Martin, raised issues he hired an arborist.
• Said that three arborist reports come to the conclusion that it is enough to keep the path
and change only the six to seven foot section that is near the oak tree.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Paul Qian if the oak is located on his property.
Mr. Paul Qian:
• Replied yes.
• Reiterated that he has depended on professional arborists and that three arborist reports
support the Community Development Director’s decision.
• Reported that some of the things said by Ms. Yolanda Martin are untrue.
• Pointed out that the City authorized the trench dug. It was under the driveway and not
close to trees.
• Said he feels upset by what his neighbor has said.
• Stated that the maple tree on his neighbor’s property was only 30 percent healthy in 2002.
• Discounted his neighbor’s claim that he had planned to take out the oak tree on his
property. That is not true.
• Advised that this neighbor took out a big and beautiful tree last year that was located at the
property line.
Ms. Suying Yang, Property Owner:
• Said that the tree removed by the Martins was a healthy tree.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 10, 2007 Page 9
Mr. Paul Qian said that although they have tried their best it is not always possible to make
neighbors happy.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Paul Qian why he used concrete for the pathway when
pervious materials were required.
Mr. Paul Qian said that it is an error.
Ms. Suying Yang said they made their best effort.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if there has been any other excavation outside of the utility
trench.
Mr. Paul Qian replied no.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the recommendations from David Babby’s letter were followed.
Mr. Paul Qian replied yes.
Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Paul Qian if he was aware of the condition in the original
approval that called for the walkway materials to be pervious?
Mr. Paul Qian replied yes.
Commissioner Hlava asked if it is true that Mr. Paul Qian called the City to ask why it was
necessary for the entire path to be pervious and got no return call?
Mr. Paul Qian said that no one got back to him.
Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Paul Qian if he spoke with his architect about the material change
for the walkway?
Mr. Paul Qian replied yes.
Chair Rodgers asked if the architect was asked to change from pervious to impervious
materials?
Mr. Paul Qian said that the original drawing had a concrete walkway.
Chair Rodgers asked if use of pervious materials was his understanding of the original
approval.
Mr. Paul Qian replied yes.
Ms. Suying Yang:
• Reminded that the original plan was for concrete on the side for the walkway.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 10, 2007 Page 10
• Added that this was a long project that took four years, starting in 2002.
• Pointed out that three arborists have supported this Minor Modification to Approval Plans
to put pervious material only near the oak tree.
• Said that she hoped the Planning Commission would deny the appeal and allow the Minor
Modification to Approved Plans.
• Said that even the original arborist apologized that the condition was not clear.
Chair Rodgers asked for an estimated cost to replace the entire walkway.
Ms. Suying Yang said it would cost thousands.
Commissioner Kundtz said that the issue here is that the condition approved in 2002 stated a
requirement for a pervious walkway and that concrete was poured instead. He said that the
Commission needs to figure out how to remedy that.
Mr. Paul Qian reported that the concrete near the oak has already been removed.
Ms. Yolanda Martin:
• Said that she obtained a cost estimate to remove the concrete and replace with pervious
materials and received an estimate of $3,200.
• Read from the Tree Ordinance on the impacts on roots from trenching.
• Said it is unclear whether Barrie Coate was even aware that trenching had occurred.
• Pointed out that required fencing was not put up until 10 months after construction started
and not for every tree.
• Explained that the removed redwood tree was damaging her garage and had to be
removed.
• Said that her original calls to the City were to get the protective fencing installed and that
she received no response.
• Added that there is still no fence.
Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Yolanda Martin if she obtained a permit for the removal of
the redwood tree.
Ms. Yolanda Martin replied yes, she received approval from Arborist Kate Bear.
Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Yolanda Martin why that tree needed to be removed.
Ms. Yolanda Martian explained that there were garage and driveway impacts and that it was
starting to hit the foundation. She assured that she still has a cluster of redwoods in her front
yard.
Commissioner Zhao pointed out that with the provisions of the Minor Modification the oak tree
should get healthier in the future. She asked if it is still Ms. Martin’s desire to have the entire
path be pervious materials.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 10, 2007 Page 11
Ms. Yolanda Martin explained that the whole path would ensure the health and survival of all
trees. She added that she has to put in an entire new retaining wall and ivy to help protect the
trees.
Chair Rodgers asked City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer if Director John Livingstone had the
authority to change this approval?
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer clarified that this was not a recorded condition. The change
would make things better. It was a minor change. Therefore, Director John Livingstone was
not precluded from approving this Minor Modification to Approved Plans.
Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Commissioner Hlava:
• Questioned the language of the original condition.
• Said that it appears that the language only required pervious materials for the walkway
when it was near trees #6 and #7 and not for the entire walkway.
• Added that one of the two trees is near the driveway, which is already a pervious material.
Arborist Kate Bear described Tree #5 as an olive tree located near the driveway. Tree #6 is
also an olive tree that is adjacent to the concrete walkway. Tree #7 is an oak around which
the concrete walkway has already been removed.
Commissioner Hlava:
• Said that she is not sure that the City is totally blameless.
• Said that the condition is ambiguous in the extreme.
• Added that it appears that the condition only says that the walkway near the trees needs to
be pervious.
Commissioner Nagpal asked staff if the ratio of paving is correct with this Minor Modification to
Approved Plans.
Director John Livingstone assured that it was checked.
Chair Rodgers said that the Commission is looking at this from the perspective of trees as the
walkway as not on the plan correctly.
Commissioner Hlava said that the Commission should look at this in terms of what is fair to
everyone concerned. She added that it is important to look at the language of conditions
carefully so that they are easy to understand.
Commissioner Nagpal:
• Said that this is a difficult decision.
• Added that she was hoping that the Qians would have done pavers as they cost the same
as concrete to install.
• Stated that she depends a lot on arborist recommendations and that very well known
arborists with exceptional qualifications have all said that these tree would be okay.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 10, 2007 Page 12
• Assured that trees are resilient.
Commissioner Hlava:
• Agreed with Commissioner Nagpal that a lot of experts are saying that this Minor
Modification deals with the issue.
• Added that she also feels bad for Ms. Martin who has spent money and time to come here.
Chair Rodgers said that she also feels bad but the Commission has no power to waive that
fee. She added that the oak was leaning in 2002 and that olive trees are tough trees that
often get transplanted and survive.
Commissioner Hlava said that while she will deny Ms. Martin’s appeal, she finds it difficult to
ask Ms. Martin to pay this appeal fee and suggested asking Council to waive that fee.
Commissioner Kundtz:
• Said that he supports Ms. Martin’s appeal and the reinstatement of the original findings as
well as the reimbursement of her appeal fee.
• Said that while he can understand that errors happen, it is difficult to have a third party
adversely impacted. That needs to be remedied.
Chair Rodgers asked how much of the concrete Commissioner Kundtz would expect to have
removed?
Commissioner Kundtz said the entire walkway.
Chair Rodgers asked staff if the Commission could waive the appeal fee.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied no. The Commission can recommend that Council
consider refunding the fee to Ms. Martin.
Commissioner Zhao:
• Said that there have been lots of errors on both the City and homeowner’s part.
• Added that there are three reports saying that with the removal of a portion of the path the
oak tree will survive.
• Said that she will deny the appeal but support the recommendation to Council that Ms.
Martin’s appeal fee be refunded.
Commissioner Nagpal:
• Said that it is unfortunate when errors occur.
• Added that she places importance on the recommendations made by technical experts
and all have said that the trees would be fine.
• Stated that she cannot support this appeal but can support the request to Council to refund
the appeal fee.
Chair Rodgers:
• Agreed with Commissioner Nagpal.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 10, 2007 Page 13
• Said that there are three arborist reports from experts who have been trusted over the
years. In each report, it is agreed that with the removal of one portion of the concrete
walkway the oak will survive.
• Said that mistakes have been made on both sides and that is regrettable.
• Said that she too would like to recommend that Council waive the $250 filing fee.
• Asked if any conditions here need to be made permanent?
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied no since this Design Review Approval predated the
requirement for recorded conditions of approval.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal,
the Planning Commission DENIED an Appeal (Application #07205)
UPHOLDING an Administrative Decision approving a Minor Modification of
Approved Plans as granted by the Community Development Director as it
pertains to a concrete walkway adjacent to trees on property located at
14261 Springer Avenue, with modified findings from the staff report, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Hlava, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: Kundtz
ABSENT: Cappello
ABSTAIN: None
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz,
the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to Council to
refund the $250 appeal fee paid by Ms. Yolanda Martin in regards to a
concrete walkway adjacent to trees on property located at 14261 Springer
Avenue, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cappello
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Rodgers advised that this item could be appealed to Council within 15 calendar days.
***
DIRECTOR’S ITEMS
There were no Director’s Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Chair Rodgers:
• Advised that the recruitment is underway for a new Planning Commissioner to fill the
vacant seat.
• Reminded that the General Plan will be back before the Commission at its next meeting on
January 24, 2007.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 10, 2007 Page 14
Commissioner Hlava asked when the Commissioners would get their draft copy.
Director John Livingstone replied that he would try to expedite that.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Communications Items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, Chair Rodgers
adjourned the meeting at 9 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of
January 24, 2007, at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk