HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2007-05-23
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for May 23, 2007
7:30 p.m.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II. ROLL CALL
III. AGENDA APPROVAL
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to:
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda;
(b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or
(c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or
public to request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate
action.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission
regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning
Commission, provided that the Planning Commission may undertake no action or
discussion unless otherwise authorized by law.
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by
one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission,
staff, or the public requests a specific item be removed from the Consent Calendar
for separate action.
1. March and April 2007 Building Activity Reports
2. Minor Plan Review 07-11
26 Welcome Lane
Applicant/Owner:
Bill Hartwig / Seal Beach Affordable Housing Corp.
Request:
To replace an existing single-story mobile home with a
new two-story cabana in the Seal Beach Trailer Park.
The overall height will be less than 25 feet and the
proposed structure will provide a total of 1,163 square
feet of living space.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of May 23, 2007
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 07-30.
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
3. Consideration of Request for Condition Compliance Time Extension -
Variance 06-4, 1311 Seal Way.
VII. PUBLIC HEARING
4. Conditional Use Permit 07-7
12205 Seal Beach Boulevard (Winestyles)
Applicant/Owner: Todd Stahl/ Century National Properties, Inc.
Request: To permit the on-premise and off -premise sale of beer,
wine, and wine-related accessories at a new retail
establishment (Winestyles) to be located in the Shops
at Rossmoor.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 07-31.
5. Height Variation 07-2 (Continued from May 9,2007)
231 - 15th Street
Applicant/Owner: Eric Smith & Martha Bock / George Brown
Request: To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in
excess of the 25-ft. height limit. Specifically, the
applicant proposes to construct an 8-ft. 4-in. by 4-ft.
4-in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 4
ft. 0 in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7
feet.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 07-27.
6. Height Variation 07-3 (Continued from May 9,2007)
233 - 15th Street
Applicant/Owner:
Eric Smith & Martha Bock
2
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of May 23, 2007
Request: To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in
excess of the 25-ft. height limit. Specifically, the
applicant proposes to construct an 8-ft. 4-in. by 4-ft.
4-in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 4
ft. 0 in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7
feet.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 07-28.
7. Height Variation 07-4 (Continued from May 9,2007)
235 - 15th Street
Applicant/Owner: Eric Smith & Martha Bock
Request: To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in
excess of the 25-ft. height limit. Specifically, the
applicant proposes to construct an 8-ft. 4-in. by 4-ft.
4-in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 4
ft. 0 in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7
feet.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 07-29.
VIII. STUDY SESSION
8. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning Chapter
2.05 Residential Districts
IX. STAFF CONCERNS
X. COMMISSION CONCERNS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
To June 6, 2007, at 7:30 P.M.
3
Jun 06
Jun 20
Jul04
Jul18
Aug 08
Aug 22
Sep 05
Sep 19
Oct 03
Oct 17
Nov 07
Nov 21
Dec 05
Dec 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of May 23, 2007
2007 Agenda Forecast
Height Variation 07-5 -
Minor Plan Review 07-12-
Minor Plan Review 07-13-
Minor Plan Review 07-14 -
1309 Seal Way
951 Heron Circle
56 Riversea Road
933 Blue Heron
Conditional Use Permit 06-2 Indefinite Extension - 302 Main St
Tentative Parcel Map 2007-145 - 450 Ocean Avenue
HOLIDAY - Meeting Cancelled
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of May 23, 2007
Chairperson Deaton called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 23, 2007. The meeting was held
in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Deaton, Commissioners Bello, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts.
Also
Present: Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner
Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Absent: None
AGENDA APPROVAL
Mr. Whittenberg stated that based upon the discussion at the Planning Commission
(PC) meeting of May 9, 2007, Item Nos. 5, 6, and 7 should be removed from the
Agenda, as these items must be re-noticed. He stated that the applicant has modified
the plan, so the hearing must be re-noticed and scheduled for the PC meeting of June
20,2007.
MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Roberts to approve the Agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Deaton, Bello, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts
None
None
Mr. Abbe noted for the record that at the previous meeting a member of the public had
requested information on Rules of Decorum and the City's ability to require that
someone actually address the Commission rather than simply addressing the audience.
He stated that he has prepared a memorandum listing the authorities for the
Commission to establish rules of procedure and noted that copies of the memo have
been made available to the public.
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
1 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Deaton opened oral communications.
Mitzi Morton provided a brief history of development in Seal Beach noting how the onset
of the construction of "boxy duplexes" and homes built up to the setbacks has impacted
the City by diminishing the amount of open space available for yards for Old Town
residences.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed oral
comm un ications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. March and April 2007 Building Activity Reports
2. Minor Plan Review 07-11
26 Welcome Lane
Applicant/Owner: Bill Hartwig / Seal Beach Affordable Housing Corp.
Request: To replace an existing single-story mobile home with a new
two-story cabana in the Seal Beach Trailer Park. The overall
height will be less than 25 feet and the proposed structure
will provide a total of 1,163 square feet of living space.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
07-30.
MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Bello to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Deaton, Bello, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts
None
None
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 07-30 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
3. Consideration of Request for Condition Compliance Time Extension - Variance
06-4, 1311 Seal Way.
2 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg stated that when this Variance was approved, the Planning
Commission (PC) had specified a certain period of time for submittal of structural plans
to the City. He indicated that the property owners have attempted to meet this deadline,
but have experienced difficulties in having the necessary surveys completed and getting
structural engineers to prepare the plans. He said that Staff is recommending approval
of the request for an extension until July 1, 2007, for submittal of plans to the City.
MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Bello to approve the time extension to July 1, 2007,
for Variance 06-4.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Deaton, Bello, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts
None
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Conditional Use Permit 07-7
12205 Seal Beach Boulevard (Winestyles)
Applicant/Owner: Todd Stahl! Century National Properties, Inc.
Request: To permit the on-premise and off -premise sale of beer,
wine, and wine-related accessories at a new retail
establishment (Winestyles) to be located in the Shops at
Rossmoor.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
07 -31 .
Staff Report
Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
stated the store would offer bottled wine for sale, as well as a tasting room offering
wines by the glass and specialty wine tastings. He said the applicant has informed Staff
that because of the nature of the business, both the Type 20 and Type 42 Alcohol &
Beverage Control (ABC) licenses will be required. Staff has received no comments,
written or otherwise, in response to the public notice of the hearing.
3 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Roberts asked whether this establishment would count for two licenses
in the tally for concentration of ABC licenses within the City. Mr. Olivera stated that it
would.
Public Hearinq
Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Todd Stahl, explained that Winestyles will be a new retail wine franchise
offering a small number of hand-picked wines and wine accessories. He indicated that
there is also a tasting room. Commissioner Roberts inquired about the hours of
operation. Mr. Stahl stated that the hours would probably be 10:00 or 11 :00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m., and on nights when there are wine tastings, they would close at 9:00 p.m.
Commissioner Bello asked if the shop would be open 6 days a week. Mr. Stahl stated
that this would depend upon how profitable it proves to open 6 days a week.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Roberts stated that he believes Winestyles will add to the diversity of the
Shops at Rossmoor and recommended approval.
MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to approve Conditional Use Permit
07-7 and adopt Resolution 07-31 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Deaton, Bello, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts
None
None
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 07-31 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
STUDY SESSION
8. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning Chapter 2.05
Residential Districts.
Chairperson Deaton provided a brief introduction to the procedure for tonight's study
session and emphasized that the objective is not about "designing a dream home," but
4 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
"designing a dream community." She encouraged all members of the community to
participate and provide input. She noted that in order to give everyone present the
opportunity to make comments, speakers would be allowed 3 minutes each, but would
be able to return to the podium later tonight to make additional comments, again with a
time limit of 3 minutes.
Mr. Whittenberg requested a brief recess to prepare the projector for the PowerPoint
presentation. The meeting recessed at 7:55 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:00 p.m.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg provided a brief summary of the events preceding preparation of the
preliminary draft for the Zoning Code (ZC) revision, noting that approximately 9 months
ago City Council (CC) had instructed Staff to do a complete rewrite of the ZC. He
stated that prior to this the Planning Commission (PC) was hearing concerns on the
issue of the mass and bulk of homes being built both on The Hill and in Old Town. He
indicated that late in 2005 Staff had provided a presentation to the PC on the issue of
"Mansionization," that dealt with mass and bulk issues being faced by many cities
throughout California and other parts of the country. He explained that the CC and PC
had conducted three joint study sessions on the ZC in February and March of this year
to review the draft document for the ZC revisions. He noted that the last time the ZC
was revised was in 1974, and since then the City has regulated how the size of homes
can be built by three basic standards:
1. Lot coverage percentage, which varies depending on the zoning area within
the City between 45 percent (College Park EastlWest, The Hill, The Cove),
and 75 percent in Old Town.
2. Setbacks from the front, side, and rear property lines.
3. Height limits for each particular area.
The Director of Development Services then explained that what is being heard now at
both CC and PC meetings is that these standards are not enough to deal with the mass
and bulk of a building. He indicated that the proposed revisions attempt to deal with
these issues in three primary ways:
1. Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which is an additional standard that limits the actual
square footage of a house, over and above what could be allowed by lot
coverage and setback standards.
2. Additional setback standards for second and third stories to prevent the
"cube" look of buildings.
3. Daylight plane provisions that would provide controls over the shape of roofs
and discourage a flat roof structure coming out to the minimum surrounding
setbacks at the maximum height allowed, preventing construction of a solid,
25- or 35-foot vertical wall running from the front to the rear of the property.
5 of 18
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
1 Mr. Whittenberg then provided a PowerPoint presentation to accompany his comments
2 on the Staff Report and explained that the Staff Report is set up to present the FAR
3 standards and provisions and specific design features that property owners would be
4 encouraged to use in order to allow them to have additional floor area. He noted that
5 FAR "deductions" are also proposed for the use of less desirable design features on
6 homes. (Staff Report and presentation are on file for inspection in the Planning
7 Department.)
8
9 The Director of Development Services continued by noting that in recent years Staff has
10 been hearing more about mass, bulk, and the "monotony" of new residential
11 development, particularly as has occurred when older homes on larger, nonconforming
12 properties in Old Town are being demolished and smaller single-family residences are
13 being constructed on the underlying lots. He cited the example of the former Seal
14 Beach Inn and Gardens property, where an older, certain style building was demolished
15 and six new homes have been constructed under current standards, and some people
16 see them as monotonous.
17
18 Mr. Whittenberg stated that in preparing the ZC revIsion document, Staff reviewed
19 approximately 40 different zoning codes, primarily for California coastal cities that are
20 dealing with the same issues as Seal Beach. He said that in creating the preliminary
21 draft Staff has attempted to incorporate many different design standards presented in
22 these zoning codes, but other issues may be brought up during the study sessions that
23 may need to be researched. He then briefly reviewed a listing of Bulk Regulation
24 Standards and Design Elements to Prevent Monotony as listed on Page 5 of the
25 presentation.
26
27 The Director of Development Services then noted that as part of this process Staff met
28 with two architects who have designed homes within the City and asked that they
29 review the proposed residential standards and provide their comments, concerns, and
30 recommendations. He then reviewed the proposed use of a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
31 noting that this is not proposed as the only way to regulate the size of structures and
32 does not need to be included in the Code as there are other ways of limiting the size of
33 residences; however, Staff believes the FAR should seriously be considered. He
34 commented that Staff and the City Attorney are not aware of any legal judgment finding
35 that utilization of FAR results in a "taking," as this would not take away all reasonable
36 use of the property. He reviewed the maximum size homes that would be permitted
37 under the proposed FAR standards in the RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts and noted that
38 Staff is suggesting additional revisions to the FAR that appear in the Preliminary Draft
39 document with regard to lots over 6,000 sq. ft. in the RLD-9 District. Also, for third
40 stories in Old Town, Staff has suggested an additional 0.1 FAR for living space,
41 although the architects have recommended allowing up to 450-800 sq. ft., as the
42 maximum for third floor living area.
43
44 Mr. Whittenberg then provided a review of Attachment 3, "Comparison of Proposed FAR
45 to Current Lot Coverage (As Revised by Staff, May 10, 2007)," noting that under the
46 current lot coverage and setback standards for the RLD-9 areas (College Park
6 of 18
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
1 EastlWest, The Hill), once these are translated into an FAR number, this translates into
2 an approximate 0.82 to 0.855 FAR. He indicated that for these areas Staff has
3 proposed an FAR between 0.70 and 0.85. He then reviewed the proposed FAR
4 numbers for the RHD-20 District stating that Staff has proposed an FAR between 0.85
5 and 1.10. He explained that for a 3,750 sq. ft lot under current FAR standards you
6 could have 1.4 times this number in house size, and with a proposed FAR of 1.00, you
7 get 1 sq. ft. of house for every square foot of land area that your lot encumbers. He
8 stated that Staff is recommending that the ability to have third floor areas be maintained,
9 but to reduce the size of what can be proposed for third floors. He then referred to
10 Attachment 5, which provides comparisons for various homes within Seal Beach of
11 existing lot coverage and proposed FAR standards for allowable building area, followed
12 by a review of the presentation section entitled "Overview of Average Size VS. Allowable
13 Residence Size," covering average home size in the RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts.
14
15 The Director of Development Services then discussed proposed revisions to the FAR
16 provisions stating that these would allow for development at a scale and mass that
17 would generally be compatible with existing development, while allowing for significant
18 design incentives. Some of the areas identified are:
19
20 1. Exclusion of basement areas if totally below the natural grade.
21 2. Revision to "base" and "maximum" FAR for lots larger than 6,000 square feet -
22 RLD-9 District
23 3. Revision to FAR increase for lots able to have a third floor living area - RHD -20
24 District
25
26 Mr. Whittenberg then paused for questions from the Planning Commission (PC).
27
28 Commissioner Questions
29
30 Chairperson Deaton asked whether there were any terms that needed defining prior to
31 opening for public comments.
32
33 Commissioner Roberts referred to Attachment 3 and noted that his understanding was
34 that porches, covered patios, and garages were included in the lot coverage, and only
35 habitable space was included in the FAR. Mr. Whittenberg explained that under lot
36 coverage standards, a garage area is included if it is not covered by a second story, and
37 under the FAR standards and lot coverage a covered porch is included if it has a solid
38 roof over it; however, these have been excluded from all of the evaluations when
39 focusing on habitable living area. Commissioner Roberts asked if Staff felt comfortable
40 with this approach by suggesting that a bonus would be added to the FAR for porches.
41 Mr. Whittenberg stated that there would be standard provisions that would allow certain
42 things by right, but if the property owner adds design features over and above the
43 standards, they would be able to have an additional FAR bonus.
44
45 Chairperson Deaton stated that since 2005 the PC has been dealing with the issue of
46 mansionization, yet based upon the material presented, there appear to be only 4
7 of 18
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
1 homes within the City that would exceed the FAR, but most of them fit within the FAR.
2 She questioned whether what is being proposed would actually help address the
3 mansionization issue. Mr. Whittenberg explained that these homes fall within the
4 proposed FAR standards as far as the square footage allowance is concerned, but they
5 would not fit the standards for the proposed design features such as daylight planes,
6 building envelope, and additional side yard setbacks for second and third floor areas.
7 Chairperson Deaton requested a definition of "Building Envelope." Mr. Whittenberg
8 stated that this is generally the exterior outline of the building, including rooflines. He
9 explained that building envelope requirements can change the outline of a building by
10 requiring additional angles of setback for the roof of the building so that it does not
11 protrude above a certain defined plane. He noted that for homes with a steep mansard
12 roof and a flat roof on top of that, the sidewalls would have to be moved in closer to the
13 interior of the lot to keep the roofline from encroaching into the daylight plane.
14 Chairperson Deaton again expressed her confusion noting that it appears the FAR does
15 not really address mansionization, but yet she believes the FAR "sounds like a great
16 idea" that could help address this problem. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the FAR is
17 an additional restriction that doesn't exist today, and the homes shown in the
18 presentation are not built as large as they could be under today's standards for lot
19 coverage and setbacks. Chairperson Deaton clarified that the FAR protects the City
20 from those who will build outside the FAR, but so far people are not building outside the
21 FAR. Mr. Whittenberg stated that generally they are not, but cited the home at 132 13th
22 Street as the best example of this, as the third floor is built out almost to the maximum
23 square footage, although this is an attached 2-unit project rather than a single-family
24 residence. He noted that this project provides an example of what is still possible under
25 today's standards and would be outside the FAR. He reviewed the example of the
26 actual and proposed base for FAR standards for 1305 Catalina as it appears on the
27 Comparison of Existing Lot Coverage & Proposed FAR Table.
28
29 Commissioner Roberts stated that he believes it would be useful to calculate the FAR
30 for this property. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this information could be provided at a
31 future study session. Commissioner Roberts said that he feels it is important that the
32 public know his position in beginning this process. He stated that he believes in
33 compromise and that the City can support three stories, but not under the current
34 standards. He said he believes that the direction in which Staff is going with the
35 information presented is "right on, II FAR and lot coverage limitations are solid factors,
36 and that setbacks and daylight planes will provide protection against bulk.
37 Commissioner Roberts then noted that he does not feel that the City should burden
38 itself with building volume ratios or landscape volume ratios, as this can be a very
39 complicated approach.
40
41 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she believes using an FAR is a "workable"
42 method for determining the actual square footage allowed on a piece of property, as it is
43 easy to calculate, as opposed to lot coverage. She said that she agrees with most of
44 the bonuses proposed for incorporating certain design features.
45
8 of 18
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
1 Commissioner Bello stated that the City does need regulations that are very clear, as it
2 will make the Planning Commission's job easier. She said she also agreed with the
3 incentive designs and is deeply concerned about the mass and bulk of homes being
4 constructed within Seal Beach.
5
6 Public Comments
7
8 Chairperson Deaton opened for public comments.
9
10 Bill Ayres suggested encouraging the construction of basements, noting that there is not
11 a lot of open space in Seal Beach to build very large homes. He said that basements
12 can provide a lot of additional living space for entertainment or workout rooms. He
13 added that with new technology the basements can be sealed to prevent water leaking
14 in. He recommended excluding basements from the square footage requirement.
15
16 Belinda Howell said she favors incorporating new design guidelines, but she is not
17 comfortable with the FAR, as many of the existing larger homes in town already fall
18 within the proposed FARs. She cautioned that the design guidelines should not be so
19 rigid that they leave no room for architectural variety.
20
21 Mike Bubbe proposed limiting the size of third stories for single-family residences to a
22 maximum of 300 sq. ft., that only inside staircase access be allowed, that additional
23 setbacks from the side yards be required, that third stories be limited to the rear half of
24 the building, allow no roof decks on top of the third floor, and that increased setbacks for
25 the second and third story be required. He asked that those present who were in favor
26 of these proposals to raise their hands. The count was approximately 30 people in
27 favor.
28
29 Robert Goldberg congratulated Mr. Whittenberg for consulting with two architects to
30 review these proposals. He indicated that the FAR does provide clarity as to what can
31 be constructed; having a base and maximum FAR and providing bonus points for
32 incorporating the proposed design features encourages good building and good design;
33 and the FAR prevents overdevelopment. He then indicated that Mr. Whittenberg had
34 stated that a third story is limited to 1,320 sq. ft, and questioned why on a 37.S-foot lot
35 current code standards allow for 6,000 sq. ft for a 2-story home and 9,000 for a 3-story
36 home. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the 1,320 sq. ft. is the largest third story that can
37 be constructed on a 3,750 sq. ft. lot, but most of the lots in Old Town measure 37.5 ft. x
38 115 ft. equaling 4,312 sq. ft. He stated that the 9,000 sq. ft. would be allowed for a lot in
39 Old Town that is 4,999 sq. ft. in area, which would be the size you end up with because
40 the house would be almost 50 ft. wide.
41
42 Steve Cole stated that the FAR appears to be quite workable, but it does not address
43 the community's concerns with the size of homes currently being constructed. He said
44 that the community would like to hear that this size construction would no longer be
45 allowed.
46
9 of 18
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
1 John Durett expressed appreciation to Staff for all of the work done on the study
2 session materials so far. He stated that daylight planes and design guidelines would be
3 key to reducing bulk, particularly in the dense area of Old Town. He indicated that the
4 quality of life for residents of Seal Beach is what is imperative. He asked if there would
5 be any future ruling prohibiting combining properties to create larger lots, as he would
6 not want to see another home constructed in town like the one on 13th Street. Mr.
7 Whittenberg stated that a project like the one constructed on 13th Street could not be
8 built under the proposed new standards as a third story would be limited only to single-
9 family residences.
10
11 Warren Morton recommended slightly decreasing the FAR for third stories.
12
13 Eldon Alexander stated that there are property rights that do not change, and when
14 government takes land away, property rights are violated, as well as violating the
15 community. He said he appreciated Mr. Whittenberg having two architects provide
16 comments on the proposed standards, but the discussion should focus on the general
17 welfare as well as economic concerns, related to the impacts of reducing the allowable
18 building areas and how this would affect the City's tax revenues and school funding.
19
20 Cari Thua agreed with Eldon Alexander's comments on how FAR regulations would
21 affect the City's economy, which could ultimately lead to higher taxes for property
22 owners.
23
24 Carla Watson also spoke on the "spirit of place" that Old Town represents and supports
25 decreasing the size of new homes and third story construction. She said she would be
26 fearful for property owners who are now trying to sell their home that is bordered on
27 both sides by "gargantuan" homes, which does lower property values.
28
29 Mitzi Morton spoke in favor of lowering the lot coverage from 75% to 60% and also use
30 the FAR regulations. She stated that the area for third stories should be just a little
31 more than 300 sq. ft., but not 900 sq. ft. Chairperson Deaton asked how open space
32 would be compatible with 75% lot coverage. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the
33 suggestions made for required open space, both in Old Town and other areas, would
34 impinge somewhat upon this lost coverage standard, depending upon how it is
35 configured. He explained that if you have 75% lot coverage that allows for 5,000 sq. ft.
36 and you have an FAR that allows 3,000 sq. ft. of floor area, you could have all 3,000
37 feet under the FAR standard as single-story area, and cover a little bit more of the total
38 lot area, and this would include the open space requirement. This would then impact
39 how much is on the first and/or second floor. Chairperson Deaton asked if the revised
40 ZC would incorporate standards that would mitigate some of the complaints about yards
41 and open space. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that the proposed ZC revisions would
42 include this.
43
44 Chairperson Deaton opened for Commissioner Comments.
45
46 Commissioner Comments
10 of 18
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
1
2 Commissioner Roberts stated that public comments appear to reflect that the
3 community would like to investigate FARs and believe that this might be a workable
4 solution. He said that people have done a great deal of conceptualizing on what all
5 these different regulations mean and how they can be incorporated to come up with
6 something that is agreeable to the community. He stated that it would be helpful to see
7 3-D models of how these proposed standards would work. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
8 the two architects that Staff has been working with already have plans for homes
9 showing how additional side setbacks would impact the floor plans and how building
10 envelopes would affect existing rooflines. He pondered whether these plans could be
11 converted to a 3-D isometric view and stated that he would inquire about this.
12
13 Commissioner Bello agreed that it would be helpful to see something concrete, and also
14 liked the suggestion that people look at some of the houses that they don't like right
15 now, to determine how to avoid this in future development.
16
17 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that this is a difficult issue as people have different
18 expectations of what they want to develop on their property. She noted that people who
19 speculate on development tend to build out "to the max" because they can, and people
20 who are building for themselves are generally much more reasonable. She said that in
21 looking at the comments from the architects, you come up with how the FAR will not
22 maximize itself either, as the current lot coverage is generally not maximized, and the
23 FAR will probably not be maximized, even with the bonus points because there is
24 another section for disincentives, which issues minus FAR points for designs that would
25 be less desirable. She noted that she believed some of the proposed open space and
26 landscape requirements to be "a little heavy" for a SFR on and 800 sq. ft. lot, and the
27 private open space in multi-units is too great. She said there are a lot of parts to this
28 that need to come together.
29
30 Chairperson Deaton stated that she believes that people are willing to compromise,
31 which is a great place to start. She agreed with Commissioner Massa-Lavitt that the PC
32 needs to look at the details, and the open space is a big one. She noted that future
33 study sessions should provide further clarification on how roof pitch, daylight planes,
34 open space, etc., fit in with the FARs. She agrees that the FAR is a good approach and
35 commended Mr. Whittenberg on electing the right vehicle to use in addressing bulk and
36 mass of homes, as FARs would be easy to understand, easy to calculate, and more fair
37 than what currently exists. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt added that property owners
38 would be able to calculate and see exactly what they can build. Chairperson Deaton
39 then re-opened for public comments.
40
41 Victor Grgas stated that he believes Staff is on the right track and seeing the whole
42 thing pull together makes a lot of sense, as it is attempting to achieve not only
43 minimizing the mass and bulk of homes, but also maximize the ability for architectural
44 diversity. He asked why third story space is being proposed to be larger, since third
45 stories are usually used for bedrooms. Mr. Whittenberg stated that what was
46 represented by the architects was that most third stories are either a master bedroom
11 of 18
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
1 suite or a family room, and they felt 375 sq. ft. would not be sufficient. Mr. Grgas asked
2 what the City will have to do in the way of approving the new ZC related to the California
3 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mr. Whittenberg stated that there will be at least a
4 Negative Declaration (ND) prepared, and he doubts that a Mitigated ND would be
5 required because the document approval does not approve any development project.
6
7 Barbara Moreland suggested bringing in pictures of homes already built in Old Town
8 that the community is not in favor of, and visually explain what the FAR would do were
9 these projects to come before the PC under the proposed new standards.
10
11 Belinda Howell stated that currently she lives in an 800 sq. ft., 2-bedrooom home with
12 an apartment over a legal nonconforming garage, and if they chose to remodel, they
13 would have to demolish the garage. She said that there is small patio with a pine tree
14 between the home and the garage and she uses the apartment as an art studio. She
15 indicated that her husband has attempted to acquire approval of a variance to add a
16 second story bedroom and bath and possibly increase the first floor living space without
17 having to demolish the garage, but they don't want to lose the yard space between the
18 two units. Chairperson Deaton noted that Ms. Howell could decide to rent the
19 apartment and this would then increase the density. Ms. Howell noted that rentals in
20 Seal Beach provide the opportunity for people who cannot afford to buy a home in Seal
21 Beach to be able to live here. Chairperson Deaton asked if there has been any thought
22 about a SFR that is not attached, but has open space in between. Mr. Whittenberg
23 stated that this was not considered as it leaves the potential for "bootleg rental units."
24 He explained that up until 2001-02 the City allowed a person with a legal nonconforming
25 property with too many units on it to add to the living space of the unit subject to certain
26 standards and review requirements. He said that this became a big issue and the City
27 ultimately decided that if a property was nonconforming due to too many units, no
28 additional living space could be added to any of the units on the property. If a person
29 wished to add space, they had to conform to density standards, by eliminating the
30 nonconforming units, and the provisions of this Code are not proposing to change those
31 standards.
32
33 Warren Morton referred to the section on Building Height on Page 18 of the Staff Report
34 and suggested that along with the actual numbers for proposed height maximums,
35 examples in the form of photos also be included.
36
37 Jeff Deckner commented on the problem with third story homes obscuring sunlight to
38 surrounding homes with solar panels. He indicated that his home has 24 solar panels
39 for provision of energy and if a third story home were constructed next door, it would
40 completely negate his investment. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that this issue was
41 presented at a previous study session, and a section of the proposed Code has been
42 reserved to address this. He noted that the daylight plane will do a lot in addressing
43 this, but there may be some additional standards for protection of solar panels. Mr.
44 Abbe added that many cities are currently grappling with this issue, and as the cost of
45 solar energy decreases and demands for environmental accountability become more
46 pressing, the use of solar panels is projected to increase.
12 of 18
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
1
2 Chairperson Deaton asked if the proposed new Code would allow roof decks on top of a
3 third story. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would have to review the Code, but he does
4 believe it does. Chairperson Deaton noted that if this is allowed, then you would be
5 having projections on top of a third story for Covered Roof Access Structures (CRAS) or
6 for elevators. Mr. Whittenberg stated that currently there is no prohibition, but he
7 believes that the new standards prohibit roof decks on the third floor living area, and he
8 will verify this. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt commented that if the square footage of
9 third floors is to be limited, theoretically you should have some room for deck space on
10 the second floor. Commissioner Roberts asked if there are any limitations for the
11 square footage of decks. Mr. Whittenberg stated that technically no there aren't, but
12 practically there are provisions in the Building Code (BC) that state if a deck exceeds
13 500 sq. ft., there must be two separate exits from the deck, down through the house to
14 the ground, and most people don't want to have these two stairways inside their home.
15
16 Robert Goldberg commented that on third story decks the railing is often solid stucco
17 and adds 42-inches of solid mass around the sides and rear of the home, so he is
18 happy to hear that there will be prohibitions on third story decks, and perhaps there can
19 also be a requirement for an open or glass railing. With regard to FARs he noted that
20 Staff's suggestion to increase the FAR for homes on The Hill is a good idea. With
21 regard to Staffs recommendation to increase the FAR bonus for third stories from 0.15
22 to 0.25 to allow larger third story construction, Mr. Goldberg stated that a third story
23 would be at the rear half of the home, but if a larger third story is constructed the first
24 and second stories would have to be constructed with wider setbacks, making the
25 house more pyramid in shape rather than a box. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the intent
26 for the increased FAR would apply only to the third floor, and there would also be a
27 separate total FAR for both the first and second floor combined. Mr. Goldberg
28 recommended having one FAR for the entire structure, and if people want to add more
29 on the third story, they would have to have a smaller base, allowing for more yard and
30 open space.
31
32 Commissioner Roberts asked for a discussion of what the next step in this process
33 would be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that several additional study sessions would be
34 involved. Commissioner Roberts interjected that he believes the PC is ready to talk
35 seriously about next week, not to rush things along, but to create a schedule.
36 Chairperson Deaton added that this would create continuity. Mr. Whittenberg noted that
37 the only caveat to this would be that limited Staff might not allow the time to do this each
38 week. He suggested that to go to the level of detail anticipated should take
39 approximately one month to six weeks to pull this information together. He
40 recommended returning to the previous section and deal with commercial/industrial
41 open space, process issues, and general standards for all other zones, and place the
42 residential on hold while Staff brings the pieces from tonight's discussion together.
43
44 Eldon Alexander agreed with Mr. Whittenberg's estimation of the anticipated schedule.
45 He then referred to Attachment 3 and noted that the FAR for third stories roughly
46 calculates out to 0.69 for what is currently allowed, so adding a 0.1 or 0.15 or 0.25 to
13 of 18
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
1 this is quite a reduction. He suggested showing how the daylight plane would affect the
2 FAR, as this would include the setbacks for the second and third stories, and this would
3 show the how much reduction would be created from the three elements of the
4 architectural considerations. Chairperson Deaton asked if the daylight plane would
5 reduce the FAR. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it would not, but additional stepbacks
6 for walls over 14 or 21 feet high and the provisions for the open space requirement on
7 the ground floor would have the potential for decreasing the actual FAR, but would not
8 change the ordinance provision as to what the maximum would be. He also noted that
9 the daylight plane has the potential to allow for flat roofs, and if a flat roof is not desired,
10 the FAR would still not be affected. Mr. Alexander referred to Attachment 2 on
11 mansionization and noted that the impacts of third stories are minimal when located
12 next to a 2-story home if the third story is confined to the rear half of the home, but there
13 would be more of an impact when a 3-story home is next to a single-story home,
14 although it would still not impact the flow of air, but solid fences would impact the flow of
15 air. With regard to solar panels, Mr. Alexander noted that the rooftop panels are only
16 one element of a system required to generate electricity, and the newer capacitors, or
17 batteries, are smaller and more technologically advanced making them more affordable
18 and easier to install inside a home. Also, the panels themselves are now smaller and
19 have been layered to allow them to collect more energy and sunlight. He then
20 commented that most homes in Old Town face in an east west direction allowing for
21 more exposure to sunlight throughout the day. Chairperson Deaton interjected that she
22 lives in Old Town and the sun is at an angle to her home, and she loses sunlight at
23 about 1 :00 p.m., and most Old Town homes face northeast and southwest so that
24 sunlight is actually striking at an angle. Mr. Alexander continued by stating that any
25 proposed architectural design features will eventually become tiresome to people after
26 about 15 years, and most people rebuild to create a home with a unique look.
27 Chairperson Deaton asked if Mr. Alexander agreed that what Staff is proposing will
28 allow for more architectural diversity. Mr. Alexander stated that the limitations of the lot
29 sizes and setbacks in Old Town would not allow for as much architectural variety, but
30 that is one of the advantage of a third story, as it allows for diversity. He also noted that
31 although porches do contribute to diversity, they do not add to the reduction of bulk, and
32 suggested incorporating a variety of designs for use when developers construct multiple
33 homes, such as has occurred on the corner of 5th Street and Central Avenue.
34 Chairperson Deaton commented that it might be a good idea to review home designs
35 every 10-15 years to determine whether desired design features have changed and can
36 be incorporated into the Code.
37
38 Mary Lewis stated that the major concern of Save Our Seal Beach is still property
39 values and the protection of a family's investment in property in Seal Beach. She said
40 she does not favor FARs, which are very difficult to visualize and understand, and she
41 believes that initially Mr. Whittenberg had not done the math, and if Mr. Alexander had
42 not done the math, people would not have known about the 4,000 sq. ft. limitation in
43 many places. She cited how FARs have presented problems for many people living in
44 other coastal cities with families losing home value. She said that this fight will not go
45 away if the priority becomes a battle over tastes and style, and what retirees want their
46 streets to look like, as opposed to families with the need for space for children and
14 of 18
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
1 whose major investment is their home. Chairperson Deaton asked what Ms. Lewis
2 would recommend. Ms. Lewis stated that the priority should remain respect for property
3 rights and commented that many who favor restricting three-story development already
4 live in three-story homes, and arbitrarily diminishing property values in a small
5 community creates division.
6
7 Mitzi Morton stated that people do not have the right to diminish their neighbor's
8 property values by constructing a three-story home next to a single-story home. She
9 said that she had worked in real estate in the 1980's and agents did not tell buyers
10 interested in the wider lots that they could build to three-stories, but these wider
11 properties were purchased with the intent of constructing a two-story home. She noted
12 that it was not until many years later after the downzoning that agents discovered that
13 37.5-ft. lots allowed for three-story construction. She said that the City has a right to
14 change the Code and to downzone when needed, and the City is at that crossroads
15 now. Ms. Morton stated that people are attempting to compromise to allow for third
16 stories, but the community does not want to see huge mansions in Old Town. She
17 noted that many cities are now dealing with the same issue and "bigger is not
18 necessarily better." Chairperson Deaton asked what the economic impact of
19 downzoning in the 80's had been. Ms. Morton noted that there was none, in fact, real
20 estate increased in value.
21
22 Eldon Alexander stated that the notion for the Residential High Density (RHD) zoning
23 designation in Old Town is that you could also have an apartment complex to house
24 more people, but recent census information reflects that Seal Beach is losing people.
25 He said that population growth is necessary for economic growth, and in Seal Beach
26 consumers are needed so that Main Street will continue to thrive, but downzoning has
27 reduced the number of rental units that can be constructed on a property.
28
29 At 10:35 Chairperson Deaton called for a brief recess.
30
31 The meeting reconvened at 10:42.
32
33 Eldon Alexander continued by stating that while the FAR is easy to calculate and gives
34 an idea of bulk and volume; this is not really what people look at when deciding to build
35 a home. He said that if the FAR is used, the "NIMBYS" will come in and want to further
36 reduce the FAR, and he sees this as a "bad political tool that is being used."
37 Commissioner Roberts commented that if you get a pro-development council, they
38 could just as easily decide to increase the FAR. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that
39 with the FAR you have an opportunity for more incentives, and also for disincentives,
40 and you end up with a better articulated building with the kind of architecture that you
41 are looking for, having taken the opportunity to force people to increase or decrease
42 their FARs and doing nicer designs. Mr. Alexander countered that if you are beginning
43 with the architectural considerations, these would not be necessary in order to have the
44 incentives and disincentives, which he sees as an attempt to accomplish other things.
45 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that you are attempting to accomplish other things,
46 like presenting something that is a benefit to the neighborhood, and rather than placing
15 of 18
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
1 one box next to another you have buildings that benefit the community. She said that
2 altruism is wonderful, but when looking at dollars and cents and building design, many
3 times it does not come out, so it has to be written in black and white so that everyone
4 knows what is permitted.
5
6 Chairperson Deaton stated for the record that she agreed with Mr. Alexander's
7 comments regarding rental units. She said the loss of many of the rental units has been
8 a huge loss to the community, as renters have offered so much substance and texture
9 to Old Town, but, unfortunately, it is no longer economically viable, or people don't want
10 to provide this type of housing, or they are using these lots for their own use rather than
11 to provide housing for renters. She noted that during her time living in Seal Beach she
12 cannot recall an apartment building having been constructed. Mr. Alexander added that
13 owners of rental units have no incentives or disincentives for doing anything
14 architecturally and most of these structures are simply "stucco boxes," on which only the
15 minimum maintenance is done.
16
17 Chairperson Deaton then closed public comments and stated that the discussion would
18 continue at the next scheduled study session of June 6, 2007, when the PC will revisit
19 the zoning revisions for commercial properties.
20
21 Commissioner Roberts asked if there were any action items to carry away from this
22 meeting. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff will investigate the potential for creating 3-D
23 or other visualizations to present at the next study session on residential zoning.
24 Commissioner Roberts asked how the concerns over economic impacts to property
25 owners could be addressed. Mr. Whittenberg explained that when Planning
26 Commissions are looking at zoning decisions and determinations they do not consider
27 economic impacts. He said that City Council will do this when making a legislative
28 action to adopt the final ordinance, but the PC is charged with looking at zoning
29 guidelines only from the standpoint of impacts to the community.
30
31 Chairperson Deaton then added that for the next study session on residential, Staff
32 would be preparing information on the daylight plane, open space, and incentives and
33 disincentives. She stated that she would like to see a change in the incentives and
34 disincentives based upon the comments received from the architects. Mr. Whittenberg
35 noted that this has been addressed in the Staff Report presented tonight. He said that
36 Staff would also provide a timeline for additional study sessions and indicated that the
37 PC would probably not be revisiting residential zoning until the end of July, at the
38 earliest. He emphasized that Staff and the PC are dealing with rewriting a document
39 that has not been revised for over 30 years, and it is important that the community have
40 a clear understanding of what is being proposed. Chairperson Deaton expressed her
41 concerns over "continuity," noting that she would be happy to meet once a week as the
42 discussion gets closer to being finalized and the PC prepares to make its
43 recommendations to City Council. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be no problem
44 once the issue of "visualization" has been addressed, as this will be the most difficult to
45 bring together. Chairperson Deaton stated that she believes photos of the homes that
46 were not presented tonight would be very helpful with this. Mr. Whittenberg noted that
16 of 18
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
1 Staff may be able to work with the architects in accomplishing this task. Chairperson
2 Deaton suggested making drawings of homes on transparencies and using and
3 overhead projector and erasable markers to show examples of daylight planes, etc. Mr.
4 Whittenberg indicated that these drawings would still have to be done to scale in order
5 to be accurate.
6
7 Mr. Whittenberg stated that public notice would be published regarding future study
8 sessions.
9
10
11 STAFF CONCERNS
12
13 Mr. Abbe reported regarding authority to underground the cabinet for wireless
14 telecommunications buildings, and requested an extension, as he will be meeting with
15 Greg Smart, a telecom expert, on Friday to discuss this issue.
16
17 With regard to the City's authority to regulate tattoo parlors, Mr. Abbe stated that many
18 cities do impose restrictions on them related to distances, etc. He said that he needs to
19 investigate further to find out whether the City can require a Conditional Use Permit
20 (CUP) and also to determine what the standards are for distances from other tattoo
21 parlors or from schools, etc. He said he would return with more information on this.
22
23 Mr. Abbe then reported on adult businesses noting that he had not correctly provided
24 the legal standards at the previous PC meeting. He introduced his colleague, Steven
25 Flower, who provided the following information on adult business.
26
27 With regard to requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an adult
28 business, the law is fairly clear that a City cannot impose a CUP
29 requirement on an adult use, as they fall within the protection of the First
30 Amendment, and any permit requirement that touches upon a protected,
31 expressive use qualifies as what is categorized as "prior constraint" on
32 free speech. The courts have been very clear that when the government
33 tends to oppose a prior constraint on free speech it has to meet very strict
34 standards. One of those is that the government cannot grant decision
35 makers any discretion in terms of whether or not to deny or approve a
36 proposed activity. The concern is that decision makers would use that
37 discretion to block messages that they do not agree with, so the law
38 requires that if you are going to place a permit requirement on a protected,
39 expressive activity, that the law apply clear, objective standards for the
40 decision makers to follow. Within these bounds you can impose
41 restrictions on the location of adult use businesses.
42
43 Mr. Flower then stated that the ordinance on adult businesses in the City of Seal Beach
44 is a very strong ordinance and does protect the City against the secondary affects of
45 adult uses by imposing a 1,OOO-foot separation between any two adult businesses, a
46 400-foot separation from residential uses, and a 1,000-foot separation from parks,
17 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2007
educational institutions, and religious uses. In comparison the City of Dana Point
requires only a 300-foot separation between two adult businesses, and a 300-foot
separation from residential uses, parks, educational institutions, and religious uses. He
noted that although the City could further restrict these businesses, the City must
carefully consider whether it should attempt to do this. He emphasized that the existing
ordinance is very strong, is defensible, and is well in line with what other cities are
doing. Commissioner Roberts asked if there were any other restrictions besides hours
of operation and distances. Mr. Fowler stated that cities can regulate adult businesses
by:
1. Zoning requirements, which usually tend to be location restrictions.
2. Business license process.
3. Imposing operational restrictions, such as hours of operation, required security
personnel, requiring that all places open to the public are visible from a central
location in the building, lighting requirements, forbidding patrons from interacting
with dancers, etc.
He noted that the City already has operational restrictions for adult business in Chapter
5.15 of the Municipal Code. He added that for constitutional purposes the property
does not have to be presently available for development, but could be an existing use.
Commissioner Roberts asked if for purposes of measuring distance, could this
measurement go outside city limits. Mr. Abbe stated that although we cannot regulate
what is outside our boundaries, we can consider what is outside.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Deaton adjourned the meeting at 11: 15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~^-~~
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secre~ry
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on June 6, 2007, approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of Wednesday, May 23,2007. ~ .
18 of 18