HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2007-06-06
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for June 6, 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. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE: "Alternative Approaches to Analyze Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Global Climate Changes in CEQA Documents," and "The
Name Game: Housing-Related Acronyms and Terms."
3. RECEIVE AND FILE: Presentation Re: "Regional Comprehensive Plan:
Helping Communities Achieve a Sustainable Future," prepared by the
Southern California Association of Governments.
4. Minor Plan Review 07-12
951 Heron Circle
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of June 6, 2007
Applicant/Owner: Darryl & Heather Werner
Request: To construct a 39-inch high built-in barbecue and work
station to be located approximately 6 feet from the
northern side property line and 4 feet from the rear
property line; and an approximately 9-foot high fireplace
located approximately 4 feet from the southern side
property line and approximately 8 feet from the rear
property line.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 07-32.
5. Minor Plan Review 07-13
56 Riversea Road
Applicant/Owner: Emmanuel IlIuminardi / Seal Beach Affordable Housing
Corporation
Request: To replace en existing single-story mobile home with a
new two-story cabana (manufactured home) in the Seal
Beach Trailer Park. The overall height will be less than
25 feet and the proposed structure will provide a total of
approximately 1 ,163 square feet of living space.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 07-33.
6. Minor Plan Review 07-14
933 Blue Heron
Applicant/Owner: Robert B. Grbavac
Request: To construct a 36-inch high barbecue and 42-inch high
bar table within the 5-foot side yard setback area. The
barbecue and bar table are proposed to be located at
the side property line and extend approximately 8 feet 6
inches away from the side property line into the back
yard.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 07-35.
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
7. Request for Time Extension - Variance 05-6, 700 Ocean Avenue.
2
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission' Agenda of June 6, 2007
VII. PUBLIC HEARING
VIII. STUDY SESSION
8. Comments and Staff Responses Re: Preliminary Draft Municipal Code Title
11 Zoning, All Portions except Chapter 2.0S, Residential Districts and Title 10,
Subdivisions.
IX. STAFF CONCERNS
X. COMMISSION CONCERNS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
To June 20, 2007, at 7:30 P.M.
3
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 June 6, 2007
2007 AQenda Forecast
Conditional Use Permit 06-2 (Indefinite Extension) - 302 Main St
Height Variation 07-2 - 231 15th St
Height Variation 07-3 - 233 15th St
Height Variation 07-4 - 235 15th St
Height Variation 07-5 - 1309 Seal Way
Tentative Parcel Map 2007-145 - 450 Ocean Ave
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 June 6, 2007
Chairperson Deaton called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 6, 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
MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Bello to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Deaton, Bello, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Deaton opened oral communications.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed oral communications.
PRESENT AITON
Chairperson Deaton reported that Commissioner Phil O'Malley has resigned from the
Planning Commission (PC) due to health issues. She then presented Resolution 07-36
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting
1 of 20
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
honoring Mr. O'Malley for his service to the City of Seal Beach. Mr. O'Malley stated that
he was honored to have served the City along with the other Commissioners and noted
that he had also served as a board member for the Environmental Quality Control Board
(EQCB). He thanked Mayor Larson for appointing him to the PC and then thanked Lee
Whittenberg and his Staff for the assistance provided to him during his term on the PC.
He noted that the Commissioners serve because they want to make Seal Beach the
very best it can be and he is confident that the current Commission will make Seal
Beach better. The Director of Development Services also thanked Mr. O'Malley for his
service on the PC and the EQCB.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE: "Alternative Approaches to Analyze Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Global Climate Changes in CEQA Documents," and "The Name
Game: Housing-Related Acronyms and Terms."
3. RECEIVE AND FILE: Presentation Re: "Regional Comprehensive Plan: Helping
Communities Achieve a Sustainable Future," prepared by the Southern California
Association of Governments.
4. Minor Plan Review 07-12
951 Heron Circle
Applicant/Owner: Darryl & Heather Werner
Request: To construct a 39-inch high built-in barbecue and work
station to be located approximately 6 feet from the northern
side property line and 4 feet from the rear property line; and
an approximately 9-foot high fireplace located approximately
4 feet from the southern side property line and approximately
8 feet from the rear property line.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
07-32.
5. Minor Plan Review 07-13
56 Riversea Road
Applicant/Owner:
Emmanuel IlIuminardi I Seal Beach Affordable Housing
Corporation
Request:
To replace en existing single-story mobile home with a new
two-story cabana (manufactured home) in the Seal Beach
2 of 20
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
Trailer Park. The overall height will be less than 25 feet and
the proposed structure will provide a total of approximately
1,163 square feet of living space.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
07-33.
6. Minor Plan Review 07-14
933 Blue Heron
Applicant/Owner: Robert B. Grbavac
Request: To construct a 36-inch high barbecue and 42-inch high bar
table within the 5-foot side yard setback area. The barbecue
and bar table are proposed to be located at the side property
line and extend approximately 8 feet 6 inches away from the
side property line into the back yard.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
07 -35.
MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt 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 Nos. 07-32, 07-33, and 07-35 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
7. Request for Time Extension - Variance 05-6,700 Ocean Avenue.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg indicated that this project was originally approved in November 2005,
and the application has been in process at the California Coastal Commission (CCC)
since early 2006 and is not yet compete. He noted that over the years the City has had
an informal policy to toll the one-year period for taking action on an approval during the
time a project is in CCC review, if necessary. He said that in this case Staff is
requesting an extension as the approval is at the point of expiring. He indicated that
3 of 20
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 June 6, 2007
Staff recommends approval of this request and recommends that the Planning
Commission (PC) grant an extension until July 2008 so as to allow for completion of the
project as approved by the City.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if it would be appropriate to include a start time for
expiration of a Variance in the Zoning Code that would begin at the time that CCC
approves the application. She inquired whether every application submitted goes
before the CCC. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the only items that go to CCC are projects
that are located between Westminster Avenue and the ocean. He indicated that in the
administrative approval section there is a comment on how tolling time for CCC should
be handled.
MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to approve the request for a time
extension through July 2008 for Variance 05-6 at 700 Ocean Avenue.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Deaton, Bello, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts
None
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
STUDY SESSION
8. Comments and Staff Responses Re: Preliminary Draft Municipal Code Title 11
Zoning, All Portions except Chapter 2.05, Residential Districts and Title 10,
Subdivisions.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg suggested for tonight's study session that Staff and the Planning
Commission (PC) go through the comments and responses presented in the Staff
Report to help address issues previously raised, noting that for those questions that
have already been answered there would be no discussion, unless the PC has
concerns about a particular response. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He also indicated that once a general consensus of the
Commission has been reached, the discussion would continue without taking any kind
of vote of approval, and this would provide direction for what should be included in the
final draft to be presented at the public hearings. The PC was in agreement.
4 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2007
1 Mr. Whittenberg proceeded to address the Staff Report comments as follows:
2
3 First bullet point on Page 3
4
5 In response to Mr. Goldberg's concerns with how the City will deal with new
6 developments in progress that may be made nonconforming by the adoption of the new
7 Zoning Code (ZC), Staff and the City Attorney will work on this and the language will be
8 provided in the final document to be presented when public hearings are conducted at
9 the PC level.
10
11 Fourth bullet point on Page 5
12
13 Commissioner Roberts stated that he feels the location of truck docks and loading and
14 service areas should be handled through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Staff
15 proposes that these be done through an Administrative Use Permit (AUP). The
16 proposed ZC states that review for any loading dock facility within the City would be
17 handled through an AUP process instead of a CUP. Commissioner Roberts indicated
18 that his justification for this recommendation relates to the discussion on the Vons
19 Market and on proposed truck deliveries at one of the Pacific Gateway Business Center
20 warehouses.
21
22 Chairperson Deaton asked if the proximity of residences should be considered or are
23 the City's entire commercial/industrial uses close enough to residences to warrant a
24 CUP. Commissioner Roberts stated there are probably only a few locations that are
25 500 feet or more from residential areas and he would assume that this issue should be
26 standardized. Mr. Whittenberg stated that from Staffs standpoint this is not really a big
27 issue one way or the other, and Staff is merely attempting to remove a number of items
28 from the purview of the PC and keep them at the Staff level through the use of the AUP
29 process to help speed up processing of minor applications. Chairperson Deaton stated
30 that she agrees with Commissioner Roberts on the public being able to have input on
31 the types of decisions that can impact their neighborhoods.
32
33 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she is inclined to keep this at the AUP level, as
34 people within a 300-foot radius who are interested will receive a letter regarding these
35 applications which will be subject to appeal. She indicated that keeping this at the
36 easiest level as with an AUP approval is better for the developer and also in terms of
37 work load for Staff. She said that the PC's ability to trust Staff to do the right thing is
38 ultimately where it rests. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that an AUP, as proposed, would
39 have a 100-foot radius notice, but this could be expanded if the PC should so desire.
40
41 Commissioner Bello asked if residents were to appeal an AUP, would Staff then have
42 the option to require that the application go through the CUP process. Mr. Whittenberg
43 stated that Staff would have the option to require that an AUP be considered through
44 the CUP process, should they receive comments or concerns. Commissioner Bello
45 asked about fees. Mr. Whittenberg stated that should an AUP be referred for CUP
46 approval, the applicant would have to pay the CUP fee, but anyone filing an appeal on
5 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2007
1 an AUP approval would be responsible for payment of the appeal fee. He noted that
2 currently the fee for an AUP is $150 and $750 for a CUP.
3
4 Commissioner Roberts questioned whether residents wishing to appeal an approval
5 should have the burden of paying the fees. He also stated that in looking at AUPs vs.
6 CUPs, one of the selling points initially was that the AUP would be more expedient for
7 the applicant. He said that he does not see where trucking docks would be a time-
8 sensitive issue.
9
10 Chairperson Deaton requested a consensus on what the notice radius for an AUP and
11 CUP should be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the 100-foot notice for an AUP was
12 proposed because currently this is what is required for a Minor Plan Review (MPR), but
13 this could be extended. He noted that due to costs, should the radius be extended to
14 300 feet, the application fee would be increased from $150 to $200. Chairperson
15 Deaton stated that if a project for one home will impact the immediately surrounding
16 homes, a 100-foot notice should suffice, but if a project is to impact a neighborhood in
17 general, then a 300- or 500-foot notice should be required. She said that in looking at
18 the AUP it encompasses items that go beyond a MPR, such as the truck docks.
19
20 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she believes there are going to be issues even
21 at the AUP level that people are going to be interested in, even outside a 300-foot
22 radius, but generally these are really localized. She said that the most impacted people
23 will be those that are adjacent, and notifying those that are further away gives more
24 people the opportunity to know what is going on. She said she strongly feels that AUPs
25 are a valuable part of the ZC and should be used more frequently rather than less. She
26 also believes that loading docks should remain under an AUP and not a CUP.
27
28 Commissioner Roberts stated that expanding notification is a good thing, but it does
29 cost more money. He said he could live with a 300 feet notice, but he still believes that
30 loading docks should be subject to a CUP.
31
32 Commissioner Bello stated that she would like to expand the notice to 300 feet.
33
34 Chairperson Deaton suggested that Staff prepare a list of AUP items that might roll over
35 into CUPs so that they can be reviewed as a block. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that this
36 exhibit appears as Attachment 1 in the May 9, 2007, Study Session Staff Report. He
37 cautioned that the Commissioners might not come to consensus on some of these
38 issues and many might not be settled until the public hearings are conducted. He noted
39 that the items highlighted in yellow are proposed for the AUP process. Chairperson
40 Deaton then proceeded to poll the Commission on each item listed to determine
41 whether there were no objections to having it be subject to an AUP:
42
43 1. 2-Story Cabana or Manufactured Homes in Mobile Home Park
44
45 PC Consensus - Subiect to A UP
46
6 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Mmutes of June 6, 2007
1 2. Projections above height limits (Commercial & Mixed-Use District, Light Manufac-
2 turing and Oil Extraction Districts
3
4 Discussion: Mr. Whittenberg noted that "Exceptions to locations of truck docks,
5 loading, and service areas" is also located on Table 5.20.010, Chapter 2.10, but
6 apparently was not highlighted in yellow. Chairperson Deaton stated that because
7 the PC did not reach a consensus on this item, they would leave this to Staff to
8 evaluate. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that at the time of the public hearings Staff will
9 begin to focus on items such as this, for which the PC has not yet arrived at
10 agreement. With regard to Item No. 2 above, no concerns were expressed by the
11 Commission.
12
13 PC Consensus - Subiect to A UP
14
15 3. Automated Teller Machines
16
17 PC Consensus - Subiect to A UP
18
19 4. Drive-In and Drive-Through Facilities
20
21 Discussion: Chairperson Deaton asked Staff to review why this item has a check
22 mark under both AUP and CUP. Mr. Whittenberg that a two-tiered system is
23 proposed so that if a drive-in, drive-through, or extended hour business is located
24 within a specific distance from a residential property and is blocked by another
25 commercial building, it would be reviewed through the AUP process, and if it does
26 not meet these standards, it would be subject to a CUP. He noted that
27 Commissioner Roberts stated in his comments that he believes all of these should
28 be subject to a CUP. Chairperson Deaton asked if this same two-tier system could
29 be used for the truck and loading docks? Mr. Whittenberg stated that it could. She
30 said she would be comfortable using this system for truck docks. Commissioner
31 Roberts disagreed, as along with noise and traffic patterns other things accompany
32 drive-in and drive-through operations. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if Staff is
33 looking at the same criteria for extended hour business. Mr. Whittenberg
34 confirmed that this was correct and indicated that Staff is also proposing to change
35 the definition of what an extended hour business is. He stated that currently it only
36 applies if a business operates between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., and Staff is
37 proposing that this be changed from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. so that business
38 wishing to operate beyond these limits would require approval of an AUP or CUP.
39 He noted that currently any business in town, except on Main Street, can stay open
40 until 2:00 a.m. if they don't sell alcohol or have some other land use entitlement
41 that requires discretionary approval. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she is
42 inclined for extended hours to require a CUP, as the impacts can be dramatic.
43 Commissioner Bello agreed.
44
45 PC Consensus - REOUIRE CUP
46
7 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2007
1 5. Extended Hour Business
2
3 PC Consensus - REDU/RE CUP
4
5 6. Outdoor Displays and Sales - Accessory
6
7 Discussion: Chairperson Deaton asked if this will apply to any business location
8 within Seal Beach. Mr. Whittenberg stated that currently a CUP is required for
9 outdoor sale and display areas. Staff is recommending that temporary situations,
10 like a "going out of business sale," be subject to an AUP, but permanent outdoor
11 displays would still be subject to a CUP.
12
13 PC Consensus - Temporary Displays - Subject to A UP
14 Permanent Displays - REDU/BE CUP
15
16 7. Outdoor Dining Area - Seating not more than 10% of indoor seating
17
18 Discussion: Chairperson Deaton stated that she is in agreement with Staff's
19 proposal of having this subject to an AUP if outdoor seating is 10 seats or less and
20 in no case more than 10% of the indoor seating. Mr. Whittenberg noted that
21 requests for more seating would be subject to a CUP, and all proposed outdoor
22 seating along Main Street would be subject to CUP review. Massa-Lavitt asked if
23 there were many opportunities along Main Street for expanded outdoor seating.
24 Mr. Whittenberg stated that this restriction would prevent restaurants from creating
25 outdoor seating areas from previously enclosed restaurant space, which is what
26 occurred at the current Woody's Diner location.
27
28 PC Consensus -Seating less than 10% of indoor seating - Subject toAUP
29 Greater than 10% of indoor seating - REDU/RE CUP
30
31 8. Minor accessory structure less than 6-feet high in required setback
32
33 Discussion: Staff indicated that this would apply to barbeques, fireplaces,
34 waterfalls, etc. Chairperson Deaton asked how this would work in Old Town, as
35 the ZC states that people can place a storage structure within the 3-foot setback
36 area, and questioned whether this would block passage for the fire department,
37 should both neighbors have one of the structures within setback areas of adjoining
38 properties. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Code allows only pre-fabricated
39 accessory structures within the setback areas, which can easily be moved in case
40 of emergency.
41
42 PC Consensus - Subject to AUP
43
44 9. Retaining wall greater than 30 inches in height
45
8 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2007
1 Discussion: Chairperson Deaton noted that in the past there had been problems
2 with retaining walls on The Hill and asked if all of these issues have been resolved.
3 Mr. Whittenberg explained that changes to the Grading Ordinances have made the
4 process more difficult for people who wish to modify or raise the grade on their
5 property, and indicated that this generally applies to existing lots on The Hill.
6 Chairperson Deaton asked if this would include a landscaped area in front of a
7 retaining wall to level out. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it would and the guidelines
8 for retaining walls require stepped back landscaped areas. Commissioner Massa-
9 Lavitt noted that perhaps the PC might be more comfortable if this included a
10 maximum height for retaining walls under an AUP and required a CUP for anything
11 over this height. Mr. Whittenberg suggested a maximum height of 48 inches under
12 an AUP and anything above that would require a CUP. He asked if it would make
13 a difference to the PC if the wall does not abut a residential property, such as
14 those properties abutting Gum Grove Nature Park (GGNP), noting that currently
15 the ZC standards allow only 6-foot high wall sections with 3-foot high terraces, but
16 some of the existing walls out there are 18-20 feet high, which would not be
17 allowed under today's standards. Chairperson Deaton asked about walls in the
18 front yard to level the lawn portion of a yard. Mr. Whittenberg stated that retaining
19 walls in front yards can be only 6 inches higher than the grade adjacent to it.
20 Commissioner Roberts inquired about retaining walls along the Gold Coast. Mr.
21 Whittenberg stated that this area has a separate set of standards because of the
22 Gold Coast and the grade differences there and would not fall within this zoning
23 chapter.
24
25 PC Consensus - Retaining walls up to 48 inches - Subiect to AUP
26 Retaining walls above 48 inclles - REOUIRE CUP
27
28 10. Parking Reductions - Shared Parking Program
29
30 Discussion: Mr. Whittenberg explained that there are specific standards required
31 in order to qualify for a shared parking program, including traffic studies, based
32 upon accepted traffic engineering standards, to determine what the proper mix
33 would be for these types of projects. He said that the City has previously used this
34 and Staff believes that this can be managed under the AUP process.
35
36 PC Consensus - Subiect to A UP
37
38 11. Parking Reductions - Other- Parking Reduction
39
40 Discussion: Mr. Whittenberg stated that Commissioner Roberts had expressed his
41 concerns about other parking reductions being handled through the AUP process,
42 as he is concemed over visibility of the community if someone is asking for
43 something different than what the ZC would generally allow, and he believes this
44 should remain subject to a CUP. Mr. Whittenberg noted that because parking
45 would affect all the neighbors around a particular use, Commissioner Roberts'
9 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2007
1 suggestion would be a reasonable one. Chairperson Deaton stated that she
2 agreed with this.
3
4 PC Consensus - REOUIRE CUP
5
6 12. Signs on Main Street - Up to 3 tenant spaces
7
8 Discussion: Mr. Whittenberg stated that Chairperson Deaton and Commissioner
9 Roberts both believe that Items 12, 13, and 14 should remain subject to a CUP.
10 Chairperson Deaton confirmed that this was correct. She stated that the PC had
11 previously approved a Planned Sign Program (PSP) that later turned out to be
12 whatever was already in place.
13
14 PC Consensus - REOUIRE CUP
15
16 13. Signs on Main Street - 4 or more tenant spaces, Planned Sign Program
17
18 PC Consensus - REOUIRE CUP
19
20 14. Master Sign Program
21
22 PC Consensus - REOUIRE CUP
23
24 15. Nonconforming Structures - Specified structural repairs
25
26 Discussion: Chairperson Deaton clarified whether legal nonconforming uses are
27 allowed by right to make repairs or improvements within the building footprint. Mr.
28 Whittenberg explained that currently there are specific items that require a Minor
29 Plan Review (MPR) and these are the types of items Staff is proposing to be
30 subject to an A UP. He noted that these are changes that do not allow any
31 additional habitable living space, but allow a roof deck or a new balcony.
32 Chairperson Deaton stated that there are concerns in town over balconies on the
33 sides of buildings that face onto neighboring residences or back yards. Mr.
34 Whittenberg stated that in the new residential section there are standards stating
35 that you can only have a certain amount of the length of a building open to
36 balconies, but they would still be allowed. He noted that this could be addressed
37 at the next study session on residential districts.
38
39 PC Consensus -Subiect toAUP
40
41 16. Nonconforming Structures - Residential - Specified minor improvements
42
43 PC Consensus - Subiect to A UP
44
45 17. Nonconforming Structures - Residential reconstruction after damage - more than
46 50% subject to specified standards
10 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2007
1
2 Discussion: Chairperson Deaton asked if the reconstruction would be within the
3 same footprint. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it would be and there are also
4 standards that if the structure is nonconforming due to parking, they would have to
5 provide at least one space per unit in order to reconstruct the building, so in reality
6 the footprint could change. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt added that the change
7 could also make them conforming structures. Mr. Whittenberg explained that most
8 of these properties are nonconforming due to setbacks with everything else pretty
9 much in compliance.
10
11 PC Consensus -Subiect toAUP
12
13 18. Nonconforming Structures - Nonresidential reconstruction after damage - more
14 than 50% subject to specified standards
15
16 Discussion: Mr. Whittenberg stated that this essentially has to do with parking for
17 nonconforming nonresidential structures, which would require that they meet a
18 specific percentage of the required parking in order to rebuild.
19
20 PC Consensus - Subiect to AUP
21
22 Public Comments
23
24 Chairperson Deaton opened for public comments.
25
26 Eldon Alexander stated that for outdoor dining areas it would seem more reasonable to
27 allow 12 seats under the AUP.
28
29 Robert Goldberg commented that with a proposed 300-foot notice radius for AUPs
30 many commercial developments have no residences within 300 feet. Chairperson
31 Deaton noted that if there are no residences within 300 feet, then this might not matter.
32 Mr. Goldberg stated that many times architectural features that exceed the height limit
33 can create a large mass effect. He cited the new CVS store as an example.
34 Chairperson Deaton asked if there are residences within 300 feet of the new CVS. Mr.
35 Whittenberg stated that there are many residences within 300 feet, but the CVS did not
36 require a Height Variation (HV) as the building does not exceed the allowed height limit.
37 He indicated that there was a HV for the entrance treatment at the new Pavilions Market
38 that was approved by the PC and comments were received on this request. He noted
39 that residences are within 100 feet of this shopping center, and explained that many
40 times it depends upon how a shopping center is parceled. He cited the Old Ranch
41 Town Center stating that Target, Ralph's Market, CVS and Macaroni Grill are all on
42 separate lots. He stated that Target had an HV approved and this lot is immediately
43 adjacent to residences, so notice would have to be provided, while the CVS store at the
44 front of the shopping center facing Seal Beach Boulevard is probably within a 300-foot
45 distance form the homes in Rossmoor across the street, so notice would still be
46 required. He then stated that Macaroni Grill, which is farther north and directly across
11 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2007
1 from the Rossmoor Center, would have no homes within 700 or 1,000 feet.
2 Commissioner Roberts stated that with the Pavilions Market, those people most
3 concerned were residents behind the shopping center. He stated that an argument
4 could be made for placing everything under a CUP and noticing 1000 feet, but the PC is
5 attempting to make this as reasonable and manageable as possible. Commissioner
6 Roberts asked Mr. Goldberg to comment on drive-throughs and extended hour
7 business. Mr. Goldberg said he favored an earlier closing time, particularly for
8 businesses selling alcohol. Chairperson Deaton explained that the AUP would help
9 tighten this up, because now any non-alcohol-selling business can stay open until 2:00
10 a.m. Mr. Goldberg asked if this would be retroactive. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this
11 cannot be retroactive. Mr. Goldberg asked if the City Attorney needs to be present for
12 workshops, as the cost of his services is probably high. The response was that no
13 additional fees are being paid to have the City Attorney present. Mr. Goldberg then
14 asked if the PC would consider conducting the next study session on residential districts
15 on a Saturday.
16
17 Joyce Parque spoke regarding the installation of microwave dishes with no notice to
18 surrounding residents. She said these should require a public notice as well as for
19 additions to homes or new homes within the Seal Beach Trailer Park (SBTP), and these
20 homes should be required to provide at least one parking space.
21
22 Eldon Alexander stated that he agrees that drive-in and drive-through businesses
23 should be subject to a CUP. He cited the application from Starbucks to open a drive-
24 thru in the former Burger King location that was denied due to traffic impacts.
25
26 Melinda Howell said she had visited Balboa Island and asked if Staff knew the
27 percentage for lot coverage allowed as huge houses are being constructed there. Mr.
28 Whittenberg stated that he believes Newport Beach has specific standards for Balboa
29 Island and some of the other island communities in that area.
30
31 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed public
32 comments.
33
34 Chairperson Deaton suggested reviewing the input from public comments and
35 discussing whether to revise any of the items discussed so far.
36
37 Mr. Whittenberg indicated that with regard to wireless telecommunications facilities and
38 satellite dishes, many of the capabilities of cities to deal with these issues are pre-
39 empted by federal law. He stated that Staff would review Chapter 4.70 of the ZC that
40 discusses telecommunications.
41
42 With regard to the drive-thru at Starbucks, this would have required a CUP even under
43 the proposed standards because there are residential units immediately adjacent to the
44 subject property.
45
12 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2007
1 He the noted that Mr. Alexander's suggestion to allow a 12-seat minimum is a good
2 one, as most tables seat 4 persons. Chairperson Deaton stated that if this is done, she
3 would prefer to address tables rather than seats, as this could result in 6 tables that seat
4 2 people. Commissioner Roberts stated that seats are the safest. Commissioner
5 Massa-Lavitt agreed. Mr. Whittenberg noted that with tables there are requirements for
6 providing access aisles around tables.
7
8 PC Consensus -Allow 12 seats in outdoor dininl! areas.
9
10 With regard to telecommunications facilities, Mr. Abbe noted that there is a law dating
11 from 1850 that originally applied to telegraph companies and that telecommunications
12 companies have been exploiting, which severely restricts the City's ability to prohibit
13 telecommunications facilities in public right-of-ways, and this also applies to wireless
14 facilities. He said that there is more the City can do to regulate private property than
15 public rig ht-of-ways , but counsel is still researching this and will determine how far cities
16 can go. Chairperson Deaton noted that perhaps the City should consider providing
17 notice of a wireless facility going in.
18
19 Mr. Whittenberg then continued the discussion on the Comments and Responses Staff
20 Report as follows:
21
22 Last bullet point on Page 9
23
24 Commissioner Roberts' commented regarding complaints and believes 6 complaints to
25 be high and would prefer that action be taken after 3 complaints. Mr. Whittenberg
26 indicated that Staff had provided a number because in some cases it is simply a case of
27 neighbors who don't like each other that begin to complain about a situation that may
28 not be bothersome to anyone else in the neighborhood. Chairperson Deaton clarified if
29 Staff means 6 complaints or complaints from 6 different individuals. Mr. Whittenberg
30 stated that this would be from 6 different individuals. Chairperson Deaton asked about
31 how many complaints would be received in one night about a bar that has its windows
32 open and is playing loud music. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would have to check
33 with the police department, but very rarely does Staff receive complaints on this type of
34 issue now, and the police do report repetitive complaints for any location to Staff. He
35 noted that the proposed text indicates "six substantiated complaints from six different
36 residences within 300 feet of an extended hour business within a calendar year."
37 Commissioner Roberts stated that a year is too long and should be decreased, as well
38 as decreasing the number of complaints required. Mr. Whittenberg suggested 3
39 complaints in 6 months. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that compressing the time
40 frame would more effectively get the attention of the business management. Mr. Abbe
41 interjected that this is not drafted to indicate that the City has to wait a full year before
42 taking action, but after 6 complaints have been received, Staff can bring this before the
43 PC, even if a full year has not elapsed. He noted that compressing the amount of time
44 would not work, as there could be 5 complaints in one month, and two months later
45 another would be received, leaving in question when the 6-month time frame would
46 begin. He recommended leaving the time one calendar year. Commissioner Roberts
13 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2007
1 asked if the City could act upon this if three complaints are received in one year. Mr.
2 Whittenberg stated that the City could not. Chairperson Deaton asked what the critical
3 mass of complaints would be that would determine when there is a neighborhood
4 problem. Mr. Whittenberg explained that in dealing with this Staff notes that for the first
5 caller it is a problem to them only, and sometimes Staff is able to resolve this with no
6 further intervention required. He noted that these are issues that are usually addressed
7 in the course of normal Code Enforcement procedure anyway, but if Staff determines
8 that there is no Code violation these would then become substantiated complaints that
9 Staff would begin to track. He noted that decreasing the critical mass of complaints to 3
10 within a calendar year would be no problem. He commented that with many of these
11 cases the City would not have the capability to revoke a CUP. He indicated that even
12 after the new Code has been adopted and is implemented, it will still be necessary to
13 come back and fine tune some of the new standards if they are not working as
14 anticipated. Chairperson Deaton suggested revising the language to clarify that the
15 business manager must address the issue as soon as 3 substantial complaints have
16 been received. Mr. Whittenberg noted that this could be done.
17
18 PC Consensus - Reduce mass number of complaints to three (3).
19
20 Second bullet point on Page 11
21
22 Regarding RV/boat parking limits on proprieties the City currently has provisions that
23 allow RV/boat parking on public streets for 72 hours, and Staff has suggested that
24 RV/boat parking on properties should be limited to 24 hours. Commissioners favored a
25 72-hour limit.
26
27 PC Consensus - Limit RV/boat parkinJ! on private propertv to 72 hours.
28
29 Second bullet point on Page 12
30
31 Regarding vacation rentals Staff recommends limiting these to no more than 2 units on
32 any residential property. Chairperson Deaton asked what the Code currently allows.
33 Mr. Whittenberg stated that currently there are no standards for vacation rentals. He
34 explained that there are vacation rentals in town that are allowed with a business
35 license for a rental property, but recently Staff has received more complaints related to
36 party activities and weekly turnover of tenants who are unconcerned about the
37 community or surrounding neighbors. He also noted that property owners have found
38 that they can get more money from a vacation rental unit than from a month-to-month
39 rental. He added that parking also becomes an issue when several people rent a
40 vacation unit for a week or longer. Chairperson Deaton stated that she agreed, but
41 wished to hear from the public. She then opened for public comments.
42
43 Joyce Parque asked if this would also apply to the Oakwood Apartments (OA), which
44 also has vacation rentals and many of their tenants park along First Street. Mr.
45 Whittenberg stated that as the text reads it could apply to the OA and this was not the
46 intent. He indicated that the text would have to be revised. Chairperson Deaton asked
14 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meetmg Minutes of June 6, 2007
1 if this could be done by residential district. Mr. Whittenberg agreed that this could be
2 done by applying this restriction to the single-family residential areas in Old Town and
3 The Hill, as OA, the Seal Beach Trailer Park, and the Riverbeach Townhomes would be
4 in one zoning district. Chairperson Deaton confirmed that the Code would be revised to
5 exempt OA from this restriction. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it would be applicable
6 only to the RHD-20 (Old Town) and the RLD-9 Zones (College Park EastlWest, The Hill,
7 and the Gold Coast). He noted that it would not apply to OA, the Riverbeach and
8 Rossmoor townhomes, nor would it apply to the townhomes near the Old Ranch
9 Country Club.
10
11 PC Consensus - Limit vacation rentals to no more than 2 units within the RHD-20 and the
12 RLD-9D~"k~
13
14 Last bullet point on Page 12
15
16 The definition of a "minor' addition or expansion was discussed. The Director of
17 Development Services explained that this would apply in a situation where a street
18 widening project was being completed and someone wishes to make an addition to an
19 adjacent building with the addition encroaching into a required setback onto the newly
20 widened street.
21
22 PC Consensus - Laneuaee to remain as Staff has sueeested.
23
24 First bullet point on Page 13
25
26 Regarding allowable heights for property line fences, hedges, and walls in side and rear
27 yards, Mr. Whittenberg stated that currently the Code allows 6 feet, and based upon a
28 recent PC determination for a 7 -foot wall along a property street side on Beryl Cove
29 Way where a setback for landscaping was required, the PC might wish to include
30 standards for wall treatments along the street side for walls higher than 6 feet.
31 Chairperson Deaton stated that she is not comfortable with walls being constructed right
32 on the sidewalk and favored at least one foot of landscaping between the sidewalk and
33 the wall. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the landscape requirement would be fine for side
34 yards, but rear yards usually abut an alley and regular maintenance is usually not done
35 in these areas. He recommended providing consensus on the 7 -foot height for side
36 yards with a landscaped setback, and that rear yards would not require landscaping.
37 Chairperson Deaton stated she would like to see this done for the 6-foot walls also.
38 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt agreed with having landscape setback areas for side yards.
39 Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff would like to suggest a stepped back terrace treatment
40 like the retaining walls for street side walls. He recommended that Staff create the
41 language for this, but further revisions may be required after the Code is adopted.
42
43 PC Consensus - Staff to create laneuaee for standards for landscaoe setbacks for 6- and
44 7-foot street side walls and standards for rear walls.
45
46
15 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2007
1 Second bullet point on Page 13
2
3 The initial draft of the Preliminary Code states that within the flood zone the grade on
4 properties could be raised up to one-half the increase in elevation required to reach the
5 base flood elevation, and Staff is proposing that this be changed to reflect that the grade
6 height can be increased by the increase in elevation required to reach the base flood
7 elevation.
8
9 PC Consensus - LanJ!UaJ!e to remain as Staff"as sUJ!J!ested.
10
11 Third bullet point on Page 13
12
13 Regarding landscaped terraces on retaining walls Commissioner Roberts has
14 suggested that the requirement be added for automatic sprinkler systems on these
15 terraces.
16
17 PC Consensus - LanJ!uaJ!e to remain as Staff "as sUJ!J!ested.
18
19 Second bullet point on Page 14
20
21 For parking allocations for off-street parking for single-family residences within Seal
22 Beach Staff is recommending a minimum of 2 spaces for a single-family residence
23 (SFR) with 1-3 bedrooms, 3 spaces for a 4-5 bedroom home, and that 1 additional
24 parking space be required for each bedroom beyond five. Commissioner Roberts
25 requested public comment on this item. Chairperson Deaton opened for public
26 comments.
27
28 Eldon Alexander asked about the law that allows rental of bedrooms in SFRs.
29 Chairperson Deaton asked that Mr. Abbe respond to this. Mr. Abbe stated that you
30 cannot prohibit the number of unrelated people that can live together within one
31 dwelling. Commissioner Roberts stated that his concern was that SFRs would become
32 boarding houses. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if the Code defines a "boarding
33 house." Mr. Whittenberg stated that he believes it defines a boarding house as having 6
34 boarders. He noted that the proposed parking requirements are not meant to regulate
35 the number of residents, but simply to help provide as much parking as possible. Mr.
36 Olivera added that he is aware of a few cities that do place restrictions on the number of
37 individual bedrooms within a home that may be rented. He noted that the City of Long
38 Beach has a restriction that allows a maximum of 2 bedrooms that can be rented in any
39 owner occupied unit. Commissioner Roberts suggested that the City Attorney return
40 with some information on this issue. Eldon Alexander stated that in Old Town it is
41 difficult to provide more than 2 parking spaces. He stated that if this standard is
42 adopted, no one in Seal Beach will have more than 3 bedrooms, but will have 3
43 bedrooms and other types of named rooms. Commissioner Roberts noted that you
44 could probably construct a 4-bedroom home on a 25-lot in Old Town, but providing 3
45 parking spaces would be a challenge. Mr. Whittenberg stated that tandem spaces
46 within garages work well for providing additional parking.
16 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2007
1 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt referred to the LivelWork Unit provision and asked if this
2 would allow employees to come to a live/work unit, or would it be restricted to the
3 owner. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be strictly for the business owner.
4
5 PC Consensus - Citv Attornev to return with further information on t!lis item.
6
7 First bullet point on Page 16
8
9 Commissioner Roberts asked if there were any changes to the current Code provisions
10 for A-Frame signs. Mr. Whittenberg stated that A-Frame signs are currently not allowed
11 and Staff is recommending that they be allowed, subject to conditions, as enforcement
12 of the current standard has proven to be very difficult. He explained that A-Frames
13 would be allowed only on private property and not in the public right-of way, with a limit
14 of one sign per business. He said that he has provided these comments for
15 consideration during the public hearings.
16
17 Second bullet point on Page 17
18
19 Mr. Abbe stated that as presented at the previous study session, discretion to regulate
20 adult businesses is severely curtailed, and after doing further research on whether
21 restricting tattoo parlors would interfere with free speech, he found that the courts state
22 that the process of tattooing is "not sufficiently communicative in nature so as to rise to
23 the plateau of important activity encompassed by the First Amendment." He said that
24 the City can regulate and restrict, but avoid anything that may be seen as arbitrary or
25 unreasonable, and recommended making tattoo parlors subject to a CUP with which
26 distance restrictions can be imposed. Commissioner Roberts stated that the PC would
27 like to see distance restrictions for schools, residential, churches, etc.
28
29 Third bullet point on Page 17
30
31 Regarding Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, equipment sheds are not currently
32 required to be underground and Staff is continuing to research whether the City has the
33 authority to require this.
34
35 Last bullet point on Page 18
36
37 Regarding Adult Entertainment Uses Mr. Whittenberg noted that this question had been
38 addressed at the previous study session. Eldon Alexander stated that Chapter 5.15 of
39 the ZC, which regulates adult entertainment businesses, appears to be quite
40 comprehensive.
41
42 Robert Goldberg stated that he wished to retract his question regarding whether the City
43 Attorney needed to be present at these study sessions. He said that he was obviously
44 ignorant of the extent of the City Attorney's involvement with this process and extended
45 his appreciation for this. Chairperson Deaton thanked Mr. Goldberg for his positive
46 comments. Mr. Whittenberg noted that when dealing with land use regulation of private
17 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2007
1 property it is important to have the ability to confer with the City Attorney before making
2 any policy recommendations.
3
4 Comment from Councilman Levitt on Page 19
5
6 Chairperson Deaton stated that the PC does not require people to provide their address
7 when speaking, but the city and the part of the city in which they live serves as a point
8 of reference for the PC. Mr. Abbe stated that this is appropriate information to ask, and
9 all cities do ask for this information; however, it is important to note that under the
10 Brown Act anyone has a right to speak anonymously.
11
12 First bullet point on Page 20
13
14 Regarding appeal fees, Mr. Whittenberg stated that for the record he wished to note that
15 he had erroneously responded to this question at the last study session. He indicated
16 that under the current provisions of the City resolutions that set forth all of the fees,
17 appeal fees are the same amount as the application fee. He noted that Staff is not
18 proposing that this be changed as the processing costs for an appeal are the same as
19 for the initial application process. Chairperson Deaton stated that she feels this is a
20 good idea for the AUP, as it allows residents to appeal at a lower level than the CUP,
21 and the costs are less. Commissioner Roberts added that conversely, the visibility
22 would not be there with public notice in the first place and residents would not have the
23 opportunity to speak in opposition to a proposal.
24
25 Last bullet point on Page 20
26
27 Staff suggested that the discussion on increasing rear yard setbacks be deferred until
28 the next study session on residential uses, and also for the first bullet point on Page 21
29 regarding AUP approval for garages and carports.
30
31 Second bullet point on Page 22
32
33 Regarding providing notification to City Council (CC) and the Planning Commission
34 (PC) on approvals of AUPs, Mr. Whittenberg indicated that once a hearing is conducted
35 and a determination made, Staff will provide a memorandum or other communication to
36 CC and the PC within 3 days regarding the action taken.
37
38 First bullet point on Page 23
39
40 This provides clarification on the number of children in small family day care. Staff has
41 verified that the number is eight.
42
43 Second bullet point on Page 23
44
45 Proposes changing the hours for extended hour business form 2:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m.
46 There having been no strong objections, Staff will propose this change in the final draft.
18 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2007
1 Last bullet point on Page 23
2
3 The City Attorney and Staff are suggesting that the language for the definition for a
4 Twenty-Four Hour Foster Care Home not be changed.
5
6 Chairperson Deaton asked what the next step in the ZC revision process would be. Mr.
7 Whittenberg stated that a study session has been scheduled for June 20 to continue
8 with Commercial/Industrial uses in Chapters 4 and 5, should the PC feels that they need
9 to devote more time to this section. If the PC has no additional comments, Staff will
10 keep this item on the agenda to allow for comments or discussion from the public. He
11 indicated that Staff does not have anything to bring back to the meeting of June 20,
12 unless the telecommunications information is available. Chairperson Deaton stated that
13 she liked the idea of opening this up to the public for further comment. Commissioner
14 Roberts inquired about the height of projections on non-residential structures and stated
15 that he is having difficulty with the standard of 10 percent of the roof area. He
16 suggested setting a maximum height in feet rather than a percentage. Mr. Whittenberg
17 stated that this could be revisited.
18
19 Commissioner Roberts then inquired about the proposed open space standards for
20 multi-family developments. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that these standards are
21 proposed to allow for minimal open space that residents can use for barbeques or
22 gatherings between neighbors and to allow for recreation on the property, and in
23 addition to allow for some private open space like a balcony or patio that is fenced off.
24 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she believes 200 square feet of open space per
25 unit might be a little high. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff can review this but they
26 believe that having a private area for people to use is important.
27
28 Mr. Loya, a resident of 16th Street, referred to the discussion on landscape setbacks
29 and automatic sprinkler systems for street side walls and fences and stated that he
30 frequently walks around town and questioned whether these landscaped areas would
31 be adequately maintained, noting that there are many existing setback areas within the
32 City with overgrown and out of control plants. He stated that he and his wife prefer that
33 the setbacks not exist in residential areas as they are unattractive and the plant
34 overgrowth can interfere with pedestrians walking on the sidewalks. Chairperson
35 Deaton added that in Old Town the problem is that many of these areas are City
36 property and are not setbacks and, therefore, you are not allowed to fence out to these
37 areas. Mr. Whittenberg stated that current provisions require that 40 percent of front
38 yard areas be landscaped, and Staff is not proposing to change this. Mr. Loya
39 emphasized that his concern is that this problem not be added to by requiring
40 landscaped setback areas for street side walls.
41
42 Eldon Alexander noted that a 1-foot strip of setback for the entire length of a street side
43 wall or fence is not necessary, as cut-outs every few feet can be used and will still
44 achieve a break in the look of a solid wall. He indicated that this might help in
45 preventing the amount of overgrowth to which Mr. Loya referred.
46
19 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2007
1 Mr. Whittenberg then explained that a study session will be conducted at the June 20,
2 2007, Planning Commission meeting for commercial/industrial uses and if the PC or the
3 public have any other comments they can present them at that meeting. He stated that
4 Staff will not prepare a formal presentation for this study session.
5
6 Mr. Abbe noted that he would provide more information on regulations for rental of
7 rooms within dwellings.
8
9
1 0 STAFF CONCERNS
11
12 None.
13
14
15 COMMISSION CONCERNS
16
17 None.
18
19
20 ADJOURNMENT
21
22 Chairperson Deaton adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
23 Respectfully Submitted,
24
25
26
27 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secret
28 Planning Department
29
30
31 APPROVAL
32
33 The Commission on July 18, 2007, approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission
34 Meeting of Wednesday, June 6, 2007. G..A-
20 of 20