Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-06-21MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 2005 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows and Parker. Commissioners Keen and Tait were absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, and Assistant Planner Jim Bergman. AGENDA REVIEW: Chair Brown noted Items III.B. and III.C. would be continued. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. I.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. II.A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE JUNE 7, 2005: None. III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. (Continued from the meeting of June 7, 2005) PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 05-004; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 05-008 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 05-006; APPLICANT — PACE BROTHER'S CONSTRUCTION; LOCATION — 135 WHITELEY STREET. Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the changes to this project from the prior meeting. Proposed construction of this house is now within 11' of the top of bank of the Arroyo Grande Creek. The ground floor footprint and overall size of the house have been reduced. They have obtained a geotechnical engineering report verifying the soil can support the house. They now propose a picket fence topping the earth berm as a safety measure near the creek. The mitigated negative declaration has been modified to reflect the 11' setback from the creek. Staff questions: • At the last meeting, a flag was requested to be placed at the top of bank, but it's not there. Mr. Bergman noted he hasn t been out to the site recently, but the applicant put up a fence, which is about 1'to the house side of the top of bank. • It looks like grading started today right next to the top of bank. Staff can look into this further. Who will be responsible for the earth berm and what is the length? The property owner will be responsible for it and it will run the length of the property line. Chair Brown opened the public hearing to public comment. MINUTES PLANNING COMMMISSION JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 2 Scott Pace, applicant, answered Commissioner questions in further detail. • The activity noted on the lot is just tree root removal to a depth of 3'. They did stay 10' away from the fence on the creek bank. They are grading the two approved lots, but the third is just tree root removal per the soils report. (Site inspection clarified that roof removal did occur closer than 10'.) • It is their intent to pipe water from the downspouts of all three houses out to the street. Greg Soto, architect, added that the "back drain" referred to in the geology report particularly refers to a pipe on the back side of the retaining wall (berm), so that water that leeches through the soil will be drained to the street through French drains and ground pipes (no bio -filters are currently planned). Discussion: In response to a question if a grading permit was required, Mr. Strong answered no, the amount of dirt they have moved is less than 50 cubic yards. In addition, when the building permit is sought, the foundation engineering, which is part of the geotechnical report, would be followed. It is proposed there be over -excavation and re -compaction of the soils related to the foundation. That might appear similar to grading, but the purpose is strictly site preparation for the foundation. Public Works will oversee compliance, as well as the geotechnical engineer. They have a permit for tree removal, which would include removal of tree roots, so they are not doing any work that would require additional permits. Greg Soto, architect, noted one correction to the staff report — the newly proposed setback is actually 10' (not 11'). Chair Brown closed the public hearing to public comment. Commissioner comments: Parker • She made extensive comments based on CEQA, the mitigation measures, the geotechnical engineering report and other concerns that are detailed in her notes (on file in the Community Development Department). • She noted that Commissioner Tait's letter (also on file at the Community Development Department) was well-written and she agreed with him. • FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - 1. The proposed project is inconsistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, including implementing policies: ■ Conservation and Open Space element of the General Plan (C/OS2-1.1 and C/OS2-1.3), nor does it provide for accessibility of the area to the public. The project also removes scenic resources that are unique to the City and contribute to the character of the neighborhood as well as the City. The project provides creek and bank dedication, but then takes it away by building a fence along the bank. MINUTES PLANNING COMMMISSION JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 3 2. The proposed project does not conform with applicable performance standards and will be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, since the project does not satisfy all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code including development standards of the single-family zoning district. 3. C/OS2 Safeguard important environmental and sensitive biological resources contributing to healthy functioning ecosystem. Designate all streams and riparian corridors as Conservation Open Space. Shall include buffer area corresponding at least to natural vegetation and or creek bank. 4. C/OS2-1.3 Where feasible, maintain a grading and building setback of 25' from top of stream bank. Locate buildings and structures outside setback. 5. C/OS2-1.4 Creekside trails may be designed within stream and riparian corridors. Although this states "may be designed", this project does not provide for use of a creekside trail as stated both in this section and in the Parks and Recreation Element. 6. #3 under findings for approval states: The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood due to the fact the development utilizes existing lots of the original Short, Mason and Whiteley subdivision and complies with all development standards of the single-family zoned district to include setbacks, height, floor area ratio and lot coverage. According to surrounding neighboring homes, this project comes in very much larger, making it incompatible. 7. Historic Overlay District: The construction of any building or structure enhances, to the maximum extent feasible and does not interfere with, detract from or degrade the historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological resource values of the district due to mitigation measures instituted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the projects compliance with the Design Guidelines for Historic Districts as recommended by the Architectural Review Committee. - The use proposed for a building, structure, or parcel of land is incompatible with the uses predominating in the designated area, since the proposed single-family house is not similar to neighboring residences. Both house footprint and garage are too large. Standard garage in this area is one or two cars at 400 sf. This garage is 440 sf. A standard home in the area is between 1100 and 2000 sf. This home is 2250 sf plus garage. The established scale of the existing neighborhood is much smaller and unique in character. - #3 The proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed project, since it complies with the provisions of the Municipal Code. As per our General Plan, the project is too close to the creek bank, which could be or easily become unstable and possibly erode into the federally protected creek below. MINUTES PLANNING COMMMISSION JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 4 - #6 The proposal will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood since the proposed development is similar in site design, building style, and size as compared to surrounding residences. This is not true. 8. Viewshed Review: #1 Section 16.16.130 of the Municipal Code:. purpose and intent: to preserve the existing scope and character of established single family neighborhoods and to protect views and aesthetics and other property values in such neighborhoods in a manner that is compatible with reasonable expansion on existing developed lots. Character and scale of neighborhood is as previously stated much smaller in size and scale. This structure, if built within the scale and character of the neighborhood, will fit into the restraints of the property as well. The unique character of the property along the creek will be hindered with this project. Fellows: • The main question is: would anything less than a 25' setback be okay? • Just because the water has run off to the street in the past doesn't mean that now isn't a good time to start improving the drop inlet with a fossil filter. • The staff report stated that Buena Geotechnical Services had confirmed no work will happen within 5' from the top of bank, but it's already happened. This shows that it's too difficult to stay away from the creek bank. • It was interesting that the second boring at 0' into the soil was moist, at 5' wet, and 10' very wet. It's a very sensitive site and will be even more interesting to see what happens at excavation and compaction. • Mitigated Negative Declaration concerns- • I.a. — he would like further explanation for rating. o I.b. — should be a "potentially significant impact". o IV.c. — should be a "potentially significant impact" unless mitigated (and could be mitigated with a good fossil filter). o Vll.c/d. —the riparian community will have a "potentially significant impact". o Xlll.b. — the 25' creek impact, when followed, increases the value of the entire neighborhood, so it should be a "potentially significant impact" if the house ends up right by the creek, which he doesn't think it should. o XVI.b. — The answer is "absolutely" if built within 25' of creek (so it should be a "potentially significant impact"). • He appreciated Commissioner Tait's letter, noting Tait is a Park Ranger and well - tuned to the environment. He further commented as follows: o Even if fertilizers and pesticides used on lawns just percolate straight down through the soil, there's potential for contamination of the creek. o He read most of the sections on takings, commenting that the Commission should not be working under fears of a lawsuit. • He read section 16.64.060(R) of the Development Code, which states: Creek Dedications. For any subdivision or parcel map or development project requiring discretionary review abutting the Arroyo Grande Creek, including its tributaries (Tally Ho Creek, Spring Creek, Newsom Springs Creek and Los Berros Creek), MINUTES PLANNING COMMMISSION JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 5 or Meadow Creek, including its tributaries, the subdivider or developer shall dedicate to the City all the area that includes the stream bed and twenty-five (25) feet back of the stream bank, areas designated as environmentally sensitive based on a biology report prepared by a qualified biologist or other appropriate areas mutually acceptable for the purposes of "open space," flood control or "green belt." o He believes the Pace Brothers and Greg Soto could build a very nice home outside of the 25' setback, maybe smaller than what they want, but still highly profitable. It would sell for a premium because of the proximity to the creek greenbelt, so there's no question of a taking. • 25' is the bare minimum to stay away from the creek environment, to protect it and our water supply and downstream neighbors. There are enough legal questions to deny this project as applied for, so the City Attorney and the City Council can decide if the house can be built within 25' of the creek bank or not. • He agreed with Commissioner Tait's final conclusion that the project is not consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and it does not satisfy provisions of Municipal Code 16. 64.060(R). Brown • A balance has to be struck between the desire of the developer (to develop his property) and that of the community (as spelled out in the General Plan and Development Code). • This project can get approved in some form and does not represent a taking. • In terms of finding details for denial, Commissioner Parker's findings give clear and definitive reasons why this project should not be approved in its current form. • His own findings that cannot be met are: o Plot Plan Review Finding #1 — It doesn't meet that criteria. o Plot Plan Review Finding #2 - It doesn't meet that criteria. o Additional PPR Review Findings for Historic Character Overlay District #2 — It doesn't meet that criteria. o CEQA Finding #3 — It doesn't meet that criteria. • In addition, both Commissioners Parker and Fellows mentioned shortcomings in the negative declaration process that he agreed with. • He was surprised this came forth as a consent agenda item, but the process is working and this is a good way to deal with issues. • The Geotechnical report needs to address issues like boring closer to the creekbank for more realistic safety discussion. In lieu of news events on mudslides, etc., he would hate to be in situation where the City has to pay house repair bills due to creek erosion. • He agreed with Commissioner Parker's opinion that the developer can build a reasonable home and increase the setback. • He disagreed with Commissioner Fellows, in that he believes it's possible to build in a setback less than 25', but it has to be greater than what it is now. MINUTES PLANNING COMMMISSION JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 6 • He doesn't like to send up denials to City Council and asked if the applicant would be willing to redesign the project with a greater setback? John Belsher, the applicant's attorney, started to explain that after the last meeting, they had complied with Commissioners' request for an increased setback with what they thought would work. By their calculations, the triangle is less area even than shown, so it's not possible to build the house within the building area triangle. So the basic answer is no? The answer is no. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to deny PPR 05-004, ARC 05-008 and VSR 05-006, lot four only, (with findings as noted in Commissioner Parker's written comments on file at the Community Development Department and detailed above in her comments) and adopt a resolution as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 05-1966 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-004, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 05-008 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-008 (Lot 4 only); 135 WHITELEY; APPLIED FOR BY PACE BROTHER'S CONSTRUCTION Discussion: Chair Brown expressed that he was very discouraged by the applicants' unwillingness (to compromise). Based on the full public process, they've been clearly shown they can build a home within the residential standards of those neighborhoods and further increase the setback from the creek. The Planning Commission offered alternatives that would have worked; the project is clearly is buildable; but they were turned down by the applicant on redesign. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Parker and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Keen and Tait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21St day of June 2005. Mr. Strong stated this action is final unless an appeal is filed within ten (10) days. B. (Continued from the meeting of June 7, 2005) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NOS. 01-001 & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 01-002; APPLICANT — CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC; LOCATION — JAMES WAY & LA CANADA. MINUTES PLANNING COMMMISSION JUNE 2112005 PAGE 7 Mr. Strong noted that since agenda preparation time, the applicant has requested this public hearing be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 2, 2005. Chair Brown stated that August 2 wouldn't work for him, as he would not be in attendance at that meeting and there should be a full commission to hear this item. Planner Teresa McClish will not be present at the July 5 meeting, but she has already given the staff presentation, and Mr. Strong can answer staff questions. The applicant has already done a presentation and answered questions, so they wouldn't have to be present. All that's left is Commissioner comments and the final motion. Commissioner Parker stated she wouldn't be here on July 19, and she would also like to be present to hear the item. So as not to postpone the hearing to later in August, it was proposed to continue it to July 5, 2005. Discussion ensued on the tentative items for that agenda (Viewshed Review 05-007, Formula Business, and Pre -application for Ladera Plaza). Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to continue VTTM/PUD 01-001 and LLA 01-002 to the meeting of July 5, 2005. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Brown, Commissioners Fellows and Parker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Keen and Tait C. VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 05-007; APPLICANT — KEVIN STEVENSON; LOCATION — 585 MAY STREET. Chuck Fellows noted that he would have to step down on this item, due to conflict of interest involving one of his clients. This would leave only two other commissioners, which wouldn't be a quorum to hear the item. Mr. Bergman noted that the applicant requested a motion as soon as possible, so this item was continued to the meeting of July 5. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to continue VSR 05- 007 to the meeting of July 5, 2005. Approved on a unanimous voice vote. D. (Continued from the meeting of June 7, 2005) DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 05-003, HISTORIC RESOURCES ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE. Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman presented this project to create a Historic Resource Committee (HRC) and amend the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, including provisions MINUTES PLANNING COMMMISSION JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 8 for the establishment of criteria for local historic designation and creation of a review process for listing historic resources on a local register. He gave a brief history of the process in getting to this point. He described the committee setup, review process and designation process. Code updates would be necessary to authorize the new committee, their duties, the historic designation and definitions of what that would entail. Staff questions: • Has this work already pretty much been done and is it basically being brought forward just for review and adoption now? That's correct, the DCA must be presented at a public hearing prior to Council action, so this meeting meets that requirement. • Did staff create the wording or borrow it from other communities? Two Planning Interns have done research on other communities' ordinances, and staff planners have aided in reviewing and editing the appropriate process and structure for the City of Arroyo Grande. • Did the other HRC's work well in other towns to their economic and aesthetic benefit? Yes, and some had equally unique features. • What amount would taxpayers get in relief if their property is designated according to the Mills Act? Mr. Strong met with the County Assessor to try to obtain estimates, but doesn't have any numbers at this time. San Luis Obispo City has the Mills Act, but Arroyo Grande doesn't - yet. Mills Act property relief is a good incentive for designation. Another incentive is the allowance of the alternative building code, which allows the Building Official more discretion. Other relatively simple incentives could include recognition, a plaque, publicly available information, and neighborhood prestige. The Committee, once formed, may offer other ideas how to expand an incentive program. • The top of page 8 of the staff report states "Non -designated properties may still be important 'contributing' elements to the 'setting" of historic resources ..." Is there anything in the resolution or ordinance that, if passed tonight, would keep these type of old structures which are part of the setting from being included in the list? No, there's plenty of community input in the nomination process. • Where does the process go after tonight? If City Council approves it, they will be responsible for appointing members to the HRC, encouraging additional input to the HRC designation process, and nominations will begin. It's a rather substantial process, but has been more than a year in evolution. While the HRC members wouldn't have the full authority of a commission, they would make initial recommendations to ARC, ARC would make recommendations to Planning Commission and Commissioners would make the final decisions, which could be appealed up to City Council. • On page 5, should "economic hardship" be more clearly defined? Typically, these would be considered on a case-by-case basis, with significant reasons necessary to show real hardship. Most communities with historic preservation provisions have this to allow some consideration of feasibility. It isn't intended as MINUTES PLANNING COMMMISSION JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 9 a general escape clause, and they would be determined by Council eventually, but hopefully with evidence. • On page 6, how much notice time is given to the property owner — 30 or 60 days? There's not a stated minimum time, but there should be at least 60 days. Once a property is nominated and studied, the owner is advised. If he wants to contest the nomination, it could be any time in the process up to the actual designation hearing where public notice is sent to the owner and surrounding properties. • If there's a property on the list and something happens to it — if it gets burned, becomes trashy, etc. - can it be removed from the list? Yes. • On page 8, what is a "reuse conversion"? An example would be the change from residential use to office, like several dentists have done in the Village. • On page 2 of the Ordinance, under section 4, could there be a mailing so more people know than just those who read the newspaper? The Design 2.4 overlay alone could generate over 1000 notices, so economically, it's a value judgment if you feel there should be a general or focused mailing. Each of the designated properties would be noticed at the time of the public hearings. o Maybe a press release could be sent out. • On Exhibit A, 2.21.050 (Nonattendance), the way it's worded, HRC members might only miss one meeting (25% of four meetings) and lose their seat. Normally leeway is given in this area, and it refers more to not giving notice of inability to attend, etc. • On Exhibit A, 16.16.211, D (Designation process), it looks like a different process than the list on page 6 of the staff report. Mr. Strong replied the concern here is that you can create a substantial process and effort by staff and the property owner in trying to respond to any nomination, and people could nominate the neighbors they dont like for spite, so this protects legitimate interests in historic preservation. • If both the owner and ARC want a property to be designated, could it be a consent agenda item, instead of a public hearing? Yes, it is intended to use the MUP process with appropriate noticing. • Why did Commissioner Keen comment in prior minutes that he "disagreed with trying to enforce views on someone not inside City limits"? There are jurisdictions outside City limits, but within the City's sphere of influence that people may wish to designate as historically significant, for example: Halcyon Temple. Council could consider such locations, but their ability to enforce such designation may be beyond the City's jurisdiction. The City could make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors to protect such buildings from proposals to alter or diminish them. • Chair Brown requested the ordinance be spell checked in the word processor. • Commissioner Parker said she would turn in written comments on grammar. Chair Brown opened the public hearing to public comment. MINUTES PLANNING COMMMISSION JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 10 Gary Scherquist, 228 Short Street, read a letter in support of the HRC Ordinance and attached Resolutions (on file in the Community Development Department). He suggested that to show good faith, the HRC start with publicly owned buildings first, and then private (like the Church in the Village and the wall at 137 Whiteley). Planning Commissioners were interested in having permit applications trigger evaluation of historical qualities (instead of starting by creating a large list of buildings). In response to questions about if the ordinance could be changed to that effect if the resolution and ordinance were adopted tonight, Mr. Strong replied yes, that would be possible. Chair Brown closed the public hearing to public comment. Commissioner comments: Parker: • She requested that Gary Scherquist's letter be forwarded to Council. • If fifty or more buildings were nominated at the same time, especially with other major projects, she couldn't see them being processed in a timely fashion. It might be good to start the list by letting the building and demo permit process trigger evaluation of historical qualities. Then, two or three years later, they could research other properties not yet on the list. Fellows: • He expressed thanks to Mr. Strong and staff for addressing this important issue. • He's ready to support the ordinance tonight to have something in place, and perhaps change it later to Mr. Scherquist's suggestion about the permit trigger. • A Historic Designation will enhance properties. It's scary at first, but if the public is informed, it's a real positive. He relayed a story of hearing state officials trying to educate city officials on the fact that the Historic Code was more lenient and therefore they could give more latitude when an historic building was being fixed up; he was looking forward to additional information on the benefits of the Mills Act. • He complimented Mr. Scherquist on the remodel of his Village home. Brown • He agrees with a lot of what Mr. Scherquist said and with the streamlining process. His only concern was a discussion with Robert Chattel, who spoke to staff and Commissioners at length about the benefits of having a list established prior to permit request, because it provided greater protection if done ahead of time. He wouldn't want to streamline things if it lessened their effectiveness to preserve history. o Chuck Fellows recalled that discussion as well, remembering that it would have been helpful to have the Loomis Barn on a list when it was being permitted. There is a survey from 1991 that they could start with. MINUTES PLANNING COMMMISSION JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 11 o Commissioner Brown noted the angst and heartache of private parties to protect that barn. He would want to let developers know what they are up against ahead of time, so they have full awareness of possible limitations and it wouldn't come as a surprise. • He can support the ordinance and resolutions, and also requested that Mr. Scherquist's comments go forward to Council (and that he attend Council.) • He noted that the intent is to make it workable for all parties. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve DCA 05- 003 and adopt a resolution as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 05-1967 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 2.21 TO TITLE 2 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE", AND AMENDING CHAPTER 16.04 "DEFINITIONS" AND ADDING SECTION 16.16.211 TO TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "MINOR USE PERMIT — HISTORICAL RESOURCE DETERMINATION" AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING APPOINTMENT PROCEDURES FOR THE HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Parker and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Keen and Tait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21St day of June 2005. IV. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Chuck Fellows expressed concern about the loss of trees in the community. He noted that another oak tree was found to be diseased (on the Parks and Recreation agenda.) In addition, there's a maple tree at a vacant house on 210 Tally Ho that he would like to protect. He requested that he be notified if a demo request came through for it. Mr. Strong replied that the Parks and Recreation Director, Dan Hernandez, had scheduled a meeting specifically in regards to tree issues, but nobody from ARC attended, even MINUTES PLANNING COMMMISSION JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 12 though they had expressed deep concern. Other concerns have been expressed about the Nelson Green Magnolia, but anyone who is concerned and wants to be involved more in the process needs to be in touch with the people who actually make decisions about trees (Dan Hernandez, as well as Pete McClure, the City Arborist). Chair Brown echoed the loss of trees concern. The City needs to be the lead agency when protecting trees—holding public property to, the same standards as private homeowners. He requested that this issue be agendized for further discussion and comment. Mr. Strong noted that this discussion has already been requested to occur at the Council level and Commissioners could attend, or if they want to hear the item first and make a recommendation, they could do that as well. Chair Brown requested that it be placed on a Planning Commission agenda. In response to Commissioner requests for information on other City Committee's agendas, Mr. Strong stated that they can be found on the City website. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: Mr. Strong advised Commissioners that he has sent letters to owners/managers of properties with vending machines notifying them of the Minor Use Permit process. In addition, he has sent similar letters to major properties with garden center outdoor retail areas. Some owners have called and said they're not going to comply. There will be an enforcement/abatement alternative. Since the City is trying to be more systematic with Code Enforcement, and the codes were just recently amended to allow outdoor retail use with permits (where previously prohibited entirely), this was a timely opportunity to request owners to comply. The Baja Fresh banners have been removed, in follow-up to requests. The Neighborhood Services Coordinator is working on a systematic enforcement of garage conversions, which will have to be addressed by the municipal code. It's a widespread, known problem in the community, but has been difficult to address as an abatement process. The goal is improved life safety, and the process will probably be the Minor Use Permit (MUP) process. There is one MUP coming forward in the near future that was based on a complaint. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE JULY 5, 2005 MEETING: Although somewhat discussed in terms of scheduling Tract 1998, further discussion was held on the order of agenda items. It was felt that Tract 1998 should be first, Viewshed Review 05-007 second, and Formulas Business third (even if the last wasn't heard, they would like to receive the staff report and information). Chair Brown added that he would be willing to have a special meeting on Tract 1998 if necessary for agenda management. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMMISSION JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 13 ATTEST: ILI cx� KATHY MENOOZA SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB STROIVG COMMUNITY D (Minutes approved at the PC 1 1 MENT DIRECTOR of July 5, 2005) TIM �NC R AIR 1 1