CITY OF La Habra HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chairman Wolfe called a meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission to order at 7:43 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman Robert Wolfe, Vice Chairman Larry Black, Commissioners Layne Baroldi, Brent Grebbien, Margarita McCoy. Absent: Alternate Commissioner Garcia. Also present Community Development Director Sandra Massa-Lavitt, City Engineer Craig Melicher and City Attorney Sandra Levin.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Vice Chairman Larry Black led the flag salute.
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF
August 23, 2005
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated the agenda had been posted.
5. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA
Michael Bagwell asked if the definitions had been released for the Ordinances.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt explained that they were not ready yet and are still in draft form.
Mr. Bagwell asked if staff had decided what kind of environmental review we are going to use to satisfy the CEQA requirement. It was mentioned that we might use a tiered EIR. He stated that he thought this was to be a Special Meeting to make decisions.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt explained that the Public Hearings will begin. The Environmental Document is not yet complete. It is adopted by the City Council and will be reviewed by them upon the adoption of the Ordinance when the entire Municipal Code is completed.
Mr. Bagwell spoke about 707 Dorothea being out of time; concern that the wall might fall; what was the pre-existing condition of the property; wanted to know what is happening on the project.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road - voiced support for the neighbors of 707 Dorothea; City should enforce itŐs rules on the project; an uncompleted trail at 501 Dorothea and this is the last chance to get that trail completed; Code Enforcement on Ahuacate, City needs to stay on top of these projects.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt asked in what respect the trail was not finished.
Mr. Blagden answered that it was supposed to be completed with a split-rail fence and the whole trail was supposed to have D G base and by 501 Dorothea it does not and the sides are eroding.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
6. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2004-27 (Hardas) 1500 La Riata Drive
Commissioner Baroldi recused himself from this Item as he is currently using the services of the applicant.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt presented the staff report stating that there is a revised plan reducing the accessory building from 1800 square feet to 1200 square feet. The building has been separated; the house of worship is now about 700 square feet enclosed by four walls and a roof; across the breezeway is 520 square feet that will house a changing room, sauna and a bathroom. The kitchen has been removed from the plan. The pool equipment is removed from the square footage and is now outside the building enclosed by a screen wall, as is the barbecue area. Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that the project is consistent with what an accessory structure can be, but it does exceed the 640 square feet allowed for accessory buildings. Ordinarily a house of worship would require a CUP, but since this building will be used for family only, there should be no issues with congregants coming to the house from outside, creating undue noise or traffic issues. Staff feels that in this case a CUP is not necessary.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that the second part of this application deals with the deck and the bonus room on the first floor that encroach into the side yard setback. The deck does encroach 15 feet into the setback. This is a correction on what the Staff Report says. The lower deck will be enclosed into the bonus room and the upper deck will remain open with no roof. She noted that the project clearly overstates the minimum allowed for an accessory building. It has been modified but does remain in excess of the 640 square feet allowed. The deck and bonus room was partially complete without any permits and does encroach into the side yard setback.
She stated staff was recommending that the Commission deny the portion of the Standards Modification where the bonus room and the floor area of the open deck encroach into the required side yard by requiring the floors to be modified and removed from the side yard setback. Discuss the accessory building, the size, the number and direct the Staff to prepare appropriate resolution and conditions of approval.
Commissioner McCoy noted that at the last meeting she understood the Applicant to say that at times, extended family and others would be gathering in the house of worship. She asked City Attorney Levin if that didnŐt make a congregation according to the requirements of RLUPA in the Federal Law?
City Attorney Levin stated that this is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Ms. Levin explained that most any land use decision that involves a religious use triggers RLUPA. In this particular case, the Standards that are being discussed are all neutral on their face and they apply to all uses, not just religious uses. These rules apply to all accessory buildings, not just religious buildings. In this case RLUPA would not apply.
Commissioner McCoy asked for clarification that by cutting down the size we are not discriminating against religion.
Ms. Levin answered that it would not be discriminating as long as you treat it as you would any other accessory building.
Vice Chairperson Black asked if we should consider tonight the consequences of allowing this larger size accessory building, as it might welcome more people.
Ms. Levin explained that you should consider it the same as any other accessory use. If it is a pool house the size is more likely that they will have pool parties with more people. Larger structures are more likely to be used for greater numbers of people. That is where you use your discretion.
Vice Chairperson Black stated that this type of use, might dictate the frequency of visitation as well as the number of people.
Ms. Levin explained that you do not have the facts before us that would answer that question. You should just look at the size of the building. You do not know what anyone later might use it for.
Chairperson Wolfe asked if the Applicant has discussed the fact that they are willing to get rid of the encroached part of the building.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt stated that it has not been discussed.
Commissioner Grebbien asked if there has recently been any case that came before Staff requesting this kind of addition coupled with a plan to do an accessory building that stresses the square footage restrictions we have. Is there any precedent at all?
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that no precedent has been established for a unit larger than 640 square feet. The Planning Commission has been pretty firm on that number and the City Council also that she is aware of. She stated that all she has is peopleŐs memory.
Chairperson Wolfe stated that the only place the 640 square foot size is stated is in 9202, subsection D; Ňliving quarters for temporary guests or servants of the occupants of the residence, provided that such quarters shall be on the same lot as the residence, but only one such quarters shall be permitted not to exceed 640 square feet.Ó Is this where the 640 square feet requirement comes from?
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that it is.
Chairperson Wolfe asked if this isnŐt living quarters for a temporary quest or servant, how is the worship house held to 640 square feet?
Ms. Massa-Lavitt explained that this limitation has been enforced across the board and most of these accessory buildings are called guesthouses and occasionally pool houses. She stated that she was not sure we have dealt with an oversize building of this size in the past and now it is not just one building, but two. She noted that the 640 square feet is anything that could be considered a guesthouse.
Chairperson Wolfe stated that he is watching out for what the building has inside, such as a fireplace, sauna and bathroom.
City Attorney Levin noted that if it can be used as a guesthouse it will be subject to guesthouse restrictions and the bathroom is a pretty good indicator.
Chairperson Wolfe asked what ŇfindingsÓ we should make .
City Attorney Levin noted that Code Section is 9405.4.
Chairperson Wolfe opened the Public Comment and asked if there was anyone who wanted to speak on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr. Hardas, La Riata Drive, stated that as far as visitor traffic coming it would be about the same as it has been for the 13 years they have lived there. He stated that he is willing to comply with the setback requirements of the deck.
Chairperson Wolfe asked if he understood correctly that he is willing to cut off 415 square feet of the new deck and 343 square feet off of the bonus room for the setback requirements.
Mr. Hardas stated that he is willing to do that. He stated that they have a swimming pool so they need a bathroom. It is too far up the hill to the residence.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, noted that a guesthouse structure requires one or two more parking spaces and he didnŐt think they were on the site plan.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that two more parking spaces are required for a guesthouse and there is plenty of room on the lot for this.
Chairperson Wolfe asked Mr. Hardas if there are any unique circumstances that cause you to justify exceeding the 640 square feet requirement for the accessory building.
Mr. Hardas explained that the idols they use in worship take up more space than the 640 square feet. We also need room to sit for our worship.
Chairperson Wolfe asked if the worship room is going to be used only for worship.
Mr. Hardas answered that it will also be used for meditation and other family things that are part of religious things but not actually worship.
Chairperson Wolfe asked what percentage of time is the house going to be used for worship with the idols in it.
Mr. Hardas stated that his mother would be praying and worshiping there in the morning. In the evening his wife might be teaching the children about our religion and sometimes celebrate religious events. It will be a holy place in our house.
Chairperson Wolfe closed the Public Comment and returned the meeting to the Commission.
Commissioner McCoy commented that the City Attorney tells us to look at this as we would for any other use because of uses that might come in later years. Ms. McCoy stated she believes that there should only be one structure. It would be the familyŐs choice what they do with the structure. They should meet our requirement.
Vice Chairman Black stated that we could talk about the issue of allowing the large square footage but then we would have to discuss some sort of remediation at the time that the Applicant would be selling the home so as to conform to the Code. He stated that he felt the enforcement of that would be very difficult. He noted that he agrees with Commissioner McCoy that we have to be careful about future owners. He stated that he thinks the 640 square feet is appropriate.
Commissioner Grebbien stated that as he listened tonight he was more concerned with the setback encroachment than the size of the accessory building. Mr. Grebbien commented that when he reviews the General Plan and when he talks to residents in the City, probably the most fundamental thing we do in this City to preserve the quiet and the rural lifestyle is to have that setback for primary structures. Mr. Grebbien stated that we do have rules about guesthouses.
Chairperson Wolfe commented that he didnŐt think the encroachment issue is a factor any more.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that would be true if he is willing to comply with the 25-foot setback. That would be a condition of approval.
Chairperson Wolfe stated that he considers this a guesthouse for all practical purposes due to what it has in it. The General Plan is clear that there is only one accessory building allowed and there is two proposed. He also stated that if he doesnŐt look at the use, I donŐt hear any unique circumstances. He noted that he didnŐt think it would impose on any of the neighbors. He stated that this application was deemed complete on July 19th. Where do we stand as far as the Permit Streamlining Act?
Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that so far we are all right.
Chairperson Wolfe stated that if we deny the project he canŐt come back for one year. If we deny it without prejudice he can submit a new application, or if we continue it he can come back with a different kind of project. He asked if we continue it would we still be O.K. with the Permit Streamlining Act?
Ms. Massa-Lavitt answered that it would be for the next week. Beyond that he would have to sign an extension up to ninety days.
Commissioner McCoy commented that she did not know whether she wanted to see the project continued or denied without prejudice. She stated that she would like to see new plans showing the setback cleared and the accessory building redesigned to meet our requirements.
Commissioner Grebbien stated that he did not think he had to stick to the 640 square feet, but he wants to see something much closer to that. They originally had it at 1800 square feet. He stated that as far as the changing room, restroom and barbecue go, if I had a pool house I would want all of these things. They arenŐt unreasonable. It is still just a little too far out of compliance with our square footage requirement. It needs some scaling down.
Chairperson Wolfe commented that he thinks the pool is on the best spot on the lot for it. It is quite a ways from the house. Chairman Wolfe stated that he really doesnŐt have a problem with the bathroom, changing room and a fireplace. He stated that he canŐt see any findings to exceed the square footage so much.
Chairperson Wolfe offered a motion to continue Item 6, Standards Modification 2004-27, to give the Applicant the opportunity to correct the plans, to reflect the removal of the sideyard setback issues and to reconfigure the accessory structure to come into better conformity with 9202. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McCoy and approved as follows:
AYES: Black, Grebbien, McCoy and Wolfe
NOES: None
RECUSED: Baroldi
ABSENT: None
Chairperson Wolfe commented that Item 6, Standards Modification 2004-27 has been continued to our next scheduled Meeting.
Commissioner McCoy commented that the Applicant needs more definite instructions as to what to come back with.
Chairperson Wolfe stated that he is not looking at the use of the structure, but just the size of it. You have two structures, where we only allow one. Those two accessory structures are almost double the allowable square feet. Scale it down.
Commissioner McCoy stated that in her opinion his goal should be to meet our requirements of 640 square feet.
City Attorney Levin explained that there is in the Code a provision for accessory structures other than guesthouses and you described that you think both structures look like guesthouses. Maybe he could redesign; could have one guesthouse and one accessory structure that has no bathroom, fireplace and plumbing and might have a changing room. That could possibly qualify under the Code as not a guesthouse and therefore not be subject to those limitations. We would have to consider it when it came in.
Commissioner McCoy noted that as big as it is, it could still be renovated at some time.
Commissioner Grebbien asked if a separate septic system would be needed if there is a bathroom in one of the structures. He noted that the structures are downhill from the main house.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that it could, or it might be able to be hooked up with the main house.
City Engineer Melicher stated that if a bathroom is added it would trigger a review by the Health Department for the existing system and its current capacity or whether there is a need to expand the current capacity.
Commissioner Grebbien noted that it is important to know about the septic system and that would be the first thing he would think about if he was doing this.
Mr. Melicher stated the Health Department is paying a lot more attention to septic systems than they used to. He stated that they could require a separate system or require that it be pumped up to the main system.
Commissioner Grebbien stated as far as future use the bathroom leaves the look of a guesthouse.
Vice Chairperson Black noted that the thing that triggers that concern is the overall size. There is a bathroom on the plans already and that is enough.
Chairperson Wolfe stated that Code 9202 allows for accessory buildings and structures customarily used in conjunction with a lawfully established single family residence. It says nothing about size of the building. If it is going to be used as living quarters for temporary guests or servants that can be done as long as there is only one and is only 640 square feet. An accessory building is a detached subordinate building, the use of which, is customarily incidental to that of the main building or the main use of the land. He noted that anyone could convert a garage into living quarters, but we donŐt deny a person from having a garage because of the possibility of someone later putting bathrooms in it and using it for living quarters.
Vice Chairperson Black stated that we are not looking at this as an accessory building because of its proximity to the pool.
Chairperson Wolfe stated that it becomes a policy decision. He stated that you could call it a pool house and it has no bathroom, sauna or fireplace. Is that a structure that is incidental to the main building or the main use of the land?
Vice Chairperson Black answered that according to your hypothetical case it is an accessory building.
Chairperson Wolfe stated that he was not satisfied to see the names of a building change, but he would just like to go by the Code.
Vice Chairperson Black stated that he preferred to continue the item and give the applicant a chance to come back, given the guidelines we have been giving, but I do think Commissioner McCoy is right that we should be more exacting to the requirements.
Chairperson Wolfe stated that he had a concern for the privacy for the adjoining neighbor and I think it could be solved by some more cypress trees being placed there. You either have to come back with the accessory building like it is and come up with some unique circumstances for keeping it like it is. (I canŐt find any at this time.) Otherwise you need to change the structure to meet our Code.
Commissioner Grebbien noted that he felt much the same except that he was not quite as exact on the 640 square foot requirement, but he would like to see it closer to the Code requirement. He noted that there would have to be some demolition work on the setback issue and he felt there is room to scale back at the changing room and anywhere else the applicant can.
Mr. Hardas asked if it would help if he puts up a bond and when he sells the house he demolishes the worship house? He stated he would put up the bond to the City in any form wanted, add all the conditions that are wanted, that the structure will not exist and you will have the bond if I do not do it.
Chairperson Wolfe stated that he never was asked this question before and he canŐt answer it. He will have to talk to the Attorney about this. We will get an answer to you shortly whether that is even permitted or whether it is even a consideration.
PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Baroldi returned to sit on the Commission.
7. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2004-30, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2005-01 (Reese) 1020 West Road
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt reported that this is a request to remodel an existing home by adding 720 square feet. She stated that part of the building at the front of the lot that can be seen from West Road is the existing building and it is two stories in height containing a garage and a small home. The addition is at the rear of the structure. Story poles are in place and you can see the outline and the height of the building. It appears that there is partial obstruction of the scenic view from the Public right-of-way. Its to be determined by the Planning Commission whether it is substantial or significant impairment to the public view. Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that almost all of the existing home is in the front setback. The new portion is beyond the 35-foot setback and does not encroach into any of the required setbacks. The original home was built in 1950 under the County Ordinance so it is non-conforming to La Habra Heights Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Massa-Lavitt explained that the plans in your packet are not the same plans that are in our file. They have a date stamp of December 20 and I understood that there had been no changes since then. We received the plans in your packet the day the Agenda went out. I noticed that the heights of the buildings are different. The plan I have was 27 feet and the plans you have are 30 feet plus at the highest point. This creates a problem in the building envelope, not being consistent with the limits that are required by the Code. The Standards Modification before you can be used to modify the building height of the new structure by the amount that is in excess of nearly 5 feet. She stated that she makes no recommendation on that. The remainder of the project is consistent with the Code. The Applicant is applying for a tree removal permit and is replacing at a 2 to 1 ratio. Ms. Massa-Lavitt recommended that the Commission take testimony and discuss the issues relative to the case and direct Staff to prepare a Resolution for the next meeting. She stated that due to the possible view impairment from the public right-of-way and the issue of the building being beyond the limits of the building envelope she could not give a recommendation for this case.
Chairman Wolfe asked if we know which plans the Story Poles conform with.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that we do not.
Chairperson Wolfe opened the meeting to Public Comment.
Abdon Barembaum, explained that they had increased the height of the interior. He also explained that the view impairment is only a small amount at the front of the house and this is where the trees are. He passed out pictures of the area. He stated the only neighbor is across the street and up on a hill so his view is not obstructed. He stated that the existing house is 8-10 feet below the road. He also noted that people driving on West Road would not be trying to see a view through the trees.
Chairperson Wolfe asked Mr. Barembaum if he supervised the placement of the story poles.
Mr. Barembaum stated that he did not. The owner had a Civil Engineer to supervise the story poles.
Chairperson Wolfe asked if he agreed that in the plans that were submitted the height elevation was lower.
Mr. Barembaum stated that the interior height had been increased on both the first and second floors so they can have a better view from the house.
Chairperson Wolfe asked what the overall increase in height was.
Mr. Barembaum answered that they increased the height about three feet.
Chairperson Wolfe asked if the story poles indicate the height change.
Mr. Barembaum answered that they do indicate the plan change.
Commissioner Baroldi asked when the poles were modified.
Mr. Barembaum answered that they were not modified, they were placed according to this plan.
Commissioner McCoy asked if he was aware of the CityŐs height limitations for sloping lots.
Mr. Barembaum answered that he was aware of the Ordinances.
Commissioner McCoy stated that the height limit for a 26% slope is about 25 feet. This is 33 feet and 11 inches in height.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that the maximum difference between the two plans is five feet. She stated that it was consistent with the terms of the envelope requirements for this slope of lot on the plans we had in the file. By raising the ceiling on the two floors raised the roof and caused the inconsistency. The ceilings have been raised from 8 feet to 9 feet.
Commissioner McCoy noted that Staff was not apprised of this change so they were not able to adjust this or even talk to the Applicant about this. She stated that she does not think that is the proper way to proceed on this.
Mr. Barembaum explained that the measurement was taken from the deck on the first floor at the back of the house. The actual house is not that high from the finished grade.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that the deck was part of the foundation so that was the proper place to measure.
Pat Reese stated that this project has been going on for a long time and she does not think we are asking anything unreasonable and would like to proceed with the project.
Chairperson Wolfe asked if she knows why the plans submitted to Staff are different than the plans submitted as copies.
Ms. Reese stated that she does not know.
Ranalyn Tuppan-Jones, La Riata, noted the problems that have occurred between her property and the ReeseŐs property since they bought it from her family; she asked that the project be denied until they correct the things that they have done wrong; return soil that should be over her line, irrigation lines; trash left.
Chairperson Wolfe asked Ms. Tuppan-Jones if she had looked at the plans. They are asking for a Standards Modification on the height of the house, which could be a privacy issue. Have you seen the story poles and do you think the house will invade your privacy?
Ms. Tuppan-Jones stated that she has not seen the plans. She stated that she has seen the story poles and she felt they would be able to see into the existing house and would inhibit her view of the hills.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, spoke of a story pole certification sheet that should tell when they were installed and to which plan; height change should have been noticed to the neighbors; should be noticed and Hearing continued; land use policy 25 states adjacent property owners should work with the Applicant, Planning Office and Staff; may exceed grading limit; six required parking spaces not shown; plan should be redone; landscaping plan should be prepared for screening.
Mrs. Reese, stated that they asked the previous owners when they moved in, if they had a survey and were told that they did not.
Chairperson Wolfe closed the Public Comment and returned the meeting to the Commission.
Commissioner McCoy explained that she thought this item should be continued to allow Staff to reassess the impact of the height and view impairment. She stated that she also would like to see advice from neighbors as to what impact this modification would have on them. A change as major as this requires some more consideration before we come to a decision on this.
Commissioner Baroldi stated that he agreed and it seems that the story poles have been up for some time. He stated that there should be some type of certification on the story poles. When we find out when the story poles went up we can then make the determination as to whether the view from the road is being impaired.
Vice Chairman Black noted that this is an ambitious plan and a lot of the details have been left out. He commented that the 31 feet in the West Elevation will require a landscape plan to clearly identify how that mass is going to be softened. He noted that the story poles have been up for a long time, so he is not sure the story poles conform with the latest plans we have. There are a number of things that have to be done for me to have a better understanding of what the site is going to look like.
Commissioner Grebbien stated that he thinks the story pole discrepancy is a problem. He stated that he had no reason to believe the height would be a tremendous problem. The story poles should be accurate so everyone can have an idea on what the building will look like.
Chairperson Wolfe noted that it raises a red flag to him when plans are different from the original plan that Staff has. He commented that actually he did not think the three-foot difference would impair anyoneŐs view. Story poles are for the Commission, Staff and neighbors. He noted that he had his doubts that the neighbors in this case can get together. Submit a correct set of plans.
City Attorney Levin explained that at the time of the original application there was not a certification form for story poles. Subsequently you adopted such a form and there is none in this file. The continuance can give time to fill out a correct certification form for the plan.
Chairperson Wolfe stated that we need a complete and correct plan in the file. He stated that the August 23, 2005 letter from Tuppan-Jones should be placed in the file. There are also two photographs from the Applicant that should be placed in the file.
Commissioner McCoy offered a motion to continue Item 7. Chairperson Wolfe added Ňto the next scheduled Planning Commission Meeting including that the Applicant would submit a story pole certification form to conform with the appropriate plansÓ. Commissioner McCoy agreed to the addition. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and approved as follows:
AYES: Baroldi, Black, Grebbien, McCoy and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Chairperson Wolfe asked that the story pole certification and correct plans are on file with Staff.
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
There were no further items from the Planning Commission.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
8. Report on Planning/Building Caseload
Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that this report is a receive and file report. If you have any questions, I will answer them.
Chairperson Wolfe stated they would receive and file.
9. Status of 707 Dorothea
Ms. Massa-Lavitt reported that they have received a grading plan. She noted that she would withhold her comments until she has talked to the Engineer concerning the adequacy of that grading plan. They are up against the deadline. The deadline holds. It is September 9 or 10.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt reminded the Commission that there is a Public Hearing on Article 7 on August 30, at 7:00 p.m.
City Attorney Levin explained that we are still not expecting to have the definitions then. No decisions will be made, just further discussion.
Michael Bagwell, spoke on the 707 Dorothea file; nothing added since March; file complete? My letters were not there; 10 conditions of approval; soils report and borings needed; not enough time; erosion control needed for this property.
Commissioner McCoy noted that she would like to know if the Applicants ask for an extension of time, is it possible to refuse the extension?
Ms. Massa-Lavitt commented that they were not inclined to grant an extension without bringing it back to the Commission or the Council.
Commissioner McCoy asked if all of those conditions were supposed to be met by the deadline.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that some of the conditions were meant to be carried out by the deadline and some were not.
City Attorney Levin explained that different conditions get triggered at different points along the way.
Commissioner McCoy asked what has to be done by September 9th or 10th.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt answered there was the approval of the grading plan, removal of the wall and grading of the lot.
Ms. Levin commented that it is not even started.
Commissioner McCoy stated that it looks impossible to her. What do we do now?
City Attorney Levin explained that the City can deem the approvals void and pursue Code Enforcement, deem the approvals void and not pursue Code Enforcement or amend the approvals. It will be City CouncilŐs determination.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Baroldi moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:46 p.m. to the Special Meeting of August 30, 2005. Seconded by Chairperson Wolfe. Vote 5-0
____________________________________
Larry Black, Vice Chairman
ATTEST:
Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Community Development Director