Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-14MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER 2000 MAIN STREET. HUNTINGTON BEACH. CAUFORNIA 92648 7:00 P.M. - COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P P P- P P P P ROLL CALL: 'Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2004,- BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A. - - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — None. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 03-01 (THROUGH LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 10, 2004 WITH PUBLIC HEARING OPEN):Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To amend Chapters 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) to regulate the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures within the rear and street side yards of through -lots. A through lot is defined as having frontages on two parallel streets. The proposed amendments are generally -intended to prohibit fences and structures of any height on slopes and rear portions of a through lot, require the sloped portion of a through lot to be fully landscaped and require any fence on a through lot to be located at top of grade, including fencing on the exterior side yard. Location: Citywide Project Planner:. Paul Da Veiga STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:-. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 with findings for denial." Paul Da Veiga, Associate Planner, provided a staff report, made a PowerPoint presentation, and identified late communication. (o4p=0914) PC Minutes September 14. 2004 Page 2 Commission Scandura asked staff to substitute language included on Attachment 3.2, Section 230.88, A.11. (Alternate B), for the language provided on Attachment 4.2, Section 230.88, A.11. (Alternative C). The Commission made the following disclosures: Commissioner Thomas drove the area, -spoke with Carole Garrett, Art Hasegawa, and a City Council Member, Commissioner Scandura spoke with Council Member Coerper, Commissioner Livengood, Rick Taylor, Mike Palikan, Jean Nagy, Adrienne Parks, Carole - Garrett, Randy Fuhrman, visited various through lot locations, and spoke with staff; Vice Chair Ray visited the area and met with 63 residents included on a list that will be available for public review. Chair Davis suggested he disclose the 63 names. The Commissioner and staff formed a consensus that the. names not be read aloud. Commissioner Stilton drove the area, took some measurements, spoke with Carole Garrett, Commissioner Livengood and staff; Commissioner Livengood spoke with Carole Garrett, Commissioner Stilton and staff; Commissioner Dingwall spoke with Carole Garrett; Chair Davis had none. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Richard Batistelli; Huntington Harbor Property Owner's Association (HHPOA) President, Gilbert Drive, spoke in support of the ordinance. He.discussed the importance of enforcing, not compromising, the HHPOA's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He voiced concerns about walls located on Roundhill Drive with heights of 10 to 12 feet, and provided support for recommendations made by the Beautification Landscape and Tree (BLT) Committee, and the. City Council Chair Davis asked if CC&Rs are independently enforced regardless of City action. Mr. Batistelli confirmed. Chair Davis discussed that a compromise must be established, concerned that the only recourse_ neighbors will have is to take legal action. Manfred Lengsfeld, Roundhill Drive, spoke in support of the ordinance. He discussed rules for seismic design within the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and how the UBC divides seismic space per zip code and natural forces such as earthquake fault lines. - He also described vertical acceleration. Carole Garrett, Roundhill, spoke in support of the ordinance, and in opposition to Commissioner Livengood's Alternative B. She discussed current code restrictions and described the neighborhood character as open and unique. She voiced concerns about loss of open space related to 17 retaining walls without setbacks, and how allowing property owners to build on through lots devalues properties that face such walls. She urged the Commission to approve Alternative A. Ted Patten, Roundhill Ddve,'spoke in support of the ordinance. He stated that he lives across from a rear yard of a through lot and discussed legal parameters and walls that are unattractive and dangerously constructed. Although he supports property owner's rights, he also supports well maintained landscaping before °prison walls" that diminish property values. (04ag0914 Action) PC Minutes September 14, 2004 Page 3 Jacqueline McAniff, Concord Lane, spoke in opposition to the ordinance and in favor of property owner rights. She voiced concerns about how the proposal would affect the 27 properties with existing retaining walls, stating that the issue should be addressed within the staff report. Art Hasegawa, Westport Drive, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. He showed a photo of the dilapidated fence on his property prior to building a retaining wall in 1997. He read from the conditional use permit findings including, "combination block wall will not be detrimental;" "wall adjacent to sidewalk is compatible to surrounding uses;" "structure meets minimum setbacks and wall heights;" and "will not affect the consistency of the General Plan." He discussed property owner rights, increased property values and property taxes, and stated that he was opposed to a moratorium on through lots. Chair Davis asked the speaker to share his photos with the Commission. Marlene Lopin, Roundhill Drive, spoke in support of the ordinance and discussed the HHPOA's CC&Rs. She stated that the CC&Rs are recorded and go with the land, are enforceable without a delegate to enforce them, and that it is the applicant's responsibility to comply with them. She made reference to the HHPOA's Architectural Review Board and stated that zoning restrictions cannot override the restrictions listed within the CC&Rs. She described through lots with slopes as lots with two frontages, and voiced concerns about the existing, unattractive walls built illegally in the Harbor. Josh Rorem, Concord Lane, spoke in opposition to the ordinance and in favor of property rights. He informed the Commission of his 30-year residency in the Huntington Harbor, and discussed the condition of walls and fences over the years. Mike Palikan, Westport Drive, spoke in opposition to ordinance. He voiced concerns about Commissioner Dingwall voting on the request after expressing his judgment prior to hearing from the public. He discussed the 27 existing walls that were built without CC&R compliance. He stated that the staff report provided a fine analysis. He also discussed how the request is inconsistent with the goals of the General Plan, will decrease property values, and the argument of aesthetics versus property rights is subject to opinion. He showed pictures of existing properties and described the request as unfair and unconstitutional. Chair Davis defended Commissioner Dingwall's tentative opinion and encouraged him to vote on the request. Jack Crosthwait, Melville Circle, Gilbert Island, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. He submitted a'petition with signatures from Gilbert Island residents opposed to the ordinance, and encouraged the Commission to support Gilbert Island property owner's rights. He discussed the 94 lots on the island and provided objections to the HHPOA supporting the amendment without gathering opinions from property owners. Tom Kiesewetter, Melville Circle, Gilbert Island, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. He expressed trust in the Planning Department -and complimented the staff report, and discussed his mistrust of the HHPOA due to their lack of communication, stating he never received any notification about the ordinance (04ag0914 Action) PC Minutes September 14, 2004 Page 4 amendment. He also stated that he never received CC&Rs, and that they could not be- relied upon.. He showed support for the CUP process and encouraged the Commission to support property owner's rights. Robert Frishman, Westport Drive, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. He described certain neighborhood walls as "prison like" and distributed pictures of walls with dead landscaping. He discussed putting a wall in 20 years ago and an engineer's recommendation for a retaining wall to facilitate problems associated with maintaining a pool. Rick Taylor, Wellington Circle, spoke in opposition to the ordinance and described a wall approved by the HHPQA in 1998, including the conditions of approval, and how the request went through the appeal process. He spoke on behalf of Gilbert Island neighbors and their property rights, and that walls can be legally built as confirmed by City staff. Adrienne Parks, Westport Drive, spoke in opposition to the ordinance and provided a written opinion to.the Commission. She called the request an intrusion by City government into backtrear yards, not through -lots. She referenced a section of the staff report that discusses the purpose of the zoning text amendment, how fair notice was not provided to surrounding residents, and that all four (4) alternatives identified in the staff report cater to Roundhill Drive residents. Jean Nagy, Wellington Drive, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. She explained her role as a former member of the_BLT Committee that provided recommendations on the ordinance and stated that the Committee never considered how the zoning text amendment would affect other area residents, and that Gilbert Island residents were not notified of or included in past discussions on the issue. She also voiced concerns about setbacks and extensions, and suggested that the item be reintroduced to the BLT. Jay Sheth, Windsor Drive, spoke in opposition to the ordinance and stressed the importance of property owner's rights. Donald Goodwin, Somerset Lane, Gilbert Island, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. He described his familiarity with through -lots in the Harbor, and that lots with improvements are welt maintained. He also stated that ice plant and overgrown bushes obstruct the sidewalk and cause the street sweeper to pass such areas. . He referenced Jay Earl's property as a fine example of slope enhancement. Scott Dowds, Melville Circle, spoke in opposition to the -ordinance. He urged the Commission to let the code remain as is and consider each, alternative through the CUP process on a case -by -case basis. He also voiced opposition to letting minority interest prevail when 60% of through lots are on Gilbert Island. He thanked the Commission for their efforts and requested a broader -based decision. Don Cason, Melville Circle, -spoke in opposition to the ordinance_ He informed -the Commission that he bought his property with thoughts of enlarging the back yard for a pool, and voiced concerns about the request restricting future plans and possible resale of his property. (04ag0914 Action) PC Minutes September 14, 2004 Page 5 Donna Mance, Mariana Circle, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. She voiced concerns about being afforded the same property rights as others, and how a small group of property owners on Roundhill Drive do not represent the majority in the Harbor. She discussed encouraging property improvement for the good of the community and provided the Commission with copy of the area CC&R's, calling the document illegible_ Elizabeth Z. Rowell, M.D., Melville Circle, spoke in opposition to the ordinance and discussed differences of opinion on beauty and aesthetics. She explained the Harbor's history of freedom of expression and creative diversity and asked the Commission to exercise trust in City officials. She also talked about setting precedence and her mixed feelings about walls and whether what walls hide is more important than the wall itself. She spoke in favor of diversity and property rights, urging the Commission not to grant the wishes of a small minority group. Kelly Bertasi, Melville Circle, spoke in opposition to. the ordinance and in favor of property rights and improvements- including building a sturdy wall needed for a back yard pool. Gail Stoter, Roundhill Drive, spoke in support of the ordinance. She discussed how the neighborhood looked in the early 1980's, with gorgeous landscaping and no neighbors in front of her at that time. She read from the CC&Rs and stated that property owners who make an investment should be responsible for receipt of the CC&Rs through their realtor. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Vice Chair Ray read the names of 61 individuals he met with to discuss the proposed request (list of names on file in the Planning Department.) Commissioner Livengood inquired as to the maximum height of a wall allowable by code without a CUP. Staff replied 42 inches. Commissioner Livengood asked what the setback requirement is for a wall greater than 42". Staff replied 15 feet. Commissioner Dingwall asked for the number of through lots in the harbor without walls. Staff answered that they didn't have that number. Commissioner Dingwall voiced concerns about the level of importance being placed on a request that only affects 1 tenth of 1 percent of the City's lots. Vice Chair Ray asked about interested parties getting on the City's public hearing notification list. Staff explained that individuals interested in receiving notification of development should contact'the Planning Department.' Chair Davis asked which governing body is responsible for processing a CUP within the 15-foot setback. Staff replied the Zoning Administrator (ZA). Chair Davis asked if staff recommends such a request being heard by the Planning Commission (PC) or ZA. Staff stated that it recommends the item be heard by the ZA. Staff further discussed the 1994 amendment to the ordinance, which downgraded the public hearing process for fences, changing from a Variance to a CUP. (04ag0914 Action) PC Minutes September 14, 2004 Page 6 Chair Davis asked how many fences previously approved by the ZA have been appealed to the PC or City Council (CC). Staff referenced one project as the Taylor deck. Chair Davis asked for the number of walls approved by the ZA, PC or CC from 1994 to the present. Staff replied 6 or 7, noting that the True block wall request was denied. Commissioner Scandura asked if the code no longer allows building a 42" wall, what other things would not be allowed in setback areas? Staff replied patio extensions or requests for a Variance. Commissioner Scandura discussed decorative rocks and landscape planters approved by the ZA. Vice Chair Ray asked about the current code provisions for hardscape. Staff responded that hardscape is allowed by right, and further identified that residential rear yards of through lots have a landscape requirement of 40%, identical to front yard landscape requirements. Vice Chair Ray asked about structure extensions within the 15-foot setback (home, pool, deck, etc.) Staff explained that a Variance is required for structures that encroach into the setback, and that a CUP is required for walls exceeding 42" in height. Commissioner Thomas asked if CC&Rs are enforceable and who is responsible for supplying them to the property owner. Chair Davis stated that CC&Rs are recorded, but it is questionable whether or not the mechanism used to deliver and enforce CC&Rs functions correctly. Commissioner Livengood voiced concerns that the Commission has not heard from the Architectural Committee identified in the CC&Rs that is responsible for review of exterior property improvement. Commissioner Thomas asked if many homes on Gilbert Island face through lots. Staff replied that homes_ around the perimeter face the back of through lots. Commissioner Thomas asked Jean Nagy to approach the podium and explain her involvement with the discussions held by the BLT. Jean Nagy responded that at the time the BLT meet to discuss through lots, she was president of Huntington Beach Tree Society and a member of the BLT. She added that Gilbert Island residents were not notified of BLT meetings and discussions involving through lots. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to the range of lot sizes. Staff responded that standard lots are approximately 6,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Thomas suggested a compromise by adding slopes and removing parkways for sidewalks, including reciprocal rights for property owners. Staff explained subdivision and setback requirements. Commissioner Dingwall called for a certified copy of Huntington Harbor CC&Rs. (04ag0914 Action) PC Minutes September 14, 2004 Page 7 Commissioner Scandura stated that Jean Nagy was a previous liaison to the Environmental Board for the BLT. Commissioner Livengood provided a handout he drafted that attempts to clarify how Alternatives A-E affect code sections 210.06 Property Development Standards, 230.08 Accessory Structures, and 230.88 Fencing and Yards. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY STILTON, TO DENY ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.03-01 AND AMEND THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS SO THAT EXTERIOR WALL CONSTRUCTION REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND NOT THE ZONING ADMINSTRATOR. Commissioner Dingwall stated that an appeal process has already been established that allows decisions made by the ZA to go through the public hearing process at the PC level, and that an appeal fee can be waived by requesting a Planning Commissioner to appeal the decision of the ZA. Commissioner Stilton reminded the Commission of direction by the CC and BLT to amend the code. She also discussed non -notification to Gilbert Island residents, zoning taking on the role of design cop, and CC&R enforcement. She stated that participation in the HHPOA is not mandatory, and that CC&R intent is not enforceable, it is subjective. She called the issue emotional and commended the interested parties. Commissioner Thomas voiced sympathy for the HHPOA and the plight of residents on Roundhill and adjacent property owner's rights. Commission Dingwall stated that the request could not be considered without a complete and legible set of HHPOA CC&Rs. Commissioner Scandura provided support for the motion and commended Commissioner Livengood for his work. He stated that no acceptance for compromise between and Roundhill and Gilbert Island residents has been provided. He explained that property owners pay the same taxes with or without slopes, and that the code amendment singles out property owners on Gilbert Island. He also explained that it is the responsibility of the HHPOA to enforce CC&Rs, and that City enforcement should never enter into the discussion. With regard to slope preservation, he called the request insignificant in relation to geological purpose and habitat sensitivity, and questionable in relation to aesthetics. He stated that he would not provide support to a request that would allow certain homeowners to dictate property improvement for their own benefit, particularly if it is detrimental to surrounding property values. Commissioner Livengood stated that the request's evolution has lost its focus, and that he could not support Alternatives A or D because of their potential to cause serious problems. He discussed setback definition and his support of the existing ordinance with public notification of 1000 feet and ZA meetings held later in the day. He also discussed the Earl property wall and how it took ten months to build, stating that requiring a CUP adds construction time to the entitlement process. He stated that through lots are unique and that existing code restricts improvements. He said Alternatives A & D were too restrictive and reminded the Commission that the CC directed that through lot definitions, including primary (04ag0914 Action) PC Minutes September 14, 2004 Page 8 and secondary frontage, be added to the ordinance. He also stated that 15-foot setback makes no sense for homes with through lots and recommended that 3 to 7 feet be considered. Vice Chair Ray concurred that the current code creates problems for through lot improvements. He stated that all 4 alternatives were wrong and voiced support for the motion but asked that Chair Davis consider proposing an amendment or provision that may be forwarded to the CC. Commissioner Scandura proposed a subcommittee to study the matter. Commissioner Dingwall asked if it was proper to suggest changes to the CC through minute action. Chair Davis added that a recommendation to deny with recommendations should be considered. Staff explained that if the Commission denies the request, no action would be forwarded to the CC. Staff also stated that minute action could be considered as an alternative. Vice Chair Ray requested that Chair Davis withdraw his motion or amend it by approving the request with suggested changes to the ordinance. Staff explained if the request is denied it will not be forwarded to the CC. Chair Davis voiced concerns about residents having to pay a high price for property rights, including the cost of an appeal or CUP. He discussed walls approved without scrutiny between 1994 and 2004. Commissioner Livengood suggested deleting what is presently proposed and simply modifying the ordinance by adding public notification of 1000 feet and the definitions of primary and secondary frontage on through lots, referring to the definition recommended by the CC on page 3, Section 203.06 Chair Davis asked if the definition was adequate. Staff confirmed. Commissioner Dingwall asked about establishing a subcommittee, and Chair Davis denied the request. Commissioner Stilton asked staff if a side -yard definition exists within the code. Staff confirmed. . Vice Chair Ray asked about public notification requirements related to the infill lot ordinance and zoning text amendment (permit streamlining) currently being reviewed by the CC. Staff explained that public notification requirements for the infill lot ordinance would not apply here, and that expanding the public notification area means additional costs to the applicant for postage. Discussion ensued regarding public notification parameters identified on Attachment 3.2, Item 11. Vice Chair Ray asked for the standards used that require an applicant to file for a CUP for a wall or accessory structure. Staff stated that the General Plan, Urban Design Guidelines and CUP findings are used as a basis for recommendation. (04ag0914 Action) PC Minutes September 14, 2004 Page 9 - DAVIS WITHDREW HIS MOTION -TO DENY.THE REQUEST AND MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 03-01 WITH MODIFED FINDINGS (DEFINE "PRIMARY FRONTAGE" AND "SECONDARY FRONTAGE" AND EXPAND THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AREA TO 1000 FEET), AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ADOPTION. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY STILTON AND THE VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Saandura, Ray, Davis, -Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall NOES: Thomas ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.03-01: 1: Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01 to amend Chapter 203, 210 and 230 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs speed in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan because the amendments clarify the definitions for certain terms relating to walls and fences and expand the public notification regarding walls and fences proposed to be constructed at the rear of through lots, thereby furthering the City's development goals and allowing for increased public participation. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The'amendment clarifies the.. definitions for certain terms relating to walls and fences and expands the public notification, requirements regarding walls and fences proposed to be constructed at the rear of through lots., - , , - : -- � - 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change. The need for expanded notification for conditional use permits on residential through lots is desired by the community. 4. its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice by codifying definitions that are related to the development standards for through lots and protect the general welfare of the public through additional notification requirements.'- C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JULY 13, 2004 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to: "Approve the July 13, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted." A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2004, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: (04ag0914 Action) PC Minutes September 14, 2004 Page 10 AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Stilton MOTION APPROVED C-2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JULY 27, 2004 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to: Approve the July 27, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted." A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2004, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None. ABSENT:. None ABSTAIN: Stilton MOTION PASSED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — None. E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS E4. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST ITEMS E-1a) Proposed Protocol Item: "Community Meetings and Involvement of Commissioners" — Tom Livengood Commissioner Livengood explained that he placed the item on the agenda in order to allow a formal discussion on the item in a public forum, and at a later date. Discussion ensued on constitutional rights, grandfathering of projects and Brown Act guidelines. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION AT THE OCTOBER 26, 2004 STUDY SESSION, OR AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRPERSON BASED ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall NOES: Thomas ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED (04ag0914 Action) PC Minutes September 14, 2004 Page 11 E-2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Thomas — informed the Commission of her absence at the October 26, 2004 meeting, and asked about HOA letters of approval on proposed projects. Staff requested Commissioner Thomas contact staff to discuss current City policy. Commissioner Scandura — asked about the status of lengthy construction activity at 16642 Somerset Drive. Staff responded that progress has been made, and that Code Enforcement staff is working with the owner to facilitate code compliance and project completion. Commissioner Ray — asked if the City could legally impose a deadline for project completion. Staff responded no, stating that no ordinance currently exists to impose a deadline for project completion. Commissioner Ray also reminded the public of "Celebration of Progress," an open house at the Shipley Nature Center held on Saturday, September 18, 2004 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Davis — stressed the importance of asking questions or making announcements during Planning Commission Comments. Commissioner Stilton — None. Commissioner Livengood — None. Commissioner Dingwall — asked if the barbed wire on the perimeter of 16642 Somerset Drive had been removed. Staff responded yes. Commissioner Dingwall also informed the Commission of his absence on September 28, 2004, requesting that staff postpone his study session item (Public Hearing Process) until further notice. F. PLANNING ITEMS F-1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Herb Fauland, Principal Planner— reported on the Planning Department items heard before the City Council on September 7, 2004. F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING Herb Fauland, Principal Planner — reported on the Planning Department items scheduled before the City Council on September 20, 2004. F-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Herb Fauland, Principal Planner — reviewed items for the next regularly scheduled meeting of October 12, 2004. (04ag0914 Action) PC Minutes September 14, 2004 Page 12 ADJOURNMENT: C« APPROVED BY: Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Ron Davis, Chair (04ag0914 Action)