Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2007/11/14 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 6:00 p.m. November 14, 2007 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California CALL TO ORDER: 6:04: 17 PM Members Present: Tripp, Felber, Moctezuma, Vinson, Bensoussan, Clayton, Spethman ROLL CALL / MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Tripp APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MSC (Spethman/Felber) (7-0) to approve minutes of November 7, 2007 as submitted. Motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. PUBLIC HEARINGS / ACTION ITEMS: 1. Public Hearing: PCM 07-05; Consideration of amendments to portions of the Otay Ranch Village Eleven Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Village Core Master Precise Plan to allow for the relocation and reconfiguration of the Town Square from the easterly terminus of Birch Road to the northeast corner of Discovery Falls Drive and Windingwalk Way. PCS 07-02; Consideration of revisions to the Otay Ranch Village Eleven Tentative Subdivision Map: 1) relocating the Town Square from the easterly terminus of Birch Road to the northeast corner of Discovery Falls Drive and Windingwalk Way, and; 2) relocating the pedestrian easement to the village paseo from across the center of the CPF-1 site to the northern property line adjacent to the Private Recreational Facility (PRF) site. Applicant: Brookfield, Shea Otay, LP. Minutes of the Planning Commission - 2 - November 14, 2007 2. Public Hearing: PCC 07-64; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the development of the Concordia Lutheran Church Private Elementary/Middle School and Pre-School in the Village of Windingwalk (Village 11), located at the easterly terminus of Birch Road and Discovery Falls Drive. 6: 1 0: 18 PM Harold Phelps, Project Manager stated that staff would like to present items 1 and 2 in a combined fashion, but with the clarification that the Commission would be voting on each item separately. Mr. Phelps reported that item #1 is a proposal by Brookfield, Shea Otay, LP to amend the Village 11 SPA Plan, Village Core Master Precise Plan and revise the Tentative Subdivision Map in order to relocate and reconfigure the Town Square from the easterly terminus of Birch Road to the northeast corner of Discovery Falls Drive and Windingwalk Way; and relocate the pedestrian easement to the northern property line adjacent to the Private Recreational Facility (PRF) site. The SPA Amendment requires a Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council prior to their final approval. Without approval of the SPA Amendment, consideration of the Conditional Use Permit (Item #2) cannot move forward. Item #2 is consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Concordia Lutheran Church to construct a 13,900 sf sanctuary with a seating capacity of 600 seats to be located behind a central plaza. The project also includes a 225 student K-8 Elementary/Middle School and 192-student preschool. The complex would be built on a reconfigured 5.5 acre site located at the center of the Village Core of Windingwalk Village 11. The CUP requires City Council approval of the SPA Amendment. Mr. Phelps noted that representatives for the developer and the church met privately with the residents that submitted the three letters of opposition that are attached to the staff report. A total of 12 residents corresponded with the City regarding these two items; staff encouraged the applicant to hold a neighborhood community meeting. The Planning Commission public hearing would be the forum to receive all of the public comments regarding these two items. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council approve the draft Village 11 SPA Amendment Resolution and the Revised Tentative Map Resolution as they apply to; 1.) relocation of the Town Square from the easterly terminus of Birch Road to the northeast corner of Discovery Falls Drive and Windingwalk Way, and 2.) relocation of the pedestrian easement to the Village Paseo from across the center of the CPF-1 site to the northern property line adjacent to the PRF site; and That the Planning Commission approve Resolution PCC 07-64 including the required findings for approval and subject to the conditions contained therein. Commission Questions: 6:23:24 PM Cmr. Spethman noted that the application for the CUP did not go through a formal Design Review process and the DRC was presented only with a conceptual Minutes of the Planning Commission - 3 _ November 14, 2007 preliminary review. Additionally, the applicant does not own the property; in his opinion, the proposal is speculative. 6:25:47 PM Cmr. Felber asked what would happen if the City Council approves the SPA Amendment and the sale of the property to the church does not take place; would the SPA Amendment with the new configuration revert back to the original SPA configuration? 6:27:35 PM David Miller responded that should the sale fall through before the Council's consideration of the SPA Amendment, the amendment would not be necessary; should it happen after Council's approval of the SPA Amendment, it would remain at the revised configuration. Cmr. Vinson asked if there had been discussions about fitting the church's compound around the existing configuration without the necessity to move the town square. Mr. Donaghe responded that they discussed it adnauseam and the applicant determined that it didn't work for them in the present configuration. 6:30:24 PM David Poole, with Brookfield Shea Otay, developer of Windingwalk and owners of the 6.5 vacant property, stated they have been looking for the right kind of user to fill a CPF role in the community; they believe they've found the right match in Concordia Lutheran Church. Mr. Poole further stated that they have worked arduously with the church and staff, and are delighted to finally be able to be before the Planning Commission to present their proposal. Mr. Poole pointed out, however, that there are four points in the Conditions of Approval that they are in disagreement with staff; they are: 1. Whether or not the plaza in front of the church is the church's plaza or a public plaza 2. Whether or not the pathway through the church is controlled by the church for its own safety and protection, or is it controlled by the City 3. The hours of operation for the church facility, and 4. Tentative Map conditions that have nothing to do with this project 6:33:36 PM Pastor Richard Schmidt, Concordia Lutheran Church, 267 E. Oxford Street, stated that their church and school at the Oxford site is an established institution meeting the needs and providing a myriad of services to the community, as well as excellence in education, for over 45 years; their congregation is vested in this project and are excited about the future of the church and school. 6:36:39 PM The design team, Tony Mansur and Jim Culk, Architect and Landscape Architect gave an overview of the design and layout of the project as presented in the staff report. 6:56: 18 PM Cmr. Vinson asked for clarification regarding a statement on mandatory conditions related to the distance and location of the parking area. Mr. Mansur responded that his comments reflect a policy recommendation preferring that parking be hidden behind the buildings. Minutes of the Planning Commission - 4 _ November 14, 2007 Scott Donaghe further clarified that there are policies in the Otay Ranch GDP recommending that parking be situated behind buildings and that buildings be brought up to the street to create a more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. 6:59:34 PM Cmr. Moctezuma asked if this is not approved, when would the park be constructed. She also asked for clarification on the 48 hour notice posting of the closure of the private pathway going through the campus. Mr. Poole responded that whether or not the SPA Amendment is approved, the construction of the park would move forward. David Miller added that the connection from Birch Road leading to the school is a feature that the applicant feels is essential; the issue becomes what kind of access will the City have. The property will be owned and operated by the church; minus an easement or any kind of formal property right, except for conditions of approval, the City has no control, therefore, the City has asked that they post a 48-hour notice informing the public that they have to take an alternative route to the school. Cmr. Moctezuma inquired if moving the town square is not approved, will Brookfield Shea continue the process of trying to fit Concordia Church into that area. Mr. Poole responded that if the town-square is not moved, the church's plan does not work for that site, therefore, other permitted uses i.e. a social service provider, a Boys & Girls Club would be considered for that site. 7:03:35 PM Cmr. Bensoussan asked if the parking lot will be exclusively for the church and school or would it be available to park users. Mr. Poole responded that the park and recreational facility that is privately owned and operated by the Master Homeowners Association will be opened to the public. There have been talks about negotiating a parking agreement between the church and the HOA's facilities in which if either organization has a big event that requires overflow parking, they could use each other's parking lot. 7:08:20 PM Cmr. Felber asked for clarification from the applicant on their disagreement with staff's recommendation on the four issues previously mentioned. 7: 11 :00 PM Mr. Poole responded that upon completion of the church construction, the plaza becomes a private piece of property owned and operated by the church. With the exception of the school facility, the church has no fences, therefore, free and open access is encouraged and available to the public. Under the proposed condition, the church cannot use the plaza for its own use i.e. for a wedding or school activity, without a 48-hour notice to the City. The same argument applies to the paseo; it is staff's position that it needs to remain open at all times. The applicant does not agree with staff's position. The church provided a broad spectrum of hours of operation throughout the week based on normal activities of any church, i.e. daycare, recovery groups, choir and band practice, etc. The City's condition locks down, to the minute, the hours that each building can be used; any deviation outside of the structured hours of operation would require an application to revise the CUP. Minutes of the Planning Commission - 4 - November 14, 2007 Scott Donaghe further clarified that there are policies in the Otay Ranch GDP recommending that parking be situated behind buildings and that buildings be brought up to the street to create a more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. 6:59:34 PM Cmr. Moctezuma asked if this is not approved, when would the park be constructed. She also asked for clarification on the 48 hour notice posting of the closure of the private pathway going through the campus. Mr. Poole responded that whether or not the SPA Amendment is approved, the construction of the park would move forward. David Miller added that the connection from Birch Road leading to the school is a feature that the applicant feels is essential; the issue becomes what kind of access will the City have. The property will be owned and operated by the church; minus an easement or any kind of formal property right, except for conditions of approval, the City has no control, therefore, the City has asked that they post a 48-hour notice informing the public that they have to take an alternative route to the school. Cmr. Moctezuma inquired if moving the town square is not approved, will Brookfield Shea continue the process of trying to fit Concordia Church into that area. Mr. Poole responded that if the town-square is not moved, the church's plan does not work for that site, therefore, other permitted uses i.e. a social service provider, a Boys & Girls Club would be considered for that site. 7:03:35 PM Cmr. Bensoussan asked if the parking lot will be exclusively for the church and school or would it be available to park users. Mr. Poole responded that the park and recreational facility that is privately owned and operated by the Master Homeowners Association will be opened to the public. There have been talks about negotiating a parking agreement between the church and the HOA's facilities in which if either organization has a big event that requires overflow parking, they could use each other's parking lot. 7:08:20 PM Cmr. Felber asked for clarification from the applicant on their disagreement with staff's recommendation on the four issues previously mentioned. 7: 11 :00 PM Mr. Poole responded that upon completion of the church construction, the plaza becomes a private piece of property owned and operated by the church. With the exception of the school facility, the church has no fences, therefore, free and open access is encouraged and available to the public. Under the proposed condition, the church cannot use the plaza for its own use i.e. for a wedding or school activity, without a 48-hour notice to the City. The same argument applies to the paseo; it is staff's position that it needs to remain open at all times. The applicant does not agree with staff's position. The church provided a broad spectrum of hours of operation throughout the week based on normal activities of any church, i.e. daycare, recovery groups, choir and band practice, etc. The City's condition locks down, to the minute, the hours that each building can be used; any deviation outside of the structured hours of operation would require an application to revise the CUP. Minutes of the Planning Commission - 5 - November 14, 2007 Cmr. Felber asked what would be considered reasonable hours of operation that the church could live with. Mr. Poole responded that it would be 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Lastly, Mr. Poole stated that relative to the Tentative Map, there are some ambiguous conditions having to do with traffic calming measures in an area that is located 1.5 miles away from the church; what effect would the church have at that distance away. 7: 18:55 PM Scott Donaghe responded to the hours of operation are strictly tied to parking requirements. If the applicant wants extended hours from 6:00 a.m .to 11 :00 p.m., their parking requirements would be substantially greater than what they are capable of providing because the uses they described could potentially all occur concurrently. Mr. Donaghe pointed out that with respect to the TM conditions, its important to remember that there are two applicants; one is Brookfield Shea, the developer of Village 11, requesting a SPA Plan Amendment. The church is requesting a CUP. The conditions are put on to the TM and SPA Amendment, therefore, they are applicable to Brookfield Shea. Mr. Miller stated that with regard to the plaza/paseo access, although these would be located on private property, staff is of the opinion that as a pedestrian-oriented community the public needs to be accommodated rather than a private entity. Therefore, the access from Birch Rd. to the paseo should remain as a direct access regardless of whose control its under. 7:29:06 PM Public Hearing Opened Robert Decant yielded his time to Pastor Schmidt. 7:29:20 PM Pastor Schmidt stated that they simply wish to continue serving the community and operating as they have for the past 45 years at their present location. 7:30:54 PM Cmr. Vinson asked Pastor Schmidt if the proposed reconfiguration of the site is not approved, would the church then withdraw their plans in it's totality. Pastor Schmidt responded that without the relocation of the park, the site will not work for them with their proposed program, therefore, they would have to withdraw their application. 7:31:48 PM Joann Carson, 57 Milan Ct., Chula Vista stated that as a former Planning Commissioner, this project is of the caliber that any community would desire. As a member of the Board of Directors of the Concordia Church, she is confident in reassuring the Commission that the church will provide safety and security, especially in areas close to the school. She urged the Commission's support for the project. 7:33:32 PM Diza Zaiser, 2521 Coyote Ridge Terrace, Chula Vista stated that she lives near the project site and is eagerly anticipating the opening of such a facility because, foremost, is her desire to educate her children in a Christian environment that is dedicated to excellence in education. She urged the Commission's support of the project. 7:37:29 PM Norm Llanes, 65 East Prospect St., Chula Vista, member of Concordia Church, retired Police Officer and presently manager of a large security firm, stated that with respect Minutes of the Planning Commission - 6 - November 14, 2007 to security, the church's proposed configuration of buildings will offer optimal security for all of its patrons. He urged the Commission's support of the project. 7:38:43 PM Bill Darnell, Darnell & Associates, 1146 Front Street, Ste. 300, San Diego, stated he prepared the Traffic Study for this project and generated the hours of operation chart as a tool to help him analyze the trip generation and parking requirements. He noted the importance of remaining flexible on the hours of operation because of the myriad of services and activities that occur in any given church, and also to be mindful that all of these activities do not occur concurrently. 7:54:22 PM Mr. Poole echoed Mr. Darnell's comments and restated their willingness to continue talks with the HOA to working out a parking agreement where there would be reciprocity in the use of each other's parking lot at times when either one is having a large gathering, i.e. a wedding, or an Easter or Christmas Eve service. 7:56:05 PM Cmr. Felber stated that in his opinion, with respect to the hours of operation, the Planning Commission has two options to consider. One is to consider the hours of operation as they appear now in staff's report; the other is to extend the hours of operation as requested by the applicant and to continue the public hearing in order to allow time to conduct further traffic, parking and environmental analysis. Scott Donaghe stated that Cmr. Felber's comments are valid and also suggested that the Commission could make a determination on the SPA Amendment tonight and continue the CUP component to allow time for further analysis as suggested by Cmr. Felber. Cmr. Felber stated that given that churches are a benefit to the community, the argument could be made to try to be as flexible as possible, within reason due to restraints and regulations that need to be complied with. Perhaps the applicant would consider limiting the number of buildings that can be used concurrently or limit the number of people at any given time. 8:00:31 PM Jerry Sanders, 2178 Diamondback Ct. #29, Chula Vista stated that he bought a premium lot at the corner of Discovery Falls and Birch Rd., and that Shea Homes disclosed information about the town square and future plans for a church. What he didn't bargain for was a reconfiguration of the location of the town-square and church. Under this proposal, his view is compromised and would now be facing a large-scale church building. He opposes the SPA Amendment and CUP and urged the Commission to vote against it. 8:04:35 PM Arlo Stuessy, 2178 Diamondback, stated that at the time they purchased their home they were informed about the future construction of a church; what they weren't told was that they were planning to build a compound with multipurpose buildings; had he known that, he would not have purchased his home. The traffic impacts will be substantial and will compromise his quality of life. He urged the Commission to vote against it. 8:07:02 PM Holly Kimmel, 2178 Diamondback Ct. #30, stated that she is extremely disappointed that the town-square at the end of Birch Rd. may be relocated to the southeast corner of Discovery Falls Dr. Having a view of the town-square from Birch Rd. was a selling enticement used by Shea Homes, and the view of the town-square was a factor in the decision to purchase her home. The massive scale of the buildings will also obstruct the view of the mountains. The paseo would be considered the church's private property and as such could be closed at any time by the church; this is unacceptable to her. She firmly Minutes of the Planning Commission - 7 - November 14, 2007 believes this information was withheld from the residents of Seguaro, Agave and Windingwalk. Ms. Kimmel distributed a handout of exhibits wherein she reconfigured the proposed church complex buildings utilizing the original location of the paseo and townsquare at the end of Birch Rd. She urged the Commission to vote against it. 8:12:32 PM Tom Diccacio, 1662 Tree Song Lane, stated he spent a substantial amount of time researching the area and reading the fine print on the contracts and promotional packet that the builder provides prospective buyers. Going through these materials he concluded that it is filled with misinformation and withheld information as to location of certain amenities, in particular, the town-square, paseo, and location of the future Lutheran Church. He urged the Commission to vote against it. 8:20:00 PM Mr. Poole presented to the Commission with a copy of a disclosure form that each of the buyers present tonight signed. The disclosure form contains a statement that reads, "... the seller does not guarantee that any views that any owner may have enjoyed will not be impaired or obstructed in the future by changes to other property." Additionally, it discloses that, "... the townsquare may be relocated." 8:25:36 PM Close Public Hearing. Commission Discussion: 8:25:56 PM Cmr. Tripp stated that with respect to the CUP, he would like to read the four findings that the Commission is called to make to assist in their deliberation of this application. David Miller stated that with respect to the order of their deliberation on the two items, it would be his recommendation that the Planning Commission deliberate first on the SPA Amendment and then proceed to the CUP; absent the SPA Amendment, the CUP cannot be permitted and taking them out of order would be presupposing the outcome of the other item. Cmr. Tripp stated that after reading the reports and hearing testimony, it is his opinion that that the SPA Amendment is being made in order to accommodate the church's needs; he expressed concern with public perception and the message that that is sending. Mr. Miller restated that these are two separate issues. The SPA Amendment is not specifically intended for the church, but could be for any other CPF use, including a church. If the church falls through, another CPF use could be considered. His recommendation, again, would be to decide whether or not there is a SPA Plan Amendment that can be approved, and then consider whether or not there is a CUP that meets all of the approval standards. Cmr. Felber stated that for discussion purposes, not presupposing the vote on the CUP, his understanding behind Chair Tripp's desire to take the items out of order is that if the CUP were to be denied, then the SPA Amendment would not be necessitated. Chair Tripp responded affirmatively and proceeded to deliberation on Item #2 reading into the record the four findings that the Commission must make when deliberating on an approval or disapproval of the project. Minutes of the Planning Commission - 8 - November 14, 2007 Cmr. Bensoussan stated that she is uncomfortable with the whole project based on the fact that the Commission is being asked to render a recommendation to the City Council on an amendment that would change an entire community. Furthermore, the proposal has not gone through the formal Design Review process and all they've been presented with is a preliminary review with rendering of what the buildings would look like; this is all speculative and she can't fully support it. Cmr. Moctezuma stated that she too is having trouble with this and is unprepared to make the necessary findings for the well-being of the community or not detrimental to the neighbors, to move a town-square for the sake of just moving it. Cmr. Speth man stated that he doesn't dislike the project, however, there are a lot of uncertainties behind it such as the applicant not currently owning the property. He would also be more comfortable with it had it gone through Design Review. There is disagreement with staff over easements, public open space, access, hours of operation and parking; this is a lot to overlook. Cmr. Vinson echoed the same concerns and recommended that staff go back to the drawing board with the applicant try to come to agreement on some these issues. Chair Tripp stated he doesn't agree with sending them back to the drawing board. In his opinion, this is a fundamental land use issue; is relocating a church in a public use site appropriate. He further stated that he empathizes with the church's position because as a non-profit they need to be good stewards of their finances and understandably they wouldn't want to invest a lot of money on architectural plans when they are taking the risk of a denial. Cmr. Felber stated his preference would be to have a view of the town-square looking down Birch Rd., however, it also has its cons with only one side of the square facing the street. The advantage to it being on the corner is that it gives you two points of access. A view of the church looking down Birch Rd. would most likely be attractive given the Irvin Gill architecture that is proposed. Furthermore, although he empathizes with the owners concerns about their views being compromised, the contracts clearly states that those sites could be relocated and it didn't provide any guarantees of views. Additionally, assuming this is approved, he would be supportive of not requiring a 48 hr. notice to the City, but that the church post the notice 48 hrs. in advance. Cmr. Tripp stated that if the CUP is approved for use by a private entity, in his opinion, they should be granted full management of their property and would favor getting rid of the easement and 48 hr. posting requirements. MSC (Vinson/Bensoussan) (4-3) that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit PCC 07-64. Motion carried with Cmrs. Felber, Clayton and Spethman voting against the motion. Cmr. Spethman stated that he misunderstood the motion and didn't cast his vote accordingly, therefore, he asked for a reconsideration of the motion. MSC (Vinson'Bensoussan) (7-0) that the Planning Commission open up for reconsideration the previous motion. Motion carried. Minutes of the Planning Commission - 9 - November 14, 2007 MSC (Vinson/Bensoussan) (5-2) that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit PCC 07-64. Motion carried with Cmrs. Felber and Clayton voting against it. 1. Public Hearing: PCM 07-05; Consideration of amendments to portions of the Otay Ranch Village Eleven Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Village Core Master Precise Plan to allow for the relocation and reconfiguration of the Town Square from the easterly terminus of Birch Road to the northeast corner of Discovery Falls Drive and Windingwalk Way. PCS 07-02; Consideration of revisions to the Otay Ranch Village Eleven Tentative Subdivision Map: 1) relocating the Town Square from the easterly terminus of Birch Road to the northeast corner of Discovery Falls Drive and Windingwalk Way, and; 2) relocating the pedestrian easement to the village paseo from across the center of the CPF-1 site to the northern property line adjacent to the Private Recreational Facility (PRF) site. Applicant: Brookfield, Shea Otay, LP. Public Hearing Opened and Closed. Commission Discussion: Cmr. Felber stated that at this point he will not be supporting the SPA Amendment based on the fact that he prefers the current configuration, however, his consideration of a future Amendment would be made solely on the merit of need to change it and the benefit that it would bring to the community. MSC (Felber/Moctezuma) (6-1) that the Planning Commission deny the SPA Plan Amendment (PCM 07-05 and PCS 07-02). Motion carried with Cmr. Clayton voting against it. 3. Information Item: Information update on the Southwest Communities Strengthening Strategies. Sarah Johnson gave an overview of the purpose and creation of the SWCSS, being an interdepartmental partnership effort to improve City relationships with the community, better understanding community priorities and to leverage resources for a positive change in Southwest Chula Vista, the area defined in the General Plan boundaries as being south of L Street and west of 1-805. 4. Special Order of Business: Selection of a Planning Commission representative to the Growth Management Oversight Commission. MSC (Bensoussan/Spethman) (7-0) nominating Cmr. Clayton to continue serving as the Planning Commission representative to the GMOC. Motion carried. Minutes of the Planning Commission - 10 - November 14, 2007 Commission Comment!;: Cmr. Felber reported that there will be a joint workshop of the CVRC and RAC at the John Lippitt Center on December 6; as the Planning Commission representative to the RAC, he extended an invitation to the Planning Commission to attend the meeting or to forward through him any comments or concerns. Cmr. Vinson stated that in theory the intent behind the creation of the CVRC was to streamline redevelopment; in his opinion, it has done the opposite. Furthermore, he doesn't see the need for the continued existence of the RAC now that the CVRC has been reorganized and the politics has been somewhat removed from the makeup of its members. Cmr. Spethman echoed Cmr. Vinson's comments and noted that the intent behind the creation of the RAC was to be an advisory body to the CVRC. Under the former makeup of the CVRC, the RAC appeared to be conducting more business than the CVRC. Cmr. Spethman stated he was looking forward to going to the meeting and voicing his opinion. Cmr. Moctezuma stated she looks forward to attending this meeting and relaying a concern that has been brought to her attention with regard to dissatisfaction that the RAC is engaging in design review issues when their role and expertise are not one of being a design review committee. Cmr. Bensoussan invited members of the Planning Commission to review the documents that were given to the RAC members delineating their mission statement wherein design review is a significant component of it. Furthermore, she noted for the record comments that have been made by the CVRC Chair and members of the City Council where they indicated that the only part of the process that has been working is the RAC. Chair Tripp expressed his frustration with the amount of time it takes to process projects in the redevelopment areas. The exact cause as to why this happens is not completely clear; it could be driven by a number of reasons, i.e. process-oriented, politically-oriented, or community groups who oppose change. Chair Tripp stated it would be his desire to direct staff to docket on a future Planning Commission agenda a discussion to clarify the role and scope of responsibility of the Design Review Committee. The Commission concurred with this directive. Adjoumed to a regular Planning Commission meeting on November 28, 2007. Submitted by ~~~- DIana Vargas () Secretary to the Planning Commission