Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14-2004 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 14, 2004, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fasulkey, Nassar, Jennings, and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. King ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - August 24, 2004 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 04-023 Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of Conditional Use Permit (Anthony Bryant) Request for a Minor Amendment to Planned Development District PA 95-030. The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a second-story rear yard deck that will exceed maximum lot coverage requirements of P A 95-030, and to allow an increase of maximum lot coverage of approximately 1.6%, pursuant to Section 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for a staff report. Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She explained that the project is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval for a second story, rear yard deck. The size of the deck is 8 feet deep by 11 feet wide and the height is 10 feet from grade. To construct the deck, the applicant is requesting an increase in the allowable lot coverage for the property of 1.6% for a total of 43% lot coverage. If approved, the project would increase the lot coverage of the home from lot coverage of 41.4% to 43% (a change of 1.6%). The project would increase the total lot coverage beyond the 35% allowed under the Zoning Ordinance and beyond the existing home's lot coverage approved in the SDR. Section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance provides the ability for the Community Development Director, by means of a Conditional Use Permit, to make minor amendments to adopted Development Plans upon the finding that the amendment substantially complies with the provisions of the Planned Development District. In evaluating the project's conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and PD requirements related to lot coverage in the past, the Planning Division has reviewed issues of design and massing of the structure; possible adverse impacts to privacy relative to the project; and, the safety of persons using the added feature. Œ'lånning CommÚsion rJ&fJ u/4r :'~1 eet itlg 155 Septem5er 14, 2004 At the August 9, 2004 public hearing, information was presented to the Zoning Administrator which evaluated the project's conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and PD requirements related to lot coverage and other impacts (the staff report is included as Attachment 3 and Minutes, as Attachment 4). The presentation reviewed the following issues: design and massing of the structure; possible adverse impacts to privacy relative to the project; and, the safety of persons using the added feature. The Applicant spoke in support of the project and no one spoke in opposition. In addition, Staff received no comments or objections from any interested party prior to the public hearing. The Zoning Administrator found that the proposed use was compatible with adjacent land uses because, as conditioned, the deck was compatible with the architectural design of the residence and neighborhood, the deck would be constructed pursuant to the Building Division requirements, and any potential impacts to the privacy of other residents in the neighborhood had been addressed with the orientation and size of the deck and the distance of deck from adjacent homes. The required findings can be made as the proposed increase in lot coverage is 1.6% for a total of approximately 43% lot coverage; the structure will be constructed pursuant to Building Division requirements to maintain health and safety; the design of the structure is consistent with the architectural style of the home and neighborhood; and the Conditional Use Permit approval is subject to the requirements in the draft resolution. On August 13, 2004, Staff received an appeal from the Queenans at 3120 Colebrook Lane, neighbors of Mr. & Mrs. Bryant. The grounds for the appeal are that the Appellants were not fully aware of the scope of the project prior to signing off on the plans for the Homeowners Association design review process. The Appellants are concerned with privacy and that the design of the deck will have adverse impacts to aesthetics. Staff addressed these concerns at the Zoning Administrator hearing. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution affirming the Zoning Administrator's decision thereby denying the appeal and approving the Conditional Use Permit. Ms. MacDonald concluded her presentation and stated the Applicant and the Appellants are both available to address the Planning Commission. Cm. Machtmes asked if the rear yards are visible from the deck. Ms. Macdonald stated yes. Cm. Machtmes asked if line-of-sight from the deck to adjacent backyard impacts the privacy of residents. Ms. Macdonald stated impacts to the interior of the homes were given a priority. The rear yards are visible from the second story of the homes. Cm. Jennings asked if there is anything that indicates the interior of the house is visible from the deck. Ms. Macdonald stated a person standing on the deck might have limited visibility into the master bedroom. Cm. Nassar asked what is considered a minor amendment. Ms. Macdonald stated that a minor amendment must be substantially consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District and the conditions of approval. Œ'fall11illfJ CommÚsioll (j(§fJufar {MeelÍng 156 Septem5er 14,2004 Cm. Machtmes asked the relative height of the bedroom window and if a person were standing on the deck would they be looking up into or directly into the window. Ms. Macdonald stated directly across and into the window. Cm. Fasulkey called for the Applicant. Anthony Bryant, Applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. He thanked the Planning Commission. They originally thought of constructing the deck in their backyard when the home was built in 1999. With eagerness, after seeing a similar deck constructed in Dublin Ranch, they obtained approval to build their deck. The initial process was to notify their neighbors and seek approval from their Homeowners Association. On November 21,2003 they sent letters to their neighbors with confirmation from the Post Office of those letters being mailed. In addition they received notification from the Homeowners Association requiring signatures from the adjacent homeowners stating they are aware of the project. On February 3, 2004 the Homeowners Association approved their project. They did not receive any objections or any indications from their neighbors that there were any problems. After receiving approval from the HOA, they hired a structural engineer and architect for submission to the Building Department for their permit. At the Building Department approval process, they were informed by the Planning Department they would need to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, the deck is not habitable and the ground surface below the deck will remain his backyard. He showed pictures to the Planning Commission of the "line of sight". He also showed pictures of the neighbor's window, which was taken from his window. He stated privacy issues already exist. The sides of the deck will to be enclosed to also help with privacy. He provided a letter from the Homeowners Association affirming their approval of the deck. He also provided pictures of homes throughout Dublin Ranch with similar decks that had been approved by the Homeowners Association. He stated that his neighbor had put up trees to increase their privacy due to the deck. He stated that it is unfortunate that the Appellants' appeal is not just about the deck but rather an attribut~ of the ill will that exists among them. He stated that his wife obtained t.'e signature from their neighbor making them aware of the project. He set out to inform his neighbors 8 months ago and he would have rather discussed the issues with his neighbor rather than having to bring it before the Planning Commission. He thanked the Commission and asked for their approval. Cm. Jennings asked about the room addition. Mr. Bryant stated the room is under construction. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff if there were any new information regarding the project that has come out during discussion. Ms. Macdonald stated Staff was not aware of the existing window facing the window of the home at 3120 Colbrook Lane. Cm. Fasulkey called for the Appellant. Mr. Queenan apologized to the Planning Commission for having to go to this forum and for not attending the original hearing before the Zoning Administrator. He stated that he would like to cover three issues and why they are here. The first time they heard anything about the deck was when they received a notice that there was going to be a hearing. Mr. Bryant's wife spoke to his wife about the room addition but they were not aware of the deck. He checked with other neighbors and they were not iP(arwillfj Commi:;s"Ùm 1\¢fJufar :'41et:titlf! ]57 Septem5er 14, 2004 aware of it either. He explained that the basis for appealing the deck is 1) the deck will severely infringe on their privacy; 2) the deck will negatively affect the value of their property; and 3) the deck will create an eyesore and ruin the aesthetics. He stated that the perspective of the photos shared so far has been from the ground looking up. He provided additional pictures for the Planning Commission. He stated that 10 feet separate the properties. He stated that he leaned out of his bedroom window to replicate where the deck would be and he was able to see into their entire backyard. He stated they have three children and spend a lot of time in the backyard and wants his privacy. Cm. Fasulkey asked where the trees are placed. Mr. Queenan stated he did not plant trees for the purpose of screening the deck. He stated that what is being ignored is they like to spend a lot of time in their backyard. In the packet handed out there is a letter from a licensed real estate broker that states the deck will significantly decrease the value of their home. The last issue is the aesthetics and the contrast to the other properties. In closing, they are not opposed to the room addition and understand the need to expand but its one person's pleasure at the cost of another's privacy. He thanked the Planning Commission for their time. Cm. Machtmes asked Mr. Queenan if they participated in the architectural review process through the Homeowners Association. Mr. Queenan asked for further clarification. Cm. Machtmes stated there is a process through the HOA and there is usually a hearing. He asked Mr. Queenan if he was aware of the process and to what extent did they participate. Mr. Queenan stated they have gone through an approval themselves. The first requirement is to get the homeowner's signatures. They did sign it but did not know what they were signing. The HOA approved it. The confusion is there are two projects that may have been bundled together. Cm. Machtmes explained that the HOA he is involved in there is a process where notice is sent and if anyone is interested in the hearing can attend the meeting. Angie Queenan, owner of 3120 Colbrook Lane, stated that it is proper protocol to get your neighbor's signatures but it is not necessary for approval. The HOA does not involve the neighbors and they were not notified that their request was approved. The first notification that they received was their request for the front room addition. The next notice was from the City that a hearing was scheduled. She called the HOA and they informed her that the room addition and deck had been approved. She was not aware of the deck because she did not look at the plans. She has talked to all of her neighbors and they were not aware of the deck either. She feels that they were deceived into signing off on their plans. They are not trying to be mean but do not understand the fairness. The HOA agrees with them but it is not their choice because it is legal within their requirements. Cm. Fasulkey stated the HOA could have denied the project. Mrs. Queenan stated the HOA cannot deny the project because it fits within all their requirements. Cm. Fasulkey stated that is the point. The HOA is somebody that represents the homeowners and the community interests. The issues raised are with the HOA. Cm. Nassar asked Mrs. Queenan if she would have been aware of the deck at the time of signing off on the plans, what would have been her response. iP(ulIninfj Commissioll 1\t'fJu!4r ':Hee!.ing 158 Septem5er 14,2004 Mrs. Queenan stated they would not have signed off on the plans. Windy Bryant, 3122 Colbrook Lane, stated they do not live on the deck and reside in the house. She stated that just as you can see in the pictures provided, they could easily see into our back yard as well. The Queenan's can enjoy the privacy of their backyard and they are not there to create havoc or problems in regards to a privacy issue. They do not plan on moving anytime soon. There may be some resentment but they hope to move forward with everything. It is not about their pleasure versus the Queenan's privacy but rather adding on to their home. Cm Fasulkey asked if anyone else wished to speak, and hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. Machtmes stated that he does not have any problems with the aesthetics of the deck. It is in a style that is complimentary to the house. He cannot comment on the property value issue. On the issue of privacy, there is an existing window that looks on and is not a huge difference to what already exists. It does change the dynamics and creates more of an exposure to the backyard. Cm. Jennings asked if this project would be heard before the Planning Commission if there were not an increase of 1.6% in lot coverage. Ms. Macdonald stated if there was not a lot coverage increase it would not be before the Planning Commission. Cm. Jennings stated that notices for the Zoning Administrator hearing of August 9,2004 went out to all property owners within a 300 ft. radius as well as advertising the hearing in the newspaper and Staff did not receive any comments. She stated she is in agreement with the Zoning Administrator's rpcommendation. Cm. Nassar stated that he does not have an issue with the proposal. He stated that he was raised in a country where balconies were very important. He does not have an issue with approving it. Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion. Cm. Jennings asked if the deck is already built. Ms. Macdonald responded no. Cm. Nassar asked if the design of the deck helps with the privacy. Cm. Nassar asked if it were higher would it help with screening. Ms. Macdonald stated that the sides are solid and does help with screening. They did not consider increasing the height of the deck as an option for privacy. Cm. Machtmes asked Cm. Jennings to comment on the letter that was submitted from a real estate agent claiming the deck would decrease the property value. Cm. Fasulkey explained that Cm. Jennings has been in the Real Estate industry for many years. Cm. Jennings stated the letter is just one person's opinion for that day and there is no data to support that claim. It is very difficult for a realtor to give that kind of information in such a definite manner. iP(alwillfJ Commission J\(:fJu{ar :'Meetí1lfJ 159 Septem5er 14,2004 On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Nassar, by a vote 4-0-1 with Cm. King absent, the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04-56 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AFFIRMING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PA 95-030 FOR A SECOND-STORY DECK LOCATED AT 3122 COLEBROOK LANE, (ANTHONY BRYANT, P A 04-023) Ms. Ram explained the appeal process to the Applicants and the Appellants. 8.2 P A 04-035 City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to Incorporate the Land Use Changes of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Semi- Public Facilities Policy, and Associated Text Revisions - Item Continued to September 28, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting. The Planning Commission by unanimous vote continued the item to September 28, 2004 meeting. 8.3 P A 04-029 City of Dublin, Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing Regulations, Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amendment to Chapter 8.08, Definitions: Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.20, Residential Zoning Districts; Chapter 8.24, Commercial Zoning Districts; Chapter 8.28, Industrial Zoning Districts; and, Chapter 8.64,. Home Occupations Regulations of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance ) Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Janet Harbin, Senior Planner presented the staff report and explained the project. She stated that it would requires amendments to Chapter 8.08, Definitions; Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts And Permitted Uses Of Land; Chapter 8.20, Residential Zoning Districts; Chapter 8.24, Commercial Zoning Districts; Chapter 8.28, Industrial Zoning Districts; and, Chapter 8.64, Home Occupations Regulations of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance). The subject of this report, the Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing Zoning Ordinance Amendment, P A 04-029, is intended to comply with the requirements of California State Government Code Section 65863(a), Article 2, Planning and Zoning Law, which requires that local housing needs be met by cities and appropriate zoning and development standards be established in each locality to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types, including short-term housing such as emergency shelters and transitional housing for the homeless population. The Ordinance is intended to regulate the use and development of emergency shelters and transitional housing for the homeless persons in Dublin, and other matters in accordance with the statute. To implement the provision of the State planning and zoning law related to providing its share of housing for the local homeless population, and to implement the General Plan goal and policy, the City of Dublin must revise the Zoning Ordinance to ensure compliance with the enacted regulations. Staff is recommending an amendment to various chapters of the Zoning Ordinance (see attached Ordinance, Attachment 2) to allow the establishment of emergency shelters and transitional housing in Dublin (pwrmil1/J CommÚsÙm 1\¢/Ju{{¡r'Mee/ÌIlfJ 160 Septem5er 14, 2004 through the Conditional Use Permit process with the Planning Commission as the approving body. In permitting this form of short-term and temporary housing through the Conditional Use Permit process, the Planning Commission will use their discretion in the evaluation and review of locations considered for such facilities and uses to determine if the proposed location is suitable for the use. An emergency shelter is a temporary, short-term type of housing for homeless families or individuals that provides housing for a month or less while the family or individual finds a more permanent housing arrangement. It may be permitted with a conditional use permit in commercial and industrial zoning districts and in conjunction with a public or civic type use such as a church or another facility operated by a non-profit organization. Transitional housing may also be located in multi-family residential districts and certain residential Planned Development Districts that are of a medium or high General Plan density if it is determined to be an appropriate location for the use. As with an emergency shelter, the process of reviewing and approving transitional housing will require a conditional use permit subject to evaluation by the Planning Commission. If the proposal meets the development and performance standards added to the zoning district provisions as Section 8.24.040B, included in the Ordinance in Attachment 2, the Planning Commission may determine that the permit can be granted for construction and operation of the facility. These development and performance standards are discussed in the corresponding section below. Transitional housing is a short-term type of housing for homeless families or individuals that provides housing for an extended period of time, usually six months or longer, which also offers other social services and counseling to assist residents to achieve self-sufficiency through finding permanent housing and jobs or a means of income. In general, the transitional housing provides a facility with apartments or another form of shared housing. Transitional Housing may also be accessory to a public or civic type use such as a church, social service agency or other facility operated by a non-profit organization. Chapter 8.08, Definitions, of the Zoning Ordinance is proposed to be amended to add the definition of emergency shelters transitional housing for consistency with the Land Use Matrix in Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted Use of Land, Section 8.12.050, Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses. Transitional Housing and Emergency Shelters are defined in the Ordinance amendment in Attachment 2. During the development of the Housing Element for the General Plan, the Housing Task Force working with Staff established the basis for development and performance standards to assist in the evaluation of emergency shelter and transitional housing projects to be used on the granting of conditional use permits. Additionally, the standards would assist shelter providers to better understand the requirements and criteria used to permit their projects. Clear standards were also determined to be needed to make the decision-making more objective and to reduce community concerns related to the establishment of such projects in the City. To implement the provision of the State Planning and Zoning Law related to providing its share of housing for the local homeless population, and to implement the related General Plan Housing Element goal and policy, the City of Dublin must revise the Zoning Ordinance to ensure compliance. Staff is recommending an amendment to various chapters of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the establishment of emergency shelters and transitional housing in Dublin through the Conditional Use Permit process with the Planning Commission as the approving body. Definitions, development and performance standards, and other guidelines and provisions have been include in the amendment to assist in the evaluation of emergency shelter and transitional housing projects for the granting of Conditional Use Permits. With incorporation of the amendment (Attachment 2) in the Zoning Ordinance, Dublin will be better able to provide its share of local housing for the residents of the City. iP(armÍlljJ Commission rJ&fjufar (MeelÍtlfJ 161 Septem5er 14,2004 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to amend the Dublin Municipal Code related to permitting emergency shelters and transitional housing by means of a Conditional Use Pennit. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions for staff. Cm. Nassar asked if there would be public hearings for the development standards and for the locations of the shelters and housing. Ms. Harbin responded yes. Cm. Nassar asked if there are any shelters or transitional housing in the area that he could visit. Ms. Harbin stated there are facilities in Hayward and in Livermore. Cm. Jennings asked for clarification to the matrix as shown in Attachment 2. Ms. Harbin stated that it is an illustration of the existing matrix in the Zoning Ordinance. The transitional housing would be added to the residential use types and allowed in the R-2 and R-M multi family housing districts with a Conditional Use Permit. It also shows where it is allowed in the Commercial and Industrial districts. Cm. Fasulkey stated the project is a public hearing. He asked the four young individuals if they were here with a group. The group was four students from Cal-Berkeley who were enrolled in a Regional Planning class. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Cm. Fasulkey stated he does not see anything that addresses impacts to the neighborhoods and sufficient parking and access. Cm. Jennings stated that these are homeless people; parking should not be an issue. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff if vocational instructors would come in to help get these people back on their feet. Ms. Harbin stated usually these people go offsite for job training, but counseling would occur possibly on-site. Cm. Nassar asked if every city is required to have emergency shelter ordinance. Ms. Harbin stated that other cities should have something in their Zoning Ordinance that provides a method to establish emergency shelters or transitional housing as the State requires all cities to provide housing assistance in this area. Cm. Nassar asked if the State code is enforced. Ms. Ram stated no. When the City went through the housing element cycle, the City received from the State the recommendation to develop a mechanism to establish an emergency shelter/transitional housing provision. All communities will have one within the next five years. (P(allninfJ Commission 1\''fp1far 162 Septem6er 14, 2004 Cm. Jennings asked if there is a penalty if not in compliance. Ms. Ram explained that if the City is not in compliance with the Housing Element or does not implement the programs in the Element, it could determine whether or not they receive grant money from the State. Cm. Machtmes asked for clarification on the Emergency Shelter Development and Performance Standards section A-J and whether they were developed by Staff or are a State requirement. Ms. Harbin stated they were developed by Staff. She also reviewed such ordinances for other cities in developing the criteria. Ms. Ram stated that Ms. Harbin has a lot of experience with this project because she has worked on similar emergency shelters and transitional housing projects for other cities. Cm. Jennings asked how many homeless people have been identified in Dublin. Ms. Harbin stated that there are approximately 5-6 that have identified themselves as Dublin residents at shelters in other cities over the past year. Cm. Jennings asked if the City recommends Shepherds Gate in Livermore for women that are fleeing from their homes. Ms. Harbin stated yes; they receive a list of facilities and Shepherds Gate is on the list. Cm. Fasulkey asked if Shepherds Gate is an emergency shelter or transitional housing. Ms. Harbin stated she was not sure. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the funding for Tri-Valley Haven would cease. He also asked if there would be an increase to the Code Enforcement Officer with a homeless shelter. Ms. Harbin stated that funding would continue for the existing emergency shelter programs. Ms. Ram stated that the City of Dublin made an agreement with the City of Livermore to participate by contribution of the City's grant money over a ten-year period. It is a legal agreement. If an emergency shelter or transitional housing development was proposed, then Staff could address the impacts to other residences in the neighborhood with the Code Enforcement Officer. Cm. Machtmes stated he has a problem with the issue of visibility. It is more of an impact issue rather than visibility. He believes it will very controversial and the word visibility should be taken out and written differently. Cm. Jennings feels the wording should stay the way it is. Cm. Machtmes stated that there is the potential for a proposed facility that is visible. When evaluating the criteria for a particular project, if it does not have low visibility, therefore, the Conditional Use Permit would have to be denied. Cm. Jennings asked how it would be re-worded. iP(arwÌltH CommÙsioll 1\t'fJI1!4r :',~1ectìllfJ ]63 Septem5er 14,2004 Cm. Nassar suggested adding the wording "low profile." The Planning Commission discussed the wording and agreed on "low visibility/low profile" for the emergency shelter as well as transitional housing. Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Machtmes, by a 4-0-1 with cm. King absent the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF P A 04-029, AMENDMENTS TO THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) CHAPTER 8.08, DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER 8.12, ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND; CHAPTER 8.20, RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS; CHAPTER 8.24, COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS; CHAPTER 8.28, INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS; AND, CHAPTER 8.64, HOME OCCUPATIONS (ZONING ORDINANCE) RELATED TO EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, PA 04-029 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) Ms. Ram discussed term limits and stated that the Commission is not affected by term limits and could be reappointed. The Camp Parks charette follow up will take place on October 4th. The Goodwill approval was appealed but the Applicant decided to withdraw their application. Cm. Jennings asked if it is possible for an alternate Planning Commissioner to participate in the Camp Parks charette. Ms. Ram responded yes. Cm. Jennings recommended Cm. Machtmes as an alternate. The Planning Commission all agreed that Cm. Machtmes would be the alternate. The Planning Commission recognized the students in the audience from Cal Berkeley. Cal Berkeley student - Joseph commented on the efficiency of the Planning Commission meeting. He commended the Commission on allowing everyone the opportunity for their input. Joseph asked if the State passed a law requiring Cities to provide homeless shelters. iP(allnÙTfj Commission 1\Ç!Jufar :'\1eetìtlfJ 164 Septem5er 14,2004 Ms. Ram explained that each five year period the State rolls out new laws that need to be incorporated into the Housing Element. When the City applies for housing grants, the City has to meet a certain criteria to receive funds. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission chairperson ATTEST: Planning Manager Planning Commission Regular Meeting Septem6er 14, 2004