Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-09-1986 Planning Commission Minutes dITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, July 9, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theatre, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Present: Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Harris, Pines and Chairman Burger. Absent: None. Following are changes to Minutes of 6/25/86: Commissioner Siegfried made the following changes: Page 6, Par. 6, Line 5: "THE (instead of TWO) lots to be single story." (Meaning all the lots.) Commissioner Harris requested clarification of Page 6, Par. 3: "Commissioner Burger said that parameters can be established." Commissioner Burger replied that there was a question from the applicant that he was concerned over the fact that the Planning Commission was directing their comments to what he considered was a design review matter. The response to his concern was that the Planning Commission was able to establish parameters on height and story limitations at that time. Commissioner Harris also questioned the last sentence of Page 7, as to who "he" referred to. Commissioner Burger said, "Mr. Hsia." The minutes were approved as amended. Con~nissioner Harris abstained, having been abSeht from the June 17,"1986 Planning Conmission Meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. EP - Penrose, request for approval of encroachment permit to allow mailbox pilaster and entry stairs in the public right-of-way at 12296 Farr Ranch Road in the NHR zoning. district. HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM #1. Passed 5-0. 2. LL-16 - Brian Morrow, Dr. Greg Fox, request for lot line adjustment to transfer 1.75 acres from Parcel A to Parcel B and to transfer 1.0 acres from Parcel B to Parcel A at 15175 Norton Ave. and Bohlman Road in the HC-RD zoning district. Mr. Hsia said that it was applicant's request that Item #2 be removed for discussion. HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED THAT Item #2 be removed for discussion. Passed 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. LL-16 - Brian Morrow, Dr. Greg Fox, request for lot line adjustment to transfer 1.75 acres from Parcel A to Parcel B and to transfer 1.0 acres from Parcel B to Parcel A at 15175 Norton Ave. and Bohlman Road in the HC-RD zoning district. Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 7/9/86 The public hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Bill Heiss, engineer for the applicant, presented a view graph by projector of the properties, and explained the present configurations as opposed to the desired changes. He said that the tentative map had been approved some weeks ago for the Morrow project. The purpose of this discussion is to indicate that the physical boundaries of the Morrow Subdvision will change slightly -- that is, the shape of the lots; and Mr. Heiss wanted the Planning Commission to acknowledge that fact as part of their approval of the lot line adjustments, affecting lots 3 and 4 of the Morrow Subdivision. Commissioner Siegfried, indicated that when the requested change was made, no additional lots would be available at a later time; and he would like to~add the condition that if some time in the future an error in calculation was discovered, the builder would still be obligated by the density which was previously approvedy Commissioner Burger asked if there would be any change in access, to which Mr. Heiss replied that there would be no physical changes in access, in either the building sites, or any construction. The only change would be in the external boundaries of the affected lots. GUCH/SIEGFRIED MOVED to close the public hearing. Passed 5-0. Mr. Toppel, the City Attorney, asked that the Commissioners require that an amended tentative map should be furnished by the builder, so that at the time of final inspection/approval, the city engineer won't have substantial compliance problems. The map would show the property as it appears after the adjustment; this can be either approved by staff or submitted to the Planning Commission on a consent calendar. Mr. Toppel feels that an up-dated drawing is needed of the subdivision as adjusted now, with the lot-line improvement. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED approval of LL-16, subject to condition that an amendment of tentative map showing the change in lot lines, as it affects the parcels; and as a fact on which the Commission is relying for approval; if some tin~e in the future anerror in calculationwas discovered, the builder ~uld still be obligatedby the densitF~hich was previously approved; Passed 5-0. Mr. Toppel indicated that because of current law, a lot-line adjustment is not subject to conditional approval and suggested that any map amendment can be exhibited as a basis in fact on which the Commissioners can consider approval of the changes. The Commission agreed that LL-16 was approved based on the understanding that the revised map would be submitted and no additional densities would be allowed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. SM-32 - Dr. James & Donna Page, request for site modification for construction of a pool at 21751 Congress Hall Lane in the NHR zoning district. HARRIS/PINES MOVED to approve the consent calendar. Passed 5-0. 4. A-1177 - Teerlink, Heber, request for design review approval to construct a two-story residence on a hillside lot and grade in excess of 1,000 cu. yds. combined cut and fill on Heber Way, Lot 13, Tr. 6781 in the NHR zoning district. (Continued to 7/23/86). Commissioner Burger indicated this item is CONTINUED to 7/23/86. Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 7/9/86 5. A-1197 - Gallo, request for design review approval for a new two-story home 28 ft. in height and 6,250 sq. ft. in area where 4,800 sq. ft. is allowed at 20130 Rancho Bella Vista, in the R-i-20,000 zoning district. (cont. from 6/11/86). Planning Director Hsia presented the staff report.. Mr. Pines questioned the setback of the structure shown on the site plan as 44', whereas Exhibit "A" shows 45'. Assistant Planner Caldwell said that the site plan figure is correct. The one-foot variation is at the discretion of The Commission to add if required. Commissioner Burger opened the public hearing at 7:50 P.M. Mr. Gallo, the applicant, said that he had nothing else to add to the discussion, but would answer any questions asked by anyone at the meeting. Mr. Jack Christian, 20230 Bonnie Brae Way, president of the Montalvo-Mendelsohn Home Owners Association, spoke. He said that Mr. Gallo had built several homes in the subdivision over the past six or seven years and requested many variances during that time. Although the home owners opposed him on principle, they gave in to his variance requests because it was felt he builds very acceptable homes; however, the home owners now feel that a problem stage has been reached because the dwelling in question is Mr. Gallo's third two-story structure in the area, and they do not want their neighborhood being built up that way. They feel that Mr. Gallo should have taken the opportunity when it was available to him in 1978 to have the area rezoned to R-i-40,000 and it would then have been possible to build the kind of homes now being opposed; but he failed to do so. He chose to stay with R-i-20,000, and. in that case, he should follow the City ordinances which limit 4,800 sq. ft. homes, single story. Mr. Christian agrees that Mr. Gallo builds very tastefully-built homes, and although the home owners did not previously oppose him, they now feel it has gone far enough. Commissioner Burger asked Mr. Christian if the case in point is the third out of eleven homes, to which he replied that it was #3 out of a possible eleven; that Mr. Gallo has built six. Mr. Siegfried asked if the Planning Commission had conditioned certain lots to be single story, and Mr. Gallo said that he had received conditional approval; he was allowed to build 50% two-story homes; therefore, potentially., nine two-story homes in the subdivision. He said that one of the reasons it was necessary to build two-story houses was because of the large amount of trees standing in the way of building. He felt this has an impact on the trees, and more would have to be removed in the construction of single-story than for two-story houses. Mr. Siegfried mentioned that Mr. Christian indicated it is a 19-lot subdivision, not eleven; and that Mr. Christian felt Mr. Gallo would not have the tree problem if he were to build 4,800 sq. ft. units. Commissioner Siegfried said the upper story of the house at dispute is 1,900 sq. ft. and he is having difficulties not affecting the trees with a footprint of 3,700 sq. ft. Mr. Siegfried feels that in the revisions Mr. Gallo has presented, 3,726 sq. ft. is for the first story footprint, and 1,855 sqo ft. the second story. There is also a debate about having a terraced area in the back yard; even at 5,726 sq. ft., Mr. Gallo is close to impacting several trees, and that's part of the problem on the lot. Mr. Christian was adamant that the home owners do not want the whole area to be built up with two-story homes. Chairman Burger closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 7/9/86 Commissioner Pines feels there is no problem with this particular two-story house, because he thinks the only people it affects are right at the end of the cul-de-sac, who have bought homes there. He would be more concerned if other houses were built along Mendelsohn Ave. He said that an impression of "big" is discerned from all the houses, when compared to the lot sizes; but when the whole subdivision is built up, and 20 or 25' setbacks from house to house, one would feel that way. He realizes there are a lot of trees in the area and their preservation is most important. Mr. Siegfried feels Mr. Gallo has met the requirements of the Commissioners, and there is very little impact to anyone. But, he feels Mr. Gallo hears the neighbors concern; and when he is granted Commission approval to build, as much as is possible, he will stay within the 4,800 sq. ft. guidelines. He cautioned that the Commissioners are getting harder and stricter in requiring builders to stay within those limits. Commissioner Guch said that she originally had a great deal of problem, as Mr. Gallo knew, with his placement of a home on the lot. She was concerned that it would impact the cul-de-sac more than it does, but Mr. Gallo has moved the house back so that it has less of an impact. She took a careful look at the covered patio and feels that the horizontal line of the patio actually does lessen the perception of bulk at the back of the house; and for that reason feels more comfortable with it than she might have under other circumstances. Commissioner Pines felt the setback figure should be clarified; either 44' or 45'. The consensus of opinion was that it should be 45 feet. SIEGFRIED/GUCH MOVED THAT RESOLUTION A-1197 be approved, per staff report. Passed 5-0. 6. A-1203 - Lacroute, request for design review approval for construction of a new home that exceeds 6,200 sq. ft. standard on 22% slope on Star Ridge Ct., Parker Ranch, Lots 45 and 46, Tr. 6528, in the NHR zoning district. Planning Director Hsia presented the staff report, and recommended construction should remain under 6,200 sq. ft. Commissioner Guch presented the Land Use report. Commissioner Burger opened the public hearing at 7:55 P.M. Mr. William Young, 21400 Saratoga Hills Rd., project designer, presented a small-scale model depicting the house in question and described a close parallel between his and staff calculations of the size. Commissioner Harris said that the Commission has had no previous experience with sod roofing such as is proposed by the applicant, and asked how the Commission could be assured that this would remain sod; because in the event the Lecroutes sold the property, the next owner may not wish to keep the roof sodded. Mr. Young said that in that event, tiling is a possibility; but a stipulation could be made that the appropriate area would remain landscaped, regardless of owner. Mr. Siegfried said that approval could be made subject to that condition. Commissioner Pines said that he knows of previous sod-roofing experiences,'and found that if the sodding is not well done, it dies very easily if it is situated over the living space, because it gets heated and tends to not survive too well. It has to be watered and have sufficient insulation in relation to the thickness of the deck to make sure it doesn't get heated and die. He is concerned more about the possibility of dead roofscaping. Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 7/9/86 Mr. Young said there is a product available, corrugated, perforated plastic, used for drainage on vertical walls; and used in conjunction with concrete, would allow for water drainage and the corrugation provides for air to pass through, thus minimizing the effect of dead landscaping. Mr. Pines questioned the tree size, which appeared quite large on the model. Mr. Young indicated the area was not all deck; part of it was the adjacent ground area. Commissioner Harris asked if, that instead of a closed railing as shown on the model, an open railing was intended. Mr. Young indicated that the entire upper deck would have multiple openings. Commissioner Harris asked about the swimming pool and Mr. Young said that a 20,000 sq. ft. area is proposed in front of the mound; the recreation areas between the applicant's and the neighboring lot would be about 285-300'. Ms. Harris asked what the builder proposed to do to restore the area of the fill that would have to be removed. Mr. Young said it would be used for landscaping. Commissioner Harris feels that a condition should be added that landscaping would be required along the lower portion so that the bedroom section on the lower level would have some sort of screening provided. The two-story section is well-sCreened by the existing oak trees. Mr. Young sees no problem with that suggestion. Mr. Pines questioned the Code, how it defines square footage: Does it typically include square footage under an eave, if it is a walkway? Decks are typically included. If that includes the area of the covered walks and the area of the decks and balconies, the house is 6,250 sq. ft. Mr. Hsia indicated that in practice, the staff has included covered area. Mr. Toppel said that the Ordinance reads, "Floor space under roof," and there is an exemption for an overhang up to four feet; but since the applicant's proposal is five feet, it would not be applicable. Mr. Siegfried suggested that if the applicant were to cut back the overhangs to four feet, his calculations would only be over the square footage by the amount of balconies and actual deck. Mr. Toppel said the present situation is unique and he did not recall a similar situation, previously. Commissioner Guch recalled a situation where there was an overhang over a walkway, like a breezeway connection. Mr. Toppel said the staff has customarily ignored an overhang, if it's deemed to be a regular overhang; but in this case, because the overhang could actually be closed in and become part of the structure, the staff judgement was that it should be included as floor spacing as well. Because of the unique situation, it was separately described in the staff report. Mr. Pines appreciated Mr. Young's two drawings depicting the actual square footage calculations, which he feels is most helpful in such a complicated proposal. With the information provided, he sees no problem with the square footage, to which Mr. Siegfried agreed, adding that it's located on a 2.2 acre site. Commissioner Guch disagrees with the house size; she is concerned that it's very large and in a considerable view shed. Commissioner Burger closed the public hearing. Commissioner Harris said that from where she lives, the applicant's location is well situated and poses no view problem; possibly the only people affected would be in the immediate area. However, she is very concerned about the walks and decks, inasmuch as the Commission has not previously dealt with a like situation; and it bothers her that this is a seeming inconsistency because perhaps the new staff is considering the project differently. She does not want approval of a home that is 1,200 sq. ft. over the standard allowance, when she feels so strongly about upholding standard sizes in the hillsides. Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 7/9/86 Commissioner Burger does not recall a precedent of a five foot overhang. Mr. Pines feels that the width of the overhang is unimportant; theoretically any width could be enclosed to enlarge the house. Mr. Siegfried said it's a matter of interpretation and calls for attention. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED to approve, subject to the additional condition for landscaping along the southerly exposure of the lower level; and change of Condition 2 to 7,548 sq. ft. (because there are 1,298 sq. ft. of covered walks, decks and balconies). Passed 4/1. Commissioner Guch opposed. 7. A-86-001 - Consideration of negative declation and an amendment to the City Code to recommend an Ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending Sections 15-56,030 and 15-56,070 allowing second units in residential zones including a maximum of five per year in the R-l-10,000 zoning district. The City Attorney, Mr. Toppel, said this Ordinance is as a result of City Council hearings, relating to allowing second units in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. When the Council adopted amendments to the second-unit ordinance about a year ago, they reserved at that time whether these units should be allowed. The matter came back to them six months later and the consensus was that it should be allowed on a very limited basis, and the staff was directed to prepare the Ordinance and initiate the amendment through the Planning Commission. The Ordinance deletes what previously was a flat prohibition against any second unit in the R-l-10,000 district, and would now allow such units up to a limit of five per year. Those five would be included in the existing limitation of 20 per year. There has never been any issuing of 20 second-unit use permits since the Ordinance was adopted three years ago. There are presently 11. This would now permit a limit of 5 units per year in the R-l--10,000 district. If a new second unit is involved, it would still be subject to the same standards that apply to other new units in the city. That means that the site must be 1.6 times the site area for the district, and all the other standards that no variances can be allowed on new units. If it's a legalization of an existing unit, the Commission does have some degree of flexibility on matters such as site area, size, access, parking, et cetera. This is being done more on an experimental basis, in view of the limited number. There is nothing in the Ordinance to modify the usual discretion the Commission would exercise in either approving or disapproving of any second unit application. Commissioner Burger asked, and Mr. Toppel affirmed that the amendment to the Ordinance was being proposed by City Council. Ms Burger recalled that the Planning Commission requested this some time ago and the City Council was not in favor of allowing second units in the R-l-10,000 district. Mr. Toppel said that the Council never took a final vote on the issue; it was basically deferred and they adopted other amendments recommended by the Planning Commission. When the issue came up for review, it was calendared, but was continued to a later time. By the time it was finally heard, a decision was reached similar to what the Planning Commission had initially recommended. Mr. Toppel, in answer to a question about the time period for legalization of existing units, said that under the original Ordinance there was a one-year time limit; but the time limit expired and not all the existing units came in for legalization. In order to cover the situation for processing, the Ordinance was amended so that instead of a time limit, a monetary penalty would be imposed. A new time limit was esablished and people could make application with payment of the normal fee. For people filing late, a penalty would be added to the application by increments of $500 for each year. There is sufficient publicity to make all citizens aware of the present Ordinance. Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 7/9/86 Commissioner Guch said that if people were not allowed to have second units in the R-l-10,000 district previously, why would anybody come forward to have their second unit legalized? Mr. Toppel said that was a good point. Mr. Siegfried said that it might be amplified for a new period for the R-l-10,000. Mr. Toppel agreed. Commissioner Burger opened the public hearing at 8:33 P.M. Louise Cooper of Mt. Eden Road, Legislative & Housing Chairman of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, said that organization has voted to support the amendment to the Ordinance, of the general zoning of second units. They feel that the change will not have a negative impact on the density of the zoning area because probably not too many properties would qualify. She was of the opinion that the action would provide equal treatment for owners in the R-l-10,000 zone who do qualify with only slighly larger lots. The owners of the smaller properties may, on the other hand, have a greater need to have a second unit as a solution to being able to remain in their Saratoga home. Having a second unit might help a senior maintain independent living, either as a tenant or as a landlord. Mrs. Engle of McFarland Ave., would like a second Unit on her 1/4-acre lot because her home is very small, with a double garage at the back, and a workshop. This is the only way she can retain her home; she is 75, still working, taking care of a 94-year-old in Willow Glen, 4 days and 4 nights a week. She would like very much to spend a few years in her home and not have to earn extra money in order to keep it. Having a second unit would allow her to do that. Harriett Handler of Ronnie Way, said that all have heard of the right of seniors to die in dignity, but she is asking for the right of seniors to live in dignity, independently, in a second unit if that is their wish or need. There should be no discrimination of a senior if all requirements are met, but the size of their lot is minimal. She feels it is unfair if lot size is the only impediment in not allowing a senior to have a second unit, because a second unit may be the only opportunity a senior has to save their home. A senior living on any size lot does not impact any area. Maxine Solomon, Lacey Avenue: Her reason for wanting a second unit on her property is because she has two elderly relatives who are planning to move to California, who have lived together a long time and cannot be separated. She thinks it's unfair that her neighbors would be able to accommodate a situation like hers because they have larger lots; but she would not be able to at present. Tamara Lindsay,'20605 Lomita: She and her husband are in process of purchasing a home, with a second unit in the back of the property. They would like to have a senior citizen living there. She takes care of an 86-year-old aunt, who would like to live in a little cottage, but is unable to at present. SIEGFRIED/GUCH MOVED to close the public hearing.· Commissioner Harris was originally opposed to the second-unit Ordinance, and is still opposed to it in the R-l-10,000 zone. It distresses her that the opponents who vehemently opposed the issue two year~ ago, are absent tonight. One of the opposition'S str~ng~t stipulations w~s not having second.units in the.R-l=ld,000 zong, because/it ~s felt those areas so zoned~'~ouId.be thermos%'imp~cted in town" "' Ms Harris feels that parking will be a problem'; streets in the area were not designed for heavier traffic and parking; the general plan is compromised in regards to the land use element and the noise element. Commissioner Harris is voting against the Ordinance amendment. Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 7/9/86 Commissioner Siegfried felt largely negative originally, but changed his mind because it really is a non-issue Ordinance, and only eleven applications have been received in all the time the Ordinance has been in effect. Commissioner Harris asked the City Attorney if there was a need to address the issue of legalizing existing units, and if so, would a number be set. Would new units be limited to five in number? Mr. Toppel replied that would be correct, because the legalization was exempted from numerical limit. Commissioner Burger is in favor of extending the second-unit Ordinance to the R-l-10,000 area in the interest of equity. She believes that major control for approval should continue to be exercised by the Commission over any applications that come before the Commission; and that provision is written into the Ordinance. Mr. Toppel said, to clarify Commissioner Harris' question, the exemption of existing units for numerical limitation was intended as an encouragement for people to come forward immediately. The Commission cannot limit five units in the district, including legalization of existing units. The whole Ordinance is being amended. If the Commission thinks it's appropriate to include both existing and new units within the five per year limit, it can be done. Mr. Toppel requested that the Commission would indicate some dates by which applications should be filed. Commissioner Burger said the public hearings were closed, but Harriett Handler requested to be heard again, and permission was given. Harriett Handler said she agreed with Mr. Siegfried, and felt that a preponderance of applications would not be forthcoming; very few seniors would be coming forward; but it would be cruel to deny the opportunity to applicants who want to, or who have a need to make application. She feels Mr. Toppel's suggestion was unfair, if the second units are lumped together with the second unit applicants who have not as yet come forward, and limit the number five units which will be permitted. She felt this would exclude people like herself and Mrs. Engle from having the opportunity to make application. She also felt that what Commissioner Harris said is not true in situations like her own and Mrs. Engle's. Mr. Pines was not on the Planning Commission when the issue was raised, but he would have taken an active stand for second units on a case by case basis, regardless of the zoning. He has no difficulty accepting the amendment to allow second units in the R-l-10,000 zone. Mr. Siegfried asked if a condition would be added to the amendment, saying that an applicant would have one year to legalize a second unit on their property. Mr. Toppel said that there is another two-part section of the Ordinance which explains dates and fees; the Planning Commission can fix a date by which people can apply with the usual fee. SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED THAT the amendment recommended to the City Council. Passed 4-1. Commissioner Harris opposed. COMMUNICATIONS Written and Oral 1. Ordinance 71.5 - re Paul Masson: P.D. Ordinance. Mr. Hsia submitted Ordinance to Planning Commission with revisions. It will be submitted to the City Council at their next regular meeting. 2. Letter from Bay Area Air Quality Management District Mr. Hsia said the letter encourages City Council members, Commissioners and Supervisors to ask staff to come up with an additional general plan element which would include air quality. Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 7/9/86 Commissioners Burger and Pines suggested that the item should take a week for Commissioners to look over, and have it agendized for the next meeting and make a decision at that time. The consensus was that it should be agendized for next week's study session. 3. Resolution commending Mr. Don Peterson for his outstanding service to the City of Saratoga. Passed unanimously. 4. Safeway Store. Problem with outdoor (sidewalk) sales. Mr. Hsia on 7/2 directed that Safeway be cited for violation of the City Code, and the issue has been handled. Commissioner Pines asked how it has been taken care of; they have been cited, but what does it mean? Mr. Pines said that as of yesterday (7/8) they still had items for sale outside. Mr. Hsia said that by citing them, there is a penalty; Commissioner Burger indicated it is $500, with a further fine for continued violation. Mr. Toppel said that now the process has started, they will have to appear in court with the citation; there is a general regulation in the commercial districts that sales have to be conducted within the structure where they are doing business (with certain exceptions, such as Christmas trees). Every day that they are in violation is a continuing offense, and if it is not corrected, the Planning Director should send the Community Service Officers (CSO) for further citation. Mr. Pines questioned whether they have to be cited on a continuing basis. Mr. Hsia said that each time was a new violation. Mr. Toppel said that there are other remedies; a citation is a very expeditious way of attending to it. A civil proceeding could be sought for an injunction, and carries much more weight with it. Mr. Hsia said the staff inspected the site on Tuesday and the CSO issued a citation. Commissioner Burger feels that the Argonaut Shopping Center is also taking on a bad appearance and the landlord should be approached about cleanup and making necessary repairs; and about the two clothing stores which have continuous sidewalk sales. " -_~b~isS'~'n~'$ Siegfried-and Pines-'feel that there should not be an '~v~-~%'~6l'ion to the issue; if occasionally a merchant has a sidewalk sale, it should be allowed. He would make sure that several inspections of the site were made before a citation was issued. It is a different situation than the Safeway-type where it is an on-going problem. Mr. Toppel said that warnings should be issued only if there is non-compliance; that is the standard operating procedure. Safeway was cited because there had been prior contacts and they had agreed to removal by a certain date, which they did not do. Commissioner Guch feels that there is no complaint the way staff handled the Safeway problem, but that caution should be exercised to avoid over-reaction. Mr. Hsia said that the fire marshall has been asked to visit Safeway to make an interior inspection for possible violation. He will report back to the Commissioners what determination was reached by the fire marshall. Commissioner Harris.stated that if-other merchants in the City are required to .apply for Permits for sidewalk sales, these merchants should not be exenpted. ADJOURNMENT SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED TO ADJOURN. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, YH:rlj Yuchuek Hsia Secretary