HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/11/08- Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 8, 2000 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Craig Fox, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith, Planning Technician; Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the second meeting in November would be held on Tuesday, November 21, in lieu of the normally scheduled fourth Wednesday of the month. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Stewart, carried 3-0-0-2 (Mannerino, Tolstoy abstain), to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of September 13, 2000. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of October 11, 2000. Motion. Moved by Macias, seconded by Mannerino, carried 3-0-0-2 (Stewart, Tolstoy abstain) to approve the minutes of October 25, 2000. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-31- LEGENDS BURGERS -The development of a 3,671 square foot fast food restaurant with a drive-thru on 1.25 acre of land in Office Professional District, located on the south side of Base Line Road, east of Camelian Street - APN: 207-031-29. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and indicated a letter of opposition had been received from the management company handling the Exchange office building south of the project. He noted the letter stated concerns regarding the architectural design and height of the roofs, having a drive-thru, glare from lights, insufficient parking, reduced visibility of the office building, and location and orientation of the trash enclosure. He said the letter also requested that the adjacent property owner have the right to review and approve the special paving and signs and also asked that the applicant be required to pay undergrounding fees for Camelian and to assist in placing a block wall around the entire complex. He stated staff felt confident that the planning issues raised in the letter had been addressed and staff would like to hear form the applicant and the management company with respect to the reciprocal parking. Chairman McNiel asked how far the building pad is located below street grade. Mr. Zeledon responded it is currently about 10 feet below street grade. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there has been a parking problem with respect to McDonald's customers taking up the parking meant for the Exchange Building. Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that staff had not received any correspondence from the management company for the Exchange Building about parking problems nor have there been any complaints to Code Enforcement. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, #395, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the project has been through the Design Review Committee twice and said they were surprised to receive the letter of opposition earlier in the day. He pointed out that the parcel is designated as Office Professional and that the restaurant use is a permitted use, but that a Conditional Use Permit is required for the drive-thru. He stated it will be a convenience drive-thru and that they are not a fast food restaurant, in that their pricing is higher and patrons come for the ambience. He commented that the letter of opposition was submitted by the management company of the Exchange Building but that each of the parcel owners are required to pay a fee to the management company and the fee is based upon the parcel's being developed. As Legends Burgers owned the property for the past two years, he pointed out that Legends Burgers was paying a fee to the company that was now opposing the project and he felt this was a conflict.of interest. He felt there would be less parking necessary because they will have a convenience drive-thru rather than patrons having to park to go into the restaurant even if they want to have the food on a take-out basis. He acknowledged that it will take longer for cars to go through the drive-thru than it does at fast food restaurants. He said that recorded CC&Rs for the project provide for reciprocal access and parking for customers on the parcel. He felt that if the management company has a problem with the easement, that would be a civil matter rather than being under the City's jurisdiction. He noted that the letter referenced another parcel of land along Camelian and he said that there are only 3 parcels, the one on which McDonald's is located, the Legends Burgers parcel, and the parcel on which the Exchange Building is located. He thought the letter of opposition constituted a constructive interference with the right of Legends Burgers to develop the site. Mr. Buquet stated that a restaurant was master planned for the parcel and the only difference is that the restaurant is adding a convenience drive-thru. He felt that any stacking for the drive-thru will occur on the Legends site and the CC&Rs give them the right to have access and parking on the adjacent site anyway. With respect to the concem regarding height, Mr. Buquet noted that the building is only 35 feet high and could be up to 40 feet. He said they had met all city standards. He noted that there was a complaint about the trash enclosure and said that the enclosure for the restaurant is far more stringent that was required for the office building. He observed that the management company letter inferred that the trellises on the Legends Burgers building would block visibility and said that the trellises are merely enhancements to the building design. He pointed out that the new building pad is 10 feet below Base Line Road and the office building is 10 feet back from Base Line and is a two-story Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 8, 2000 structure. He felt Legends Burgers should not have to negotiate with adjacent property owners because it is a separate parcel and the project meets the City codes and standards. He observed that when the Exchange Building project was approved, there were no fees for undergrounding and the only project that has paid fees to this point is McDonald's. He said Legends Burgers is prepared to pay its fair share but felt they should not have to make contributions which are not in accordance with the City requirements. He saw no reason they should have to pay for Camelian. He said that Legends Burgers was not involved with the perimeter block wall but the wall was rather a condition for the original Exchange Building and has nothing to do with the current project. He stated the Legends Burgers building is within the pad size depicted in the CC&Rs exhibit and they are not tearing out any parking. He said that the letter from MGR Services, Inc. was nothing more than attempt to delay or deter the development of Legends Burgers. He requested that the Planning Commission approve the project and not get pulled into a possible civil matter. He suggested that the management company would have remedies available if it disagrees with Planning Commission approval. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that Mr. Buquet had said the restaurant is not primarily a drive-thru and that cars using the service window would take longer. Mr. Buquet replied that the food would not be prepared until the order has been placed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if six stacked spaces will be enough since drive-thru patrons will be there longer. Mr. Buquet stated that the existing business operation in Upland on Mountain north of 16th Street does not have a problem. Commissioner Stewart asked for a clarification of the management fees that Legends Burgers has been paying. Mr. Buquet responded that Legends Burgers purchased the property two years ago and they have been required to pay fees since then based upon a full development even if the parcel is vacant. He said the parcel was purchased with the full intent of building a Legends Burgers restaurant. Mike Rademaker, MGR Services, Inc. 1425 West Foothill Boulevard, Suite 200, Upland, stated they do not object to Legends Burgers but they want to maintain the integrity of the building, traffic flow, and safety, and to protect the rights of the tenants in the surrounding buildings. He said they had expressed concems about the McDonald's drive-thru, play land, landscaping, and consistency of appearance with the remaining buildings. He observed that he works for Harry Crowell, who owns the Exchange Building and is the master developer who sold off the lot. He indicated there is a common area maintenance fee because they did not want to have an unkempt vacant parcel in front of the office building. He said he was not notified of any of the Legends Burgers plans or meetings and he first heard of the plans when the City sent out notice of tonight's meeting to the property owner but the property owner was on vacation when the notice arrived. He stated the property owner faxed the notice to him on Friday, November 3 and he contacted the City on Monday, November 6. Mr. Rademaker expressed concems about the traffic flow and parking. He said that the ingress, egress easement only applies to Parcels 2 (Exchange Building and the pad on Camelian) and 3 (Legend Burger site). He indicated the original parking calculations called for 5/1,000 square feet of building; i.e., 64,620 square foot existing building, 8,000 square foot building planned on Parcel 3, and an 8,000 square foot building for the second pad on the Exchange Building parcel and was to allow for reciprocal parking during peak and non-peak hours. He said his concern is not whether or not the parking is used because he does not think it has an impact. He feared it will hurt them during the day because they are already a little crowded during the day with McDonald's there. He noted that staff showed a total of only 3 parking spaces left, making it impossible to develop the other pad. He noted that it is not necessary to have a separate parcel to develop another building but is rather a function of having sufficient parking and being able to cover Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 8, 2000 the costs of the City undergrounding and block wall fees. He said the economic issues are easier to address with the improving economy. He stated the City did not apply the reciprocal parking to off- peak hours. He noted there is just under 1 acre of usable land and it has 42 stalls and the original design was for an 8,000 square foot medical building but it has now been changed to a fast food. He was concemed that stacked cars will extend out and block parking spaces. He said that the Exchange Building was not designed as a pedestrian access building and the majority of people drive there. He stated that the Legends Burgers restaurant will face Base Line Road and it will be difficult to construct pedestrian access without switchbacks because of the 10-foot drop. He thought the primary method for pedestrians to enter Legends Burgers from the high school will be down the driveway and he feared that will lead to accidents as vehicles accelerate to exit the site. He said the stack of Legends Burgers will directly face the Exchange Building and tenants of the Exchange Building will be looking at drive-thru menus, stacked cars, and dumpsters. He observed that McDonald's reversed the opening of their trash enclosure so that it would not face the office building. He said they are not opposed to development on the pad but they should have been consulted in development of the site plan. He objected to the second story of the Legends Burgers building because he felt it will be a visible shield for any tenants of the Exchange Building and felt he had to try to protect the interests of the tenants of the Exchange Building who felt they had visibility or a view of the mountains. He wanted to be sure they would still have the right to build on the pad along Camelian and feared that would not be possible because the staff report showed there would only be 3 parking spaces available. He expressed concem about outside vending machines. Commissioner Stewart asked where the vending machines are mentioned. Mr. Rademaker responded they are mentioned under Standard Condition D.8. Mr. Buquet stated they have no intent to install vending machines and he suggested the condition be deleted. Chairman McNiel agreed the condition should be deleted. Mr. Buller suggested also adding a condition that outdoor vending machines would not be permitted. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that was a good idea. Chairman McNiel concurred and noted that the applicant appeared to agree. Hearing no further testimony, he closed the public hearing. He asked for confirmation that a reciprocal parking agreement is not a venue of the City, but is rather an agreement between property owners and tenants. Mr. Zeledon confirmed that was correct. He noted that the reciprocal parking agreement does not specify a set number of parking spaces to be shared. He said that Legends Burgers was calculated at the rate of 1/75. Mr. Buller asked if it would be permissible to ask Mr. Rademaker the current mix of users in the Exchange Building between medical and general office. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Rademaker responded it is approximately 25 percent, or 12,000 to 13,000 square foot of medical. He noted that office use only requires 1 parking space/250 square feet, but he feared it may not allow enough parking for building on the additional pad. He said they were not considering a fast food restaurant and thought it would perhaps be dental or medical. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 8, 2000 Mr. Buller noted that the Exchange Building was originally approved as a medical office building and was therefore calculated at 1/200. He said he had never known it to have more than 25-30 percent medical uses. He stated staff has never observed a parking problem on the site and does not foresee that there would ever be a parking problem even with development of the pad on Camelian. Commissioner Mannerino asked if there was anything in Mr. Rademaker's letter that would cause staff to change its recommendation for approval. Mr. Buller replied there was nothing with regards to the design matters related to the building height, landscaping, shielding of the trash enclosure, or glare. He said staff initially had concems about the parking, but then he found that the 1/200 rate used in the staff report was based upon 100 percent medical uses as the building was designated. He felt there was no likelihood of the building being all medical and supported the recommendation for approval. Chairman McNiel suggested that employee parking be restricted to the site and not be a part of the reciprocal parking. Mr. Buller stated that staff normally prefers that employee parking be further away to make parking more convenient for patrons. Commissioner Tolstoy felt parking should allow users to park close to the front door and businesses normally request that employees park in the back or further away. He did not support requiring that employee parking be on site. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Mannerino,to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 00-31 with a modification to prohibit vending machines. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Mr. Buller requested that the minutes reflect that the Commission discussed the possible future development of the pad on Camelian and it was indicated that staff would evaluate parking based upon actual occupancy of the Exchange Building. He said he did foresee a parking problem with trying to build the pad. B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 00-03—CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA—A request to amend the Wireless Ordinance, Chapter 17.26 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, to allow the development of major wireless communication facilities within 300 feet of a residential structure or residential district. Mike Smith, Planning Intern, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Lopez, 7649 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the she lives near the 1-15 Freeway and she feared a few wireless communication facilities may be placed near her. She was concerned that the towers may negatively affect her family's health and felt there has been no research on how the radio waves affect health. She said she has five children and she is concemed because the towers are getting lower. She also was concemed about the proximity to schools. She asked that the Commission deny the application until there is research on how the towers affect the health of residents. Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 8, 2000 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino supported the amendment because of frustration with the lack of reception on his cell phone. Commissioner Tolstoy wanted to be sure that drawings and pictures are provided of what the towers will look like when they are finished. He said he has seen some stealth facilities that look terrible. Brad Buller, City Planner, commented regarding health concems and electromagnetic fields. He said the 500 feet was a standard applied in the original ordinance for aesthetic reasons, not environmental concems. He indicated staff has not seen any evidence of a health risk posed by cell tower facilities. He said the amendment was proposed for public convenience and service as there are dead zones occurring in the community where cell phone users cannot make calls. He stated staff wants to maintain high quality and be sure they are aesthetically pleasing. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 00-03. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-02, VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01,AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 98- 01 — AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. — A review of the previously certified Environmental Impact Report and the consideration of approving the Statement of Findings and Overriding Consideration for the proposed project known as Victoria Arbors Village. D. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-02, VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01, AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 — AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A public hearing for a proposed project to be known as the Victoria Arbors village on approximately 291.8 acres of land in the Victoria Planned Community, generally bounded by Base Line Road to the north, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, future Church Street and Victoria Loop Road to the south, and Day Creek Channel to the west — APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 31, 33, and 36; 227-161-28, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 38; 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, and 25; and 227-211- 40. Change the Land Use for approximately 232.8 acres of land from Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium High Residential (18-24 dwelling units per acre), Community Facilities, Regional Related Office/Commercial, Office Professional, and Park to Mixed Use. Amend the Circulation and Parks and Recreation Elements of the General Plan. Amend the land use, various graphics, and text for the Victoria Community Plan. Change the boundaries of the Victoria Community Plan to include approximately 27 acres of land from the Etiwanda Specific Plan generally located at the northwest quadrant of Etiwanda Avenue and Church Street; change the zoning from Office Professional to Mixed Use; and consider retaining the area in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Related file: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-04. Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 8, 2000 E. VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 00-04—CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -A request to change the name of Victoria Lakes village to Victoria Arbors village within the Victoria Planned Community. Related file: General Plan Amendment 98-02, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 98-01, and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 98-01. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and indicated that a revised land use exhibit had been placed in front of the Commissioners. She also suggested deletion of the specified street width of 133 to 180 feet in the proposed Victoria Community Plan Amendment. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shows traffic to be mitigated to below the level of significance but improvements are not shown as being constructed until 2015. He asked if there will be traffic problems until 2015. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that public infrastructure will be installed in phases when needed as phases are built. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the improvements will be handled at existing intersections. Mr. James responded that those streets had been designed to standards with a regional mall planned. Commissioner Macias observed that under Mitigation Impact 4.2.1 regarding traffic impacts, it states that some intersections are forecast to exceed the minimum LOS standards under 2015 background plus project conditions. He questioned if the project should only mitigate those impacts that it directly produces, thus leaving the City or SANBAG to be responsible for cumulative impacts given background. U Mr. James stated that the City collects a transportation fee that would take care of such construction. Commissioner Macias observed that the answer to Commissioner Tolstoy's question is that the developer is responsible for those impacts that the project creates and anything that goes beyond • that is cumulative, which is spaced over time and paid for collectively by fees. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the fees will be sufficient to allow the backbone improvements to be constructed. He felt the City currently has a lot of intersections that are heavily impacted even though they have no connection with the freeway construction. Ms. Fong stated that when the EIR was prepared,the consultant had to consider cumulative impacts so they included many projects within the area of the project. She said the developer will pay their fair share in contributing to the impacts. Mr. Buller stated that Commissioner Macias' comments were accurate in stating what the developer is responsible for. He said the City is also aggressive in securing additional funds to improve the streets so it does not just rely on the transportation fees paid by developers. Commissioner Mannerino thought their were discussions regarding a development agreement,which would discuss fees among other things. Ms. Fong confirmed that a development agreement will be forthcoming which will discuss infrastructure improvements and the phasing of those improvements. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Morrisette, American Beauty Development Company, 16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 401, Encino, stated he too had some questions regarding the mitigations. He suggested that they spend Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 8, 2000 • time with staff to figure out the fees they will pay before the matter goes to City Council. He stated there had been discussions over a year ago regarding the poor quality of the coastal sage scrub on site. He indicated it is mixed in with the grapevines and that previously no mitigation was required. Ms. Fong recalled that the last time there was a public hearing on the EIR, staff and the Commission determined that the coastal sage scrub was such poor quality that mitigation was not warranted. John Lyons, 11984 Dorsett Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives west of the property. He said he was opposed to the plan because when the Victoria plan was approved, high density was permitted because there was going to be a way to pay for the City south of Base Line Avenue. He stated this land is located in the area that was supposed to pay for the City and he felt the land needs to be Commercial in order to pay. He thought the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and the 1-15 Freeway needs to be all Commercial with no residential. He observed that there are no car or motor homes dealerships in Rancho Cucamonga. He opposed residential uses in the area. He felt the future of the City depends upon having Commercial in the area. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel dosed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino thanked staff and the applicant for a long period of negotiations to arrive at what appears to be a good plan. Commissioner Stewart concurred with Commissioner Mannerino. She appreciated the fact that the developer and landowner worked with the General Plan updates and saw the vision of the City. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed; however he expressed concerns with having some of the area designated as Mixed Use because in past times that has led to patchwork development in such areas. Chairman McNiel felt the Conimission needs to be sure projects are what the Commission determines to be appropriate mixed use. He agreed it had been a long and arduous process and the applicants had come a long way. He commented that sometimes some of the things that are envisioned for the City do not happen. He thought a good example was the rail service intentions in the heavy industrial area. He felt the likelihood of the area developing as all rail-served is very slim. He stated the General Plan is a living document and things change. He commented that even though this plan may not be the best and most appropriate use in the long term under the best possible scenario, it would be a compliment to the community. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Tolstoy,to recommend adoption of the Statement of Facts and Findings and Overriding Considerations for General Plan Amendment 98-02,Victoria Community Plan Amendment 98-01, and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 98-01 and recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 98-02, Victoria Community Plan Amendment, Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 98-01, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-04 with modification to eliminate the requirement to mitigate for the loss of sage scrub. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried NEW BUSINESS F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-28—GATX III/IV-The development of two industrial warehouse/distribution buildings (Building III —449,370 square feet, Building IV—468,410 square feet)totaling 917,780 square feet within the Catellus Master Plan on 44 acres of land in the General Industrial District(Subarea 8), located at the northeast Planning Commission Minutes -8- November 8, 2000 and northwest corners of Arrow Route and Milliken Avenue - APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32. Related file: Pre-Application Review 00-04 Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and reported a letter had been received from U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicating the site may contain habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly and requesting that protocol surveys and trapping be conducted. Mr. Le Count explained that in early 1999 a study was conducted for the fly in the northwest corner of the Catellus Master Plan area and no signs of habitat or the fly were found. He observed that the letter from Fish and Wildlife did not cite any specifics and staff was still recommending approval of the project. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Pam Steele, Hog le-lreland, 4200 Latham Street, Suite B, Riverside, concurred with the staff report, conditions of approval, and mitigations. She indicated the project was reviewed as a Pre-Application Review and they had followed the direction received. She said they also had a permitted biologist survey for signs of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and no habitat was found. She commented that the two buildings under review are isolated from any habitat because the other buildings on the site are already constructed. She stated the Master Plan improvements along Arrow Route will be completed with this project. Craig Halverson, Director of Industrial Development, Catellus Development Corporation, 3900 Westerly Place, Suite 200, Newport Beach, stated the two buildings will be consistent with the quality and design with the other buildings on site. He reviewed the other buildings on the site and said that they currently do not have any plans for developing the northwest and the northeast corners of the site. He reported that they have had a very positive experience in dealing with Rancho Cucamonga. He said the park is very successful and he felt part of that success was due to an excellent working relationship with City staff. He stated the City has been proactive in helping them solve problems as they corrme up. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino felt the buildings are nice looking. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Commissioner Stewart felt the whole project has been good and is an asset to the community. Chairman McNiel stated it is a very large project. He complimented the applicants for submitting a project that the City is proud to have. He said the City has cited their buildings as examples of the quality the City is looking for. Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that Mr. Le Count has enjoyed working with the team. He commended Charlie McFee for his leadership and said they are a quality developer,. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino,to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Development Review 00-28. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 8, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS G. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would be pleased to continue serving on the Trails Committee. Chairman McNiel reappointed Commissioner Tolstoy to the Trails Committee. H. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated the Task Force will next be reviewing the Housing Element. Commissioner Tolstoy tipped there will Pe np More Mixed Use areas. Mr. Buller said there will be Mixed Use. Commissioner Mannerino reported the Task Force previously met to review three sections. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0 to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 21, 2000, in lieu of the regularly scheduled meeting of November 22, 2000. Respectfully submitted, uller • Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -10- November 8, 2000