Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-22 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda July 22, 2020 MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 p.m. A. Call to Order The meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on July 22, 2020. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Guglielmo at 7:00pm. Planning Commission present: Chairman Guglielmo, Vice Chair Oaxaca, Commissioner Dopp, Commissioner Morales, and Commissioner Williams. Staff Present: Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney; Anne McIntosh, Planning Director; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Brian Sandona, Sr. Civil Engineer; Dat Tran, Assistant Planner; David Eoff, Sr. Planner, Sean McPherson, Sr. Planner, Mena Abdul-Ahad, Assistant Planner; Flavio Nunez, Management Analyst II. B. Public Communications Chairman Guglielmo opened the public communications and hearing no comment, closed public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of July 08, 2020 Motion by Commissioner Morales, second by Commissioner Dopp. Motion carried 5-0 to adopt the minutes as presented. D. Public Hearings D1. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00864, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2019-00863, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2020-00209 (LOCATED AT 6710 BERYL STREET)—WLC ARCHITECTS FOR CARDEN ARBOR VIEW SCHOOL— A request for site plan and architectural review of a proposed 18,500 square foot school building, a Conditional Use Permit to operate a K-8 private academic school, and a Tree Removal Permit. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15332 — Infill Development. Sean McPherson, Senior Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and oral presentation (copy on file). Sean noted staff received an additional inquiry from a Commissioner about property tax. Responded, in the event the school qualifies for property tax exemption as they are a private school, staff notes that the annual tax revenue loss to the City, if that is the case, would be approximately $2,700 per year. Commissioner Morales asked about comments received regarding the left turn signals at Beryl Street north and southbound. Is that something that can be looked at. Brian Sandona, Sr. Engineer responded traffic team did have a chance to look at the left turn signal at Beryl Street. Although, with the applicants traffic impact analysis, there was not enough volume to require an additional mitigation such as a left turn lane for this project. Commission Williams stated Beryl is a very busy street and can understand residents' concerns. Is there any chance it would qualify at all. Brian Sandona answered that it may be possible in the future with more development increase traffic at the intersection. With the traffic currently existing, plus the traffic proposed for this project, it just is not required. Commissioner Dopp asked staff are there any needed repairs on the Stoebe house. Also, in regard to design, rather than have the north wall facing 19" Street in plain white, was there any consideration to have the paneling match the Stoebe house. Sean McPherson explained the Stoebe house was previously issued a building permit for the actual conversion of the structure that involved improvements such as the ADA accessible ramp and the exterior staircase toward the rear of the building, as it was being switched from residential to commercial. The scope of work proposed for the Stoebe house is cosmetic and pursuant to the code it will be defined as "ordinary maintenance and repair'. Typical upkeep of a 100+ year-old home. In terms of the wall, it will be referred to architect. Chairman Guglielmo opened public hearing. Jim DiCamillo, President WLC Architect, expressed he is happy to be working with City of Rancho Cucamonga. This project will be a good addition to the property and is ready to proceed. Gabriel Herrera, applicant, stated they are eager to begin project and thanked Commissioners. Lupe Camacho, parent and Engineer, reviewed development and studies for the project to make sure school is compliant and did find the numbers are well within compliant. Steve Haston, President of the School.Board Carden Arbor View, expressed it will be a great addition to the community and thanked Commissioners for their time. Mr. Barrett, resident expressed his concerns regarding the grading near the playground, which is located behind his home. Asked how much higher will the grade go. Jim DiCamillo, Architect replied there will be no grade raised behind his property. For the record, comments received by the following individuals and have been forwarded to the Commissioners: Harriet Quinton„Wendy Barrett, Barbara Harris, Alaine Lowell, William and Kimberly O'Neil. Chairman Guglielmo closed public hearing. HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020 Page 2 of 10 Commissioner Dopp mentioned a private school is a great addition. It is well designed and likes the stone. elements in the front, and it will bring a lot to that corner and to our city. Commissioner Morales stated the tree removals are critical to the function in the school. Likes the project. Commissioner Williams stated it will be a very nice addition. Very pleased to see Stoebe house is being saved. Great location and believes the school will be very successful at that site. Vice Chair Oaxaca agrees with Commissioner Williams and stated the architects did a great job using the Stoebe house to drive the design and doing it in a modern, updated way. It says a lot about Carbon Arbor View Schools decision to relocate to Rancho Cucamonga. Great addition to the city. Supports the project. Chairman Guglielmo stated he had a chance to see the project at Design Review Committee. The architect did a good job utilizing the historic property. Mentioning the design compliments the Stoebe house. It will be a very good addition to the city. Motion by Commissioner Morales, second by Commissioner Dopp to approve Item D1. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. D2. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00026 (LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 6TM STREET AND HYSSOP DRIVE)—CHASE PARTNERS LTD—A request to construct a 22,870 square foot commercial warehouse shell building on a vacant site of 1.08 acres located within the General Industrial (GI) District, located at the southwest corner of 6th Street and Hyssop Drive — APN; 0229-284-03. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15332—In-Fill Development Projects. Mena Abdul-Ahad,Assistant Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and oral presentation (copy on file). Chairman Guglielmo opened public hearing. Carter Reddish, applicant, stated this is the third project he is working on with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Although, on this project they did something a little different per owner's request, created an indoor covered area for trucks to give them weather protection and security. Jeff Meiterm, (part of applicant's team)„stated he is happy to do another project with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Looking forward to working with staff in getting the grading permit approved soon. No public comments. Chairman Guglielmo closed public hearing. Commissioner Morales stated the project fits very good with the area. Likes the project. Commissioner Dopp stated this is a very appropriate use for the site. Likes the architecture with the glass. A big fan of industrial enhancements making the warehouses look beyond warehouse in a lot of ways. Happy to see it go forward. Commissioner Williams agrees with Commissioner Dopp in regard to the glass is a nice touch. Adding some class to the warehouse. In support. Vice Chair Oaxaca stated this project does check off all the boxes with a nice design and appropriate use for the location. Great project and in support. HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020 Page 3 of 1'0 Chairman Guglielmo stated he was able to see the project at Design Review. Agrees the glass is a nice enhancement. Fits the neighborhood. Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Dopp to approve Item D2. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. D3. DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2020-00192 (LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF RESORT PARKWAY, NORTH OF 4T" STREET) -THE NEW HOME COMPANY- A request to modify an approved 135-unit multi-family development made up entirely of two-bedroom units by adding a third bedroom/flex office for a project site on 5.18 acres of land within Planning Area S- 20 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) District of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located on the east side of Resort Parkway, north of 411 Street; APN:0210-102-06. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20241 and Design 'Review DRC2018-00784. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and oral presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Dopp asked when the project was originally being proposed, was there any conversation with the company abouttheirfloor plans, bedrooms sizes. He does not remember it being an issue. Was it something they addressed or was there some sort of direction coming from staff.. Tabe answered there was always the long-term direction within the Empire Lakes master plan that there be a variety of unit types. When these for sale home projects came in, staff really did not have to negotiate requesting that they have two bedrooms over three bedrooms. From what he understood from the applicant, their goal was to always have the most affordable units in the project. Anne McIntosh, Planning Director, stated a procedural comment. The originally request to do this came to staff as requesting an administrative decision and that would be a Director approval to make this change and felt, in consultation with the Planning staff, that this was not something to be decided by the Director and that is why it is before you. Chairman Guglielmo opened public hearing. Holly Slevcove, Project Manager New Home Company, presented Commissioners with an oral presentation (copy on file). Talked about the existing overview of the current Nova project and then the proposed new design. Randall Lewis, spoke on behalf of New Home Company mentioning they made a good effort, worked with staff and created a good project but as we know as a developer, sometimes they do not always hit. This is a case where they came up with a concept that has not had much success as they had hoped. What they are asking for now, in a post-COVID-19 world, it's the right decision. What is happening now, more people say they are interested in a three bedroom. Right now, in this location, at this time, the majority of people looking are saying we are not happy with this offering and they say it's because of the two bedrooms. Right now, the units are not occupied and it may take a long time without the changes they HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020 Page 4 of 10 are requesting. The goal in Rancho Cucamonga is we want to solve the housing problem. Having unsold homes sitting unoccupied for 1 or 2 years does not solve the housing problem. What they are asking for is the right thing for the customer and for City of Rancho Cucamonga. No public comments. Chairman Guglielmo closed public hearing. Commissioner Dopp asked what the price points are for Plans 1, 2 and 3. Holly Slevcove answered just on average $390,00 for the three floorplans and heavily reduced to get sales. Commissioner Dopp asked for a price point on Plan 1. Holly Slevcove answered originally listed it around $290,00 and discount down to $265,000. Chairman Guglielmo mentioned that he noticed on the plan there is 37 room plus a flex office and then a 37 with a 3-bedroom designated. The office has storage closet, what do think the likely hood of that being converting into a bedroom. Will it affect the livability and parking availability. Holly Slevcove answered the flex office has storage, no coat closest, it's not considered a bedroom. Although, somebody can easily turn it into one. Explained the way they wanted to revise this is Plan 1 would always be just standard bedroom; Plan 2 would have a bedroom plus a bonus; and Plan 3 would give option for a 3ro bedroom. In terms of parking, it would not have too much of an impact. All homes have two car tandem garages and some guest parking spaces within community but have ample parking on the street. Keep in mind, the buyer profile does not include established families. These are either couples with no kids or couples just starting families. We do not anticipate having these buyers having more than two cars. Chairman Guglielmo asked in terms of the market demand, what is the feedback. What kind of demand have you seen, excluding families. Holly Slevcove answered the large majority have been singles and some young couples. We have not had many families show up. The overwhelming response has been, they love these but if only offering two bedrooms, they move on to competitors within the community that offers the same amenity. We are struggling and had to discount prices heavily. Commissioner Morales stated prices where reduced and they sold better. Asked if the $391,000 is the reduced price or has it been reduced since then. if so, to what. Holly Slevcove replied the;$391,000 is what they originally listed it at. Dropped it about$20,000 to$30,000. Commissioner Dopp stated he is sympathetic with all that is going on with the market, with businesses and decisions people have to make financially when buying a new home. There needs to be some willingness from the City to accept some flexibility. Things change, conditions change and in some respect, both Ms. Slevcove and Mr. Lewis are right. This could be a lasting change. He would,prefer not to deny the project. Maybe some sort of compromise. Looking at the floor plan, Plan 2 and Plan 3 looks almost identical right now, so there could be more distinction. When he sees a project that,is designed to be entry level and we are asking,for 2/3rds of the housing be converted to 3-bedroom, is really too much. We really want to provide a diversity in housing types. This goes too far in the spectrum in the other direction. Prefer to see some sort of compromise. The market data on Page 29 of the presentation states the average 2-bedroom sells for $335,000. It could be they were overpriced for the market. He believes there is room for a discussion about having a 3-bedroom option and HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020 Page 5 of 10 adding an office space that actually looks like an office and not a space that could easily be converted into a bedroom. Would like to see some compromise and not want to turn down and make Nova just sell two- bedroom units. if there is no compromise or no ability to find some middle ground, he will be inclined to agree with staff and deny the project. . Holly Slevcove explained originally; they proposed Plan 2 and Plan 3 both have a third bedroom. Unanimously, people have said they just want a 3-bedroom. Plan 1 is targeting singles and is not doing well. Wanted to make sure to address the buyers needs, so proposed 3-bedroom on both Plan 2 and Plan 3 and took to staff. Looked at the elevations and both sides were fine with change but looking at the floorplan change they were skeptical about having 2 of the 3 floorplans be 3-bedroom versus 2- bedroom. Went back and drafted up ,a new design where only 37 of 135 units where going to be 3- bedroom. She stated it's not up to them to tell the buyer to change that office into a bedroom. If they change into a bedroom but can only afford Plan 2 versus and Plan 3, we are not going to stop them. We are just giving them an opportunity to be homeowners. Vice Chairman Oaxaca stating in his years as a Commissioner, he is cautious when an applicant returns after they proposed a project and it has been approved and now wants to make a significant change like this one. One of the ,questions he is left with .unanswered is where was all this data 1-year ago. Appreciates Mr. Lewis comments how drastically the world has changed since we gone into pandemic mode. When we were first presented that project, we looked at each one of the areas within the project all together to see how we can express that type of community that we all wanted and the diversity of housing types and residents we wanted to be able to attract. That is another challenge he has now is to take one of the developments out of that project and make changes to it outside of that context is a challenge for him. He agrees with Commissioner Dopp,,this could be a competitive marketplace situation and maybe we, as a commission, being asked to help correct which he does not feel is the job of this commission. Be it as it may, there are some realities that have come upon us in the past few months none of us could have expected. He also wants to see if there is an alternative that we can look at which affects fewer units. He is uncomfortable with about 2/3rds of the total units in the Nova project being converted in some form. He would be comfortable with more of an emphasis on the office space, which is going to be a long-term trend toward remote working and making that more available. That would make it a stronger case for his support. That is context for him and potentially having the applicant revisit their request would be something he would be supportive of. He does not like to flat out deny a request because there are some realities that we might have an opportunity to help address that could have a positive outcome. Commissioner Morales requested for clarification and asked, out of 135 units they are asking to convert 37 to 3-bedroom and 37 to flex office. The other remaining units will still be a 2-bedroom. Holly Slevcove answered yes. Chairman Guglielmo asked if it was reduced from 74 units, what would be the impact. Would it have a. negative impact on the design. Holly Slevcove answered it would have a market impact for them. In terms of design elements, they did not actually choose 37 and 37, it just happened the way their 6 plex and 8 plex are set up. There are certain numbers of each floor plan laid out in the building types like that. They already built the other buildings and still have the remainder of the.buildings to build out. The way it already had been planned, it just happened to be 37 of those 2- bedroom plans would be converted. HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020 Page 6 of 10 Chairman Guglielmo mentioned he could see arguments allowing it to occur and then arguments not. One of the major arguments to support the Cities decision is the overall intent of the larger project the Empire Lakes and this was going to be entry level smaller type units. When you look at the overall project 1000 units that are going to be in Empire Lakes,this is a drop in the bucket to the overall vision. You cannot predict where the market demands are going to come from. It seems it missed the mark here with the pandemic and unexpected things. He stated it's important to listen to the market demands and we want an overall successful project to be there, but we also want this builder to have a marketable product as well. The other thing he worries, if we do modify for one developer after the fact, does it set a precedent to the other developers in the project. Will they come back and want to modify. That is a risk and a fear. He does believe the parking will be impacted. He would like to see additional compromise. Not sure how to get there or if it's even possible. Commissioner Williams stated she agrees with the way this is going. We need to be flexible, we planned this to have a huge variety for homeowners the ability to buy. We have very little in the affordable range other than the 2-bedrooms. If we don't have anything, we will miss those buyers. No one predicted this to happen the situation we are in. She likes the idea of keeping the office and keep the 2-bedrooms at the reduced price. By making so many 3-bedrooms, you are really inviting more families and you said all long there is really no provisions for lots of children. The community is not geared for lots of children. If some people want the 3-bedroom, that is fine but should be a few. She likes having 2-bedrooms at a very good price. Another thing about this pandemic, how many people are now unemployed. Some of these people will never get back to the success that it was. We all need to be flexible on this, keep the reduced price and stick with smaller units. Anne McIntosh mentioned if Commissioners feel they would like to see a new proposal, you could continue this item and have them comeback or you could just make a decision tonight and come up with a number. Commissioner Morales stated he would like if it could be modified a little bit. It would not be good to have empty units. We should be flexible and make some changes. He would be in favor to have the proposal be modified and come back to us. Instead of the 74 units being changed, maybe a slightly smaller number would be something that would be good for the City and the developer. He would be in favor of that. Chairman Guglielmo asked if we could hear from Holly to find out if it's an all or nothing deal. Commissioner Morales stated a quick comment, the State Housing RHNA to meet those requirements. It's important to consider the possibility of the 3-bedroom with some modifications. Holly Slevcove stated New Home obviously would like your approval on the presentation presented to you tonight. They are willing to work with Planning and the Commission for some sort of compromise because ultimately, they want to make this project a success. These units present a great community for Rancho Cucamonga. Want to reiterate 98% of the units in the community would be 2-bedroom. She explained, on the proposed change within the entire resort, they would take 37 units of their project to be a 3-bedroom, the remaining would be 98. It's not to say that a buyer would not convert them to a 3-bedroom. Because of that, is there a way perhaps we can reduce the size of those flex office spaces so they are not actually able to be converted into 3-bedrooms. Commissioner popp.stated that is what he was thinking about. Too many of these 2-bedroom offices will actually be 3-bedrooms. When he toured their homes, one thing he was thinking about is that overhang where you are putting in new space, is there a way architecturally to redesign the office, either narrow the room, or maybe add a patio on the 3m floor or taking out the storage. He believes there is a creative way to meet their desires to make it an actual office space. HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020 Page 7 of 10 Vice Chair Oaxaca stated he believes Holly's calculation is she's combining the 2-bedroom units that are for sale condo units and the apartment units that are for rent. Those are two completely different markets, the rental market and purchase market. ,He would prefer we compare apples to apples and stick to the for- sale market. He does somewhat agree with Commissioner Dopp, there maybe could be some architectural approaches that could drive the stability of that space to actually be used as an office. He believes there could be some compromise and alternatives to provide more emphasis on the additional space being sold and marketed as an office space. That is more responsive to what the market is telling the applicant. He would be supportive of continuing this item and asking the applicant to return with a proposal that comes closer to what he has expressed, as well as the commissioners. We want to see this development succeed but this is something that is a discretionary decision on the part of this commission. In the interest of trying to get as close as possible to what he hopes to be a better resolution than just denying the request right out. He would support in getting a chance to look at a fresh proposal from the applicant at a future meeting. Chairman Guglielmo asked Anne McIntosh how quickly could you see this get turned around if Holly is opened to the idea. Anne McIntosh answered we could start working with them right away. We can be as responsive as they can be in terms of coming up with a revised proposal. We can continue it in 3 weeks and if not ready, can continue it again so not to waste a lot of time. Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney mentioned that staff did not yet prepare a resolution for denial or approval of the application. We were going to ask if you continue the application anyways so a resolution can be drafted to implement whatever decision you ultimately make. Chairman Guglielmo mentioned after hearing these discussions, it has given him more direction. He believes the flex office/fitness room,just bundle 74 overall number. Maybe somewhere between the mix 40- 50 overall total. It would be a fair compromise. His concern, if you do 40 or 50 of those, then now you have buildings that do not look similar. Will it look odd having some converted and some not. Anne McIntosh stated without continuing to have a dialog with the applicant tonight, it would be something we could work with them on, that would be her request. Holly Slevcove agrees to work with staff to come up with a compromise and continue in the upcoming weeks to find a resolution as quickly as possible. They would work to make sure the exterior of the building is not affected.. Vice Chair Oaxaca stated we should never miss an opportunity to continue an item. This could open the door for the applicant to look at what other office focus amenities could be introduced into the design. He would be supportive of the applicant to see what creative things could be done to enhance those spaces to make them really great office space. Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney stated to refine the motion, it would be to reopen the public hearing and continue it to the next Planning Commission meeting. Motion by Vice Chair Oaxaca, second by Commissioner Dopp to continue Item D3 to August 12, 2020, HPC/PC meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020 Page 8 of 10 E. General Business E1. STATUS UPDATE ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING COMMITTEE. Flavio Nunez, Management Analyst II, Economic Development, presented Commissioners with an oral presentation (copy on file). Anne McIntosh thanked Flavio Nunez and David Eoff for all their work they did with the committee and bringing this report to the Commissioners and for their work they will be doing going forward. Commissioner Dopp commented he likes the northern part of the city. Maybe see some developments come up. What do you think this is going to do for developers. Will it have an impact down the line. Randall Lewis provided feedback and stated it will have a huge impact on developers. Not just Rancho Cucamonga but all of California. One of the committee members who was doing calculations, it's in $100 million dollars just in Rancho Cucamonga. Each of the affordable housing unit will cost $300- $500 Thousand dollars. Without a funding mechanism will be very hard. Flavio Nunez stated what they learned from inclusionary housing is it's not the solution to affordable housing but will be a tool to help produce some of that affordable housing. The lack of funding, tools and resources is really the challenge the City is facing, and this is one way to address affordable housing. Commission Dopp stated this is a real good start. Agrees this is something we need to have in the back of our pocket because looking at Huntington Beach is a classic example of what can happen when a city does not respond to the pressures that are out there in terms of wanting to create a community for all people. Chairman Guglielmo commented regarding Huntington Beach, he remembers it being a big headline last year and was looking for an update and noticed in early January they had a discussion, a tentative agreement with the State of California for 502-unit affordable housing project. Maybe in a future report, we can follow-up on that to see if the State can enforce the rules and get more details would be interesting. E2. ANNUAL SELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR THE COMMISSION AND APPOINTMENTS TO OTHER COMMITTEES. Commissioner Oaxaca was re-appointed unanimously as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Guglielmo was appointed unanimously as member to the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Dopp was re-appointed unanimously as first alternate for Design Review Committee. Commissioner Oaxaca was appointed unanimously as member to the Trails Advisory Committee. Commissioner Dopp was re-appointed unanimously as first alternate for Trails Advisory Committee. Commissioner Dopp was re-appointed unanimously as member to the Public Art Committee. Commissioner Guglielmo was reappointed unanimously to remain as Chair for another 1-year to complete full 2-year term as Chairman of the Planning Commission. HPC/PC Minutes —July 22, 2020 Page 9 of 10 HAIRMAN—Guglielmo MEMBER—Williams (remain) MEMBER—Morales(remain) MEMBER—Dopp(remain) ICECHAIR-Oaxaca NEW MEMBER-Oaxaca NEW MEMBER-Guglielmo 'T ALTERNATE—Dopp(remain) ALTERNATE—Dopp(remain) 2ND ALTERNATE- It was determined 2,'alternate of needed.) One Motion for entire selection of appointed positions and committee members. Motion by Vice Chair Oaxaca, second by Commissioner Morales. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. F. Director Announcements Anne McIntosh mentioned the two meetings scheduled for the month of November, one on Veteran's day and the other one is the day before Thanksgiving. We may need to pick another meeting date for November in the next few months. Forum on our Future meeting next week. Evening version and this time made a lot of phone calls to community groups. G. Commission Announcements H. Workshops - None I. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Dopp, to adjourn the meeting; motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. Meeting was adjourned at 9:52pm. Respectfully submitted, LA", X EVAlb tlh Thornhill Eke6tive Assistant, Planning Department Approved: August 12, 2020, HPC/PC Regular Meeting. HPC/PC Minutes — July 22, 2020 Page 10 of 10