Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-03-1995 ~ ~ Regular Meeting - January 3, 1995 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on January 3, 1995, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 by Commissioner North. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Zika, Burnham, Geist and North; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Rafanelli PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TI~ FLAG Cm. North led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO TI~ AGENDA The minutes of the December 19, 1994, meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS SUBJECT: 61 Election of Officers (continued from 12-19-94 meetin~l This item was continued to the January 17, 1995, meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: 8.1 PA 94-001 Santa Rita Commercial Center Rezone and proposed Ne~ative Declaration request to rezone 75+ acres from Planned Develonment - Business Park/Industrial (low covera~e) to a standard Planned Development. This proiect has a Specific Plan Designation of General Commercial. The nrouosed Planned Development would allow for an 800 000+ square foot commercial center which mav include retail stores offices movie theaters and restaurants, amon~ other uses The project is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive (this item was continued from the December 19, 1994 Planning, Commission Meetin~.) - - Regular Meeting PCM-1995-1 January 3, 1995 [1-3min] ~ ~ i ~ Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner, indicated that there would be a modification to the Public Hearing due to an omission. The Development Agreement was not included on the agenda. for the January 3, 1995, meeting and staff recommended that the Planning Commission hear the staff presentation on the rezoning, take testimony from the Applicant and the public, question Staff and the public and then continue the item as a Public Hearing to January 17, 1995, to allow Staffto discuss and resolve details on the Planned Development Rezoning and the Development Agreement. Cm. North asked if this was based on input from last month's meeting. Mr. Carrington apologized and indicated that the Development Agreement did not make it on the agenda. Mr. Carrington then presented the staff report and indicated that it included a copy of the draft Fiscal Impact Analysis, a report prepared by Economics Resea.rch Associates (ERA) for the City of Dublin. The questions that the Planning Commissioners had at the previous meeting were outlined in the staff report and Mr. Carrington briefly went over each question and Stai~s response. It was also pointed out that Staff received three comments from the public on the Mitigated Negative Declaration; a comment from CALTRANS, a comment from Reynolds and Brown, and a 45 page comment from North Pleasanton Improvement District Property Owners. A Response to Comments was attached to the staff report as Earhibit C. Cm. Zika asked about the Traffic Impact Study and how the fees were based. He wanted to know at what occupancy rate were the fees based. Mehran Sepehri, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that the Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) were based on 100% occupancy conservatively for a worse case scenaria Cm. Zika asked what if the Project was occupied only 80%, then revenues wauld go down, how could that be conservative. Mr. Sepehri explained that for the design of the road system to see how big the roads should be, a 100% occupancy rate is us~l. Cm. Zika. clarified he was concerned how much revenue the Center will generate in order to pay for itself, pay for the infrastructure, and the water lines and sewer lines. He indicat~l the Study says this Center will generate $300 or $400 per square foot per yeax. Mr. Sepehri indicated he was able to answer TIF questions; however, other rates are different. Cm. Zika again asked at what rate of occupancy for the Center were the fees based. He stated that if the Study was based on 100% occupancy, then the revenue figures were low because not very many Centers can stay 100% occupied. Laurence Tong, Planning Director, asked if Cm. Zika.'s question was more focused on the Fiscal Analysis rather than the TIF. Cm. Zika indicated yes. Regulaz Meeting PCM 1995-2 ~~M January 3, 1995 _ ~~Y [1-3min] ~ ~ ~ ~ Mr. Tong stated the Fiscal Analysis was prepared through the City Manager's Office; however, on page 9 and 10 of Attachment 1 in the packet, there was some discussion regarding the specific projections by fiscal year, as well as some of the considerations that the new Center will probably not be operating at full capacity and that there will be some fluctuation in terms of occupancy and absorption of the square footage. Cm. Zika asked if the information on page 9 and 10 was the amount of square footage that would be occupied. Mr. Tong said he believed that was correct. Cm. Zika asked if at some point in time they project 100% occupancy and if that was what the fee was based on. Richard Ambrose, City Mana.ger, clarified that the amount per square foot is an average amount and that in order to calculate the fee, the consultants needed to estimate some amount per square foot. Cm. Zika asked if a less than 100% occupancy rate could have been used. Mr. Ambrose indicated that he would check with the consultants to find out what occupancy ra.te was used. The number they used was a composite number, not the highest. The Applicant felt the nutnber would be higher. Cm. Zika asked what the occupancy ra#e was and what the basis was for establishing the occupancy rate for the model. Mr. Ambrose indicated that when they put the model together, the amount of square footage was based on analysis of retail trends, and the numbers that were used were somewhat less than what the Applicant was projecting in the way of sales for the Center. Mr. Ambrose stated he would find out what occupancy rate was used. Cm. Zika was concerned that a lot of the models were outdated and overly optimistic. Mr. Ambrose sta.ted that the study included an up to-date retail market analysis. They were nbt relying on old studies for this project. The Applica.nt paid an additional fee for an updated maxket analysis of the surrounding communities. Cm. North commented that on page four (Roman numeral In of Atta.chment l, they said it would be$300 per square foot per yeax; however, the amount was lower for Phase I and Phase II until after tlie year 1998 when they went up to full occupancy. Cm. Zika stated his concern was for the years after 1998, what occupancy was used as the basis for the $300 rate and that he would wait for Mr. Ambrose to come back with an answer. Cm. Zika then asked for an explanation for the $3,000 Noise Impact Fee. Mr. Tong explained that the Noise Impact Fee was part of a requirement in the Specific Plan and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR in particular indicated that the City needed to esta.blish a Noise Impact Fee for noise generated primarily from traffic due to this project. As a separate action, the City Council was in the process of esta.blishing an Ordinance. The actual fee amount is yet to be Regular Meeting PCM-1995-3 ~ ~ January 3, 1995 [1-3min] . , ! • deternvned. The $3,000 maximum was built into the project so that the City could comply with the implementa.tion measures. The fee would not go into effect unless the City adopted an actual fee for the Noise Mitigation. Cm. Zika. asked how the City could put a figure of "Not to exceed $3,000" in the staff report. Mr. Tong indicated it was an estimated amount that the City had negotiated. The fee was based on the traffic generated by the project. Cm. Zika asked how the money would be used. Mr. Tong stated the money would be used for actual noise mitigation measures such as replacing windows with double-insulated glass, better sound insulating windows, or building berms to reduce noise. The money would not be used for landscaping. Cm. Zika indica.ted that he felt there could not be much anticipation of noise since the $3,000 would not cover the cost of much. Cm. Geist asked about the time table for Phase I and Phase II. Specifically, she asked if the improvements in Phase II to the east of the Center will not take place until Phase II was actually developed. Mr. Tong indicated that yes, Phase I would include road improvements along Hacienda Drive and along Dublin Boulevard (indicating a certain portion on a map), and would taper down to conform to the existing roadway. The improvements on the roadway adjacent to Phase II would not take place until Phase II was being developed. Cm. Geist asked if there would be two left turn lanes on Tassajara Drive in Phase I onto the single westbound lane on Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Sepehri indicated that the Developer ma.y improve two left turn lanes on Tassajara Drive, then Dublin Boulevard would be widened to accommodate the two left turn lanes as part of Phase IL Mr. Sepehri indicated on the ma.p a private driveway just north of the off ramp that may change the two left turn lanes into one if the owners approved of some changes. Cm. North asked if the Applicant was present. Don Casper, Homart Development Co., addressed the Commission. He handed out a Homart Community Centers Division Profile and a 1994 Portfolio of Projects for Homart Development Company, to the Commissioners and Staff. Mr. Casper gave a brief presentation on the background for Homart Development. Cm. North asked if Homart Company was paid when the Ma11 is built and 100% occupied or dces Homart build the Mall and some other company take over the responsibility of obtaining tenants. Mr. Casper indicated that Homart developed, marketed and owned their projects and was solely responsible for a project's success. Homart was self-funded on their projects, which meant the money was coming out of their pockets and they wanted to make sure that their projects were filled and stayed filled. The Homart Board of Directors made the decision to sell a project, and if that happened, they typically sold to an institutional type investor, meaning a retirement fund or someone looking for a long term investment. Regulaz Meeting PCM-1995~ January 3, 1995 [1-3min] . ~ ~ • Cm. North asked if Homart still owned New Park Mall. Mr. Casper stated specifically he did not have a lot of information on the Malls. Mr. Casper was with the Community Centers Division, which currently owned nine Centers, had directly developed twelve Centers and had been in joint venture with an additional six Centers. Of the Centers that they had been directly involved with, they had retained a large percentage of those projects. Mr. Casper pointed out that on page 2 that the Chairman referred to eaxlier, the $300 per squaxe foot when discountsd down to $225 per square foot related to approxirr?ately 75% occupancy. The 75% percent occupancy was far lower than they anticipated when they built a project, and that figure was slightly conservative. Mr. Casper asked if the Commission was looking far revenue projections past fiscal year 1998-1999. Cm. Zika. stated he thought that the 1997-1998 projection of $300 per square foot revenues was based on 100% occupancy, or pretry close to that. Mr. Casper indicated that the anticipation of revenues was based on wha.t they felt could be brought in on a per square foot basis; in other words, they had already discounted it 75% and they came to the taac revenue based on that discounted number. Cm. Zika asked that even in the out years, if the estimate was only being estimated at 75 % occupancy. Mr. Casper referenced page 2 of Attachment 1, in the various fiscal years, the amount increased per square foot. Mr. Casper explained that they were not involved in preparing the report; however, they were very interested in what was contained in the report. What the report was saying was that in fiscal year 1996- 1997, they would have a$225 per square foot rate, which was approximately 75% and then in 1997-1998 fiscal year, they anticipated that to grow to $250 per square foot, and subsequent years were $300 per square foot which would equate to 100% occupancy, although industry standard would be somewhat less than that. The study was based on what was actually seen in returns and tax revenue in other jurisdictions, and the sales the retail Center would generate. In essence, they were saying 100%, but by industry standards, none of them were actually based on a true 100% occupancy. He indicated that they felt the report was done very well, and the projection of costs were slightly conservative, but that the report must be conservative. Cm. Zika indicated he had used some of ERA's studies before and did not have a problem with the company as a whole, but he felt that he should ask about the occupancy rate. He asked if Arden Fair was developed from ground zero ar did Homart buy it and remodel. Mr. Casper was not sure, he thought it was from ground zero; however, it had been up there a long time and precedes his involvement with Homart. Generally, they were involved in the Mall projects very early on, if not at the very beginning. Cm. North asked the Applicant if they had a problem with the TIF if the project ended up with only 50% occupancy even though the TIF was based on 100% occupancy. Mr. Casper indicated that the Development Agreement, which would be discussed at the ne~rt meeting, provided for a scaled down project with flexibility in the fee. However, if the permits were pulled for the total eausting square footage, they would not have a problem paying the fee. Regular Meeting PCM-1995-5 M January 3, 1995 Y [1-3min] • • Marvin Vitz, Advanced Planning Director for the East Bay Regional Park District, indicated that they were looking for a linkage between the Tassajara Valley Trail and the Iron Horse Trail and BART Station. They believe the linkage was important as a way of providing good access within the Eastem Dublin area, both to BART as a regional transit center and to the residential employment and commercial areas that were planned, including the Homart project. At present the Specific Plan did not show a pedestrian link through this area, nor did the recently approved Park and Recreation Master Plan, so they were trying to see if they could get something to fit in with the plans. The East Bay Regional Park District had met with City staff before Christmas, and raised and discussed some of the issues, but they had not had a chance to review the Development Agreement. Their concerns were to insure that the Development Agreement did not preclude the opportunity to make a connection through the area, so as to provide both a transportation and recreation benefit they felt the trail link could provide for Eastern Dublin and the whole system. Mr. Vitz indicated that they would be putting some comments together for the ne~ct Planning Commission meeting, and were available to work with City and County staff over the next several days. Cm. Zika. indicated that this project had been in progress for 7 or 8 years, and was East Bay Regional Park District aware of what was happening with the Homart project. Mr. Vitz stated they had been involved in reviewing the Eastern Dublin Plan and various aspects; however, their concern was when they got down to the detailed development plans for the area that there be a means of making a trail connection. Cm. Zika asked if Mr. Vitz would have a written proposal for the ne~rt Pla.nning Commission meeting. l~Ir. ~litz indicated they would be discussing with Staff and would try to work something out by the ne~ meeting that can be mutually agreed upon. If so, they would make their recommendation based upon that. Cm. North stated that the East Bay Regional Park District had been updating their Master Plan for over a year, and asked Mr. Vitz if he knew when the Plan would be done. Mr. Vitz said he hoped to be done within the ne~ six months to a year. Over the last si~c months, they were working on comments and questions raised by the Park Advisory Committee on the process they were using, that they had made changes in the process over the last six months, and were still resolving some of those issues. He indicated it was a full two-County Plan with all 50 of their facilities and a11 of the trials, so it was not a sma11 scale plan, it was a major effort. Cm. North indicated Staff had always worked with the Park District in the past and was sure they would in the future; however, the faster the Master Plan was completed, the better Staff could work with them. Cm. North asked if anyone else would like to speak. John DiManto, Dublin Land Company and San Jose Construction Company, asked the Commission if under their rules of order, if he was entitled to any rebuttals by the Applicant or anyone in the audience. Cm. North asked Mr. DiManto to define what he meant by "rebuttal". Mr. DiManto stated he meant his right to defend any comment that needs to be answered if there was something that might be Yrrisstated. Regular Meeting PCM-1995-6 January 3, 1995 ~ [1-3min] , ~ ~ ~ Cm. North indicated that Mr. DiManto had a right as a citizen to speak before the Planning Commission for a limited amount of time, usually five minutes; however, the Commission was fle~ble on the time limit. He further indicated that if Mr. DiManto were to get into a discussion with someone in particular, he felt that would not be appropriate. He was free to make any comments he wanted to ma.ke. Mr. DiManto indicated he had heard Chairpersons at other meetings ask the Applicant or a person speaking against or in favor of a project, to come back up to clarify a matter, and that was a11 he was referring to. Cm. North stated that if the Commission felt the need for anything to be to clarified or if Mr. DiManto wanted to clarify anything, he could always ask. Mr. DiManto verified that the Planning Commission meeting would be continued to January 17, 1995, and asked if it would be wise to reserve his comments until that time. Cm. North indicated that if Mr. DiManto had comments on things that have already been discussed up to now, he should feel free to ma.ke them; however, the Development Agreement could not be discussed because it was not on the agenda, but if there were other things he wanted to discuss, he should feel free to discuss them. Mr. DiManto indicated he would proceed. He sta.ted that under the plan as submitted, he was opposed to it for various reasons. Number one, he was opposed to the size of the project due to its financial impacts to existing merchants to the west, whom he had not heard from; he was opposed to its size because of the impact it would have on the Eastern Dublin Plan, east of Tassajara Road and how much it would delay that development. He appreciated the necessity for Dublin to ha.ve a very fine retail project of this magnitude and its importance and how crucial it would be far competing fairly with Pleasanton, who would be asking Dublin to share in a lot of debt for the road system. Mr. DiManto stated he had been to meetings for the last 7 1/2 years, and during the last 6 months, he had met with a County Official and asked him about the size of the project. Mr. DiManto indicated that he was told there would be two or three fairly good size buildings, a few pads, but nothing that would impact Mr. DiManto's property to the east, specifically his 82 acres on the northeast corner of Tassajara and 580. He indicated that in the 7 1/2 years of ineetings, they were targeted towards architectural profile, creating identity for Dublin, and going through guideline hearings for architecture and how appealing a project Dublin would want in all of East Dublin, especially with the last remaining 580 quarter. He was surprised that this was the kind of project that would be pernutted along 580. And when compared architecturally with the Arden Mall or the Fremont Center, he felt that it was not a fair comparison. He felt the comparison should be made against the Macarthy Ranch project in Milpitas, the Las Animas Center in Gilroy, and possibly a few f.hings in Vacaville, at the Nut Tree, and that they were mare this type of project, a high volume, low cost project with lots of revenue. The project would axchitecturally set the tone and quality for whatever else happened in the East Dublin Plan. He also stated that the 18 landowners were shackled with Specific Plan design guidelines and landscaping guidelines. He felt in terms of architecture, the Commission and Council should ask for a scale model, rather than the rendering which did not do the project justice. He felt there should be guidelines for the facades of the building. With no discredit to the architectural firm, when you walked up to the rendering of the project, there left a lot to be desired. Regular Meeting PCM-1995-7 ~ ~ 7anuary 3, 1995 [1-3min] , - ~ • Mr. DiManto stated in terms of devastation to East Dublin, if this was built-out in the next 5 yeaxs or so, you could forget about East Dublin and the revenue producing land for probably 10 years. He felt there would probably be several land owners back in the ne~rt year asking for rezoning with a high density multi- family housing project and abandon the retail-commercial. He felt Cm. Zika and Cm. North asked very good questions at the last meeting about what was ha.ppening in Livermore in regards to occupancy rates. When you ha.ve these competing Centers, he felt you should ask for studies and projections of how long they would set back the East Dublin Plan. He felt that he, and many land owners, would be asked to join in many layers of assessment districts without the ability to create the revenues to debt-service them. That would be a devastating effect. This was a matter that went back to the size of the project, the phasing of the project, the impact to the existing Dublin merchants, who had not been present, they may worry about going broke. How would they be taken care of and what benefits would they get out of the project. He felt there should be a provision for that. The matter ma.y be an issue on the June ballot if it was not handled cautiously, incrementally with built-in safeguards in the Development Agreement that were in the Specific Plan and all the architectural guidelines that the landowners were shackled with. There was no reason why Homart, with their size and financial ability, should be able to come in and build that facility without having gone through all the things the landowners have gone through. It was very unfair. Mr. DiManto asked Mr. Tong if there had been any economic studies done for the merchants in West Dublin and if there were any profiles on how long if would take to absorb this amount of footage, and how many years it would set back East Dublin, east of Tassajara. He felt that maybe at the ne~ct meeting, that information would be available because it would be crucial and critical. Also, he suggested that the 1~Ierchants Association be part of a public meeting and have a chance for input on the impacts of this project. Mr. DiManto stated in terms of infrastructure, and what this project would do for other land owners, he indicated he had talked with a County Official who had told him that if this project did not go, then East Dublin would not be built, and that the County was going to extend and oversize utility pipes, sewer and water, and major infrastructures. He felt that was nonsense. Any project that goes first must provide and size all utilities and all the land owners would be asked and forced under Development Agreements, to pay their fair share. He asked what they were getting that they were not paying for. Really nothing. But what was missing was they would be charged the debt without the ability to debt-service the layers of assessments that would be placed upon the land owners' properties. In conclusion, the project was oversized, poorly planned and an architectural plain-Jane box with little vinyettes in same towers. He felt the Commission, and eventually City Council, needed to identify a list of uifrastructure needs that tlus project should bear and pay for early on through the Development Agreement, and the forms of repayment to its neighboring land owners who would be irnpacted. Cm. North asked if Mr. DiManto had read the Economic Research Associates report on the project. Mr. DiManto indicated yes, and he felt some were outdated, some were overstated, some were under rated and some were unreliable and you couldn't take them to the bank. Cm. North asked if Mr. DiManto had made his comments in writing to Staff so that they could study them in depth. Mr. DiManto indicated he had been asked to do that before, and had done it and he not received an answer, nor had his comments been brought out in the following meetings, so he felt it had been an effort in futility. He felt the Commission had asked very smart questions and were very thorough. He felt that once it got to Council, it was at a political level that was very swift and he appreciated all the Commissioner's comments _ Regular Meeting PCM-1995-8 Jan 3, I995 [1-3min] ` , • ~ and piercing of the project. He felt the citizens and property owners were better represented at the Planning Commission level, than at a higher level. Cm. North ask Mr. DiManto to put his comments and concerns in writing to the Commission. Mr. DiManto indicated that he would. Cm. Zika asked Mr. DiManto if he was indicating that if this 75 acres gces through, then his 82 acres of retaiUcommercial would not be developed for another 10 or 20 years. The other side of the coin was, that if they let Mr. DiManto do a retaiUcommercial project then the 75 acres would not be developed for 10 or 20 years. What was the difference. Mr. DiManto answered that he had spoken with Mr. Ambrose, Council members and Mr. Adolph Martinelli and that he indicated that Dublin has got to have some turns and felt that Pleasanton had gotten all of the retail and they refer to this side of the freeway as Dublin paddling the canoe, while Pleasanton was the ocean liner and bathing in lots of money and it was our turn. He felt that when a 7 1/2 year plan was implemented, the County, as a developer and land owner, needed to take 25 acres and scale down the project. He felt that the initial project would then carry a certain amount of infrastructure cost and then encompass all of East Dublin, not just his 82 acres, but 500 acres and say how we begin to build Dublin Boulevard to El Charro and build a network and relief-for traffic model. He felt that some Commercial was needed; enough to start debt-servicing the infrastructure that the landowners would be required to take on from the first pulling of pernuts. If this was 30 acres and the east of Tassajara had 20 acres and the Lin Family had 20 acres, it began to get the project going on an even basis. Cm. North thanked Mr. DiManto for his comments. Adolph Martinelli, Alameda County, indicated that he had spoken with Mr. DiManto for f,he past 7 1/2 years and that there was a clea.r distinguishing between the properties east of Tassajara Road and the Santa. Rita property. The Santa Rita property had been in the City of Dublin since 1986 and subject to an Anne~tion Agreement which cUscussed uses. The Annexation Agreement had been revised to discuss mixed uses. Mr. DiManto's property and the properties to the east were not yet in the City of Dublin, and were to be reconsidered by LAFCo this month. Mr. Martinelli indicated that Alameda County had conscientiously worked in cooperation with the East Dublin land owners. They had reserved the development of the area until the East Dublin Plan was adopted. They had fronted money for tlie Master Plan for sewer and water development for all of the East Dublin area. They had provided the land for the eartension of Dublin Boulevard from the former City limits across the Camp Parks property to Tassajara Road. They had participated in interchange improvements at Tassajara. Road and Hacienda Drive. They were working on a recycled water facility that would serve Eastern Dublin, were working on the specific design of a sewer trunk line that would serve East Dublin; and had committed themselves, as had Homart, to abide by all the design criteria that had been established in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and planning process. They had consultants under contract, including the consultant that prepared tlie City's Park Master Plan tha.t looked at the aesthetics of the area., the trail system along Tassajara Creek, and were looking at a means of enhancing the creek much beyond what was the typical type of development in an urban setting. He felt the County had conscientiously met the commitments that had been made over time and had been out front in a lot of the improvernents. Mr. Martinelli indicated that it was not realistic to believe that hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure would be in place all at once. There had to be a logical staging of development. The commercial project that was proposed was really the engine that would allow the movement into the residential phase in Eastern Dublin. Dublin had used justification in the annexation, saying that there was at least fiscal neutrality. The County was very proud of the design Regular Meeting PCM-1995-9 ~w Y~ ~ January 3, 1995 ~ [1-3min] . , . ~ ~ . efforts that had gone into the project. The Site Development architectural drawings were being refined and would again come back to the City at a later stage. This was not an outlet market or development, but a major Center that included retail uses and entertainment uses and restaurants and would be something he felt would be a great addition to Dublin. Mr. Martinelli stated that he was always available to speak with Mr. DiManto and the other property owners. He always felt that they were in this together with the East Dublin Property Owners. They had supported the efforts in East Dublin and the anne~,tion and hopefully, they would work closely together in the future. Cm. North asked if there was anyone else in the audience that would like to speak. Cm. Zika asked if there was anybody representing the East Dublin Property owners, North Pleasanton Improvement District or Reynolds and Brown. There was no response from the audience. Cm. Zika, asked Mr. Tong if the Commission would be approving any architectural concepts or building ~ designs in tlus phase. Mr. Tong indicated the architectural detailing would come at the Site Development Review stage. What they saw before them were conceptual site plans. Cm. Zika asked if the plans were not necessarily what the project would look like. Mr. Tong indicated that was correct. Cm. Zika stated that was what he thought, that he just wanted to make sure. Cm. North continued the public hearing until the next meeting on January 17, 1995. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None Cm. North thanked the members of the audience for coming. He indicated that what the Commission did affected the City; however, he felt it worked a lot better if there were input from different people and ur~ed the audience to come more often. OTI~R BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Information Only Reports~ Cm. Zika asked where the trucks were parked this week. Cm. Geist indicated that they were at Target. Cm. North indicated that he spoke with the City Clerk, and that nobody applying for the Planning Commission or other Commission would go before the City Council. The Mayor would interview some people, and then make his decision on the appointments and the appointments to the Planning Commission Regulaz Meeting PCM-1995-10 Y~ ~ m~~ January 3, 1995 ~ [1-3min] . 'W ~ ~ would be given to the City Clerk on Wednesda.y, January 4, 1995, and they would be made at the City Council meeting on 7anuary 9, 1995. Cm. Burnham asked if the City Council would be deciding on the January 9th meeting. Cm. North indicated that the City Council would either approve or disapprove the appointments. Cm. Zika asked if this would happen before this project was finished. Cm. North asked Mr. Tong to counsel the Mayor not to appoint anybody until the Homart project was voted on one way or another. Mr. Tong stated the Mayor would be made aware of the scheduling. Cm. Burnham thanked the Secretary for eloquently wording his statement made at the last meeting. ADJOURNMENT 'I'he meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ Planning mtnission Chairperson ATTEST: ~ Laurence L. Tong, Plannin Dire or Regular Meeting PCM-1995-11 7anuary 3, 1995 [1-3min]