Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-03-151 1 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Keen, Parker and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Associate Planners, Kelly Heffernon and Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. SELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR: Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to nominate Tim Brown for Chair. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Parker, Fellows and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown to nominate Commissioner Keen for Vice Chair. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Brown, Parker and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: None AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed to hear Item III.C. first and because of time constraints continue Item III.D to the meeting of April 5, 2005. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of March 1, 2005 were approved on a motion by Commissioner Fellows, seconded by Commissioner Keen, with the following corrections: • Commissioner Parker: Page 1, Written Communications, change item No. 4 to state `letter' dated February 25 1997, from Grace Stillwell to City Council, in place of 'fax' . • Commissioner Parker: Page 3, add "for safety" to last sentence. • Commissioner Parker: Page 5, add ...and if they are not knowledgeable in "environmental planting" (next to last paragraph). • Commissioner Brown, Page 13, first bullet, add sentence to state that "Commissioner Brown commented that there had been no such suggestion to zone this area back to Agriculture ". MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Fellows, Keen, Brown, Parker and Tait None None A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter from Marjorie Smith, dated March 10, 2005, re Creekside Development. 2. Letter from The LePoint Committee, dated March 14, 2005, re Creekside Development. 3. Letter from Mike Miner, dated March 10, 2005, re Cherry Creek project. II. A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE FEBRUARY 1. 2005: The following consent items listed below were scheduled for consideration as a group: 1. 2. 3. 4. ARCH 04 -011 ARCH 05 -003 Arch 05 -004 ARCH 05 -001 Phil Zeidman Scott Pace Scott Pace Josh Blair 528 E. Branch St 137 Whitely St 137 Whitely St 1156 Grand Ave Redevelopment of E. Village Plaza, Lot 5. New single family residence within the D -2.4 Overlay District New single family residence within the D -2.4 Overlay District Review of site plan, parking, play equipment and landscaping Action._ A A A A R. Foster J. Bergman J. Bergman J. Bergman The Commission had no questions or concerns on the consent items. PAGE 2 Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve Consent Agenda items 1 -4. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Keen, Tait, Brown, Fellows and Parker. None None 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C. VARIANCE CASE NO. 05 -002; APPLICANT — TOM AND SUZY RILEY; LOCATION — PASEO STREET. Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report to consider a proposal to allow a new single - family residence to be built 10 -foot into the required 20 -foot front setback, thus allowing preservation of the existing oak tree and less site disturbance. In conclusion, Mr. Foster recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving the variance with the included findings. Commission Questions: Tait: • We need to save oak trees; asked if the property backs up to or near the Tally Ho Creek? Mr. Foster - it does not and he passed out photographs to show the location. • Would reduction of the driveway negatively affect the neighborhood? Mr. Foster - it would not, as several of the neighboring houses have been built into the required frontyard setback; 10 -feet would still be adequate to get offstreet parking into the driveway area. Parker: • Agreed with Commissioner Tait that if the driveway is not long enough cars will end up parking in the street; a 10 -foot driveway may not be long enough for some larger type vehicles. What is the required size of driveway for parking; and could the structure be moved back 5 -feet from the dripline of the oak tree? Mr. Foster - if needed it could be moved to the dripline; average parking space is 18 feet long, 9 feet wide. Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. Tom Riley, applicant asked the Commission for their questions: PAGE 3 Fellows: • Would moving the pad forward result in less dirt moved, fewer roots cut? Mr. Riley - it would reduce the mass grading by 30 -40 %; there is a 6 foot sidewalk in front of the property that goes nowhere, so if parking did overhang the driveway it would not impede sidewalk motion; the cul -de -sac in this area is 8 -foot wider than the rest of Paseo Street. Parker: • She again asked the question, but this time to the applicant, could the house be pushed back any further? Mr. Riley — according to the arborists if we want to truly stay out of the drip line of the tree the house has to be forward 10 -feet unless we hand dig around the drip line of the tree. In reply to a question from Commissioner Keen, Mr. Foster explained that the average slope of the property is approximately 18 %. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 Jan Treat, 696 Paseo, two doors down from the property, stated she did not get notice of the variance; she had a concern with the length of the driveway and would like to make sure that a car could park in the driveway without projecting into the sidewalk. Chair Brown closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission Comments: Tait: • Concern that a larger type vehicle would encroach on the sidewalk. Mr. Foster stated that there was a variance on the other side of Paseo that was approved for a 10 -foot deep driveway last year. Fellows: • From photographs that the applicant had submitted, he could see that there were other houses near by that also had short driveways and some with no sidewalk. Keen: • It is imperative that the oak tree be saved and not build in the drip line of the tree; the 10 -foot driveway is not acceptable and the house should not be moved further forward than the neighbors house; the house needs to be redesigned to resolve this. Parker: • Agreed with Commissioner Keen's comments; an alternative would be to hand dig out around the dripline of the tree. Brown: • Agreed with Commissioner Keen's comments. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to deny the variance without prejudice and requested staff return with the appropriate findings. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Parker, Tait and Chair Brown NOES: Fellows ABSENT: None PAGE 4 Mr. Riley stated that his plans were the identical plans to his neighbors; he was being asked to do things that others in the neighborhood had not been required to do. D. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 05 -007; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — VILLAGE CORE DOWNTOWN AND VILLAGE MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to continue Development Code Amendment Case No. 05 -007 to the April 5, 2005 meeting. 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Keen, Fellows, Parker and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None PAGE 5 A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04 -007, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04 -002, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04 -002, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 04 -001; APPLICANT — CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION — EAST CHERRY AVE & MYRTLE STREET (Continued from the meeting of March 1, 2005). Associate Planner, Ms. Heffernon, presented the staff report for the continued review of a new development and Neighborhood Plan for a 22 -acre area bordered by East Cherry Avenue, Myrtle Street, and Arroyo Grande Creek. She recommended the Commission 1) consider the additional information included in the Initial Study and determine the adequacy of the environmental determination; 2) consider the Neighborhood Plan (NP) issues, and; 3) consider the project. The staff report addresses the following impacts: • Traffic — primarily the intersection of Traffic Way and East Cherry • Sewer • Drainage • Prime Soils • Water Resources • Neighborhood Plan — level of detail that should be in the Plan Ms. Heffernon then stated that staff had made some recommended changes to the Initial Study. In addition, as part of the environmental review process, staff is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. However, if necessary the Commission can direct staff to prepare an expanded initial study under CEQA. If there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, then an EIR shall be prepared; staff recommends that if such factual information exists, then any deliberations on the project itself be reserved until it comes back to the Commission with the EIR completed. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon requested the public hearing be re- opened and if the environmental review is determined adequate, the Commission should adopt a resolution recommending City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the project. Commission questions and discussion followed: Commissioner Tait: • Drainage: He disagreed that the length of time required for performing environmental review of the reservoir at the mouth of Newsome Springs Canyon MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 PAGE 6 would not be feasible with the project time line; time should be taken for the review- it's very important. • Loss of prime ag land under CEQA: Asked for clarification on "prime soil zoned for residential use ". Ms. Heffernon — it is staffs determination that this is a policy issue and not an ag conversion — this area was slated for development before the City was incorporated; so City Council would need to make an interpretation on this issue. • Initial Study: He disagreed with the most current change to allow second story, even with no windows against the ag buffer; this would need further discussion. • Biological resources: Did not agree with the statement that the "project site contains no habitat types that could provide suitable habitat ". Ms. Heffernon - she would get clarification from the biologist. • Mitigation measure 4.20: A sentence has been deleted that weakens the mitigation. Ms. Heffernon — they were waiting to hear from Fish and Game to see if this was necessary, but they could leave it in. Tait — he would like to see it left in. • Mitigation measure 4.16: As requested at the last meeting he would like to see the dates March 1— August 31 added (prior to removal of trees by a qualified biologist) to the measure. • Mitigation measure 4.28: Asked why the word "permanent" was added to sentence. Ms. Heffernon — will get back to him on this. • The creek foot trail: Who will revegetate this area after the developers leave? Ms. Heffemon — a condition can beaded that the CC &R's require the HOA to maintain this area. • How can the initial study be complete until responses have been received from the RWQCB and Fish & Game? Ms. Heffernon — the applicant must go through these agencies before obtaining permits. In reply to questions from Commissioner Fellows, Ms. Heffernon stated: • The applicant has not yet secured a permit for discharge of water from the two 6" pipes into the creek from the Army Corps of Engineers. • Re Ordinance 550 language, wording to state "the design shall require an adequate buffer" can be included. • If an expanded initial study is not to the Commission's liking a full EIR can be requested; a full EIR is a much larger scope of review, lengthier (at least one year) and more expensive. Parker: • Asked for clarification on the abandonment of right of way — area of Myrtle Street: Mr. Devens — it would be a privately maintained road - the City would retain an easement over it. • Is the Vanderveer house a registered historical house? Ms. Heffernon — it has not been registered, but it may be considered to have historical significance. 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 • Capital Improvement Program: Asked for an update on the sewer system for this area. Mr. Devens — it will depend on when the design has been approved. Keen: • When will the City get the Neighborhood Plan? Ms. Heffernon — the Neighborhood Plan for sub area 2 has been included in the information submitted for Commission review, but it is only in discussion form (text only); the General Plan does not give much guidance; the decision makers need to determine how much information is necessary. Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 7 John Knight, representing the applicant, answered the Commission's questions; discussed changes made to the project to increase the buffer to 130 foot (measured to habitable structure); discussed the Neighborhood Plan and sub area 2. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle, had concerns with the easement on Noguera; traffic on Cherry Avenue; the proposed bridge; he suggested an amendment to the General Plan regarding the prime soils. Carol Hoffmeier, 765 Branch Mill, had concerns regarding the buffer, drainage and emergency access. Bill McCann, 575 Crown Hill, had concerns regarding the buffer and ways to increase it; prime ag soil issue and the ability of the Dixson family to be able to farm in the future. Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oakhill Road, had concerns with the drainage; past flooding history of Arroyo Grande, the buffer and the proposed wall and stated the need to protect families that had lived in Arroyo Grande for years. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, encouraged the Commission to ask for an EIR of the Neighborhood Plan, requested the Commission not to accept the mitigation measures; asked them to seek a General Plan Amendment lowing the density in Phase II. She stated that the NP should be approved prior to the Cherry Creek development; Phase II must be included in the study; suggested that the area is perfect for transitional zoning; does not agree with the proposed two story houses or the proposed gate on the Vanderveer historical residence; did not agree with the proposed construction hours, the monument sign and the berm with fence on top; concern with the size of the drainage pipes sewer mains and did not agree with the traffic report. Bill Surry, 831 East Cherry, commented that there had not been any negotiation for purchase on Cherry Avenue (private, dirt road), although it is being included as part of the buffer area. Noma Looney, 444 Lierly Lane, stated she disagreed with transitional zoning; there would have to be further discussion on this. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 Tony Janowicz, 445 B Lierly Lane, stated he also disagreed with a transitional area; the neighborhood needs to get together for further discussion. Karen Estes, 811 East Cherry, referring to Ella Honeycutt's comments, stated that once the dam had been installed there had been no further flooding; in 31 years she had not seen the Dixson property wash any water across Cherry Ave; she did not believe a wall would create any problem. John Knight gave his response to the public comments: • Noguera Place easement: This will need to be clarified. • Buffer interpretation: His understanding was that within 100 feet, backyards would not be included. • Enforcement of buffer: Projects will be installed according to plans and should not be a concern. • Fire access options: It is possible to get additional fire access if needed. • Newsome Springs drainage: The City has agreed to look at this next time the City's Drainage Master Plan is updated. In the meantime, there will be two 72" pipes and an overflow route. • If there were an initiation to alter the zoning and decrease the density in this area we would have some serious concerns. _ • We have moved the windows away from the buffer on the two story homes to avoid nighttime noise and light (when farmers may be working). • Construction times are typical and will be in compliance with the City's noise ordinance. • In some areas the wall is 7 -foot high because of the grade change. • The vegetative buffer areas should be irrigated and there should be no concern with fire safety. The Commission took a five - minute break. Chair Brown closed the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 8 Mr. Knight said if the Commission requires additional environmental documentation on the Negative Declaration (expanded Initial study), they would be willing to pay for a third party consultant, hired by the City. Chair Brown suggested that the Commission start with review of the Negative Declaration, and stated that they would like to make all their comments before this goes forward to the Council. Commissioner Keen: • He would like to receive RWQCB and Fish & Game responses before going forward to further discussion. 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 PAGE 9 Commissioner Parker stated that she was submitting her detailed written comments on the CEQA Negative Declaration (ND) to staff (copy to go to the developer); stated that the ND was inadequate; her comments addressed each of the items that she felt did not address the mitigating impacts sufficiently or identify additions required. Following is a condensed version of Ms. Parker's comments: • Traffic Report: Traffic is already a problem at the East Cherry and Traffic Way intersection, especially with regards to left turn onto Traffic Way from East Cherry (study provided to staff). According to the Traffic Study, this project will not be adding that much to make it worse; the City should address the current traffic issues at the Traffic Way and East Cherry intersection. • Aesthetics: The wall and berm area should be made more aesthetically pleasing and fit better with the rural area; the sign is not necessary and does not fit in with the neighborhood; glare and light should be mitigated also. • Agricultural Resources: The buffer should be in this section — it's a good mitigation. Ms. Parker stated that after much research and based on the findings from quite a few sources she could accept a 130 -foot buffer. • Biological Resources: Wildlife corridor, wetlands and riparian habitat is a significant impact — could be mitigated. • Hazards & Hazardous Materials: Are a significant impact; the creek bed is exposed to hazardous material and people are also exposed to the agricultural runoff and spray (could be mitigated). • Transportation /Circulation: An adequate secondary emergency access has not been provided to the area and would be necessary for sub area 2 to be further developed. • Land Use: Ag. 1 -1 of the 2001 General Plan, identifies this property as prime soils (and a natural resource along with oak trees) and is classified as prime farmland, class II soils; once houses are built on prime soils, it does not require it to be turned back to Agriculture, but this property falls under every criteria that the General Plan has set up for saving the Prime Soils. As it now reads, must either go to City Council for clarification of intent, and possible amendment; or have a full EIR in which case it would need an overriding consideration from City Council to go forward. • Mandatory Findings of Significance: The drainage system seems like a good solution, but it may cause problems for the chemical flow into the creek (not allowing chemical percolation through the soil); the mitigation measure is not sufficient; there needs to be a response from Fish & Game & RWQCB before the drainage goes in; this should be addressed. • According to CEQA, a negative declaration is only permissible if "all significant impacts are definitely mitigated "; Ms. Parker then stated the reasons why it could not be certified at this time. • A full EIR has to be done for this project because of drainage (regional issue) and prime soils (would require overriding considerations from City Council). MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 Chair Brown requested that documents given to staff from Commissioner Parker's report be made part of public record and attached to any staff reports. Chair Brown announced to the public that due to insufficient time Item III.B. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04 -004, would not be heard this evening. After discussion it was agreed that a special meeting date on Monday, April 4, 2005 at 6:00 pm. would be acceptable for continuance of this item. The Commission then returned to discussion of Item III.A. Tait: • Drainage: Perceives this as a major concern because of the runoff going through the proposed 72" drain pipes, leaving no natural percolation taking place to reduce harmful chemicals from going directly into Arroyo Grande Creek; good buffers would trap pesticide runoff, but cannot happen inside a drain pipe; this issue needs to be looked at in depth using expert opinion. • Buffers: The applicant has taken many positive steps to reduce significant impacts; he agrees with the Co Ag Commissioners Office that none of these attempts replaces the benefits that adequate distance provides to adequately mitigate potential conflict; Ordinance 550, in the General Plan states "the protection of ag lands within the City is the City's greatest priority "; an inadequate buffer may limit the potential of future operations of a farm to change crops; in the revised East Village Neighborhood Plan, the ag buffer study presented by the applicant, ends with "this buffer will serve an as example for the future "; it is a concern that this project may be setting a precedent for future projects. • Prime farmland soil: The Co Ag Commissioner's Office states "the project site soils are almost entirely prime soils, with a small area of river wash (same soil type as Dixson Ranch); Ag1.4 -3 in the General Plan and comments from Brian Troutwein to the effect that projects such as this in Santa Barbara almost always trigger a CEQA review. • Re the Parks & Recreation Element: The bridge to connect the middle school with the recreation facilities should still be considered. • Pesticide use: Re the Buffer Study prepared by the applicant, the pesticides included are both "restricted use" pesticides; one of the pesticides is heavier than water and inside an enclosed drain pipe would not be able to evaporate; Ag 2 in the General Plan requires that water quality for agriculture be maintained and direct discharge of the pollutants through the proposed drain pipes within permeable land he believed violates the General Plan. • Given the complexity of the environmental issues with this project he believes an EIR is needed to provide everyone with a more in depth analysis. 10:00 p.m. Chair Brown requested a motion to continue the meeting to 11:00 p.m. The Commission took a 10- minute break. PAGE 10 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 PAGE 11 Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to continue the meeting to 11:00 p.m; the motion was approved on a 5/0 voice vote. Commissioner Fellows stated that after studying the Negative Declaration for many hours he had come to the conclusion that a full EIR would be required. Commissioner Fellows further comments: • He disagreed with staffs interpretation that the project would not convert prime ag land to non -ag use. • A 100 -foot ag buffer with 20 -foot of vegetation is clearly inadequate; County Ag Department lists factors why a wider buffer is needed; other jurisdictions have a minimum of greater than 150 -feet; The Queensland Report has good scientific data recommending an acceptable buffer of a minimum of 131 -feet, with half of the width planted with specific trees and shrubs; it is very important that ownership and maintenance of the buffer is taken care of (not an HOA), it has to be done by the City; Agreed with Commissioner Tait on drainage, groundwater recharge and water cleansing; a minimum of 150 -foot buffer, plus borders on both sides (to be 37 feet of fire retardant plants) designed by a professional; mitigation by City arborist is not an acceptable mitigation; ownership and maintenance of the buffer should be agreed upon (not a HOA), City should take care of it. • Agreed with Commissioner Tait on drainage; hydrology and water quality: discharge needs to be dealt with; the two 6 foot pipe system would be obsolete before it was built; suggested vegetative basin for water filtration. Brown: • Aesthetics: not pleasing because of the proposed wall and gate on the historical residence; this needs to be mitigated. • Ag Resources: Prime Soils, General Plan, Ag 1 -4, City Council must address this issue; this parcel has been zoned residential for many years, but the City Council may have to make overriding considerations for the loss of prime soils; the secondary access for subarea 2 over possible ag land needs to be addressed; buffer: there is sufficient information in the applicant's buffer study and the Ag. Commissioner's Office (so a full CEQA review would not be necessary) to require a buffer of 130 -feet, property line to property line. • Geology and Soils: This project does involve the 100 -year flood zone so the drainage and soil needs to be dealt with. • Recreation: The General Plan clearly states that a neighborhood plan needs trails and pedestrian bridges - needs to be addressed. • Transportation /Circulation: Secondary access for sub area 2 needs to be addressed; circulation has not been sufficiently addressed. • Hydrology and Water Quality: He agreed with Commissioner Tait's comment. • Newsome Springs drainage issue: the City Council cannot determine what is appropriate without an environmental review; suggested that the City pay for part of the cost to determine the hydrology coming from Newsome Springs and must be done prior to approval of the project. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 PAGE 12 • Land Use: It may be potentially incompatible to surrounding land uses, due to buffer next to ag land — needs to be addressed. • Density also needs to be addressed. • It is not appropriate to rely on future approval of government agencies; issues must be resolved prior to approval of the project. Commissioner Keen suggested that the Commission ask City Council for an interpretation on prime soils for this area before proceeding with a decision on the Negative Declaration because the whole project is hinged on this. Commissioner Brown stated that the General Plan requires an EIR for this issue and the Council can choose not to do this. Ms. Heffernon asked the Commission for consensus before moving on to the Neighborhood Plan. Chair Brown suggested an expanded Initial Study be undertaken. Commissioner Parker stated that an expanded Initial Study would not make much sense as no matter how good it was, an EIR would be required. Commissioner Keen stated that from his past experience EIR's do not solve the problem. When someone has doubts about a project even after completion of an EIR, they still have the same doubts. Commissioner Parker said in addition to the ag issue she has doubts about procedure and other issues; she did not need an interpretation of the General Plan from Council on the prime soils issue; the ag issue may need an amendment to the General Plan. Commissioner Brown agreed with Commissioner Parker. Chair Brown said he did not want to send the recommended environmental determination to Council before dealing with the other project issues. Commissioner Parker agreed. John Knight said his clients were not prepared to do an EIR; he would like the Commission to deny the negative declaration and this would allow them to appeal to City Council. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, to recommend that a full EIR be done on the project and request that it not go forward to City Council until the Commission has dealt with the drainage, prime soils, agricultural resources, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and the neighborhood plan. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 AYES: Commissioners Parker, Fellows, Brown and Tait NOES: Keen ABSENT: None Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, to continue discussion of the project to a special meeting on Tuesday, March 29, 2005. The motion was approved on a 5/0 voice vote. IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Chair Brown requested CEQA handbooks for the new Commissioners. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Ms. Heffernon: Brown Brown Bag lunch would be showing a video from the Housing Trust re affordable housing on Thursday, March 17, 2005, from 12 — 1:00 p.m. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR APRIL 5, 2005 MEETING: No discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m. to the special meeting of March 29, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. ATTEST: L REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: g t Attar r •, RO = ' TRONG, COMMUNITY D LOPMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at the meeting of April 19, 2005) PAGE 13 1 1 1