Loading...
PC 10-11-2011 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. October 11,2011 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of October 11,2011 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino,CA.,by Chair Winnie Lee. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Winnie Lee Vice Chairperson: Marty Miller Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Clinton Brownley Commissioner: Don Sun Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Colin Jung Assistant Planner: George Schroeder Assistant Planner: Simon Vuong City Attorney: Valerie Armento APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Minutes of September 27,2011 Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Com. Sun,second by Com.Brownley,and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve the Sept.27,2011 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 2. ASA-2011-17,TR-2011-48 Architectural and Site Approval to amend a prior approval Jeff Oparowswki(Sobrato (ASA-2009-08)to make minor changes to architecture, Organization) parking lot layout and landscaping at an existing shopping Location: SW Corner of center(former PW Market Site); Tree Removal permit to No.DeAnza Boulevard & a prior approval(TR-2010-08) in conjunction with new Homestead Rd minor changes to the parking lot layout and landscaping at Cupertino Planning Commission :i October 10,2011 10340& 10420 Bubb Rd. between 10340 and 10420 Bubb Rd.;Re-Zone approx. 1.8 acres from BQ(Quasi-Public building)to ML-rc (West Valley Light Industrial)located at 10340 Bubb Rd. Municipal Code Amendment to codify and update the West Valley Industrial Park Zoning regulations into the ML(Light Industrial)Zoning Ordinance. Postponed from the September 27, 2011 Planning Commission meeting Tentative City Council date: October 18, 2011 Colin Jung,Senior Planner,presented the staff report: • Reviewed the three-part application for conditional use permit, General Plan land use map amendment, parking exception for shared parking, and Municipal Code Amendment related to the Home of Christ Church, as outlined in the staff report. He reviewed the powerpoint presentation including summaries of the conditional use permit, parking exception, Municipal Code Amendment, environmental analysis, and noticing and public comments. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council a Negative Declaration for the project and approval of the General Plan Amendment, Municipal Code Amendment,zoning,use permit and parking exception per the draft resolutions. Com.Brophy: • Disclosed that about 2 years ago he met with representatives of the church and viewed their facilities before they had a proposal before the Planning Commission. Com.Brownley: • Relative to the General Plan amendment, he summarized his understanding of the different aspects, including proposal to change from quasi-public to industrial/residential/commercial. He stated that it appeared that quasi-public institutional might be the appropriate classification for this type of entity and he asked for clarification on the reason for change; was it just for consistency with the overall area or does it also fit in for some reason; and were there any other examples throughout the city where this type of organization fits in the other General Plan categories. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the goal was to have consistency, and to give the current and future owners flexibility with the ability to use the zoning. They were able to do that with requiring a conditional use permit for the assembly use under that current zoning and were also able to meet both those requirements. There are some situations with assembly uses with mixed use zoning. • Said the buildings presently are built to the ML use, it will allow the resale of this to an ML use or to an assembly use; it keeps flexibility which is what the current owners were seeking. • Defined "sensitive receptors" as sedentary populations or young populations who are not able to take care of themselves in an emergency. • Said they limited those with the original use permit 15 years ago because a number of the industrial uses around it were concerned; it has been extended to the other site as well and is in the ordinance Corn.Brophy: • Said it was not clear whether the buildings on Bubb Road were any longer being used for industrial purposes; as seen with Measurex,the current owner asked to tear down the industrial buildings and replace them with office buildings. Relative to the buildings to the south, if they are to be industrial buildings with hazardous chemicals, he said when driving down McClellan at 8:30 or 9 o'clock he saw dozens of sensitive receptors coming out of the apartment complex across McClellan, and was curious why that is acceptable but having a daycare center is not acceptable. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 October 10, 2011 Jackie Nguyen,Home of Christ Church: • Reviewed the church background which was established 16 years ago. Said they worked out an agreement with neighboring companies to use the church parking spaces during the week and in turn the church uses theirs on the weekend. He noted that the church is very active in the community, including free car washes for the neighborhood, being a voting site for many years, blood drives, helps organize and hold Easter egg hunt at Memorial Park with other churches; and serves neighbors with caring and enrichment programs. The church also offers training seminars for the community and participates in world wide relief efforts. • He asked the Commission for support of the application. Aarti Shrivastava: • Clarified that children attending church with their parents are not considered "sensitive receptors". Chair Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak; the public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Miller: • Said he has visited the church, and was pleased that they were persistent in moving forward to get the approval to be able to expand their facilities. He added that it was clear that the church was a vital part of the Cupertino community. Com.Brophy: • Expressed concern about the continued existence of the ML zone which he felt should not still exist given the real estate prices in Cupertino; and he felt there was no reason why the Bubb Road corridor should be any different that the other office districts in Cupertino. • Said he was bothered by the concept that they need to prohibit things like daycare centers or after school classes; those seem to be cored to a great number of religious institutions and to the extent that they are requiring the restriction as a condition of approval is a concern. • He said it was troubling that this area is heavily crowded with other children and to somehow say children in an after school program who are not with the teachers are "sensitive receptors" but children who are alone in the apartments across the street while their parents work are of no concern in evaluating what sort of chemicals should be kept in the buildings north of McClellan. • Said he would support the application and proposed resolution, but hoped that at some future time they could reopen it and update the ordinance to reflect the realities of Cupertino as it is and not as it was 40 years ago. Com.Brownley: • Echoed Com. Brophy's comments and said he would support everything as written. Said it appeared to be a superb project, but would be ideal if the General Plan and zoning would be consistent with the type of organization and the uses that they would like to go on within that type of zoned property. He said it would be ideal in the future if they could work on getting that to fit properly. In this case it sounds like a great collaboration has gone on between the city and the organization and he looked forward to continuing that relationship. Com. Sun: • Said he supported the project, and felt it was important for this type of organization in the community to bring all the people together. He said it was a responsibility of the Commission to treat each one fairly regarding the law and to ensure that each case applies to everyone. He said he supported the project. Cupertino Planning Commission '7 October 10, 2011 relaxed; he is the only one still carrying the legacy of the 15% overlay, and wants to be treated like the others and follow the same law. • Relative to the potential size, for all three lots more than half of the lots were greater than 30% with greater than 30% slope. As you know you cannot touch those areas; there is no possibility of any building. After the slope easement and setback the new law had a more restrictive setback;the actual size of the potential buildings will be quite limited. • He said he was not seeking a building permit because he did not intend to do anything within a short period of time and will keep the property for 10 to 20 years. He reiterated that for many years they were subject to different regulations and wanted to be subject to equal treatment relative to his property. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Mehmet Taysi,Cupertino resident: • Resides across from Dr. Sun's property on south side of Lindy Lane since 1978. Said he was confused of what the real laws were and why they keep changing each year; at one time Nos. 2 and 8 were good for the community and now they are not good enough. He agreed with Dr. Sun and asked for an explanation of the constant changes. Gary Chao,City Planner: • Explained that originally the Rl ordinance had very few provisions regarding governing properties on hillsides; there was only token mention if you exceed 30%, then you have to go through an exception process. Over the years because there was some development in this area, and some were of concern to some neighbors,that is why the City Council several times has attempted to adjust the rules so it is just right for that area. • Said the initial onset of the first attempt did not completely capture the interest of the property owners in that area as well as the expected outcome of the rules; which is the reason for the more recent change which instead of focusing just on few parcels within the area, the City Council decided if they were going to do this, it should be looked at comprehensively. There are many hillside properties in the Rl throughout the city of Cupertino, not just focusing this area. Recently, the Council attempted to make it a comprehensive effort and standardized some of the rules that are good for all R1 hillside parcels over 20% as it relates to development standards, so that there is more of a consistency and conformity to a way of reviewing; and also property owners applying those rules to their developments. • Said it was a simplified way in looking at the reason for the changes and it is consistent with the applicant's request and now the rules apply to practically all Rl lots with over 20% slope, this being one of them and his adjacent neighbors being the others; why not be consistent with everyone, that is the intent of the recent change. That is why the applicant is asking for consistency. • The rules originally imposed on the property took place when there was no uniform way of applying standards that didn't exist which is the reason why the Council came up with those things at the time, thinking it was reasonable. Now they have implemented the rules, the baseline rules should apply. Candan Taysi,Cupertino resident: • Said they had seen all the changes that have occurred and had been to the Commission many times; in 2005 they put an earnest effort forward with the neighbors and thought some rules were set. They thought at the time Dr. Sun had promised and it was approved that he could build a house on No. 1 lot with the provision that it would not exceed 3,000 square feet. They agreed and peace was made; but three years later they received a letter with another change. She asked when the changes would stop. • She said at one time the area was a beautiful area, but big homes have been permitted; and the area is not conducive to big homes. Said she did not understand how many more times they Cupertino Planning Commission 9 October 10,2011 Gary Chao: • Said if 2,500 cubic yards is exceeded, it needs Planning Commission review. If the FAR is over 35% it requires staff level review; if combined, both would go to the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Miller: • Said the point of the application is to make their property consistent with how all the others are treated. In terms of some of the concerns of neighbors about the potential size of the house, it looks like there is enough regulation in place that if there was going to be a large house it would have to come for further review and in a public hearing. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they recently went through a policy review of sloped lots and believe that is what the Planning Commission and City Council intended for those properties. Com.Brownley: • Echoed Vice Chair Miller's final comments and said there were important considerations brought up in the meeting today and they will be important for a different phase of the discussion. The purpose of today's discussion is to talk about building designations and to make those designations consistent throughout like properties as requested by City Council. Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve Application M-2011-015 to recommend modification of development restrictions to reflect current R1 zoning development standards. 5. ASA-2011-15,M-2011-07 Architectural and Site Approval for parking lot, lighting Cindy Cheng(Cupertino and landscaping improvements at an existing Investment Partners) commercial property; Modification of a previously 19875/19885 Stevens Creek approved Use Permit(U-2009-09)to allow changes Boulevard. to the site and development plans. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed George Schroeder,Assistant Planner,presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for parking lot modification proposal for the CORT Furniture and Kiddie Academy site on Stevens Creek Boulevard as outlined in the staff report. In June 2010 City Council approved a use permit to allow Kiddie Academy to operate the daycare facility in the existing building. The use permit also included rear parking lot improvements, including installation of a new outdoor play area,two rear reciprocal driveway access easements onto the adjacent office properties, an extension of the rear sound wall and landscaping, lighting and rash enclosure improvements. Kiddie Academy is now in full operation. • The applicant is requesting modifications to the rear parking lot to accommodate the future CORT furniture tenants. The modifications are necessary to allow for adequate maneuvering space for the tractor trailer delivery trucks. Also requested are minor modifications to the rear of the building, relocation and replanting of trees, landscaping and lighting standards and a new trash enclosure. • He reviewed parking, circulation, queuing and safety, and noise levels. Other key conditions include a construction management plan being required prior to issuance of building permits; offsetting of construction hours in conjunction with the Kiddie Academy outdoor play area times. Details are outlined in the attached staff report. • Staff recommends approval of the use permit modification and architectural and site approval in accordance with the draft resolutions. • Staff answered questions about lighting,trash enclosure, and parking. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 October 10,2011 • Said he worked on the Heart of the City plan with the City Council and the delineation between properties was a precast concrete wall; as part of the application the Planning Commission granted an exception to put in a cinderblock wall and raise the height to reduce costs;the precast concrete wall would be finished on both sides but the cinderblock wall would not. Because of the savings with the cinderblock wall,the wall could be finished on both sides to be presentable. • Said there was a rear access road behind the building and vehicles are using it. He suggested putting in three speed bumps in different locations to slow down the vehicles. Louise Huganin,Cupertino resident: • Said that the lights are on from 6:50 p.m. to 6:50 a.m., and cast in on the upper portion of the houses along the perimeter,reflecting across the street. She questioned the reason for the lights to remain on all night and asked why the standards had to be so high. She has had no contact with the owner, nor did she contact any of the neighbors about the lighting. She said they would prefer that the lights be turned off at 9 p.m. • She also expressed concern about the trash and litter in the parking lot, the trash will attract vermin; and she did not want the trash up against the neighbors. Jennifer Griffin,Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said the concept of speed bumps is good because it results in constrained access to the property. She expressed concern about the narrow entrance to the left side of the property, and the delivery trucks going down the small alley to deliver furniture in the back parking lot. She said she hoped that the trucks had back up warning lights and signals because of the risk of children in the area; and stated her concern about the loading areas, unloading furniture when parents are bringing children in and out regardless what time of day. She suggested having the trucks come in one entrance and exit out of the other and keep the children ingress and exit in one area. She also stressed the need to make sure that the playground wall is made of concrete. • She wished the new retailers success and said it was good for Cupertino to have more active businesses. Steve Scharf,Cupertino resident: • Relative to the new road in the back, suggested doing something similar to what was done in the shopping center on DeAnza Boulevard where Lucky store is; fencing it off so the trucks or cars cannot go in and out at night. Given that, there would be no reason to have the lights on for 12 hours. • Said he felt it was premature to approve the project until the applicant can correct all the deficiencies from the previous approval, given the applicant's history of violating the requirements such as lighting, shielding, etc. and what they did with the wall. Erik Schoennauer: • Said there are no intentional deficiencies; if for some reason the lighting fixtures were installed in a manner not consistent with the approved plan or the policy,they will rectify that. Said the photo metric lighting plan in the set has been studied and the proposed lighting plan is consistent with the lighting policy of the city and they are obligated to implement it when moving to construction. • Relative to the wall, the neighbor recalled that when it was discussed over a year ago, the Planning Commission and City Council conceded the fact that there was a pre-existing wall and to require tear down of the wall and building a brand new wall was an unreasonable burden, nor is it green to tear out an existing wall. It was decided that a masonry wall was an appropriate approach and they could build up the wall. • With regard to the trash enclosure, it can be moved to the other side if preferred; that discussion occurred a year and a half ago and they were balancing those competing demands. Cupertino Planning Commission l.3 October 10,2011 George Schroeder: • Relative to the conditions about the retaining wall, he stated that it was not specified both sides, but the fmal design is subject to Planning's approval. As Gary Chao previously mentioned, the building permit still has to be finalized; and that can still be implemented at this time. Gary Chao: • Added that in the original condition, the intent of the wall was for noise screening, but also visual screening; and that they would expect that the wall be finished on both sides; the wall itself shouldn't be a visual deterrent. Tom Huganin: • Said that if a condition was implemented that both sides should be fmished, he was certain they could arrange for the neighbors to provide access if they are interested in having their side of the wall finished to spec. Valerie Armento,City Attorney: • Commented that some of the neighbors might not want people to enter their property to do work; there can be a condition that says it is the expectation that the property owner will work with the neighbors and offer to upgrade the wall, but ultimately if a private property owner does not want someone to come on their property and do something to the wall,they cannot be forced to do that. Erik Schoennauer: • Stated for the record that they were willing to fmish the residential side of the wall identical to the commercial side of the wall to the extent the property owner wants them to and is willing to provide access. He clarified that they built the wall consistent with condition of approval but understood the point made and were willing to rectify that and finish the residential side as the owners requested. Com.Brophy: • Said he felt the four issues discussed by Toni Huganin were issues that need to be considered; the lighting violates both the ordinance and the terms of conditions and needs to be rectified in terms of flooding onto the adjoining residential properties. • Unfinished wall has already been discussed. • Said he would prefer to have staff handle the issues related to the location of the trash area; since the dumpster is being used for non-foods the matter is less pressing.It is a technical issue to design parking lots so that the trucks can get in safely. • Relative to speeding on the access road, as the applicant's representative pointed out, the city designed the access road and if something needs to be done, the city traffic engineer should look at it and identify solutions. He said he did not feel that particular problem was caused by this applicant or by the application being considered. Vice Chair Miller: • Added that the other item of concern was the number of hours the lights should be on, or the time they should be turned off. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said there is a security requirement for a certain level; staff will see if it can be reduced to the minimum level required and make sure there are cutoffs. The idea is to have lighting in the back parking lots so one can see what is going on in the back area and especially for patrol cars driving around the area to have clear vision of the area. Cupertino Planning Commission 15 October 10,2011 George Schroeder: • Kiddie Academy has a sign out front on the entrance on Stevens Creek; there is a sign that says parking in the back; there is also some reserved parking spots by the playground for pick up and drop of children. Com.Brownley: • Suggested a recommendation to staff to consider either a "keep slow speed" or "watch for children" sign, close to Kiddie Academy in the back because people will be driving around back. Also possibly consider whether mirrors around that corner would be helpful or not. Valerie Armento, City Attorney: • Suggested it would be best to have a generic condition stating that the applicant would work with both Planning and Engineering staff to develop an appropriate signage and/or mirror type plan and leave it to the experts to figure it out. Chair Lee: • Asked if it was agreeable to the rest of the Commission to have staff work with the applicant to review any needed signs and mirrors to increase safety. Com. Sun: • Said he would support a condition relating to the lighting and the wall,but refer the possibility of using mirrors and speed bumps to the traffic engineer and city staff for their decision. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, to recommend approval of Application M-2011-07, ASA-2011-16,per the model resolution with the following additions: • current lighting violations will be rectified; • staff will work with applicant in reviewing location for trash enclosure with the possible consideration of moving it to the other side to the edge of the property; • the applicant will finish the wall on the residents' side with the expectation that the owners of those residences will permit that to be accomplished; • staff and the applicant will work in terms of slowing traffic down either inserting another speed bump and/or adding appropriate signage; • staff will also consider whether a mirror is appropriate or not to back the trucks up to the loading dock; • staff will look at addition of llarger signs or additional signs at the Kiddie Academy. Chair Lee proposed a friendly amendment,accepted by Vice Chair Miller: • Page 316, staff to work with the property landlord to ensure that Kiddie Academy patrons use the rear lot for dedicated pick up and drop off of children; and staff to work with applicant to ensure that there is signage indicating Exit Only and Do Not Enter, that it is placed at the exit of the front parking aisle onto Stevens Creek Boulevard. Motion was seconded by Chair Lee,and unanimously carried 5-0-0. Chair Lee declared a recess. Cupertino Planning Commission :.7 October 10, 2011 lease is for because it is a significant part of the property;, and will it be another deciding factor in 2014 or when the three year extension is up. Com.Brophy: • Relative to Jennifer Griffin's comments, Kimco said back in 2008 that the lease with the grocery store placed restrictions on how they could develop the property; all leases are separate in the property, but because it is such a large lease they had some control over how the property could or could not be developed. Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to a three year extension, she said the applicant must pull a building permit and start building within three years. After the building permit is pulled, how much time to completion depends on the building permit; there are some requirements of the building permit phase; once they go into that the building code has its own rules; typically it is valid for six months without activity. Vice Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com.Brophy: • Said in general he supported approval of extensions for projects that have been analyzed and soundly approved; however, in the subject: application he will vote against extending the project because of the facts specific to this case. He said the project was approved the meeting before he joined the Planning Commission, and he did not have a chance to speak about it the first time. He said the case of the parking problem at the Kimco Center Cupertino Village is obvious to anybody who goes to lunch there on any weekend. • He said he felt the traffic study used to approve the project was defective; their assumption was that because there were 691 occupied spaces when the traffic consultant visited this site, the demand must be equal to 691. The reason why they didn't say there was a shortage was because there weren't cars trying to get into the mall that were sprawling all over Wolfe Road and Homestead. As recently as 12:30 this Sunday, he said he could not find a parking space other than handicapped spot, and his opinion is that there is clearly a shortage. • The proposed plan for approving this project would make it even more dense, and city staff recognizes this in Paragraph 72 where it states "physical measures to solve the parking problem shall include but not be limited to valet parking and other dense types of parking measures". He said he did not feel that was the type of parking that the people of Cupertino want and he was concerned about the tenants at the mall who are virtually all sole proprietors putting their livelihoods at risk in the event the center is not successful. In addition Apple is coming in with 9,000 to 12,000 employees across the street and to simply say that it will be considered when looking at the Apple building rather than asking the obvious question how will Apple affect this project; that he believes the appropriate solution is to have this project start over again,rather than approving what he believes to be a flawed plan. Com.Brownley: • Said he understood that part of the upgrades to the project was a new parking structure that would address some of the parking concerns for future visitors to the site. Com.Brophy: • Said when doing the Crossroads, staff provided a parking study for some previously approved centers, one of them being Kimco. He said the study does not reflect that the Methodist Church has a legal right to use the center for parking themselves. There is no cap allowance for that; and at lunch on Sundays it is a fairly large demand. • By the traffic consultant's own estimate using ULI studies the restaurant should be allowed 15 to 20 spaces per 1,000; so for the proposed expansion he proposes that the restaurants be given Cupertino Planning Commission 19 October 10, 2011 Aarti Shrivastava: • Summarized the options before the Commission; either approve the modification or recommend denial at which point it would go to City Council; or chose to continue it there is a need for more information. Staff is not planning to re-look at the application,but bring it in as an extension because they could apply for another permit. Valerie Armento,City Attorney: • Said that the Commission could not reopen the application, but vote on the application being discussed; either present a motion to extend it or make a motion to deny extension. Said there was nothing to be gained from a continuation; there is nothing to be researched; staff has answered questions about now vs.three years from now. Com.Brophy: • Clarified that the number quoted from the parking study was for the existing amount of square footage, not the expanded size. Valerie Armento,City Attorney: • Explained that it was two different issues; if the Commission makes a motion to not extend and it is denied, it is up to the company to reapply, or re-evaluate; but it is not reopening the matter on the Commissions' motion. What: is being said is the Commission would like to continue this and have staff come back with more information on the parking and re-analyze that; and that is really re-opening the item on the Commission's motion, not on the application of the applicant. The Commission is making a recommendation to City Council Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Vice Chair Miller, motion failed with a vote of 2-2-0, (Corns. Brownley and Miller voted Yes; Corns. Brophy and Com. Sun voted No) Chair Lee absent; to recommend to City Council to approve M-2011-03,M-2011-04,M-2011-05. Valerie Armento,City Attorney: • Explained that since only four Commissioners were eligible to vote, if the motion fails, the converse of the motion is what the recommendation is to the City Council unless you choose to make another motion with regard to the application which may garner at least 3 votes. Restated that a tie motion does not pass; in this case the motion was to recommend approval to the City Council; with a 2/2 vote it fails; the minutes can go to City Council indicating the motion that was made, the fact that the vote was split and you can stop there. Alternatively if somebody thinks they can make a motion that would get more than 2 votes,you can attempt to make that motion to try and get more than 2 votes. Motion: Motion by Com. Sun, to approve M-2011-03, M-2011-04, M-2011-05, with condition immediately from this year to start of building two story parking garage in the Cupertino Village first,instead of extending application for another three years. Following discussion, the motion died for lack of a second. Valerie Armento,City Attorney: • Interpreted the motion stating that what is being suggested is a one year extension as opposed to a three year extension because the condition is they have to build the garage first. If requiring them to build the garage within the next year, it is giving a one-year extension. Her understanding is that they are saying if they don't build the garage in the next year, then they are out of luck; which is saying you are modifying what they applied for instead of being a three-year extension,to be a one-year extension. Cupertino Planning Commission 21 October 10,2011 • Bicycle Commission: Considering doing an event in association with the Big Bunny Fun Run; will be doing some work on bike safety with the elementary school and high school; looking to define bike routes for Blackberry Farm bridge. • Public Safety Commission: request if anybody has an incident/accident to report it to sheriff; looking at alternatives for Alert SEC program which sends phone calls to homes for emergencies; continuing to work on voltage program which is the RFID tags for walking and bicycling students. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: • Written report submitted; no oral report. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled f (October 25, 2011 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabe lis,Recording Secretary Approved as presented: October 25,2011