Loading...
PC 09-26-94 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPrEMBER 26, 1994 ORDER OF BUSINESS: SALUTE TO THE FIAG ROLL CALL commissioners Present: Chr. Mahoney Com. Doyle Com. Harris Com. Austin Com. Roberts staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, city Planner Colin Jung, Associate Planner Michele Bjurman, Planner II Thomas Robillard, Planner II APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chr. Mahoney corrected the minutes of September 12, 1994, as follows: Page 18, last sentence should read "Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of September 26, 1994." MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of september 12, 1994, as amended Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 Com. Roberts SECOND: VOTE: ABSTAIN: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None POSTPONEMENTSjREMOVAL FROM CALENDAR - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 13-ASA-94 Foodmaker, Inc. (Jack In The Box) Dr. Albert Tung 145l Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road ASA application to change exterior colors, architectural features and to allow exposed neon in accordance with Chapter 17.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .- september 26, 1994 Page 2 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Consent Calendar Com. Roberts Passed 5-0 Request to move item 6 to be heard before item 2. NEW BUSINESS 6. Housing Action Coalition Presentation Ms . Marcy background Coalition. Fine, Greenbelt Alliance, Housing Coalition, gave information on the Greenbelt Alliance and the Housing Mr. Peter Jung, Downey savings, spoke in support of affordable housing. Ms. Fine and Mr. Jung presented a brochure titled "Dispelling the Myths of Affordable Housing" and reviewed the information contained in this brochure. Ms. Fine thanked the commission for their work on affordable housing and their time. In response to Com. Roberts' question regarding the impact on schools, Ms. Fine stated that cities have mitigation factors to deal with this. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 8-lJ-94, 6-TM-94 and 22-EA-94 citation Homes Central Same Southeast corner of De Anza Blvd. and Homestead Rd. lJSE PERMIT for a planned detached single-family development consisting of 79 homes. TENTATIVE MAP to resubdivide an existing 115 lot, 7 acre parcel into 79 lots. Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report dated September 26, 1994. She noted this application was continued in order for staff and the applicant to resolve some issues brought up at the last meeting. Regarding the General Plan density, Planner Bjurman noted the applicant's proposal is to widen the lots, therefore reducing the number of lots by 31 which will be transferred to the Western portion of the site. She noted the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES september 26, 1994 Page 3 applicant hired an architect who provided staff with drawings of the high density project. She presented a land plan which proves the density can be met. Ms. Bjurman reviewed condition #4, General Plan Consistency, as outlined in the staff report. She noted staff believes that this is an adequate condition to ensure the high density project will occur. Planner Bjurman addressed the letter from the Portofino Homeowners dated September 20, 1994 and noted the major issues have been resolved and will be included in the resolution. She noted two issues which have not been resolved are guest parking and roof design. Regarding Guest Parking, Planner Bjurman outlined the original parking proposed and noted the Portofino Homeowners would like the parking moved from Lombardi up to San Marino. She noted staff does not recommend this as it creates a skew in the roadway where Lombardi crosses Palamos. Regarding modifications to the rear elevation roof design, staff is recommending no changes because the color scheme and detail used is adequate. She noted staff recommends granting a Negative Declaration and approval of the resolution. In response to Commissioners questions, Planner Bjurman stated the previously proposed teal color has been eliminated and the materials presented are compatible with the existing development. She also showed drawings outlining the new rear elevations. Auulicant Presentation: Mr. Jim Sullivan, 404 Saratoga Ave., Santa Clara, representing citation Homes, noted prior to submitting this application he had meetings with Northpoint Homeowners Association to discuss the plans. He noted his feeling was that they were satisfied with the plans. He stated he also had meetings with Portofino Homeowners, but a few differences still remain as addressed by staff. Mr. Sullivan explained the new detail proposed for the rear elevations, noting foam core will be used and covered with stucco to break up the elevation. Regarding the moving of the guest parking, Mr. Sullivan stated the issue with the Portofino Homeowners is the location of the parking. He requested that these not be moved and supports staff's recommendation. He noted citation Homes concur with staff regarding Condition #4. Mr. Steve Schott, Land Development Manager, addressed item 2 in the memo from Jim Sullivan dated September 15, 1994. He stated one of the major differences between multi-family project and the single- family project is that they are designing the multi-family from scratch. He stated it will take sometime to come up with a product that will be well received in the market place. He believes it will be a year before they can bring plans on the multi-family PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 1994 Page 4 project to the city. He stated they want to design the multi- family project, but don't want to rush into this. Mr. Schott addressed Condition #4 regarding General Plan Consistency and noted they concur with this condition. In response to Commissioners' questions, Mr. Sullivan stated the courtyard fences are stucco and the Mediterranean veneer is found on the columns next to the garage and columns leading into the house. He also noted the roof color proposed matches the existing homes. Ms. Judy Ash, Portofino Homeowners Association, addressed her letter dated September 20, 1994 and noted numbers 7, 8 and 9 have been incorporated into the conditions as agreed upon by citation. Ms. Ash addressed the open items outlined in her letter to citation that Portofino Homeowners and citation have not come to an agreement on. Ms. Ash requested a condition of approval that ci tation provide a more thorough investigation and feasibility study regarding the parking proposal by the Homeowners. Ms. Ash addressed grading in the common area, stating there are two choices: one, that citation stay with the proposed plan, put up a retaining wall and add additional drainage. The second option is to grade the area and make it more level. She noted Portofino Homeowners requests that citation provide a response regarding action to be taken. She also noted that Portofino Homeowners Association request that rear roofing alterntives be investigated. In response to Commissioners' questions, Ms. Ash stated they would like the rear elevations consistent throughout the development. She noted the homeowners would like this development to move forward and that the teal color is on the railings of the existing homes. Com. Doyle clarified with Ms. Ash that the issues are, location of parking, grading plan and the rear elevations. Planner Bjurman pointed out that the models have flush wall plains with the difference being in the shape of the windows. Chr. Mahoney closed the public hearing. Com. Harris questioned the reciprocal parking agreement with the existing homes? Planner Bjurman stated the condition is structured to jointly share the guest parking. She noted the mUlti-family project must provide adequate parking. Com. Harris questioned the retaining wall, as addressed by Ms. Ash. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 1994 Page 5 Planner Bjurman stated the difference in elevation between the existing and proposed project is between 2 and 5 feet. She pointed out that the residents of units 76 to 84 have a view of the common area from the second story only. Planner Bjurman addressed the drainage as brought up by Ms. Ash and noted that once the development is complete, staff do a walk- through and it is at this point that any problems with drainage will be addressed. She noted problems will be identified before final permits are issued. She noted Public Works will decide what is best for the drainage and Mariani Development will have to correct this. Regarding the hours of construction, Planner Bjurman stated a condi tion was not created because the municipal code addresses this. with regards to the CC&R condition regarding guest parking only in driveways, staff has created a condition that parking not be restricted. She noted the condition will not affect the existing structures. Com. Harris stated she agrees with staff regarding the roof line and noted it is not necessary because of the different window trim. She spoke in support of the guest parking as proposed by staff, leaving it on Lombardi. She stated staff has dealt with 7, 8 and 9, as addressed in the letter from Portofino Homeowners Association, and believes 9 should not be made as a condition. She stated she is sorry that the brick, stone and teal were removed from the original plans, but spoke in support of staff's recommendation regarding the project. She also spoke in support of condition #4 regarding General Plan Consistency. Com. Roberts stated the concept of the development is a good one and would support the project as recommended by staff. He spoke in support of incorporating numbers 7, 8 and 9 from the homeowners letter into the conditions. He stated parking should remain as is, but expressed concern about the repetitious roof lines and would support looking at other options without major structural change. Com. Doyle stated a good compromise has been made between Portofino Homeowners Association and Citation. He spoke in support of the parking as recommended by staff. He would support some change in roof lines on lots 76 through 84, but would not hold up this development. He also spoke in support of condition 4. Com. Austin spoke in support of the parking as recommended by staff and some variation in the rear elevation. She also spoke in support of condition #4 as recommended by staff. Com. Austin stated she would also concur with Com. Roberts regarding the roof line change on units 76 through 84. She spoke in support of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 1994 Page 6 project overall. Planner Bjurman stated any change in the roof line is a structural change and there could be changes made to the facia of the building to meet the goals. She noted staff is concerned about structural changes. Chr. Mahoney spoke in support of condition 4 and the parking as recommended by staff. He stated he would support no structural changes to the roof lines, but would support further detailing. Mr. Chun Pong Ng, Architect, stated more detail can be added to the roof line without making structural changes. He pointed out that the proposed homes are lower than the Portofino homes and will not be seen as well as the Portofino homes. Com. Roberts spoke in support of leaving the design as is and leave the detail up to staff. Com. Harris stated the main issue is the homes facing the common area and would suggest that the applicant work this out with staff. Planner Bjurman addressed the units facing the Northpoint homes with regards to the rear elevations of the proposed homes. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to recommend granting a Negative Declaration Com. Doyle Passed 5-0 Com. Harris moved to approve 8-U-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the additional condition to possibly add more variation on the rear elevation in conjunction with staff and the architect on units 76 through 84. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0 Com. Austin findings and Com. Harris Passed moved to approve 6-TM-94 subject to the subconclusions of the hearing. 5-0 3. Application No(s): Applicant: Location: 81,165 and 23-EA-94 City of Cupertino Citywide Amending various sections of Chapter 19.56, General Commercial Zones, of Cupertino Municipal Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 1994 Page 7 staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff report and noted the purpose of the amendment of the General Commercial Zoning District is for streamlining and clarification. He stated the commissioners do not have to make any decisions at this hearing, but he would like comments. Mr. Cowan stated he had a brief session with Mr. John stratton, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Cowan reviewed section 19.56.030 Permi tted Uses. He noted if the use meets the performance standards they should be allowed. He presented a matrix "Rationale for elimination of lJse Permit Control for Various Land Use Activities", and reviewed this as outlined in the staff report. Com. Harris addressed section 19.56.030 (b), and asked will staff consider mixed-use? Mr. Cowan stated most of the activity will occur in a PD zone so regulations can be tailored for that particular zone. He stated conditional use permits would be required for convenience markets. Mr. Cowan reviewed the definition of speciality food stores. Regarding "Examples of Permitted lJses" (B), Com. Harris suggested greater than 10 percent as addressed in this section. Mr. Cowan stated the lO% relates to conventional office type activity. Com. Harris addressed businesses which display merchandise in an unenclosed space. Mr. Cowan stated a pottery shop would be a good example of this or a nursery. He stated the city does not control kiosks. He noted the Commission should also discuss control over the amount of merchandise being displayed. Com. Roberts stated it is a good idea to streamline the ordinance and make it more flexible. He stated the idea of a performance based standard is good. He asked if it is difficult to stipulate the performance standards in a way that neighboring residents feel it protects their interest. He addressed the matrix as reviewed by Mr. Cowan earlier, and noted some of the controversies relate to noise and air quality which are hard to measure. Planning Director Cowan stated dry cleaners are regulated by the Regional Air Quality Board to determine if the chemicals used are hazardous. He stated if it meets both the Air Quality regulations and the Fire District's regulations, the question is why does the city need to look at this issue? with regards to noise, Mr. Cowan stated there may be a need to augment the current noise ordinance. He reviewed the noise standards as outlined in section 19.56.060. He noted noise is difficult to control, so regulations need to be built into the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES september 26, 1994 Page 8 Com. Roberts stated in order to deal with noise they need to address design standards. Mr. Cowan stated the noise standard section in the report deals with this. He noted there may be a way to have design standards for noise that would enable an applicant to go forward without the requirement of a lJse Permit. Com. Doyle stated he agrees that there should be some way of measuring noise. He asked if other communi ties are using this approach? He also addressed the nuisance factors. Mr. Cowan stated staff could do a survey with the Santa Clara County cities. Regarding the nuisance factors, Mr. Cowan stated these are issues that are repeated when activities are proposed. Mr. Cowan stated if a person meets the performance standards they may receive a permit and proceed, if they don't meet the standards they must apply for a conditional use permit. Com. Austin stated that security should be addressed. asked about dust and toxics and how these are measured. stated there are a number of public agencies that deal She also Mr. Cowan with this. Com. Austin addressed the letter from the Chamber and asked will they be involved? Mr. Cowan stated he will meet with the Executive Board. Chr. Mahoney stated this is a step in the right direction, but some standards may be hard to implement. Com. Harris suggested not changing all zoning districts at this time until they see if this works. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue this item to October 24, 1994. Com. Roberts Passed 5-0 MOTION: 4. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 81,163 and 24-EA-94 city of Cupertino Various citywide Amendment to Title 19, Zoning, of the Cupertino Municipal Code requiring adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. staff Presentation: Associate Planner Jung presented the staff report noting this ordinance was a result of a recently adopted state law. He noted staff has proposed a local ordinance that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 1994 Page 9 basically contains the state requirements as well as other provisions addressing local concerns. He noted the city format consists of two parts: 1) An ordinance that requires a recycling area for certain type of development projects; and 2) design guidelines that help determine the design, construction, location and accessibility of recycling areas. Mr. Jung reviewed the main features of the recycling ordinance as listed in the staff report. Associate Planner Jung reviewed the design guidelines: 1. Recycling areas compatible with nearby structures. 2. Recycling areas shall not conflict with regulations related to the fire building access, transportation or safety. 3. Recycling areas should be sufficient in capacity, the number and distribution within a development project to adequately serve the recycling and trash needs. 4. Look at minimum interior space requirements for trash and recycling enclosures. Mr. Jung presented and reviewed Table A "Minimum Interior space Requirements for Recycling and Trash Enclosures" as outlined in the staff report. He stated staff recommends a Negative Declaration and approval of the ordinance and design guidelines. Corn. Doyle asked about flexibility in the minimum interior space and in the ordinance. Mr. Jung stated state law does not specify dimensions for the enclosure itself, but staff proposed the dimensions in this ordinance. He stated in talking to other agencies regarding dimensions, they found it helpful to specify the dimensions. Mr. Jung reviewed the variables which are involved in the specific size and noted Table A requires the minimum. He noted the design guidelines will address the screening of the enclosures. In response to Corn. Roberts' question, Mr. Jung stated this is a performance based standard. He also noted the minimum interior space required was worked out in conjunction with Los Altos Garbage. He noted this ordinance applies specifically to private recycling areas for a particular business or group of businesses in a development project. He stated it also applies to commercial establishments, and existing operations are grandfathered in. Corn. Roberts stated that protection against Non-Point Source Pollution has not been addressed. ci ty Planner Wordell stated staff is working through non-point source pollution requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, one of which requires that trash enclosures have a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES september 26, 1994 Page 10 roof. She noted they are working on how to implement these regulations. Com. Roberts expressed concern about liquids being poured down drains. Mr. Jung stated all containers used will have lids. Com. Harris addressed Table A and noted this is very specific, and only based on what is used today. She suggested the table be broader. She asked had any consideration been given to the types of items which should be recycled? Mr. Jung stated recycling technology is constantly changing and it depends on what the market demands. He noted for Commercial and other non-residential areas there is not the same range of options that single family homes have. He pointed out that recycling is a volunteer effort with certain economic incentives. He noted some major companies in town are involved heavily in recycling. Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing. Mr. Michael Bruner, ll44 Debryshire Dr., stated recycling areas should be required, but the minimum interior space requirement should be eliminated. He noted people should also be able to see the recycling bins so they will use them. Chr. Mahoney closed the public hearing. Com. Austin spoke in favor of the ordinance as proposed by staff. Com. Doyle spoke in favor of the ordinance, but expressed concern about the minimum interior space requirements. Associate Planner Jung stated the minimum space requirements are built on a specific model. City Planner Wordell stated the minimum space requirements can be guidelines. Associate Planner Jung concurred. Com. Doyle spoke in support of more flexibility. Com. Roberts also spoke in support of more flexibility and to work towards a performance standard. Chr. Mahoney suggested saying "adequate space" in Table A. Mr. Jung stated the ordinance does address this. Com. Roberts suggested modifying (H) of resolution. This represents an approach to space requirements for a combination of section I, in the satisfy the interior recycling and trash PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 1994 Page 11 enclosure, but the applicant may demonstrate that an alternative scheme may serve the purpose as well. Com. Harris addressed section 1 (F) in the resolution and would like the word "directional" inserted before "sign". She also suggested eliminating section (a) under section I Findings. She stated she is uncomfortable with this. She also believes that Table A is too prescriptive and the minimum interior space requirements should be guidelines only. Chr. Mahoney stated that Table A should be guidelines as it is too prescriptive. He stated he is concerned about anything in the ordinance which is designed around Los Altos Garbage, because the City may change garbage companies in the future. There was a consensus of the Commission that Table A should be guidelines. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to recommend approving a Negative Declaration Com. Austin Passed 5-0 Com. Roberts moved to approve 81,163 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: 1) omit (a) in section I Findings; 2) section I: Guidelines for all development projects, add the word "Directional" before "sign"; 3) section I, (H) to read "Table A presents an example for satisfying the interior space requirements for a combination recycling and trash area enclosure. The applicant may propose alternative solutions based on the circumstances of the project."; 4) Table A, wording changes to be guidelines and recommendations. Com. Austin Passed 5-0 OLD BUSINESS 5. Report to city Council: Application NO(S): Applicant: Location: 81,l56 and 9-EA-94 City of Cupertino Citywide Amending various sections of Chapter 19.40, Residential Hillside Zones, of the cupertino Municipal Code, including regulations for flat yard area, second story off-sets and house size. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 1994 Page 12 Application No(s): Applicant: Location: l-Z-94 and 2-EA-94 city of Cupertino Citywide REZONING various hillside properties encompassing 185 net acres in the Regnart Canyon Area. Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report noting that after the Planning commission made their recommendations to the City Council regarding the above applications there was concern expressed about the keeping of animals. He stated after the Council heard testimony they directed the residents to meet and propose regulations for the keeping of animals and to look at the house size requirements. Planner Robillard stated there are four issues: 1) Keeping of animals; 2) Commercial agricultural uses; 3) House size; and 4) Second story off-sets. 1) Keeping of animals It was the Regnart Canyon Delegates proposal to have four horses for the first acre and two horses for each additional acre after that. Planner Robillard reviewed Exhibit A in the staff report outlining the number of large animals allowed in Regnart Canyon. He stated Jeffery Rodrigues, Evergreen Resource Conservation District, confirmed that allowing too many large animals in the hillside areas may cause environmental problems such as erosion and degrade surface water quality. staff recommends that the RHS ordinance stay as is with regards to the keeping of large animals. Planner Robillard stated with regards to the keeping of dogs, the Regnart Canyon Delegates proposed 2 dogs for the first acre and 1 additional dog for each acre after that and staff concur. 2) Commercial agricultural uses This is a conditionally permitted use and staff recommends that it remains to guard against over commercialization of a residential area. He stated a conditional use permit would be required for a kennel, tree farm, etc. 3) House size based on the lot size and slope - The Regnart Canyon Delegates liked the sliding scale developed previously, but have concerns about the house size cap and the slope adjustment formula. They felt both should be eliminated. Staff had previously recommended against the slope adjustment formula due to increased burden on property owners to determine what size of house property owners can build. Planner Robillard addressed Exhibit C in the staff report noting this formula creates a curve which would requiire a person with a large lot to have a smaller house than a person with a smaller lot. He noted it was Com. Roberts suggestion PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 1994 Page 13 to develop a linear approach in order to eliminate the curve. 4) Second story off-sets - Staff recommended previously, and the planning commission concurred, that 75% of the downhill second story setback be off-set 10ft. from the first story wall plain. The Regnart Canyon Delegates proposed 50%, staff feels it is important to maintain 75% in order to uphold the General Plan policies regarding reducing bulk and mass and stepping houses up the hillside. Corn. Roberts questioned the number of horses and dogs allowed? Planner Robillard stated the existing RHS Ordinace allows one horse for the first 40,000 sq. ft. and one additional horse for each additional 20,000 sq. ft. Mr. Mike Bruner, 1144 Derbeyshire, stated he does not believe that a cap of 5,000 sq. ft. is appropriate for house size as it is more of a design issue. He noted the 6500 sq. ft. cap which was previously in the ordinance was more acceptable. Planner Robillard outlined the number of household pets allowed in the RHS ordinance, as outlined in the staff report. Corn. Harris spoke in support of the Saratoga Model for the keeping of horses and would agree that the number of dogs allowed should not be increased. She stated she supports the original wording regarding household pets and also spoke in support of the conditionally permitted agricultural use. Corn. Harris spoke in support of the new proposed slope formula. She stated a cap of 5,000 sq. ft. is acceptable, but if a property owner has 5 acres or more, 6500 sq. ft. house would be acceptable. Com. Roberts spoke in support of the 5,000 sq. ft. house size cap as well as the new slope formula proposed. He also spoke in favor of the Saratoga Model for the keeping of horses, but expressed concern about the number of pets allowed. He stated that there should be a cap on the number of dogs or cats as they can have an adverse impact on wildlife. Corn. Doyle spoke in support of the Saratoga Model and the number of household pets should be kept to a maximum of four per household. He suggested adopting the Rl guidelines into the RHS Ordinance. He stated he is opposed to the 5,000 sq. ft. cap on house size and believes it is a design issue but favored of the 6500 sq. ft. cap. He noted the second story off-set, as proposed by staff, is acceptable. Corn. Austin spoke in support of the conditionally permitted agricultural use and the slope chart proposed. She noted no more PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES september 26, 1994 Page 14 than 93 horses should to a maximum of four. cap for house size. be allowed and household pets should be kept She also spoke in support of a 5000 sq. ft. Chr. Mahoney spoke in support of the Saratoga Model for keeping large animals, and the requirement for four household pets is acceptable. He also spoke in support of the second story off-sets, as proposed by staff and the conditionally permitted agricultural use. Chr. Mahoney also spoke in favor of the 6500 sq. ft. cap on house size. The commission discussed the cap on house size and the slope chart proposed by staff. There was a 4-1 vote (Doyle No) that at one acre there should be a cap of 5,000 sq. ft. on house size. Mr. Cowan stated the Planning commission's recommendation to the ci ty Council was to have a two factor formula: 1) size of property; and 2) slope steepness. He stated it IS staff's recommendation to avoid the slope steepness angle, because it adds more complexity to the issue. Com. Roberts and Com. Austin spoke in favor of the 5,000 sq. ft. cap for all homes in the hillsides. Coms. Harris, Mahoney and Doyle stated they would like more information on a cap of 5,000 sq. ft. for properties which are 1 acre and a 6500 sq. ft. cap on lots over 5 acres. SECOND: VOTE: NOES: Com. Harris moved to continue this item to the October lO, 1994 to receive more information and slope formula issues. Com. Doyle Passed Cams. Austin, Roberts meeting of on the cap MOTION: 3-2 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMuNITY DEVELOPMENT - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None