Loading...
PC Minutes 09-09-2014 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APPROVED/AMENDED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. SEPTEMBER 9,2014 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of September 9, 2014 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Paul Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Margaret Gong Commissioner: Don Sun Commissioner: Alan Takahashi Staff Present: Assistant City Manager: Aarti Shrivastava Asst. Director of Community Development: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Piu Ghosh Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester APPROVAL OF MINiJTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COM1�ZiJNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None STUDY SESSION 1. GPA-2013-01,Z-2013-01 Study Session for the Environmental Impact Report for (EA-2013-03) GPA-2013-02 General Plan Amendments, Housing Element Update MCA-2014-01 and Associate Rezoning City of Cupertino Citywide Location Steve Noack,P1aceWorks,presented the staff report: • Said the purpose of the study session was to present an overview of the key impact conclusions of the EIR to the Commission,public, organizations and other interested agencies. • He provided a project summary of the General Plan Amendment (GPA) overview. The GP is a Cupertino Planning Commission 2 September 9,2014 regulatory document that sets the ground rules for future growth in Cupertino. The city has decided to go through this update process to reallocate and increase city development allocations to consolidate review of individual GPA requests in the future, and inform the Vallco Shopping Center Districts specific and/or master plan the beginning process to help develop that plan. The GP update also addresses recent state law requirements and other GP municipal code cleanup items which are detailed in the EIR. • The GP considers three alternatives: Alternative (Alt) A primarily maintains the policies of the 2005 GP but includes additional allocation for office and hotel. Alt B looks at revising the height standards and densities at key gateways and nodes within the special areas and along major transportation corridors; and it increases the offices and hotel and residential allocations. Alt C which is considered the preferred project in the EIR revises the height standards and densities at the key gateways and nodes within the special areas and along the major transportation corridors. It incorporates property owners' requests at 7 study areas and also increases overall office,hotel and residential allocations at a higher level than Alt B. He illustrated a map of the primary areas where the GPA are considering changes; they are primarily through the key arterials and transportation corridors within the community. • He provided an overview of the Housing Element. The Housing Element is a process of revising the housing element to meet the current ABAG growth allocation numbers. The housing element looks at a wide variety of goals to meet different housing demands for different income levels and is providing equal access to housing opportunities for all. There are a number of potential housing sites that are included in the EIR and they range in Alt A from fairly minimal site changes to moderate changes in Alt B and then the developer proposed maaLimum densities proposed in Alt C. This provides an overview of the regional housing needs allocation and it shows that for Cupertino, the overall goal is 1,064 housing units broken up by very low, low, moderate and above moderate ranges. The potential housing sites studied in the EIR, are primarily along the eastern side of the city and in our range and densities depending on the housing site itself. • Provided an overview of the EIR. The EIR conforms with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which requires that public agencies disclose environmental impacts that have potential for physical impacts on the environment. The EIR looks at effects found not to be significant and identifies significant effects where there are impacts that are identified. The EIR examines ways to mitigate or avoid the impacts; it also discloses any impacts that cannot be mitigated and then the EIR also goes through fairly detailed review of alternatives to the project. CEQA does not dictate project approval or denial, it is a disclosure document and it's the public agency disclosing what the potential impacts are of the project before a determination is made on the project itsel£ The GP EIR looked at a long range 2040 buildout horizon and the GP is a large scale long range planning document; it is the city's blueprint to guide development in the future. The EIR looks at buildout projections of future development and is based on that horizon year 2040. The EIR analyzes growth between 2014 and 2040 and the 2040 horizon is consistent with the planned Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan and the sustainable community strategy. • The EIR shown is a program EIR and it addresses large scale long term projects which include a broad scope of physical development issues. It looks at full buildout and it also allows for subsequent project level environmental review and this allows for projects to tier off as documents so if a project is found to be in conformance, there might be some additional environmental review, some additional mitigation is necessary but projects that are in conformance with this can use the mitigation measures that are here to address any potential impacts down the road. CEQA requires that any identified environmental impacts be avoided, minimized, rectified, reduced, eliminated or compensated and CEQA allows incorporation of mitigation measures in a project to offset impacts looking at goals, policies and strategies as ways to address potential environmental impacts. In this EIR we looked at the full range of environmental issues, all of the potential issues that are listed in Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. The EIR found that certain impacts, there were certain issues there were no impacts on many of them there were less than significant impacts, many of them there were less than Cupertino Planning Commission 3 September 9,2014 significant with the incorporation of future mitigation measures, and then also identified some impacts that were significant and unavoidable and these are impacts that even with mitigation measures they can't be reduced to a less than significant level, or it could be that there is no feasible mitigation that can be identified, and as often as the case with traffic impacts where you are looking at the need to take private property or you are creating intersections that don't facilitate full multi-model usage, meaning bicycle traffic because you are expanding them to such a degree that you are overriding the potential to look at other forms of transportation modes. That can be a determination of feasibility in terms of mitigation measures. Also impacts can be found to be significant and unavoidable because the site itself is in a different jurisdiction and the city does not have control over any mitigation or actions on that site. There were no impacts to agricultural, forestry and mineral resources; the EIR found less than significant impacts on a full range of the environmental topics ranging from aesthetics to cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, population and housing and public services and recreation. The EIR found significant impacts that could be mitigated in the areas of biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials and utilities and service systems; and additional impacts were found that could not be mitigated in the areas of air quality, noise, transportation, and circulation. Noted that most of terminations with regard to air quality and noise have to do with the increase in traffic that would be projected as a result of the plan itself. Said they provided a discussion of each of the potentially significant impacts and then mitigation measures that would help to reduce those to less than significant levels and these mitigation measures would be brought forth at the time specific projects came to bear. • He also reviewed the key findings for cumulative impacts of the development proposed, as outlined in the staff report, including aesthetics, air quality, operational emissions, construction emissions, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population and housing, and transportation and traffic. The EIR was circulated for a 45 day public review period which ended Augustl, 2014; comments from public agencies, members of the public, and most of the comments did not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR; there were more questions about the overall GP process and questions specifically related to the Plan itsel£ Also included in the final EIR were error conection language, edits and clarifications;there were no substantial revisions to the document. Additional late comments were also received that raised no new or unaddressed issues. The public review period has been completed for the Draft EIR; moving forward into the public hearing stage. The EIR is available for review; currently in the September study session with an additional meeting in October 2014 with final adoption scheduled in November 2014. • Said the fourth alternative was the No Project Alternative. Alt A is the environmentally superior alternative that in the EIR concludes that the No Project Alternative would ultimately be the environmentally superior alternative. CEQA requires when the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, the next project alternative would be the one that would be evaluated. The No Project Alternative would have the fewest impacts because it is continuing under the existing GP with the same degree of development allocations. Chair Brophy: • Clarified for the audience if using the term "preferred project" for Alt C, the term "preferred project" does not mean it is the preference of the city government or the City Council, but rather it was the most intensive use that was studied for its impact on the community. It is the project studied in the EIR. Said they were likely looking at a housing element of having to come up with something on the order of 1400 units. The term "mitigation"doesn't mean the problem has been solved; it could easily mean that a horrible situation is now a slightly less horrible situation. 5teve Noack: • Said mitigation is designed to address the specific impact identified in the EIR that could be a smaller change that wouldn't necessarily take away a problem completely, but would address that issue raised under the context of the project. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 September 9,2014 Chair Brophy: • Clarified that they were not suggesting that the improvements suggested would solve the problem, but just make them less onerous. Aarti Shrivastava,Assistant City Manager: • Said they have thresholds of significance that are addressed in every section; if a mitigation brings it below that threshold, so it is no longer an impact, then it is solved and where it is not solved, they are called"significantly unavoidable"and there is a difference. Piu Ghosh,Senior Planner: • Reviewed the deadline for sending the GP to HCD; for purposes of the Housing Element; the deadline is January 31, 2015, with a 120 day grace period; the deadline for final housing element to be adopted is May 31, 2015. There is a 60 day review period that HCD is allowed in order to review the housing elements; in order to ensure there is adequate time, staff will forward the draft to HCD by November. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said if it was determined there were not enough sites, they would receive a letter and have the opportunity to give another appropriate site. Said they will prioritize a list of sites followed by a dialog back and forth from HCD; HCD came last time and toured each site so they were convinced it was a good site; after the 60 days there is still back and forth dialog that needs to happen to convince them that these are sites that meet the criteria, which is the reason they are recommending earlier because the 60 days does not solve the issue, it just begins the conversation. • Relative to the No Project, the 1895 units are what currently exists in the housing element that is available, they assume no change to that in Alt. A which is why it is the same number of units. In Alt B and C they are responding to One Bay Area Plan which was created by ABAG which is the starting point of the RHNA numbers they have. In Alt B they assume that by 2040 they will have only met 75% of the requirement that they are required to have. Alt C says that by 2040 they would be able to meet their entire housing element through 2040; they would be able to meet Alt C,they have 3 cycles of housing element to get to 2040;Alt C assumes that they would meet that with those numbers. Com. Sun: • Relative to traffic mitigarion there is a study session on the traffic issue; in the case of Alt. A, B, C if the traffic study is not accurate,what can they assume is the alternative or remedy? Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they ensure that the traffic study is accurate; there is no option. They comply with VTA specific guidelines about how to do traffic studies; use guidelines that are already set. They have used this for each traffic analysis so that its comparable, same system and using VTA's methodology; they require it for all cities under their purview. People aren't doing different things. Com. Sun: • Regarding public comment, during the review period a lot of public comment was received. What weight will the public comment play in the final decision with the city staff and consulting company. Aarti Shrivastava: • Tonight is about the EIR, approximately 25 sets of comments have been received on various topics. Those related to the EIR have already been responded to; beyond that there will be a staff report addressing the other comments. The comments will be categorized and brought to the Planning Commission and City Council when making a recommendation on the General Plan. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 September 9,2014 Com. Gong: • What is the cutoff date for these numbers; e.g., in regards to projects that are being approved at the current time, progress continues, e.g. the hotel numbers just approved 148 units; how do those counts towards what is projected? Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they have overall numbers in the General Plan that have already been analyzed. The 148 rooms approved at the last meeting were part of the current GP allocation that has already been studied at a programmatic GP level. When the Council adopts the final GP, there are overall numbers and they can't go above that as a total, but you will approve project level as long as they are within that scope. Chair Brophy: • Said on the traffic transportation study given the long time horizon he assumed EPA trends and mandates with regard to fuel economy is factored into that analysis. Steve Noack: • Said the mandates are factored into the air quality modeling as a result of the traffic. In terms of looking at emissions, there are assumptions that cars are going to get cleaner, and there are going to be more hybrids on the road;that is factored into the long term air quality emissions projections. Com.Takahashi: • In terms of any other technology that might be infused as transportation, that's the only number. When looking at the table of impacts for all alternatives, they are the same in terms of the general assessment of the impact; no project vs.just the highest level of evaluation. This says that even with land use there are significant elements,unavoidable impacts that the city is facing as it moves forward. Now it's just a degree of how severe that impact is between the various alternatives. From that perspective, with the traffic study and the major intersections and freeways, what is assumed with the freeways where the traffic patterns are really driven by larger area commute patterns going through the city; how is growth assumed in the general traffic pattern that this impact then adds to? Steve Noack: • Said staff inentioned earlier that the traffic studies are done in accordance with the VTA guidelines and VTA includes a detailed regional traffic model that does forecasting for its entire jurisdictional area, and so the traffic model, those assumptions for regional growth are implicit in that model and then they come out for the specific intersection analysis. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said all these impacts are not just from Cupertino; it is recognition that regardless of what they do there are areas around them that are developing. It is built in projects and GP assumptions from neighboring cities that will impact the city regardless, which is why some people are surprised to say, `what no project?' Com.Takahashi: • The section on the schools was interesting from the standpoint that it is saying there is currently not enough capacity in the schools to support the number of students; and the growth of the student population over the time period looks to be estimated as a smaller percentage, which is assumed to be because it is high density housing. The conclusion on the EIR on the schools was that generally speaking no new schools need to be built which is a good thing because there is no space for new schools, but that they would probably need to add second story classrooms to the schools. Is that the long term mission of Cupertino Union School District? Cupertino Planning Commission 6 September 9,2014 Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they met with both school districts and received information from their demographers. The demographer looks at the aging population, how many houses are going to turn over, regardless of building; where the students are coming from over the long term. They use the school consultant to do the analysis on school students' generation because they want to make sure it was correct. Com. Gong: • Referred to Vol. 1, Pages 14-53 and asked for explanation in the difference in numbers in ABAG projection as opposed to the project built out specifically. Said it seemed to imply that they will have fewer residents yet need more housing units than ABAG projects. Steve Noack: • Said it could be that ABAGs use of persons per household number is different than what was used for projections for the EIR which is believed to be based on census data. It doesn't take much, one person difference,you will get that type of discrepancy in the population projection. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they would confirm it; it could have been just for Santa Clara County as opposed to the city; often they do county based. Vice Chair Lee: • Asked Com. Takahashi, in terms of the schooling and the report mention that the only way to mitigate the school crowding was to increase the height of the schools to two stories; does staff know where the school impact fees go? Do they go to the schools to use at their discretion, or do they have to use it to build and if they want to build is there any plans; is there any building now and do they have to go through the city to build a second story, and where do the students go when they are building? Aarti Shrivastava: • The school district is working on a master plan and what they foresee is two story even if it portables to keep space open. In the meantime, they move students around, when new students come into the district, they move them to sites with availability and sometimes have to find creative ways by consolidating programs to free up classrooms. The demographer is putting together a plan to bring to the school board so they can plan for the future. Steve Noack: • Clarified that Alt C was the alternative that was considered the project; it is not identified as the preferred alternative; that was what was looked at as the project in the EIR and then the alternatives looked at compared the impacts in all the different areas. The other two alternatives A and B were compared with C and as shown in the table, the differences weren't all that great. There were minor differences that resulted in Alt A, B and identified as the environmentally preferred alternative. There are many other aspects to Alt C in terms of what its impacts would be on the city from economic benefits, jobs, housing, all other issues that are outside CEQA's arena; but part of the decision based on the merits of the project itsel£ It will be evaluated as part of the approval process for the GPA. Aarti Shrivastava: • CEQA only addresses environmental; the City Council and Planning Commission may want to consider other impacts. CEQA has its limitations; it looks at certain categories required, but the Planning Commission and City Council may go beyond that and look at the economic benefit. All the alternatives have been studied to a level of detail so the Council and Planning Commission don't have to pick one;they can pick and choose. Said the word"preferred"was used incorrectly;Alt C is Cupertino Planning Commission 7 September 9,2014 the proposed project and one looks at the project with the greatest impacts as the proposed project because the alternatives have to have fewer impacts then the proposed project. Steve Noack: • Said if looking only at the environmental impacts the analysis identified Alt A as the environmentally superior alternative because it had fewer potential impacts than Alt B and C. It does not imply that one is preferred over the other yet. Chair Brophy opened the study session for public comment. Chair Brophy: • Said there were a series of issues; the immediate issue being the sufficiency of the EIR as they will vote on whether to accept the EIR as a document next month; that will not make any decision but there are questions whether or not the EIR covers the issues. Said they would not be voting at this meeting and encouraged colleagues to ask questions of the speakers. He noted for the record that all five Commissioners have met with Jason Lungard of Apple to listen to his concerns about the GPA and housing element. Jennifer Griffin,Rancho Rinconada resident: • One of the main concerns with the EIR is the impact of potential traffic in the city because the city is going through a number of incoming projects and everyone has tried to make sure that projects coming in and going out have as little impact on the traffic as possible. In planning for the future, they have to keep in mind that the roads they have are pretty much it; on and off ramps onto 280; Hwy 85, etc. so when planning for the future they need to think that the roads are a finite resource; they must use wisely what they have. • Said it was also important to ensure that the Heart of the City is maintained and respected because it is a source of pride that Cupertino has a Heart of the City. Said she felt the One Bay Area Plan is not a good fit for Cupertino; it is looking too far into the future. Cupertino is a small city with finite resources and said she did not want to do anything that will compromise the city through too much buildout. The city has to be protected for future generations and what they do now is going to depend on what Cupertino will look like in two to three generations; do they want it to be completely built out 10 or 20 stories in one generation; that is not fair to the people coming in to Cupertino. Said she felt the No Project Plan is the best one; Alt A is the least dangerous of them; Alt B and Alt C are just too dangerous and compromise the future of Cupertino at this time. Said she was not a fan of the fixed bus rapid transit for Cupertino; it may work for other cities but at this time she didn't want to sacrifice the fast lanes on Stevens Creek Blvd. to a slow moving bus or to fixed lanes. There is not enough room for bikes, etc. and getting from the east side of town to the west side still takes about 15 to 20 minutes. Said she was hopeful that they would do everything possible not to compromise the upcoming generation's ability to live in Cupertino comfortably. Chair Brophy: • Directed questions from Ms. Griffin to staf£ One Bay Area Plan: Is this a controlling document for us at this time. Does the concept of the One Bay Area Plan impose additional constraints on us? Aarti Shrivastava: • Responded no, other than RHNA. Regarding the status of fixed bus rapid transit, she said they have not assumed fixed bus rapid transit in the EIR because it would still need the city's authorization for that project to move forward; don't know the date in terms of implementations. They haven't presented to the city and it would likely take one to three years before they started the planning process. VTA cannot take away lanes from Stevens Creek without the approval of the City Council. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 September 9,2014 Mike�e�Foulkes,Apple: • Said they were involved in Cupertino and have focused their future on the Apple Campus II; the EIR and GPA that it governs is important for them to make sure that they know the development in the city is something that all the residents, businesses and everyone else agrees on and they protect Apple II campus as it is being built. Said its security and privacy are paramount to them which is why they designed it the way they did. • Both the Irvine Co. and Apple understand the issues of security and privacy and have an idea of what envelope of projects around Apple Campus II are good for development and redevelopment of those sites. Said as they moved forward with the process, they were hopeful that the alternative recommended to the City Council involves those envelopes adjoining their properties again so they can thrive in the community and also that their neighbors can thrive in doing what they want with their land in a way that works in harmony with Apple. Chair Brophy: • Said the Commission just received the letters from Irvine Co. and the response from Apple. Said they are in the situation where they want to be responsive to their primary employer in town but they also need to meet the housing element requirement that the state has imposed. Told Mr. �e�es Foulkes that it would simplify things if he and the Irvine Company could reach agreement on the language for their site should it be included in the housing element. Said he would ask the next speaker the same question, but if they could resolve it prior to October 14`�' it would be advantageous, at least on one site. He asked if there were any other aspects of the GP update or housing element that they were concerned about. Mike�es Foulkes,Apple: • Said a quick resolution was their goal; they met on that specific topic and are hoping during the process to bring that language to the Commission; but from a philosophical standpoint they are in alignment. In looking at anything around the Wolfe corridor, making sure about privacy and security, part of the trick is with some very tall heights and they are still looking at what impact those would have; the Hampton site is closest to them but they are still looking at those to see from a massing perspective what that looks like. When referring to traffic as already mentioned, it is something that is on a case-by-case basis with developments and that is critical that their employees and residents and everyone else would be able to move through that corridor. Said they spent months working on that for Apple Campus II and want to make sure development there does not end up creating a gridlock that throws both their development and other developments into a quagmire. Carlene Matchniff,Irvine Co.: • Said they have met with Apple and had a series of ineetings with them on the subject of redevelopment in the Hamptons. They want to fully cooperate with Apple and design a project that interfaces well with the campus to provide housing that could benefit the Apple campus and its employees,offering them a place to live close to Apple, and provide people the opportunity to walk or bike to work, and to get off the roads and reduce the VMT and help their TDM program because they need to add some measures to reduce traffic. Said they have already spent a lot of time looking at the site,the footprint; the design. One of the things that the EIR does is look at extremes and it looks at an 85 ft. height limit;they would not build to an 85 ft. height limit and have expressed that to Apple; they want to make sure what they are looking at is 60 to 75 ft. and the 60 ft. would be adjacent to Apple; 60 ft. along Wolfe Rd. and then ask to go up to 75 ft. as it abuts the freeway; basically a sensitively designed plan. They plan to add a lot of landscaping and already have 70 ft. redwoods and want to preserve those as a buffer. They have hired Olen Landscaping Architects that is working with Apple to examine and look at the interface to ensure the plant pallet would complement and buffer the views back and forth to the campus. • Said there were working with the Santa Clara School District on mitigation issues; early discussions of Cupertino Planning Commission 9 September 9,2014 what that would mean for a redevelopment of the Hamptons and similar issues. They have two agreements with Apple, a land swap on their plans and a construction mitigation agreement. They are also working on a cooperative agreement, including privacy issues, security, setbacks, and height limits for the Commission's consideration. • Said the density needs to be decided by the City Council and Planning Commission through the process; they would like to have the flexibility to design a project that makes sense in taking down the existing project because that is something that would have to be phased out over time and redeveloped. There are 342 units there now; adding to that they would like to see the maximum numbers which currently is being studied at 800 and would like to keep it in that range in order to have the opportunity to develop a stunning project that offers all of the amenities and sustainability, green building and everything they need to incorporate. If the number is eroded too low, it wouldn't make sense to redevelop the site. S aid she was confident they could reach agreement with Apple on mutually acceptable language for the housing element prior to the October 14`i'meeting. Phyllis Dickstein, resident: • Most of the residents would like to preserve the city and not have it become an extension of downtown San Jose. The development plan seems to concentrate on the eastern part of the city; why give such a huge impact; why not spread it out more and consider moving some of that development more to the western part of the city? Said she was shocked to learn there is no room to build a school, only way to add more space is by adding a second story; yet they are building hundreds of office buildings, retail and housing units. Said if they don't go with Alt C but choose one of the plans with less impact and don't have so many office buildings, housing units and retail units, perhaps they can build more schools for the children that the additional development would bring into the community. Chair Brophy: • Asked for staff comment on Ms. Dickstein's question "Why is there a concentration of housing element sites on the east side?" Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they went through the exercise of looking at all the sites available in the city, and on the western side of the city there are the foothills; existing densities are much lower; there are not many sites available for consolidation and for use for housing element sites that would actually produce some real results for the RHNA. She added that they had two sites on Foothill Blvd., sites on Mary Ave., Glenbrook,the Oaks, and also a site on so. DeAnza Blvd. Chair Brophy: • Asked Tim Borden to comment on an issue regarding the Sewer District. Although Public Works doesn't handle the sewage service, it comes from the Sanitary District, not the city, but they say increasing capacity may be very challenging and may result in a significant cost impact. The response of the EIR is they will have to study it and find a solution somehow,which is not reassuring. He asked if Mr. Borden had enough knowledge about the situation with the Sewer District and their capacity;and whether or not it was really a problem. Tim Borden,Director of Public Works: • Said it could be a potential problem; it would be many years into the buildout, but ultimately prior to total buildout they could reach capacity that they currently have purchased from the San Jose/Santa Clara Sewage treatment plant. It is not a system or pipe capacity issue, it is just a quantity of treatment they have purchased from the treatment plant in North San Jose. It would be far into the buildout of this proposal; however, they are fairly comfortable with water conservation rates and the way things are going with LEED certified buildings that they likely will not be discharging some of Cupertino Planning Commission 10 September 9,2014 the estimated quantities that went into that calculation. He said they don't feel it will be an issue 20 years from now, but don't currently have an answer;that is the reason for the comment shown. Vice Chair Lee: • Noted that she met with the owner of Stevens Creek Office Center on housing element site 15. There was a brief discussion of the proposed format for the October 14 Planning Commission meeting. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No report. Housin�Commission: No report. Mavor's Monthly Meetin�With Commissioners: Economic Develoument Committee: No meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Written report. ADJOURNMENT: • The meeting was adjourned to the September 23,2014 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary Approved as Amended: October 14,2014