Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-2015 PC Minutes �f6� ',/:>\:\i,a ", E , � fF Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 12, 2015 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 12, 2015, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Goel called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM Present: Chair Goel; Vice Chair Kohli; Commissioners Do, Bhuthimethee and Mittan; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Tim Cremin, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA— NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the February 10, 2015 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR— NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2015-00016 - Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the lower limit of 75,000 sf of commercial is now eliminated with this land use change. Ms. Bascom answered yes; in theory the limit could be from zero up to 200,000 sf of commercial space. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the difference between the areas designated Park Land and Open Space. Ms. Bascom answered that Staff was looking for the maximum space in the community park; a minimum usable park acreage of 30 acres was one of the items that was negotiated with the developer from the beginning. She stated that the creek, which has use restrictions, would run through the park and could be considered an amenity, but Staff wanted to ensure that the envelope for the park was as large as possible. Therefore, the acreage that was solely devoted to the creek was subtracted and designated as Open Space. V anning Commission :%1ay 12,2075 Regurar5%feeting (Page 13 Chair Goel asked if this would change the maintenance obligation for the City. Ms. Bascom answered no; the creek continues to be required to be owned by a separate agency. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that the Planning Commission met with the City Council recently and discussed how, with some development approvals, the Planning Commission should not consider the impacts to schools. She asked how the proposal for the school site came about and how the City became the Applicant. Ms. Bascom responded that the City is the Applicant because the changes to the land plan and proposed amendments to the DA were not initiated by the developer. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, felt that Cm. Bhuthimethee was referring to the City Council workshop with the commissions. He stated that there was a discussion with the City Attorney regarding mitigation for school impacts. He stated that State law established provisions for appropriate mitigations for a school and that the City cannot require anything more although the developer could volunteer to do more. He stated that the City is not talking about mitigation but partnering with Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) to help facilitate the establishment of a school. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that it is good to work with the school, but was concerned about what it will mean for future agreements with other developments, if DUSD pressures the City to work out other development agreements. Mr. Baker stated that there is only one other future school and the City Council is working with the DUSD to acquire a school site at Jordan Ranch. He stated that the City has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DUSD and the City is currently processing General Plan and Specific Plan amendments that will create an alternative school site on the Jordan Ranch project site and will also be a joint use facility. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the school site is still scheduled to be developed in phase 3 and if DUSD is in agreement with that timing. She felt that the school may be needed sooner. Ms. Bascom answered yes; she stated that DUSD is aware and accepts the timing. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if it is typical that the City owns a school site and if the City will lease the land to the school. Ms. Bascom answered that the City will lease the land to the District and further stated that it is not typical for the City to own property on which a school exists; however, this is a very unique situation. She continued that the City is also giving up some items (some commercial land and a 5-acre neighborhood park site). The City will hold the controlling interest on the school site and will be entering into an MOU with DUSD that will specify lease terms and joint use stipulations. Mr. Baker agreed and felt that this is unusual for the City to do this for the DUSD, to facilitate the acquisition of up to $70 million in land for the benefit of the community. He stated that there are cPiCinning C'omnissiorz ;%1ay 12,2015 1?{;gllj(r%1eef£ng Page 1 1 take-aways from the project but gaining the school site for DUSD was the ultimate goal. He felt that this is an unprecedented deal that the City Council is granting. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked how the park will be developed if the amendment to the DA removes the requirement of$1.3 million for the park. Ms. Bascom stated that the park will be part of the development of the school site; the MOU between the City and DUSD will identify how the joint use park/school land will be developed. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is a General Plan Amendment involved, since the City is the Applicant on this item. Ms. Bascom answered yes; she explained that the amendments to the General Plan are outlined in the Resolution, and that the reason the General Plan needed to be amended is because the Land Use Table from the Specific Plan is in the General Plan. Cm. Kohli asked what the situation would be if a deal between DUSD and the City was unable to be finalized; could the land be sold back to the developer or will the City own the land. Ms. Bascom answered that it is a possibility that DUSD would not want the free land, but that would be unexpected. But, in that case the City would own the 12-acre site and could determine its use. Cm. Mittan asked if there was a schedule of values for each component that was included in the project. He asked how Staff reached the $70 million figure. Ms. Bascom answered that it was a "ball park" estimate that entitled residential land in Dublin as $3mil/acre and this is a 12-acre site; the $70 million also included the Jordan Ranch school site. Cm. Mittan stated that, if the land use change is not approved and an agreement cannot be reached, the school district would not have the funds to build the school. Ms. Bascom answered that this is a true statement based on input from DUSD. Cm. Mittan asked if the value of the homes in the area will be reduced if the school is not built. Ms. Bascom responded that she is not a market analyst and therefore could not answer his question. Cm. Mittan felt that there is incentive for the developer to have a school within the development. Ms. Bascom stated that the analysis did not go into that level of detail. Cm. Mittan felt that if the school is not developed until phase 3, there would be approximately 1,100 homes built prior to the school being built. He was concerned about where those children would go to school. Mr. Baker responded that the boundaries of the existing schools would be adjusted to accommodate the new students. (Planning Co:nn:ission May 12,2015 (kegu1arf%feetinJ 0i'a g e 5 Cm. Mittan was concerned with the major intersections that the students would have to cross and no neighborhood schools within the development. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if it would be possible to develop the school within an earlier phase. Ms. Bascom stated that neither the developer nor the school district has indicated that developing the school in an earlier phase is a possibility. She mentioned that, from past discussions, the phasing for the school site was not an issue for the school district. Cm. Mittan asked if it was the City or the developer that negated the requirement for the commercial component. Ms. Bascom responded that it was a result of several conversations between Staff and the developer. She stated that the discussions were to determine what kind of changes to the land plan would create value for the developer that would allow them to forego payment on a 12-acre site. Chair Goel asked if Exhibit A-2 (Statement of Overriding Considerations) to Attachment 5 is part of the CEQA document amendment. Ms. Bascom answered yes; it is part of the CEQA Resolution that the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on. She added that the original adopted EIR included a Statement of Overriding Considerations and State law requires that whenever there is an addendum to that document or reuse of the document the Statement of Overriding Considerations needs to be re-adopted. She stated that there are no new impacts related to the proposed changes; these are the same impacts and overriding considerations that were adopted when the EIR was certified. Chair Goel asked to clarify that the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation for the amendment of the CEQA document and the Statement of Overriding Considerations is part of it and if there is anything that is inconsistent or the Planning Commission has issues with, now would be the time to identify those issues. Tim Cremin, Assistant City Attorney, asked Chair Goel if he was asking about inconsistency with the revision to the existing CEQA document. Chair Goel stated that he is asking, as the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council, if there are no changes to the document Exhibit A-2, and yet we are comfortable with it as part of the recommendation. Mr. Cremin stated that basically the Commission is relying on the same environmental document that has already been approved for the project. The addendum looks at the question, "does this revision to the project present any new or different environmental impacts." Staff did an analysis through the Initial Study and the answer is no; there are the same types of impacts that were analyzed when the EIR was certified. Regarding the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the significant and unavoidable impacts of the projects are the same, but what the new statement says for the revised project are the benefits of the revised project that override those environmental impacts that happen to be the same as the original. The Statement of Overriding Considerations mentions how the additional benefit of the school site and benefits of the project remains the same. The benefits were updated to address some of Panning(ommisrian May 12,2015 WeguCur!if eering Y a e j 6 the benefits of the revisions. Therefore, if the Planning Commission has a recommendation regarding Exhibit A-2 to Attachment 5 they should make it as part of the recommendation. Chair Goel mentioned that on Exhibit A-2, Page 1 references "unavoidable adverse environmental effects,"and "specific economic social and land use and other considerations that support the approval of the revised project." He asked what the unavoidable adverse environmental effects are inside the project. Ms. Bascom answered that they are the same three that were identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and were identified in the original Dublin Crossing EIR. Chair Goel asked if the effects of the emissions exceeding the threshold causes no change to the air quality. Ms. Bascom responded yes and stated that Staff reviewed the project to see if there are any different environmental impacts as a result of the proposed land use changes that would be different from the originally approved project. She stated that there are no more residential units permitted; the circulation system will remain the same; there is no more commercial development permitted here than before; the school site was there before and remains a part of the project; and the park site was there before and remains a part of the project. She stated that from an environmental impact standpoint there is nothing that will result in impacts that were not already analyzed. Chair Goel added: except for the removal of the park site. Ms. Bascom responded that there is the removal of the requirement for the 5-acre neighborhood park on the corner but there will be joint-use park land on the school site. The project will take park land from one area and ensure that it is accommodated somewhere else in a joint-use capacity. Chair Goel asked for clarification that there will be no new impacts to traffic. Ms. Bascom stated that was correct. Chair Goel stated that there was mention that this project will help the City of Dublin achieve its RHNA goals. He stated that he saw a presentation recently that identified the City of Dublin achieving three times the RHNA goal requirement compared to any other city inside of Alameda County. Chair Goel stated that the project overall offsets the future construction and maintenance of some elements of the park. He mentioned that the Staff Report states that there is a $17.5 million community benefit payment to be used for municipal capital projects and other benefits as part of the Development Agreement. He asked if these funds will stay within development or can the City use the funds elsewhere in the City. Ms. Bascom answered that there is no pre-defined list and the DA does not specify that it be used in the Dublin Crossing project area. The payment is a Community Benefit to the City and it is at the City Council's discretion how and where to use the funds. Chair Goel asked if the funds would go to the Parks and Community Services Department. Tranning Commission Way 12,2015 Regular Meeting 2'a g e 7 Ms. Bascom answered no; the funds will be put into the General Fund and will be used as directed by the City Council. Cm. Mittan was concerned about the security of the joint-use school/park site. Ms. Bascom responded that those details have not been worked out with DUSD. She stated that will be done as part of the joint planning of the site design and layout. It is likely that there will be some fencing between the school site and the joint use park. Chair Goel referred to Figure 2-1 illustrative site plan that may help guide the conversation. Ms. Bascom stated that Figure 2-1 is a picture of what the neighborhood development could look like, but the plan is conceptual only. The actual plans will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Cm. Bhuthimethee mentioned that there are many examples of schools that are attached to a park and there are no fences around the playground so that when school is not in session the school playground can still be used with the park. Cm. Mittan felt that the park footprint has been reduced and asked if that impacted the EIR at all. Ms. Bascom responded no; the envelope of the park decreased and another parcel increased to allow more development area, but the overall development did not increase. Cm. Mittan felt that the building area of land has increased. Ms. Bascom answered yes; the acreage has increased, the park acreage has decreased by 1.5 acres within the envelope of the community park, and that parcel, which will be developed as Medium Density, has increased. She stated that because none of the neighborhoods have been laid out, we do not know the exact number, but just the range. She stated that there will be 1,600 units and could be up to 1,995 units. She felt that, as the various neighborhoods are planned, Staff will have a better sense of what the ultimate number will be. But it will still not be beyond 1,995 units. There were no impacts that were not already identified in the EIR. Cm. Mittan asked if the impact of having residential interfacing with the creek was previously addressed. Ms. Bascom answered that the residential and park interface was originally part of the project, and now the question is where it will be located. Cm. Mittan felt that the residential will be interfacing at a much closer proximity to the creek than it was previously. Ms. Bascom stated that the interface of residential to the creek will be reviewed through the detailed neighborhood Site Development Review which will come before the Planning Commission. Cm. Mittan asked if the interface impacted the EIR. ',Kanning Commission Way 12,2015 ¢gucar5%feeting kt,a g e I Ms. Bascom answered no. Cm. Mittan stated that he is not an expert on EIRs but was surprised that the closeness of residential to the creek did not impact the EIR. Chair Goel felt that Cm. Mittan brought up some good points. He stated that at a recent City Council meeting there was a decision to reduce the medium density housing units to a lower range. He asked if that change will be reflected in this project. Ms. Bascom answered that this Specific Plan and Development Agreement was approved with the medium density parcels at 6.1-14du/ac. She stated where in the range each of the medium density parcels will fall is unknown at this time. She stated that the maximum number of units will not be exceeded. Mr. Baker stated that the City Council held a study session to review non-vested residential sites in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and this project is outside this area. He stated that their discussion was not restricted to medium density but they were reviewing all residentially designated parcels that are unvested but no final direction or decisions were made. He stated that Staff will return to the City Council with additional information. Chair Goel referred to the SB343 information and asked if Ms. Bascom would explain. Ms. Bascom answered that the SB343 is Exhibit F to the Development Agreement which was not available at the time the packet was delivered. Cm. Kohli asked if the creek will be under ownership of some other entity, not the City of Dublin. Ms. Bascom answered yes. Cm. Kohli asked Ms. Bascom to explain the difference between open space and park designation and if there will be negative impacts to the creek because of the new designation. Ms. Bascom responded that the difference of park vs open space designation is that open space is preserved as is, whereas the public park can be programmed for different public uses. She stated that the creek was going to run through the park whether it was designated open space or park land and it would be owned by a separate agency. She stated that by changing the land use designation all the City has done is give the developer the ability to count that open space acreage within the 30 acres of the community park. Cm. Kohli was concerned that there could be some kind of program that could endanger the creek because of the park land designation. He asked if the creek is protected by some environmental agency. Ms. Bascom answered yes; the creek has resource agency protection. Cm. Bhuthimethee mentioned that there were some plans being circulated for the park which shows the creek being integrated into the park. Warming Cornmission May 12,2015 Rygurar:teeting (F a g e 9 Ms. Bascom stated that there is a Dublin Crossing Community Park Task Force that has been working with landscape architects to develop some concepts. They have done community outreach, attended events talking to residents, they've developed three schematic plans; and all the plans address the creek in some way. She stated that one of the schematics makes the creek a focal point, but anything that is programmed to take place near the creek would be well within the resource agency permit. Chair Goel opened the public hearing and with no speakers, closed the public hearing. Cm. Do and Cm. Mittan had no questions. Cm. Bhuthimethee had no questions but commented that this is a creative solution to help the school district and commended Staff for working on the project. She also commended the developer for working with Staff to help the school district. Cm. Kohli stated that when the project came to the Planning Commission with 1,995 units he had an issue because of school over-crowding, etc. He was glad that there was a plan to have a school in the community and felt that was very important. He also commended the Staff for finding a way to make this work in an unprecedented way to ensure the land will be there for the school. He stated that, even though he feels this is a very creative approach, he would have preferred that the mixed use designation remain in the project. He felt the mixed use land could be reduced to some amount that would be acceptable to the developer. He was glad to see that the creek is protected and the 30 acre park land will remain along with park land with the school. He stated that he is in support of the project. Cm. Do stated that she supports the project and is glad that City Staff found a way to ensure that a school will be built. She felt that the school over-crowding problem is not just a DUSD problem, but a citywide problem. Cm. Mittan was highly concerned about the elimination of the requirement for the commercial. He felt that the City was crossing their fingers and hoping that something occurs that might never occur. He felt that residents are highly frustrated with the amount of high density homes being built and the over-crowding in the schools. He felt that having the school built in Phase 3, five years out, was a recipe for disaster and the residents would not be supportive. He agreed that it was a grand bargain for the school site but felt that there were benefits to the developer that were not monetized. He also felt that a deal could have been struck that would have included a requirement for commercial at Dublin Blvd and Arnold Road. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked for the land designation to the east of the project. Mr. Baker pointed out the area on the land use map which showed General Commercial and Campus/Office to the east of the Dublin Crossing project. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that it would have been nice to make a connection of commercial development across the street from the project. Cm. Mittan stated that he read through the package and was concerned that he did not see any comments regarding the proximity of the development to the prison and jail. ,1'Canning Commission Way 12,2015 ,Ncgufarjfeeting is'a g e j 10 Chair Goel agreed and stated that he is also concerned with the reduction in the commercial development. He was unsure as to why the commercial was reduced from 200,000 square feet to 75,000 square feet. He was also concerned that there is no commitment to build the school. Cm. Do asked if the school district did not want to build a school, could a private school be built on that land. Ms. Bascom responded that they would need to review how the school site is designated. Mr. Baker responded that the City Council would decide as the de-facto owner of the parcel. If they wanted to support a private school they would need to amend the General Plan and Specific Plan to accommodate it as necessary. Ms. Bascom stated that currently the land use is for a public school site but ultimately it would be up to the City Council. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the land use designation is for a public school, would a private school be considered commercial. Cm. Do asked if either a public or private school could be built on that site. Cm. Kohli asked if the site would have to be re-designated to commercial to build a private school. Ms. Bascom stated that the Specific Plan designation is for a public school. Therefore, if it was not a public school then the definition of a school would have to be amended or the land use designation changed. Cm. Kohli asked if, for some reason the school district does not want the free land and the City is the owner; could the City sell the land to another developer and could they build more homes; would the upper limit of 1,995 units still be the maximum number. Ms. Bascom answered that the maximum limit of 1,995 units for the entire area remains. Chair Goel stated that when the Planning Commission originally reviewed the project there was an exhibit that showed that there is the potential for 1,995 units, but the developer intended to deliver 1,880 units and asked if these changes would change their intent to build the entire 1,995 units. Ms. Bascom answered that anything that the developer indicated was what they saw as potentially the land use mix, the number of 1,995 units has always been the upper limit and the developer could build that today. She stated that in talking to developers, they were expecting to build somewhere between the 1,600 and 1,995 unit range. She stated that the developer is allowed to build up to 1,995 units. Chair Goel stated that providing the extra residential acreage provides the developer the footprint to build the maximum of 1,995 units. Ms. Bascom stated that the capacity was always there. Planning Commission May 12,2015. Regular Meeting {Y a g e ( 11 Cm. Mittan asked if the agreement with DUSD is reached, but after 10 years there is still no school built, does the City have any kind of leverage to cancel the agreement. Ms. Bascom responded that the language of the agreement has not been negotiated but felt that something like that could be included. She stated that there may have been some preliminary discussions but no agreement has been approved as of today. Cm. Kohli felt that the biggest risk is that there is no guarantee the school will be built and with a development of 1,995 units and no school, that will be a problem. Mr. Baker responded that Cm. Kohli's scenario exists today. He added that this deal helps to facilitate a school being built. He stated that DUSD fully intends to build a school within the project, but this makes it easier for the school district and is a step in the right direction of achieving the school. Cm. Kohli understood that there was never a guarantee that a school will be built. He felt that the City averted the risk with the negotiations. He also felt that the deal is not perfect but if the developer builds 1,995 housing units then the City should do whatever it needs to get the school built. He is also concerned with the lack of commercial but felt that if it is something that brings the City closer to getting the school built then he will support it. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that, if for some reason the school is not built, the land belongs to the City and they can sell it at market rate. Chair Goel asked if the developer has been asked if they would agree to a minimum threshold of commercial. Mr. Baker stated that the City Manager, representing the City Council, has negotiated an agreement with the developer and this is the deal that has been struck. He stated that there will be no further discussions with the developer and both the City and the developer feel is the best deal for both parties. Chair Goel asked if the developer and the City Council truly do not want commercial in the project. Ms. Bascom answered that the land use changes continue to allow commercial. This change removes the minimum requirement for commercial; if the market for commercial is there then that will be a commercial development at this corner. Mr. Baker pointed out that commercial is more than a retail shopping center and there was never any guarantee that a shopping center would be built. Chair Goel stated that it could be office space as well. Mr. Baker mentioned Persimmon Place that is opening just to the east of Dublin Crossing that will have many establishments for residents that will be within easy walking or driving distance from this project. Cm. Mittan felt that the concern was the lack of Campus/Office or Commercial/Office and not retail. :;'limning L'orrarnisszon ,31ay 12,2015 tRgljufar 5feeting (Page I 12 Mr. Baker stated that there is 2 million square feet of Campus/Office designated land across the street at the Dublin Transit Center. Chair Goel asked if the commercial was part of either Phase 1 or 2. Ms. Bascom felt the commercial portion of the project was included in Phase 2 and 3. Chair Goel asked if the developer has an idea of Phase 1 and Phase 2 and asked if they are indicating any commercial space built within those Phases. Ms. Bascom answered that she has not heard that to be the case and Staff has not seen any detailed plans. Cm. Mittan asked Ms. Bascom if she felt that it was highly important to the developer to delete the requirement for commercial. Ms. Bascom responded that she could not speak to the degree of importance to the developer. On a motion by Cm. Kohli and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-1-1, the Planning Commission adopted: Ayes: Do, Bhuthimethee, Kohli Noes: Mittan Abstain: Goel Chair Goel explained his reason for abstaining: 1) He does not see the commitment from DUSD to move forward; 2) He is not satisfied with the reduction in commercial space; 3) He felt that the deal, although it makes sense, has some elements that increase the potential for increasing the units to be developed, even though a number is allowable. He felt the original reasons to support the project was a reduction in the units. He felt that seeing that there is a potential for going to the higher limit and the commercial going away in the early phases was a concern but would rather have the ability for more office space and different types of uses; and 4) He felt that there was a benefit in seeing the financial leverage to see a school site come into play. Because he does not see that DUSD has the ability to obtain further funding to build the school and felt it was a high risk element to be negotiating for that cost. Mr. Cremin stated that, although Chair Goel explained the reason for his abstention, that was not technically required unless it was for a conflict or reason such as that. He stated that as far as further discussion on the item, it's at the discretion of the Chair, but the motion has been acted upon. RESOLUTION NO. 15-01 Tranninil Commission i11a)-12,2015 Regular`,fleet ing Y r e 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, DUBLIN CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN, EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO THE DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 15-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN, DUBLIN CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN, AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN RELATED TO THE DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 15-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND DUBLIN CROSSING VENTURE LLC RELATED TO THE DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Mr. Baker reminded the Planning Commission that there will be a meeting on May 26, 2015. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 8:10:08 PM Respectfully submitted, Planning-Commission Chair ATTEST: Ofanning Comm,VW?' :May 12,2015 Wcgular meeting >a g e ! '-� I ' r I \ Jeff Assistant Community Development Director G.AMINUTES120151PLANNING COMMISSIOM05.12.15 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).docx %1;,/„Y 2015 '1,;cip,;(6r if ''