Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/10/13 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 13, 2010 Chairman Munoz called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL • COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Francisco Oaxaca, Ray Wimberly ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS None * * * ** APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Wimberly, carried 4-0-1 (Fletcher abstain),to approve the minutes of September 22, 2010. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2009-00493-GB ARCHITECTS - A request to construct two office/professional buildings of approximately 27,000 square feet on three vacant parcels with a combined area of 2.5 acres in the Office/Professional (OP) District located at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route - APNs: 0208-811-59, -58, and -60. Related file: Uniform Sign Program DRC2010-00092. This action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332-Infill Development Projects. Mike Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He reported that staff received no comments from the public following the legal noticing of this item. Vice Chairman Howdyshell noted Exhibits C and D and asked where the trash enclosures are located. Mr. Smith confirmed on the overhead the two locations of the trash enclosures, and said staff asked the applicant to provide sufficient distance between the enclosures and the neighboring properties to the west. He confirmed this is sufficient to serve both buildings. Commissioner Fletcher said the layout is contrary to what we normally would like in that the buildings are not against the frontage street,they are close to the neighborhood to the rear instead. He asked about the frontage landscaping and he felt it was a critical component. He said there is no landscape plan in the report. He asked if it was discussed. Mr. Smith said the plan requires additional review because it was not consistent with the Water Conservation Ordinance. He said staff will look at it later, as there is still work to be done. Chairman Munoz clarified that the DRC did look at the landscaping and it has to do with the water conservation regulations and not that something was specifically lacking in their plan. Mr. Smith said the buildings are where they are because at the Pre-Application Review two proposals were presented and the Commission felt this option was less of an impact to the neighborhood to the west in that there would be less traffic noise and less glare than having the parking to the rear. Commissioner Fletcher noted that he understands the logic for the layout, but the frontage landscape will be very important. He asked if they could approve it this way without the Landscape Plan. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, noted Page A-32 of the agenda packet, condition #9, requires the applicant to comply with Ordinance 823 and also requires the landscaping be installed prior to final acceptance and occupancy. He said that would ensure that it would be done to City standards. Commissioner Fletcher felt we want that, but he would like to review the plans. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, suggested they could require them to come back to DRC before issuance of building permits in order to review their landscape plans. Commissioner Fletcher noted that in the past, we utilized high berms to block the view from the parking lots, but our new ordinance may not allow that. He said he would like to see what the solution is. He said he does not want to ignore the importance of landscaping. Commissioner Oaxaca said the intensification of the landscaping was specifically mentioned at the DRC meeting. Chairman Munoz said it was discussed and the remaining issue is compliance with the Water Conservation Ordinance. Mr. Flower said the condition says they need only comply with the Water Conservation Ordinance, but Commissioner Fletcher is speaking about other issues related to the design, such as treescape. He said if the project is approved as is, then the concerns about the design may not be addressed. Commissioner Fletcher said that is correct and he is ok with taking Mr. Henderson's suggestion. Chairman Munoz invited the applicant to come forward. George Botros, the project Architect, said he is aware of the landscape issue and the desire to hide the parking, and he is also aware of berming and that is no problem for them to do that. Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 13, 2010 Commissioner Fletcher said it is not a difficult issue but very important to resolve this because the parking has been pushed to the front of the site. I Chairman Munoz noted that Commissioner Fletcher wants to review the landscape plans again and he is noting that we generally see the plans at this time; it is just meeting the Water Conservation Ordinance and he understands the need for extra landscaping. He said this is an extraordinary situation. He said once this is resolved, they are good to go. Chairman Munoz opened public hearing. Mark Williams, a resident at 9649 Calle Viejar, located directly behind this property. He stated he would like trees along back side of buildings to provide screening from the neighborhood. He said the existing residential development is at a higher grade than the proposed development. Chairman Munoz, seeing and hearing no further comment, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher noted that the issues of the buildings were worked out in DRC. He said they are an attractive product and a good addition to that part of the City. He said because the buildings are backed up to a residential neighborhood, there should be some sensitivity to that. He said he assumes the site plan shows trees and sufficient landscape but otherwise, the project is fine. Commissioner Wimberly said it is a pleasure work with the applicant and with staff on this project. He noted the placement of the buildings to the rear of the property was to help mitigate noise and light impacts. He said we do not want to disturb neighbors, therefore the DRC required shading of some windows along the rear of the buildings to reduce glare. He said the placement of the trash enclosures was considered so that the residences would not be as impacted when the trash is picked up. He said they had many things to work on and they were diligent. He said he looks I forward to seeing the project in place, and that he believes it will raise the value of the area. Commissioner Oaxaca said it looks like quite a bit of work was done with the DRC and he appreciated the work of the applicant with staff at DRC to end up with a project that could pencil out for them and to also work for the community. He said the comment of the neighbor is worthwhile. He said from the plans it looks like there is vegetation along the backs of the buildings. He noted the upper floor windows may look down into neighbors' yards and he would like to see some shielding along the back of their property. He said there will be a chance to review the landscaping plans. Vice Chairman Howdyshell looked at the west elevation and said they minimized the number of windows on that side. She commented that there was open space there for so many years and now the residents are impacted with development and the loss of some privacy. She said they need to be sensitive with the landscaping to provide shielding and softening of the presence of the buildings. Chairman Munoz said he did not specifically remember what the rear looks like relative to landscaping. He asked if there are trees there. Mr. Smith said the site plan does not really show the trees. He said he can schedule them to come back to DRC for a review of the landscape plans. Mr. Henderson said there are two choices; the Commission could continue the item or offer a modified condition and then allow them to come back to DRC for review and approval of the I landscape plans, and if they are not acceptable, the item could then be brought back to the Commission level. Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 13, 2010 Chairman Munoz said he likes the idea as it does not impact applicant's in terms of getting their project going. Mr. Henderson offered the following language for the modified condition: 1) The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the DRC prior to issuance of Building Permits. The Landscape Plan design shall have an emphasis on providing sufficient screening on the west side of the site adjacent to the residential area and screening parking areas along Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. All applicable Design and Development Standards sections of Chapter 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code including compliance with Ordinance No. 823 shall be required. All landscaping shall be installed prior to final acceptance of the buildings and/or project site complete and release for occupancy. Commissioner Fletcher asked if it would go to DRC and then to the Planning Commission prior to issuance of the building permits. Mr. Henderson said the revised plan would go to DRC and then if approved by the DRC, would move forward to plan check, if not, it could be referred back to the Planning Commission or the applicant could appeal the decision to the Commission. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that the design of the buildings is a big improvement over the County school building of which the Commission had no involvement. Chairman Munoz noted that the product makes excellent use of a series of narrow lots. He said it remained undeveloped for many years. He said the applicant did take great pains to shield windows and even blocked some along the back to keep the glare at a minimum. He reiterated that the Landscape Plans will go back to the DRC for approval. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Wimberly,to adopt the Resolution of approval with the amended condition. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00551 - DCT 8TH & VINEYARD, LLC - A proposal to develop an industrial/warehouse complex comprised of 12 buildings and 12 parcels on a triangular shaped property of approximately 904,000 square feet (20.7 acres) in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 3 located about 640 feet west of Hellman Avenue at the south side of 8th Street and the south and north sides of 7th Street; APNs: 0209-151-27, 0209-151-37, and 0209-161-24. Related files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18794, Minor Exception DRC2008-00152, and Uniform Sign Program DRC2008-00681. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM18794-DCT 8TH&VINEYARD, LLC -A proposal to subdivide a property comprised of three(3) parcels with a combined area of approximately 904,000 square feet (20.7 acres) into twelve (12) parcels in conjunction with the development of an industrial/warehouse complex comprised Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 13, 2010 of 12 buildings in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 3 located at the south side of 8th Street about 640 feet west of Hellman Avenue;APNs: 0209-151-27, 0209-151-37, and 0209-161-24. Related files: Development Review DRC2007-00551, Minor Exception DRC2008-00152, and Uniform Sign Program DRC2008-00681. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Mike Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that the applicant has submitted a Minor Exception because of the shortage of parking stalls. Staff received no comments following the legal noticing. He noted that the original advertising noted 12 buildings, but it is really 12 buildings and 13 parcels. He made a clarification that staff only wants a wall along the west side of the project side along the wash. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, asked about a change in the Building and Safety conditions. He noted that they deleted special condition #3 after report production and the change has been placed before the Planning Commissioners on the dais. Chairman Munoz invited the applicant to come forward and speak. - Terri Allen, Regional Director, DCT Industrial Trust®, 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120, Newport Beach, said it was a challenging property because of its shape and location. She said they are willing to pay their fair share of street improvements except Engineering conditions 1 a and 4. She said the requirement is for full street width improvements and undergrounding on the north side of 8th Street. She said improvements on the south side of 8th Street are what they would expect to do (half width improvements and undergrounding on the south side of 8'"Street). She said the current conditions pose a financial burden in that the City would usually require the developer to only improve the property along their own frontage. She said this was brought up but not satisfactorily resolved before the meeting. She asked for both conditions to be.removed. She added that under normal circumstances, a development would go in on the north side. Chairman'Munoz opened the public hearing. Emmet Williams, 1841 N. Solano Avenue and said he lives near 8th Street and Solano Avenue. He said he has concerns about the project noting that the trains coming through are noisy and that he would prefer commercial warehousing instead of this development and there is impact to the residents, He also noted concerns about road repair and environmental concerns. He asked how the development will affect Ontario residents. He thanked staff for the mailed noticing. He asked about the AQMD report and if the environmental reports are reviewed by outside agencies or if they are only in-house. He asked if the residents of Ontario will be affected from a tax perspective and how will this development helps the residents of Ontario. Ed Diet!, HPARC, asked if this property is in a historical district and if there was a historical survey done on the property. Chairman Munoz closed the public hearing. Mr. Smith referred the question about undergrounding on 8th Street to Engineering. Betty Miller,Associate Engineer, referred to Condition#7 and said it is only%of the in lieu fee. She said they are not requiring them to perform undergrounding on the north side. She referred to Page B & C151 of the agenda packet. She also noted Page B & C114, condition #7. Chairman Munoz said he generally agrees with the applicant that it is customary that we require in lieu fees to mitigate issues on the side of the street where the proposed development will be as opposed to the opposite side of the street. Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 13, 2010 • • Ms. Miller said the resolution indicates it is half of the fee for one side and half of the fee for the other side of the street. She said if the utility is located on the same side of the street as the project then the project is required to pay for the undergrounding on that side of the street. She said because the utilities are on the north side, they would only pay for half of the undergrounding. Chairman Munoz noted that the fees were cut in half and they would pay for that section in front of their project. He asked if the remaining portion is going to be put underground with no chance of the rest being undergrounded. He said it seems odd to require this of an applicant unless we have possible development that will occur on other side of the street to underground the rest. Ms. Miller said they researched it, and they did collect in-lieu fees from others up and down street . that street. Chairman Munoz noted that they might have collected them when there is development across from the others, but this does not look like anything will be developed there. Ms. Miller said this is a Planning Commission policy that they are enforcing, and the Commission can change this at their discretion. Vice Chairman Howdyshell noted that she had the same question. Ms. Miller said that the Planning Commission policy has clearly stated if utilities occur on the opposite side of the street,then they are required to pay one-half the in-lieu fees and then when it is developed, the undergrounding is done, then those funds are used to reimburse them. Commissioner Fletcher asked if that is the objection. Ms. Miller said it is not actually required for undergrounding the utility, that is why they are being asked to pay the in-lieu fee and they are only asking them to pay half the fee. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, asked if anything had been received from the applicant in writing concerning this. Ms. Miller stated no, only some e-mails back and forth. Mr. Henderson stated that the Commission could continue the item for 30 days in order for the applicant to state their concern in writing and for Engineering Department to address this concern of applicant and to examine the issues. He said it is a standard condition, but a continuance could be considered. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, said the Commission could make the decision to continue the item, but before doing that, they could ask the applicant to weigh in about that option. Commissioner Oaxaca asked if there are two conditions causing concern are #7 and #1 a. Ms. Miller said they have asked them to remove and construct 8th Street because the base may not be to City standards. They only want to do to the centerline south. She said there would be no curb or gutter along the Metrolink tracks. Chairman Munoz asked if the City yard will make improvements along their property for consistency. He said this changes our thinking if the City comes in and make improvements. He asked about the study from AQMD. Ms. Miller could not recall the extent of the City improvements related to the new City Yard. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 13, 2010 Mr. Smith said we requested an air quality study for potential impacts. He said the applicant prepared it and then we sent it to AQMD. He said we were contacted by AQMD with a request for more information. He said we supplied that information and no follow-up questions or comments ' were received from the AQMD. Chairman Munoz asked about the tax implication for Ontario residents. Mr. Flower replied that sales tax and property tax generated by Rancho Cucamonga come to Rancho Cucamonga and taxes for Ontario go to Ontario. Chairman Munoz asked for a response regarding the question about this being a historic district. He confirmed that this project was being considered before any new historic standards or the historic survey was put into place prior to the adoption of the new General Plan. He said he did not see any historic properties in the area. Mr. Smith said staff checked for historical significance and/or listings and there was nothing for this property. Mr. Flower noted that cultural resources are also part of the environmental review, and that anything of significance or historical value that is recovered will be documented per the standard mitigation measures. Mr. Henderson also noted that the requirements for the recently adopted General Plan EIR are also included in Mitigation Monitoring Program are incorporated into the approval of this project. Chairman Munoz noted that if anything historic is found, a qualified person will be hired to investigate and deal with that appropriately. He then invited the applicant to return to the speaker's podium and he asked for their position about a continuance. Dan Floriani stated they would prefer not to continue the hearing. He said they brought the items up, not for the reason of trying to get out of something by not doing street improvements and undergrounding. He said they have never been conditioned to pay in lieu fees on the opposite side of the street and perhaps they have just been lucky. He said this would calculate to several hundred thousand dollars. He said they would rather not pay it if that does not actually improve the quality of the opposite side of the street because no one else is there to reciprocate those dollars. He said they would rather do something to enhance their project or attract tenants. He noted that they are talking about undergrounding utilities bordering the City Yard and the Metro rail line. He said he also contests the street widening. Chairman Munoz said time is needed to examine issues and that even following that, the Commission may decide to keep the conditions for collecting the fees. He asked if he would rather continue the items for 30 days so staff can look at it or accept the conditions as presented. Mr.Floriani said they would ask for the continuance because they are not willing to accept the conditions as is. He said with respect to the half street improvements, they want the project to be nice and they are already adding 2 lanes on their side, curb, gutter, street lights,etc. but on the other side of the street they are being asked to improve more than what is opposite their development and they feel it is financially cumbersome and heavy handed. Mr. Flower noted that if it is continued to a date certain, then there is no additional cost for legal noticing there will be no re-noticing requirement. Mr. Henderson suggested it be continued to the regular meeting on November 10, 2010. Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 13, 2010 Commissioner Oaxaca asked about the improvements for the project side of 8th Street. He asked if the cumulative effect would actually widen the street. Mr. Fliorani responded yes, it would significantly widen the street. Commissioner Fletcher asked that when staff brings this back, he would like the background regarding the precedents and if on 9th Street, if the fees were waived and also regarding the undergrounding. He said sometimes it was waived in past if there was no likelihood of other improvements being made on 8th Street. He said if all the properties are developed, then there is little chance of future improvements. He said the Commission needs more information. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Wimberly,to continue the public hearing to the regular meeting of November 10, 2010, to allow staff time to study the applicant's request to delete Engineering Conditions la and 7 for street improvements and undergrounding in-lieu fees on the north side of 8th Street. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2010-00314-HC&D ARCHITECTS FOR TACO BELL-A proposal to demolish an existing 5,489 square foot building that was formerly used as a bank located at 9709 Base Line Road and construct a Taco Bell fast food restaurant with drive-thru of 2,432 square feet at an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Archibald Avenue-APN: 1077-011- 45. Related files: Development Review DRC2010-00314D,Variance DRC2010-00565, Tree Removal Permit DRC2010-00564, and Uniform Sign Program No. 4 Amendment DRC2010- 00404. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review and qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures-as the proposed fast food restaurant is under 2,500 square feet in gross floor area. E. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00314D - HC&D ARCHITECTS FOR TACO BELL-A proposal to demolish an existing 5,489 square foot building that was formerly used as a bank located at 9709 Base Line Road and construct a Taco Bell fast food restaurant with drive-thru of 2,432 square feet at an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District, located at the.southeast corner of Base Line Road and Archibald Avenue - APN: 1077-011-45. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2010-00314, Variance DRC2010- 00565, Tree Removal Permit DRC2010-00564, and Uniform Sign Program No.4 Amendment DRC2010-00404. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review and qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures-as the proposed fast food restaurant is under 2,500 square feet in gross floor area. F. VARIANCE DRC2010-00565-HC&D ARCHITECTS FOR TACO BELL-A request to allow an encroachment into the required street setbacks along Archibald Avenue and Base Line Road in conjunction with a proposal to demolish an existing 5,489 square foot building that was formerly used as a bank located at 9709 Base Line Road and construct a Taco Bell fast food restaurant with drive-thru of 2,432 square feet at an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Archibald Avenue. APN: 1077-011-45. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2010- 00314, Development Review DRC2010-00314D,Tree Removal Permit DRC2010-00564, and Uniform Sign Program #4 Amendment DRC2010-00404. Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 13, 2010 Mike Smith,Associate Planner, noted that no comments were received following the legal noticing of these items. Commissioner Fletcher asked if we know what is proposed for old Taco Bell site across the street. Mr. Smith said that is.unknown. . Commissioner Oaxaca asked for a comparison of the footprint of the proposed structure to the current structure. He said the restaurant appears more long and narrow than the bank. Mr. Smith said the canopy of the bank is within the easement, but the new drive thru canopy and tower encroach into the setbacks. Commissioner Oaxaca asked if the proposed canopy is mostly within the envelope of the bank building. Mr. Smith said only the canopy is behind setback line and it substantially fits within the envelope. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, suggested they could compare Exhibits D and F for reference. Dan Henson stated he is the Architect for the project and is available for questions. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there are other locations with bell towers. Mr. Henson responded there are, and it is standard that the logo for Taco Bell would fit into that tower element. Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing. Jerry Lee, 9800 Base Line Road, said he and others he knows are steady customers of the old Taco Bell as it is a good place to eat and they have good help. He said he is in favor of the new location because it presents a better traffic situation with less competition with opposing traffic getting in and out. He said the mobile home park folks are in favor. Chairman Munoz seeing and hearing no further comment closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher suggested the applicant distribute coupons in the mobile home park. He said this development is attractive and a nice improvement that might encourage the property owners to improve the whole complex. He said the Variance request is minor and not significant. He said the report notes the issue of a lack of 3 parking stalls. He confirmed that this means they would be parking in back of buildings on the south side. He said this is a more convenient location and he understands the public comments about better ingress and egress. Commissioner Wimberly concurred regarding the suggestion of coupons. He noted it is a good reuse of the previous footprint. He agreed that the Variance is minor and that the project is useful in that location. He said he looks forward to it. Commissioner Oaxaca agreed that the Variance request is minor. He said that we will see more and more reuse in the future. He said the design is attractive, and it will be a popular location with ease of access and visibility. He said this will enhance a 30 year-old center. He said he appreciates restoring the missing parking. Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 13, 2010 • Vice Chairman Howdyshell noted that this proposal is needed because this particular corner has been dying. She said the 99 Ranch store is coming to this location and it will give them better market share. She agreed the Variance request is minor and making a move like this is challenging in these times. She offered her congratulations. Chairman Munoz agreed with the public comment and the Commission comments. He said the DRC and staff worked well with the applicants and he would support the project. Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Oaxaca, to adopt the Resolutions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit DRC2010-00314, Development Review DRC2010-00314D and Variance DRC2010-00565 as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried * * * * * PUBLIC COMMENTS Ed Dietl said he had no information regarding the Pre-Application Review scheduled to occur following this meeting. He asked what it is about. Chairman Munoz said it is a very preliminary look at a project. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, said it is the applicant's opportunity to present an idea or project concept. He said the Commission does not make any decisions and there is no vote, they only comment on what they see. He said staff can present City policies or programs related to compliance of their proposals. He said it is a first look to give feedback to see if they want to proceed with their project application. Commissioner Oaxaca commented that the workshop agendas are also posted on the website. Commissioner Fletcher gave a brief description of the location of the project. COMMISSION BUSINESS Vice Chairman Howdyshell announced there would be a groundbreaking ceremony on October 20, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. for Route 66/Trailhead/Foothill Boulevard improvements. ADJOURNMENT • Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Chairman Munoz noted that the applicant for the workshop is not in attendance and suggested that meeting adjourn. The workshop adjourned at 8:55 p.m. because of a lack of quorum. Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 13, 2010 Respectfully submitte , 4Ja James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: October 27, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 13, 2010