draft minutes 3-22-11 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANN[NG COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. MARCH 22, 2011 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 2011 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chair Winnie Lee.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Vice Chairperson: 1Vlarty Miller
Commissioner: Don Sun
Commissioner: Paul Brophy
Commissioner: Clinton Brownley
Staff present: Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling
Associate Planner: Piu Ghosh
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of tlze February 22, 2011 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Com. Brophy, and unanimously carried
5-0-0 to approve the February 22, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
CONSENT CALENDAR None
PUBLIC HEARING
1. ASA-2011-01, Architectural and Site Approval to allow the installation of new
M-2011-01 burial grounds (no changes to the general location and number of
Irving Gonzales (Gate upright markers from the previously approved plans) and
Of Heaven Cemetery) associated structural and site improvements at an existing
22555 Cristo Rey Dr. cemetery; Modification of a Use Permit (U-2005-04) to allow
the installation of new burial grounds (no changes to the
general location and number of upright markers from the
previously approved plans) and associated structural and site
improvements at an existing cemetery.
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 March 22, 2011
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the applications for Modification of a Use Permit and Architectural and Site
Approval to modify a previously approved plan of burial grounds that have not yet been
constructed but were approved previously and associated structural and site improvements.
The submitted project applies only to a 4 acre portion of the existing cemetery; all remaining
areas of the cemetery will comply with the previous Use Permit approval from 2005. She
reviewed the site location and existing conditions; cemetery background, and recent approvals
as outlined in the attached staff report.
• Proposed modifications to the existing plan include a roadway around the entire perimeter of
the 4 acre section; previous plan shows the roadway around the southeast corner of the site,
providing access around the entire portion but also shifts the burial grounds 30 feet. Applicant
will provide additional landscaped areas along the perimeter of the site; existing cherry trees
will remain and existing redwood trees along the eastern portion of the site as welL The
applicant is looking to include additional trees in the new landscape plan that shows some new
accent trees in the proposed new burial locations. Applicant is proposing to combine tlie
columbaria area in the eastern elbow of the site. In previous plans, they were located in three
different areas; they propose to combine and assemble them in one area under a new structure
in a gazebo area. The applicant was proactive in meeting with the neighbors and in response to
their comments, moved the columbaria and gazebo further away from the residents. The
residents also requested that the existing cherry trees be retained along the northern portion of
the site. There was also a reduction in the number of proposed upright burial markers that
were previously approved. At the southeast corner of the site there will be a new vista point
area creating a seating wall planter area and include 6 new parking spaces.
• Applicants are requesting approval of four phases for scheduling, totaling a period of 14 years;
the proposed schedule is outlined on Page 1-4 of the staff report. Staff supports the phasing
schedule, as development of the cemetery is based on need and sales of plots over a period of
time. Applicant is planning to begin development within the first year of approval.
• There is a condition o f approval that the applicant submit a comprehensive construction
management plan to lessen any mitigation to the neighbors.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the modification to the Use Permit
and architectural and site approval in accordance with the model resolution.
Irving Gonzales, Applicant:
• Said they were diligent in their efforts to be good neighbors to the residents to the north as well
as the community with their overall project design, and still balance the needs of the cemetery
and their development, which has to sustain itself in perpetuity in going forward. He said it
was one small portion of the overall cemetery, and asked that the Commission find in favor of
the staff recommendations to support the phased construction.
Chair Lee opened the public hearing; as there was no one present who wished to comment/speak
on the application, the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Brownley, and unanimously carried
5-0-0, to approve Application M-2011-01 and ASA-2011-01, per the model
resolution.
Chair Lee declared a short recess.
2. EXC-2010-12 Residential Hillside Exception for a 5,931 square foot, single
(EA-2010-OS) family residence on a slope greater than 30% and a rear second
Darryl Harris story setback of 20 feet where 25 feet is required. Postponed
(Steakley Residence) from the March 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting; Planning
21750 Rainbow Drive Commission decision final unless appealed.
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 March 22, 2011
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for residential hillside exception for a 5,931 square foot single family
residence on a slope greater than 30%, and a rear second story setback of 20 feet, as outlined
on the staff report. He reviewed the site location, materials and roofing to be used for the
residence; floor plan for all levels. The key hillside development concerns for the property are:
that it is not located on the prominent ridgeline; that is it is not visible from the valley floor
locations; the house is located in the most environmentally appropriate area of the lot, given
the size of 8 acres; the present proposed location does minimize road and grading and thus
retaining walls; it avoids locating the house along the creek or riparian vegetation; it minimizes
the removal of native trees (there are two eucalyptus trees being removed; the city geologist
after reviewing the private geologist report, has deemed the site geotechnically feasible for
building; and last concern identified is the acceptability of the encroachment of 5 feet into tlle
25 foot setback.
• The first floor of the home is below grade and only half of the second floor is above grade; it is
not visible and does not have any visual impact on any of the adjacent neighbors. Because of
the constraints of the site itself, the house is sandwiched between the extended driveway and
the rear property line. Staff is supportive of the exception request for the second floor setback
exception.
• Staff recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with added language to the
resolution; and approval of the residential hillside exception per the model resolution.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions regarding the application.
Daryl Harris, Applicant:
• He confirmed that relative to geotechnical feasibility and the terms the geologists has
recommended, there should be no problem with the mudslides, etc. He said they had not
considered asking the neighbor off Regnart Road for an easement; and there were many issues
and hurdles involved with crossing the bridge.
Chair Lee opened the public hearing; no one was present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Com. Brownley:
• Said in the beginning he was concerned about the impact it would have on the surrounding
neighbors, but the Initial Study of the Environmental Impact Report indicated it would not
have an environmental impact or impact on neighbors.
Colin Jung:
• Indicated that the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District was provided a copy of the
plans and they did not respond.
Com. Brophy:
• Said given the limitations of the site, the design is as good as can be expected, and he was
concerned about exceptions to the hillside ordinance. The lot has been subdivided already, and
the design has been subject to intensive geotechnical design and independent review, and he
saw no reason not to move forward with it the project.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Vice Chair Miller, and unanimously carried
5-0-0 to approve Applications EA-2010-OS and EXC-2010-12 according to the
model resolution as modified by staff
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 Marc1122, 2011
3. MCA-2011-02 Municipal Code Amendments to various chapters of Title ] 9(Zoning)
City of Cupertino including the addition of up to four chapters to simplify the
Citywide Location development permit process and improve readability.
Tentative City Council date: June 14, 2011
Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the development permit process review, including the ordinance amendments. A
comprehensive analysis of the city's development review process was completed in Nov. 2009
and the Planning Commission has since heard the item three times, and City Council directed
staff to conduct additional outreach. Staff conducted two workshops in July 2010 and in Sept.
2010. Based on the comments received at the workshops, recommendations were presented to
the Planning Commission in November 2010 and City Council provided further direction in
February 2011. City Council asked staff to initiate formal ordinance amendments with minor
changes to the recommendations that the Commission made in November 2010 and also to
initiate a limited review of the R1 ordinance as a separate project that will come later this year.
• The ordinance amendments proposed are in conformance with what was proposed in
November 2010; City Council made a slight amendment to what staff proposed, that for larger
projects greater than 50 residential units, 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial space or 100,000 sq. ft.
of office/industrial/non residential space will be reviewed by City Council, new construction
only. Small minor projects that are CEQA exempt and are less than 6 residential units, or
10,000 sq. ft. non residential sq. footage could be approved at staff level.
• She reviewed the additional Municipal Code amendments to be included in the Development
Permit Process Amendments as outlined in the staff report, Pages 3-2 and 3-3.
• Staff requests that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the
model resolution regarding the Municipal Code Amendments and regarding adoption of the
public engagement policy.
Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director:
• Said that the amendments to the Municipal Code and adoption of the Public Engagement
Policy were presented to the Planning Commission again because formal action was not taken
at the last Planning Commission meeting, proving the Commission with the opportunity to
review what the Council said about some of the changes and make a formal motion before
proceeding with the amendments.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he understood that on items showing there would be Planning Commission approvals, the
applicants or appellants would still have the right to appeal to City Council; but it wouldn't
automatically go to the Council. He asked for clarification on matters that go to the DRC, why
an appeal would go directly to the City Council rather than the Planning Commission.
Gary Baum, Acting City Attorney:
• There was a concern raised by the City Attorney's office on having two members of the
Planning Commission serving on the DRC handle certain matters which would then be
appealed to the full Planning Commission; and while the issue may not probably be legally
fatal, it raises a concern that Planning Commissioners are sitting as judges on handling land
use matters, hearing the matter for the first time. The thought is that you don't have a
preconceived opinion, notion or have entered into a position on a matter before the full public
hearing. In this instance with the use of the DRC which is a valid method, if the appeal is
presented, they are hearing it again and the commissioners are somewhat hamstrung with their
prior opinion at that level. It was thought that the best way to solve that issue was to send it
straight to Council as the appeaL
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 March 22, 2011
Vice Chair Miller:
• Said in the past they have had appeals at the DRC that then went to the full Planning
Commission, but never the current level of contention.
Com. Brophy:
• Said it may not happen again, but is something that should be considered in planning.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it was a valid point, and clarified that in the particular case it was a Director's level
decision which was bumped up to the DRC, and instead of having the DRC hear it so that the
next step would be Council, her decision was to open the hearing and get input from the
neighbors and have the full Planning Commission hear it instead of the DRC opining on it.
The DRC did not comment on the project; they just heard the neighbors input; it was her
decision to bring it to the Planning Commission.
Com. Brophy:
• Asked if the considered changes would be consistent with that policy.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that in this case it would not likely change anything; it would continue to operate in the
same way. It was not a DRC item, it was a Director's item that was referred to the DRC. She
said that if the DRC did not hear it, she would render a decision and bring the decision to the
Planning Commission.
• She explained the rationale for whether a project goes to the DRC or full Planning
Commission level.
Chair Lee opened the public hearing.
Kevin McClelland, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce:
• Said that while the goal of streamlining the permit process is admirable, they had concerns
with the recommendations before the Planning Commission. Throughout the process, the idea
has been to make the permitting process easier; at this point the proposed changes will have
minimal benefits and add new burdens to companies constructing large projects in Cupertino.
This runs contrary to the intent behind these regulations; in particular, the regulations include
new mandatory public outreach requirements, the projects in each of the categories listed in the
staff report can vary greatly and should not be treated the same. He said they believe requiring
mandatory levels of community outreach regardless of the type of project is not necessary.
While they understand the need for community input in the Planning decisions, it should be
noted that the enhanced outreach described in the report only applies to projects that already go
through public processes at both Planning Commission and the City CounciL These projects
have sufficient public engagement to ensure appropriate community input; any requirements
above and beyond the standard should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Vice Chair Miller:
• Asked Mr. McClelland how he would change the recommendation.
Kevin McClelland:
• Said if they were doing a retail center, it would be in the best interest to have the public
outreach, but with a specialty office building, having the public outreach whenever you likely
wouldn't be implementing the recommendations seems disingenuous, and creates another level
to the process, which makes it more complicated instead of easier.
� Said he felt it should be either by use or best case scenario be on a case-by-case basis, because
there may be a case where there is an office building that may be located in a space that would
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 March 22, 2011
then benefit from that public process. Just to have it be a blanket part of the process could
make things more complicated than needed.
• In response to a question if he was primarily concerned with office buildings or if there were
other uses, he said it engages in larger projects and not necessarily office buildings. It may or
may not be necessary for these projects to have any additional; because it is going to go
through Planning Commission. Typically it is going to go to City Council to have another
process that may or may not be useful to what is going on.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said Mr. McClelland was likely referring to the collaborate level with a 100,000 sq. ft. office
building not adjacent to a residential; perhaps an entirely industrial area and therefore probably
won't need the level of collaborate; whereas a shopping center in the middle adjacent to homes
might, with a way to differentiate that, depending on the context. She welcomed the
Commissioners' and Mr. McClelland's suggestions; staff could include verbiage where there is
no impacts anticipated to adjacent property.
Vice Chair Miller:
• Said he felt Mr. McClelland's point was well taken, and deserved more thought.
• Said past experience shows that the issue arises when it is a controversial project, and the
better the outreach is up front, the less the controversy is when it is time to make the decision.
To some extent what staff is trying to do is reduce the amount of time and energy that would
go into it, and he said he agreed that they needed to get it right.
Kevin McClelland:
• Said an instance-by-instance basis would likely be a better way to determine where that would
fall into play.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it was a good concept, and there was a way to write that into the policy; staff's intent was
to take away the instance-by-instance since they were changing it for every application, and
applicants were getting frustrated. Staff's idea was to have an overall guideline so that people
understand when they come into the process at what point they are supposed to outreach. Mr.
McClelland's point is well taken and staff can look at if there are large projects that are not
surrounded by a context which could create impacts; they could stay at the advice level.
• Reiterated that it was not written into the ordinance; it is a policy and guideline. The ordinance
is state law, which is separate. Staff has no desire to play with the ordinance which is the
reason it is part of a policy, which gives flexibility. In order to address Mr. McClelland's
issue, staff could include wording that gives more clarity to projects that are not expected to
have impacts.
Jason Lungaard, Apple Computers:
• Echoed some of the comments made by Mr. McClelland. Going through the process there
were two main goals mentioned as people participated in the public workshops: (1) to make
the process easier and (2) to maintain the current level of civic engagement. Adding additional
levels of requirements for every project is contrary to the spirit of what those discussions were.
He encouraged the Planning Commission to consider reducing those additional requirements
and not moving forward with them as currently written.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said that R1 cannot move forward without noticing the public. She expressed concern about
the many issues the city is faced with. On February 15`�' the City Council presented many
changes that were not noticed, and there were no expectations that R1 would be opened up
again.
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 March 22, 201 1
• Expressed concern that the city may be headed for legal problems, since they are changing the
balance of power in the city; upsetting Apple and the Chamber of Commerce; and upsetting
residents by having R1 opened up again. She said it is anticipated to take another year to settle
R1. She said she did not fully understand what the Cupertino public engagement process is
and thought that after the February 15`�' City Council meeting, there would be more workshops
and focus groups on the topic. She also expressed concern about some of the legal problems
with the zoning and the elimination of some of the Planning Commission duties. She said if
the Matrix Report is out of control in other cities, they may try to eliminate the Planning
Commission, leaving only the City Council to make decisions.
• She said she felt the process was not good for the city; it should be slowed down because the
public does not currently have enough information.
Chair Lee closed the public hearing.
Com. Brophy:
• Relative to the question of collaboration on projects such as the representative from Apple
expressed concern about, what additional requirements would be placed on them, assuming
they are looking to build a major building or campus that does not exist under the current
ordinance.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it was not an ordinance, but a guideline. Previously staff would have looked at the
context as well, and said a small 100,000 square foot building probably wouldn't need a 1,000
foot notice because it wouldn't create that kind of impact. She said that a 1,000 foot notice
was not done on it, and she felt the context was important and could be written into a policy.
Vice Chair Miller:
• Asked what the impact of the guideline was; can the applicant chose to abide by it or not?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• It is the Director's decision; even the ordinance says it is the Director's decision to increase.
Staff looks at what the expected level of community involvement is and past projects, and
makes a decision based on that. Beyond that, the Commission and Council in the past have
increased noticing, which they have the discretion to do.
Vice Chair Miller:
• The two separate issues are the noticing and the level of requirement in terms of public
outreach. Inform the public is advise, work with the public is collaborate, and look for public
input is team up.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• The levels include informing the public who attend the meetings and give their three minute
presentations. Staff plans to add a sign at the site so that the community knows there is a
project on that site.
• At the collaborate level, there is a neighborhood meeting where the neighbors have the
opportunity to express their issues and help shape the project over and above the three minutes
they have to speak at the meetings. An example is the Gates of Heaven Cemetery first
application. The workshop level is for such large projects such as Main Street, where they had
neighborhood workshops to discuss the project. The team up level goes beyond the
neighborhood meeting to get concerns; Staff is having workshops and collaborating on
solutions at that point.
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 March 22, 2011
Vice Chair Miller:
• Questioned why the Commission or Director would force an applicant to go through this as
opposed to letting it be his decision. What are the benefits of one vs. another. It is the
difference between a mandate and a market incentive, if there is a market incentive for them to
go through it, why is a mandate needed? If the applicant understands that the process gets
shortened if the neighbors are on board up front, why insist from the city level that that is what
they should do. Let the applicant make his own decision.
Aarti Shrivastava:
� Said it is a staff recommendation and the Planning Commission is free to make their
recommendations if they don't agree. The benefits were stated succinctly when the
Commission said the intent of noticing the neighborhood and having a meeting is to reduce the
number of issues that come to a meeting at the decision maker level. Staff reviewed a number
of applications to look at noticing for specific applications and this stood out as a sensible
threshold. Applications in the past have come to the Commission or Council meeting with
many neighbors, and the Council and Commission direct the applicant to go back and meet
with the neighborhood. Staff's intent is to shortcut the process and say it appears to be the
level of projects that seem to get the most of these kinds of comments.
Vice Chair Miller:
• Suggested that if it is a significant project, it may be more efficient to point out to an applicant
what they can do to achieve a better result, and if they choose not to, it could become
contentious and/or the Planning Commission or City Council may insist they do it anyway. He
said he was not certain a mandate was the right path to follow, but allow the applicant to make
the decision.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Reiterated that it was a guideline, not a requirement, and it would be made clear tliat they are
suggestions that will be made to the applicant. The Director has the discretion to increase the
noticing in the ordinance which can be used as a guideline if staff feels strongly about it.
Discussion ensued wherein Planning Commissioners and staff made the following suggestions
and recommendations:
Com. Brophy:
• Said he agreed with Vice Chair Miller, that in many of the projects the guidelines may make
sense. Suggested that it be rewritten in terms of the neighborhood meetings or focus groups,
leaving it up to applicant when the see how it might affect the outcome.
• Said he was not opposed to the Director making the call relative to expanding the notice, it
should be a staff decision. In terms of having neighborhood meetings, focus groups or
workshops, or looking to the public for input, there are projects where that may well be in the
best interest of the applicant, but those areas should be the applicant's call and not tlle city's.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• One issue is to suggest to the applicant (which is currently done) how the policy can be set up.
There are some levels of projects that don't have issues or contexts and could stay at the advice
level.
• The other issue is where the ordinance allows the Director to expand the noticing if he/she
feels strongly that there are community issues to be resolved. She said they could write it up as
suggestions for public engagement instead of labeling it a policy where they distribute it to
applicants stating that they are good ways to engage the public. There may be projects that
don't have issues, and they can consult with staff to see if staff has any suggestions.
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 March 22, 2011
Com. Sun:
• Thought the general approach was for city staff to give the businesses more freedom to reveal
whether it is going to engage the public hearing or the neighborhood instead of a mandate to
do it.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Write it up as suggestions for public engagement and bring it to the City Council.
Com. Brownley:
• The comments about changing the guideline and adjusting the language made sense; tl�e
concept is that if a project is larger and impacts a larger segment of the community, greater
communication to that community makes things more efficient over time and the outcome is
more beneficial to everyone.
• Relative to the comments about keeping it flexible, he disagreed with the method to try and
change it in the middle ground to make it flexible at the Director's discretion and when it goes
to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Chair Lee:
• Said there was some consensus on the exhibits, the attachments are acceptable as written;
Exhibit A— change Cupertino Public Engagement Process to read Suggestions for Levels of
Public Engagement.
Vice Chair Miller:
• Said he agreed; it is more in line with what the objectives are of increasing flexibility to adjust
economic conditions, reducing applicant expense, increasing efficiency and shortening
approval time.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Suggested that when they have the team up and collaborate level, they can state `larger projects
that might cause neighborhood impacts; consult with staff'. They can give possible thresholds
or not, and then projects of citywide or area wide interests can be the team up level.
Com. Brophy:
• It would be best to clarify the language in terms of those areas that deal with working with the
public, or looking to the public for input, that those are suggestions that the staff may make on
a particular project and are not a requirement. It is a suggestion from the staff for an
appropriate case to make simpler forthe applicant and the surrounding neighbors.
Com. Sun:
• Said in his opinion, if a number of projects was put in, it would likely force another business to
follow the number and follow the requirement to do all the public engagement.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it was the reason she was questioning whether they should remove the number and make
reference if a project is expected to have a neighborhood level impact, consult with staff; make
suggestions on how to engage the public if a project is going to have an area-wide or city-wide
impact.
Vice Chair Milier:
• Said he felt that was a better criteria.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 Marc1122, 2011
Com. Brophy:
• Delete the left hand column and on the right hand column eliminate the Cupertino Public
Engagement Process chart.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Replace it with Typical Projects, Projects With Neighborhood Significance, Projects With
Areawide or Citywide Significance and then have the suggested levels.
Com. Brophy:
• Said it did not respond to Apple's concern; they are clearly looking at a project of citywide
significance.
• Suggested removing from the right hand column items such as neighborhood meetings and
collaborate on focus groups and workshops in the team up column. Any given applicant can
decide if they want to go that route if it is in their best interest.
• Suggested in the 3X2 Matrix, removing the left hand column and deleting from the hand
column neighborhood meetings; bottom column, delete focus groups workshops. This does
mot imply they should not do it, but for projects where it is appropriate they can decide based
on advice from staff and their own judgment of what is in their best interest.
• Stressed the importance of having a written document memorializing the current discussion.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• In order to define what kind of a project needs that, a short description will be placed in the left
hand column.
• The table will not be included in the policy; it was merely to provide an idea of the types of
projects; there will be an upper level table that includes the suggestions for public engagement.
Vice Chair Miller:
• Said he felt staf�s suggestion of neighborhood impacts, citywide impacts or street or
immediate impact is general enough. He suggested leaving the decision to the applicant but
provide him with information based on staff's experience that would benefit him in terms of
how he goes about the project; and not make it a mandate.
Chair Lee:
• It could be more of a suggestion for retail and state that focus groups, workshops and meetings
are highly encouraged for retail and commercial, more so than office.
Com. Brophy:
• Emphasized the importance of newspaper noticing the R1 when the issue comes up.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Clarified that noticing is done in the Cupertino Scene and a larger ad in the Cupertino Courier.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy second by Vice Chair Miller, with amendment to include
comments about the other areas not previously mentioned in terms of
documenting the process more thoroughly, and reducing redundancy and other
efficiency measures discussed; to approve MCA-2011-02 with Attachment 1,
Attachment 2 as modified. It was unanimously carried 5-0-0 to recommend
adoption of the resolution on Page 3-5 by City Council and that the Planning
Commission further recommend adoption of the Public Engagement Policy as
proposed by staff and as amended.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 March 22, 2011
OLD BUSINESS None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting.
Housing Commission: No meeting.
Mavor's Monthlv Meeting With Commissioners:
Com. Brownley reported on the following:
• Bicycle Committee reported they were amending the bicycle plan and bringing it to Council;
still dealing with FoothilU280 issue with restriping.
• Parks and Rec is working on Blackberry Farm; working on urban forest zoning trees and
caring for them.
• TIC: looking into phone system and reducing costs to the city; also looking into eliminating
phantom phone lines within the city; still working on cell phone towers and green projects,
solar generation and power for electric vehicles.
• Public Safety Commission: working on walk by carpool; still working on congestion and
safety around schools; looking into alert SEC the countywide alert system; and wants highest
percentage of signups among the cities; looking into flashing lights and crosswalks near the
library,
• Teen Commission: working on modifying the walk one week; switching to bike one
week/walk one week; outreaching to other cities to adopt the program; working on the anti-
smoking event and having Dr. Oz attend event.
• Library Commission: organizing a Poet Laureate competition; person will be involved in
many activities in coming year; working on Shakespeare in the Park; collaborating with TIC to
introduce new technologies.
Economic Development Committee Meeting: No meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• Written report submitted.
Adiournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for April 12, 2011 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary