Loading...
PC 08-09-99CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 9, 1999 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Hards, Stevens; Chairperson Doyle Commissioners absent: Kwok Staff presant: Robea Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, Cily Plaaner; Colin Jung, Associate Pl~ner; Vera CAI, Plmmer ii; Rhys Rowland, Planning Intern; Chiles Kilian, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the July 26, 1999, regular Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to approve the minutes Commission meeting as presented Com. Stevens Com. Kwok Chair Doyle Passed 3-0-1 of July 26, 1999 Planning WRITIEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 7-EXC-99, 22-EA-99 Brian O'Orady 10645 Cordova Road (Lot C) Hillside Exception to construct anew 3,199 square foot residence on an existing lot. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 1999 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 8-EXC-99, 23-EA-99 Brian O'Orady 10645 Cordova Road (Lot A) Hillside Exception to construct a new 2,869 square foot residence on an existing lot. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of Septernber 13, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 9, 1999 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 9-EXC-99, 24-EA-99 Brian O'Grady 10645 Cordova Road (Lot B) Hillside Exception to construct a new 3,133 square foot residence on tm existing lot. Planning Commission decisWn final unless appealed Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 1999 10. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 8-U-99, 21-EA-99 HOK Architects 20330 Torte Avenue (for Symamee Corporation) Use Permit to construct a 1,750 sq. ft. addition (Learning Center ) at an existing office building Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 1999 11. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-U-99, 17-EA-99 Evershine Group (Marketplace) 19750 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use Permit to d~nolish an existing 9,464 square foot vacant restaurant ~md construct two new commercial buildings totaling 26,159 square feet. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1999 Tentative City Council hearing date: August 16, 1999 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to postpone Items 2, 3, 4, 10 end 11 to the Sep~anber 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Corr Com. Kwok Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Alvin Deridder, 19146 Ann Lane, Cupertino, spoke on behalf of the residents of the Sam Crist House, a home for independent living for handicapped people. He discussed a potential safety problem relative to the lack of a sidewalk for wheelchair accessibility. He suggested a tetnlx~my asphalt sidewalk be installed. Mr, Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, said be would contact the Public Works Deparlment and if a safety issue was involved, there may be discretionary funds available to improve the hazardous conditions. He noted that street improvements were normally completed by the developers. Mr. Deridder expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commission end staff for addressing the issue. CONSENT CALENDAR: None Chairperson Doyle opened the public hearing. Application No.: Applicant: 6-U-99 Cali~Land Associates 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard Request for a two-year Use Permit for a car storage lot on a vacant parcel. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 9, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a one year use permit extension to allow continued storage of cars on 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard, while Stevens Creek Honda undergoes remodeling. Staff recommends approval of a one-year extension only; a decision if reached, will be final, unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Cowan clarified that the proposed model resolution does not provide for the one year approval, lie recommended a 12 month extension bog~inning September 1, 1999, ending September 1, 2000. Mr. Gaud Schmidt, Economic Analysis and Development Ent*iv, ises, provided historical background of the parcel in question and explained the need for the storage space. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 6-U-99 with the change to a one-year extension, ending August 31, 2000. Com. Corr Com. Kwok Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 3-TM-99, 14-EA-99 Judy Chen 7359 Rainbow Drive Tentative map to subdivide a 14,661 square foot parcel into seven lots for an approved townhouse development. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1999 Tentative City Council hearing date: August 16, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to subdivide a 14,461 square foot pmcel into eight lots for an approved town]house development, as outlined in the attached staff report. The application to demolish the existing complex was approved in late 1998; and staff found the tentative map to be consistent with the approved use permit. Issues concerning site drainage and tree protection were resolved and conditions were drawn up during the use permit approval process, with the exception of a 19 inch deodora cedar located on the northwest comer of the propeaty, which the applicant is requesting to remove. Ms. Chen's proposal is to replace the Ixee with a 36 inch box tree. Staff recommends approval of the 8 lot subdivision based upon conditions of approval; a decision will be forwarded to the City Council for a final decision. Mr. Tom Sloan, project architect, answered questions relative to the tree removal and replacement. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Ms. Judy Chen, applicant, referred to the preliminary landscape plan and noted the tree placement in the neighboring yards. She pointed out that the tree in question was blocking Utility poles and was presently not in healthy condition. Com. Stevens expressed concern that the neighbor who was originally concerned with the tree removal when the project was approved, was not present, nor was there any indication the neighbor had any input on the latest proposal for removal. Com. Corr s,xid that he felt the present tree may Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 9, 1999 stm4ve. Com. Harris said that because of the root problems and condition of the present tree, she was in favor of replacement of the tree with a 36 inch box tree with a growth potential of 30 feet. Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, suggested that the list provided the arborist be used to select the appropriate t~ee, and stuff to work with the neighbor. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to approve Application 14-EA-99 Com. Stevens Com. Kwok Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: Com. Hams moved to approve Application 3-TM-99 with the condition that the 36 inch box be selected from the general list of trees with staff approval Com. Stevens AMENDED MOTION: Com. Corr moved to mnend the motion to retain the tree in question relative to Application 3-TM-99; however, if the tree should die, it be replaced with a 36 inch box selected t~om the arborist's list SECOND: Chair Doyle ABSENT: Com. Kwok NOES: Coms. Harris and Stevens VOTE: Failed 2-2-1 A vote was then taken on the original motion NOES: Com. Corr and Chair Doyle ABSENT: Com. Kwok VOTE: Failed 2-2-1 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to continue Application 3-TM-99 to the September 13, 1999 Plamain~ Commission meeting; to notify the adjacent neighbors on two sides of the unit that the tree is being considered for removal at the public hearing Com. Corr Com. Kwok Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: 7-U-99, 20-EA-99 YMCA 20803 Alves Drive Use Permit to add a 9,831 square foot addition of an indoor swim pool and aerobic studio to an existing building. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use pexmit for a swim pool and aerobic studio al the existing YMCA facility on Alves Avenue. The applicant has agreed to install a six foot high wood fence to screen the addition from the nearby apartment complexes. Staff recommends approval of the swim pool and aerobic studio and feels that the parking is adequate to support the additions. Staff suggests that the plvaming Commission include a condition which would allow revisitation of the parking requirements if any problem arises. A decision if reached, will be regarded as final and will not be forwarded to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes 5 Au~k~t 9, 1999 Ms. Vera G-il, Planner 11, clarified the proposal for thc aerobic studio, and reviewed the paxking survey conducted by the YMCA. She noted that a condition of approval would be included to revisit thc pinking ratio issue if necessmy. She refeaxed to the site plan and answered questions regarding setbacks and parking. Mr. Jonathan Lucas, architect, said that the three main goals of the project were based on a study of the community needs: to serve the community with expanded range of bealth and fitness services; expand the services to serve a greater age range; and to expand the services that would lend themselves to s~angthening families. He noted that the building was designed architecturally to blend and enhance the existing architecture. He said there were 8 bike racks provided. Mr. Sal Portara, YMCA Property Manager, briefly discussed the Quito Road facilities, and said that he felt that facility had less parking facilities than the Cupertino facility. Ms. Liz Galleagos, Executive Director Northwest YMCA, briefly discussed the parking survey and explained the high traffic pattern for the emly evening hours. She also said they were willing to add more bike racks. Mr. Lucas discussed the proposed roof material, and explained that it was galvanized metal with a highly corrosive resistant paint. Relative to parking, he pointed out that their proposal exceeded the ratio by 6 spaces. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Janice Newton, 20900 Alves Drive, expressed concern about the potential increase in traffic with the addition of the swim pool, and the effects on the nearby residents. She discussed the high volume of traffic, both vehicular and foot traffic, on Alves Drive. She pointed out that when there is a large event at the YMCA facilities, parking spills out onto Alves Drive and negatively affects the foot traffic and vehicular traffic on Alves; which could potentially become a &angerous situation if more parking is not provided. Ms. Newton suggested the addition of a traffic bump on Alves Drive, and close off Alves Drive at Stelling. She expressed concern about the increased need for parking on Sundays and Wednesdays, and suggested that the parking issue be addressed. Ms. Galleagos said that the YMCA no longer had bingo on Wednesdays and reviewed the facilities usage for various programs. She noted that a community meeting would be held on August 31 to review the plans and discuss issues of concern, and apologized that the meeting was not scheduled Chair Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting. Ms. Gil said that the applicant would apply for a use permit modification relative to the facility use on Sunday. Chair Doyle munmafized the issues: parking, with condition of approval; traffic study; one-to-one setback; additional bike racks; and public meeting. Com. Stevens said that he felt they should have the oppommity to review parking as stated in the model resolution. Relative to traffic, Public Works has been requested to conduct a traffic stndy, m light of the additional use across the street; one-to-one setbacks appropriate; increase bike racks to 20+; schedule a public meeting. He said he felt the issues were excellent outlines for a public Planning Commission/v'finutcs 6 August 9, 1999 meeting, and if held earlier, neighbors would have had the opportunity to provide input. He said that the need for a public me~ng still existed. Com. Corr said that he felt the open slYace ~rea in the back should remain open for skatebomders as its use has cut down the problems in the community associated with the skateboarders. He said he would like to have the option to revisit the open space area if parking became an issue. Relative to traffic, he said the traffic committee should address a traffic study; maintain both the one-to-one setback and the 20 feet on the equipment road; increase bike racks; and hold a public meeting. He said the need for a public meeting was apparent, but did not want to hold the process up until one was held. Com. Harris said she was in favor of the project and that the YMCA was a wonderful commumty resource and a good neighbor. She said the traffic committee could address the traffic issues; notifij neighbors; some mitigation has already been done in terms of resll'ictad use; was supportive of lowering the building to maintain the one-to-one setback on the main building; 20 lent minimum on the equipment road; and increase bike racks/spacos to 20. She said that she felt thc public meeting should have been held for public input and if the item was not continued until a meeting was held, she would vote against the project for that reason. Later in the meeting, Com. Harris said that she would change her vote if a public meeting was held, as she did not want to hold up the project. She suggested that the language be changed relative to parking, No. 4, to state "intensity of site use". Chair Doyle said that parkin~ was appropriate; wording change suitable; recommend Public Works conduct a study or safety co,,,ission address the situation; adhere to 20 foot minimum and one- to-one setback; bike racks increased to 24. He said that relative to the public meeting, it is a communications issue, and the YMCA has a vested interest in keeping the community informed, mad he felt confident that the YMCA would work it out. He said he supported the resolution on the proposal. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Cum. Stevens moved to approve Application 20-EA-99 Com. Hams Com. Kwok Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: PASSED: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 7-U-99, including the amendment to the parking and additional bike racks, and setback requirement Com. Stevens Com. Kwok Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 9-U-99 Kararam Gharanti 10093-10095 Alhambra Avenue Use Poi,nit to construct new entty features in the required from setback at an existing duplex. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Thc video p~sentation reviewed the application for a use permit to construct new enlry features at an exisiing duplex. The entry features, although enhancing the plaint front fagade, will result in a 6 foot front setback, much shorter than the required 20 foot setback required for an R-2 or residential duplex district. Staff feels that the two new entry features along with Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 9, 1999 other proposed improvements will add visual interest and improve the overall appearance of the stre~tscape within the neighborhood. However, staffrecommands that the applicati°n be continued because they believe the design could be improved by possibly creating a hip roof instead of a gable roof, and making the entxy both wider and shorter. Mr. Rhys Rowland, Planning Intern, referred to photos which illustrated the surrounding properties. Mr. Kammn Oharanti, applicant, explained that he planned to make cosmetic changes to the entxy features of the duplex a~d was not previously aware that the changes required a use permit. He said it would be a financial burden if he had to demolish the existing improvements. Com. Hams said she felt the modifications were an improvement and would be costly to change what was already constructed. She said she did not concur with staff's recommendation regarding the hip roof; end commented that she would be more concerned with the design if it had not already been consm~cted. However, the t~eeway was across the street from the duplex and the facade was an improvement, and consistent with the area. Com. Corr said he supported the project and felt it was an improvement. He noted that the conceptual zoning plan for the Monta Vista/Peninsula Avenue area states that due to existing lot sizes, and/or structural location, there are no specific zoning requh~ents relative to the setbacks, lot coverage and parking with the exception of the requirements set forth in the uniform building code. Com. Stevens said he support~ the project as it was an improvement, and the area consisted of a variety of designs. Chair Doyle said that the design was appropriate, but it was important to be certain that it met the minimal code requirements. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 9-U-99 Com. Con Com. Kwok Passed 4-0-0 Chair Doyle declared a recess from 9:10 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 4-U-99, 7-EA-99 Roman Catholic Bishop/Gate of Heaven Cemotexy 22555 Cristo Rey Drive Use Permit to construct anew mausoleum consisting of 942 crypts. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of duly 26, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to construct a new mausoleum consisting of 942 co, ts, which would include a glass walkway and interior crypts on three elevations, hi order to mitigate the visual impact from the neighboring Rancho San Antonio County Park, the applicant has agreed to increase the original setback from 20 feet to 40 feet along the southwest property line. In addition, landscape screening consisting of trees, shrubs and ground cover is proposed along the southwest property line. Staff recommends approval of Planning Commission Minutes s August 9, 1999 the application. A decision on the application will be considered final and not forwarded to City Council, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, illustrated the location of the proposed mausoleum and the elevations, and answered questions. Mr. Chris Kelly, architect, said that he worked with the Parks Department and Plmming Depafiment regarding visual issues; originally the building was 20 feet fom the property line, end it was pushed back to 40 feet. He said that screening the building was also an issue, and provided a brief history of the property. He discussed the t~ee plantings on the park side to create an informal natural park, which would be maintained by diem for 4 to 5 yea~s. He added that a variety of trees planted in a meendering manner along the fence with some natural shrubs end grasses added to the natural appearance, rather than rigid, formal spacing. Mr. Kelly then discussed the parking requirements and building regulations relative to cemeteries end mausoleums. Mr. Bob Surmners, Director of Cemeteries, said that non*catholics could be buried in the cemetery, but that approval of the clergy was needed. Mr. Kelly noted for the record diat in the future, it may be an issue for the diocese, as they may object to the quick deed for underg~onnd water fights. He said the cemetery currently has meter wells on site to irrigate their land, and reclaims all the storm drain water. Mr. Kilian said that it was a standard condition imposed on all development in the city; however, the property is unique in flint it is served by existing wells. He said Public Works is the genesis of this condition, and he would discuss it with Mr. Viskovich whether the dry is in need of the underground rights at this point. Ms. Wordell clarified that if the applicant had questions and decided to pursue other means if they did not want to go along with the requirement, it would be considered a separate matter, and if approved, it would be up to the applicant to pursue either not building or get6ng it changed. Mr. Kilian said that it should be indicated, so that there were no surprises, that if the application is approved with flint requirement included, it would be incumbent upon the church to file an appeal as to that condition with the City Council, within 14 days. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Doyle summarized the issues: height, setback, planting and access. He said it was important to evaluate the periphery of the entire property and make sure that it meets the requirements of the adjoining uses, and not just specifically the trail access. He said he felt staff should be directed to work with the cemetery owners to update the vegetation plan for the site and potentially begin implementation, as a condition of the application. Later in the meeting, he withdrew his reconun~dvalon. Mr. Kelly said that although he did not object to the suggestion, he felt that it was becoming a one- way street, and that the developer and homeowners had more rights aM the cemetepj was losing its rights. He said he felt the developer should be planting trees to mitigate its houses from the cemetery views, and the cemetery would plant trees to help mitigate and be good neighbors. He pointed out that some of the fm~nilles with buried members in the cemetery were upset aborn the wooden fence as the view was blocked. He said that because of limited funds, the plantings cannot be done at one time, and do plant prematurely would create an unfair fmeneial burden on the cemetery. He said he was optimistic that the developer would include trees in their plans. planning Commission Minutes ~ August 9, 1999 Com. Harris said she felt that parking was an issue and questioned why it was not being addressed. Ms. Wordell said that the applicant's testimony relative to p~ng not being a problem was acceptable, but further study could be done. Ms. Carol Carrier, Superintendent of Gate of Heavy Cemetery, said that the level of traffic remained stable, and corteges of cars were on the proporty for short periods of flint and thc need for parking lots at Gate of Heaven Cemetery was not appment as only 25% of the land was developed. She said parking was available on both sides of the road, and people generally did not remain in the cemetery for long periods of time. Ms. Wordell said that stuff could be directed to work with the applic~mt to evaluate the north property pe~meter for the effeetiveaess of screening the cemetery use from the residential use. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 7-EA-99 Com. Harris Com. Kwok Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Con' moved to approve Application 4.U-99 in accordance with thc model resolution and findings Com. Stevens Com. Kwok Passed 4-0-0 12. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 16-U-98, 43-EA-98 Adzich Properties 10216 Pasadena Avenue Use Permit to demolish an existing house and construct four single family ~sidences (approximately 2,220 to 2,500 square feet) on a 12,480 square foot (net) lot. Plannmg Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to demolish an exisfin4 house and comet an approximately 9,700 square foot 4-unit apartment building, Staff will present meats on the subject of planned development zonin4 architecture and setbacks, privacy issues and mass. Staff would prefer that the applicant submit plans for units smaller than the proposed 2,400 sq. ft. ap~tmeat units, for smaller floor to erea ratios. Staff also believes that the development in this area must be carefully established by way of setting the tone and compatibility for future projects in this area. Staff feels the project is too massive and recommends either denial of the project or a continuance if the applicant is agreeable to redesign the project, lowering the square footage. Mr. Colin Jung, Associale Planner, repotled that the property was located in the county, and the zoning is a pre-zoning and any future use permit granted for any redevelopment would be conditioned on annexation properly to the city. Referring to the fiont aid rear elevations of the properly, Mr. Jung reviewed the proposed development. He referred to the staff report and discussed the Planned Development zoning, architecture and setbacks, privacy issues and mass. Mr. Bob Schwenke, representing the applicant, referred to the first floor and second floor site plans and explained the proposed development, and rationale for he 0.76 FAR. He added that the plans were revised to meet the Central Fire District's requirements, and said he felt the project would be Commission ~ut~s ~0 ,~u~us~ 9, ~999 an asset to the community. Mr. Schwenke answered Commissioners' questions relative to the proposed project. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Harris said she felt it was a key project and should be considered with the overall community in mind, including staff input on how it should be d~valoped in terms of density. She said that a large range existed between 4 units to the acre and 12 units to the acre, a~d pointed out that maximizing the potential with the densest project does not necessarily yield the greatest benefit to the eommanity. Com. Harris said she felt the project was too dense, a~d emphasized the need for smaller houses in the affordable price range. She said she would prefer to see 2 or 3 units with more lawn space. Com. Corr concurred that the project was too dense and expressed concern about the starkness of the rear elevation. Com. Stevens said that the project should be carefully considered; however, he felt small houses were not economical. He said that the proposal was a unique proposal, and a definite compromise in that nothing existed between an apartment and a house. He said he could not support the present proposal, but felt it was headed in the fight direction. Chair Doyle said he felt they were trying to develop too large an envelope and should revert toward an R3. He said that .76 FAR was too high and .5 was more reasonable. He said that although the quality of the proposal was excellent, the density was too high. Mr. Schwenke said that reducing to 3 units would create a disparity m size availability between the two front units and the single in the back, and would not help the process. He suggested a workshop to discuss working with the lots, which would provide a better understanding of the direction for the other paseels in the area_ There was a brief discussion about the possibility of a tour of different areas, or creating a video which would address how to incorporate compatible projects in small areas. Mr. Robext Adzich, representing the Adzich family, said that the original proposal included fou~ sepasate detached units with parkin~g space between. He said the plans were available for review. Com. Harris explained that the consensus was for a smaller building envelope, smaller FAR for the site with lower density. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Application 16-U-98 and 43-EA-98 to the September 27, 1999 p!annin~ Commission meeting Com. Corr Com. Kwok Passed 44)-0 13. Application No.: Applicant: Amendment to Tree Ordinance (Chapter 14.12) City of Cupertino Citywide _ Consideration of amendments to add protection of trees required for privacy protection and landscape screening on R-1 lots. Tentative City Council hearing date: September 7, 1999 Continued.from Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1999 There was a brief discussion regarding the modifications to thc l~ee ordinance discussed at the prior meeting. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to submit a recommeedation to the City Council on the amendment to the a'ee ordinance as noted in the staff report of August 9, 1999; including the deletion of "or proposed" on Page 378-4 of tbe current rules; inclusion of redwoods; that the corrected numbers for the c~rolmferences listed on thc exhibit illustrated on the board be used; and that it be stated that the circumference is conlrol, and circumference be measured at the height Com. Corr Com. Kwok Passed 4-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Harris reported that she was meeting with the design review cotmaittee for the second time to review a house, and noted that there was a residential design review commiRee whose mandate was to review the second stories and the new rules. She suggested that the City Council be asked to fold m all the residential review wiih the residential committee because they would become specialists on c~0mmllnity input on residential issues and the other coamfittee should handle all the other erchitectural issues. Ms. Wordell clarified that a public hearing would have to be noticed for a future meeiing. Following a brief discussion there was consensus that a minute order be sent to the City Council noticing September 27, 1999 for the public hearing to address the issue. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNrFY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None AI~OURNMENT: The meefin~ adjourned at 11:40 p.m. to the Special Joint meeting with City Council at 6 p.m. on August 30, 1999 at Qninlan Center, 10185 Stelling Road, Cupertino. Recording Seeretary Approved as presented: September 13, 1999