PC 07-26-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
JULY 26, 2004
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY
Following a recess of the Study Session, the regular Planning Commission meeting of July 26,
2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue,
Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati.
ROLL CALL:
Taken at the Study Session.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the July 12,2004 Planning Commission meeting:
Com. Giefer requested the followiug changes:
Page 12, under Dr. Katz, 4th bullet; Change Ervie to Ervin.
Page 13, under Dawn Teuthorn: Add: The church was trying to be a good citizen by supporting the
Ciy's telecommunications master plan.
Page 27, Com. Giefer, I" bullet: 3'd line should read: white background area (referring to slide
illustrated) had as high.
Page 33, Com. Miller, I" bullet: Add Would like to add comments on story poles.
Chair Saadati requested the following changes:
Page 27, Vice Chair Wong, 2nd line: change neighboring neighbors to read adjacent neighbors.
Page 34, Chair Saadati: Change Consideration would be given to to read he would consider.
Page 34: Delete Chair Saadati and continue with bullets.
Page 35, Chair Saadati: Change the more people who receive to read as more people receive.
Page 37, Chair Saadati: I" bullet, 2nd line, change in to into.
Page 37, 3'd bullet: Delete another design review invited
Page 37, 4th bullet: Change personnel to person
Page 40, Chair Saadati: Change sat to served
Page 41, Mayor's Monthly Meeting: Add Com. Giefer will attend the September meeting.
Com. Giefer: Noted that the comments sent bye-mail regarding the June 28, 2004 minutes were
not included in the July 12 minutes.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Giefer to postpone approval of the
July 12, 2004 minutes to the next meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
Planning Commission Minutes
2
July 26, 2004
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
3.
Dffi-2004-06
David Perng (Tian-Hui
Temple. Location:
7811 Orion Lane
Appeal of a Director's approval of a minor modification
for minor additions to an existing church.
Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of
August 23, 2004. Tentative City Council date: September
7, 2004.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to postpone Application
Dffi-2004-06 to the August 23, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-
0-0)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
2.
TR-2004-06
Thomas Brutting
(The Forum at Rancho
San Antonio. Location:
23500 Cristo Rey Dr.
Tree removal of four protected trees and replacements to
accommodate an approved health care facility expansion
(U-2004-01)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller to approve Consent
Calendar Application TR-2004-06. (Vote: 4-0-0)
4.
U-2004-07, ASA-2004-1O
Danny Lee, Location:
10078 Santa Clara Ave.
Use permit to allow two 2,120 square foot two-story
single family residences in a planned development
zoning district. Planning Commission decision final
unless appealed PostponedfromJuly 12,2004
Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Peter GiIIi, presented the staff report:
· Application is for a use permit and architectural site approval to allow two 2,120 square foot
two-story single-family residences in a planned development zoning district.
· Noted that Exhibit B was revised plans to incorporate a tandem garage into the project.
· Requested that if a motion is made, to clarify which exhibit is applicable.
· Said the issue staff has with Exhibit B is the floor area ratio; the plan would have an FAR of
61 % which is more than any other project approved on a lot of similar size.
· The reason the applicant increased the FAR is to add a second garage space in each of the
units; if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the FAR, it should approve Exhibit B; if
they believe the parking is acceptable without a tandem garage, they should approve the
original plan set.
· Staff feels that the original parking is sufficient.
· An issue was raised about the on-street parking on Alhambra Avenue; it can be increased by
having the parking on the other side of the street. If the Commission wishes to recommend
that the City Council do this, it should approve a Minute Order and the Council will direct
Public Works staff to work on that project.
· Staff recommends approval of the project either the original plan or Exhibit B if the Planning
Commission wants more parking.
Planning Commission Minutes
3
July 26, 2004
Mr. Gilli:
· In response to Com. Giefer's question, he said the FAR for the original plan was 55%.
· The homes on Eaton are in a planned development zone.
· The homes on Homestead Road and Maxine are 45%; they were required to have an average
FAR, of the 7 homes on that project, one or two could be over 45% but you would have to
have others under 45%.
· The duet homes on Stelling Road aren't single family homes; possibly 70% to 80% but are not
included in the comparison because they aren't technically a single family house.
· Saron Gardens are detached homes but not in a neighborhood; it is its own unit and
development and completely enclosed.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Regarding the parking, staff report said it was an oversight; the parking ordinance passed by
the Planning Commission and City Council was a guideline for planned unit development and
small single family homes; to my recollection it was part of the ordinance and not a guideline,
so if we were to go toward that direction.
· Said he would rather have it be an exception, since he did not see it as a guideline, and it
should be straightened out.
Mr. Gilli:
· The ordinance states that in the P zone, all parking regulations are guidelines.
· Not a recent change, but was in place in the ordinance for some time.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he recalled that when they approved the 2.8; it was for a planned unit development and
small single family homes.
Com. Miller:
· In this planned zone, in terms of what they can and cannot do and the percentage of floor to
area ratio, in a planned zone like this, can you do anything you want, or are there some limits?
Mr. Gilli:
· You are allowed to approve projects with FAR setbacks for parking of whatever the Planning
Commission would like to see in a certain project, but what you approve on one project has
consequences on later projects; where if a similar project as this is proposed, and you allow
this project to have a certain FAR, you have to have strong findings to not allow another
project to not have that FAR.
Com. Miller:
· So we have the flexibility of doing whatever makes most sense.
Mark Snow, applicant:
· Said they were advised at the last Planning Commission meeting to provide a tandem design
and they complied.
· The tandem space may be better for the home buyer, certainly because they get more space for
an additional car or more storage.
· If they had a preference, it would be to move forward, and was open to whatever the Planning
Commission feels is the right direction.
PJanning Commission Minutes
4
July 26, 2004
· Does not feel that the site is compromised even with the tandem.
· There are still some decent rear yard setbacks; if the Planning Commission is concerned about
on-site parking, I don't believe the new tandem design takes away from it.
· The FAR is fairly high, if you look at the rear yard setbacks, it is still a decent setback for the
majority of the property.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked how important the third bedroom was to the applicant.
· Asked the applicant if he was comfortable with the tandem garage with the impervious surface
for the driveway and if he felt there was enough open space in the rear.
Mr. Snow:
· Said the third bedroom was very important and would be a hardship not to have the third
bedroom in a single family home in a community where people purchase homes for the
excellent schools.
· Said he was comfortable with the tandem garage.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to
speak.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Thanked staff and the applicant for addressing the concerns of the Planning Commission by
having a tandem garage and also looking at the original plan.
· Understood that staffs concern is that design is very important, and with the inclusion of
tandem garage, the design aspects will still be in it.
· It is an unusual neighborhood with small lots; and as the applicant said, the third bedroom is
important because of the schools. He said he agreed that the third bedroom was important.
· Said that he drove by the location and did not see enough parking, which is another reason he
felt the tandem garage was important; and he felt it was important to implement the parking
ordinance with 2.8 parking spaces.
· Said they could look at the Alhambra Avenue which will be separate from what staff
recommended, but he supports Plan B. The impervious surface is on the driveway; it did not
have to be implemented, but good of the applicant to do so, and still have the open space.
· The neighborhood is in transition; strongly support this application as Plan B.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she felt Plan A is a better plan for the neighborhood; is concerned with setting a precedent
for planned neighborhoods with FAR of over 60%.
· Also concerned that Plan B reduces the permeable surfaces in the rear of the house; roughly it
looks like by about 50% of the area space; she is inclined to approve Plan A and send a Minute
Order to City Council requesting them to reconsider parking along Highway 85.
Com. Miller:
· Said he had trouble with Plan A because it doesn't meet the parking requirements and he felt
they were asking everyone else in the planned development zone to adhere to 2.8, and they
were making a big exception here.
· Concerned about Plan B because he felt that it is over-building for the lots; and the applicant
may not find that acceptable.
Planning Commission Minutes
5
July 26, 2004
· If the applicant dropped the third bedroom that would allow the tandem garage and allow a
building that is not over-built for the lot.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he would compromise and agree with Com. Miller to help.
Chair Saadati:
· Asked if Plan B had gone to the neighbors as a notification.
Mr. GiIIi:
· No, the project is in almost every respect the same; it is more square footage, but was not re-
noticed.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it is not uncommon as the process changes, it is modified through the process that new
notices are not sent out; people can contact staff and they will come to the meeting regardless
of which plan is being discussed at a given time; that is not usually a part of the customary
noticing.
Chair Saadati:
· Concurred with the other commissioners; Plan A doesn't have the parking allotment, and Plan
B is a little over what he thought would be reasonable; one option is to scale these back but it
seems by providing additional parking on the street may remedy the parking situation, and also
there is parking for another car in front of the garage.
· It-is Comparing to some other houses in RI that is not meeting those parking requirements and
either one is difficult; would lean more toward Plan A which provides more back yard and it
doesn't appear on paper to be over-built.
Mr. GilIi:
· Asked the commissioners their opinion of an option where the houses are pushed back more so
that the driveway becomes closer being able to have two cars on it.
· It is now at 28 feet; to reasonably have 2 cars, it has to be pushed back about 9 feet.
Chair Saadati:
· Can that be done with maintaining the side setback without changing anything
Mr. GilIi:
· It would reduce the side setbacks to around 4 or 3' 6"; a small area would encroach.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Another option would be if the applicant could design it, is to move just the garage back
bedroom component of the house back 9 feet; slide that back and you would have the
advantage.
Mr. Gilli:
· Said he raised it with the applicant; it causes conflict with the roof over the garage that is
trying to hide the mass of the bedroom above it.
· The combination of the two could be worked out to have enough on the driveway to have two
cars, but not have the FAR issue.
Planning Commission Minutes
6
July 26, 2004
· The original concept was to push the footprint back 9 feet; with the Director's idea, you can
push the garage part half way and then move the whole house in the other half; it would
probably be a continuance to have some plans drawn up and come back.
· Clarified that it would be a one car garage with a driveway that can reasonably fit two cars.
· If pushed back 9 feet, the rear setback would still be over 22 feet.
Mr. Piasecki:
· An option for the Planning Commission would be to approve it with the provision that the
driveway parking in front of the garage shall be able to reasonably accommodate two vehicles,
approximately an additional 9 feet.
· Staff to work with the applicant to figure out how to make that work with this particular plan.
Otherwise the direction has to look like this (illustrated); it cannot be different.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Questioned that with his colleague's support, pushing the direction of the garage coming out
toward the front to accommodate the tandem garage.
Mr. GiIIi:
· You would have to push back and then push the garage out about 18 feet, the garage would be
projecting and there would not space on the driveway to park the car.
· When on the driveway, it is reasonable to say you don't quite need as much space as you
would in a garage; that's part of why the parking standards in the P zones are guidelines; you
don't have to explicitly meet a lOx 20 space; there is precedent to allow for smaller depth of
18; and also the idea if you bring the garage out, you still have the FAR issue.
Com. Giefer:
· What is recommended is what Plan B is for clarification; how is it different from the current
Plan B.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Staff is suggesting instead of having an enclosed garage, to have 2 open spaces and an
enclosed space.
Mr. GilIi:
· It would reduce the side setbacks and it could be done so the side setbacks are 3'6" which is
what it is between the homes. If the Planning Commission wants a minimum, the applicant
can trim off the comers.
· One issue with the neighbors is they don't know what the setback is, because they haven't
contacted us, unless the applicant has talked to them; they only received a notice that the house
will be built; there are no story poles that show where the setback is now.
Chair Saadati:
· Concern is for the neighbors; they need to become aware of this; at least the adjacent
neighbors should be informed of it.
Mr. GiIIi:
· In the planned development zone 3.6 on one side and 5.7 on the other is acceptable.
P]anning Commission Minutes
7
Ju1y 26, 2004
Com. Miller:
· Said he shared Chair Saadati's concern also, if the setbacks are changed, the neighbors need to
be notified because they are going to be surprised when the house is built.
Chair Saadati:
· The side setback varies; it is a unique situation, at some point there is 10 feet at the front of the
house, you have to look at the average.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Said it was not an RI area; it is a planned development wne.
· Story poles are only required in the RI zone.
Vice Chair Wong:
· In a planned development zone, it is not necessary for a two story unit to have story poles even
though that planning development is the one particular small neighborhood.
· Did the initial noticing language state that it is a two story house?
Mr. GilIi:
· Confirmed that was the description on the agenda; and that would have been what they
received.
Chair Saadati:
· With that, providing two surface parking spaces in front of the garage seems to be an option,
and by notifying the neighbors. Perhaps some adjustment needs to be made to minimize the
impact to the site.
Mr. Piasecki:
· It could be stated that in no case shall the side setback be less than 3 foot, 6 inches, similar to
the other side, it is serrated and would be much larger in most of the area; the applicant needs
to lay it out, staff can work with them; the building wi1llook much like it does now, somewhat
better because it will be set back; it will have less of a street impact.
Com. Giefer:
· Requested that a Minute Order to City Council be sent, because she felt parking in general in
the area needs alleviation and by opening up Alhambra it will help alleviate that, not just for
this project, but for the neighborhood.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he did not feel comfortable voting on the application tonight without re-noticing the
neighbors; and said he was concerned about the setbacks, and without knowing what the
setbacks are, the overall plan sounds good, but he needed to see it in writing. He said the
notification was important to him.
· Asked the city attorney about Minute Orders on Alhambra Avenue; since they were not
noticing the neighbors, how could they discuss it, not knowing how the neighborhood feels.
Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
· Said that it was not an application; it would be a Minute Order to open the item for discussion.
Planning Commission Minutes
&
July 26, 2004
Mr. Piasecki:
· Public Works has a procedure for noticing neighborhoods when they change parking; or street
configuration so that would go through that normal process.
· If the City Council agrees with you that they should consider parking on the other side ofthe
street, they would direct Public Works staff to go through their normal noticing procedure and
raise that issue; it would go to the City Council for a final decision it would not have to come
back to the Planning Commission.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said it clarified the process; still concerned about the opening; presently parking is on one
side, the residential side. The freeway wall side is much darker, with many trees and the
sound wall.
· Not certain if residents would want to park on the other side.
· Assume they would like to park closer to their residences so that they can monitor their cars.
· Undecided about the Minute Order.
Chair Saadati:
· The neighbors may object to it.
Mr. GiIIi:
· One other option is the Planning Commission can approve the use permit FAR with a
minimum side setbacks and a minimum amount of parking and refer to ASA with a re-
notification to the design review committee.
Com. Miller:
· What is the difference between going back to the DRC and coming back to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. GiIIi:
· The timing; it will also allow the applicant to know that he has a limit on the FAR; he has to
find his parking, it will only save a small amount of time.
Mr. Snow:
· Said he appreciated staff s efforts; it is a difficult site; frustrating for everyone.
· Said it was his goal to have a satisfactory project and if it meant having the two parking
spaces, and open space in front, and trying to maintain some reasonable setbacks, he was
willing to work toward that.
Com. Giefer:
· Said in the spirit of tonight's discussion about streamlining the application process as part of
the RI, she would be comfortable having it be a director's modification provided setbacks are
maintained.
· Would like to see bigger setbacks, and be in favor of just pushing the garage space back, and
have applicant work with staff to come up with a quality design that would accommodate all
of our requests.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said pushing the garage back does not increase the FAR.
P]anning Commission Minutes
9
July 26, 2004
· Staff expressed that the applicant was concerned about maintaining the roof element currently
over the garage, and if it was slid back, it could have the roof element as a carport-like
structure, and the additional space would be able to fit into an open carport.
· There may be different ways of accomplishing it and maintaining the integrity of the design
applicant has already worked on.
Com. Giefer:
· From what staff said today, having an additional 9 feet of driveway, if that is what it would
take to accommodate two cars in the driveway for the two open spaces, and only moving the
portion behind that; if the garage, one bath and bedroom could be reasonably worked out in
design so that it didn't look out of place, she said she would be comfortable with that.
· Staff said they could accomplish that with the applicant.
· Said she was not considering additional setback in the side or rear areas, just the driveway
area.
· As the Director said, increasing the total length of the driveway to give two open spaces, a
covered garage, and the bath and bedroom go back, still maintaining approximately 20 feet
between the furthest pushback of the home and the fence line, which is important if this is
being built as a family home.
· Said she felt 3 feet on both sides of the house is difficult, if it is a wedge shaped lot, at some
point there is no way to get any equipment in the back yard to do any landscaping; 3-1/2 feet is
too little space and it is also encroaching on the neighbors.
Com. Miller:
· Said he felt the applicant is trying to do too much with too little; looking at the 3.6 feet on the
side setback, he said he thought in Saron Gardens, they were at least 5 feet on everything.
· Asked if they were in general going down to 3.6 feet on side setbacks?
Mr. Piasecki:
· Relative to the 3.6 feet on side setbacks, said he did not recall.
· I recall that there were three parcels being consolidated into two; so there is compromising
going on with the applicant.
· This is internal to the project as opposed to external to the neighbor; the thought was that there
would be more leeway here (illustrated); but it is clearly minimal.
Com. Miller:
· It is minimal and it is also minimal on a two story house; that is two story there; 3.6 feet away
from the property line.
Mr. Gilli:
· The second story is closer to 6 feet but it is still much less than Rl.
Com. Miller:
· Yes; and less than other developments in planned development zones.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Said he was aware of some projects in this area with a setback of this amount, and the director
is correct, it is almost a tradeoff saying if you combine lots instead of having three homes like
shoeboxes; having two, if you are going to chose somewhere to put the small setback, you
should put them in between the two; and keep as much room as available on the other sides.
Planning Commission Minutes
10
July 26, 2004
Com. Miller:
· Concurred with Vice Chair Wong that radical changes are being made to the design, and it
should either come back to the Planning Commission or the DRC, either one is acceptable.
· There is so much going on here and lack of agreement, it needs to be seen again.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he liked Plan B, but agreed with Com. Miller that the FAR is quite big; the family room
and dining room, the increase in the family room that is 12 x 24, vs. the original one 16 x 17,
and by either making the third bedroom smaller or deleting it, it is still a good size house.
· From a marketability standpoint, it would be beneficial to have the third bedroom, but he was
concerned also. It is also a good point that regarding the side setbacks to get things to the rear,
3 to 3-1/2 is small and one of the setbacks should be at least five feet.
Chair Saadati:
· Agreed with other commissioners that if it is revised, go back to the DRC and maintain the
setback as shown on the site, because reducing that could trigger outrage.
· On the neighboring homes, said he liked Com. Giefer's idea of pushing the garage back and
pushing the bedroom toward the backyard, which also opens up the front to some extent.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application
ASA-2004-10 and U-2004-07 per the original Plan A, taking into
consideration that the honse be pnshed back 8 to 9 feet to accommodate two
parking spaces in the front of the garage, and also the side setback minimum
on one side should be at least 5 feet; to go back to the DRC with noticing to
the neighbors. (Vote 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent)
Vice Chair Wong:
· Commented to the applicant that he agreed it was a frustrating process, which needs to be
streamlined, but they want to accommodate everyone on the Planning Commission and by it
coming to the DRC, staff will work with the applicant and by the September I" DRC meeting,
the applicant should have a well qualified project.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
5. Discuss changing the Planning Commission meetings from the second and fourth
Mondays of each month, to the second and fonrth Tnesdays of each month.
Mr. Piasecki:
· As stated in the staff report, City Council is considering changing their meeting night from
Mondays to Tuesdays because of the number of holidays conflicting with the Monday night
meetings, and they want an additional day to review the packet material. For consistency
purposes, it would be helpful to meet on the same night so people understand Tuesday night is
the activity night.
· For the Planning Commission the city's budget approved 5 citywide furlough days on the last
Monday of different months, which will conflict with some of the Planning Commission
meetings. There will be the added advantage of having an additional day to review the packets
material but also having fewer conflicts.
Planning Commission Minutes
11
July 26, 2004
· City Council indicated that the change would have to go through an ordinance and they were
considering the effective date to be when the City Council and Planning Commission meetings
move over to the new premises, likely the first meeting in November.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Recalled that Councilmember Sandoval said she wanted consistency; they received their
packets on Wednesday evening, Thursday is a full day at City Hall; a slow day on Friday and
some Mondays would be holidays or furlough days. If concerns are not addressed on
Thursday, the next day to address them would be Tuesday, the day of the hearing.
· Asked that they be consistent with the City Council and get their packets on Wednesday night
to allow more time to review packets.
· Said he understood that some applicants can't get their materials on time, but at least they
could have a head start on reading some of the staff reports, and if there are late items, (hey
could be couriered to Commissioners' homes on Friday.
· Said the more time the Planning Commissioners have to review the packet is important to him,
to enable him to make a good decision.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it would be problematic for staff to do that because their dates drive the final filing dates
for applicants as well as the materials they have to get to staff. The Council date being a
Wednesday does not do that; if they do make the change to Tuesday nights, there will be some
occasions when staff won't be able to get Planning Commission actions written up for the
Council packets the next day if meeting on Tuesdays as well, because they would have to get it
to the packet for Wednesday. In some rare instances, there will be double packets going out to
City Council to accommodate the changes described.
· Said they would address it one more time and when it comes back to the Planning Commission
in the hearing process, they would look at it; however, in the past it has been difficult for staff
to consider moving those dates, because it changes everything.
· Said they would try to pre-write the reports for the City Council, anticipating what the
outcome will be and make the final changes on the Wednesday after the Planning Commission
meeting.
· Said they are willing to look at that; it is very difficult to do that given the tight time line staff
15 on.
Com. Miller:
· Agreeable with moving the date and with staff looking at whether or not they can get the
packet out earlier.
Com. Giefer:
· Agreeable with the date change.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to authorize staff to
move forward to change the meeting dates from the second and fourth
Mondays of the month to the second and fourth Tuesday of the month, and
investigate the possibility of having agenda packets delivered on Wednesday.
(Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent)
Planning Commission Minutes
12
July 26, 2004
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: Chair Saadati reported that the only item discussed was a
parcel of land being subdivided into 5 parcels. He noted that students from Los Gatos attended the
meeting.
Housing Commission: Com. Giefer reported that no meeting was held.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Chair Saadati reported:
· The CCC wants a special election ballot; there were speakers in support of the initiative and
also speakers in opposition.
· Teen Commission: Discussed new art at the Teen Center.
· Bicycle Committee: Regnart Trail behind city hall; planning to walk the trail with community
this month before final report is completed; having a blue ribbon team formed for that project;
diseussed wall, to sehool in future mouths. walk to school to be discussed in future
months.
· Fine Arts Committee: Dedication of the Cali Mill Plaza took place last Saturday; also
working on library public art; said that the Persian community is working on donating a statue
of Cyrus to be placed in a Cupertino location.
· Parks Committee: Stevens Creek Corridor: working with the water district to rehabilitate the
natural corridor around the creek; partnering with other agencies.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Piasecki:
· The City Council is planning on holding a joint study session on August 17th, 4:30 p.m.,
regarding the Hewlett Packard vacant lands next to Vallco Fashion Park; Residential developer
Toll Brothers are asking for a change in the authorization for the General Plan amendment to
add more housing units. Corns. Wong, Miller and Chair Saadati said they would attend the
study session.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the study session of Planning
Commission meeting on August 9, 2004 at 5:00 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
~
Approved as amended: August 9, 2004