PC 11-22-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:00 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
November 22, 2005
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
TUESDAY
The regular Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 2005 was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson
Gilbert Wong
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Gilbert Wong
Marty Miller
Angela Chen
Taaghi Saadati
Lisa Giefer
Staff present:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Ciddy Wordell
ColinJung
Aki Honda
Piu Ghosh
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 8, 2005 Special Planning Commission meeting minutes:
Com. Saadati requested the following changes:
· Page 13; 2nd bullet, 2nd line insert "of" after "be"
3rd bullet: Delete the first sentence.
· Page 14, 5th bullet, second line: change "two" to read "three"
5'· bullet: Change "was" to "be"
Com. Giefer requested the followiug changes:
· Page 12, 2nd bullet, change the word "divorced" to "deforest" (to remove trees).
· Page 13, Under second Com. Giefer, line 5: change "isn't" to "is"
· Page 15, under Com. Giefer, 2nd bullet, line 1: delete "add that the heavy trucks" and
insert "and where heavy equipment and trucks can park but"
Motiou: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Giefer, to approve the
November 8,2005 minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
November 22, 2005
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
2. U-2005-16, ASA-2005-11,
TM-2005-06, Z-2005-05,
GPA-2005-04, TR-2005-04,
DA-2005-01 (EA-2005-10)
Mike Rohde
(Vallco Fashion Park)
10123 N. Wolfe Road
(South ofI-280 and west
of Wolfe Road)
3. U-2005-19, ASA-2005-17,
TR-2005-08, (EA-2005-15)
Mike Rohde (Vallco
Fashion Park)
10123 No. Wolfe Rd.
(Vallco Fashion Park)
7. M-2005-05 Peter Park
(Park residence)
22810 Mercedes Rd.
Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to
construct a 1 56-unit, three-story attached condominium
development. Tentative Map to subdivide a 5.19-acre
parcel into condominium and common parcels for a
1 56-unit attached condominium development. Rezoning
of a 5 .19-acre parcel ITom Planned Development
(Regional Shopping) to Planned Development
(Regional Shopping/Residential) General Plan
Amendment to allocate 156 housing units for an
attached condominium development. Tree removal
for an attached condominium development.
Modification to a Development Agreement (I-DA-90)
to encompass the development proposed in U-2005-16,
ASA-2005-11, TM-2005-06, GPA-2005-04, Z-2005-05,
and TR-2005-04. Postponed from the October 25, 2005
Planning Commission meeting. Request postponement to
the December 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Use Permit to construct a four-story, five level parking
garage. Architectural and site approval for a four-story
five-level parking garage. Tree removal and
replanting to construct a four-story, five-level
parking garage. Request postponement to the
December 20, 2005 Special Planning
Commission meeting.
Modification to a hillside exception (EXC-200 1-07)
for grading and retaining walls. Planning Commission
final unless appealed. Request removal from
calendar.
Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, seconded by Com. Saadati, to postpone Items 2 and 3 to
the December 20, 2005 Special Planning Commission meeting; and remove
Application No. M-2005-05 from the calendar. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Discussion ensued regarding scheduling of future applications to be agendized wherein staff
answered commissioners' questions
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Miller, to postpone Item 2 to the
January 10,2006 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Miller, to postpone Item No.3
to the December 13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Discussion continued about appropriate meeting dates to schedule the applications. Staff pointed
out that there are construction deadlines to adhere to for some projects.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
November 22, 2005
Chair Wong:
· The Planning Commission as well as the City Council should disclose that we receive
numerous emails ITom the community about the applications. There are numerous suggestions
on how Vallco should move forward and the applicant has the final say in what they want to
present to the Planning Commission. We will not know that until we have a public hearing
and see how it plays out. There is a concern about having it during the holidays.
Com. Giefer:
· Amended the motion to hearing it until the first scheduled meeting of January.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Withdrew his second of the first motion, and seconded the amended motion.
Com. Saadati:
· Said demolition work can be done, but during the winter time and rainy season it is difficult to
do a lot of construction. The real construction would be in probably March when the rainy
season is almost over. Can they go ahead with the demolition preparation without a hearing?
Ms. Wordell:
· Said there were also parking issues.
Chair Wong:
· Regarding the demolition work, wouldn't they need a building permit prior to planning
approval ITom the Planning Commission? They have to go through the building process to get
their permits.
Ms. Wordell:
· The demolition is for the concrete. I don't know if they need a demolition permit to get rid of
the concrete. They do have parking requirements so they are going to need a parking plan to
maintain parking.
Com. Giefer:
· Said it was difficult to believe that they would remove any parking prior to the end of the
holiday season. They are going to want that parking, particularly near a major hub like
Macy's.
Chair Wong:
· If it can be explained to Vallco Fashion Park Mall that we support the revitalization, I believe
we can achieve the goal of accomplishing the public hearing within that one public hearing.
· If the Planning Commission so chooses, we would like to see a Master Plan presentation.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
November 22, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. DIR-2005-20
Horst Von Bloes
(Fry residence)
21161 Canyon Oak
Way
Appeal of the Design Review Committee's decision denying
a Director's Minor Modification to permit the construction of
a ground floor addition to exceed the allowable floor area
ratio in the Oak Valley Planned Development. Postponed
ITom the October 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Tentative City Council meeting: December 6, 2005
Ms. Aid Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for appeal of a DRC denial of a Director's minor modification, for
approval of an attached accessory structure that would exceed the allowable FAR on the
property, as outlined in the attached staff report.
· She reviewed the site plan, floor plan, and illustrated site photos.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make one recommendation to the City
Council. This appeal will go to the City Council for final determination.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission either deny the appeal and uphold the DRC
decision or uphold the appeal and deny the DRC decision.
Chair Wong:
· Said he understood that under the R 1 Ordinance, the appeal process would be final at the
Planning Commission level unless the applicant appealed to the City Council.
Ms. Honda/Ms. Wordell:
· The CC&Rs explain the maximum FAR requirements and accessory structures are included as
part of lot coverage and FAR.
· They include the conditions that the City imposed and they may have conditions of their own.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said it is the CC&Rs which specify what essentially the City has already designated as part of
the original application approval.
Ms. Honda:
· Regardless if it is an attached or detached greenhouse, it counts as floor area ratio. Therefore,
it would still exceed the FAR on the site and the house was built to the maximum FAR
allowed.
· Said that if someone puts a shed on the lot, it would count as part of the FAR.
Horst Von Bloes, representing the applicant:
· The proposed greenhouse will not be detrimental to the property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare or
convemence.
· He said Mr. and Mrs. Fry want to enjoy the benefits of their patio and greenhouse to grow
plants and vegetables without wildlife destroying their plantings. They are allergic to bee
stings, mosquitoes, and other insects and would like to benefit ITom protective environment of
a greenhouse to do their gardening. The greenhouse would also support the benefit of passing
solar heat, saving on heating fuels.
· He reported that there was a previous exception made to the allowable FAR on Hammond
Way, where the DRC approved the Director's minor modification to allow a office storage
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
November 22,2005
building to exceed the allowed square footage.
· The greenhouse cannot be viewed at close range because it is located at the rear of the property
at a great distance ITom any other of the neighboring properties. The structure can also be
built to conform to the stucco siding on the existing house.
· The exception is requested based on a previous approval to exceed the FAR.
Mr. Fry, homeowner:
· Said that a precedent was set by the Hammond Way home in Oak Valley, which was a 336
square foot building.
· I would like to have my greenhouse and sunroom attached to the house for convenience. It
would be right off the kitchen, easy to access for the organic cooking. The passive solar
heating would be nice to add to heat. The structure is just like an enclosed patio to me. It is
not designed to expand our living square footage so it is a concrete floor and glass.
· It is not a heated structure and is similar to an outdoor structure. It is less than 169 square feet
and would not have a large impact on the neighbors.
· Said he was allergic to bees; his wife is allergic to mosquitoes and fleas. They had to have a
bee exterminator come to the property this year. He said that he felt his request was
reasonable.
· He said none of his neighbors had objections to the proposed structure. A unknown resident
on Sierra did have a complaint.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on the
application; the public hearing was closed.
Com Saadati:
· Asked staff to address the reference made to another property by Mr. Fry.
Ms. Honda:
· Said that the applicant made the statement to report that there was an application approved last
year to allow the FAR to be exceeded on that property. That property is on Hammond Way
which is on the north side of Cristo Rey Drive and there are no residences behind that
property; therefore it does not affect adjacent neighbors and the view points.
· It was clear in the staff report at the time it was approved at the DRC last year. It was not
meant to set a precedent to allow further projects to exceed the FAR unless they met the same
criteria, which we felt it did not; there are other adjacent residences nearby.
· Relative to the concerned neighbor that Mr. Fry mentioned, she said she received a phone call
early on prior to the DRC meeting, which was documented in the staff report. The neighbor
resided on Sierra Way and she felt they should abide by the Oak Valley planned development
regulations.
Ms. Wordell:
· In response to Vice Chair Miller's question why the Rl was more restrictive than the Rl
ordinance on the subdivision, she explained that the area consisted of custom homes; and the
preapproved ones were in other areas. She noted that if it was closer to the Rl Ordinance, it
would be based on the RHS Ordinance and the FAR would be an RHS ratio (Residential
Hillside Ratio).
Com. Chen:
· He said he understood that they were not approving the application because the proposal is not
consistent with the requirements of the Oak Valley Planned development area. However, a
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
November 22, 2005
case was approved in the past which was not consistent with the requirements of the planned
development but it has no impact to the adjacent properties. It did provide a process for
property owners in the area to change or to build structures, which is different ITom what is
required in CC&Rs and planned development requirement.
· What is the process to change anything that is different ITom what is in the planned
development and the CC&Rs?
Ms. Wordell:
· She said that they were trying to point out that they felt in the other circumstance there were
reasons to support it; however, they do not feel there are in this one. The wording ITom the
previous approval to the DRC states "staff does not expect to recommend that future proposals
in this area exceed the allowed FAR area unless they are similar isolated locations."
· Clarified that it was referred to DRC because staff is not able to deny a modification. The
ordinance states that if staff is going to deny it or if it is controversial, it has to go to DRC or
the Planning Commission.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked ITom a legal standpoint was it appropriate for a city to override CC&Rs?
· Questioned the benefits of CC&Rs if the city can override them?
Ms. Murray:
· Stated that there was usually something in the CC&Rs that states what their process is on how
things can be changed or if everything is under the city if they don't have an Architectural
Review Committee. People can make changes; it is probably appropriate for the city to do it
but I would have to look at the CC&Rs to see exactly what provisions they have for changes.
· Said that the city does not always override everything in the CC&Rs. When it comes to
building usually the city prevails. CC&Rs cover a lot of things including easements, property,
protections and trees.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that they have processed dozens of modifications to the Oak Valley development, and
noted that the Oak Valley CC&Rs incorporate the city conditions of approval, and the city
controls those regulations. There may also be other regulations that do not relate to anything
the city said they could or could not do, which the city has no enforcement of, such as what
type of flowers or bushes they can plant. If they want to change their setbacks or FAR, those
are city requirements and the city continues to regulate those changes.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Counsel said it depends on how the CC&Rs are written. If the CC&Rs do not allow for the
city to make changes, it seems we should not be making changes here.
Ms. Wordell:
· Clarified that it has not been an issue that the city could make changes; it is not certain if there
is specific language either way. There is likely language that says the city can, because they
are our requirements.
Chair Wong:
· Relative to Com. Chen's comment on modifications, in the past there have some been some
modifications at Oak Valley. If staff is concerned about the view ITom Sarah Court, perhaps
the recommendation to City Council could be modified to allow them to have the greenhouse
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
November 22, 2005
if more trees could be planted. Some flexibility could be shown in Mr. Fry's request since this
is a greenhouse and is meant for medical purposes.
· There should be some flexibility; rules are meant to be followed; this is an unusual
circumstance. Is it possible to modify it so that the Planning Commission can make the
findings and recommend it to staff?
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it was possible; but emphasized the rarity of doing something similar because in FAR
pre-Rl as well as planned developments, the maximums have rarely been changed because it
is perceived that when you decide how large you want a development, city or area to be, those
are the limits.
Chair Wong:
· Said he understood, and relative to accessories, he was clear that in Rl, structures such as
greenhouses and tuff sheds were not included in the FAR.
· The applicant is requesting an accessory that is not going to be lived in.
Com. Saadati:
· Said it is an addition to the building and it should blend in architecturally. He said however, if
it was a detached green house he would have looked at it differently, and probably would have
been in favor of it.
Com. Giefer:
· She said no new information was presented to the Planning Commission other than there had
been at the DRC; therefore she felt the same about the application as she did at the DRC
review.
· She said she did not feel they should as a course of habit exceed the maximum FAR for Oak
Valley. The entire process in determining it was done under very careful consideration.
· She said she preferred not to violate the CC&Rs for the development, and therefore would not
be in favor of overturning the DRC's decision.
Com. Cheu:
· Said initially it was clear to her that they should uphold the DRC's decision; but after learning
more about this case she is concerned with the noncompliance with the CC&R regulations and
is concerned about fairness to the property owners. The reason for that is lack of clear process
in determining whether or not to approve any additional square footage to the property.
· Said it was not enough for her to support the property owners' rights to deny the DRC
decision, but she was concerned about the lack of clear process and criteria to decide whether
or not to approve additional structures for all the properties in that area.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he was concerned with the sanctity of the CC&Rs. People buy into developments in part
because of CC&Rs they believe protect them. He said he agreed with Com. Chen that he was
not sure there is a clear process in terms of how they deal with developments that have CC&Rs
and where it is appropriate or not appropriate to override.
· Said he would be more comfortable fthe applicant would go to the entire development and ask
for a modification to the CC&Rs and then everybody there who had bought into them could be
one voice; opposed to the applicant coming here and asking for an override which is
inappropriate.
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
November 22, 2005
· He said he felt it was important that CC&Rs be upheld and that exceptions be made to them
under very rare circumstances and under very significant findings to that effect.
Chair Wong:
· Said he also agreed with Com. Chen that the process is unclear and there were modifications in
the past.
· He said he would likely take a different viewpoint ITom his colleagues and would support the
applicant with modifications.
· A precedent has been set on Hammond Way. Even though that particular cabana was isolated,
he felt that one could plant trees that will block the views for the greenhouse. He said he felt
there should be flexibility in that it is meant for a greenhouse purpose.
· The CC&Rs still have to be addressed before going to the City Council.
· Even through they are custom homes in a planned development community, if folks want to
build a swimming pool and have a cabana, accessories or a Tuff Shed, the rules that are set up
are too restrictive. This is something that could be addressed with the neighbors and
community. There will likely be other neighbors in Oak Valley who have similar concerns
and this is something you might want to address upITont now.
· He said it still had to go to City Council. He suggested that they do their homework and
perhaps some of the neighbors could provide support at the City Council meeting.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, seconded by Com. Miller, to deny the appeal and
uphold the DRC's decision. (Vote: 4-1-0; Chair Wong No)
4. TM-2005-10,INT-2005-01
Dipesh Gupta, 10752 So.
Stelling Road.
5. TM-2005-12,INT-2005-02
Dipesh Gupta, (May
Residence) 10758 So.
Stelling Road
Tentative Map to subdivide 0.48 acres into two
parcels, ranging ITom 7,387 sq. ft. to 7,390 sq. ft.
Interpretation to define the ITont yard as Jollyman
Lane for a corner lot at Jollyman Lane and Stelling
Road. Planning Commission decision final unless
Appealed. Postponed from the November 8, 2005
Planning Commission meeting.
Tentative Map to subdivide 0.49 acres into two
parcels, ranging ITom 7,486 sq. ft. to 8,744 sq. ft.
Interpretation for the ITont yard on Jollyman
Lane for the corner lot at Orline Court and
Jollyman Lane. Planning Commission
decision final unless appealed. Postponed from the
November 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reported that both applications (Items 4 and 5) would be heard together, since they are
adjacent to each other. Each will be subdivided into two parcels, and the applicants for both
applications are the same.
· Reviewed the applications to subdivide both lots into two parcels each, as outlined in the staff
report. She illustrated aerial photos which showed the project locations, which are adjacent to
each other.
. She reviewed the Trees on Site, Tree Removal and Interpretation relative to both applications,
as outlined in the staff report.
· Staff recommends approval of TM-2005-10 and TM-2005-12 in accordance with the model
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
November 22, 2005
resolutions, with the exception to the condition regarding park fees. Park fees were
miscalculated and will need to be adjusted in the model resolution.
· Staff also recommends approval of the interpretations !NT -2005-0 I and !NT -2005-02 in
accordance with the model resolutions
Ms. Ghosh answered Commissioners' questions:
· Said that the dedication on Stelling is 25 feet' 28 feet on Jollyman Lane, and 18 feet on Orline
Court.
Dipesh Gupta, applicant:
· Expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commission, staff and the neighborhood for taking
the time to consider the applications.
There were no questions for the applicant.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident:
· Commended the city for the care taken in preparing the tree reports for the applications.
· She noted that many trees have been on the two properties for many years and were likely
orchard property. She said she was pleased to see so much care taken on the subdivision. A
bond requirement has already been set up to protect the trees on the property. She suggested
that the bond be included in other subdivisions as well to protect the trees.
· She thanked the Commission and stafffor taking care of the trees.
Bruno Pillet, Orline Court:
· Asked when the decisions would be made on the disposition of the house because his home
has windows directly facing one of the houses.
· If trees need to be saved, will it be done in the near future or at a later date?
· Illustrated the location of his home and placement of the trees.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Ms. Ghosh:
· Said it would follow the RI rules. There will be a privacy protection planting plan for all
second story windows. At that point, he will also be notified, sent a set of plans, and be
provided with a two week period in which to contact staff about any windows that will
overlook his property. Only the second story windows are regulated, not any first story
windows.
· At that time, concerned neighbors will have the opportunity to speak about the second story
windows and any other concerns they have about the proposed house.
Chair Wong:
· Explained that tonight's discussion is a tentative map to subdivide the property, not to build a
house. The applicant can choose to build a one story or two story house and there is a
prescriptive ordinance to cover that.
· He suggested that Mr. Pillet contact Mr. Gupta to discuss with him what he will do with the
tentative map.
· If Mr. Gupta wants to build if this is approved, there is a process of communication between
the two property owners.
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
November 22, 2005
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Com. Giefer:
· Pointed out that the subdivision is heavily forested already. She said she felt the arborist did a
good job discussing how to protect the trees they want to retain.
· Said there could be more written into the tree protection area that specifically stated that the
arborist made certain he pointed out the Italian Cypress trees should be protected.
· As a courtesy to the neighbors, it should be stipulated that no trenching or excavation can
occur within six feet of all the protected trees not just the Italian Cypress.
· She recommended language for both subdivisions:
0/ TM-2005-10, Page 4-6: (First point which starts on the previous page) Under
Covenant for Tree Protection (Page 4-5, No.5) Add language similar to: "Trees must
be fenced off ITom construction, watered on a regular basis and no trenching or
excavation done within six feet of the protected trees." That was something specific
that the arborist brought out. The trees that are on the lots today will not survive
unless they receive regular watering during construction, and no junk is stored
underneath the trees on top of the roots.
Chair Wong:
· Relative to Com. Giefer's comments on trees, he asked if the six foot trenching protection
would interfere with the footprint of the specimen trees or protected trees.
· He said he liked the idea and wanted to ensure that it did not interfere with the footprint before
he added his support.
Com. Giefer:
· Noted that it was six feet ITom the trunk, not the drip line.
Ms. Ghosh:
· Except for the sewer line easement that they are proposing in the slide on the west property,
they are proposing a ten foot easement across that property, which may affect three trees at the
back.
· Said she talked to the applicant for TM-2005-12 and they are agreeable to doing an easement
on their property instead, which may only affect one tree vs. three on the other property.
· That is another of the alternatives to consider; to see which one would be better, to weigh how
many trees could be saved.
· Said the sewer easement would not interfere with the footprint of the applicant.
Vice Chair Miller:
· The trees are right up against the fence. If the Commission wants the support protecting those
trees it seems that moving the building footprint over a few feet should not be a major issue. It
does not change the size ofthe footprint; but centers it more on the property.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Giefer, to approve the appeal of
DIR-2005-20 as amended, including the language stated by Com. Giefer.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Cupertino Planning Commission
II
November 22, 2005
6.
EXC-2005-17,
DIR-2005-28
Cal Com Systems
(For Verizon Wireless)
10110 California Oak Way
Director's Minor Modification with referral to the
Planning Commission to install six 4 'x I' panel
antennas of a personal wireless service facility.
Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application summary including the Director's Minor Modification and Height
Exception as outlined in the'staff report.
· He discussed the Existing & Approved Facilities, Height Exception Justification, Equipment
Shelter, and Alternatives Analysis & Wireless Coverage, Radio Frequency Radiation
Emissions Assessment, and Height Exception Findings, as outlined in the staff report.
· He reviewed the photographs of the site and the coverage maps and answered commissioners'
questions.
Mr. Jung:
· In response to Chair Wong's question about outreach done on the application, Mr. Jung said
that the notification was done on a 1,000 foot basis ITom the outer property line of the upper
site.
· Some calls were received about the exact location; however, when they were informed that it
was actually closer to the center of the substation site on one of the last towers, they were not
concerned.
· He said they did not consider putting in an artificial tree, since it would be more obvious than
what is presently at that location.
Jason Smith, representing Verizon Wireless:
· Said he read the staff report, findings and conditions, and concurred with them; and was
available for any questions.
Com. Saadati:
· Asked if the antennas going on the top would increase the range?
Mr. Smith:
· He said it did, and said that their main objective is the areas to the south along Foothill
Boulevard as far down as McClellan, approximately Y. mile from the PG&E tower.
· He said height is directly affected by how well they are able to penetrate into that area with the
signal.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak; the public
hearing was closed.
Com. Giefer:
· Said that she was a Verizon customer and was able to test the coverage in the Oak Valley area
and had no problem with the reception.
Com. Saadati:
· Said it fit the surroundings; and he supported it.
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
November 22, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he was surprised that there were not more concerned people in the audience, which may
be a result of only a 1,000 foot notification.
· He said it seemed to be in an isolated spot and according to staff it is invisible ITom Oak
Valley.
· Given that it is that far from the residents, we haven't had anyone concerned about it and it
doesn't appear to be visible; it would seem like a good location.
Mr. Jung:
· Said 'it was not invisible ITom Oak Valley, there was a substation between this and Oak Valley.
Com. Chen:
· Said she was prepared to second the motion.
Chair Wong:
· Said he had no comments and he felt it was a good idea.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chen to approve Applications
Dffi-2005-28 and EXC-2005-17. (Vote: 4-1-0, Com. Giefer No.)
Chair Wong:
· Noted that the decision was final unless appealed to the City Council.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:
· Chair Wong reported that the ERC met last week and reviewed the Toll Brothers item, which
will be a continuation item. The next ERC meeting will be considering the Toll Brothers as
well as Vallco Fashion Park Mall, and Market Place.
Housinl! Commission: Com. Saadati reported that no meeting was held.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners: Com. Saadati reviewed the October 12,2005
Meeting:
Librarv Commission:
· The Commissioner stated that Saturday is a very busy day for the library. In January the
library will be open on Sundays.
· Interviews are being conducted to fill a 40% staff vacancy at this time.
Technolol!V Information Communication Commission:
· Reported on the new name for the committee - TICC (Technology Information
Communication Commission)
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
November 22, 2005
Parks and Recreation:
· Meeting scheduled for November.
· The Stevens Creek Trail design will start in next couple months, it is going back to October.
· The Parks Department has secured a $3 million grant funding the restoration of the trails.
Teen Commission:
. Reported that they have held three meetings to date.
Misc:
· The Mayor reported that they would complete discussions on the General Plan in early
December.
Economic Development Committee Meetinl!: No meeting - quarterly meetings held.
Chair Wonl!'s Comments:
· Congratulated Vice Chair Miller on the close election.
Director of Communitv Development (Ciddy Wordell)
· Reported that the General Plan was approved by the City Council. She congratulated the
community on the five year process.
Chair Wong:
· Thanked the General Plan Task Force, the Planning Commission and the City Council for their
efforts and time spent on the General Plan.
SUBMITTED BY:
The meeting was adjourned to the December 13, 2005 meeting at
6:45 p.m() a ~ A ,
\--//~æ~~ ~
Elizabeth EllIS, Recording Secretary
ADJOURNMENT:
Approved as Amended: December 20, 2005