Loading...
101-dratf minutes.pdfCITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. October 11, 2011 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of October 11, 2011 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chair Winnie Lee. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Winnie Lee Vice Chairperson: Marty Miller Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Clinton Brownley Commissioner: Don Sun Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Colin Jung Assistant Planner: George Schroeder Assistant Planner: Simon Vuong City Attorney: Valerie Armento APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Minutes of September 27, 2011 Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Brownley, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve the Sept. 27, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 2. ASA-2011-17, TR-2011-48 Architectural and Site Approval to amend a prior approval Jeff Oparowswki (Sobrato (ASA-2009-08) to make minor changes to architecture, Organization) parking lot layout and landscaping at an existing shopping Location: SW Corner of center (former PW Market Site); Tree Removal permit to No. DeAnza Boulevard & a prior approval (TR-2010-08) in conjunction with new Homestead Rd minor changes to the parking lot layout and landscaping at Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 an existing shopping center. Postponed from September 27, 2011 Planning Commission meeting; Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Gary Chao, City Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for an amendment to a prior approved architectural and site application allowing changes to the site and architecture, in addition to a landscaping plan relating to replacement trees as part of the original tree removal application. • He reviewed the background of the application dating back to May 2010 when the City Council approved the demolition of 95,666 square feet of existing commercial center and the construction of 146,458 square feet of new commercial space at the former P.W. Supermarket location at North DeAnza Blvd. and Homestead Road. Sobrato acquired the property in November 2010; in July 2011 a Director’s minor modification was approved for a 863 square foot of mezzanine storage/mechanical area addition to the Rite Aid building. The current applicant is requesting to modify the previous approved site and architecture to accommodate the new anchoring tenant. • He reviewed the site plan, architectural enhancements, elevations, parking, building height, architecture and landscape details and environmental assessment as outlined in the staff report. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application. There were no questions presented to the applicant. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she hoped that with the recommendations for improvement the center would become a vital center again. Said she was aware that many changes have been made to the street frontage along Homestead Road and asked if there were any changes to the trees that will be planted along Homestead Road and also what kind of sidewalk arrangement is being made from the corner of the property over to the new park, across Franco Drive. She noted that it was a very tight roadway and was optimistic that there would be a safe pedestrian walkway. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Brophy, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve Application ASA-2011-17, TR-2011-48 per the model resolution. Gary Chao: • Said that relative to the landscaping along Homestead Road, it not being changed; the intent which was originally conditioned, was for Homestead to match the newer portion or sections of Homestead with a detached sidewalk and double rows of trees, which is reflected on the site plan. With respect to the connection from the corner to the park, Condition No. 22 addresses that; the applicant is required to work with Public Works to provide improvements for a pedestrian walkway and that will be detailed out prior to the final occupancy of the project. There are no changes to the entrances to the driveways of the center. 3. MCA-2011-01, GPA-2011-01, Conditional Use Permit to allow church uses in two Z-2011-01, U-2011-01, buildings; General Plan Land Use Map Amendment to EXC-2011-01 (EA-2011-02) change the land use designation from “Quasi-Public/ Kevin Chang, Architect Institutional” to “Industrial/Residential/Commercial (Home of Christ Church) 10340 Bubb Rd.; Parking Exception for shared parking Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 10340 & 10420 Bubb Rd. between 10340 and 10420 Bubb Rd.; Re-Zone approx. 1.8 acres from BQ (Quasi-Public building) to ML-rc (West Valley Light Industrial) located at 10340 Bubb Rd. Municipal Code Amendment to codify and update the West Valley Industrial Park Zoning regulations into the ML (Light Industrial) Zoning Ordinance. Postponed from the September 27, 2011 Planning Commission meeting Tentative City Council date: October 18, 2011 Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the three-part application for conditional use permit, General Plan land use map amendment, parking exception for shared parking, and Municipal Code Amendment related to the Home of Christ Church, as outlined in the staff report. He reviewed the powerpoint presentation including summaries of the conditional use permit, parking exception, Municipal Code Amendment, environmental analysis, and noticing and public comments. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council a Negative Declaration for the project and approval of the General Plan Amendment, Municipal Code Amendment, zoning, use permit and parking exception per the draft resolutions. Com. Brophy: • Disclosed that about 2 years ago he met with representatives of the church and viewed their facilities before they had a proposal before the Planning Commission. Com. Brownley: • Relative to the General Plan amendment, he summarized his understanding of the different aspects, including proposal to change from quasi-public to industrial/residential/commercial. He stated that it appeared that quasi-public institutional might be the appropriate classification for this type of entity and he asked for clarification on the reason for change; was it just for consistency with the overall area or does it also fit in for some reason; and were there any other examples throughout the city where this type of organization fits in the other General Plan categories. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the goal was to have consistency, and to give the current and future owners flexibility with the ability to use the zoning. They were able to do that with requiring a conditional use permit for the assembly use under that current zoning and were also able to meet both those requirements. There are some situations with assembly uses with mixed use zoning. • Said the buildings presently are built to the ML use, it will allow the resale of this to an ML use or to an assembly use; it keeps flexibility which is what the current owners were seeking. • Defined “sensitive receptors” as sedentary populations or young populations who are not able to take care of themselves in an emergency. • Said they limited those with the original use permit 15 years ago because a number of the industrial uses around it were concerned; it has been extended to the other site as well and is in the ordinance Com. Brophy: • Said it was not clear whether the buildings on Bubb Road were any longer being used for industrial purposes; as seen with Measurex, the current owner asked to tear down the industrial buildings and replace them with office buildings. Relative to the buildings to the south, if they are to be industrial buildings with hazardous chemicals, he said when driving down McClellan at 8:30 or 9 o’clock he saw dozens of sensitive receptors coming out of the apartment complex across McClellan, and was curious why that is acceptable but having a daycare center is not acceptable. Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development: • The difference is when the children and parents are walking out, there is a parent responsible for their child; at a convalescent care or daycare you have a few adults in charge of a large group of kids; so that is an issue. There are state laws that limit the ability to maintain any sort of hazardous chemicals if you are within a certain distance from the sensitive receptors. • There are some R&D uses such as new clean tech companies that do use hazardous chemicals in some quantity; and these are the only areas available in the city for them to locate and they would be impacted if there were such uses. Com. Sun: • Asked if there were potential dangers from the chemicals, either explosion or leaks. Colin Jung: • Said presently no potential dangers existed; the environmental analyst who prepared this surveyed hazardous material users, and even though there are users of hazardous materials there, they are not of a toxic variety, they are small quantities of really standard significance, nothing that warrants what the state would require as far as risk management planning, and only applies to some very small scope of acutely hazardous materials. That is not to say that at some future date such a use may or may not want to locate at this location; that is what the industrial property owners are looking toward, not only their current tenants, but what future tenants might bring into the buildings. Chair Lee: • Said she met with the applicants and Vice Chair Miller together for a presentation of their plans about a year and a half ago. She said that the revised ordinance says the animal clinics are a permitted use; and she asked if it would be considered a sensitive receptor? Aarti Shrivastava: • Said it was not; the list received was from a non-codified list that this area has been relying on since 1964; it was moved from a resolution into the ordinance. The intent was not to make sweeping changes to the zone, but to give them what they always had. Ash Pirayou, Land Use Attorney, Rattan and Tucker, Palo Alto, appearing on behalf of Home of Christ Church. • Said that over the past 18 months the church and the Planning staff have worked cooperatively and creatively to establish a win for the city, for the church and the residents; and they have addressed many of the concerns relating to the operations of the church use and the industrial area by virtue of the conditions of the CUP. They have discussed the various conditions, making sure that between them and the city there is complete understanding as to the church’s operations. Said it has not and never will be the church’s goals to operate any type of daycare or other uses with “sensitive receptors” at the property • He said they went to great lengths in working with staff, and Exhibit A of the conditional use permit outlines the church’s intended uses, time of those uses, and what programs that will occur at the church. There is a comprehensive list of church activities and it does not include any uses of sensitive receptors. • Relative to the immediate neighbors, said they have taken great strides in conjunction with the staff to make sure they have a parking plan that works for both short term and long term. • He requested that the Planning Commission support the staff recommendation to approve the application. Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 Jackie Nguyen, Home of Christ Church: • Reviewed the church background which was established 16 years ago. Said they worked out an agreement with neighboring companies to use the church parking spaces during the week and in turn the church uses theirs on the weekend. He noted that the church is very active in the community, including free car washes for the neighborhood, being a voting site for many years, blood drives, helps organize and hold Easter egg hunt at Memorial Park with other churches; and serves neighbors with caring and enrichment programs. The church also offers training seminars for the community and participates in world wide relief efforts. • He asked the Commission for support of the application. Aarti Shrivastava: • Clarified that children attending church with their parents are not considered “sensitive receptors”. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak; the public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Miller: • Said he has visited the church, and was pleased that they were persistent in moving forward to get the approval to be able to expand their facilities. He added that it was clear that the church was a vital part of the Cupertino community. Com. Brophy: • Expressed concern about the continued existence of the ML zone which he felt should not still exist given the real estate prices in Cupertino; and he felt there was no reason why the Bubb Road corridor should be any different that the other office districts in Cupertino. • Said he was bothered by the concept that they need to prohibit things like daycare centers or after school classes; those seem to be cored to a great number of religious institutions and to the extent that they are requiring the restriction as a condition of approval is a concern. • He said it was troubling that this area is heavily crowded with other children and to somehow say children in an after school program who are not with the teachers are “sensitive receptors” but children who are alone in the apartments across the street while their parents work are of no concern in evaluating what sort of chemicals should be kept in the buildings north of McClellan. • Said he would support the application and proposed resolution, but hoped that at some future time they could reopen it and update the ordinance to reflect the realities of Cupertino as it is and not as it was 40 years ago. Com. Brownley: • Echoed Com. Brophy’s comments and said he would support everything as written. Said it appeared to be a superb project, but would be ideal if the General Plan and zoning would be consistent with the type of organization and the uses that they would like to go on within that type of zoned property. He said it would be ideal in the future if they could work on getting that to fit properly. In this case it sounds like a great collaboration has gone on between the city and the organization and he looked forward to continuing that relationship. Com. Sun: • Said he supported the project, and felt it was important for this type of organization in the community to bring all the people together. He said it was a responsibility of the Commission to treat each one fairly regarding the law and to ensure that each case applies to everyone. He said he supported the project. Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 Chair Lee: • Said she felt it was important to keep the industrial part industrial and keep a place for the city to have the permitted uses. Ideally it is not a perfect location for a church in the industrial park; the church is a vital part of the community and a great deal of creativity and cooperation had to occur; because the applicant is okay with the sensitive receptors clause, she said she would support it. • Said the role of the Planning Commission includes making recommendations on land use issues and making plans and looking at each part of the city where the uses need to go in and that is what they are doing. There were no neighbors showing opposition to the project except for one email received and staff and the neighbor were able to take into account the concern raised that there be no sensitive receptors or any other daycare facilities or convalescent homes there. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Brophy, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve Application GPA-2011-01, MCA-2011-01,m Z-2011-01,m U- 2011-01, EXC-2011-01 (EA-2011-02) per the model resolution. 4. M-2011-06, TM-2005-05 Amendment to an approved 3 lot Tentative Parcel Map Frank Sun to modify development restrictions to reflect current R1- 21989 Lindy Lane Zoning development standards. Tentative City Council date: November 15, 2011 Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for an amendment to an approved 3-lot tentative parcel map to modify certain development restrictions to reflect current R-1 zoning development standards on 21989 Lindy Lane, as outlined in the staff report. He noted that presently there are no active development applications on file for building on the project site. • Reviewed the area view of the property, approved tentative map and timeline and gave an overview of the background of the application. In 2005 the Planning Commission approved the tentative parcel map; approval was appealed by some neighbors and the City Council denied the appeal but added more conditions to the tentative map. In 2007 City Council adopted new hillside zoning standards for 18 sloped R1 lots in the North Lindy Lane area and in 2011 the Council further amended the R1 ordinance to include standards for all R1 lots with slopes of 20% or greater, modifying the regulations in place and extending them to all R1 zoned properties with slopes 20% or more. As a result of changes to the R1 zoning ordinance, the applicant is requesting deletions of Conditions Nos. 2 and 8 for his properties to be more consistent with the other R1 zoned surrounding properties. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the amendment for approval to conform the development regulations deleting Conditions 2 and 8 to the R1 zoning ordinance. • Staff answered Commissioners’ questions regarding the project. Frank Sun, Applicant: • Expressed concern about disparities with his lots and the neighbors’ lots and said that a few years ago he subdivided 2.7 acres into 3 lots; his adjacent neighbor and two neighbors combined 2.50 acres, and are subdividing into 5 lots; they spent a few weeks and he has spent 3 years. The geological study is not required for subdivision; however, the previous owner of his property did one study, and he repeated four times. He learned that his next door neighbor used his geological study, and finished his subdivision in a shorter period of time. He felt something was not right and went to the Planning Commission and City Council and subdivided his parcel into three lots and agreed not to further subdivide. Conditions were placed on his application, and the adjacent neighbors’ newly created lots do not have those restrictions. He expressed concern that the law has changed several times and seems more Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 relaxed; he is the only one still carrying the legacy of the 15% overlay, and wants to be treated like the others and follow the same law. • Relative to the potential size, for all three lots more than half of the lots were greater than 30% with greater than 30% slope. As you know you cannot touch those areas; there is no possibility of any building. After the slope easement and setback the new law had a more restrictive setback; the actual size of the potential buildings will be quite limited. • He said he was not seeking a building permit because he did not intend to do anything within a short period of time and will keep the property for 10 to 20 years. He reiterated that for many years they were subject to different regulations and wanted to be subject to equal treatment relative to his property. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Mehmet Taysi, Cupertino resident: • Resides across from Dr. Sun’s property on south side of Lindy Lane since 1978. Said he was confused of what the real laws were and why they keep changing each year; at one time Nos. 2 and 8 were good for the community and now they are not good enough. He agreed with Dr. Sun and asked for an explanation of the constant changes. Gary Chao, City Planner: • Explained that originally the R1 ordinance had very few provisions regarding governing properties on hillsides; there was only token mention if you exceed 30%, then you have to go through an exception process. Over the years because there was some development in this area, and some were of concern to some neighbors, that is why the City Council several times has attempted to adjust the rules so it is just right for that area. • Said the initial onset of the first attempt did not completely capture the interest of the property owners in that area as well as the expected outcome of the rules; which is the reason for the more recent change which instead of focusing just on few parcels within the area, the City Council decided if they were going to do this, it should be looked at comprehensively. There are many hillside properties in the R1 throughout the city of Cupertino, not just focusing this area. Recently, the Council attempted to make it a comprehensive effort and standardized some of the rules that are good for all R1 hillside parcels over 20% as it relates to development standards, so that there is more of a consistency and conformity to a way of reviewing; and also property owners applying those rules to their developments. • Said it was a simplified way in looking at the reason for the changes and it is consistent with the applicant’s request and now the rules apply to practically all R1 lots with over 20% slope, this being one of them and his adjacent neighbors being the others; why not be consistent with everyone, that is the intent of the recent change. That is why the applicant is asking for consistency. • The rules originally imposed on the property took place when there was no uniform way of applying standards that didn’t exist which is the reason why the Council came up with those things at the time, thinking it was reasonable. Now they have implemented the rules, the baseline rules should apply. Candan Taysi, Cupertino resident: • Said they had seen all the changes that have occurred and had been to the Commission many times; in 2005 they put an earnest effort forward with the neighbors and thought some rules were set. They thought at the time Dr. Sun had promised and it was approved that he could build a house on No. 1 lot with the provision that it would not exceed 3,000 square feet. They agreed and peace was made; but three years later they received a letter with another change. She asked when the changes would stop. • She said at one time the area was a beautiful area, but big homes have been permitted; and the area is not conducive to big homes. Said she did not understand how many more times they Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 would have to come to the Commission and see homes up to 10,000 square feet built. As an old timer, she said she has seen the hill come down and built up again and the protection wall that was built. When the huge homes are built, there will be a major flattening and disturbance of the earth. • She asked that the Commission consider those issues before making a decision. Wagviit Ishak, Cupertino resident: • Resides on the property adjacent to Dr. Sun and said he did not understand Gary Chao’s explanation. He said he concurred with the previous speaker’s comments; and could not imagine how one could build a house on Lot No. 3 because of the slope. He expressed concern that it would affect his property because it is a steep hill. • He said he supported Dr. Sun when he first came 4 years ago and the agreement with him was that he would build a fence right away between their properties and that has not occurred. He said he wanted a fence between the two properties. Asked for an explanation of how to build a house more than 6,000 square feet on Lot no. 3. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said Colin Jung was discussing a theoretical number based on 45% of the lot size; what they can actually build will depend on how much grading they can do, it would have to go to geotechnical review. Staff will address the visual impacts; the homes will need design review above a certain size and the neighbors will be noticed as part of the process. Staff feels all those homes will be safe because they will be engineered to meet all structural requirements. Colin Jung: • Relative to size of homes that could be built, he said that the more money a property owner has available to spend on a home, the bigger the house can be, despite any physical barrier; money tends to solve a lot of constraints. Gary Chao: • Said there is not a maximum on the cut and fill; if it exceeds a certain amount it involves grading permits and reviews. He said that not all three lots are entirely flat; there are sections that are steeper than the others and usually when the site is assessed, the natural pad would be at the flattest portion and that in itself may or may not facilitate a house upwards of 10,000 square feet. Staff would potentially have concerns if you start building off the side of the hill or do some major retaining walls that would have issues themselves. In addition, there is tree removal, you don’t want to clear cut an entire lot just to facilitate a large house. There are limitations that one would have to adhere to that naturally make the home smaller, but there are rather large size homes in the area. • The reality is there are 20,000 to 30,000 square foot lots next to 10,000 square foot lots so naturally there will be a disparity; the larger the lot, the larger the home you can build. People weigh that in when they purchase properties. Likewise the line has to be drawn somewhere; this is a unique area in that this is a beginning of that larger area and there are large homes in the area as well as smaller homes down below; it is a transitional area. Aarti Shrivastava: • Responding to a question if there is a restriction on the amount of cut and fill that can be done, she said they increased the level of review with the restriction; they do not say “you cannot do more than this” but state “if you do more than this, then the level of review increases.” She said that staff will study the ordinance. Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 Gary Chao: • Said if 2,500 cubic yards is exceeded, it needs Planning Commission review. If the FAR is over 35% it requires staff level review; if combined, both would go to the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Miller: • Said the point of the application is to make their property consistent with how all the others are treated. In terms of some of the concerns of neighbors about the potential size of the house, it looks like there is enough regulation in place that if there was going to be a large house it would have to come for further review and in a public hearing. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they recently went through a policy review of sloped lots and believe that is what the Planning Commission and City Council intended for those properties. Com. Brownley: • Echoed Vice Chair Miller’s final comments and said there were important considerations brought up in the meeting today and they will be important for a different phase of the discussion. The purpose of today’s discussion is to talk about building designations and to make those designations consistent throughout like properties as requested by City Council. Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve Application M-2011-06 to recommend modification of development restrictions to reflect current R1 zoning development standards. 5. ASA-2011-15, M-2011-07 Architectural and Site Approval for parking lot, lighting Cindy Cheng (Cupertino and landscaping improvements at an existing Investment Partners) commercial property; Modification of a previously 19875/19885 Stevens Creek approved Use Permit (U-2009-09) to allow changes Boulevard. to the site and development plans. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for parking lot modification proposal for the CORT Furniture and Kiddie Academy site on Stevens Creek Boulevard as outlined in the staff report. In June 2010 City Council approved a use permit to allow Kiddie Academy to operate the daycare facility in the existing building. The use permit also included rear parking lot improvements, including installation of a new outdoor play area, two rear reciprocal driveway access easements onto the adjacent office properties, an extension of the rear sound wall and landscaping, lighting and rash enclosure improvements. Kiddie Academy is now in full operation. • The applicant is requesting modifications to the rear parking lot to accommodate the future CORT furniture tenants. The modifications are necessary to allow for adequate maneuvering space for the tractor trailer delivery trucks. Also requested are minor modifications to the rear of the building, relocation and replanting of trees, landscaping and lighting standards and a new trash enclosure. • He reviewed parking, circulation, queuing and safety, and noise levels. Other key conditions include a construction management plan being required prior to issuance of building permits; offsetting of construction hours in conjunction with the Kiddie Academy outdoor play area times. Details are outlined in the attached staff report. • Staff recommends approval of the use permit modification and architectural and site approval in accordance with the draft resolutions. • Staff answered questions about lighting, trash enclosure, and parking. Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 Erik Schoennauer, representing property owner and CORT furniture: • Thanked city staff for their time and effort in the review of the application; concurred with their recommendation and asked for support of the permit with the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. • He said they were following up on last year’s approval of the use permit to allow the day care facility in the building; it was the desire of the city that the applicant do whatever is feasible to make the remainder of their building as viable as possible for retail commercial use as part of the Heart of the City plan. The parking needs to be reconfigured to attract a viable retailer into the space. The proposed parking layout is far superior to what was designed last year as it provides for better circulation and also provides a segmented parking lot for the two uses. • Regarding Commissioners’ questions about existing implementation of the construction on site, the ribbon cutting for the daycare center occurred about a week ago. If any lighting fixtures are not installed properly and do not meet city code, it will be rectified. Regarding the wall, they will investigate what the approval stated as they believe they were consistent with the approval. The purpose of the wall was for acoustical reasons to protect the rear yards of those homes. Relative to the trash enclosure, the three goals included having it as close to the building as possible to make it easy for the employees to bring the trash out; easy accessibility for the truck picking the trash up; and keeping it away from property lines so that their trash is not placed near property lines. The truck turning radii has been analyzed by Fehr & Peers and the parking lot as designed works fine for the trucks entering and leaving the site. With regard to safety mirror, it is a feasible option should it be warranted by the traffic consultant and staff. • He said they appreciated the support for the use permit with conditions as recommended by staff. Said he would return if needed to respond to any public input. • In response to Vice Chair Miller’s question about the wall, he said that they rebuilt the wall and applied a masonry coating to their side of the wall in order to comply with the specifications needed for the acoustical standards. He was not aware of any discussions with residents about the other side of the wall. Cindy Cheng, Property Owner: • Explained that at the time staff recommended the noise barrier, they put up a wall to finish their end; it was not requested to go to the other side and put a finish on the other side. Said she would consider finish on the other side if requested. Erik Schoennauer: • Said they would investigate the lighting; it was approved as part of the previous permit and they must implement what was approved and comply to the city policy to fully shield the lights. He said they would review the lighting and if it is too bright or shining in the wrong direction, they would rectify it. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident: • Said they have resided behind the property since 1969 and a major concern is that the current lighting violates the ordinance which states that the light cannot shine on the neighbor’s property. The light escapes off the property, the wrong fixtures are used and they have 400 watt bulbs, which results in 2400 watts of extra lighting on the property with no cutoff shields. He said the light actually makes it all the way across Wheaton Drive onto his neighbor’s property across the street. He said they also have concerns about the trash enclosure location, the unfinished wall, and the traffic speeding on the access road. He said they would prefer that the rash area be as far away from the property line as possible. Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 • Said he worked on the Heart of the City plan with the City Council and the delineation between properties was a precast concrete wall; as part of the application the Planning Commission granted an exception to put in a cinderblock wall and raise the height to reduce costs; the precast concrete wall would be finished on both sides but the cinderblock wall would not. Because of the savings with the cinderblock wall, the wall could be finished on both sides to be presentable. • Said there was a rear access road behind the building and vehicles are using it. He suggested putting in three speed bumps in different locations to slow down the vehicles. Louise Huganin, Cupertino resident: • Said that the lights are on from 6:50 p.m. to 6:50 a.m., and cast in on the upper portion of the houses along the perimeter, reflecting across the street. She questioned the reason for the lights to remain on all night and asked why the standards had to be so high. She has had no contact with the owner, nor did she contact any of the neighbors about the lighting. She said they would prefer that the lights be turned off at 9 p.m. • She also expressed concern about the trash and litter in the parking lot, the trash will attract vermin; and she did not want the trash up against the neighbors. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said the concept of speed bumps is good because it results in constrained access to the property. She expressed concern about the narrow entrance to the left side of the property, and the delivery trucks going down the small alley to deliver furniture in the back parking lot. She said she hoped that the trucks had back up warning lights and signals because of the risk of children in the area; and stated her concern about the loading areas, unloading furniture when parents are bringing children in and out regardless what time of day. She suggested having the trucks come in one entrance and exit out of the other and keep the children ingress and exit in one area. She also stressed the need to make sure that the playground wall is made of concrete. • She wished the new retailers success and said it was good for Cupertino to have more active businesses. Steve Scharf, Cupertino resident: • Relative to the new road in the back, suggested doing something similar to what was done in the shopping center on DeAnza Boulevard where Lucky store is; fencing it off so the trucks or cars cannot go in and out at night. Given that, there would be no reason to have the lights on for 12 hours. • Said he felt it was premature to approve the project until the applicant can correct all the deficiencies from the previous approval, given the applicant’s history of violating the requirements such as lighting, shielding, etc. and what they did with the wall. Erik Schoennauer: • Said there are no intentional deficiencies; if for some reason the lighting fixtures were installed in a manner not consistent with the approved plan or the policy, they will rectify that. Said the photo metric lighting plan in the set has been studied and the proposed lighting plan is consistent with the lighting policy of the city and they are obligated to implement it when moving to construction. • Relative to the wall, the neighbor recalled that when it was discussed over a year ago, the Planning Commission and City Council conceded the fact that there was a pre-existing wall and to require tear down of the wall and building a brand new wall was an unreasonable burden, nor is it green to tear out an existing wall. It was decided that a masonry wall was an appropriate approach and they could build up the wall. • With regard to the trash enclosure, it can be moved to the other side if preferred; that discussion occurred a year and a half ago and they were balancing those competing demands. Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 He said he felt the proposed location works best but if the property line is preferred, they would be willing to change it if it could functionally work. • Relative to speed bumps, he recalled it was the city’s desire that all the rear parking lots connect together and that the through vehicle access occur; and it was the city’s desire not to have speed bumps in that corridor during the previous approval. However, if there is a desire to have a speed bmp there, he said they assume that is feasible; it has not been the city’s desire in the previous approvals. • Relative to the trucks backing up, there is low delivery truck traffic, with a maximum of one large truck per day with a frequency of 3 to 5 times per week. California Department of Transportation requires the trucks to have beeper signals for backing up; in addition it is CORT policy that each truck have two drivers and company policy, that when backing up, the second worker from the truck must get out of the vehicle and assist in backing the truck to make sure there are no pedestrians or obstacles in the way. • The trucks delivering to CORT regularly deliver to apartment complexes and neighborhoods throughout the Bay Area; the drivers are very experienced at driving, backing and loading and unloading in areas with many pedestrians; he said no one is more interested in maintaining safety on the property than they are. • He asked for support in approving the application; stating they were committed to ensure that any of the construction just finished is in full compliance with the approved use permit and city policy. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Gary Chao: • Said that relative to the lighting hours, there is not a maximum limitation in terms of wattage, but a minimum requirement in terms of foot candle; for security reasons all commercial parking lots would have to maintain a certain amount of lighting level. There is criteria which is also a condition in the project that they must have cutoff shields; there shall not be any light pollution that spills over into residential property boundaries. Staff is confident they can work with the property owner to fix that. • Said there is a certain level of finishing not completely done because they know they have to come back and rework the parking lot; the permit for the Academy is not completely finalized so there are opportunities to discuss the fixes. • Relative to speed bumps, he clarified that there were two speed bumps; one speed bump that has been installed; one new one is being installed. There is a significant grade difference; there are two hindrances at the boundaries of the entrances or exits to the property. • Relative to signage; he said originally the Kiddie Academy use permit had requirements on signage; they are not completely done with the permit, some of the final touches have not been implemented. He recommended that with this application staff would reinforce that; some of the signs are out there; if there are deficiencies they can be explored with the applicant. There can be a condition in the permit about construction so the delivery truck drivers respect it; they are typical standard requirements usually requested but they can be added to reinforce them. Aarti Shrivastava: • Regarding trash enclosures, one of the reasons they are on the site is not just for the trash collector to access them, but experience shows that if they are at the edge of the property, the part that is on the other person’s property line tends to collect a lot of trash and the city receives many complaints. If it is squarely on the site, there is more care taken because it is on site. As stated by Mr. Huganin, they didn’t want those trash enclosures to be on the property line because wherever it is, the edges tend to get neglected. Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 George Schroeder: • Relative to the conditions about the retaining wall, he stated that it was not specified both sides, but the final design is subject to Planning’s approval. As Gary Chao previously mentioned, the building permit still has to be finalized; and that can still be implemented at this time. Gary Chao: • Added that in the original condition, the intent of the wall was for noise screening, but also visual screening; and that they would expect that the wall be finished on both sides; the wall itself shouldn’t be a visual deterrent. Tom Huganin: • Said that if a condition was implemented that both sides should be finished, he was certain they could arrange for the neighbors to provide access if they are interested in having their side of the wall finished to spec. Valerie Armento, City Attorney: • Commented that some of the neighbors might not want people to enter their property to do work; there can be a condition that says it is the expectation that the property owner will work with the neighbors and offer to upgrade the wall, but ultimately if a private property owner does not want someone to come on their property and do something to the wall, they cannot be forced to do that. Erik Schoennauer: • Stated for the record that they were willing to finish the residential side of the wall identical to the commercial side of the wall to the extent the property owner wants them to and is willing to provide access. He clarified that they built the wall consistent with condition of approval but understood the point made and were willing to rectify that and finish the residential side as the owners requested. Com. Brophy: • Said he felt the four issues discussed by Tom Huganin were issues that need to be considered; the lighting violates both the ordinance and the terms of conditions and needs to be rectified in terms of flooding onto the adjoining residential properties. • Unfinished wall has already been discussed. • Said he would prefer to have staff handle the issues related to the location of the trash area; since the dumpster is being used for non-foods the matter is less pressing. It is a technical issue to design parking lots so that the trucks can get in safely. • Relative to speeding on the access road, as the applicant’s representative pointed out, the city designed the access road and if something needs to be done, the city traffic engineer should look at it and identify solutions. He said he did not feel that particular problem was caused by this applicant or by the application being considered. Vice Chair Miller: • Added that the other item of concern was the number of hours the lights should be on, or the time they should be turned off. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said there is a security requirement for a certain level; staff will see if it can be reduced to the minimum level required and make sure there are cutoffs. The idea is to have lighting in the back parking lots so one can see what is going on in the back area and especially for patrol cars driving around the area to have clear vision of the area. Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 • Said that the lights are on all night with lower lumens with cutoffs, so they would focus just on the parking lot and not into people’s homes; which is a reasonable requirement. Staff can work with the applicant to ensure they are able to achieve security as well as the cutoffs without affecting the neighbors. • Said that with the approvals, the intent was to have a speed bump at either end of the property line; as Gary Chao said, a natural speed bump on the east side and a speed bump on the west side. Tom Huganin suggested adding a third speed bump in the middle; originally the traffic engineer was not in favor of that because he felt that the number of speed bumps were adequate in addition to the two they were going to have at the east end of the property; however, staff can re-look at it. Referring to the site plan, the islands have already been built in the back and there will have to be some type of odd diagonal speed bump if trying to connect an island to another island; there is no direct connection. • She said at this point staff can try to work with the property owner to the west but he doesn’t currently have an application on file. As projects come in, staff tries to rectify those issues. Tom Huganin: • Said the primary concern is the high speed of the vehicles, especially trucks; and people use it as a shortcut. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that part of the reason they encourage those connections are for people to avoid going in and out of Stevens Creek and trying to make left turns into properties; the idea was to connect the parking lots. Staff can look at speed bumps because they can be very effective; also posting a speed limit sign or slow down sign is also an option to consider. Staff will talk to the traffic engineer to see if he would recommend a site. She said that relative to trucks idling, there was a sign indicating “no idling”. Valerie Armento, City Attorney: • Said the prior speaker indicated that the trucks related to the former furniture store were part of the problem and that store is no longer functioning at that location, hence part of that might go away. There can be a condition about trucks not idling, but that could be difficult to enforce because it has to be caught at the time they are actually doing it. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that if a condition exists, there should be a sign so that people who are actually making the noise are aware that there is a condition prohibiting idling. The code enforcement officers are responsible about getting out there early in the morning to watch operations. She said it was important to put out as much information as possible to get the greatest chance of success for an operation. Gary Chao: • Stated that Condition 18, Part 2, addresses that prior to issuance of final occupancy the applicant will be required to post permanent signage along the rear sound wall and by the loading bay subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development, to advise drivers/customers to be respectful of the adjacent neighbors by adhering to delivery schedules and by turning off their engines while loading and unloading. Aarti Shrivastava: • Suggested two other items, including a mirror, and increasing the size of the sign for the Kiddie Academy. Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 George Schroeder: • Kiddie Academy has a sign out front on the entrance on Stevens Creek; there is a sign that says parking in the back; there is also some reserved parking spots by the playground for pick up and drop of children. Com. Brownley: • Suggested a recommendation to staff to consider either a “keep slow speed” or “watch for children” sign, close to Kiddie Academy in the back because people will be driving around back. Also possibly consider whether mirrors around that corner would be helpful or not. Valerie Armento, City Attorney: • Suggested it would be best to have a generic condition stating that the applicant would work with both Planning and Engineering staff to develop an appropriate signage and/or mirror type plan and leave it to the experts to figure it out. Chair Lee: • Asked if it was agreeable to the rest of the Commission to have staff work with the applicant to review any needed signs and mirrors to increase safety. Com. Sun: • Said he would support a condition relating to the lighting and the wall, but refer the possibility of using mirrors and speed bumps to the traffic engineer and city staff for their decision. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, to recommend approval of Application M-2011-07, ASA-2011-16, per the model resolution with the following additions:  current lighting violations will be rectified;  staff will work with applicant in reviewing location for trash enclosure with the possible consideration of moving it to the other side to the edge of the property;  the applicant will finish the wall on the residents’ side with the expectation that the owners of those residences will permit that to be accomplished;  staff and the applicant will work in terms of slowing traffic down either inserting another speed bump and/or adding appropriate signage;  staff will also consider whether a mirror is appropriate or not to back the trucks up to the loading dock;  staff will look at addition of larger signs or additional signs at the Kiddie Academy. Chair Lee proposed a friendly amendment, accepted by Vice Chair Miller:  Page 316, staff to work with the property landlord to ensure that Kiddie Academy patrons use the rear lot for dedicated pick up and drop off of children; and staff to work with applicant to ensure that there is signage indicating Exit Only and Do Not Enter, that it is placed at the exit of the front parking aisle onto Stevens Creek Boulevard. Motion was seconded by Chair Lee, and unanimously carried 5-0-0. Chair Lee declared a recess. Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 6. M-2011-03, M-2011-04 Modification to a previously approved Architectural and M-2011-05 Site application (ASA-2008-04) to extend the expiration David Jamieson (Kimco date for three years; Modification to a previously Realty) approved Use Permit (U-2007-06) to extend the 10825-10983 No. Wolfe Rd. expiration date for three years; Modification to a (Cupertino Village) previously approved Architectural and Site application (ASA-2007-10) to extend the expiration date for three years. Planning Commission decision final unless approved. Chair Lee refrained from discussion of the application as she is owner of business across the street. She left the meeting and did not return. Simon Vuong, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for a modification to a previously approved use permit, architectural and site approval, and architectural and site approval for the purpose of extending the expiration date of the approvals three years beyond the one-year extension previously granted, as outlined in the staff report. • The extension relates to the development of two retail buildings and a two-level parking structure; the applicant is requesting an extension of three additional years because of waning tenant interest and the current economic situation. • He reviewed the project site and surrounding location, background of the application dating back to 2008, site plan, benefits to the community and examples of extension approvals. Discussion details are outlined in the staff report. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the application in accordance with the draft resolution. • Staff answered questions regarding the proposed extension. It was noted that if the applicant changes their mind within the three year extension period of usage of center, they would have to return to the city to make changes to the permit. She also discussed benefits to the community of granting extensions beyond the three years. Dave Jamieson, Director of Asset Management for Kimco Realty: • Said that the economy has posed several challenges that have compromised their ability to move forward with the development; there is evidence that the conditions are improving within Cupertino Village and Cupertino as a whole. There is a renewed development activity and they feel confident that the additional three years will provide the opportunity to move the project forward which will not only enhance the value of Cupertino Village, but also the surrounding community and the benefits that would be contributed as a result of the project. Vice Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • The center is an important part of Cupertino; it is a good neighbor and she was impressed with Kimco since they purchased the property; it is always neat and tidy with many people enjoying the area. She said considering economic conditions, and also with the advent of the Apple purchase of the HP campus, and that the property and the HP campus are one of the main northern entrances to Cupertino, it would not be unprecedented to give an extension to this property since the Main Street project was given an extension and may be granted another extension at some point. Kimco is proceeding cautiously because there are a number of things happening at that end of town. • She recalled that Ranch 99 market had a separate lease, and when Kimco was going through the planning process for their upgrades to the shopping center, the Ranch 99 market could not be touched because there was a separate lease still intact. She asked how much longer the Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 lease is for because it is a significant part of the property;, and will it be another deciding factor in 2014 or when the three year extension is up. Com. Brophy: • Relative to Jennifer Griffin’s comments, Kimco said back in 2008 that the lease with the grocery store placed restrictions on how they could develop the property; all leases are separate in the property, but because it is such a large lease they had some control over how the property could or could not be developed. Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to a three year extension, she said the applicant must pull a building permit and start building within three years. After the building permit is pulled, how much time to completion depends on the building permit; there are some requirements of the building permit phase; once they go into that the building code has its own rules; typically it is valid for six months without activity. Vice Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Brophy: • Said in general he supported approval of extensions for projects that have been analyzed and soundly approved; however, in the subject application he will vote against extending the project because of the facts specific to this case. He said the project was approved the meeting before he joined the Planning Commission, and he did not have a chance to speak about it the first time. He said the case of the parking problem at the Kimco Center Cupertino Village is obvious to anybody who goes to lunch there on any weekend. • He said he felt the traffic study used to approve the project was defective; their assumption was that because there were 691 occupied spaces when the traffic consultant visited this site, the demand must be equal to 691. The reason why they didn’t say there was a shortage was because there weren’t cars trying to get into the mall that were sprawling all over Wolfe Road and Homestead. As recently as 12:30 this Sunday, he said he could not find a parking space other than handicapped spot, and his opinion is that there is clearly a shortage. • The proposed plan for approving this project would make it even more dense, and city staff recognizes this in Paragraph 72 where it states “physical measures to solve the parking problem shall include but not be limited to valet parking and other dense types of parking measures”. He said he did not feel that was the type of parking that the people of Cupertino want and he was concerned about the tenants at the mall who are virtually all sole proprietors putting their livelihoods at risk in the event the center is not successful. In addition Apple is coming in with 9,000 to 12,000 employees across the street and to simply say that it will be considered when looking at the Apple building rather than asking the obvious question how will Apple affect this project; that he believes the appropriate solution is to have this project start over again, rather than approving what he believes to be a flawed plan. Com. Brownley: • Said he understood that part of the upgrades to the project was a new parking structure that would address some of the parking concerns for future visitors to the site. Com. Brophy: • Said when doing the Crossroads, staff provided a parking study for some previously approved centers, one of them being Kimco. He said the study does not reflect that the Methodist Church has a legal right to use the center for parking themselves. There is no cap allowance for that; and at lunch on Sundays it is a fairly large demand. • By the traffic consultant’s own estimate using ULI studies the restaurant should be allowed 15 to 20 spaces per 1,000; so for the proposed expansion he proposes that the restaurants be given Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 12.97. This is the kind of study where the numbers jump out; it is not a marginal case and anybody who lives in town who has been to this mall during peak hours knows that the center is overcrowded and to simply expand parking spaces at a rate no greater than the percentage increase of additional gross leasable area will just make the center worse. • Said he felt the project should not have been approved three years ago, and especially given that there is now a massive traffic generator that will be going in across the street. He said he felt it was time to reopen the whole issue rather than approving a project that he believes is a mistake. Gary Chao: • The condition requires that the parking structure be constructed first along with the sound wall and then build out the remainder of the project. Dave Jamieson: • Said the cost of the parking structure is taken into consideration for the entire development of the project. In terms of it being feasible, if they moved forward with the development, they would incur those costs which are part of the project. The parking structure would be built first to ensure that there is sufficient parking available when the new retail does get developed. • In terms of addressing the concerns with the additional traffic, the Apple facility being directly across the street would increase the pedestrian walking access; it will be a benefit on both sides, but difficult to judge if that increases the car traffic. From the pedestrian standpoint, it is a very convenient access from a walking perspective. Aarti Shrivastava: • From history, across two separate approvals, the existing center back in 2007 was assessed to have 691 spaces; it was originally approved with 800 spaces but with a change to the use permit, the total capacity was 891 spaces and that was by restriping areas as well as counting valet parking for 26 stalls to create 26 additional stalls; hence the final count with all of those changes would have been 891, 200 more for the development which would be about 25,000 square feet. • Said that by 2014 the permit would expire and at that time if they hadn’t vested it by beginning the building and continuing it; after that if they chose not to move ahead with it, they would have to reapply for another project. Com. Brophy: • Said he was uncomfortable discussing the parking issue in detail because none of it was included with the materials. He was looking at what was provided a couple of months ago, and the consultant talking about its existing layout using ULI numbers said it requires for its existing layout 752 to 900 parking spaces, but through the miracle of modern adjustments, they only need 691 spaces which coincidently is how many parking spaces they presently have. He said not being an engineer, his sense is that the traffic engineering studies they see consistently seem to get the numbers that the projects need and in this particular case, common sense can take you out there on any weekend and see that the existing number is well short of what it needs to support. By forcing this project to become even more dense which is the word used in the staff recommendation, it is putting the existing merchants at risk; they are paying very high rents in exchange for high productivity from Cupertino Village; but if they try to squeeze more into that rather than make it a better center, it will make it a much worse center at least for the existing tenants. Vice Chair Miller: • Stated the options were voting for or against the application or continuing it and having it come back; staff will explain the options in detail. Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 Aarti Shrivastava: • Summarized the options before the Commission; either approve the modification or recommend denial at which point it would go to City Council; or chose to continue it there is a need for more information. Staff is not planning to re-look at the application, but bring it in as an extension because they could apply for another permit. Valerie Armento, City Attorney: • Said that the Commission could not reopen the application, but vote on the application being discussed; either present a motion to extend it or make a motion to deny extension. Said there was nothing to be gained from a continuation; there is nothing to be researched; staff has answered questions about now vs. three years from now. Com. Brophy: • Clarified that the number quoted from the parking study was for the existing amount of square footage, not the expanded size. Valerie Armento, City Attorney: • Explained that it was two different issues; if the Commission makes a motion to not extend and it is denied, it is up to the company to reapply, or re-evaluate; but it is not reopening the matter on the Commissions’ motion. What is being said is the Commission would like to continue this and have staff come back with more information on the parking and re-analyze that; and that is really re-opening the item on the Commission’s motion, not on the application of the applicant. The Commission is making a recommendation to City Council Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Vice Chair Miller, motion failed with a vote of 2-2-0, (Coms. Brownley and Miller voted Yes; Coms. Brophy and Com. Sun voted No) Chair Lee absent; to recommend to City Council to approve M-2011-03, M-2011-04, M-2011-05. Valerie Armento, City Attorney: • Explained that since only four Commissioners were eligible to vote, if the motion fails, the converse of the motion is what the recommendation is to the City Council unless you choose to make another motion with regard to the application which may garner at least 3 votes. Restated that a tie motion does not pass; in this case the motion was to recommend approval to the City Council; with a 2/2 vote it fails; the minutes can go to City Council indicating the motion that was made, the fact that the vote was split and you can stop there. Alternatively if somebody thinks they can make a motion that would get more than 2 votes, you can attempt to make that motion to try and get more than 2 votes. Motion: Motion by Com. Sun, to approve M-2011-03, M-2011-04, M-2011-05, with condition immediately from this year to start of building two story parking garage in the Cupertino Village first, instead of extending application for another three years. Following discussion, the motion died for lack of a second. Valerie Armento, City Attorney: • Interpreted the motion stating that what is being suggested is a one year extension as opposed to a three year extension because the condition is they have to build the garage first. If requiring them to build the garage within the next year, it is giving a one-year extension. Her understanding is that they are saying if they don’t build the garage in the next year, then they are out of luck; which is saying you are modifying what they applied for instead of being a three-year extension, to be a one-year extension. Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 Com. Sun: • Said he wanted to consider the business economic situation and also it is a reality in the shopping center, because the shopping center is traffic jammed in the current condition; if applicant built the parking structure and can solve the traffic problem immediately. Com. Brophy: • Said they are likely not going to build the extra parking if they have permission to build the extra square footage. Vice Chair Miller: • Said it would only be solving the traffic problem for the period of time that the parking structure is up and the additional square footage hasn’t been built. Once the additional square footage has been built, if you believe that the traffic is going to go back to an unacceptable condition, then it is not certain that anything is solved. Com. Sun: • Said if the new two story structure couldn’t solve the problem, the entire application will fail. Aarti Shrivastava: • I think Vice Chair Miller is saying the two story parking structure will be there and will help the existing businesses, but once the new structure is built, there will be tenants from that using that new structure. There will be temporary relief for the existing businesses after which they will have to share space with the new building. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: No report. HOUSING COMMISSION: No report. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: No meeting. MAYOR’S MONTHLY MEETING: Com. Brophy reported on meeting: • Teen Commission reported they are working on an anti-tobacco conference in three months; Teen Center lounge having a party on Friday Oct. 9th. • TIC has had a large turnover and not held many meetings; they are looking at the use of social technologies for staff and citizens, and have had meeting with the City’s IT Director. • Library Report: A poet laureate has been appointed; a health science library will be added as part of the Cupertino Library; there has been a decline in usage since the implementation of the $80 fee for non-residents. • Parks and Recreation Commission: McClellan Ranch Plan has started to get an update; last done in 1993 and will be holding public hearings in near future; some question as to whether or not the review of the ranch will also include a look at the Simms parcel. • Fine Arts Commission: Meets every two months; many new commissioners there; the abstract of baseball glove in center field at a cell tower at Memorial Park recently installed; Shakespeare Festival occurred this summer; vote for distinguished and emerging artist; use of organic materials at Cherry Blossom festival. Cupertino Planning Commission October 10, 2011 • Bicycle Commission: Considering doing an event in association with the Big Bunny Fun Run; will be doing some work on bike safety with the elementary school and high school; looking to define bike routes for Blackberry Farm bridge. • Public Safety Commission: request if anybody has an incident/accident to report it to sheriff; looking at alternatives for Alert SEC program which sends phone calls to homes for emergencies; continuing to work on voltage program which is the RFID tags for walking and bicycling students. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: • Written report submitted; no oral report. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for October 25, 2011 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary