The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda Packet 02-12-2013 Table of Contents Agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. draft minutes 01-08-2013 Draft Minutes 01-08-2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Elect a Chair and Vice Chair, assign Committee appointments for 2013 Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 1- Committee Appointees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2- 2013 Meeting Calendar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3. Director's Report Director's Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 1 AGENDA C U P E RT I N O CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Community Hall Tuesday, February 12, 2013 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Sub�ect: draft minutes 01-08-2013 Recommended Action: approve or modify draft minutes Pa�e: 4 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 2. Subject: Elect a Chair and Vice Chair, assign Committee appointments for 2013 Recommended Action: assign representatives and alternates to the various committee groups Description: Elect a Chair and Vice Chair Select representatives to the Design Review Committee, Housing Commission, Economic Development Committee Select representative to the Environmental Review Committee meeting to be appointed by the City Council Select attendance schedule for the Mayor's Monthly meeting Discuss the Planning Commission meeting schedule for 2013 Pa�e: 25 2 Tuesday, February 12, 2013 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Commission Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners Economic Development Committee Meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3. Sub�ect: Director's Report Recommended Action: accept report Pa�e: 39 ADJOURNMENT If you c{iallenge t{ie action of't{ie Planning Commission in court, you may be limitec� to raising only t{iose issues you or someone else raisec� at t{ie public{iearing c�escribec� in t{iis agenc�a, or in zuritten corresponc�ence c�eliverec� to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allozv an applicant anc�groups to speak for 10 minutes anc�inc�ivic�uals to speak for 3 minutes. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Department after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning Department located at 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours. For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda, contact the Planning Department at(408) 777-3308 or planningC«?cupertino.or�. 3 CTTY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. Janua��-8, 2013 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regula� Planning Commission meeting of Janua��- 8, 2013 ��as called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Communit�-Hall, 10350 Toi7e Avenue, Cupertino, CA. b�-Chair Mart�-Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chauperson: Marty Miller � Vice Chairperson: Don Sun Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Clinton Bro«nlev Staff present: Communit�-Development Director: Aa�-ti Shrivastava Cit�-Planner: Ga��-Chao Senior Planner: Colin Jung Assistant Planner: George Schroeder Assistant Cit�-Attorne�-: MelissaTronquet Public Works Depa��tment: Timm Borden APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Minutes of the December II, 20I2 Plunning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Com. Lee,second by Vice Chair Sun, and carried 4-0-1, Com. Brophy abstain; to approve the December 11,2012 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING 2. DP-2012-05,ASA-2012-13, Development Permit to allo�� the demolition of EXG2012-02,TR-2012-41 11,610 sq. ft. of eiisting commercial space and the Tom Purtell,Borelli Investment construction of 15,377 sq. ft. of ne�� commercial space 4 Cupertino Planning Commission 2 Janua��-8, 2013 Co. (Diana Taylor) consisting of t��o ne�� commercial building pads; 7,000 sq.ft. and 20803 Stevens Creek Blvd. 8,377 sq.ft. respectively-,Architectural and Site Approval Permit & 10033-10095 Saich Way to allo�� the demolition of 11,610 sq.ft. of eiisting commercial and the construction of 15,377 sq. ft. of ne�� commercial space consisting of t«o ne« commercial building pacls and associated site improvements; Eiception to the Hea�-t of the Cit�- Specif�ic Plan to allo�� a reduced street side setbacic (from the edge of the curb) is required; Tree Removal Permit to allo�� the removal and replacement of 13 trees in conjunction��ith a proposed development project. Planning C'ommission decision final z�nless appealed. George Schroeder,Assistant Planner,presented the staff report: • Revie��ed the application for Development Permit, Architectural and Site Approval, Eiception to Heart of the Cit�- Specif�ic Plan, and Tree Removal Permit relative to the demolition of eiisting commercial space and construction of ne« commercial space; and allo«ance for a reduced street side setback for t��o ne�� commercial building pads and to allo�� removal and replacement of trees in conjunction ��ith a proposed development project at 20803 Stevens Creel Blvd and 10033-10095 Saich Way, as outlined in the attached staff report. • He revie��ed the video presentation including the follo��ing topics: Application Request; Hea�t of the Cit�- Street Side Setbacic Eiception; Proposed Site Plan «/Diagonal Pa�lcing; Architectural Revie�� Bldgs 1 and 2; Pa�lcing and Street Improvements; Saich Wa�- Street Plan; Traf£ic, Circulation, Safet�- and Queuing; Proposed Street Removals; Tree Replacements/Protection; Ke�- Conditions of Approval;Neighboring Property O��ner Comments; Environmental Assessment. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the development permits, a�chitectural and site application, and tree removal permit per the draft resolutions. The Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed to Cit�-Council«ithin 14 calendar da�-s. • Staff ans��ered questions regarding parlcing; it «as noted that all pa�lcing ��as provided onsite and none from Saich Wa�-would count to��a�d the parlcing requirement. In the past it has on1�- been for the Main Street project. Gaylan Grant,FCGA Architecture,Danville: • Said their goal �vas to have a project that «as safe, pedestrian and vehicula� friendly, and a retail project that��ould survive. Relative to the roof st�-1e of the buildings, he noted that the st�-1e depends much on the location; the flat roof provides opportunity for rooftop equipment; a sloped roof is not a complete pitched roof; a mansard roof reduces the area allo��able on the roof for rooftop equipment. In the proj ect, the5- ��anted a more contemporai�- center, have complementai�- colors to flo�� from Panera Bread along Stevens Creelc to the street comer at Saich; «anted to provide more «indo« space for display and vie�� in; and the�-lilce to ha�e va�iet�-of roof heights for horizontal and vertical articulation. • Relative to the possibilit5- of recycling building materials, he said that it is not anticipated that there ��i11 be a lot of usable product to rec�-cle but the�-��ould rec�-cle materials ��henever possible. Staff said that some of the project requirements a�e even stricter than Whole Foods had because of the ne��er C3 regulations. The�-��ould ensure that the��ater percolates on site; and Public Worlcs��ould revie« details. • He revie��ed the site plan; the goal��as to bring the buildings closer to the street, ��ith a strong street frontage and maintain the pedestrian flo�� and clear passage from in front of Panera Bread ��ithout an�-obstructions and malce the passage«ay one the�-«ould«ant in an urban environment. Said the diagonal pa�lcing is a good solution; Given the fact that is not the condition on the east side, there is ve a la�ge parlcing lot there; it malces sense to talce aclvantage of that opportunit5-here; it helps to malce the shops��ork. Initiall�-there��ere not doors at both ends of the shop spaces, the�-��ere on the parlcing lot side, because that is ��here the pa�lc is; it ��as agreed that ��ith the allo��ance of 5 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 Janua��-8, 2013 diagonal parlcing on that side of the street, it��ould malce sense to ha�e doors on that side��allc. That ��i11 be a meaningful pedestrian eiperience that cui7entl�-doesn't eiist on that side of the street. • He revie��ed the landscaping plans including special pavers, benches, a��nings, grove of trees, and removal of landscape strips; in lceeping «ith the desire to malce it an urban pedestrian friendl�- ��allcing space. He acicno��ledged that deliveries must talce place before or after hours; trash enclosures a�e easi1�-accessible and cai7�-the a�chitectural design theme and a�e set to the rea�and off to the side so the�-are not highly visible. Bic�-cle pa�lcing is encouraged and eiceeds the requirement; the bus stop requires relocation to the north, because of the acldition of the diagonal pa�lcing;there is a distribution of handicapped pa�lcing spaces. Vice Chair Sun: • Said the issue ��as the concem about traffic; and aslced the applicant if he felt it ��as a legitimate concern. Gaylan Grant: • Said the proposal is an improvement over��hat presently eiists; it ma�-not be perfect but is safer as proposed than the eiisting nai7o�� drive; there is parlcing on the proposed site to help support the parlcing need for Panera and the�- all need to be good neighbors and ��ork together to create a combined enti�-that is as safe as possible and it provides as inuch parlung as possible. • He pointed out that the tenant in shop 7��hich is on their corner��ould be adamant about retaining the parlcing; if there ��as no parlcing, the5- ��ould not rent the space. He said the�- needed the parlcing; changing the direction��i11 eliminate one space. The spaces are deeper��hen the parlcing is angled; it malces it easier to pull in; it does confine the bacicout to the lane in the northbound lane; there is a safet�-factor there that is an improvement over 90 degree pa�lcing. • Said the�- a�e seelcing approval; and it��ould be ideal to have conditions of approval to ��orlc ��ith staff on the enti�-condition. The�-a�e��illing to«orlc«ith staff further; there is a possibilit5-of using the southem-most space as a handicapped space. Vice Chair Sun: • Relative to solving the traffic issues including Chair Miller's concem about the intersection of Stevens Creelc and Saich,is it possible for the entiv from Stevens Creelc to still maintain the one-��a�- enti�-and change the first parlcing enti-�-bet«een building 1 and 2 into one«a�-and move the double direction. He aslced if there«as a better«a�-to solve the traf£ic issue. Gaylan Grant: • Said there«as not a better�va�-to solve the traffic issue; the�-ha�e studied evei�-imaginable��a�-of easing the traffic concems, entering and flo��ing thru the site and have reached the conclusion ��ith the city, staff, Public Worlcs, and the traffic consultant that��hat the�-have no�� is the safest possible solution. Tom Purtell,Borelli Investment Co.: • Said his contact��ith Target about their plans��as about 18 months ago, at��hich time their intent��as to ti�-and close do«n Saich Wa�-and ha�e pa�lcing on each side. He said nothing has been submitted and the�-need to move their project along. Chair Miller: • Relative to the angled pa�lcing on Saich Way, there ��as mention that it��ould malce sense to have angled pa�lcing on the other side, but there is not enough footage there to do angled pa�lcing on both sides; but there is enough footage to do pa�allel pa�lcing on both sides. If there ��as pa�allel parlcing instead of angled pa�lcing,ho�� much of a difference does that malce in terms of the retail value. 6 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 Janua��-8, 2013 Tom Purtell: • There is an alternative in the pacicage that sho��s pa�allel parlcing; the5- prefer the angled pa�lcing because the�- feel it creates a presence for their site that is more attractive both to the pedestrians ��alking along the side��allc in front and the ca�s that are pulling in because there are entrances off Saich. The parallel parlcing��orlcs for no�� but the�-��ould prefer angled pa�lcing. Gaylan Grant: • Refei7ed to a diagram of a fire trucic eiiting the Ta�get pa�lcing lot��here there ��as concem from Ta�get's management that if a fire trucic eiited at that pa�ticula� enti�-, it is ��ithin the area of the diagonal or angled pa�lcing, and it��ould be diff�icult for the fire trucic to eiit. That is a truism, the realit�- is a fire truck eiiting the Ta�get site has other opportunities for eiit and the�- talce ��hatever path of tra�el��orlcs best for them. Chair Miller opened the public hea�ing. � Steven Carlson, Co-Owner of Target Center: • Said the�-ha�e been in contact��ith Planning staff and conve�-ed concems to them�vith respect to the diagonal pa�lcing. In revie«ing the stud�- ezhibits and third pa�ty reports provided b�- staff, the�- found that the traffic engineer did not evaluate the changes to Saich Wa�- ��ith respect to turning movements, stacicing, and a number of changes in capacity. The proposed diagonal pa�lcing plan at first eliminates 9 stalls from the eiisting configuration on site ��ith the movement of the bus stop ��hich talces 6 stalls to the north, and��ith the introduction of the angled parlcing. • The tum movements eiisting on their project«ere not evaluated; theu project is approiimatel�- ten times the size of this property; it generates approiimatel�-20,000 dail�-trips to and from the site; these trips a�e served out of three prima��- drive«a�-s, one on Saich, one on Bandle�- and one on Stevens Creelc. Because of the restricted movements on Stevens Creelc, all customers coming from the ��est malce the tum on Saich Wa�- to come onto the propert5- and it is estimated that a third of all the customers��ho go into and out of that center go in thru that drive��a�-. • Ezhibits are in staff report relative to fue depa�-tment equipment appa�atus access into the tluee drive��a�-s and the�-illustrate entries and eiits of any possible combinations. What the�-ha�e ignored is that��e have the sasne inovements that��e have to maintain on our side; it is not just getting out, it is getting in. Outside radius for fire truck equipment is 36 feet; �-ou cannot malce a 36 foot tum in 24 feet of lane; the eihibit provided in letters to staff illustrates b�- overlaying those same templates on their eiisting drive��a�-in sho��ing they cross��e11 into the angled pa�lcing and that is a big problem. • He said the5- applaud the project, but ��ould recommend the project be approved ��ith the pa�allel parlcing option included in the packet, not the angled parlcing��hich��ould obliterate the movements in their drive«a�s. Ty Bash, Owner,Happy Days Child Development Center: • Addressed the issue of the setbacks. In 1999 he ��ent before the Planning Commission for approval of his preschool, at ��hich time he ��as instructed to provide a 10-foot setbacic for the project; measured from the propert5-line. • Discussed the setbacic ��ith staff and agreed to disagree on ho�� the code is read. If loolcing at setbacics that a�e established from Stevens Creelc, there is a 26 foot setbacic plus a 9 foot setbacic from the curb; along Saich Wa�- since the 20 foot setbacic is not requued, staff is measuring setbacic from the curb. The size of the public right-of-��a�-is 10 feet, so if��ere measure a 9 foot setbacic from the public right-of-�va�- the applicant can build their building all the ��a�- on the public right-of-��a�-, a foot into the public right-of-��a�-. He said he felt it��as an incoi7ect interpretation. If loolcing at the code from the side setbacic,then the side setbacic requirement is either 10 feet or half the height of the 7 Cupertino Planning Commission 5 Janua��-8, 2013 building. It is difficult to believe that the intention of the code��as that the setbacics measured either from the propert5- line or from the edge of the curb intended to provide a zero setbacic from the property line as the project has no�� been proposed. • The second issue is the impact of angled pa�lcing; ��hile it provides eicellent opportunities to the proposed project, it damages access to their site. Saich Wa�- in addition to providing 30% of theu traffic, provides 95% of our traffic and it also provides a vast majorit5- of the traf£ic to the YMCA, nai7o��ing that drive aisle to 24 feet��hich is the��idth of a drive aisle on a pa�lcing lot. • In addition to the angled pa�lcing, if most people do access Saich Wa�- from Stevens Creelc, angled parlcing is spaced the��rong��ay; people��ho drive into Saich are going to have to malce a U-turn in order to enter the angled parlcing. As more people do that, traffic ��i11 bacic up into Stevens Creelc. Said that their highest traffic is bet��een 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and bet��een 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Parlcing is also in demand from the YMCA at that point; overflo« pa�lcing from the YMCA impacts their parlcing lot and pa�lcing along Saich Wa�-and Alves. • He said the project from the design point is eicellent, and the�- are eicited to see a ne�� project, but ��ould aslc that the Planning Commission consider not allo��ing angled parlcing, allo��ing them to maintain the��idth of the street as it is��ith pa�allel parlcing and seriousl�-look at the interpretation of the setbacic to malce sure that it fulfills the requirements, as he ��as not familia� ��ith setbacics measured from the edge of the curb not the propert5- line. It is unusual and should be loolced at relative to the interpretation of the Code. Barry Watkins, Co-Owner Target Center: • Said the�-«ere pleased to see the project move foil�ard but have some reseivations about its intensit�- and other problems. The�- ha�e concerns on ho« it is going to impact their propert5-, their future development and their major tenant. • Relative to the project design, it is unlilcel�-that an�-one��ould lease the comer building if the5-cannot parlc there; Panera Bread «i11 lilcely- pa�lc there most of the time and that tenant��ill have a difficult time finding pa�lcing spaces «ith the limited amount due to the business neit door. The building calculations��ere made based upon the interior square footage of the premises eicluding the eiterior ��alls; there is a difference of several hundred squa�e feet. He said he has not seen that before and ��as not sure the cit�-code allo«ed for that. • He discussed the trucic loacling situation, stating that it ��as difficult to regulate the delivei�- times from independent trucicers, and parlcing in the street if other spaces a�e alreacl�- filled. He suggested that the trucic loacling have its o��n dedicated parlcing a�ea and posting signs for no trucic pa�lcing. • The bus duckout can be easily located onto Alves Drive; a red zone is east of the Ta�get property; it was mentioned that fire trucics can go another��a�; other trucics also ha�e to go through the drive�va�� and if angled parlcing is there,the trucic deliveries cannot occur. • Recommend that the project be approved subject to the limitations. Jennifer Griffin,Rancho Riconada resident: • Aslced that the follo��ing be discussed/eiplained: the side setbacic eiception; comment on ��hat is cui7ent or future reciprocal parlcing agreement bet��een Panera Bread and the Borelli property; malce certain that the t��o restaurants install odor abatement equipment. She said she��as pleased that Hea�t of the Cit�-has been respected; and��ished them success. Blair Volkmann, representing office development to the west of the Saich Way development: • Supports the redevelopment and is loolcing foil�a�d to��orlcing��ith the cit�-as��e11 as the o��nership; one of major concems is relative to the cui7ent/future parlcing agreement. As it currentl�- stands the�- are in opposition to the reciprocal ingress/egress agreement. • Pointed out there is no cui7ent easement agreement; ��hen the Peets and Panera redevelopment��as done the5- approached the Borelli and Saich Wa�- o��nership in order to get an easement, but it��as 8 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 Janua��-8, 2013 declined. The cit5-granted a covenant for easement agreement to grant future reciprocal ingress and egress. Concerned that the future redevelopment of the propert5-��ould provide an adverse affect, and bacicing up the points mentioned rega�ding the enti�- off Stevens Creelc Blvd, there has alread�- been eiisting issues and there is concern ��ith the pa�lcing spaces adjacent to Stevens Creelc and so close��hen the�-bacic up it is going to further impact traffic going in and out of both properties. Darrel Lum: • Said initiall�-he supported the project if the applicant presented adequate information for an eiception to the Hea�-t of the Cit�-Plan (HOC); ho��ever, there appea�s to be a major change since the decision of the ERC,mainl�-that eiception to the HOCSP is not required. The Planning Commission report states that according to HOC the required building setback along the Stevens Creelc Blvd. frontage is 35 feet; the actual language in the HOC is minimum setbacic for ne�� development shall be 35 feet from the edge of the curb. Also according to that same section B2, the corner pa�cel setbacic requirement applies to both frontages. Main Street on both Tantau and Stevens Creelc, on Tantau there is a 35 foot setbacic; on the recent Biltmore project even though the5- don't ha�e a comer pa�cel,the�-are set bacic at 35 feet. • Recommended that the project be resubmitted«ith eiception to HOC included. There a�e some other factors not disclosed at this point, but he said he felt the cit�- should seriousl�- consider including the eiception to the HOC. Chair Miller closed the public hea�ing. Chair Miller: • Aslced staff to address questions raised by spealcers, including eiception to HOC; setbacic from the property line on Saich Way; the angled parlcing and the impact it has on turning movements for fire trucics; traf£ic; deliveiy vehicles during the day�tiine and ho�� to ensure it doesn't happen and impact vehicula� movements and pa�lcing; relocation of bus stop; reciprocal parlcing agreement bet��een Borelli and Panera site; and odor abatement equipment for restaurants. Gary Chao, City Planner: • Addressed setbacics; there a�e comments regarding the«a�-HOC prescribed setbacic requirements. It is unique in that HOC does«orlc for this area; it does require setbacics to be measured from the curb as opposed to the property line. The setback eiception is not required and the applicant is not requesting for one; as proposed it meets the letter of the HOC. • There is mention of Tantau Main Street project; he clarified that in the General Plan for the Vallco Parlc South a�ea, it specifically calls out unique setbacics for those areas in ��hich case it has to do ��ith the height of the building slope line; and again it is measured from the curb in those areas. The project Main Street��here it relates to Tantau is different than this a�ea; there is a special callout in the General Plan. • Other questions rega�ding fire truck or diagonal pa�lcing, the safet�-of that and the logistics of getting in and out; the diagonal pa�lcing is not meant for people if y-ou a�e traveling northbound to malce an illegal U-turn to enter into it the other ��a�- around; it is a violation of the vehicle code. It ��as mentioned previously-that the fire dept. has loolced at this project from the perspective of getting in, out and a�ound the project a�ea; and there is a reason �vh�- the�- are olca�- ��ith the diagonal parlcing because there is multiple access points to the project as��e11 as multiple access and eiits points to the Ta�get center as��e11. • With rega�ds to delivei�-hours and a�eas, there is a condition that the delivei�-hours occur outside of the hours of operation;the applicant has confirmed that the�-��i11 comply. • Relative to the bus stop locations, staff has hacl conversations ��ith the VTA about the location; the�- are open to relocate the bus stop if��a�7anted b�- the Planning Commission. Staff��i11 discuss ��ith 9 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 Janua��-8, 2013 them about potentiall�- relocating the bus stop to Alves; it is less desuable from staff's perspective because there a�e pros and cons; it ma�- be more convenient for the apa�tment residents to get to the bus stop «ith natural direct access and there ma�- be merits, but there ma�- be some impact or disturbances to them as ��e11 since it is closer to the apartment units, but VTA is open to that if the Commission��ant to eiplore it. Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director: • Relative to the comment about reciprocal access easement, she said the applicant��as referring to an easement the�-hacl recorded on their propert5-in 2005 as part of the Peets and Panera project; ��hich is not for discussion toda�;the�-a�e not being aslced for reciprocal access easement. She said she felt the�- supported the cui7ent site plan, although Mr. Vollcman did discuss some concems about��here the pa�lcing��as located„ but that access is not in question as part of this hea�ing; nothing is required of the acljacent propert5-. The on1�-easement is the drive��a�-entrance into and out of the propert5-and not an�,-thing past that. Gary Chao: • Rega�ding odor abatement, the standard practice is to require odor abatement systems for restaurants if the�- are in close proiimit5- to residential. This project's location is not the case; there is not a concern��ith odor abatement, although there is a condition that covers odor abatement mitigation in the event complaints a�e received. The applicant«ould be obligated to address the issue at that time, although the5-a�e encouraged to implement it at the beginning since it is more cost effective Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to delivei�-trucks,there a�e a number of tight sites; the�-are given the conditions of approval and a�e managed ��e11 in most cases. Where there are instances, Code Enforcement malces certain the businesses lcno�� hat they need to do; the tenants do much of the policing themselves because the�- don't«ant theu spaces blociced. She said the�-have not eiperienced problems«ith Peets and Panera Breacl. Gary Chao: • Relative to travel lane along Saich Wa�-, the comment about the travel lane being reduced or modified to less than cui7entl�- there is untrue; the cui7ent eiisting tra�el lane is 12 feet for each lane ��hich consists of 24 feet total; the proiimity of��here it eiists is going to shift a little; but the total vehicle tra�el lane the«idth itself is not being reduced b�-this project; it is being maintained and preseived. The pa�lcing adjacent to it is going to be redesigned; the total parlcing on Saich Wa�-is being reduced. Historicall�-the cit�-has hacl problems«ith Saich Wa�-��ith vehicles travelling at a fast speed as��ell as 18��heelers and la�ge trucics parlced along the east side of Saich. Even��ith or��ithout this project Public Worlcs ��-as contemplating some plan to address that, possibly- eliminating pa�lcing on the east side of the street. That mav or ma�-not happen outside the conteit of the project;it is an issue that the cit�-��ould lilce to acldress. He confirmed that b�-talcing out parlcing along that side of the street there is a net reduction; there a�e some potential options to eiplore if the Commission is interested in adding more diagonal pa�lcing further do��n north of Saich��hich could potentiall�-malce up the net difference. Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to eco issues, several spealcers raised the question about the eiception of the setbacic. The 35 foot setbacic is required along Stevens Creelc Blvd; it is not requued on the side street; the 9 feet is required the minimum and the landscape setbacic is encouraged but not requued. That is«h�-it does not require an eiception. 10 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 Janua��-8, 2013 Com. Brophy: • Said he «as interested in input about the diagonal pa�lcing on Saich, and concemed about the enti�- ��a�- off Stevens Creelc into the combined enti�- ��a�- that ��ould be into the Saich project and the Panera Peets site. Said he did not feel the parlcing spaces could be so close to the enti�-«a�-and even «ith a«idened drive�va�-it«ouldn't«orlc; and he did not support the site plan as is; it«ould trigger the need for some acljustments to the site plan. • Relative to the relocation of the bus stop, it is a bus la�-over location for the lines 25 and S land there is another stop on the bacicside of Ta�get on Alves and Pa�lc Circle East. Given that there is more traffic on Saich than on Alves, and more pa�lcing, the logical thing ��ould be to loolc into the possibilit5- of relocating the bus la�-over to that location insteacl. He said the a�chitecture ��as appropriate. Gary Chao: • If the bus stop��as relocated to Alves that��ould potentially fi-ee up some additional pa�allel pa�lcing. Vice Chair Sun: • The biggest concem is understanding the Saich Way parlcing, changing the cui7ent parallel pa�lcing into diagonal pa�lcing doesn't benefit entire communit�-. Na�7owing do«n Saich is the on1�- benefit for the property o��ner but that's not a significant benefit compared ��ith causing negative impact on the neighbors. Said he preferred not to na�7o�� Saich Wa�-. • In fa�or of pa�allel pa�lcing on Saich Wa�; supports moving the bus stop; still concemed about parlcing at the entrance on Stevens Creek. Concur ��ith Coin. Brophy- on that; a�chitecture appropriate. Com. Lee: • Said she had some conceins but supported the entn- into the parlcing lot from Stevens Creelc; the possibilit5-of a ca�rear ending another eiisted. Said along Saich Wa�- she ��ould lilce to see angled parlcing; it «il1 help the businesses and «i11 slo�v do«n traffic and malce for a better pedestrian eiperience. Said there�vere t��o acljacent property o��ners��ho support lceeping the pa�allel pa�lcing. • Said she «ould lilce to ha�e more discussion about the bus stop relocation and angled vs. pa�allel parlcing. She «ould prefer to move the bus stop neit to retail «here it«ouldn't disturb residents. The architectural design is oka�; it is a good sized building; she hoped to hea�some elements of green building design; tree removal no issues; setbacics olca�-. The goal is to have successful ne�� retail and have a good pedestrian eiperience; the site has some constraints; it is nai7o��, the�-had to put in 80 parlcing spaces, the�- had to malce the storefronts attractive and deep enough so the�- ��ould ��orlc. Staff did a good job��ith the applicant. Com. Brownley: • Concui7ed ��ith Com. Lee's comments; approved architecture; great pedestrian friendly-project; said he supported moving the bus stop as there ��ere benefits to moving it out of the proposed location. Said he lilces the angled pa�lcing on Saich; it is pedestrian friendly, is easier and safer to pull into and out of on that side of the street. There ��ere positive options proposed for the enti-�-��a�- off Stevens Creek; there ��ere comments that the angled pa�lcing retains the majority of the spaces and can improve safet�-along that route; another option is malcing one of the end spaces a handicapped space. • Both staff and traff�ic consultant sa�- that evei�--thing proposed is acceptable; he supported the proposed solution, but��as open to discussing possible options. Com. Brophy: • Relative to the bus stop, there is alreacl�- a bus stop at Alves and Pa�lc Circle;the concern«ould be if the buses a�e sitting idling;«hich could be cla�if�ied b�-VTA. 11 Cupertino Planning Commission 9 Janua��-8, 2013 Chair Miller: • It is a good addition to the project and a complement to the development that is in the area in terms of Panera and the Ta�get center; it is hoped that Target comes in��ith their project and improves the site even more. He noted that the developer did the best the�-could«ith«hat the�-had and did pacic a lot into a relativel�-small space. Said he had the same issue��ith the parlcing spaces on the entrance from Stevens Creelc; the fust pa�lcing space is a concem because ��hen bacicing out of that pa�lcing space �-ou a�e going to be bacicing almost into the street and ma�-be the traf£ic engineer doesn't thinlc it is a problem; but it loolcs lilce a blind spot;it ma�-be a safet�-issue. • Eliminating the pa�lcing spot or doing some angled parlcing ma5- malce it easier to bacic out��ithout bacicing so fa�out into the street ma�-solve the problem. Given all the parlcing spaces on Saich Wa�- it should not be an issue in terms of ineeting the pa�lcing requirements for the project. • Supports moving the bus stop to allo�� more pa�lcing on the street; also leaning to��a�d the pa�allel parlcing option because at some point in time; if that is an issue no«, it is going to be more of an issue ��hen the other side of the street is developed because thev«i11 not have any-parlcing on that side of the street if there is angled parlcing. They could ti�- the angled pa�lcing initially and then ��hen a project comes in on the other side of the street go bacic to pa�allel pa�lcing or just do parallel pa�lcing no��. Given that there ma�- be a potential loss of spaces b5-going to angled pa�lcing, he said he ��as inclined to favor the parallel pa�lcing as an overall solution. Com. Brophy: • Said he preferred pa�allel parlcing, and noted for the record that he ��ould vote against it because the traffic consultants hired b�-the cit�- said that the�-needed a 50 foot throat there and even eliminating one or t��o pa�lcing spaces in the enti-�-��a�-would not be sufficient. He suggested going closer to 50 feet of no pa�lcing,lose potentiall�-5 spaces��-hich«ould require soine modification on the design. • There is a safet�- issue at the entrance point«ith the parlcing so close to it; is there an issue if it is reduced b�- one, t��o or three that the�- still meet their pailcing requuement based on the eicess parlcing on Saich Wa��. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the�- usually lilce to get the parldng on site; but this is a planned development and ��il1 not specificall�- require a parlcing eiception; the Coinmission can circumscribe ��hat the�- ��ant staff to loolc at and ho« many-spaces they are��illing to lose. Com. Brophy: • Said it is supposedly- solved b5- parldng else��here in the off�ice complei but that is not the ��a�- it ��orlcs; he said the�- should not be counting spaces on the public right-of-��a�- as part of the commercial project. Com. Lee: • Said she did not support counting spaces on Saich Wa�-as part of the project. The fust t��o spaces in front of shop 7 close to Stevens Creek ��ould be the last ones. It is tight, but the circulation is adequate that the�-��i11 find other pa�lcing spots. If there is no other parlcing, someone��i11 ti�-to pa�lc in those spaces and there��ill be some risk the�-��ill get rea�ended. Does not��ant to set a precedent and allo�� pa�lcing spaces to be on Saich; it is best to ensure that all requued pa�lcing is onsite otheil�ise people��il1 sa�-�-ou let that development slide b�-1ast time,�vh�-not let another slide b�-and it just gets more difficult. Motion: Motion by Com. Lee,second by Com.Brownley,to approve Application DP-2012-05,ASA-2012-13,EA-212-09, and TR-2012-41 per the model resolutions 12 Cupertino Planning Commission 10 Janua��-8, 2013 Friendly Amendment by Vince Chair Sun: to make it parallel parking instead of angled parking; accepted by Com. Lee. Com. Brophy: • Said something has to be done there as he could not support it in its cui7ent parlcing ai7angement on the enti�-off Stevens Creelc. The a�chitecture is attractive; supports pa�allel parlcing; staff has to��orlc on the bus site. The project is a good replacement for��hat has been sitting for 4 or 5 �-ea�s, but it is a step too fa� in terms of the amount of squa�e footage being squeezed onto a site and still meet the cit�-'s pa�lcing requuements. The motion was carried 4-1-0, Com. Brophy voted No. Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed to Cit�-Council��ithin 14 da�-s. Chair Miller declared a recess. � 3. GPA-2012-01,Z-2012-02 General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land EA-2012-07, Use designation from``Medium High Densit�-Residential City of Cupertino (10-20 d��ellings/gross acre)"to "Pa�lc&Open Space"for A 0.51 net acre vacant pa�cel located at the comer of Villa Real and Mai�-Ave., Rezoning of a 0.83 —acre vacant pa�cel and its fronting half street from"P(RIC)-Planned Development, Single-Fami1�-Residential Cluster Intent"to "PR-Parlc and Recreation Zone"located at the corner of Villa Road and Mai�-Avenue. Colin Jung, Senior Planner: • Cla�ified that the item «as for General Plan and zoning designation; it is pa�t of the entitlements required in order for a dog park to proceed on the property. The Cit�-Council��ill malce the decision rega�ding the dog parlc. Chair Miller: • Cla�ified that cominents «ould be received, but the decision is not��hether or not to go aheacl ��ith the dog parlc; the decision is to change the land use designation so that a dog pa�lc could be approved at some future date. Colin Jung presented the staff report: • Revie��ed the application for General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use Map designation, and rezoning of an 0.83-acre vacant pa�cel, APN 326-27-030, as outlined in the staff report. The vacant pa�cel is residual land from the High��ay 85 right-of-��a�- acquisition and development«hich«as deeded to the Cit�-b�-CALTRANS. • On June 19, 2012 the Cit�- Council aclopted its 5-�-ear fiscal �-ea� 2012/13 — 2017/18 Capital Improvement Program ��hich funded the planning, design and construction of a dog pa�lc at the project location on Ma��- Avenue. The scope of the project hea�d tonight is revie�� of the environmental documents and development of General Plan Land Use and zoning consistenc�-«ith the proposed use. The proposed land use designation, Park & Open Space is applied to land o��ned b�- the public and used for recreation or open space purposes. Public meetings ��ere held, notices «ere sent out and a notice board«as erected on the proposed site. • Relative to the environmental revie��, an initial stud�- for the dog parlc ��as prepared b5- the Cit�-'s Environmental Consultant The Planning Center — DCE; ��hich included specialized studies on air qualit5-, noise, trees soil contamination, and it loolced at scope of the project not on1�- from the 13 Cupertino Planning Commission 11 Janua��-8, 2013 construction end but also the operation phase of the parlc as��e11. Noise and dust impacts��hich��ere a significant concern«ill be mitigated to Ba�-Area Air Qualit�-Management District standards to less than significant levels. It��as noted in the soils anal�-sis that the soil is contaminated��ith lead��hich is not unusual because the parcel is close to a major free«a�-. Soil remediation«orlc is requued and one of the project objectives is to remove the contaminated soil or remediate in certain «a�-s and bacicfilling it��ith clean soil. At least 16 trees��ill be removed b�-the remediation��orlc because the full eitent of the contamination is not lcno��n. Additional soil testing��i11 need to be done as cleanup occurs and if more lead is found, up to an aclditional 16 trees ma�- need to be removed including 5 trees on adjoining private propert5- because the root structures eitend into cit�- land. The ERC revie«ed environmental documents and recommended a mitigated negative declaration for the project. • Comments ha�e been received about the proposed project, and conceins included air qualit5- from both parlc construction and removal of trees; noise concerns froin parlc visitors and barlcing dogs; the potential traffic impacts; pathogens and odors associated ��ith dog«aste; the potential for aggressive dogs, ��hich could present a safet�- issue for the neighborhood; property size too small and ��rongly shaped for a dog pa�lc use. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recoinmend to the Cit�- Council the adoption of a mitigated negative decla�ation for the project, approval of the General Plan Amendment request per the draft resolution and approval of the rezoning request per the draft resolution. If a recommendation is given tonight, the project«i11 be noticed and «i11 be hea�d by Cit�- Council on Februa��- 5"' Said he��ould do the staff report for the rezoning and General Plan Amendment; an�-other issues��ould be handled b�-the Public Worlcs Department. Timm Borden,Director of Public Works: • Said staff��ill aslc that Cit�- Council give the City Manager authorit�- to a��ard the t��o projects; the first project��i11 be the leacl removal that��i11 occur follo�ved b�-the construction of the dog parlc. It ��i11 be the General Plan Amendment, rezoning along ��ith the authorit�- for the Cit�- Manager to a«ard a construction contract. Chair Miller: • Cla�ified again the Planning Commission «as not ruling for or against the dog pa�lc, on1�- for or against the rezoning and General Plan Amendment«hich«ould lead to the abilit�-to do a dog pa�lc or some other parlc or recreation facility there. • If the Planning Cominission approves rezoning tonight and Cit�- Council approves moving foil�ard with remediation, and it tums out reinediation is much more eipensive than initiall�-anticipated, does that engender a re-evaluation of the decision. Colin Jung: • Staff feels conf�ident that the ground contamination can be contained or removed satisfactoril�- to ensure the safet�-of the residents using the area. If the land is used for an�- other use, it��ill ha�e to be cleaned up. He said the «orst case scena�io «ould be that the entire site «ould have to be remediated. Timm Borden: • Relative to the remediation cost,he said it could engender a re-evaluation of the decision,��hich is the reason construction is done in t��o contracts; cleanup fust so that the�- lcno�� ho�� much budget remains to complete the scope for the dog pa�lc. Obviousl�- an�,�thing to do ��ith the environmental mitigations«i11 need to be included in that scope but some of the amenities ma�-diminish. • Responding to a question if the proiimit5- to the high��a5- may be a continuing source of contamination, he said that it is lilcel�- that the contamination came from an ea�lier da�- ��hen there 14 Cupertino Planning Commission 12 Janua��-8, 2013 «as lead based gas lines and no« «ith unleaded fuels,that is not as much of a rislc. Chair Miller opened the public hea�ing. The following Cz�peNtino Nesidents pNOVided inpz�t on the Nezoning and potential dog paNk: Shahla Ehsasi: • Opposed to project because of limited space; contamination; lots of lcids in our complei��ho pla5-in the playgrounds. Will people coming from out of the a�ea use their play a�ea ��hich is close. Concemed about children's safetv. Nirmala(no last name given): • Opposed to dog pa�lc because it's too close to the neighbors; don't«ant to cut trees; leave space as is; trees��il1 provide enough oi5-gen to reduce air pollution. Residents eiposed to unpleasant odors. Chair Miller: • Reiterated that the�- ��ere discussing to change the zoning from 10 to 20 d«elling units per acre of residential development to parlcs and recreation. The propert5- has had t��o previous proposals for residential housing on the site; if zoning is not changed there is a possibilit5- of more projects being proposed for residential; urged spealcers to consider��hich option the5-��ould prefer��hen malcing comments. Sudbaker Reddy: • If no dog parlc is proposed for the site, «ould the Planning Commission still rezone the a�ea; ��hat prompted the rezoning. Chair Miller: • Responded that the rezoning is prompted b5-the desire of the Cit�-Council to put a dog parlc there. Sudbaker Reddy: • Opposition to a dog pa�lc is based on the coinments mentioned before; the piece of land is too small; loss of trees; unpleasant odors; have to remove soil to get rid of contamination; find a larger area for a dog parlc. Pushparaj Shanmugam: • Said he��ould prefer to lea�e the zoning as residential and not rezone for a dog pa�lc. Sandesh Anncar: • Said he��ould prefer to have the zoning remain as residential;is opposed to a dog parlc. Hyungkeun Hong: • Opposed to dog parlc; supports rezoning but not for dog pa�lc; plant more trees on pa�cel Sheetal Devidasani: • Said she did not feel it��as rea11�-a choice; either they approved zoning for residential or rezoning for dog pa�lc; and the�-don't��ant an�,�thing done��ith the small piece of land. If there is a dog parlc she lilcel�-��ould not be able to bring her child ��ith her; no�� she can��allc��ith her dog and child. As a dog o«ner,«ould appreciate a dog pa�lc, but as a taipa5-er does not«ant a malce-do dog pa�lc; «ould prefer a full scale dog pa�lc��ith facilities simila�to Los Gatos Creelc Parlc. Suggested the cit�-find a site in the do«nto«n area. 15 Cupertino Planning Commission 13 Janua��-8, 2013 Ranjith Prabu: • Keep a�ea as it is; nai7o�� space of land; good��allcing a�ea; tuming it to a dog pa�lc or residential not beneficial to residents; concemed about number of children in the neighborhood and their safet�-. Thyagorajan Radhakrishnan: • Opposed to dog pa�lc; it��il1 bring public cro��d into small space; 1/lOth size of some dog parlcs; too man�-dogs in confined space; lots of noise. Resides on1�- 10 feet across street; ��i11 negatively-affect his famil�-'s life; children's safet�- a concem; no place for neighborhood children to play. Ha�ing a public attraction in the small neighborhood��i11 cause problems for residents. Will there be a securit�- guard to help��ith securit�-of the a�ea and provide safet�-for the children. A dog park��ill negatively affect the value of the homes in the immediate a�ea. Mehdi Mortazavi: • Same concerns as previous spealcers; if given the choice bet�veen rezoning and dog pa�lc, ��ould support rezoning and oppose dog parlc in that a�ea. Rambabu Pyapali: • The na�7o�� strip of land is best left as is for nea�b�- residents; trees on the site are better than cro��ding the space ��ith a dog parlc; more traffic ��il1 be a safety factor. The containinated soil is a safet�- concem because of people��alking in the a�ea. Remove the soill and plant more trees, no dog parlc. Maya Reddy: • Opposed to dog parlc; agrees «ith previous spealcers' objections; don't thinlc dog parlc��i11 be useful because it is so small; the proposal is to malce it into t«o pa�lcs, one for small dog and one for la�ge dogs. Not many-people ��ould go to such a small parlc. Should not rezoning into residential or dog parlc; it is too sma1L Leave as is; a�ea is too small to be used for residential or a dog parlc; use for ��allcing area. Sai Yerraguhtla: • Agrees«ith previous spealcers; land should be left as is; there is a small trail, not a big enough space for a dog parlc or residential. Memorial pa�lc and Garden Gate a�e close to allocate space in one of the parks. Building a dog parlc in that area is an intrusion on residents; Ma��- Avenue is a bus�- street; lea�e it as it is. A pa�k or public attraction��ould cause noise pollution, trespassing and the location is not idea and more communit�-members«ould benefit if left as is. Sudha Andra: • Has concerns about safety, security, health issues, noise, and propert5-value decreasing. Dog parlc is causing too much stress on residents, ��ith noise, odor, and children pla5-ing; traffic and strangers coming into the area to the parlc. More greenei�-is needed in the neighborhood. Is there an�-negative affect on neighbors«hen doing the soil cleanup? Venkatch Subramanyam: • Agrees ��ith previous spealcers' concems; opposes the dog parlc, but olc��ith rezoning; if it can be a park��ith more trees it��ill help the environment. Dixie Taylor: • Opposed to rezoning for pa�lc��hich is too small and there a�e other parlcs close b�-. Leave as is. 16 Cupertino Planning Commission 14 Janua��-8, 2013 Rakesh Srivastava: • There��ill be loss of revenue for the cit�-because of house prices decreasing, more loss of mone�-for cit�- because property taies ��i11 decrease also; agree ��ith other spealcers; supports rezoning and removing the contaminated soil. What is the other option other than a dog pa�lc; lea�e the parcel of land as is. Chair Miller: • Said he��as not sure there��as another choice; and reiterated that if rezoning is done there��i11 not be more applications for housing there; there ha�e been other applications for housing ��hen zoned residentiaL The object of the rezoning no�� is to move ahead ��ith a dog parlc, ��ith the side effect of eliminating the possibilit5-of residential projects there. Panbumalai Sivarajan Thiruvadi: • Oppose dog pa�lc and rezoning;��ould prefer to leave the area as it presently-is. Sivarajan Thiruvadi: • Opposed to dog parlc; not a big enough space for a dog parlc. Would prefer residential use for the parcel. What is the standa�d for a dog pa�lc, space bet��een residential a�ea and dog park. Duleep Pillai: • Said he opposed the rezoning;the eiisting piece of land��i11 not accommodate more than t��o or three housing units; the previous plan��as to build a housing unit on the roacl, cutting do��n the street. The rezoning ��ill bring a dog parlc; none of the neighbors ��ant the dog parlc. Please recommend to the cit�-Council no rezoning. Devendran Rethinavel: • Opposes the project and the dog pa�lc. Leave parlc a�ea as it is; it is going to cause environmental issues��hen cleaning up the leacl contamination; plant more trees in the a�ea. Gopal Parakuvan: • Oppose dog parlc; agree to rezone as a pa�lc«ith inore trees. David Hollister: • Aslced if the zoning changes ��ent to the Cit�- CounciL If the dog pa�lc is not approved, does the zoning change stay 9r revert back to what it presently is. Chair Miller: • The City Council is going to first approve or den�-the rezoning; assuming the5-approve the rezoning, then the�-«ill approve or den�-the dog pa�lc as ��e11 as the land use change. There is the possibilit5- the�-can approve the land use change and rezoning and not approve the dog parlc. Raghupathi Subbiah: • Support rezoning but not the dog parlc;leave parlc as is. Manasi Pimplaskar: • Supports rezoning but not for the dog pa�lc. Prasad Pimplaskar: • Don't lilce the t��o things getting miied; supports rezoning but not for the dog parlc; 17 Cupertino Planning Commission 15 Janua��-8, 2013 Ted Hattan,Avery Construction,Regional Property Manager: • Acco Management has al��a�-s been in fa�or of the residential projects that have gone on across the street; and the�- are usuall�- further do«n to«ards the Oalcs and not«here the dog parlc is proposed. He said he «as surprised to sa�- he «as against rezoning residential to pa�lc lands, because the dog park ��ould negatively affect Glenbrook Apartments ��ithout a doubt. The Parks and Recreation Commission stated in a previous meeting that the�-��ould never malce the parcel into an�,�thing but a dog parlc because of the vicinit�-to Memorial Pa�lc; that it is not big enough to justify- any�thing else but��hat is being there. • He asked if it��ould be possible to revisit the dog park in a�-ea�if one��as put in, simila�to revisiting the Fa�mers Ma�lcet that��as in the Oalcs Shopping Center,to lceep tracic of any-problems encountered or complaints received to ascertain if the dog pa�lc should be abandoned,. Chair Miller: • Said it��as a good suggestion; if the Cit�-Council votes to make it a dog park,they can revisit it after a�-ear. Staff aclded that it could be revisited an�-time. Ted Hattan: • Said that there«ere man�-concems about the Fa�iners Marlcet but it turned out«e11. John Lee: • Opposes the rezoning because it ma�-leacl to the dog pa�lc; not a feasible location; negates��hat he is tiying to teach his children about being green in Califomia, and the removal of 32 trees. Also concerned about health and safet�-rega�ding his children. Appala Patnala: • Opposed to amendment for rezoning; opposes dog pailc; questioned ��h�-rezoning it if not for a dog parlc? Wh�- do an environmental assessment of the parcel? There is a lot of confusion about the rezoning and the future use the parcel of land. Chair Miller: • Apologized to speakers and stated it «as not his intent to mislead an�-one about the rezoning and proposed dog pa�lc. The intent of the ineeting is to rezone��ith the intention of malcing the space into a dog parlc; ho«ever,the�-are not for or against a dog pa�lc. Melissa Tronquet,Assistant City Attorney: • Eiplained that there a�e many coinponents to getting a project done in a city, such as funding, different sorts of approvals; and the project being discussed has been through y-ears of discussion and debate. There a�e on1�- certain things that a�e ��ithin the puivie�� of different bodies; the Pa�lcs and Rec Commission loolced at the question of��hether to malce this a parlc. What's��ithin the Planning Commission's purviev� tonight is the question of rezoning and the General Plan Amendment; ��hat the California Environmental Qualit�- Act requires is that if a cit�- is going to move foil�ard ��ith a project all of the potential aspects of the project have to be evaluated in an environmental document; the aspect of this project involving the dog parlc��as included in the environmental document, ��hich is before �-ou tonight. What the Commission is loolcing at a�e the impacts identified in the environmental document but its puivie« is limited on1�- to the General Plan Amendment and the rezone. Different bodies ��ithin the cit�- have different levels of approval and the Planning Commission approval does not include approving the pa�lc use of an off-leash dog parlc. That is ��ithin the Council's purvie��; but it��as included on the agenda tonight because the environmental document had to include the dog park as a consideration. 18 Cupertino Planning Commission 16 Janua��-8, 2013 Chair Miller: • Summarized the attorne�-'s statement: To get to a dog parlc is a t��o step process, one to change the zoning and land use, and requires a General Plan Amendment; and the second is to vote for or against a dog parlc; before a dog pa�lc can be voted on there has to be a change to the zoning and the land use; that is��hat��e are here tonight to do,just to change the zoning and the land use. Nitya Yerraguntla: • Opposes pa�lc for man�-reasons; man�-trees ��ill be cut do��n��hich��i11 increase pollution; also the dog«aste«i11 smell unpleasant and dogs«i11 constantl�-be barlcing. Said she and other children«i11 no longer be able to pla5-outside because strangers and dogs��i11 come. Opposes rezoning; lea�e the propert�-as is. Lisa Lee: • Agreed ��ith previous spealcers on reasons for not ha�ing a dog park at that location; residents need more information because of the confusion about the rezoning and the dog pa�k; if the dog parlc is not approved��hat��i11 be at that location? Ranjan Desai: • Opposed to the dog pa�lc. • Said that all spealcers ��ere against the dog pa�k. Said he understood the process; if the Commission approves the rezoning, it is going to go to the Cit�- Council and the�-��i11 approve the dog parlc. He said the Parlcs and Rec meeting«as also misleacling; it��as supposed to go bacic in time and then sa�- that the Cit�- Council��ould accept the dog park; then they��ould accept the rezoning also. Said all the spealcers ��ere opposed to the dog park and he felt it ��as outrageous that the residents ��ere misled. Chair Miller • Stated again that it��as not his intention to mislead an�-one, and repeated his apology. Vasanthan Sivergan Thiruvudi: • When �-ou are talcing out the soil which is lead containinated, there is obviously- going to be ��ater runoff and the fact that there a�e on1�- 5 feet dividing Casa DeAnza from the potential dog parlc, the runoff is going to talce the lead and accumulate it under the soil in the guest pa�lcing lot. When that happens, you a�e ah-eacl�- cutting do��n 16 trees, but �-ou are also cutting do��n 2 eitra trees in the private propert5-. What that rea11�- tells �-ou is that��hen lead accumulates there are going to be no more trees gro��ing in that area for a long time unless�-ou spend moire mone�-talcing out the leacl. • Commented that the�- lived in another home close to the free��a�- and in their five �-ear residenc�- there,the�-«ere not able to sit on theu balcon�-because there��as so much dust from the free��a�-. He said a dog pa�lc«ould have a lot of dust and pathogens; aslced ho« it«ould be lcept clean;it«ould be harmful to people and animals. Yun Fan: • Opposed to dog park; too close to the communit�; Said she«as«oi7ied about dogs spreading viruses to children; suggested using the land for a communit5- garden, rent the space to people ��anting to gro�� food. Megan Lee: • Opposed to changing rezoning. 19 Cupertino Planning Commission 17 Janua��-8, 2013 Madeleine Lee: • Opposed to rezoning. Senthil Pandurangram: • Said he��as opposed to the dog parlc; and opposed to rezoning for dog parlc Jean Schwab: • Said she ��ould prefer the residential zoning rather than the rezoning for pa�lc. If rezoning for pa�lc use,it is clea�that it��i11 be used for a dog pa�lc and she agrees��ith the neighbors that it is not a good use for the parcel. • If the propert5- «as not rezoned and remained residential, and land not touched, «ould the environmental mitigation have to go foil�a�d or sta�-as is? • If rezoned as parlc,it��as indicated that the soil mitigation��ould talce place,��hich��ould involve the removal of trees and possible replanting of trees��hich��ould not be as la�ge as those there no��. The cit�-seems determined to use the small piece of land for something other than��hat it is. She said the residents ha�e successfull�- battled different things, and stated for the record that she opposed rezoning for parlc use. Li no last name given: • Opposed to rezoning; if the trees a�e removed from the property, there ��i11 be more pollution from the free��a�-;lceep the area as is. Maneesh Pawar: • Said he��as opposed to the rezoning as it appears the cit�-has decided on a dog parlc. • He is opposed to the dog parlc. Unidentified female speaker: • Sounds to me that the city is going to spend taipayers' mone�-into loolcing into soil contamination for a project that ma�- or may not be viable in the end; so it seems that a reverse process «as being follo«ed. It«ould be great if you ��ould be able to defer the decision until a decision is macle as to ��hat is to be done ��ith the piece of land. Why put out so much mone�- and effort into deciding ��hether the strip of land ... is it going to be viable or not; at this point 5-ou don't lcno�� that. Tell us ��hat vou intend to do ��ith that strip of land and then use the mone�- to do all the ground��orlc or research that�-ou have to do. Chair Miller: • Staff��i11 cla�ifi- that; but I thought that��as eiactl�-the intention; eiactl�-�vhat�-ou said and that is the cit�-��ent thru the environinental revie�� to determine the feasibilit�- of going ahead ��ith the dog parlc on that site. • The plan is to put a dog pa�lc there assuming that the Council votes on it. The point of the public hea�ing on Februa�-�- Sth is for the Cit�- Council to hea� the testimony again and malce a decision ��hether to go ahead or not. That is a more appropriate meeting for people to come and eipress theu opposition or support of the dog pa�lc; y-our comments ��ould be better addressed at that hea�ing as opposed to this one. Chair Miller closed the public hea�ing. Chair Miller summarized speakers' questions and concerns for staff to respond to: • The issue is the order of the process; someone asked if there ��as a defined distance bet��een a dog parlc and a residential area; the�-��eren't clear that the lead ��as going to be removed or not; no�� that 20 Cupertino Planning Commission 18 Janua��-8, 2013 the a�ea has been identified as having contaminants, specificall�-leacl; if the cit�-doesn't approve the dog park,��ould they go ahead and remove those contaminants. Staff responded to speakers' questions: • Woz�ld they clean z�p the lead if theNe was no additional z�se? If there is no additional public contact brought on b5-a different use other than no�� here there is no use;the�-��ould not clean it up. • Is theNe a pNescNibed distance fNOm the dog paNk to the Nesidential?None that I lcno�� of. • TheNe was some confi�sion aboz�t the pNOCess; aNe we doing it backwaNds? ONiginally it was stated in the pNesentation theNe was a pNOCess that went on foN seveNal yeaNS, a debate aboz�t alteNnative locations foN a dog paNk -- In 2009, Mai�- Avenue ��as determined to be the prefei7ed altemative ��ithin the cit�- for a dog parlc. After that, there ��ere certain land use decisions and environmental revie�� that had to happen in order to facilitate that decision; that decision couldn't happen unless evei�--thing lined up from the land use standpoint. The project «as also included in the capital improvement program budget, so not on1�-has it been voted on b�-the Council, but the construction of the pa�k and the cleanup of the soil has been included in the cit�-'s capital improvement program budget. Ho��ever, all that is still subject to the land use being set up so that the General Plan is aligned to this use,the zoning is aligned to this use and an environmental revie�� is conducted. It still could be that��hatever the Planning Commission recominends��-ill go to Council, Council could still find ��ith all the anal�-sis that has been done and the testiinonv made that the site is still not appropriate. The�-ma��choose to go foil�a�d and��ith their original decision to do the dog pa�lc. • The coz�ncil has alNeady voted on this being the pNefeNNed alteNnative location -the�-still could decide not to go foil�a�d��ith the dog parlc. Melissa Tronquet: • California la�� requires that the cit�-loolc at the environmental impacts of a proposed project before it decides to approve the project. The mitigated negative declaration before the Planning Commission is that document; the cit�- can't approve a dog parlc before it loolcs at those environmental impacts. Simila�ly, the cit�- also has administrative processes that it needs to go through to malce sure that appropriate zoning and land uses are designated for that site before it can sa�-to put a pa�lc there. That is ��hat is before the Planning Commission and ��hat ��i11 be before the Council before it malces a decision. Staff: • Said the project is funded in the capital improvement program;if the�-decide to go ahead and approve the rezoning and the General Plan Amendinent and certifi-the mitigated negative declaration,then«e ��ould also follo�� on that decision and aslc them if the�-��ant to give the authorit�-to the cit�-manager to a��ard a construction contract once the design is completed. If the�-don't rezone it,the�-��on't talce an action on construction contract. • In 2010 there «as a capital improvement project after Council made the decision that this ��as the prefei7ed altemative; subject to all the land use changes and the environmental revie��. There��as a budget item to do the construction, after that��as��hen the lead contamination��as found. In Spring of 2012 additional mone�- «as put into the budget to support the leacl remediation. Both a�e estimates; one for construction, one for lead remediation. If more lead is found, the budget ma5- increase and the construction budget ma5-be reduced for some of the amenities on the site. If it is not rezoned,��hoever develops the site is responsible. Chair Miller: • Cla�ified that the process of cleanup is to remove the contaminants,remove the lead from the site;it is not to contain them on the site. After the cleanup there��i11 be no more contaminants on the site. 21 Cupertino Planning Commission 19 Janua��-8, 2013 Staff: • The environmental document sa�-s that��hen removing the contaminants, no lead��i11 be released into the air; ho��ever, all these chemicals are non-volatile and there ��ould be no eiposure to offsite residents via the inhalation path��ay. The chemical compounds aclhere to pa�ticular soil pa�-ticles and ��i11 not become airbome. In additional the removal action ��ork plan ��il1 require dust monitoring abatement and adherence to all Ba�- Area Air Qualit�- Management district dust control regulations; therefore there��il1 be no health risk to neighbors from this removal action. • Relative to the tree removal, there is no specif�ied mitigation measure; ho��ever, it is staff's desue to save as man�-trees as possible and then the ones removed«ould be replaced. Com. Brownley: • Said that the process has been a multi-�-ear process; the issues included soil contaminations, tree removal, air and ��ater. Said he supported changing the land use designation given the report that the mitigated negative decla�ation ��ould allo�� them to move fon�ard ��ith the environinental changes necessa��-for the project in the future. Com. Lee: • Said she ca�efull�-revie��ed the removal action��orlc plan prepa�ed b5-the professional geologist and understands «h�- the residents a�e so concemed; during construction there �vill be 41 da�-s inconvenience. She visited the site toda�; commented that it is underutilized at this time. Thanlced residents for their input and comments. Said it��as reasonable to rezone it for pa�lc use. Chair Miller: • Asked if the process of cleaning up the site ��ould release toiins into the air or the environment in general. Vice Chair Sun: • Said he ��as a��a�e his colleagues and staff support the rezoning, but changing from the cui7ent zone to the Pa�lcs and Rec didn't change the opposition. If a developer proposes to build housing, people ��ould oppose it. He said he did not support the rezoning but the dog pa�lc is the on1�-thing the5-��i11 have. The rezoning loolcs a�bitra��-but it's particularl�-for the dog pa�lc; if the5-split the dog pa�lc into a different pa�lc or into the current parlc this ma�- be more suitable for the dog parlc ��ith all the entertainment together, that is his intention for the dog pa�lc. That discussion has been revie��ed b�- Citv Council alreadv. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they could not go there and clean it up until the project is approved; the�- cannot start a project until the environinental reviev� has been completed and certif�ied. Com. Brophy: • The Cit�- Council and Parlc and Rec Commission in the last several �-ears have put in a great deal of time, great deal of difficult�-in dealing ��ith a vei�-emotional issue that can't easil�- dealt��ith in an anal�,-tical��a�-. When a dog pa�lc��as being considered in the past in his Linda Vista neighborhood, residents sent in postca�ds supporting it, but the majorit5-felt otheil�ise, ��hich��as the case ��ith all parks considered at that time. Part of the fi-ustration is the question of��hat the rezoning means; �-ou cannot sepa�ate the concept of rezoning and General Plan amendments from the dog pa�lc; the5- a�e intrinsicall�-combined. • The Cit�- Council a couple of y-ears ago decided to go ahead ��ith this site; on Feb. 5"'the�-��ill have to decide «hether or not to approve it. He said he thought it«ould be best if the agenda could be structured so that the�- can deal ��ith them in one pacicage. To the eitent that he feels this site does 22 Cupertino Planning Commission 20 Janua��-8, 2013 not malce sense as a dog pa�lc, he feels he cannot vote for the General Plan rezoning. He said he appreciates the hard ��orlc and the difficulties that the Council and Pa�lcs and Rec Commission have had to deal��ith, but to the eitent that the issues are so tightly-tied together that the small site doesn't malce sense; he��il1 vote against it. Chair Miller: • Said he did not feel it��as a good site for a dog parlc; ho��ever the�-have gone thru several �-ea�s of testimon�- and loolcing for a location for a dog parlc; there a�e a la�ge number of residents ��ho have dogs��ho have voted for a dog park;��ho feel that this to��n needs a dog pa�k; the neighboring to��ns all have them. Residents ��ho ha�e dogs ha�e rights just as residents ��ho are not dog o��ners ha�e rights. Presentl�-residents ��ith dogs ��ho cannot drive to another citv's dog pa�lc tend not to follo�� the rules and leave their dogs unleashed in the streets. • There is benefit to a dog pa�lc; the cit�-has loolced at man�- sites and even though this is not a good site, the cit�- has decided that this is the least objectionable site. It is a relativel�- small site and is going to be fenced in; the noise from the high��a5- ��ould overshado�� an�- noise from the dogs themselves; so��hile it is not a good location for a dog parlc, he said he��as inclined to support it for the reason that the cit�- needs a dog parlc and the�- ha�en't come to the conclusion that there is an�- other place in to��n to put it. • Said the other issue important to him is the one of continuall�� holding out the promise that there could be housing there; this is not a good site for housing either. It is not an ideal site for an�,�thing; and he agrees ��ith man�- residents here that the site should just be left alone; it is fine the ��a�- it is and it's not really- good for redevelopment. Ho��ever, he does not ��ant to see another housing project come foil�a�d for this site either and have evei�-one go through the same thing over and over again. • Said he ��ould vote for the rezoning just to preclude the possibilit5- of another housing project there and allo�� the cit�- Council to go aheacl and make the final determination as to��hether or not it is the right place to put a dog pa�lc or just to leave it alone and move on�vith something else. Motion: Motion Com. Brownley, second by Com. Lee and carried 3-2-0, Chair Miller and Com. Brophy voted No,to approve of GPA-2012-01,Z-2012-02 and EA-2012-07 Application v�ill be hea�d at Cit�-Council ineeting on Februa��-5, 2013. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None � REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: • Chair Miller reported that the Saich WaS-application��as discussed. Housing Commission: • Com. Brophy-reported that discussion included neit�-ear's plans for the committee. Com. Brophy: • Thanlced Chair Miller for his �-ea�s of seivice on the Planning Commission particularl�-in his role as Chair. He thanlced him for his leadership and eipertise��hile��orlcing together on the commission. 23 Cupertino Planning Commission 21 Janua��-8, 2013 Mavor's Monthly Meetin�With Commissioners: No meeting Economic Develonment Committee: • Com. Lee provided a matrii on upcoming development activities; talked about General Plan update. Stalceholders��ould lilce to engage the communit�-so that in the future the�-could build more intensit�- and height. Staff and Cit�-Council��ant some developers to pa5-before the process; Aarti Sluivastava and developers ��ill meet��ith General Plan consultants, EIR consultants and stalceholders and tallc about master plan in that a�ea. The ne�� Economic Development Manager for the cit�- is Angela Tsui. Com. Lee eipressed appreciation to Chair Miller for his man�- �-ears of communit�- seivice and contribution to the Planning Commission. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: • Written report submitted. � • Said ho�� much she appreciated Chau Miller's tenure on the Planning Commission, his interest in researching projects, seivice on the DRC and contribution to the communit�- since the 1980s. She thanlced him for his manv vea�s of service and��ished him success • Chair Miller said that he enjo5-ed his decade of seivice on the Planning Commission and ��ould miss it. He appreciated the lcind comments and �vas happy that his eipertise ��as beneficial to someone else as it is a complement to lcno« that one can malce a contribution to colleagues and fello« commissioners. ADJOURNMENT: • The meeting��as acljoumed to the neit meeting scheduled on Januai�-22, 2013. Respectfully-Submitted: Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretai�- 24 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Planning Commission Election Agenda Date: February 12, 2013 RECOMMENDATION Elect a Chair and Vice Chair Recommend an Environmental Review Committee (ERC) representative Appoint a Housing Commission representative Appoint a Design Review Committee (DRC) member and an alternate Appoint an Economic Development Committee representative Discuss the Hearing Schedule for 2013 BACKGROUND Terms The terms of office of the Chair, Vice Chair and Design Review Committee members are for one year and end in January of each year. Environmental Review Committee Typically, the City Council reviews the staff inembers of ERC annually. Historically, the Planning Commission recommends its Chair to serve on the Environmental Review Committee. The Planning Commission recommended ERC member will be reviewed and formally appointed by the City Council. Housing Commission The Planning Commission sends a representative to the Housing Commission to provide better communication between the Commissions. The Planning Commissioner is not a voting member and there is no term of office. New appointments occur from time-to-time; the same representative may be re-appointed or a new representative may be selected. Usually the selection is determined by the level of interest of a particular Planning Commissioner. Design Review Committee The Municipal Code provides that the Chair of the Design Review Committee is the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, so only one member and an alternate need to be appointed. Economic Development Committee Each year, the Planning Commission sends a representative to the Economic Development Committee to help enhance awareness and communication with the business community. The Economic Development Committee is an ad hoc committee. There are no term limits, the same representative may be re-appointed or a new representative may be selected. 25 DISCUSSION Chair and Vice Chair: The selection of the Chair typically is the Vice Chair, who is Don Sun (appointed in January 2011, first term ends 2015). The selection of the new Vice Chair typically is based on seniority and rotation. The following Commissioners are listed below based on seniority and rotation: 1. Paul Brophy— re-appointed in February 2013 (second term ends 2015) 2. Winnie Lee— re-appointed in February 2013 (second term ends 2017) 3. Alan Takahashi - appointed in February 2013 (first term ends 2017) 4. Margaret Gong - appointed in February 2013 (first term ends 2017) Prepared by: Beth Ebben, Administrative Clerk Approved by: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Attachments: 1 - Planning Commission Committee Appointees 2 - Tentative 2013 Planning Commission Hearing Schedule G:\Plannin�\PDPEPOPT\MISCELL\2013\pc appointments 2-12-13.rtf 26 Attachment 1 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE APPOINTEES updated 2✓4/�3 Plannin�Commission Meetin /�2nd &4th Tuesdae ,��.m. Don Sun Paul Srophy Winnie Lee Alan Takahashi Margaret Gong Desi�n Review Committee/1st & 3rd Thursdae ,��.m. - Chair - Commissioner - alternate Economic Develo�ment Committee/To Be Determined —representative —alternate (City Council representatives: ) Environmental Review Committee/1st & 3rd Thursdav, 9:30 a.m. —representative —alternate (City Council representatives: (alternate)) Housing Commission Meeting/2nd Thursday,9:00 a.m. —representative Ma�or's Monthl�Meetin /�1st Tuesda�, 8:00 am, Conference Room A Winnie........February 5�'' ..........March 5�'' .........Apri12"�' ........May 7�i, .........June 4�i, .........July 2„� .......August 6�'' .........September 3r� ..........October 1s� ..........November 5�'' .........December 3r� 27 .. Attachment 2 ,,,.a..( s:t L;�„::P€��:�r��,a.Ec:=c�� i��..}:a: �`�,.,�.�..r.::�€s af ;G� �aE,il,�Y Y(Y.%:.w!_�: �-.0 , .;..n..�n:: '�,�._,S�x't.,:..?...:.f L �r � :...: ' ' -f _,__ � , , , , � N � ! -■ +s � ' � ( t:f 3�ff��3f.3 33��.�33'�'::::i53:3• > 3>ei">:3f ..E � j .i.1 ' : 4 ) pB 'i 13.7 °'9;ij?� �:1. i i ; 7 i 1 ! ? ) �'%�'�'�ii3 1�.a c e �.I i'<t E.. ;j;��;; 3�3�,3 �.3 . � 3.§ --s _ '�# �E �.a€a tj �'FI=[��t��t�t I ��i i i�3j), �':;yE� ^ 3.� � 1,.. �e:�}>.33,s s..E E '� {.�33 s 3> 3.3��;;��.> >>3;� :-,3i:3:�3�r�,3 =� I l:l� 3 --€ � , .x �3� �� .t ,�{� ' (.�i�E.t. ?11 3 ��:i .3.3 �,f.! 3°3i;iz�.€ 3 7� i3 E€ § � �..e 3 13i7 3 .3f ) ��3 3 � i 3.�.�P)f.. €•E � t. {f. t .€E[E,[ ..{..,[S�F�F<Fi.?3 11 �� 3 3 i� J �! ; 1 � ! € t, 3 � E s. �! t �;1 : 3:�3;��3�,��;'3;��;;, 3t�'��l�i3��->I,,,,�.3 � 3 1 ! . �r ,1�, ,_!{ j�: € -.�>• � � �t 31.i3333:3::•; � �� i{ (i3. 4 �t<{-.e� � �Ee ,��i��.� j33�3�>.,3� ��f � � � ��, y��3� -�E�Ee� E 3 ..� ,E ,,"�i E � €{�. t , i �.� .f�,� ` �.�'1t1€.- d € i . 3;31ii E,+;s:i.,,, ! .3I,,�.�>.,�,..3 I,�� 3 { €!� �t . i � . 3 €-E �.�'"F �.-.�1.f.F�€�{€(,.3 �� [ E { j �33�3�3�33':'.�ij: f 33j3� 3j3��3� ;'333�3��33i�i5�3��{�iii3� �..fP- € ..4 ��€ [ �" E €E��.` E.�E jE..:�.. � 31�- 4 f ��.,.l..�i 3��3-�- �� -.I .' F � s� qi'j � .-�I1�1��i y. -_.��3�i��'}3j .t 33 j�3 3 3y3��i77�31>j�� 33a933i.333i3�313'>,?��Z3 -d�P . ( f .IFE � E� € [€i��{E F �.'.}: i�'. -31�-33-. i k ; if S...3 �i�1 . EE��3��} [. �- � "" E[ _{i �i g f �. 3��33� .� . >33>i.�i3�j��.33,�.3,f�3�I��3�3i�3��f�33�3��13 � j 3 3� � E�.{�. { � �E E( ..�. I .) '3'�.. i,, ,Es [ '� s .�},,, �•:a aj>.:.. .€.�;,, . 3 � s,� �1 �� 333.� �!. 33 �� 3 �1 3 E t E I. r ...kE��.�S�j�,t.r.<<;..,Ij,..: , ,s �i .: €I�...,:3� . -!.�1.��,�,.- 3:, 3 3 �r�;� 3�ri.33�1.j ,. i j :E.E h t {,.Ei�.�i�. E 1 i �. �.�� 3- -1 s E� . t_, �l��l,. �� a,a� � # }�,€E o,j,;:.{c.� 3EsE6:§3,::;i3!:3� 3��:��s33��ii�-t�.,,.:3 �� 3 ��i: 3 r:Es II � = I � , €:: ,€, tId f §:.:..r- �:i„��I.a3 � E ,.'a ..,,,��_ .,�.. !'�`.` >>I�!��{, o4":I''�P.�E��-��e�0j3�:��}��[ }��i e 3��. �-t.l.l.l ��. .�3 .3.,t ��93�i{.�3�33::3��3 .d E,. 4 i, 1$[�,�€� {�e�tE�it !€E�4€�E.ti��i g.ES� .,j3i3 3 3 E t�t i§. f, j§j'� € j (€I ,,�r3 � ¢4 ��r s 3 �� ! 3�f' I i� !�i3 li � € t I��I E � r 1 € ,a c F r ,i�! € a r 33 3 € E :�__ i '.EiE - . I j3. i � � � 3 ,�I E { E t €',fE � �� . 3 s � e�.I�I i af��€�� I 9��€€ 3 ..�3��3 33��. -�-i3,3 jj 33� �3i� �i3 .-i i €it�.�. €.t�EE€�(€� � �3i�_ � � t F � .. E - [ E �� 33�33� 33 333��7�� 3 E3)3 .3� i ��€��E[{ �E[{E EEt`(�{ 1 � 3 '�. F 3 3�31 ��'E�EE.: 3� � � i�'. i6� �� €.,F ,33 E{� --33:- � j 333��.3�3�3 ..3_3 1� 3 �31F ."� �.��} . Z iF€��{ .E�{�€fE �{�EiE y �3 � ��'F ��,3 3 3 :.E..�< '. � € �.,�,I � -�� I( � --i''3� E -.e i 3�33�3 .� 3 3,. � �3f i t-i-fd -i ' E-� ..,3 ''' E�tE!�� 'tI °�i E 1a�ii 3 I�i.' � 3 3 ��.7,...EE ,�.E _ .. {P t: ��:i�€ <`targ �€�� ¢ ..a.3 3 iyl.3i-;:�:�- ?- -.�!�t,e,'a,ee;�;�es,,E .€ E � $ 3 .<<i�r�'�t'��E! ��E{�. �,z�3:1 � 3 � - i � � ��4 . s i��...3� 3 � � �'� € € �s��3�3��<�iE �,E6 E 3 �� l��I��3� �� 3�� , $ s ,€ ! � � � f � �I€ � I��I � t �3 � 3, � 3 3 � �� :,( € t 3k E E '3�E l€ � pt 3 � f Ft� E € 3 E �,1' { €( i€�fE�{� �g � 3; ,.!= I {t.E€�� s,.�tft�� EEk`3� ��ii(F€� p��i E � E.P,�i�¢ -ise.3 r t § s ia.:e� 3�E-E-.-� E €I � ��'i E€{€ �3 ��3 3 I I .�t �1��E.,.€. �� + �, �.i 3� 331�a3: °�4 3 � ��i .3 ��3 1 .-,,.:E,.,s<� .,a�.��.[€�y��G-`s.�4.46.�t,i. .:��z:?.,(+,��tf€i�.—,E,r€. ��,..<.<.."� .E..�b.�.�f€�s�?'s�?ie�€FuF;:�i�€.�!€� E�'� 3 ,.�;,.� tt .;€��t 't.,a...�.,.d➢d��i�,� 3 ��3.t �.tl�.t�;tr�.zt.., �3,3i>!_ ', _. . .� _.. . . . .. .. _.,,6. . � . , 4 5 6 7 S 9 '[0 11 '12 13 14 15 1fi Planning C�mmission m�eting 17 18 '!9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Planning Commission meeting ;a?E:�:iu°:�xrir•;:u`�- a! �c�a„ zle;��r�r",��:F:° ?';�v��'F:� a s `�?,2(� ,r,'�_ �i,�Ca . .,,.,..:��;€�a._�-�_.,.,.-�.,,. w 0 � r 1 « - . 3 �j �f L` �� t¢€ j�9 {t�a(� t@ 3ii�(��'s1 L � �F � U �I �j�� r �t + li+�a� � st��€,e¢a3� �I�;� � � ��€E -= i i� €�I�€�€��@ f��!�, -�{ ��€ t ili i ��€� €€g-- q -i i�� f ° €€-_ i i �.r,,�€€E€'�(S > _ ._ �3� iE'��€€ E Ff. f ;a i t� F t E � FE � _ t ¢ €- i �� t - €°�€E �� n�� t;�,�f� ,i��(��i E j€ �� €jE€ E � ffE:� 1; .�€€€ ?i1 ��8 9 � 10 1'I 'I2 13 Pfanning Cammission meeting 94 '[5 1B '[7 '18 19 20 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 Planning Commission mee�ing Iwi V l�V Y V �O L��7� 6 6S d��d S 3�� 7d7{��7 � � '. , �7 � . t F i..,.3 i ��.3 33 i i E i j3 i�i� 4 f y�� f_ ` €' �� ,�P� �' '� 3� , �3� , €��€(,� ,3 i3, � i',3i„3,, r�tE �p� 92239 3 i �� E i , (�(� � P EE�E E i 2 7i 3 F ii . � 3 � E 1€ E • �(� 3 i i i I [ { � i i3 � 3 i !I f E ¢ S- i d9 3 � � � � I t i� � i 3 3� E 6 g4 s ;�i � ��"� � ' � �3 i 3�- �E € i 1 � 3 !9 E: E - S S41 �{ 9 � 3 3 � . 3 . 'i '.i 1 E jj 9 � =�3�°:jj3 a�3 ir t E � i f -�- � � i ° a'E 33�'i l�<3�' , �3� ° wr# �, , �i ��i3 ' � i i�'�13i� ! . 3 i.� 3 3 3 � i ..-e ...., >t3 ,��3 .< ,�' t<.>>.<->- >>-3-�.>.-_, .,. ��,�.� .i ) _ �.-,... ._ . .. .. . :� . �,.. ' ., , .. .x�: �.,�t-��. .. :.;e�E�,i s t.:ar-,.,.f.,rE,irY:�cln��dat''4'�ker :�-,,,.Gr',,:� �,7'��i�t a,er'� d� _�.C�..,,,,...: �3.�.n�x'_� w � �. 1 . • €�I€I i�3��r € i E r � € �€9: � � as �3� 3 r 1' ,� � 8� c p�,�j�€ , :i=��'� 1�� (j 1€€€E �;� � 3 4 t,F 3 ��E€�� i� t��tj(EE€ �� 3 � �€€�c!� �E�1 � :€�f s a �333 3��3 €' €( ;� e�E��E'��EE��E �?t��£¢E"'i t��3� �€€ €tE1 F��j P :�� if (Pd. 3 SEPE .�.-73 €�€P� (E E� "-.fE Q �3� 3 � f E� E f t€f E€E�-E�€ f�f? ��3�3`�t� F {. ,{€€E �� 3 td1 €�: � €E'E �i3�� f EEC� 3� E �€ t ��i�3 r13 � € � i S�� k� i;��j� �r�p�3 E � � 9 E I� ti c E 3 ¢ €€ E €��i �� i . ' ��(��f9� i?i Ist� '¢a i j i z€( (o I j3��j��' €� d a�� C d�(�I t�(! a'i'l�i :'��f€� ��E��€�€€�'I I��`i'��i?�?i�'�41 {s�� € � i� � Efs e i � �P �€�E��r€ � i i3 �i3 t{ I �� [ � €� % t�t � ��iE�:� lt i� �� E E a € I a y F€ f t � (r t �1�� 3 �€��€ � P 3 s Es� � � € .E € 3 t E E €€(I f.r a � �. €z i[iE€ 2>�� (9�3 � �€(�i�� E� � 3 a� �lp� �E� P �� t l�3 E ;�t��€��}I€r�7 a i� . � a�� i j [t(� 3 7 � , E � �€ f( € � � F'€'6€i�(�"f � ��i�� 3��t f � � ��!��3 �l�' �� t f��d r ��i��°E(� € ,�¢ 1 p€€, �3 jE I€��€€�!� fi F f��i,�=s 3�1��Ir��{4 ia�^�E' # � � 6 S � �€ € � �E� �F FI�d } i �i y{r Il � �€€( �3 �(` 9� Sr.4'�€� i(! ��€.€t €E �.�¢i �t��E�;(� ��.3��',E i ltfi€€iz?Sai�t��,t�i EE,-.; �.a€.,i...:.�,��7.��..'¢i€�,€�� f.�.P.�.�..�r . .;..1 s�"I�i E€sa��t,s�.:�,.�.t°r��. 3�i�i.°�, ir 5 6 7 1 8 9 10 '[1 12 13 94 15 16 17 '[8 Planning Commission mee#ing � '!9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3'l f�a�te's' , e`, `` � .: Planning Commission �3 33 �3f EEf�� f 33 � � City Holiday meeting ' E :3�i�i 3�� -€iE .; � � �� t �� 3� 3i� i- .: �� E E i � �E€ 3i.;.>:: iiv�i.s'i- �i VFY.�..'..[Yi.�:'.':�:�f5�e:eGE�%(��"r�. _:E`.�'� Y'."ii:��G'��,�::�� C�Li .�w',� �.r^�.��,�!�..,Y�, ��;f,:..F'.5,,.,�f'.;,.,.,. ;;9.}�w(��', .,:�'�r.,,.,, W N if`E;�iF x � x'u. „i.:!c��, z.Ee,;c�a.��;=;i�.c� i�- r:��5 L�,��'3.,._�:_:_._ L'°.C:a�,_�?..,..,.."��s�ay.�i.�':�,:�.�._. w w 1 f � �� ''If�(��€c�� j " {€s�'f� , "��€;� � � 4 .r7 6 �3ii..�i �� - �E€ -- �€��6E i i� E E Si 3 €EE� 733 i �. €.� �l��i��'§t E€ksl��l�; �€��aE°31,��E�f{� , : � City Holiday i � it � €€ 34 � EI€ { -1 ��E F 3 E � i .Ff�{j�� tt fE`E �j-.� i ES E E 1 E 5�� E� ( j�; � � E�€€ � i€ t : L 1��. 3 fi f E 3 �;3 fii E-'i i ii�..�' � S=�3i�3 7 8 9 9 0 1'1 12 13 Planning Commission meeting 14 15 16 '�7 '18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Planning Cammissior� meeting 8 29 30 31 C�Qte`s�E, E��E� _ � ; = r � t �,� _ , _�'�`,��,� �� E_, � � �� i t 4 3 f i � 3 � y ;3 Y � I ��3 3.;�3��3��EE > ' { 3�� - �€ ' ' k t } �y ' �� 1}�� i �' 3 313 � � ' E r � > �r�r�� (3 i i Et E � �.i� 3 - i '. } 3�I�3 �3 t � 3 . i,3 3 3 3�� 3 3�a( 3 7 � (3��.�333 i ti � F '� p � 3 : 3��°i° �y a i�i ; �33 il�l3E�� i i .. � 3 - �. . �ii�� t E . . E � .3�'ili9 3�3 ,' .3 . � ` ��3�� 3 q;�s i .3�i ;�3,a�, . ..3 3 �� . ' 3;3'�.v i ' � 'i 3 E 3 � } i.9�� > � �>i3i:a. 3._.. ..t �.. '3 .,, i. 3� ........ �..- ,. � �> .>..,>.., .-<.-. .. .�:, ..:. ; ., .,� i � ,.� - - ��' w;'�;rte,� <',!,y"y-:,�..:I�:*:��r i<aSe:�c��: -v.aicvr gp��:��iwr �s ,� a f, _ r_-a ` C�z r �3,��a.,_�,? ' , � w � � . 1 . - . � ' ��?�qF4��E€ �E3 d�93 P�iS,�.r . iE EE 93 . � 3 i .}.t. ta.{E[f i?`3s}}�'ji��aFti§i�3�E§di�tf,�r t1 � t .t`(€ [ j ft..tit: {�t.i'€If�t€[{€3.t .E'.b6 p f eg d3 6it!83 3I��.3�16 8 d f f---a F- {€ E�i i�€..�€ €'{E iE�'�. ^ {� ,{EI�¢i ,3 �� I !1�tt,;E�,E` ��'IS�3 i l i#g 1� � j� i ?t €i �;�€ �4>>ti3:�.��(�E€€��e € i t € E �.i� L � ��1 i��`�'�€€.,s,'�3�:i €€�€ � ' �33`�'3`�.:€€�'�� i'{��3i� si ,�';'?at ; ,>E,� {, ,�{{EE ��<yf�>t,3,,�'E,i�E€EE�;€E�€ €E�@ !E € �E t� ° c S°EE E€��E €��,�j� �€�. 4 3,�; 3�1��E€ �� ; € ',�� i 3��i�i�i�333�}� �� 1 1 � , tr ' , E, f;3�� i !�{I g�€€(�€E �� , , �,� ' €d i��i;i! € € . 3 � €E i j i ��3�� .f �,.�i il i�I�� 3� � � �3 � � f � ��3i��,(€ €�( �� E�E - E E E�€ .E.l E E if E ' ��i�3�E ��c€ s �3 E ! ( > '!3j 3�j7�i3 3;��l��r�3� 3 �3 3 r it 3 � � �':-�!€€E:<a,E[E! �€!€ �€E �€€€E€ E € E { €�� f � 3� 3� , 1 � 3,i �� i�3� �� 1 3 � '3 3 � ��3� ii�3 �� 1��E�t�� € €�� € € f t i � . � €{6 � 4 E E E 3�8 3 ii � ��f 9 � 3 3_� �3 3 3 � 3 3 I � € ,,�E € �E F7 € � € �E E � k 1. ii i! f 3]� � € � � € . 1��i �� i� i�3 .- .� 3� �3 �i 3 i.3'3- € � I I �{ c �E °. �[E{ r:-�l3 �EE�� -�13� 3 E .�' e 11133 � - i t -p 3 --�� i3313i��{" �{ .tE E ��EE�t 1 ..�; , i EE� 3t3�� i E€�€ ��-- 33� .E €E E � .3.t�3��3� E€€ P .�- i �-�d � � 3 3 �� Ed.�3EI F3 5��=�{� E {E��{F 4€ 4 1 Ef ;}'E 3 13}j ��.3 3 33. �E�€ ��;33 3} �€�€ E I€E€ € 39�i�c�€€I� � E E 3j t 3 i �i i3� r E t 4 � �i E t� � i I �€�! 3 33��€€[- -E-s 1 3 t. ��€ � -�}�&¢:��E��€€1€�E E�i� 5€�( E f- ¢ c -�i i��j 3� 3'-E - i � t 3 � �i r}�. i F ,3} j .. i . .i �E E[t �t 3) {' . It E ( €1 E€€. .E E{ € €€€ I€E 4 t € 3F f 4 E €€� 3 �f�3�� t [. i ..3��3r3r 31� 1 I. � � j .FF(IFi 3�2i�3f�.�E�F � j3 .iff{?{�� E{�-E�Ed .�(��E��€�E��€E[�.E��E € <i<..t.��.f!�i . € F E�€�E �� 33��1�3i � i i ��. ;£f 3��.�'3 3� � .,�� __ f E;�i„€E�€€t r3_.#_,:.�..�E� ��..,t�._E:,.,.� I.€f€ �.s.��...<<<.�t€z.z€, l. . � ,....., €E r€E€E,E�.r. €f 3.�,.i��il3,.�.>h.�,�� ,'.,3 �3 e�,i,ua3,3 ,.3._.,_,_�r �_<-:; � 6 7 8 9 10 �[�i 12 13 14 15 16 '�7 Pianning Cammission meeting 18 19 20 29 22 23 24 5 26 27 28 29 30 31 Planning Commission meeting .aE�.��ua s:.kLr �_�...C�r�r a.s .�,;;,i„ t�Gt :�� ,c;� �€��.�,�__ �-'€�_3e . a � 1 .. ,„ , .�.iiEr�C�e�FQ xTi-i_V ,,,?,..E�:�:.` , . w � e s 1 . • ..- • - a 'I 2 3 4 5 6 7 City Haliday 8 9 'i0 11 12 13 14 Planning Commission meeting 1v 16 '�i '[8 '�9 20 21 zz 23 24 23 Zs 27 2a P[anning Commission meeting La7 �V IYQ�`�.i'J 3�3 3�33 i 3 �}3��1 I 13 -3 j 3S3 � 3 E E �' 4� .�} �3��j�EE€EffE��€ E � . t , � �� E€ f a� .- 3 9. EE E€€€E. 3 3 . t i . .. I ,E E t�, 31 3 - E f i 3 3 . €. . 33 i39f � 3�� 33 i � �3 3 . 3� �� 41. � �j€f�€ €�.. E � i i €4E �tE S i SB� ��€{E �� f 3 3 � 3 _€E €€t �3 �3 ,3� 3 ;i 3 3 . � �I�3� 9 _ E€ F {E i {€E€EE� EE { . �I. . €E 3� ..E. €€€ {��. 3 ��3�1a z . i j �4 j�'� °i I I 3. �q i° I �i .i '.F€ E 3 �3 EE€€��E �E i j _� E 3 i 3 €f' 3 3 i 3 1 1 3 , €. {f4 ; EP�� F E� E t� E _ �€�E E�f � i i� € f € i I 3 a 333 3 ii . �. k E E ._ �E f 33�i3� ES -fE. . ��a� � �� t�E¢€P¢i .< �3 3 a : € E� .i. � s E�E ¢ 11�9 E E�i¢d� i 3 E E ' i " . 9-..E €i ' { '3 � � I (E 3 E E i�3� PI € �i f€t � y i '.. �E �E. i � . - 3 . E EE F i f E iii3 6€��l .'. 3 Ed_ E �. � E' . t i '.. i E 4 i3 �S t j� � (EE� i ,'.. E P E._� � , .. 'i ��E EE t.F.��.. E '-.E€ :rr��.,,: ��- r"g`.,,,..€�.:�:��_(;�'=.�r;ca � *�`3..,u��U€ .�s �k�:'?._.�.�5.:Fa .� ';-_f,a M�`:��i�:�r,_.� „ � #1 • � - ! _� _ , ,_ . - . I 31 :p<p? [ € {aE¢3 3i i} :l�r� (EE�€cq€t ( �� ;� � =1 §kE E E �`�`�'E�E� �t{I�>>i� �j /� ��€ 3 (�i f{f�� €��3s3�ii�}�t��E`€i i i 3 I}.1��3�i�a�� E �1 E��€1�&t; E �;i�f� � �7 T � �€E��3 ;� €�( � �htr (43! i} �ifi i ��E � � € f a � E E � i �[��t &��s�� i f€��iE � j� i�� l� f t €�i}�4�� s a � ��... €€Et�� [`�a��3ii ss�a €€ F 3 i�i' � �r �1=}` � r 3, E��€�€�br��z��{�![€��(�€bd§��I�71�3'��Ei�j(��@��ii3��l��ii�'�€�i�1 id�:''t�t�i��l�j�ii�t�i�a �fE - dai��#�€�(��j€�ir��i1 i�..y° f €�f . �� 3 I � �� 1 �rl ai... �� ;�� 'j�E� )3�3 if t } � 3 � iii i3 3 7 �� iE E j d � 3� f F E � 1€�S �7� � �i i �I 7 li(9 ( E - 7i t�I E ��E S I(t 3�� € i E E 3 - �1 3 i 3 E��E e ��}�� E��E�€s, , � €' �� 3 ` i i��3�� i�1��3��( �f 73 { ��Pf€€;��a��i}��[�� a�g��i��i E�€-l��t�� f��-p,�4� � _�- i { €�_- .i��?f��€Pi.P I ti,�nat��¢.�I��€-.EE�¢a_+� 'N,,, „��.�rr'��<t,�7.5:�t€E <rai..E:�€� E€E� �.; 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 �lanning Cammissior� meeting 93 14 15 '[6 1i 'f8 19 p 21 22 23 24 25 26 Planning Commission meeting F R L V LY �O Y + ��i47 i 3�� '3�3i33�3j�3�� ,i I�31 t 3 -E E.€. { (� � E E �� 7 �x � '�°�d3� ° � , 3 iI�1�3,1�3 i E��k{ � ,3 1 , P 'i �(i 3��i kb .��3 i i 7� ( 3i '��f�i 7 i� �. � i E- s i3t�3.,�E 3 ° !i. �i�i��t i��. §�I�i� 3 E < � ��3� 3 Ef�t 3i ,..c;�t:.'�;:�:t^�'•I;rc:.al�,q�a_.,r.7c:�u�. ..AFrr ,_.�:..��....ric5t��.._C� ,�,„� �'__�_Ca�_��.�. :a.€�ax.,�.�.n,.,.,,.. w � � � - 1 s ..- �- - •- � r EEE`te.�.�. 3 q�.,. �E.E{.{E.`'f�P� i:illf33 3 ..E E P -�i 3i. �i �'� �:si��j 3 3��3 39�t{ � 1 � j -I -9:- �� E-��f E. �3��.3j � �:��3��:�...�a 337 /� €r<>,t,:�� {EEEE .;If'j',,333'�� 1�3 � € EE {( E j €tF 1 t3�s��3 3�3,>>>' 3'>i., };"13e Ij3„t,€°EF,�'€`[�E s;� iE.i 7 t € ! t' � ,3 � i, � + ,�;�3i�33333 31 �:��;�3'; / E�,..Q. . � ��. �'E Q j ,33�3 3 E �Et E. E E--'03� 33�3 .��'..3�.f�.3Yp 7i � i�3i 33,�E:-E iFEE(Fe�€E at�<,��,j3.od-f>�8 S �$ -.8 ..f E E . E {.. �� i -:� �>>i.$ �i i�.�.,�13,��,3 3, , €�€ "".��3�� , EE��€f E€E� 3�3-3�3��3�� i3 �.' E .E ... `{E € e :. i��9�7�� 3 ,.'. !.,�1�'�.�� E"E€E.Ei{ Ei�.�� 3d..3� E � 3 .i.3�;}1 �P {- :�i �_��3�3� ��i33� 3 �. � L { 3 . � d .�_ E E - � 13 '.�i i( Ij 3 .i( E. _ -..1 - . f. f 3 3�� - 3 ��- � 1€ ;' ��3� 4 f E€E€��€�d € �3 '3 '€i '€E€ ��3t� '�,�1�� f+s€i E�E€€ € k , ° E€i € E E �3'3 3 6 1 � ��1� �1�y � �9�l�� €� , i �i� �.,.c � ° i . � €{ �� 3��3� �3:...=3�,1�';�3 f3';3;',I�i t €EE{ .. � � <. 3 f d.-.E E . .E 3 3 �E� ..3�: 7 3 3 �€E€;:E�� 3 [E �. .€E,'�. 3 � E E <��.€€;ca�! 9��3 .s3:,�3:•�;�d;:c...€€..,� i.�a �3�� E( p y�,,3�.. 3��3 i{, � >>3;!t3�"?`-§�St[.{ .�.ee<<i_{c �i 3 3 . E��EE:E�e;��eEE-E;�E��3� 1 i� . �3 }3�$3 �d:��cE�,;€E;E?�(Es�tc�a.�@;4.s �b.. :[g<.i--�f E,€€.E..!EC.,f - . E. ..E �.�.i� I 31j EE (-€}€.g 33�j3 i 3 39 33 3�-- €[.,[.I�p�k f1 I 1 �t€�{,(€. .E., 3 }.�� 3� .[.�€E ,�€€4.(.E.6 3� 37 �:, 3�T��1 i 6 I �€ I E!t d o�3?$i 6$ a§e.9.�?,�.i..:.F: I P € €;�.€,E:d fi t �i € E+33 :�,,.� ,,,. ,.I,,. { EE�E E_. .3 �3�1 �E[E EE i� �€€�. � 3 � i E �� E -9 ��1��333�3-�.��'��3,3i��13�� 9 �E€E€E�€ :-E. i�i � S � �€-. E E�E�� i .� f � . ;�� 3��3�.��. _ 3 3 .��.: f 3 3 ) (�.E E� 3 �� 1�, � E 3 � 3 _€ �3�3 3 . �3� �3� j. 3 �E E I S�� 6 j� � 7 i i3.� �} I� 9i , E I �{ E E � i € i e! 33 13i 3j 3 3�s� Ei E€ € E € ¢ p E¢ i � qt €� I;�,t�1?,��j ii ��E€ {€ E E E , 3, b; E E�..EI€.€E�€�Fai,i3�7�3 3� ��33.t3f1�3;�1a::f<"€°t€€�€([ {€ i 6 E E g E E I € I ( ,.€[ �� 3�I F{E� EE � 3� 3 � i�I .f�� 33�S5!5.�tE€.`EE�E 3 � ,t t..{. !� F <.F ,a^l8,3� . ��733 3- P � E� ,. �.�P--i PP 3 € E � f t. �� E § � � .€ 3�I i - I .3 13„3;3: aeE . E� �: S '�.i��3, [.. . f c��f�93��. �7 33� -II3�93v-� 4 €E€t ' 4',3 - t � �E . ';�il`<<;`Eii`� -E��.��€€ .�.3 i � - 4€--p -��3 3 3_. ��,}; �{iE€E3 :.�iP��.i�I ;E�€ €€€ ( ��. ..y ��. ��.,E:.<.<E<;!�6�,�-3.,�� 33.3 �a;i�i,..@.€ � � I:. s# � t - .',€��' •�f',�' . € . E E . 3 �f f.� : 3 i . I [ ,F t ; s� � > �f E€�.�.��5{ F !, � . 3 3 i i €E� 3 3 s� ��3��i3e•)i.,s,g:js�E [€9{ 3�:,I �€ € €E EE €� €<i[:�-EI€E:E.,�;1.,,€E € € 1 '3 � ! ,�r� � . {E{�F i€ �3 3.. ( € (€ E� .j ��.�� . {� �t-{ t4ES S P � 3 i 3�3;rSaEE61E(�Ej€EE�({�F f.t�f 1�t :.f i€ f E E... " 3 B�€ -.E � � 3_.. �i.�...,�i e��e}E ��9��3>.�.�....'...uE.€F E ,3ai„ i .. . i F E.��.��...:�.�.(f.,t!E�Ec�€��YSd�_- �3��i 3 �(9 .i;EE�E6iE d�.$G��¢.a.iiir< i<.<...<<E {E<c€..._ .� E.:.. .< €� E .�.. .� i�3..Eb E E� >a9>�; . _ i��.�,. . . <E... .. ... .>3 . .< >. 3. > . , . . . 3 4 v 6 7' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1fi Planning Commissian City Holiday meetir�g 97 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Planning Commission meeting City Holiday City Ho�iday .,.,.�C:la�dars�rar=4:i^�:vie;uar:2t1�3.<:�l�i,��i;r.�L:Fie��:ar .Ftiicl�w':�cS:�:'a .'��t5'it.#c�'f'<ci�E;-`E.B:-e.,.�.., ia.,s-..1?'=F:�� S'.Cw i�.;�'?.W.;�'�,-��:E..:...W.��-� .W_�t_:'�,x��S��:e3,f_.-:�...,. .. ■ • 1 . .- - . � '! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 '!0 11 'i2 13 14 Plan�ing Commission meeting '�5 1G 17 18 99 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 City Haliday City Ho3�day J"' € 3 �� 33�..3 1 3 i € �E(E€1€ E 3 33�j " �E� E€ .E .. �� 3.E E€ -EE E EEE($ t '13� - 3j�'�i��. 3�� 9 30 � ■ �OE��9 3 �� 3i t E ii9 j� E � � i} ?�i3 �� 3 3 3� 3 E�€€€EfEE€E� ��€j �3��323 €€ i€€EE E 3 3��31�3�3� � E E�E{€. Ei -; t 9 � E E E -€E C€€f . i 3� I �I3 € EE{f E ' i 6€E E � j 3 � �� €.€€F�x R¢3 P j_ 1 � �€E�IE'.�F � E E €€E 7E ( E '� 3 � � � 3 � 3� 3�� E(E€F€EE� �i � f E� j�i.�. -�-. C} {� �t E�tl3 E9 S � ��3�� i . E€� F�i E�t;� f €EI€Y€t i j 3 j '•3 E�[IEEE� ijE� f �.� ',i�i�� l C-lO��a € p f � 3�9 a9 i E 9 �¢�€ �. �3 �� EE f€��¢r° � t .. a 3 �.3 a Y Y E,�E �, ,� ,3, , E � � a � �� t yi E - E6(€ �¢ '. ��t s��€� ilj� �3 � S- i31 �i a . E . � E t I 3 � ��i��3 33 � a3€ €F�' �,.r _ � � 3i3 � f E d�d��€�F + j E ' F� ia _ €€° - I d 3�i I a° � i d -€fE €�€(� '3 � �'�E f- �E E t 3 � °3 �� i �� i... E�{ � � � 6.P � `�' �. - �t €�� FE i €6S4 S 3 �3 .3�' �7 3 � � � € 3E E�E�.� E , � �� € E�� E r 3 .i� � E g, _ 3 � �3° � f ¢€ ¢��;t�..'� .?t =-E.<t<��<C..��.°.�S.i��a ..x,.,� ,.+:a.r.(�.. _r.._ �-.e� _r itel0:...��.:€--L{�S L 'x t 8 s'F'".3 .C� V! � ��-ied�Y i,C'�..E.,' d tr',;ri�,� �x-�.:v.+�,,„r!,£_tf#�;,t,r.EE:..�a,-�.,.:�;..: - _. r�� '� OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TOP�P�E AVENUE • CUPERTINO,CA 95014-3255 C V P E RT�N 0 (408)777-3308 •FAX(408)777-3333 • pl�nningC�ctipertino.org Subject: Report of the Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 The City Council met on February 5, 2013 and approved the following: 1. Subj ect: A. Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, and Rezoning of a City-owned lot (actions to further dog park development); B. Increased funding to the Mary Avenue Dog Park construction project budget for a total not to exceed $500,000; and authorized awarding of project contracts and contract change orders to the extent that total expenditures do not exceed the amount of the project budget 39