Loading...
00. Draft Minutes 11-22-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:00 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 22, 2005 CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL TUESDAY The regular Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 2005 was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Gilbert Wong SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Gilbert Wong Marty Miller Angela Chen Taghi Saadati Lisa Giefer Staff present: City Planner: Senior Planner: Senior Planner: Assistant Planner: Assistant City Attorney: Ciddy Wordell Colin Jung Aki Honda Piu Ghosh Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 8, 2005 Special Planning Commission meeting minutes: Com. Saadati requested the following changes: · Page 13; 2nd bullet, 2nd line insert "of" after "be" 3rd bullet: Delete the first sentence. · Page 14, 5th bullet, second line: change "two" to read "three" 5'· bullet: Change "was" to "be" Com. Giefer requested the following changes: · Page 12, 2nd bullet, change the word "divorced" to "deforest" (to remove trees). · Page 13, Under second Com. Giefer, line 5: change "isn't" to "is" · Page 15, under Com. Giefer, 2nd bullet, line 1: delete "add that the heavy trucks" and insert "and where heavy equipment and trucks can park but" Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Giefer, to approve the November 8,2005 minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0) ~TTENCO~CATIONS: Noœ Cupertino Planning Commission 2 November 22, 2005 POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: 2. U-2005-16, ASA-2005-11, TM-2005-06, Z-2005-05, GP A-2005-04, TR-2005-04, DA-2005-01 (EA-2005-1O) Mike Rohde (Va]leo Fashion Park) 10123 N. Wolfe Road (South of 1-280 aud west of Wolfe Road) 3. U-2005-19, ASA-2005-17, TR-2005-08, (EA-2005-15) Mike Rohde (Valleo Fashion Park) 10123 No. Wolfe Rd. (Valleo Fashion Park) 7. M-2005-05 Peter Park (park residence) 22810 Mercedes Rd. Use Pennit and Architectura] and Site Approva] to construct a ] 56-unit, three-story attached condominium development. Tentative Map to subdivide a 5. 19-acre parcel into condominium and common parcels for a ] 56-unit attached condominium development. Rezoning ofa 5. 19-acre parcel trom Planned Deve]opment (Regiona] Shopping) to Planned Deve]opment (Regiona] Shopping/Residentia]) Genera] Plan Amendment to allocate ]56 housing units for an attached condominium development. Tree removal for an attached condominium development. Modification to a Deve]opment Agreement (I-DA-90) to encompass the development proposed in U-2005-16, ASA-2005-1], TM-2005-06, GPA-2005-04, Z-2005-05, and TR-2005-04. Postponed from the October 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Request postponement to the December 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Use Pennit to construct a four-story, five level parking garage. Architectura] and site approval for a four-story five-level parking garage. Tree removal and replanting to construct a four-story, five-level parking garage. Request postponement to the December 20, 2005 Special Planning Commission meeting. Modification to a hillside exception (EXC-200 1-07) for grading and retaining walls. Planning Commission final unless appealed. Request removal from calendar. Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, seconded by Com. Saadati, to postpone Items 2 and 3 to the December 20, 2005 Special Planning Commission meeting; and remove Application No. M-2005-05 from the calendar. (Vote: 5-0-0) Discussion ensued regarding scheduling of future applications to be agendized wherein staff answered commissioners' questions Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Miller, to postpone Item 2 to the January 10, 2006 P1auning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Miller, to postpone Item No.3 to the December 13, 2005 Plauning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) Discussion continued about appropriate meeting dates to schedule the applications. Staff pointed out that there are construction deadlines to adhere to for some projects. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 November 22, 2005 Chair Wong: · The Planning Commission as well as the City Council should disclose that we receive numerous emails from the community about the applications. There are numerous suggestions on how Vallco should move forward" and the applicant has the [mal say in what they want to present to the Planning Commission. We will not know that until we have a public hearing and see how it plays out. There is a concern about having it during the holidays. Com. Giefer: · Amended the motion to hearing it until the first scheduled meeting of January. Com. Miller: · Withdrew her second of the first motion, and seconded the amended motion. Com. Saadati: · Said demolition work can be done, but during the winter time and rainy season it is difficult to do a lot of construction. The real construction would be in probably March when the rainy season is almost over. Can they go ahead with the demolition preparation without a hearing? Ms. Wordell: · Said there were also parking issues. Chair Wong: · Regarding the demolition work, wouldn't they need a building pennit prior to planning approval from the Planning Commission? They have to go through the building process to get their pennits. Ms. Wordell: · The demolition is for the concrete. I don't know if they need a demolition permit to get rid of the concrete. They do have parking requirements so they are going to need a parking plan to maintain parking. Com. Giefer: · Said it was difficult to believe that they would remove any parking prior to the end of the holiday season. They are going to want that parking, particularly near a major hub like Macy's. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Wong: · If it can be explained to Vallco Fashion Park Mall that we support the revitalization, I believe we can achieve the goal of accomplishing the public hearing within that one public hearing. · If the Planning Commission so chooses, we would like to see a Master Plan presentation. ORALCO~CATION:Noœ CONSENT CALENDAR: None Cupertino Planning Commission 4 November 22, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING: 1. DIR-2005-20 Horst Von Bloes (Fry residence) 21161 Canyon Oak Way Appeal of the Design Review Committee's decision denying a Director's Minor Modification to permit the construction of a ground floor addition to exceed the allowable floor area ratio in the Oak Valley Planned Development. Postponed from the October 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council meeting: December 6, 2005 Ms. AId Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for appeal of a DRC denial of a Director's minor modification, for approval of an attached accessory structure that would exceed the allowable FARon the property, as outlined in the attached staff report. · She reviewed the site plan, floor plan, and illustrated site photos. · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make one recommendation to the City Council. This appeal will go to the City Council for final determination. · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission either deny the appeal and uphold the DRC decision or uphold the appeal and deny the DRC decision. Chair Wong: · Said he understood that under the RI Ordinance, the appeal process would be final at the Planning Commission level unless the applicant appealed to the City Council. Ms. HondalMs. WordeD: · The CC&Rs explain the maximum FAR requirements and accessory structures are included as part of lot coverage and FAR. · They include the conditions that the City imposed and they may have conditions of their own. Vice Chair MiDer: · Said it is the CC&Rs which specify what essentially the City has already designated as part of the original application approval. Ms. Honda: · Regardless if it is an attached or detached greenhouse, it counts as floor area ratio. Therefore, it would still exceed the FAR on the site and the house was built to the maximum FAR allowed. · Said that if someone puts a shed on the lot, it would count as part of the FAR. Horst Von Bloes, representing the applicant: · The proposed greenhouse will not be detrimental to the property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare or convenience. · He said Mr. and Mrs. Fry want to enjoy the benefits of their patio and greenhouse to grow plants and vegetables without wildlife destroying their plantings. They are allergic to bee stings, mosquitoes, and other insects and would like to benefit from protective environment of a greenhouse to do their gardening. The greenhouse would also support the benefit of passing solar heat, saving on heating fuels. · He reported that there was a previous exception made to the allowable FAR on Hammond Way, where the DRC approved the Director's minor modification to allow a office storage Cupertino Planning Commission 5 November 22, 2005 building to exceed the allowed square footage. · The greenhouse cannot be viewed at close range because it is located at the rear of the property at a great distance from any other of the neighboring properties. The structure can also be built to confonn to the stucco siding on the existing house. · The exception is requested based on a previous approval to exceed the FAR. Mr. Fry, homeowner: · Said that a precedent was set by the Hammond Way home in Oak Valley, which was a 336 square foot building. · I would like to have my greenhouse and sunroom attached to the house for convenience. It would be right off the kitchen, easy to access for the organic cooking. The passive solar heating would be nice to add to heat. The structure is just like an enclosed patio to me. It is not designed to expand our living square footage so it is a concrete floor and glass. · It is not a heated structure and is similar to an outdoor structure. It is less than 169 square feet and would not have a large impact on the neighbors. · Said he was allergic to bees; his wife is allergic to mosquitoes and fleas. They had to have a bee exterminator come to the property this year. He said that he felt his request was reasonable. · He said none of his neighbors had objections to the proposed structure. A unknown resident on Sierra did have a complaint. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on the application; the public hearing was closed. Com Saadati: · Asked staff to address the reference made to another property by Mr. Fry. Ms. Honda: · Said that the applicant made the statement to report that there was an application approved last year to allow the FAR to be exceeded on that property. That property is on Hammond Way which is on the north side of Cristo Rey Drive and there are no residences behind that property; therefore it does not affect adjacent neighbors and the view points. · It was clear in the staff report at the time it was approved at the DRC last year. It was not meant to set a precedent to allow further projects to exceed the FAR unless they met the same criteria, which we felt it did not; there are other adjacent residences nearby. · Relative to the concerned neighbor that Mr. Fry mentioned, she said she received a phone call early on prior to the DRC meeting, which was documented in the staff report. The neighbor resided on Sierra Way and she felt they should abide by the Oak Valley planned development regulations. Ms. Wordell: · In response to Vice Chair Miller's question why the Rl was more restrictive than the RI ordinance on the subdivision, she explained that the area consisted of custom homes; and the preapproved ones were in other areas. She noted that if it was closer to the Rl Ordinance, it would be based on the RHS Ordinance and the FAR would be an RHS ratio (Residential Hillside Ratio). Com. Chen: · He said he understood that they were not approving the application because the proposal is not consistent with the requirements of the Oak Valley Planned development area. However, a Cupertino Planning Commission 6 November 22, 2005 case was approved in the past which was not consistent with the requirements of the planned development but it has no impact to the adjacent properties. It did provide a process for property owners in the area to change or to build s1ructures, which is different from what is required in CC&Rs and planned development requirement. · What is the process to change anything that is different from what is in the planned development and the CC&Rs? Ms. Wordell: · She said that they were trying to point out that they felt in the other circumstance there were reasons to support it; however, they do not feel there are in this one. The wording from the previous approval to the DRC states "staff does not expect to recommend that future proposals in this area exceed the allowed FAR area unless they are similar isolated locations." · Clarified that it was referred to DRC because staff is not able to deny a modification. The ordinance states that if staff is going to deny it or if it is controversial, it has to go to DRC or the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Miller: · Asked from a legal standpoint was it appropriate for a city to override CC&Rs? · Questioned the benefits of CC&Rs if the city can override them? Ms. Murray: · Stated that there was usually something in the CC&Rs that states what their process is on how things can be changed or if everything is under the city if they don't have an Architectural Review Committee. People can make changes; it is probably appropriate for the city to do it but I would have to look at the CC&Rs to see exactly what provisions they have for changes. · Said that the city does not always override everything in the CC&Rs. When it comes to building usually the city prevails. CC&Rs cover a lot of things including easements, property, protections and trees. Ms. Wordell: · Said that they have processed dozens of modifications to the Oak Valley development, and noted that the Oak Valley CC&Rs incorporate the city conditions of approval, and the city controls those regulations. There may also be other regulations that do not relate to anything the city said they could or could not do, which the city has no enforcement of, such as what type of flowers or bushes they can plant. If they want to change their setbacks or FAR, those are city requirements and the city continues to regulate those changes. Vice Chair Miller: · Counsel said it depends on how the CC&Rs are written. If the CC&Rs do not allow for the city to make changes, it seems we should not be making changes here. Ms. Wordell: · Clarified that it has not been an issue that the city could make changes; it is not certain if there is specific language either way. There is likely language that says the city can, because they are our requirements. Chair Wong: · Relative to Com. Chen's comment on modifications, in the past there have some been some modifications at Oak Valley. If staff is concerned about the view from Sarah Court, perhaps the recommendation to City Council could be modified to allow them to have the greenhouse Cupertino Planning Commission 7 November 22, 2005 if more trees could be planted. Some flexibility could be shown in Mr. Fry's request since this is a greenhouse and is meant for medical purposes. · There should be some flexibility; rules are meant to be followed; this is an unusual circumstance. Is it possible to modify it so that the Planning Commission can make the findings and recommend it to staff? Ms. Wordell: · Said it was possible; but emphasized the rarity of doing something similar because in FAR pre-RI as well as planned developments, the maximums have rarely been changed because it is perceived that when you decide how large you want a development, city or area to be, those are the limits. Chair Wong: · Said he understood, and relative to accessories, he was clear that in RI, structures such as greenhouses and tuff sheds were not included in the FAR. · The applicant is requesting an accessory that is not going to be lived in. Com. Saadati: · Said it is an addition to the building and it should blend in architecturally. He said however, if it was a detached green house he would have looked at it differently, and probably would have been in favor of it. Com. Giefer: · She said no new infonnation was presented to the Planning Commission other than there had been at the DRC; therefore she felt the same about the application as she did at the DRC review. · She said she did not feel they should as a course of habit exceed the maximum FAR for Oak Valley. The entire process in determining it was done under very careful consideration. · She said she preferred not to violate the CC&Rs for the development, and therefore would not be in favor of overturning the DRC's decision. Com. Chen: · Said initially it was clear to her that they should uphold the DRC's decision; but after learning more about this case she is concemed with the noncompliance with the CC&R regulations and is concerned about fairness to the property owners. The reason for that is lack of clear process in determining whether or not to approve any additional square footage to the property. · Said it was not enough for her to support the property owners' rights to deny the DRC decision, but she was concerned about the lack of clear process and criteria to decide whether or not to approve additional structures for all the properties in that area. Vice Chair Miller: · Said he was concerned with the sanctity of the CC&Rs. People buy into developments in part because of CC&Rs they believe protect them. He said he agreed with Com. Chen that he was not sure there is a clear process in terms of how they deal with developments that have CC&Rs and where it is appropriate or not appropnate to override. · Said he would be more comfortable f the applicant would go to the entire development and ask for a modification to the CC&Rs and then everybody there who had bought into them could be one voice; opposed to the applicant coming here and asking for an override which is inappropriate. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 November 22, 2005 · He said he felt it was important that CC&Rs be upheld and that exceptions be made to them under very rare circumstances and under very significant findings to that effect. Chair Wong: · Said he also agreed with Com. Chen that the process is unclear and there were modifications in the past. · He said he would likely take a different viewpoint rrom his colleagues and would support the applicant with modifications. · A precedent has been set on Hammond Way. Even though that particular cabana was isolated, he felt that one could plant trees that will block the views for the greenhouse. He said he felt there should be flexibility in that it is meant for a greenhouse purpose. · The CC&Rs still have to be addressed before going to the City Council. · Even through they are custom homes in a planned development community, if folks want to build a swimming pool and have a cabana, accessories or a Tuff Shed, the rules that are set up are too restrictive. This is something that could be addressed with the neighbors and community. There will likely be other neighbors in Oak Valley who have similar concerns and this is something you might want to address uprront now. · He said it still had to go to City Council. He suggested that they do their homework and perhaps some of the neighbors could provide support at the City Council meeting. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, seconded by Com. Miller, to deny the appeal and uphold the DRC's decision. (Vote: 4-1-0; Chair Wong No) 4. TM-2005-10, INT-2005-01 Dipesh Gupta, 10752 So. Stelling Road. 5. TM-2005-12, INT-2005-02 Dipesh Gupta, (May Residence) 10758 So. Stelling Road Tentative Map to subdivide 0.48 acres into two parcels, ranging rrom 7,387 sq. ft. to 7,390 sq. ft. Interpretation to defme the rront yard as Jollyman Lane for a corner lot at Jollyman Lane and Stelling Road. Planning Commission decision final unless Appealed. Postponed from the November 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative Map to subdivide 0.49 acres into two parcels, ranging rrom 7,486 sq. ft. to 8,744 sq. ft. Interpretation for the rront yard on Jollyman Lane for the corner lot at Orline Court and Jollyman Lane. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Postponed from the November 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: · Reported that both applications (Items 4 and 5) would be heard together, since they are adjacent to each other. Each will be subdivided into two parcels, and the applicants for both applications are the same. · Reviewed the applications to subdivide both lots into two parcels each, as outlined in the staff report. She illustrated aerial photos which showed the project locations, which are adjacent to each other. · She reviewed the Trees on Site, Tree Removal and Interpretation relative to both applications, as outlined in the staff report. · Staff recommends approval ofTM-2005-10 and TM-2005-12 in accordance with the model Cupertino Planning Commission 9 November 22, 2005 resolutions, with the exception to the condition regarding park fees. Park fees were miscalculated and will need to be adjusted in the model resolution. · Staff also recommends approval of the interpretations INT-2005-01 and INT-2005-02 in accordance with the model resolutions Ms. Ghosh answered Commissioners' questions: · Said that the dedication on Stelling is 25 feet' 28 feet on Jollyman Lane, and 18 feet on Orline Court. Dipesh Gupta, applicant: · Expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commission, staff and the neighborhood for taking the time to consider the applications. There were no questions for the applicant. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident: · Commended the city for the care taken in preparing the tree reports for the applications. · She noted that many trees have been on the two properties for many years and were likely orchard property. She said she was pleased to see so much care taken on the subdivision. A bond requirement has already been set up to protect the trees on the property. She suggested that the bond be included in other subdivisions as well to protect the trees. · She thanked the Commission and staff for taking care of the trees. Bmno Pillet, Orline Court: · Asked when the decisions would be made on the disposition of the house because his home has windows directly facing one of the houses. · If trees need to be saved, will it be done in the near future or at a later date? · llIustrated the location of his home and placement of the trees. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Ms. Ghosh: · Said it would follow the RI rules. There will be a privacy protection planting plan for all second story windows. At that point, he will also be notified, sent a set of plans, and be provided with a two week period in which to contact staff about any windows that will overlook his property. Only the second story windows are regulated, not any first story windows. · At that time, concerned neighbors will have the opportunity to speak about the second story windows and any other concerns they have about the proposed house. Chair Wong: · Explained that tonight's discussion is a tentative map to subdivide the property, not to build a house. The applicant can choose to build a one story or two story house and there is a prescriptive ordinance to cover that. · He suggested that Mr. Pillet contact Mr. Gupta to discuss with him what he will do with the tentative map. · If Mr. Gupta wants to build if this is approved, there is a process of communication between the two property owners. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 November 22, 2005 Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Com. Giefer: · Pointed out that the subdivision is heavily forested already. She said she felt the arborist did a good job discussing how to protect the trees they want to retain. · Said there could be more written into the tree protection area that specifically stated that the arborist made certain he pointed out the Italian Cypress trees should be protected. · As a courtesy to the neighbors, it should be stipulated that no trenching or excavation can occur within six feet of all the protected trees not just the Italian Cypress. · She recommended language for both subdivisions: ot' TM-2005-10, Page 4-6: (First point which starts on the previous page) Under Covenant for Tree Protection (page 4-5, No.5) Add language similar to: "Trees must be fenced off fiom construction, watered on a regular basis and no trenching or excavation done within six feet of the protected trees." That was something specific that the arborist brought out. The trees that are on the lots today will not survive unless they receive regular watering during construction, and no junk is stored underneath the trees on top of the roots. Chair Wong: · Relative to Com. Giefer's comments on trees, he asked if the six foot trenching protection would interfere with the footprint of the specimen trees or protected trees. · He said he liked the idea and wanted to ensure that it did not interfere with the footprint before he added his support. Com. Giefer: · Noted that it was six feet fiom the trunk, not the drip line. Ms. Ghosh: · Except for the sewer line easement that they are proposing in the slide on the west property, they are proposing a ten foot easement across that property, which may affect three trees at the back. · Said she talked to the applicant for TM-2005-12 and they are agreeable to doing an easement on their property instead, which may only affect one tree vs. three on the other property. · That is another of the alternatives to consider; to see which one would be better, to weigh how many trees could be saved. · Said the sewer easement would not interfere with the footprint of the applicant. Vice Chair Miller: · The trees are right up against the fence. If the Commission wants the support protecting those trees it seems that moving the building footprint over a few feet should not be a major issue. It does not change the size of the footprint; but centers it more on the property. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Giefer, to approve the appeal of Dffi-2005-20 as amended, including the language stated by Com. Giefer. (Vote: 5-0-0) Cupertino Planning Commission II November 22, 2005 6. EXC-200S-17, Dffi-200S-28 Cal Com Systems (For Verizon Wireless) 10110 California Oak Way Director's Minor Modification with referral to the Planning Commission to install six 4'xl' panel antennas of a personal wireless service facility. Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application summary including the Director's Minor Modification and Height Exception as outlined in the staff report. · He discussed the Existing & Approved Facilities, Height Exception Justification, Equipment Shelter, and Alternatives Analysis & Wireless Coverage, Radio Frequency Radiation Emissions Assessment, and Height Exception Findings, as outlined in the staff report. · He reviewed the photographs of the site and the coverage maps and answered commissioners' questions. Mr. Jung: · In response to Chair Wong's question about outreach done on the application, Mr. Jung said that the notification was done on a 1,000 foot basis nom the outer property line of the upper site. · Some calls were received about the exact location; however, when they were infonned that it was actually closer to the center of the substation site on one of the last towers, they were not concerned. · He said they did not consider putting in an artificial tree, since it would be more obvious than what is presently at that location. Jason Smith, representing Verizon Wireless: · Said he read the staff report, fmdings and conditions, and concurred with them; and was available for any questions. Com. Saadati: · Asked if the antennas going on the top would increase the range? Mr. Smith: · He said it did, and said that their main objective is the areas to the south along Foothill Boulevard as far down as McClellan, approximately Y. mile from the PG&E tower. · He said height is directly affected by how well they are able to penetrate into that area with the signal. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak; the public hearing was closed. Com. Giefer: · Said that she was a Verizon customer and was able to test the coverage in the Oak Valley area and had no problem with the reception. Com. Saadati: · Said it fit the surroundings; and he supported it. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 November 22, 2005 Vice Chair MiUer: · Said he was surprised that there were not more concerned people in the audience, which may be a result of only a 1,000 foot notification. · He said it seemed to be in an isolated spot and according to staff it is invisible from Oak Valley. · Given that it is that far from the residents, we haven't had anyone concerned about it and it doesn't appear to be visible; it would seem like a good location. Mr. Jung: · Said it was not invisible from Oak Valley, there was a substation between this and Oak Valley. Com. Chen: · Said she was prepared to second the motion. Chair Wong: · Said he had no comments and he felt it was a good idea. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chen to approve Applications Dffi-2005-28 and EXC-2005-17. (Vote: 4-1-0, Com. Giefer No.) Chair Wong: · Noted that the decision was final unless appealed to the City Council. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: · Chair Wong reported that the ERC met last week and reviewed the Toll Brothers item, which will be a continuation item. The next ERC meeting will be considering the Toll Brothers as well as Vallco Fashion Park Mall, and Market Place. Housine: Commission: Com. Saadati reported that no meeting was held. Mavor's Monthlv Meetine: With Commissioners: Com. Saadati reviewed the October 12, 2005 Meeting: Library Commission: · The Commissioner stated that Saturday is a very busy day for the library. hl January the library will be open on Sundays. · hlterviews are being cond1. cted to fill a 40% staff vacancy at this time. Technolol!V Information Communication Commission: · Reported on the new name for the committee - ncc (Technology hlfonnation Communication Commission) Cupertino Planning Commission 13 November 22, 2005 Parks and Recreation: · Meeting scheduled for November. · The Stevens Creek Trail design will start in next couple months, it is going back to October. · The Parks Department has secured a $3 million grant funding the restoration of the 1rails. Teen Commission: . Reported that they have held three meetings to date. Misc: · The Mayor reported that they would complete discussions on the General Plan In early December. Economic Development Committee Meetine: No meeting - quarterly meetings held. Chair Wone's Comments: · Congratulated Vice Chair Miller on the close election. Director of Commnnity Development (Ciddy Wordell) · Reported that the General Plan was approved by the City Council. She congratulated the community on the five year process. Chair Wong: · Thanked the General Plan Task Force, the Planning Commission and the City Council for their efforts and time spent on the General Plan. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the December 13, 2005 meeting at 6:45 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary