Planning Commission

City of Sunnyvale Meeting Minutes - Final Planning Commission Monday, February 24, 2014 6:00 PM Council Chambers and West Conference Room, City Hall, 456 W. Olive Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 6:00 P.M. - OPTIONAL STUDY SESSION - WEST CONFERENCE ROOM 1 File: 2012-8014 Location: 645 Almanor Ave. (APN: 165-44-004, -005, -008, 009, -010, -011) Zoning: M-S (Industrial and Service) Zoning District Proposed Project: REZONE from M-S (Industrial and Service) to M-S-100% (Industrial and Service 100% FAR) DESIGN REVIEW to allow construction of a 6-story, 172,675 square foot office R&D building resulting in a 100% Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and serviced by a new 5-level parking structure. Applicant / Owner: Arctec Inc. / St. Jude Medical Environmental Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration Staff Contact: Shetal Divatia, (408) 730-7637 sdivatia@sunnyvale.ca.gov 2 File: 2013-7240, 2013-7081 & 2013-7132 Location: 610 E. Weddell Drive (APN: 110-28-001) & 520-550 E. Weddell Drive ( APN: 110-14-190, -191) Proposed Project: Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report Applicant / Owner: 610 Weddell-Sunnyvale LLC / Fucms 2001 C2 Weddell Drive LP (610 E. Weddell Drive) & Raintree Partners / Kollreal (520-550 E. Weddell Drive) Environmental Review: Environmental Impact Report Staff Contact: Ryan Kuchenig, (408) 730-7431 rkuchenig@sunnyvale.ca.gov 7:00 P.M. - REGULAR STUDY SESSION - WEST CONFERENCE ROOM City of Sunnyvale Page 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 1 File: 2013-8029 Location: 523 E. Homestead Road (APN: 309-44-003, -049, -050) Zoning: Low-Medium Density Residential / Planned Development (R-2/PD) Proposed Project: SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT to allow 9 single-family homes VESTING TENTATIVE MAP to create 9 ownership lots Applicant / Owner: S&S Construction, LLC / Louis Mariani Trustee Staff Contact: Noren Caliva-Lepe, (408) 730-7659 ncaliva-lepe@sunnyvale.ca.gov (25 minutes) 2 Study Update: Lawrence Expressway Grade Separation Study Staff Contact: Jack Witthaus, (408) 730-7330 jwitthaus@sunnyvale.ca.gov (25 minutes) 3 Public Comment on Study Session Agenda Items (5 minutes) 4 Comments from the Chair (5 minutes) 5 Adjourn Study Session 8:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION - PUBLIC HEARING - COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chair Melton called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Chair Melton welcomed newly appointed Planning Commissioners Sue Harrison, David Simons, Larry Klein and Ken Rheaume to the Planning Commission. Present: 7 - Commissioner Ralph Durham Commissioner Sue Harrison Commissioner Larry Klein Chair Russell Melton Vice Chair Ken Olevson Commissioner Ken Rheaume Commissioner David Simons City of Sunnyvale Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS None. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1.A 14-0254 Approval of Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 13, 2014 Vice Chair Olevson moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Comm. Durham seconded. Motion carried by the following vote: YES: 3 - Commissioner Durham Chair Melton Vice Chair Olevson NO: 0 ABSTAIN: 4 Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons PUBLIC COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARINGS/GENERAL BUSINESS 2 File: 2013-7860 Location: 479 N. Pastoria Avenue (APN: 165-30-002) Zoning: M-S (Industrial and Service) Zoning District Proposed Project: USE PERMIT to allow a new 52,394 square foot, 4-story office/ R&D building (with surface and underground parking) resulting in approximately 55% Floor Area Ratio Applicant / Owner: ArchiRender Architects / Peery-Arrillaga Environmental Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration Staff Contact: Noren Caliva-Lepe, (408) 730-7659 ncaliva-lepe@sunnyvale.ca.gov Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, explained why this item would be renoticed, and said that no action is required by the Planning Commission. City of Sunnyvale Page 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 3 14-0110 File #: 2013-7882 Location: 168 S. Murphy Ave. (APN: 209-06-031) Zoning: Downtown Specific Plan Block 2 (DSP-2) Proposed Project: Appeal by a neighbor of a decision of the Director of Community Development approving a: MISCELLANEOUS PLAN PERMIT: for outdoor dining. Applicant/Owner: Roberto Cervantes (applicant) / Jayan Elle LLC (owner) Environmental Review: A Class 1 Categorical Exemption relieves this project from California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines. Project Planner: Elise Lieberman, (408) 730-7443, elieberman@sunnyvale.ca.gov Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, presented the staff report. In response to Comm. Simons' inquiry regarding Condition of Approval (COA) 1, Ms. Ryan explained that the right-of-way nature of outdoor dining reduces the amount of time before this type of Miscellaneous Plan Permit (MPP) expires. Comm. Simons asked if this would remain in effect during winter when weather may prevent outdoor dining, to which Ms. Ryan responded that if tables were not placed outside during rainy weather, staff would work on a program to reinstate outdoor dining. Comm. Durham and Ms. Ryan discussed the allowable uses of the 2 foot frontage zone in front of each building. Comm. Klein commented on the use of "left and right" in the COAs, and said when determining boundaries, the use of cardinal directions is more appropriate. Ms. Ryan agreed and said that can be changed, and added that there are opportunities to have seating in front of other buildings with that property owner's concurrence. Vice Chair Olevson and Ms. Ryan discussed enforcement of COAs such as the number of tables allowed as being done through the complaint process and via Neighborhood Preservation and uniformed officer inspection. Vice Chair Olevson confirmed with Ms. Ryan that the original application approval met all of the City's requirements and had no deviations from the regulations on Murphy. Chair Melton opened the public hearing. Keith Gould, a representative of the proprietors of Siam Taste, presented the City of Sunnyvale Page 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 Commission with photos of the site in use while explaining that their contention with the outdoor dining approval is that the proposed tables would encroach on the space currently used as an unofficial pedestrian thoroughfare with wheelchair access. Mr. Gould said it would be better if the additional seating was on the north side of Roberto's Cantina in the pedestrian breezeway where there is no adjacent business. He said seating in the proposed area would interfere with service to the outdoor tables of Siam Taste. Comm. Klein asked Ms. Ryan if the permit for outdoor dining for Siam Taste is similar to that of Roberto's Cantina, to which Ms. Ryan responded that it is likely, however because there was a conversation between staff and the appellant, there may be conditions required of this applicant not imposed upon Siam Taste. Comm. Harrison discussed with Mr. Gould his suggestion for another location of the proposed tables. Comm. Harrison asked Mr. Gould if Siam Taste employees would have trouble accessing the tables, to which Mr. Gould responded that servers would have to go down and around tables onto the street side to provide service. Chair Melton clarified with Mr. Gould that his office's appeal letter was not asserting that there should be a five foot pedestrian clearance around the entire seating area. Mr. Gould added that the tables of Siam Taste abut to within inches of the property line and it would be impossible to add a 24 inch table directly north on the property of Roberto's Cantina and maintain a foot of clearance as outlined in the COAs. Roberto Cervantes, the owner of Roberto's Cantina, presented the Commission with photos of the site and said there is handicap access close to where the appellant claims his restaurant would cause an obstruction. He said he would not be blocking anything, and that he thinks the handicap argument is invalid. Comm. Olevson said that upon his inspection of the site, there seems to be many more tables than shown in the diagram, to which Mr. Cervantes responded that he does not have out the two tables proposed to sit right next to Siam Taste. Comm. Durham commented on the photos provided and said that is seems people are moving the tables around to get the best benefit, and suggested that staff may enforce the requirement regarding the number of tables allowed. City of Sunnyvale Page 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 Chair Melton closed the public hearing. Comm. Harrison asked Ms. Ryan if staff would object to allowing the number of proposed tables in a repositioned configuration, to which Ms. Ryan said the applicant would need to refile for a reconfiguration to ensure it meets the standards for separation and safety. In response to Comm. Harrison's inquiry, Ms. Ryan explained that the one foot clearance in the COAs was meant be north and south of the projection of the property lines on the public sidewalk. Comm. Harrison confirmed with Ms. Ryan that this condition would allow two feet of space for service in between the tables of adjacent businesses. Comm. Simons moved Alternative 1 to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Director of Community Development to approve the MPP for outdoor dining with the attached conditions. Comm. Klein seconded. Comm. Simons said he appreciates that neighboring restaurants would be concerned about the positioning of outdoor seating and whether it would be appropriate and within the guidelines of what is desireable in the Murphy plan. He said he visited the site and it looked like it did meet the goals of outdoor seating, so he cannot support the appeal. He said he is hoping all of Murphy succeeds in having a very lively outdoor dining experience, to which this restaurant would contribute. Comm. Klein said he was unable to make the findings to uphold the appeal and that he understands how the appellant is trying to make the case that there is a pedestrian walkway through the area, but it is actually the breezeway and spacing between the restaurants is relatively small. He said this issue is covered ultimately by the COAs which ensure at least one foot of space between the property line of Roberto's Cantina and their first table. He said hopefully Siam Taste will have a similar offset to allow both restaurants space to bus their tables, and said that what staff was ultimately proposing was to try to have the two restaurants work together. Comm. Klein said he thinks the critical thing here is trying to be good neighbors, and that both restaurant proprietors have a rightful and important use for customers to utilize the space in front of the restaurant. He said creating an appropriate barrier for both restaurants' customers and wait staff is very important for the businesses. He said he will be supporting the motion and hopes the restaurants will work together to better utilize this area. He said the COAs as stated are adequate City of Sunnyvale Page 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 for the restaurants, requested that staff clarify the boundaries by correcting "left and right" by using north and south. Comm. Olevson said he will be supporting motion, and after having looked at the site, he sees a vibrant use of outdoor seating to which this application adds. He said he appreciates the appellant's argument that there is an in-fact walkway in the area, but it is not designated by City, so he cannot support the concept that people walking through and making non-regulated use of the area is sufficient to deny the application. He said he wishes both restaurants every opportunity to succeed. Chair Melton said he will be supporting motion, and that a key item of information came early on when staff said the walkway connector is not intended to be used as handicap ramp, so he is not able to make the findings in support of the appeal. He said Murphy Avenue is a crown jewel of the City of Sunnyvale and there is more than enough for everyone to be successful, and he encourages the applicant and appellant to do everything possible to get along and have a successful, thriving business on Murphy Avenue. MOTION: Comm. Simons moved Alternative 1 to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Director of Community Development to approve the MPP for outdoor dining with the attached conditions. Comm. Klein seconded. Motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 7 - Commissioner Durham Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Chair Melton Vice Chair Olevson Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons No: 0 City of Sunnyvale Page 7 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 4 14-0076 File #: 2013-7697 Location: 1432 Kingfisher Way Zoning: Low Density Residential R-0 Zoning District Proposed Project: Appeal of a decision by the Zoning Administrator to conditionally allow a: USE PERMIT for an approximately 8 foot tall fence in the front yard of an existing single-family home Applicant / Owner: Shi-Jie Wen, Li-Li Cui Environmental Review: A Categorical Exemption Class 3 (accessory structures) relieves this project from CEQA provisions Staff Contact: Timothy Maier, (408) 730-7257, tmaier@sunnyvale.ca.gov Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, presented the staff report. Vice Chair Olevson confirmed with Ms. Ryan that the homeowner is asking that the wall that has been built be approved rather than the original design that was previously approved. Chair Melton opened the public hearing. Shi-Jie Wen, the applicant, described the timeline from the date of application to the appeal in 2013. He said the City approved the height of the fence and did not request that Mr. Wen remove the trellis. He said he has collected 100 signatures from families in his neighborhood demonstrating their approval of the wall. Mr. Wen asked that the Commission consider removing condition three as it is too costly and burdensome to remove the trellis, or consider a less expensive solution. He provided photos of alternate fence designs and requested compromised top feature for the wall. Comm. Harrison asked why it is expensive to remove the lattice, to which Mr. Wen responded that the contractor informed him that the post on top is metal, which they would need to cut through and then add a kind of polish to prevent injury. Comm. Harrison confirmed with Mr. Wen that the 100 signatures he described were submitted to the City with the original UP application. Mr. Wen explained that he misinterpreted the wall height requirements. Comm. Harrison confirmed with Mr. Wen that he would be amenable to replacing the 8-foot metal door with a 6-foot entry gate. Chair Melton closed the public hearing. Comm. Klein inquired about the time frame for when the property owner must come into compliance if the appeal is denied, to which Ms. Ryan replied that City of Sunnyvale Page 8 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 staff has suggested 30 days, but the Planning Commission has discretion over the time frame. Vice Chair Olevson confirmed with Ms. Ryan that the trellis is the only aspect of the fence that is not in compliance with the height requirement. Vice Chair Olevson said the wall is nice, but out of character for the neighborhood as it protrudes way out into the front yard. He confirmed with Ms. Ryan that staff is comfortable with the applicant removing the trellis and putting in the landscaping suggested to conform to Eichler Standards. Comm. Harrison moved to accept the homeowner's proposal of removing the cross-pieces of lattice while complying with all other staff requirements. The motion died for lack of a second. Comm. Klein moved Alternative 1 to deny the appeal and uphold decision of the Zoning Administrator to allow the fence as modified by the attached Conditions of Approval (COA) with one change being that the homeowner be given 90 days to come into compliance. Comm. Simons seconded. Comm. Klein said he understands the applicant wanting to provide security for the property and has already built the wall. He said he visited the community and has seen different Eichlers there, some having walls, some without, some have wood, and some have stone. He said the wall is very nice, but when considering the height and other issues staff raised, the applicant did go ahead and build it without getting full approval. Comm. Klein said it really is from curb where one starts to measure, and that from an Eichler standpoint this community has a privilege that a majority of Sunnyvale does not. He said many residents have come forward saying they wanted a four- or five-foot wall in their front yard and the Commission has denied their applications. He said we start looking at walled communities and all you see are garage doors and walls and you barely see the houses on the other side. Comm. Klein said that what staff is doing is with the COAs is reducing the height to see more of the roof line and the house behind it. He said we are not providing a special privilege and he understands most neighbors are fine with the wall, but what the applicant built is beyond City rules. He said he is hoping that giving the applicant more time to come into compliance will reduce the financial burden the applicant described. He said he applauds the applicant and understands that this is a difficult process that he put much money into building a permanent wall, but that there are City rules and the applicant needs to come City of Sunnyvale Page 9 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 as close to them as possible, which is why he will be denying the appeal. Comm. Simons said he thinks some of the changes that are part of the COAs placed on the wall would improve its looks, fit and finish and will benefit the applicant down the road. He said the difference in visible security that defines the height is going to be more consistent without the trellis, and that he sometimes likes a plain aesthetic when it comes to Eichlers. Comm. Simons said one of the COAs that requires replacement of the interior door on left with a wooden exterior door that people would expect at an exterior placement would be an improvement. He said when things come down to the Planning Commission and changes must be made that are undesirable by owner, sometimes down the line they view the changes as improvements. He said if it is not a great improvement, he hopes it is an acceptable one, and he the wall will be as stunning or better. Vice Chair Olevson said he will be supporting the motion, and that the City has spent a great deal of time developing and implementing standards for this style of home that is unique in this valley. He said he is not persuaded by the economic argument that it would cost a lot of money to comply with the City's requirements because the applicant decided to build something other than what was approved. He said he will be supporting the denial because we should be conforming to our rules more often than not. Chair Melton said he will be supporting the motion and thanked Mr. Wen for coming in and pitching his side of the story to the Planning Commission. He said he was greatly relieved to hear the description of logic for why the lattice was added to top of the wall and found it was not going against the original permit out of malice, and that there actually was some conversation that led to the incorrect conclusion that a higher wall would be allowable. He said he understands the spirit and intent behind the decision to go beyond the original permit, and that he visited the site today and saw a beautiful home, in a beautiful neighborhood, on a beautiful street. Chair Melton said one of the things our General Plan calls for is strong neighborhoods and one way to achieve strong neighborhoods is to enforce consistency in the type of architecture. He said he thinks Mr. and Mrs. Wen have built a fabulous stone wall in front of their house but that the trellis on top and the absence of planting make it too far beyond conformance with what is going on in the neighborhood. He said one or two houses down he saw a wall with agapanthaus plants in front that looked fabulous and another couple houses down there was some pittosporum in front of the wall of that house. He said those are examples of things to do to further enhance the look of the wall and City of Sunnyvale Page 10 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 present an opportunity for Mr. and Mrs. Wen to get things into conformance with City rules and the spirit and feel of the street and neighborhood, and that for those reasons he will be supporting the motion. MOTION: Comm. Klein moved Alternative 1 to deny the appeal and uphold decision of the Zoning Administrator to allow the fence as modified by the attached Conditions of Approval (COA) with one change being that the homeowner be given 90 days to come into compliance. Comm. Simons seconded. Motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 7 - Commissioner Durham Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Chair Melton Vice Chair Olevson Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons No: 0 City of Sunnyvale Page 11 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 5 14-0236 File #: 2013-7956 Location: 764 Lewiston Court (APN: 323-05-006) Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential) Proposed Project: Related applications on a 15,796 square foot site: VARIANCE: From S.M.C. 19.46.040(a) to allow the use of greater than 50% of the front yard for vehicle parking. DESIGN REVIEW: To convert an approximately 473 square foot structure to an accessory living unit within the rear yard of a single-family home, resulting in a total of 4,049 square feet. Applicant / Owner: Douglas Kim Environmental Review: A Class 1 Categorical Exemption relieves this project from California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines. Project Planner: Ryan Kuchenig, (408) 730-7431, rkuchenig@ sunnyvale.ca.gov Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, presented the staff report. Comm. Rheaume confirmed with Ms. Ryan that part of the approval is recommending they expand the driveway in the front. Ms. Ryan added that the only way to have an accessory living unit is to meet the parking requirement. Comm. Klein confirmed with Ms. Ryan that in order for the current pool house structure to meet the 10-foot setback rearyard requirement the applicant would have to take off a portion of the building. Vice Chair Olevson said an aerial view of the site shows some nonconforming structures up against the fence, and asked if staff has addressed these issues. Ms. Ryan explained that there may be some small shed structures, which, if under a certain size would not require a building permit. Chair Melton said he visited the site and bumped into the applicant who invited him to see the backyard and pool-house structure, and discussed with Ms. Ryan the process of City inspection that would ensure that the structure is safe to be inhabited. Chair Melton opened the public hearing. Douglas Kim, the homeowner, said he bought the house six months ago and understood that there were open permits. He said his goal is to make everything legal, and that in this process found that the pool-house unit was not permitted. He said that in order to get the fire sprinkler permitted he would City of Sunnyvale Page 12 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 have to tear into the street for bigger pipe but the Fire Marshal recommended going with a pump which was approved and is the first residential pump in Sunnyvale. He said his only request is that the Planning Commission reconsider the 10-foot setback requirement. He said the original pool-house structure has a corner extending 18 inches, which he is willing to tear down, but sees it as wasteful because everything else meets the 10-foot setback requirement except that triangle. Comm. Klein confirmed with Mr. Kim that he and the original architect discussed permeable pavers. Mr. Kim said the architect suggested using the existing space for parking, and the project planner suggested Hollywood pavers. Comm. Durham confirmed with Mr. Kim that he has the original plan from the architect who did the pool- house. In respose to Vice Chair Olevson's inquiry, Mr. Kim said the open permits are for the main house, for the sunroom area and the pool house. Vice Chair Olevson asked if the applicant would have to move the pumping equipment, to which Mr. Kim responded he would have to move some but considers it a waste of money to move the equipment one foot over and then put up another wall. Mr. Kim requested that the Commission allow a variance on that corner. Ms. Ryan discussed how to determine which side of the parcel is the rear when one has a five-sided parcel, and said which ever side is determined to be the side yard would have to observe side yard requirements. She said the Commission can look at both options, and that otherwise a variance finding could not be made because the property is too large. Chair Melton closed the public hearing. Comm. Klein asked staff for an opinion on the type of additional surface area required in the front lot, to which Ms. Ryan responded that the applicant is not proposing a change to the paving, and that permeable pavers would require the applicant to rip up the existing concrete, which, from a green standpoint is better to avoid. She said Hollywood strips would survive better but are harder to maintain. Vice Chair Olevson clarified with Ms. Ryan the deed restriction requiring the property owner occupy one of the units for at least 20 years. Comm. Simons moved Alternative 2 to approve the Design Review and City of Sunnyvale Page 13 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 Variance with the modified condition that a consistent, pervious strip be put in. Vice Chair Olevson seconded, and offered a friendly amendment to allow the existing structure not be cut. Comm. Simons suggested calling the shorter side the rear side of the back yard, which accomplishes the offered friendly amendment. Comm. Simons said he applauds any new owner of a home in the City of Sunnyvale who tries to bring a patchwork house of noncompliance into compliance. He said he thinks the applicant has a lot of good will and understanding of the issues, and is sorry that the real estate market is so hot that the applicant has to accept a house that is not quite right. He said he appreciates that the applicant is putting in the energy and effort into updating everything. Vice Chair Olevson said he will be supporting motion with the modified recommendations, and that he is impressed that the applicant bought a home and six months later is going through the machinations to bring everything to code. He said not to denigrate some of his fellow Sunnyvale residents, but there would be a number of them who would let things ride until someone pointed it out to them, so he commends the applicant for what he is doing. He said he looked at the neighborhood and letters by neighbors in support, and thinks overall this will enhance the neighborhood. Comm. Klein said he will be supporting motion, and thanked the applicant for coming out. He said he wanted to point out that this site is very large piece of property in an odd shape, which allows some of the changes and variances from what we normally see. He said he was able to make the findings as supported by the staff report, and he is happy to support the motion. Comm. Durham said he would like to thank the applicant for pushing through with this process, and congratulated the applicant for having the first residential fire pump in Sunnyvale. Chair Melton said he will be supporting motion, and thanked the applicant. He said he understands the applicant is trying to do the right thing, and that it is understandable what he is trying to acheive, which also removes clouds of uncertainty, so he can reset and move forward and become a successful component of his neighborhood and a successful homeowner in Sunnyvale. He said the applicant has a fabulous house that has a lot of work going on now, and he looks forward to it coming to fruition. He said that he is City of Sunnyvale Page 14 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 impressed with neighhood notification forms, and he spoke with one of the applicant's neighbors today and it looks like everyone is in support of all of this. Chair Melton said he can make the findings as recommended by staff and required to approve the application. MOTION: Comm. Simons moved Alternative 2 to approve the Design Review and Variance with the modified condition that a consistent, pervious strip be put in, and to call the shorter side the rear side of the back yard so as not to cut into the existing pool-house structure. Vice Chair Olevson seconded. Motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 7 - Commissioner Durham Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Chair Melton Vice Chair Olevson Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons No: 0 City of Sunnyvale Page 15 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 6 14-0255 Annual Review of the Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials Kathy Berry, Senior Assistant City Attorney, noted that three Commissioners have recently had the training. Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, said that every year the City Council asks the Boards and Commissions to review the City's Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials to provide feedback, and to take all of the regular, appropriate training. MOTION: Comm. Klein moved that the Planning Commission has reviewed and supports the Code of Ethics as written. Comm. Durham seconded. There were no comments from the mover or he who seconded. Motion carried by the following vote: YES: 7 - Commissioner Durham Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Chair Melton Vice Chair Olevson Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons NO: 0 7 Selection of Planning Commissioner Seating Arrangement Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, explained that the order of the selection of seats would be determined by seniority, which is Chair Melton, Vice Chair Olevson, Comm. Durham, Comm. Rheaume, Comm. Harrison, Comm. Simons, and Comm. Klein. Selection resulted in the following seating arrangement (from left to right facing the dais): Comm. Durham Comm. Rheaume Vice Chair Olevson Chair Melton Comm. Klein Comm. Simons Comm. Harrison City of Sunnyvale Page 16 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final February 24, 2014 8 Standing Item: Potential Study Issue Items for 2015 Comm. Simons inquired as to the feasibility of the City having a randomly chosen Transportation Demand Management (TDM) project to be independently tested by the City rather than by contractors to provide information on a regular basis. Ms. Ryan said there have been changes and she will bring information to a future meeting. NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND COMMENTS COMMISSIONER ORAL COMMENTS Comm. Durham reminded staff that he will be at the special meeting on March 3, but will not be present at the March 10 meeting. Chair Melton requested that staff provide a recap of the action taken by the Planning Commission on January 13, 2014 requesting a joint Study Session with City Council regarding the General Plan and Balanced Growth Profile. STAFF ORAL COMMENTS Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, discussed Planning-related items considered by City Council. Ms. Ryan said the joint Study Session with City Council to review the BGP will take a few months to arrange and will likely be on the agenda in late May or June. She also said that the Lawrence Station Area Plan Citizens Advisory Group (LSAP CAG) will reconvene in a few months and she will make the Commission aware of potential appointments to the LSAP CAG with a member from the Planning Commission. INFORMATION ONLY ITEMS ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:01 p.m. City of Sunnyvale Page 17