Planning Commission

City of Sunnyvale Meeting Minutes - Final Planning Commission Monday, October 13, 2014 6:30 PM Council Chambers and West Conference Room, City Hall, 456 W. Olive Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 6:30 - 7:00 P.M. - PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION - WEST CONFERENCE ROOM 1 14-0979 File #: 2014-7486 Location: 238 Carroll Street (APN: 209-10-064) Proposed Project: SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT to allow 24 residential condominium units. VESTING TENTATIVE MAP for 24 residential condominiums and one common lot. Applicant / Owner: Classic Communities / Classic 238 Carroll L.P. Environmental Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Planner: Noren Caliva-Lepe, (408) 730-7659, ncaliva-lepe@sunnyvale.ca.gov 7:00 - 8:00 P.M. - JOINT STUDY SESSION - PLANNING & HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSIONS - WEST CONFERENCE ROOM 2 14-0791 Housing Mitigation Fee Nexus Study Findings and Alternatives Staff Contact: Suzanne Isé, (408) 730-7698, sise@sunnyvale.ca.gov 3 Public Comment on Study Session Agenda Items 4 Comments from the Chair 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 8:02 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG Chair Melton led the salute to the flag. City of Sunnyvale Page 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 13, 2014 ROLL CALL Present: 6 - Chair Russell Melton Commissioner Ralph Durham Commissioner Sue Harrison Commissioner Larry Klein Commissioner Ken Rheaume Commissioner David Simons Absent: 1 - Vice Chair Ken Olevson PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1.A 14-0980 Approval of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 22, 2014 Comm. Klein moved to approve the draft minutes. Comm. Durham seconded. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Chair Melton Commissioner Durham Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons No: 0 Absent: 1 - Vice Chair Olevson City of Sunnyvale Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 13, 2014 1.B 14-0952 File #: 2014-7767 Location: 871 Rubis Drive (APN: 201-24-048 ) Zoning: R-0 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District Proposed Project: DESIGN REVIEW: to allow a 579-square foot first and second story addition to an existing two-story home for a total floor area of 3,231 square feet (2,752 square feet living area and 429 square feet garage) and a Floor Area Ratio of 53.6%. Applicant / Owner: West Designs (applicant) / Kreisler and Barbara Lau (owner) Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt Class 1 Project Planner: Momoko Ishijima, (408) 730-7532, mishijma@sunnyvale.ca.gov Comm. Klein moved to approve this item on the Consent Calendar. Comm. Durham seconded. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Chair Melton Commissioner Durham Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons No: 0 Absent: 1 - Vice Chair Olevson 1.C 14-0981 File #: 2014-7730 Location: 1384 La Bella Ave. (APN: 323-08-019) Proposed Project: DESIGN REVIEW to allow two accessory structures in the rear yard totaling 373 square feet, resulting in 4,296 square feet (existing 3,492 square feet living area and 431 square feet garage unchanged) and 44.6% floor area ratio (FAR). Applicant / Owner: Janet George Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt Class 1 Project Planner: Noren Caliva-Lepe, (408) 730-7659, ncaliva-lepe@sunnyvale.ca.gov Comm. Klein moved to approve this item on the Consent Calendar. Comm. Durham seconded. Chair Melton said he will be pressing the yes button on items 1.A and 1.B and will be abstaining on item 1.C as a property he owns is 502 feet from the subject property. The motion carried by the following vote: City of Sunnyvale Page 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 13, 2014 Yes: 5 - Commissioner Durham Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons No: 0 Absent: 1 - Vice Chair Olevson Abstained: 1 - Chair Melton PUBLIC HEARINGS/GENERAL BUSINESS City of Sunnyvale Page 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 13, 2014 2 14-0959 File #: 2014-7624 Location: 1026 Lois Avenue (APN: 198-34-011) Zoning: R-0 Proposed Project: A new two-story home with a total floor area of 2,996 square feet (2,569 square feet living area and 427 square feet garage) resulting in 50% floor area ratio. Applicant / Owner: BO Design (applicant) / Haiyan Gong (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 Gerri Caruso, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Comm. Harrison confirmed with Ms. Caruso that staff recommends reducing the entry and living room plate heights to 10 feet. Comm. Klein confirmed with Ms. Caruso that the changes in sill height adequately address the neighbors' privacy concerns, and that there were no questions from neighbors or issues with the balcony. Comm. Rheaume asked if the long windows on the left elevation are part of the stairway, and verified with Ms. Caruso that half-round windows are in the living room, and discussed the proposed removal of a tree in the rear of the home. Comm. Durham confirmed with Ms. Caruso that the balcony on the second floor would not be counted in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) if it is covered. Comm. Durham stated that removing the tree would reduce privacy, and commented on reducing the size of the home. In response to Comm. Rheaume's earlier question, Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, explained that the long window on left elevation is part of the stairway. Chair Melton confirmed wtih Ms. Caruso that the applicant is aware that staff is recommending denial of the design review and that an appeal of a decision would go to City Council unless the project is redesigned. Chair Melton opened the public hearing. Frank Gong, the property owner, gave a presentation on the proposed project. Chair Melton discussed with Mr. Gong reducing the size of the home and lowering City of Sunnyvale Page 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 13, 2014 the roofline. David Mokhber, a nearby Sunnyvale resident, discussed his concern about the mass of the proposed building and potential privacy issues. Comm. Durham and Mr. Mokhber discussed using frosted windows to add privacy. Jeanne Waldman, a nearby Sunnyvale resident, discussed her opposition to the proposed project and said the general feel of the neighborhood is to keep it single-story. Comm. Simons and Ms. Waldman discussed the option for a single-story overlay district. Ganesan Venkataraman, a nearby Sunnyvale resident, commented on his preference to maintain a single-story neighborhood and discussed his privacy concern. Judy Barnes, a nearby Sunnyvale resident, discussed her concern with privacy and a decrease in surrounding property value. Brian Burnhardt, a nearby Sunnyvale resident, discussed his concern with the size of the proposed home and the potential for it to decrease the property value of nearby houses. Mr. Gong addressed the neighbors' concerns and encouraged his neighbors to work with him. He said he is amenable to changing the windows and to further compromise. Chair Melton closed the public hearing. Comm. Durham confirmed with Ms. Caruso that the second floor would have to be reduced 70 square feet to meet 35% FAR, and that the maximum size of the first floor would allow an additional 180 square feet. Comm. Harrison and Ms. Ryan discussed the number of design reviews in predominately single-story neighborhoods, and those with proposals with greater than 35% second-to-first floor ratio that have been approved by the Planning Commission. Comm. Rheaume confirmed with Ms. Caruso that the design meets all code requirements and that the first to second story ratio is in the Sunnyvale Single-Family Homes Design Techniques. Ms. Ryan added that reducing the second story by 70 square feet would only reduce the entire FAR to 49%. City of Sunnyvale Page 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 13, 2014 Comm. Harrison confirmed with Ms. Ryan that if the first floor is increased, the ratio of the first to second floor would change, and Ms. Ryan added that the concern is with the apparent bulk of the high ceiling living room. Comm. Simons moved Alternative 1 to deny the design review. Comm. Klein seconded. Comm. Simons said this is legally a two-story neighborhood in which residents can build anything up to the design requirements and not have a public hearing, except that this application has come above those recommedations, triggering a public hearing. He said we try to balance existing neighborhood character with changing character, and one thing that is changing is that people tend to avoid buying 800 or 1200 square foot homes ripe for being expanded. He added that those who bought houses in the 80s or at other times made slight modifications rather than giant changes with increases in square feet and that is changing. He said this neighborhood is like an Eichler neighborhood rather than a regular ranch neighborhood that has larger lots and a few two-story homes. He noted that people tend to think two-story homes will not encumber their privacy much. Giving direction to the applicant, he explained he does not like designing from the dais, he likes to see what something looks like and review that rather than give out arbitrary numbers to meet the neighborhood. He mentioned a previous non-controversial application where a bunch of the development was a basement, which was not visible to neighbors. He said that this neighborhood should be sensitive to that fact that anyone can build a two-story house if they meet certain criteria, and he recommends that if the neighborhood wants to remain single-story that residents look into working with staff on the single-story overlay district. Comm. Klein said he lives relatively close and within a historic district so he knows the community fairly well and understands that there are quite a few single-story homes. He suggested that if the neighbors want to maintain the character of their neighborhood to work with staff to get a majority of homeowners to go through the process for the single-story overlay, which will take time and will involve cost, but that if enough people request it, it is feasible and has been done in other neighborhoods. He said to the applicant that he too does not want to give full direction but that there are obvious changes that need to be done on the home, such as meeting the second story requirements in terms of ratio and ensuring that it fits in with the surrounding homes, which is one of the reasons the guidelines are in place. He said the applicant does have the right to build a second story but that it should stay within the hard rules and general guidelines of the City, and that the City of Sunnyvale Page 7 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 13, 2014 applicant is encouraged to work with staff to come up with the best design. He said he applauds the applicant for working with the neighbors on the privacy issue, and during the next step of the process, which he assumes is a redesign of the project, he suggests reaching out to neighbors to get their feedback, and he hopes that the process will help build a final project in compliance with the rest of the neighborhood. He added that this neighborhood is in transition as much of Sunnyvale is and that two-story homes are coming to many one-story neighborhoods, and that he appreciates the neighbors coming out. Comm. Durham thanked the applicant and residents for coming out to speak, which takes a lot of time and effort. He said to the applicant that it is hard to be an icebreaker, and that there are two-story houses in the neighborhood already, two of which are within the same block as the applicant's house which seem to have been added soon after being built. He added that the size, scale and style of this project bothers him more than the second story, and he would like to see it brought in nearer to the look of the neighborhood, so he will be supporting the motion. Comm. Harrison said she appreciates everyone coming out and demonstrating their care for Sunnyvale and its quality, and said to the applicant the rules are there to balance the rights of the individual home owner to improve their property as they see fit and the rights of the neighborhood with regard to respecting the scale, bulk and character of the homes in the neighborhood. She said that she cannot make the finding, and that there may be areas in Sunnyvale where the first-to-second floor ratio does exceed the 35% but that they are not approved frequently in single-story neighborhoods, so she will be supporting the motion. Comm. Rheaume said he will be supporting the motion, and loves everyone's passion for preserving their neighborhood. He said the property owner has the right to build a second story, but he does not think asking the applicant to chop 70 square feet from the house is the right way to do this either. He said he could not make the findings for all of the windows and the balcony on the second story, and that the applicant is plowing the road and with a few tweaks can have that dream home. He said it is about the quality of the design and that you can have a one-story home of higher quality than a two-story home. Chair Melton said he will be supporting the motion, and thanked the applicant and members of the public for speaking. He said to the applicant this will come as a disappointment and that he has mentioned numerous times the concept of his dream home and he understands that. He said he hopes the applicant continues to work on the design that achieves a greater fit in the neighborhood, and that he is hoping that the next time the applicant returns, the letters from the neighbors City of Sunnyvale Page 8 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 13, 2014 expressing opposition to the project will turn around and express their love of the project. He said there are neighborhoods in Sunnyvale where your dream home would be a perfect fit, but that in this neighborhood and at this time it is not one of those places. He stated that he cannot make the finding of neighborhood compatibility, and suggested that if you are the first on your block to add a second story, to take seriously the guidelines about meeting the 35% second to first floor ratio. He added that there is one house five houses to the south that is a two-story and that he would not view that as a maximum potential number because he is not sure that house fits into the neighborhood. MOTION: Comm. Simons moved Alternative 1 to deny the design review. Comm. Klein seconded. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Chair Melton Commissioner Durham Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons No: 0 Absent: 1 - Vice Chair Olevson City of Sunnyvale Page 9 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 13, 2014 3 14-0816 File #: 2014-7423 Location: 1071 Noriega Ave. (APNs: 161-37-017, 161-37-018) Proposed Project: Related applications on a 0.48-acre site: REZONE: Introduction of an Ordinance to rezone the site from R-3 (Medium Density Residential) to R-3/PD (Medium Density Residential/Planned Development); SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: for 10 residential townhome units; and VESTING TENTATIVE MAP: to subdivide two lots into 10 lots plus a common lot. Applicant / Owner: Classic Communities (applicant) / Classic 1071 Noriega LP (owner) Environmental Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Planner: Rosemarie Zulueta, (408) 730-7437, rzulueta@sunnyvale.ca.gov Rosemarie Zulueta, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Comm. Klein and Ms. Zulueta discussed the applicant's response to, and the staff opinion on, including a centralized trash enclosure in the design of the site. Comm. Klein verified with Ms. Zulueta that complaints have not been made by residents living in projects with multiple trash carts with an on-street staging area, and discussed the staff opinion regarding allowing the requested deviation for distance between buildings. Comm. Simons discussed with Ms. Zulueta where the trash carts would be placed on the street, and confirmed that parking would be allowed in the trash collection area. Comm. Simons stated that it would be more logical to prohibit parking in that area, to which Ms. Ryan responded that the Solid Waste Division is aware of these concerns. Comm. Rheaume inquired about the proposed tree removal in the rear setback, to which Ms. Ryan replied that the applicant could better answer that question. Comm. Durham and Ms. Ryan discussed what parking is like in the evenings, and confirmed with Ms. Zulueta that eleven is the maximum number of units allowed in the R-3 zoning designation for this size of project site. Chair Melton noted that he is also struggling with the placement of trash carts, and confirmed with Ms. Zulueta that this item will be heard by City Council on November 11. Chair Melton also confirmed with Ms. Zulueta that the separation between the duets was created to split up the bulk of it, which created the need for a deviation. City of Sunnyvale Page 10 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 13, 2014 Chair Melton opened the public hearing. Jim Pollart, with Classic Communities, presented information on the proposed project and addressed the Commissioners' concerns. Chair Melton closed the public hearing. Comm. Simons moved to recommend to City Council Alternative 2 to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; introduce the ordinance in Attachment 8 to Rezone 1071 Noriega Ave. (APNs: 161-37-017 and 161-37-018) from R-3 to R-3/PD; and approve the Special Development Permit for 10 residential townhome units and Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide two lots into 10 lots plus a common lot with modified conditions: 1) Prohibit parking on the section of the street planned for trash containers on the day of trash collection. Comm. Harrison seconded. Comm. Simons said that the problems with this project are minor and with regard to trash collection, it is one of these things where there may be too many cars on the street and he likes to see things nicely fixed for the future. He said he appreciates the improvements in the detail and that oftentimes plans are so generic you cannot tell if the architectural improvements are there or whether the project will be extremely limited in architectural amenities. He added that he can make the findings, and that he enjoys finding out that we have caused problems when trying to improve them, as with the changes that were made to reduce the bulk of the building. Comm. Harrison said she can make the findings and appreciates the applicant handling the neighbors' concerns and showing them visually how the setback will be less impactful on them. She said she also appreciates the project meeting policy LT-3.2 which encourages home ownership options, which is being proposed in a neighborhood that is close to transit, schools and shopping. Comm. Klein said he will be reluctantly supporting the motion, and that the garbage enclosure issue is somewhat resolved with the added modification but that staff has noted that this has not been done before and research needs to be completed before implementing this plan. He said he was taken aback by the number of deviations requested, and that the reasoning for a lot of them goes back to the reduction from eleven units to ten and not wanting to reduce the project further. He said that now there are ten much larger ownership units created to reduce mass, City of Sunnyvale Page 11 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 13, 2014 which is a goal of the Design Guidelines, and that if Variances result from reducing mass they should try to be removed. He said that while he has issues with some of the reasoning in the staff report, he generally likes the design and details that have been added since the study session, and that the lack of neighbors in attendance is not a touchstone for how the neighborhood will ultimately feel about this project. He said that he is happy that the developer worked on the privacy issue and that it is clearer to the neighbors, and that he hopes the trash enclosure issue is resolved going forward. He added that the design details, architecture and colors are nice additions, and he looks forward to the project moving forward. Comm. Durham said he will be supporting the motion, and that the staff report notes that there are currently no Citywide policies to limit on-street parking on residential streets during trash and recycling pick-up days, and that the issue may not fly once it gets through to the next stage. He said the building and construction fits in well and will be an improvement to the neighborhood, and that it will work well with the zero lot line construction to the immediate east. He added that it would have been nice to cut back one unit but that a problem with reducing the size of these buildings is the size of storage for cars. He said 80% of the ground floor of three-story units on Lometa is designated to car parking and that if you can reduce that you can reduce the whole unit. Comm. Rheaume said he will be supporting motion, that he likes the design and can make the findings. He said he likes the fact that the applicant worked with the neighbors on reducing the setback abutting the single-family homes on Noriega. He said he struggles with making the assumption that when a neighbor spoke at the study session she was okay with taking out the trees in the rear. Comm. Rheaume offered a friendly amendment to preserve the trees in the rear behind the two duets. Comm. Simons asked if he could modify the amendment to have the applicant work with the City Arborist to evaluate the condition of the trees, to which Comm. Rheaume agreed. Comms. Simons and Harrison accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Ryan interjected that the applicant's arborist report notes that the trees are small, young and in excellent condition. Comm. Simons said he would still like to recommend this condition because the City arborist is an independent arbiter with no economic involvement. Chair Melton said he will be supporting the motion and that we are doing a good job City of Sunnyvale Page 12 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 13, 2014 to provide City Council with a solid recommendation. He said he can make the findings and that the project will be a nice addition to, and a good capital injection into, the neighborhood. He said he appreciates that the applicant has proposed a nice-looking development with sumptuous detail and rich, visually-appealing colors, and that it will work well with the existing neighborhood. He said he also appreciates that the applicant did a good job protecting the privacy of the neighbors and single-family residences, and said that Comm. Simons has come up with a good idea for City Council to consider regarding trash collection on the street. MOTION: Comm. Simons moved to recommend to City Council Alternative 2 to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; introduce the ordinance in Attachment 8 to Rezone 1071 Noriega Ave. (APNs: 161-37-017 and 161-37-018) from R-3 to R-3/PD; and approve the Special Development Permit for 10 residential townhome units and Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide two lots into 10 lots plus a common lot with modified conditions: 1) Prohibit parking on the section of the street planned for trash containers on the day of trash collection; and 2) Applicant works with the City Arborist to evaluate the condition of the two trees at the rear of the site. Comm. Harrison seconded. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Chair Melton Commissioner Durham Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons No: 0 Absent: 1 - Vice Chair Olevson City of Sunnyvale Page 13 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 13, 2014 4 14-0749 Introduce an Ordinance to Amend Title 19 (Zoning) Regarding the Appeal Process for Land Use Projects (Study Issue, CDD 14-15); Repeal Council Policy 1.1.4 on Appeals; and make a Finding that the Proposed Project is Exempt from the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3) (Planning File: 2014-7434) Staff Contact: Rosemarie Zulueta, (408) 730-7437, rzulueta@sunnyvale.ca.gov Rosemarie Zulueta, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and noted that a corrected version of the Ordinance has been provided on the dais. Comm. Harrison verified with Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, that the Planning Commission will be made aware of decisions of the Director of Community Development via annotated agendas sent after each Zoning Administrator hearing. Comm. Klein discussed with Ms. Ryan how meetings will be held during instances where there are multiple appellants, and discussed decisions that may be appealed to the Heritage Preservation and Arts Commissions. Comm. Klein and Ms. Ryan discussed the number and type of Variances approved by the Zoning Administrator. Comm. Rheaume confirmed with Ms. Ryan the definitions of Zoning Administrator and Director of Community Development, and that this proposal would allow the Planning Commission to call an item up to be reviewed. In response to Comm. Harrison's inquiry, Ms. Ryan provided an example of the Miscellaneous Plan Permit - Findings of Public Convenience and Necessity permit type. Chair Melton noted that he sees potential benefits in having a call for review process, and confirmed with Ms. Zulueta that if the City Council implements a process that allows a call for review without an explanation, the ensuing public hearing would be a de novo and not a limited scope public hearing. Chair Melton and Kathryn Berry, Senior Assistant City Attorney, discussed the merits of de novo and limited scope public hearings, and he confirmed with Ms. Zulueta that a City Council-requested call for review could be withdrawn after submission. Chair Melton discussed with Ms. Ryan the pros and cons of being able to withdraw an appeal or call for review, confirmed that members of the public are required to state their reasons for appeal, and discussed with staff the number of people required for a call for review. Comm. Durham discussed further with Ms. Ryan the call for review and withdrawal City of Sunnyvale Page 14 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 13, 2014 process. Chair Melton opened the public hearing, and upon seeing no speakers for this item, closed the public hearing. Comm. Durham moved to recommend to City Council Alternatives: 1. Find that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3). 2. Introduce an ordinance to amend Sunnyvale Municipal Code Section 19.98.070, regarding appeals of land use decisions, as set forth in Attachment 4, which: • Creates a call for review process that requires a minimum of two Council Members or Planning Commissioners to request City Council or Planning Commission review of a decision; • Clarifies and simplifies the appeal process consistent with the City’s continuous efforts to “Retool the Zoning Code”; • Formalizes the current practice of conducting appeals as de novo hearings; and • Allows an appellant to withdraw their appeal. 3. Repeal Council Policy 1.1.4. Comm. Rheaume seconded. Comm. Durham said he thinks it is a good idea to go through this plan, that the improvements will work out better and provide more clarity and that staff has done an excellent job. Comm. Rheaume said the goal of this study is to clarify regulations and procedures which is what this is doing, and that staff did great job. Chair Melton said he appreciates the effort of staff to do all of the research and craft the ordinance which makes a lot of sense, and that he is especially in favor of the potential new call for review process. MOTION: Comm. Durham moved to recommend to City Council Alternatives: 1. Find that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3). 2. Introduce an ordinance to amend Sunnyvale Municipal Code Section 19.98.070, regarding appeals of land use decisions, as set forth in Attachment 4, which: • Creates a call for review process that requires a minimum of two Council Members or Planning Commissioners to request City Council or Planning Commission review of a decision; City of Sunnyvale Page 15 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 13, 2014 • Clarifies and simplifies the appeal process consistent with the City’s continuous efforts to “Retool the Zoning Code”; • Formalizes the current practice of conducting appeals as de novo hearings; and • Allows an appellant to withdraw their appeal. 3. Repeal Council Policy 1.1.4. Comm. Rheaume seconded. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Chair Melton Commissioner Durham Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons No: 0 Absent: 1 - Vice Chair Olevson NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND COMMENTS COMMISSIONER ORAL COMMENTS Chair Melton provided clarification on his recusal from item 1.B. STAFF ORAL COMMENTS Ms. Ryan provided an overview of upcoming items going to, and those recently heard by, City Council. INFORMATION ONLY ITEMS None. ADJOURNMENT With no futher business Chair Melton adjourned the meeting at 10:42 p.m. City of Sunnyvale Page 16