Loading...
PC 06-13-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. June 13, 2006 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The Planning Commission Study Session of June 13, 2006 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Marty Miller Lisa Giefer Cary Chien Taghi Saadati Absent: Commissioner: Gilbert Wong Staff present: City Planner: Senior Planner: Asst. Public Works Director Assistant City Attorney: Ciddy Wordell Colin Jung Glen Goepfert Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of May 23, 2006 Planning Commission minutes: Note: Item 3 of the May 23rd minutes were verbatim text. The following corrections were made: Page 7: . Vice Chair Giefer, Delete"..." and insert "see the slide" Page 7: . And other pages - All references to "Janna Soquel" change to read "Janice Soquel" Page 22: . 2nd last bullet from the end of page: Delete ", one" the word" one" after the comma. It should read" On the current plan there is a light weight vehicle" the comma and one should be struck. Page 30: . third last line of page: Delete"..." and insert "plans are" Cupertino Planning Commission 2 June 13, 2006 Page 31: . 2nd reference to Vice Chair Giefer: 3rd bullet: Delete "along" and insert "a long" . Delete" ..." and insert "use the path there;" . 6th paragraph: "Vice Chair Giefer" should read "Janice Soquel" Page 34: . 3rd bullet from bottom: Delete "without" and insert ''with up" Page 35: . 8th bullet: Delete "did" . Add "pollutant" after "and" . 10th bullet: Delete"..." and add "oil leaking from cars" . Replace "Female" with "Janice Soquel" . 14th bullet: Delete "So the area of the slope" and replace with "Sloped area" . 15th bullet: Delete"..." and replace with "swales" Page 36: . first line: Delete "proposed removed trees?" . 1 oth bullet: Delete"..." Replace with "compliance" Page 37: . Reference to Theresa Smith; "..." denotes 'unfinished sentences by the speaker . 8th bullet: Insert "on" after "elaborate"; Insert "affected" after "spots" Page 48: . Vice Chair Giefer, 2nd bullet, the second last line: "screen" should read "screening fences". . Last bullet: 2nd line: Delete"..." and insert "replaced with Sprouted Acorns is not appropriate" Page 49: . 2nd bullet, Replace "and" with "in" . 3rd bullet: "ripple??" should read "ripple pools" . 3rd bullet: Remove "??" . 4th bullet: should read "Safe Route To School" . 4th bullet: Remove "??" after "Walton" . 4th bullet from bottom: Delete "golf (end of tape Side A, loss of some words)" and insert "the golf course than the" Page 50: . 1st line: After ''would'' add the word "like" Page 62: . Com. Chien, first line: Delete" ...because the Commissioners may not live in Cupertino" and insert "that although the Commissioners may not live in the area where the project is under consideration." Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Chien, to approve the May 23, 2006 minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Wong absent.) Cupertino Planning Commission 3 June 13, 2006 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 1. TM-2006-06 Roger Higdon Jauch residence 10760 S. Stelling Rd Tentative Map to subdivide a 1.83 acre parcel into one 0.69 parcel and one 1.14 acre remainder parcel. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for a tentative map to subdivide a 1.83 acre parcel into one .069 acre parcel and one 1.14 acre remainder parcel in a R 16 zoning district, as outlined in the staff report. . Reviewed the background of the application and noted that an overhead utility easement was required. . Staff's recommends approval of the tentative map with a covenant on the property protecting all trees ten plus inches in diameter, excluding fruit trees, subject to the city tree removal procedures per the model resolution. Colin Jung: . In response to Vice Chair Giefer's question about the rationale for the property not being subdivided similar to that shown on the map, he said the subdivider would respond, but the owner would stipulate certain percentages that would remain with one parcel and a certain percentage of property remaining with the other parcel. . Said the intent was to keep the existing house and a certain amount of land around it. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner: . Commented that it was proposed early in the process, and they removed it from consideration because of their own estate purposes. . Staff felt that they did not create something that would preclude a reasonable subdivision in the future; and that they could still create additional lots that would not be a difficult configuration. Vice Chair Giefer: . Asked staff to explain what the subdivision potential would be for parcel A and parcel B, and the future subdivision. Colin Jung: . According the General Plan if they were to subdivide it with the intent of maximizing their yield they could subdivide it to a maximum of nine lots, between both parcels as long as there was not a change of ownership. In the configuration shown, they would achieve six lots. Vice Chair Giefer: . Asked that if at a later time they wanted to subdivide further and develop, would undergrounding not be required as part of the new development. . Asked why they had not received the tree list in advance with the subdivision request. Colin Jung: . Said the requirement for electrical would take place now; however, they are not proposing Cupertino Planning Commission 4 June 13, 2006 redevelopment at this time. At the time, they would be required to relinquish overhead utilities and they would be undergrounding them. . Relative to the tree list, he said there was no intention of removing trees; staff felt that the condition was appropriate in stating a requirement for protection of all the trees over a certain diameter with the exception of fruit bearing trees. He said he looked at the site and the trees on site were mostly redwoods and Monterey Pines. . He said that recording of the trees was made a requirement of approval, but would verify it. . Said the zoning is RI-6, with most of the lots being more than 6,000 square feet. . Said staff was not concerned about the unusual lot split configuration; they felt it could be reasonably subdivided although not to its maximum potential. Roger Higdon, Creegan and D'Angelo Civil Engineers: . Emphasized that part of the two lot subdivision is strictly for estate purposes; there will be no physical changes on the property as part of the subdivision; it is simply filing the map. There are no plans to proceed with anything other than the two-lot parcel map. . Mrs. Jauch has requested to keep expenses at a minimum that she be assisted in her needs. . He said the conditions were acceptable. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said that looking down the road, one looks at estate planning and it is better to try to keep the lots closer to the size of the lots in the existing area for purposes of continuity in the city. . She said she hoped that the two daughters would keep the two lots intact. . Said she was concerned about the loss of larger parcels in Cupertino, and hoped that in the future there will be a minimum lot size that can be split down. It would be ideal to keep them above 6,000 square feet if that is what the other parcels in the area are. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Saadati and Vice Chair Giefer: . Said they supported staffs recommendation. Com. Chien: . Did not comment. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chien to approve Application TM-2006-06 (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Wong absent) 2. U-2006-04, ASA-2006-09, TM-2006-05, Z-2006-03, EA-2006-07; Frankie Law (Law and Chow residence) 20055 & 20065 De Palma Ln Use Permit and Architectural and Site Review for four new two-story single-familyresidences ranging from 2,290 square feet to 2,650 square feet. Tentative map to subdivide .65-acre parcel into four parcels ranging from approximately 6,260 to 6,810 square feet. Rezoning of an existing 65-acre parcel from R2-4.5 (Residential Duplex 4,500 square feet Minimum parcel size) to P(Residential) (Planned Residential Development) Postponed from the May 9, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 June 13, 2006 Tentative City Council date: July 5, 2006 Colin Jung presented the staff report: . He reviewed the application to rezone the property from its current zoning of R2-4.25 to a planned residential as stated in the staff report. . Discussed the Site Design, Architecture and Setbacks, Project Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as outlined in the staff report. . One of the conditions of approval, is to provide R 1 style privacy landscaping. He illustrated the area for plantings to block the views into the adjacent neighbors' rear and side yards. . Staff is supporting a higher FAR for these houses on an average basis based on the fact that the range of FAR for the adjacent houses is also slightly higher. Staff recommends that it be forwarded to the City Council. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the negative declaration, the rezoning, use permit, architectural site approval and tentative map. . In response to Com. Saadati's questions, he said that the neighbors in the 1000 foot radius were notified. He said one person stated objection to the project because he felt a duplex would be more appropriate. . Said the height of the duplexes was under 30 feet. . The intent of the privacy screening is for the screening to be there within three years. . Relative to mitigating the impact of the windows, he said the intention is to provide the privacy landscaping for the houses themselves, which is the typical solution followed for all Rl style development. . He illustrated samples of the material boards showing the flooring materials. . Said that they permitted fireplaces to extrude from the building envelope, as they are considered an accessory feature and are not subject to the restrictions placed on the building wall. Vice Chair Giefer: . Commented that information in the packet was difficult to understand as the elevations did not include direction and there was no way to determine which side of the houses would be looking into a neighboring development because we had no directional orientation. Colin Jung: . Referred to the site plan and discussed the elevations and setbacks for the proposed project. . Relative to the benefits or a planned subdivision versus Rl, he said that this particular development could not be done with Rl development as they are private driveways and not public streets, and the lot is deeper. Vice Chair Giefer: . She questioned why the city did not want to continue DePalma as a public street and have less single family residence coming off DePalma? Staff: . Said that DePalma Lane is a private street, not a public street and the access is much too narrow for public street standards. . Said they did not want to lose any units. If duplexes were allowed, it would allow four units; and they wanted to retain that number. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 June 13, 2006 Vice Chair Giefer: . Questioned the reason there were no notice boards or story poles erected for the proposed project. Ciddy Wordell: . Responded that only Rl had been posted in the past. Colin Jung: . Said that the four lot subdivisions go to the City Council and do not stop at the Planning Commission because of the rezoning. The rezoning has to go to the City Council for approval and it stipulates in the municipal code that it there are a number of concurrent applications running together, they are presented together and the final decision maker makes the decision on the entire package. . Said that the City Council deleted the Regnart Canyon Trail from the General Plan. The intent was to attempt to provide and improve access, not only for the SCVWD but something that the residents can use that is an improvement rather than the lack of improvements seen there. Su Law, applicant: . Said that they were building the home for the family to reside in, and not as a spec home for sale. They chose the community to live in and wanted their children to attend the schools in Cupertino. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident, asked that the following questions be answered: . Relative to DePalma being a private road, what is the difference between a private road and a public road in Cupertino? . How did this area end up being designated planned community development? Is it because there were duplexes adjacent to the property? Does that mean that all the single family homes on DePalma could become four lot planned development community? Is this just the DePalma area? . Was that the intent of the owners of this area and how is DePalma maintained? . Is there a homeowners association? . Is the road in front of Regnart Creek part of DePalma and do other homes use this frontage ways to enter their property? . How far from the Regnart banks could you have a home? . When you are taking two single family homes, what is the precedent for having a new road go down the middle of a property line that normally had been two separate properties? It is odd for the area; all DePalma appears to be a mystery spot in the middle of Cupertino. . How and why is this happening in here and could those private homes that are on the right hand side of this complex go into the same type of property? Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Colin Jung: . The area between Rodriguez Avenue and Regnart Creek, between City Hall and Blaney Avenue was designated in the General Plan with a slightly higher residential density than what would be found in the single family neighborhood. The planned residential density was Cupertino Planning Commission 7 June 13, 2006 5 to 10 dwelling units to the gross acre, and was designed to accommodate a slightly higher density housing. It would allow for a wider variety of housing types which could have included a duplex, a small lot single family development, or planned residential development. All the single family developments in this area, not only the DePalma Drive lots, but as well as those on Rodriguez Avenue were all planned unit development single family homes on narrow private driveways. . With the exception of course of the duplexes which front directly onto Rodriguez Avenue. DePalma Lane is a planned single family residential development. The reason the street is private because it is too narrow to be a public street. The property lines run to the center line of the street itself. . He explained the difference between a private and a public designation, noting that it was private because it did not meet public street standards relative to width. A public street is 60 feet wide from edge to edge of the sidewalk, which the city would maintain. In this particular case because it is a private street, the road is maintained by the property owners that use it and front on that property. . The properties shown were there before the single family DePalma Lane properties and when the lot was sold off for a single-family house, they obtained an easement for their own properties that would allow them to access the private street. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said parts of the project were acceptable and some were not. . She said she did not have a problem with the subdivision which had Rl-like features. The existing homes on DePalma, particularly 20025, and 20030 which had F ARs over 50%, which because of their size, appeared to be cavernous. . Nos. 20035 and 20035 with 50% or lower FARs were acceptable as they has green space around them. . Said she was uncomfortable with the applicant's request to allow them to replicate it; and also uncomfortable with the ASA portion of the application. She said she did not like having the private drive that meets another private drive to take them to their garages, as access becomes quite limited in that type of situation. . Said that although the fire department likely signed off, she was not comfortable with it. She said she would rather see it developed as a high quality townhome development similar to the one to the west, which includes open space in it and the use of high quality materials. The density would be higher, yet how it is stepped back from the creek and also from the adjacent neighbors, results in a more open feel than the proposed project. . Said if the applicant returned with smaller houses, she would support the ASA, the zoning and everything else requested. . She said the present project presents a very cavernous area; even though it is not highly visible, she said she was not comfortable with it. . She said she would prefer townhouses that are designed for that density. . She said she would not support the present application. Com. Chien: . Said he thought it was a good project, however, he did not agree with Vice Chair Giefer in terms oftownhomes being a better project. . He said in these days they are seeking opportunities to minimize the density in the city to preserve neighborhoods that have single family characteristics. This one has many types of characteristics but is what the property owner has chosen to do and it appears to be a good project. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 June 13, 2006 Com. Saadati: . He said he supported staffs recommendation but would like to see more follow up on the adjacent neighbor, the single family home. A special notice was sent to them regarding the privacy impacts so they could voice their opinions to the City Council before the project is built. He said it would be helpful if the applicant approached the neighbor to see ifhe agreed with the proposal. Colin Jung Jung: . Said the project received three times the legal noticing than was standard, and he was surprised that they did not receive many comments other than the one from the out of town property owner. Com. Saadati; . Said he appreciated extending the noticing to 3,000 feet, but was concerned with the properties adjacent to the proposed development; and asked that another notice be sent to those two. (Staff said they would do so). Frankie Law: . Said a meeting was held with the neighborhood and the residents of DePalma Lane to inform them what was being done. They support the project. . He said they assured the residents that whatever the neighborhood needed, they would take care of it. Chair Miller: . Said he felt it was a good project; it is zoned as higher density and the applicant could have come in with a far more intense project. . Relative to Vice Chair Giefer's comments about it being cavernous, he said it may be a result of the narrow road, but the applicant has kept the height of the buildings well under the maximum that an Rl allows. . He said the applicant did a good job, and he supported the project. Motion: Motion by Com. Chien, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application EA-2006-09 (Vote: 3-1-0; Vice Chair Giefer no; Com. Wong absent) Motion: Motion by Com. Chien, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application EA-2006-05 (Vote: 3-1-0; Vice Chair Giefer no; Com. Wong absent) Motion: Motion by Com. Chien, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application EA-2006-03 (Vote: 3-1-0; Vice Chair Giefer no; Com. Wong absent) Motion: Motion by Com. Chien, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application EA-2006-04 (Vote: 3-1-0; Vice Chair Giefer no; Com. Wong absent) 3. CP-2006-03 (EA-2006-41) City of Cupertino Citywide Location General Plan Conformance of the Five Year Capital Improvement Program. Planning Commission decision final unless Appealed Colin Jung Jung presented the staff report: . He reviewed the request for a General Plan review for the five year Capital Improvement Cupertino Planning Commission 9 June 13, 2006 Program(CIP) fiscal years starting July 1,2006-07 to 2010-11. He discussed individual projects categorized that relate to the General Plan policies as outline in the staff report. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the CIP consistent with the General Plan. Com. Saadati: . He asked if the Rancho Rinconada Street Study included sidewalks, curb and gutters as Rancho does not have curb and gutters. Glen Goepfert: . Said that when Rancho Rinconada was annexed from the county it had county standard streets which are wider and have long returns. He said that the plan is to look at what might be done to the streets to improve the circulation in terms of neighborhood traffic, and bring the scale down to what is used in a typical residential area, versus having roadways that encourage speed. Com. Saadati: . Asked if the study is completed as the development occurs, would the developer provide those improvements? Glen Goepfert: . He said it was an option, although since the current standards are throughout the neighborhood, doing it piecemeal may be difficult. He said they have heard from the neighborhood also that it is a problem and that is the reason for it being there. . He reiterated that the matter before the Commission was to determine the consistency of the five year CIP with the General Plan. The specifics can be addressed on June 20th when the City Council hears the CIP as a whole. . Said that staff has shown that as outlined in each case they are consistent with the General Plan in different categories. Com. Chien: . Asked Mr. Giepfert to look into the fluttering noise emitting from the library roof. Vice Chair Giefer: . Referred to the Environmental Resources and Sustainability Section of the General Plan, Section 5, Goal B, which is to reduce the use of non renewable energy resources. She said there is a strategy to use alternative energy sources that are renewable as opposed to non renewable; they are adding night time lighting in a baseball field, lighting at the tennis courts, improved lighting at the library and are replacing the HV AC system at the Monte Vista Park which hopefully will be more energy efficient than what is there today because it is a newer unit. . She said that the General Plan Task Force and General Plan has several policies and strategies talking about using renewable energy and these things are going to increase the city's dependents upon non-renewable energy. . Said she did not see a mitigating factor in the CIP for that and found it to be inconsistent with the General Plan. She asked for an explanation why they were not mitigating it. Ciddy Wordell: . Said it is difficult to imagine that every CIP item would have to meet that test. She said it may be over a number of different actions that the City would take that would meet that test Cupertino Planning Commission 10 June 13, 2006 so that every item that came up would not be tested against that policy. Vice Chair Giefer: . There are a number of items that are going to increase the city's dependence on non- renewable energy, whereas if they measured themselves against a green point system, they could possibly make a net sum zero as they added more energy dependent resources. . She said if they were able to reduce in another area by an equal amount, she would feel they would be in conformance with the General Plan. Unless that is done, she did not feel increasing lighting and other energy sources makes it consistent with the General Plan, with the specific goals and strategies that are in there. Glen Goepfert: . Said, although he was not familiar with the designs of new lighting, he felt certain that new standards would call for designing fixtures that would be more energy efficient. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said they would meet Title 24, which is more efficient but the General Plan policy is in advance of Title 24. Glen Goepfert: . He said it does not specify how to meet that goal. . He pointed out that most of the projects are categorically exempt under CEQA guidelines; minor alterations of facilities are not subject to that kind of review. Vice Chair Giefer: . Asked how it played into the General Plan and which would prevail. Glen Goepfert: . Said he did not know the specifics of the design because it has not been completed. He said it would likely improve upon the existing situation in terms of energy efficiency. Vice Chair Giefer: . She disagreed, noting that it was adding additional energy use if more lighting was added and not changed out; adding softball stadium lighting was adding lighting fixtures, and adding new lighting poles and fixtures to the tennis courts that were not there today was adding additional energy use. Colin Jung: . Asked Mr. Goepfert to clarify two projects which may help mitigate some of Vice Chair Giefer's concerns. . He referred to the yellow and pedhead LED traffic signal upgrade . Which is replacing a highly energy inefficient traffic light with a LED system which draws less power. Glen Goepfert: . Said it was a good example of a current standard going from incandescence frying a tungsten element to light emitting diodes (LED), cutting the energy down significantly. . It is something Public Works pursued and is part ofa strategy that has been ongoing for years. He said it was typical going from mercury vapor lamps to sodium vapor lamps, and is one part of an effective strategy. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 June 13, 2006 Colin Jung: . He referred to the Collins Elementary School zone beacon and lights project and asked if it was similar to the one at Bubb Road near Kennedy Junior High, since the equipment at Kennedty Middle School is solar power. Glen Goepfert: . He said yes, that it is a policy they have for many of their replacements. He said the one at Collins would be solar powered also. Vice Chair Giefer: . Reiterated that she did not see a specific goal to reduce the dependency upon non-renewable energy. Glen Goepfert: . Said that he did not feel the consistency with the General Plan called for reviewing each of them and asking for a specific strategy on each 'one. If such were the case, one could go through all of them and ask for proof on how they are consistent with the General Plan. . If there is a specific idea on how the goal should be met, then ask staff to satisfy your idea of how that goal should met. . He said he felt they were consistent with the ways outlined by staff. Vice Chair Giefer: . On Pages 3-2 and 3-3 staff has outlined areas where they are consistent with the General Plan. She said she expected to learn how they would meet that objective in the General Plan, however, that it lacked that information. . She concurred that until it is determined what is being implemented, one cannot presume to know how to reduce the energy requirement. She said that it was an are that was overlooked. Colin Jung: . Suggested that the Planning Commission adopt a minute order notifying the City Council of their concerns to take into account when deliberating the Capital Improvement Program. . Said that the projects are categorically exempt according to CEQA; there are certain classes of projects defined in CEQA as a generic category and ifit fits in that category, by nature of the project itself it is exempt from environmental review. . He referred to a question raised at an ERC meeting "if all these projects are by their very nature categorically exempt from environmental review, why are you recommending a Negative Declaration for the CIP as a whole?" In the CEQA guidelines, there is a section that refers to all CEQA exemptions for these classes ofprojects, such as those of the CIP, and says they are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type, in the same place over time is considered significant. . He said in totality they found those significant cumulative impacts of the categorically exempt projects and thus recommended a Negative Declaration which would have been the appropriate action to take. Chair Miller: . Said he was also sensitive to the environmental concerns mentioned by Vice Chair Giefer. . He said he saw an attempt to balance, particularly with moving to the LED's, which have been around for eons, first being used large scale in lighting projects. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 June 13, 2006 . He commented that other projects are moving towards solar as well. Vice Chair Giefer: . Commented that sitting in many baseball stadiums recently and seeing glaring lights at night was a drop in the bucket by comparison to what is being added. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said she was pleased to see the Rancho Rinconada Park acquisition at Sterling on the books. . Many people in the neighborhood would like to see the piece of property become the first official park in Rancho Rinconada. . It has very wide streets and has rolled gutters and sidewalks, and has not had water runoff issues. The entire area is graded. . She expressed concern about the Rancho Rinconada Street Study and said she assumed it meant only placement of raised dots across the street to slow down traffic. . She commented that many of the residents like the wide streets, and it was the first knowledge she had of the consideration of street narrowing in Rancho Rinconada. . She pointed out that the neighborhood had a lot of through traffic, and had three schools in the area. She questioned whether the developers would be using it to make larger homes in the area. . She said the street size is a great asset to the neighborhoods. Perhaps there is a need for speed bumps to slow the traffic down or to try and get teenagers to slow down. . She asked that the park be provided, and provide more information about the proposed street study. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Chair Miller asked staff to comment on the reason for considering a narrower street. Glen Goepfert: . Referred to an innovative idea on Rainbow Drive to the west of the highway, which has a section that uses the existing right of way to meander the street, in an attempt to slow traffic through the area. . He said they heard from the neighborhood about the scale of the streets, speeding, and the fact that the roads are large. The neighborhood would be involved before any changes were made. . He said that speed bumps and road bumps aren't always the appropriate solution for traffic calming. He said that there are some neighborhoods designed in one particular fashion that speed bumps are placed everywhere. Chair Miller: . Asked if the streets were narrowed, what would happen to the property that was formerly street. Glen Goepfert: . In certain areas it has been done, and in limited areas, the returns on the streets have been narrowed to slow traffic. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 June 13, 2006 . In Monta Vista along Byrne on top of Granada, paint has been used to bring down some radii or narrow the streetways. . He referred to Rainbow Drive where the city still maintains the right of way; it is still public right of way also. Any excess land would be kept as part of the public right of way. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chien to approve Application CP-2006-03 Vice Chair Giefer: . Asked if she would have support on sending a minute order to Council with regards to trying to conform with the policy on page 5-4 of the General Plan, specifically goal B. . She said she felt strongly that the additional improvements will actually be contrary to that specific goal, and the Council should be aware that it is not consistent with that. She said she would prefer to vote positively but in lieu of a minute order to Council, she would note no because she felt strongly about it. Com. Saadati: . Said he supported Vice Chair Giefer's suggestion. He said that in his experience in project management implementation, small projects aFe and interior work do not require environment impact; however, if you do any roadwork, the environmental impact such as noise and dust needs to be addressed. In the area of concern, they need to look into saving energy as much as possible. Hopefully the funding will be there to support it. Com. Chien: . Said he supported the amended order. Chair Miller: . Said he supported it also. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Wong absent) Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chien to approve Application EA-2006-14 (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Wong absent) Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Chien, to send a minute order to City Council alerting them that CP-2006-03 and EA-2006-03 are not in conformance with Section 5, Environmental Resources Sustainability, Page 5-4 of the General Plan specifically Goal B, strategy 1 and strategy 3; and that they look at improving the energy usage in other areas to counteract the new energy consumptions to be more consistent with those policies. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Wong absent.) OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: . Chair Miller reported that two ERC meetings were held since the last Planning Commission meeting. The first meeting addressed the DePalma application and the second one addressed the CIP.