Loading...
PC 03-10-97CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 10, 1997 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Staff present: Austin, Mahongy, Roberts, Chair Harris ( Com. Doyle arrived at 7:55 p.m.) Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Plmmer; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Vera Gil, Planner II; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Associate Planner; Tom Wiles, Planning Intern; Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting February 24, 1997: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the February 24, 1997 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted correspondence regarding possible conflict of interest relative to thc Hewlett- Packard item on the agenda. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: location: 5-GPA-97 and 9-EA-97 City of Cupertino Citywide General Plan Amendment to allow an interchange of square footage between commercial and office/industrial uses (Policy 2~-3). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 7, 1997 REMOVE FROM CALENDAR Plashing Commission Minutes 2 March 10, 1997 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to remove Item 4, Application No. 5-GPA-97 and 9-EA-97 from the calendar. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR Application No.: Applicant: Location: 3-ASA-97 Bruce Fowler (Marketshare) Southeast comer of Homestead and De.4aura Boulevard Architectural and site approval to build and install one monument sign, two directory signs and four building signs.~ ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to approve the consent calendar. Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Location: 2-ASA,97 Ilhiminart Signs (Dom Deluze) 10745 No. DeAnza Boulevard Architectural and site approval to construct a sign that exceeds the height as allowed by Chapter 17.04 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONflNUED FROM PLANNINO COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 1997 Staff oresentation: The video presentation revie~ved the application for the replacement of the monument sign, which was continued fi.om the February 24 Planning Commission because of concerns relative to the proposed height, sign area, design and color scheme. The applicant revised the sign in response to concerns expressed at the earlier meeting, as noted in the attached staff report. Mr. Tom Wiles, Planning Intern, explained that there was no staff recommendation because technically the sign was still not within the height and area limitations. He explained that the applicant had further revised the width and height of the size to 13 ft. 2 ins. by 7 feet, allowing a revised height from the base to 8 ft. 3 inches, cutting the square footage down to 83.81 square feet. Plann/ng Commission M/nutes ~ March 10, 1997 Mr. Steve Weber, Manager of the Santa Barbara Grill, referred to the overhead of th~ revised drawing and h~.ded out a material board for the Planning Commissioners' review. He explained the revisions to the sign pwposal. He said that the palm trees were lowered to 7 feet, would be a faux mst color, and would be placed at the comer base of thc sign. He used an overlay to indicate how the revised sign design compared to the previous application. He noted that the sign base would be repaired and painted the same color as the building; and that the colors were a flat color, not enamel as previously submitted. He requested consideration of the application noting the unique site of the restaurant with no direct vehicular access from the main street. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. John Statton, Chamber of Commeree, said that because the restaurant site is hidden from the public view, the visibility oftbe sign was of utmost importance. He said he felt the sign was not garish and conveyed the then~ of the rc~surant, including tho stylized palm trees. He urged Pla~nin~ Commission support for the sign. Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the mceting. Chair Hams summarized that the issues were sizc exception and colors. Mr. Wiles reviewed the size of the sign as currently submitted by the applicant. Com. Austin said that the fiat colors were acceptable; and the size of the sign was appropriate. She noted that the revised design incorporating the palm trees on the side was attractive, and that she would approve the revised sign proposal. Com. Doyle said the colors were appropriate and the sign was within the original envelope of the existing sign. He expressed concern that what was originally approved and what was actually applied was significantly different; he said be was concerned about a sign ordinance that says there should be something in the 40 to 45 square foot size and it was almost double that. He recommended that it be returned with something much closer even though it is in the envelope, stating that an existing situation not within code should not be made the new standard. He said he could not support it at the 84 square foot version. He recommended 50 square feet, but would prefer not to exceed the allowable 42.4 square fcct. Chair Harris noted that there was empty space in the square footage area of thc sign not accounted for. Com. Mahoney said that the colors and size of the sign were acceptable, and noted its unique location. In response to Chair Harris' question, Mr. Wiles said that the sign application was for the site; however, thc Planning Commission could designate thc sign exception for thc specific restaurant sign and not the site. Com. Roberts said that he felt the large sign did not solve thc problem of finding thc entrance to the restaurant, but actually distracted from how to get to the restaurant. Hc noted that if traveling south on DeAnza Boulevard a motorist could not see through the base of the sign and would not know there is a street beyond thc sign. He said that granting an exception did not solve the problem for the business. He said he did not feel the colors were appropriate, and there were not enough details in the design to see how it work out aestheticaily. He said that he was opposed to the application. Planning Commission M/nutes 4 March 10, 1997 Chair Harris said that the purple and rust colors w~re appropriate, but not the yellow color. She said she felt that overall she was not in favor of the colors as tho yellow would be very prominent. She said that she concurred with Corns. Doyle and Roberts that the size was too great; and would be in favor of thc si~n cxceptinn at this site. She said she ~ thc fact that thc base had been reduced; and she felt the calculations should bc done excluding thc triangle that docs not exist. She said she would vote no. Following a brief discussion, Chair Harris said sbe was willing to approve thc application with specified conditions. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 2-ASA-97 including the condition that the approval be for the Sl~Cific sign for the specific applicant and that it not set a precedent for this site for the future, ns shown in Exhibit A2 as presented at tl~ meeting. Com. Mahoney Coms. Doyle and Roberts Passed 3-2-0 PUBLIC I~ARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 1-U-97 and 7-EA-97 Hewlett-Packard Company Southeast comer of Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue Use Permit to construct a 3-story, 304,100 sq. ff. office building and ancillary improvements on an existing office-campus site. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 17, 1997 Staff ore~entation: Ms. Eilecn Murray, Deputy City Attorney, addressed the possible financial conflict of interest relative to the Hewlett-Packard item, as outlined in the attached memo. Corns. Austin and Mahoncy excused themselves from discussion of the application. The video presentation reviewed the application for Hewlett-Packard to construct a three-stury office building at the southwest intersection of Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue, ns outlined in the ~-~bed staff report. Staff recommends a mitigated Negative Declaration on the project and recommending the approval of the Use Permit pending resolution of the amenity square footage. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, reviewed the development agreement, traffic and circulation, parking building beight/sethack relationships, and landscaping, ns summarized in the attached staff report. Relative to the parking, he said staff fecls that applicant's proposal that 1,647 empty parking stalls site-wide would more than compensate for the zoning code parking shortfall, provided that a future parking reserve be included in the event that parking would overflow the site. Staff is comfortable with the building setback to height ratio of 6:1. Mr. Jung discussed the amendments to the resolution, primarily planning conditions: (1) approved exhibits; (2) bicycle parking be provided; (3) notification of housing mitigation fee; (4) notice of fees, dedications; (5) recycling facilities; (6) parking; and (7) landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes ~ March 10, 1997 Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, explained that the two issues were the access driveway off Homestead Road near Peacock, and the left turn pocket at Homestead and Tantau. He recommended two mitigation measures; one to install a diverter at the intersection of Homestead and Peacock to lessen the neighborhood impa~ on Peacock Avenue; and that Hewlett-Packard ~ the left turn pocket at the end towards Homesteexi and Tantau. Mr. Chong answered questions pertaining to level of service at various intersections. In response to Com. Doyle's question about amenity space, Mr. Jung said that the 304,000 square feet was the gross which included the amenity space in the building. Mr. Jung reviewed the conditions of mitigation relating to traffic circulation and parking as outlined on Page 3-10 of the staff report. (1) Install a diverter at the intersection of Homestead and Peacock Avenue; (2) Extend the eastbound left turn bay at Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue-Quail Avenue; (3) Accept the Home,el Road driveway entrance - option B with right mm restrictions on Homestead Road; and (4) Monitor parking conditions upon occupancy of building and require restriping for compact stalls and development of surface parking lot where Building No. 40 was demolished if overflow parking problem develops. Disenssion continued wbemin Mr. Jung answered questions relative to various sections of the staff report, including parking, fees, landscaping and traffic impacts. Com. Roberts said he wished they had more insight into the assumptions made into the models when they are applied to a little local area, but said he recalled fi.om General Plan discussions that Public Works said when it actuaily came to project design the traffic models could not be used because they were not accurate enough; and yet when decisions like this come before the Planning Commission, credence is placed in the traffic model which supposedly is valid only for bigger and broader considerations. He asked staffto comment. Com. Roberts said that relative to Com. Doyle's question, it seems during peak hours there would be 10 to 20 people a minute wanting to make a U mm at the Tent,au Homestead intersection which would likely only delay traffic and the simulations indicate otherwise. Mr. Cbong reported that he conducted an analysis with the impact on Tantau and Homestead and it went from C- to D+ because originally there were 50 cars making a left mm out of the driveway, and they were are now at the intersection to make the U tom, but it was not a significant impact. He said the analysis was done after the Barton-Aschman study and is not reflected in the staff report. Referring to Attachnumt C, Parking Requirements, Chair Harris requested clarification on the true gross and net of the building. Mr. lung explained that the numbers contained in the attachment should not be considered because of the applicant's misunderstanding of what amenity space includes, and he noted that the numbers in the staff report are correct. He said the 301,000 sq. ff. figure was used inst~d~ of the 304,000 figure because the 304,000 figure was boiler rooms, enclosed pedestrian walkway, and equipment storage areas which are ancillary buildings off site and are not typically counted toward the parking requirement. Mr. Rick Phillippe, Ehrlich Rominger Architects, Los Altos, clarified that relative to the parking issue there are a number of things addressed on any site, including the number of people traveling, on vacation, out ill, bicycle to work, carpooling, public transportation, so that actual employee count and parking stall count is different. He said that studies were done at three different times of year, when the Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 10, 1997 number of spots available were counted and it was found that there were a significant amount of spaces left over. He pointed out that as architects, they try to kccp more landscaping rather than paving. Mr. Bill Roberts, Hewlett-Packard, said that ex*amsive surveys for commute patterns were done and it was found that 25 percent of employees used commute alternatives. Referring to the ovcrbeads, a discussion ensued rcgarding curt cuts. Mr. Jung said that one of the purposes of having a new curt cut on Homestead Road was to simplify the truck circulation for Building No. 45. Hc said it would also give thc employees of building No. 45 an entrance closer to thc building and provide different entries and cxits fi.om thc campus sitc. Mr. Roberts said that Hewlett-Packard's standpoint, it was a safety issue to give the trucks a dcdicated path for travel to minimize the interchange with pedestrian traffic. Discussion continued regarding the square footage of the various buildings on the Hewlett-Packard campus, wherein thc applicant answered Commissioners' questions. Mr. Jung said that the applicant's future development plans included possible demolition and replacement of Building No. 41. Mr. Don Stcbbins, Hewlctt-Packard, said that the ncw facility would accommodate 4900 employees and less parking spaces would be nccded because approximately 70% of the employees bring their car each day. It was noted that thc site could accommodate what was required by the codc or beyond, but that the site has not utilized that much parking. Mr. John Pihl, Hewlett Packard, responded to earlier questions. He said that the Hewlett-Packard property was gated at night and entrance was through a security ~onte, mallued by a security guard. He pointed out that the employees are on flexible hours and would redistribute themselves in the parking on the site and would do so to avoid congestion in traffic patterns that may or may not exist around the site. Relative to thc backup and the number of people that might turn l~ft at Tantau off Homestead, they felt that the prior exits on Homestead would allow them to turn left rather than go all the way to Tantau and ~ a U-turn. Mr. Stebbius refem:d to tim drawings of the Hewlett-Packard campus and discussed the proposed Building No. 45 and its relationship to the other buildings on the campus. Mr. Wemer Crans, 1015 Lanank Court, Sunnyvale, said that be has lived in Sunnyvale for 38 years and Hcwlctt-Packard has been a good neighbor for the 30+ years it has been on thc site. He expressed concern that the new building would be the tallest buildin~ on the campus and would be most visible to Homc~?~d Road. He recommendcd an alternative of making cach building 20 feet wider and 20 feet longer, make the building closest to Home~'ontl a two-story building and the building in the back stay a three-story building, with a to~al square fcotagc of 300,000. He suggested that the new entrance be a trucks-only cntrance to eliminate the concerns about left tums at Tantau. He suggested that the trees proposed for the Homestead and Tantau to be planted as a screen be a 48 inch box so that they could act as a screen as soon as possible. Hc said that an additional study may be required rclative to thc impact of thc parking on thc neighboring homes. Hc asked that funds bc kcpt in escrow in thc cvent problcms occur rclative to a cut through in the Sunnyvale neighborhood. Mr. Gannes requested that a stipulation be made that no construction vehicles be allowed on Quail Avenue. Mr. Effiong Ibok, 1005 E. Home~l Road, Sunnyvale, expressed concem about the visual impacts of the large building on the neighboring residents. He said he resided at the intersection of Peacock and Planning Commission Minutes ? March 10, 1997 Honu~stead. He said that the reasons for another curb cut were not valid in his view. He suggested Hewlett -Packard find an alternative to opening another gate. Com. Roberts questioned whether cars exiting out of Hewlett-Packard at the cuts farther to the west would be able to make lett turns onto Peacock. Mr. Jung said that it was possible, and that it could be currently don~ as there was no raised m~ian on Home~_~a Road. He said the diverter would solve the problean at the particular cut, but not from the others. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Chair Harris summarized the issues: approve project/building; caveat for amenity space; parking adequacy; Homestead setback; traffic; landscaping; development potential and mitigations/conditions. Com. Doyle expressed concern that originally the development agreement was to protect Hewlett- Packard and the City, and part of that proposal was a dispersion oftbe density across the site to give flexibility and some remodeling to oceur; and now what has happened is that it is showing up in one corner of the site; and is this a precursor to a much higher development on this site over a long period of time, or would it actually going to limit Hewlett-Packard's flexibility over the next twenty years. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, said that the agreement locked in the existing plan ns it existed in 1995, and if there are subsequent General Plan changes they could be accommodated. The idea of concentrating space on this one comer means that there is additional flexibility for Hewlett-Packard for potential extra development. Com. Roberts said that his original concern with the development agreement was the assignability of the development agreement and be was pleased to see Hewlett-Packard coming forth with the proposal to implement tho agreement themselves. He said he was in favor of putting a maximum on the amenity space. He said it was in Hewlett-Packard's best interest to contain the parking within the site and serve its employees; the proposed parking was presently acceptable; however, additional parking would probably have to be supplied in the fature. He said that the Homestead setback was adequate. Com. Roberts expressed concern about U'aific nmnagement along Homestead and said that the level of service should be addressed. Relative to the traffic turning on Peacock, he said that designing a diverter to prevent the let~ tums would be appropriate. Mr. Jung noted that installation of a diverter would also prevent residents from entering Peacock as well. Com. Roberts said he felt that the residents should have input to the best solution. Relative to landscaping, Com. Roberts recommended a more detailed landscaping plan, with the spociiieafion for 36 inch box trees. He said that the curb cut would be appropriate, but expressed concern with the adequacy of the lef~ turn pocket at Tantau and Homestead, noting that there should be a contingency plan for backup traffic onto Homestead, which creates a safety problem. Com. Roberts said that he was in favor of the application with some minor modifications. Com. Doyle expressed concern with the overall development, noting the boxiness of the walls, with vertical visible mass. He said that the amenity space was appropriate; parking restriping appropriate; keep the surface lot green if possible. He said the Hom~_e~d setbacks were appropriate; Tantau setbacks were not appropriate and he felt the existing standards of setbacks should remain on that side. Relative to the traffic issue, the new driveway was appropriate, Option B with the diverter and extension of the U-turn bay; Quail should remain as is; the main exit should be out through Tantau as it is today. Relative to landscaping, the larger trees are more appropriate as suggested by Com. Roberts. The mitigations/conditions - the only thing here that is not specific to this proposal but it is in Commission Minutes ! March 10, 1997 a class B floodplain or som~hing, one foot of standing water and we are add/ng a lot of pavement in these areas, and I don't know whether w~ are causing a review of that area that may cause some long term issues. Mr. Jung explained that like most of Cupertino, the area is in a flood zone B wkich is areas designated between 100 and a 500 year flood or flooding up to a foot of water. Mr. Cowan said that stuff is concerned with the flood zone in a one percent event, or the one hundred year flood. He said that it would be a very rare occurrence. Chair Harris said that she was in favor of thc project, noting that the architecture and design fit well with neighboring bui]din? She suggested that the amenity space be defined as it is presently too vague. She said she felt approval would be appropriate with thc issue of amenity space being returned with a clearer definition of what is included in amenity space. Chair I-lards said she felt the 122 parking spaces should be ~ddod, and said she did not favor restriping to compact spaces. She said that setbacks were appropriate; she was ant in favor of the new curb cut as it was dangerOUS and inappropriate, especially for trucks. She said she was also not in favor of a diverter. Chair Harris suggested that thc east bound lef~ turn land bay be enlarged by 20 feet. She said that there would be an impact from the building as it was well over 300,000 square feet, but the impact belonged on the site, utilizing flex times to mitigate the impact. Relative to the neighborhood traffic, she said that if she were a resident on Peacock she would not want to be restricted from turning left into her neighborhood, but that the cars from Hewlett-Packard be restricted from the neighborhood if a curb cut was installed there. She said that if a curb cut was installe~ she was in favor of the diverter but not in favor of making no left turn into the neighborhood for res/dents. She questioned how the Planning Commission could restrict the traffic on Quail as it is located in Sunnyvale. Chak Harris said that the ? conditions submitted at the meeting were acceptable. She recommended 36 inch box trees for the landscapinE, and noted that it was not necessary W have the landscaping p~sented again, but would agree if there was consensus to have thc landscaping ~urn with thc amenities. Relative to the development potential, she said that the three story building fits in with thc community and would open thc site for development in the future. Com. Doyle said that he was opposed to the project because he would not vote for something he could not review or understand. He said be would like to have the proposal returned with more view of the Tantau side. Mr. Cowun explained that in terms of the ac_~3~l master plan, it states that the example master plan shown by Mr. Jung is intended to demonstrate only one possible option for development, and is not intended to bind the owner or City to present or approve a specific master plan. He pointed out that the overall square footage was locked in, which are the land use policies based upon the General Plan in effect the date of option, November 1995. Another section of the agreement states that the City cannot have a General Plan that decreases the potential development, but is silent on the issue of increase, that is if the General Plan gets amended to allow more square footage, they have to amend the agreement to take advantage of that. Com. Doyle continued his remarks, stating that it is a precedent with a much taller building closer than in the past. He said that all remaining issues were workable. He expressed concern about setting a precedent for the future. Com. Roberts said that be concurred with Com. Doyle that there should be a clear view of what is - being approved, which is not the case on the amenity case, the view from Tantau, nor the landscaping. Plantain8 Commission Minutes 9 March 10, 1997 MOTION: Com. Roberts moved to approve the resolution incorporating the findings of the Environmental Review Comr~ including tbe 7 conditions and the modification to the $2420-per acre fee; incorporating the new cut with the diverter structure; the enlargement of the left mm bay along Home~'_e~d at Tantau, as recommended; use of 36 inch box trees; the Homestead Road ckiveway entrance; and monitoring the parking conditions requiring changes if necessary. The detailed landscape plan, definition and bracketing of amenity space, to be returned; and further architectural approval oftbe west facade. Mr. Cowan clarified that the mitigations in the environmental statement were incorporated in thc conditions. Chair Harris summarized that thc motion included the landscape plan, the amenity space definitions, subject to approval, and thc architectural on thc Tantau side. SECOND: Chair Harris NOES: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 2-1-0 Mr. Jung clarified that the item would be forwarded to the City Council on April 7, 1997. Chair Harris declared a re~ss at 10:15 p.m. Upon reconvening at 10:25 p.m., Coma. Austin and M~oney returned. Application No.(s): Applicant: 6-GPA-97 and 10-EA-97 City of Cul~rtino ci de General Plan Amendment to delete the requirement to develop residential development at the upper limit of the dwellinE unit density range (Policy 2-13, Strategy 2; Policy 3-1). ENVIKONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 21, 1997 Stafforesentation: Ms. Vcra Gil, Planner II, reviewed thc revisions to the language of the General Plan Amendment as outlined in the attached Exhibits A and B of the staff report. In response to Chair Harris' question about Policy 3.1: Housing Potential, Ms. Gil said that tho language would be removed a~r City Council approval. Chair Harris suggested that the language "subdivisions and" be removed from No. 3 of Policy 2-13. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. There was no one who wished to speak. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahon~ moved to approve Application No. 6-GPA-97 in accordance with the model resolution with the removal of the language in Policy 2-13 as discussed. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Maboncy moved to grant the Negative Declaration on 10-EA-97 Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Min,,tes l0 March 10, 1997 OLD BUSINESS Report to Council: Application No.: Applicant: Location: 10-TM-96 and 38-EA-96 Lands of Tressler 22110 McClellan Road T~ntafive Map to subdivide a 2.49 acre parcel into 8 lots. TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 17, 1997 Staff oreseatation: Mi'. Cowall explained that the application was being presented for the Planning Commission's recomreev,q-tlon to the City Council on the reduction of lots from 9 to 8. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby, civil eagin~r, explained that there was no longer a need for the concrete wall. Following a brief discussion, wherein Mr. Kirkeby answered questions, there was conseasus to r~vord the condition language to read: "Concrete retaining wall shall be imtalled where the grade difference is 12 inches or greater on the project's common boundary with the adjacent residenl~al property." In response to Com. Doyle's question about tree protection along the property frontage, Mr. Kirkeby explained that the pine trees were in the natural slope area beyond the retaining wall. Mr. Kirkeby discussed the addendum to the arborist's report relative to the recommendation to remove the deodora cedar tree. There was consensus to ~,4tl the language "if any of the trees, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 12 are removed, 24 inch box replacements shall be provided." Mr. Kirkeby addressed the issue of the scenic easement. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus that the scenic easement remain as is. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 38-EA-96 Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 10-TM-96 with tree changes and concrete wall recommended changes. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 NEW BUSINESS 7. Selection of Environmental Review Committee representative. Chair Harris noted that Com. Ma_honey would serve on the committee, with backup available when he was unable to attend meetings. Planning Commission Minutes 11 March 10, 1997 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to reCOmmend that Com. Mahoney serve on the Environmental R~view Committee Com. Roberts Passed 5-0-0 Chair Harris discussed Section 2.84.010 relative to the At-Large member being a non-voting member of the committee, and noted that the position was appointed by the committee chairperson. She suggested that the City Council appoint the At-Large member and that the member be a voting member of the committee. Relative to Section 2.84.030, Chair Harris said that the present practice is that the Councilperson serves as the Chair of the committee and the Planning Commissioner serves as the Vice Chair. She recommended that the City Council review the section and make a decision relative to holding elections or continuing the present practice, and amend Section 2.84.030. She also suggested that Section 2.84.040 be updated to ~flect the number of monthly meetings to be held. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to recommend that a minute order be forwarded to the City Council to review con'eat practices against stated requirements relative to the Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan repot*.~l that he met earlier in the evening with the representatives from the Westlynn neighborbe~t and the Home Depot representatives to attempt to reconcile some differences to report to at a third m~tiag at San Jose City Hall on March 19. He said that an attempt will be made to put together a revised plan, although Home Depot is concerned about store operations. There was a brief discussion regarding the March 24 Planning Commission agenda. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Plmming Commission on March 24, 1997 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Minutes Approved as Presented: March 24, 1997