Loading...
PC Min 11/28/1995CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY NOVEMBER 28, 1995 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of November 28, 1995, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chairwoman: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Jane Meyer-Kennedy Mel Lindstrom I. Alne Brad Jones Susan A. Kearns Dennis Lowe Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Planner I: Planner I: Planning Assistant: City Attorney: Acting City Engineer: Reporting Secretary: Steve Piasecki Darryl M. Jones Barbara Schoetz Ryan Aki Honda Kristi Ashburn William Seligmann Michelle Quinney Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission minutes of November 14, 1995, were approved. (6-0) Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 1995 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS 1. Revised Findings and Conditions of Approval for Agenda Item No. 1. Copy of C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning Ordinance for reference on Agenda Item No. 2. 3. Two diagrams relating to Agenda Item No. 3. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS Community Development Director Steve Piasecki advised the Commission that the applicant for Agenda Item No. 1 has requested that his item be considered at the end of the agenda. ORAL REOUESTS: There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy read Agenda Item No. 2 (Agenda Item No. I will be heard at the end of the agenda) into the record. 2. UP 95-19 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Wayne Renshaw, on behalf of David Takamoto Associates, for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for retail automotive sales on property located at 2931 S. Winchester Boulevard in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Ms. · · · · Kristi Ashburn, Planning Assistant, presented the staff report as follows: Applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow auto sales. Site is zoned C-2-S (General Commercial) which allows retail auto use. Proposed use is consistent with the General Plan Designation. Applicant will utilize an existing 7,100 square foot building for the resale and refinance of automobiles to other auto dealers. Use will include temporary storage of vehicles behind the rear of the building and within the building. Business will be conducted during standard business hours, from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. At a future date, the applicant is proposing to lease out half of the building for commercial uses as allowed under the C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Project includes exterior improvements and the addition of overhead doors which will allow the applicant to bring automobiles into and through the building to parking spaces at the rear and within the building. Building will receive new stucco work at the front. Use requires two parking spaces to accommodate proposed employees for Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 1995 Page 3 initial use. When 3,350 square feet of space is leased out in the future for a second use, 17 additional spaces will be required at a parking ratio of 1 space for every 200 square feet of retail space. Applicant is proposing additional landscaping and will comply with the Streetscape Standards for Winchester Boulevard. Signage is not proposed as part of this approval. Applicant will work out signage needs with staff. The Site and Architectural Review Committee discussed this project at its meeting held November 17th and was supportive. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. David Takamoto, David Takamoto Associates: · He has no problems with the conditions. Had questioned Condition of Approval No. 4 which calls for the installation of a street light. Wanted to have staff provide him with an estimate of the anticipated cost to install such a street light. Ms. Michelle Quinney, Acting City Engineer, replied that the Public Works Department usually asks for a bond in an amount between $1,500 and $2,000 per light. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission moved to close the Public Hearing (6-0). MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Alne, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3011 approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow retail automobile sales on property located at 2931 S. Winchester Boulevard, by the following roll-call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Alne, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy None None None This approval is effective in 10 days unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record. Planning Commission Minutes o£ November 28, 1995 Page 4 3. E 95-07 Public Hearing to consider the application of Gary and Tracey Govola for approval of a fence exception to allow an 10 foot, 9 inch rear yard fence on property located at 796 Gwen Drive in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Ms. Aki Honda, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: Applicant is seeking approval to add 4 feet, 2 inches to an existing 6 foot, 7 inch rear yard fence. The fence is already in place and a Code Enforcement complaint brought the illegal fence to the attention of City staff. Applicant is seeking additional privacy. The Site and Architectural Review Committee recommended a maximum height of 8 feet from the lowest finished grade (located on the Loyalton Drive side behind the applicant's home). Staff recommends allowing the applicant an 8 foot fence from his finished grade which is higher than the Loyalton Drive side. Commissioner Lindstrom asked which property had the lower grade level, the Loyalton side or the Gwen side. Commissioner Alne asked for clarification as to whether staff was recommending allowing the applicant to install a 6 foot fence from the deck level. Ms. Aki Honda responded that staff was suggesting that the applicant be allowed to install an 8 foot fence from the finished grade of the applicant's property. Commissioner Alne asked what the Ordinance required. Ms. Aki Honda responded that the Ordinance calls for a measurement from the highest finished grade. Commissioner Alne asked what the applicant's reason was for requiring such a tall fence. Ms. Aki Honda responded that the applicant is seeking additional privacy. Commissioner Alne asked what specific privacy needs the applicant had. Ms. Aki Honda responded that the house to the rear of the applicant's was a two- story structure. Commissioner Alne asked if the Ordinance had a provision for higher fences simply due to the fact that the rear neighboring house was a two-story structure. Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 1995 Page 5 Ms. Aki Honda answered that the Ordinance did not have a provision in such a situation. Commissioner Lowe sought clarification in that it appears that the drawings also depict an extra 6 feet in length of the taller height fence at the side yard in addition to the rear yard fence. Ms. Aki Honda advised that the applicant is seeking to make a distance of 6 feet of the side fence as high as the rear fence. Commissioner Kearns presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC was not aware of the two foot retaining wall on Loyalton which makes such a difference in the finished grade and therefore defers a recommendation to the wishes of the Planning Commission. With the information provided to SARC, the members of the Committee were willing to support a maximum height of 8 feet but the retaining wall changes that fact. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy asked whether SARC would like an opportunity to reconsider. Commissioner Lindstrom suggested that the Commission could best decided this matter. He added that SARC did not have enough information. The fence, however, has already been installed and came to the attention of the City as a Code Enforcement complaint. SARC seemed inclined to find the current height too tall and felt that it should be reduced a bit. As is, this fence is still too high to be convenient to the neighbors. Ms. Aki Honda advised the Commission that the difference between the height of the retaining wall on the Loyalton properties and the height of the finished grade on the Gwen property is two inches. Commissioner Alne advised that the Ordinance is clear that 6 feet above grade is adequate required to provide an adequate level of privacy. It is reasonable to allow a bit extra to account for the deck height. The applicant has the right to a fence that is 6 feet above the deck height and no more. Applicant has not demonstrated a reason to allow a higher fence than that. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy advised that she agreed with Commissioner Alne's assessment. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 1995 Page 6 Mr. Gary Govola, applicant, 796 Gwen Drive: · The house directly behind his is a two-story structure. · The windows of this rear neighboring house looks directly into his two bathroom windows. · Advised that he is not trying to break City codes nor obstruct views. · Stated that he had obtained the consent of his neighbors. · Informed that he has spent $7,000 in constructing his new fence. · Advised that while he had paid $275,000 for his home, a recent appraisal gives a value of $245,000 despite his additional spending of $30,000 in improvements. The appraiser informed him that one detriment is the lack of privacy on the property. · Suggested that he would be willing to reduce the fence height to 9 feet. · Also advised that the neighbors who are against his fence never made their feelings known to him or he would have tried to work with them to come up with a reasonable solution. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy asked for clarification as to whether Mr. Govola would be satisfied with a 9 foot fence. Mr. Gary Govola replied that a 9 foot fence would allow his privacy for his bathrooms. Ask advised that he had assumed most of the cost for this fence. Commissioner Alne suggested that it was not logical to allow such a high fence simply because a neighboring home was two-story. City is generally supportive of the planting of trees to create a natural screening. Unfortunately, Mr. Govola spent $7,000 on a fence instead of planting trees that are pretty universally accepted. Commissioner Kearns sought clarification that variances in fence height are allowed. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, responded that the City has approved exceptions to the Ordinance allowing 8 foot fences in the past. Mr. Gary Govola advised that he could plant trees which would ruin views for his neighbors. Commissioner Alne added that his fence could also impact future buyers of property in the immediate vicinity, however, he stated it appears that most of the surrounding neighbors support the fence. Mr. Gary Govola advised that the rear neighbors are renters but that he could obtain a signed letter of support from the actual property owner. Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 1995 Page 7 Mr. Brent Martin, 783 Loyalton Drive, addressed the Commission: · Stated how he regrets meeting Mr. Govola in such a manner. · Advised that his home has frosted glass in the bathroom windows to ensure privacy. · Informed how he came home one day to find this fence already in place. · Admitted that the fence is well built and attractive and that he would use the same contractor for his own fence. · Suggested that Mr. Govola's finished grade level has been artificially enhanced due to the addition of a deck. · Informed that he had purchased his own lot specifically because of the lower grade which automatically creates an 8.5 foot fence height. · Advised that he had studied the City's previous record in approving fence exceptions and found little consistency. Mentioned specifically the request for a 6-foot front yard fence for safety concerns of a property owner whose home was fronted by a bus stop. This homeowner was limited to a 4 foot fence. Commissioner Alne advised Mr. Martin that that particular applicant had actually been granted a fence height 6 inches higher than allowed under the City Ordinance. The difference in that case from Mr. Govola's is the fact that Mr. Govola's fence is in the rear yard. Commissioner Lowe gave credit to Mr. Govola for his apparent pride in his property. Stated that he would support staff's recommendation. Mr. Gary Govola advised that his was not the only house in the area with a tall fence. Advised that planting trees for privacy is not in his best interests. Since this fence is in the rear year, it is not widely visible. Surrounding property owners were provided with cost estimates for the fence installation, however, he paid most of the cost. Commissioner Lowe asked whether the applicant was aware of City requirements when he installed his fence. Mr. Gary Govola responded that he was not. He felt that he had done all necessary simply by obtaining consent from his adjacent neighbors. His home has been in place for 27 years. Commissioner Alne advised that a legally interested neighbor's objection should be respected. A fence that is 6 feet above the deck is the most that the applicant could expect. The property owner should have taken privacy issues into consideration when selecting to purchase this home. Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 1995 Page 8 Community Development Director Steve Piasecki clarified three options currently under consideration: 1. Take Commissioner Alne's suggestion to allow a 6 foot, 7 inch fence. 2. Adopt staff's recommendation to allow an 8 foot fence (from grade). o Approve the applicant's request for a fence that is 9 feet high or I foot higher than that proposed by staff. From the Loyalton side, this fence will be 10 feet, 4 inches tall. Commissioner Lindstrom asked for clarification that this fence came to the attention of the City as a Code Enforcement complaint. Ms. Aki Honda replied that was correct. Commissioner Lindstrom asked why a letter against the fence was not incorporated in the staff report. Ms. Aki Honda replied that obtaining letters of support was a step undertaken by the applicant as part of the application process. Commissioner Alne clarified that one neighbor objects to the fence, one neighbor was never heard from and two support the fence. Commissioner Alne made a motion to apply the City Ordinance and limit the fence to 6 feet above the highest finished grade. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission moved to approve a fence exception and adopt staff recommendation to allow an 8 foot fence from the highest finished grade on property located at 796 Gwen Drive in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District, by the following roll-call vote: Commissioner Lindstrom wished to make a few points prior to the roll call vote: · The Commission spent more time and money than should have been necessary since no permit was obtained in advance of installing this fence. · The Commission must take the action it is taking because the City as a whole must be considered. · Expressed regret that money was spent in advance and the fence built without permits. · Stated that neighbors must work together whenever possible. Planninl~ Commission Minutes of November 28, 1995 Pa~e 9 Commissioner Alne stated again his belief that the applicant has not made a reasonable case to allow a higher fence and the objection of the neighbor should be taken into account. The simple fact that the rear neighboring house is a two-story is not enough cause to build exceedingly high fences. To approve this exception is to gut the Ordinance and will prove troublesome in the future. Commissioner Jones announced his agreement with Commissioner Alne. The property owner already benefits from additional privacy due to the difference in the grade level of the properties. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy Alne, Jones None None Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised the audience that this matter may be appealed within 10 calendar days. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy read Agenda Item No. 4 into the record. 4. S 95-38 Public Hearing to consider the application of Laurie Doss, on behalf of LZ Premiums, for approval of an exception to the Sign Ordinance to allow the reuse of an existing non- conforming sign on property located at 241 E. Campbell Avenue in a C-3-S (Central Business District). Ms. Barbara Ryan, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · This project is exempt from environmental review. · The site is the former Jeffers Men's Store building located in downtown Campbell. · Applicant is seeking approval to reuse the non-conforming sign. The sign does not conform for three reasons: 1. It is located above the parapet. 2. It exceeds the allowable square footage. 3. The sign is a projecting sign rather than a wall sign. · The applicants have recently purchased the building to house their discount home electronics business which for 17 years was operated out of San Jose on Saratoga Avenue. · The sign is needed to make their business more visible. · Proposed color scheme is teal, white and chrome. · Sign will be illuminated with white and teal neon. · Findings that must be made to support the continued use of a non- Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 1995 Page 10 conforming sign include: 1. The use is not adequately identified. 2. The site is difficult to located. 3. The use is of such a size or so located that a larger sign will best serve the community. Staff is able to make Finding No. 1 -- The use is not adequately identified. Based upon this finding, staff can recommend approval of the continued use of the non-conforming sign. Commissioner Lower asked whether there was any historical significance to the sign. Ms. Barbara Ryan responded that the sign had no historical value but was simply a 1950's era sign. Commissioner Kearns presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC was supportive of this sign request. Commissioner Alne advised that a legal non-conforming sign was considered grandfathered. Under the Sign Ordinance such a sign lives out until a new use comes in whereby the new use requires a sign that conforms with current standards. Murphy's Tavern was recently before the Commission after the grandfathered sign was refaced without approvals and therefore became illegal. Questioned why the Planning Commission can support this change when it did not support Murphy's sign. Commissioner Lindstrom advised that each sign is considered on its own merit based upon location and the sign itself. Advised that he had actually supported the continued use of the Murphy's Tavern sign as did SARC. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, advised that staff must look at required findings provided in the Ordinance to support the continued use of a non-conforming sign. Murphy's Tavern sign did not meet any required findings. Commissioner Lowe asked if the canopy was self imposed. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, advised that the canopy was existing when the applicants purchased the building. Ms. Barbara Ryan informed the Commission that the square footage of the LZ Premiums sign is 35 which is permitted while the square footage of Murphy's sign was larger than permitted under the Sign Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 1995 Page 11 Ms. Laurie Doss, Applicant: · Her customers are finding it difficult to locate her new building, particularly when coming from Bascom Avenue. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Kearns, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission approved SA 95-38 to allow the reuse by LZ Premiums of an existing non-conforming sign on property located at 241 E. Campbell Avenue, by the following roll- call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Alne, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy None None None This approval is effective in 10 days unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. S 95-13 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Wesley Fieldhouse, on behalf of Staples, Inc., for a Site and Architectural to allow modification to an existing building located at 500 E. Hamilton Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Ms. Aki Honda, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Applicant is seeking to place an office superstOre at this location with 20,000 square feet of retail space. · Project includes tenant improvements and exterior improvements. · Both the General Plan and the Zoning are Commercial and consistent with this proposed use. · Surrounding uses are Home Depot (west); Shell Oil Service Station (east); Breuners (north) and an office building (south). · Staff has met numerous times with the applicant's architect and received the latest plans on Tuesday. · Staff recommendations include: 1. Larger entrance. 2. Cornice features on freestanding sign. 3. Building design. Initial plans had the loading door on the east (visible from Hamilton Avenue). Staff has convinced the applicant to move the loading door to the back. In addition, the applicant has agreed to add Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 1995 Page 12 more glass to the front of the store to create a more storefront appearance. Main concerns at this time are traffic. The driveway from Hamilton will be used solely to enter the site. The City's Traffic Engineer has estimated that vehicle trips p.m. Peak hour will increase by 29 from 53 vehicle trips to 82. Traffic mitigation measures have been outlined by City staff. Applicant is to participate in cost sharing of the Salmar widening at a cost of $11,260. Staff was still working out Conditions of Approval this afternoon and new Conditions have been distributed at this beginning of this evening's meeting. Many of the new Conditions are from Public Works and related to traffic and circulation concerns. The plans are still lacking some required information and the applicant must correct the property lines, show the easements and driveways and include the streetscape standard requirements. Most of the Conditions of Approval outlined for this project are standard. Based upon the SARC review of this project on November 17th, the applicant: 1. Must remove the color bands proposed to be painted along the walls. 2. Must enhance the windows and columns. 3. Must make the architectural details of the sign consistent with the details on the building. Staff recommends that the Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt a Resolution incorporating the revised Findings and Conditions of Approval. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy asked whether the SARC requirements have been addressed. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, added that the Conditions of Approval are administrative and standard. Commissioner Lowe announced that he was excited about the project and found it to be a good project. However, he expressed concerns about adding traffic to Salmar particularly left turns. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy added her concerns. Commissioner Kearns presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC was supportive of this project with the following conditions: 1. Remove the painted red band around the building. 2. Use window glass that is not reflective. 3. Enhance the columns. 4. Sign on Hamilton Avenue to be architecturally compatible with the Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 1995 Page 13 building. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Carl F. Robertson, Applicant's representative. · Thanked staff for expediting their application as they are trying to complete everything by January to finalize the lease. · Site has a lot of challenges. · Has received late feedback from corporate office. · Some Conditions of Approval are new. · Questioned the need to begin construction within one year from date of approval. · Requested approval of the application as recommended by staff. · Would like opportunity to work with staff on Conditions and may appeal some imposed Conditions of Approval. · Announced that it is their intent/desire to receive approval of their project but that there are details yet to be determined by their corporate office. City Attorney William Seligmann advised Mr. Robertson that absent an appeal to City Council within 10 days of a Planning Commission approval, the applicant must comply with all approved Conditions of Approval. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, advised the applicant that they would have the option not to build their project. Also stated that City staff worked to accommodate the applicant's rushed schedule. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy suggested a continuance. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, advised that the applicant was asking for approval. Commissioner Lowe announced that he was concerned about the amount that is still up in the air on this project. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, again advised that the applicant would have the option to appeal within 10 days. Commissioner Lowe suggested that it would be best to table this item to the next meeting. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, suggested that that option was in place, however, the applicant has tight deadlines. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy asked what staff recommended. Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 1995 Page 14 Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, recommended that the Commission approve the project with the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Lowe asked if additional fees would be imposed if the applicant makes major changes in their project. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, responded that additional fees would be imposed if the applicant proposes a whole new site plan. It appears that the applicants want to attempt to obtain approval of their original plan which staff did not support initially and would not support at this time. Commissioner Alne suggested that the applicant did not understand what an appeal means in this situation. Mr. Carl Robertson asked if they would be forced to perform. Commissioner Alne responded that either the project gets built under the approved site plan and with the approved Conditions of Approval or it does not get built at all. Mr. Carl Robertson stated that he found some of the Conditions unreasonable. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, again stated that the applicants could follow through on their approval or not. Later they have the option to refile a new plan with additional fees. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy expressed concern that the applicant does not appear to have the support of its own corporate offices. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, suggested that the project be continued for two weeks, to the meeting of December 12, 1995, in order to clarify the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Lindstrom sought clarification that these clarifications would not include a new site plan. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, advised that the applicants would be limited in changes. No substantial change can be considered on such short notice as the plans would again need to be circulated and reviewed by all appropriate City Departments. Mr. Carl Robertson asked whether only one meeting remained for the year. Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 1995 Page 15 Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, replied yes, the meeting of December 12, 1995, is the last of the year. Commissioner Alne reiterated that there are limitations and that review cannot be done in too short a time. No substantial changes can be considered within the next two weeks. Mr. Carl Robertson advised that he had concerns over costs of the traffic mitigation measures. He is not in a position to accept the Conditions of Approval. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, again recommended continuance. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Alne, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to continue the Public Hearing to the meeting 0f December 12,1995 (6-0). REPORT OF THE (2OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director was accepted as presented with no additions. Commissioner Lindstrom asked about the appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying a Use Permit to allow beer and wine sales in conjunction with an existing service station. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, advised that the Council overturned the Commission's decision due to other such uses having been approved. This application will be reviewed in six months. He added that the Pruneyard appeal for the freeway-oriented sign was denied. Commissioner Lindstrom inquired about the upcoming application for Gold's Gym. Mr. Darryl Jones advised that the previous approval has expired. A different applicant is seeking approval to establish a similar use at the site. Commissioner Lowe, in reviewing the copy of the C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning Ordinance, inquired whether on Page 2, Item 2, "games of skill" could be interpreted as gambling. Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 1995 Page 16 City Attorney William Seligmann responded that it would require a vote of the electorate to allow any gambling in Campbell. Mr. Darryl Jones advised the Commission that two members need to be appointed to the Selection Committee in order to select the Architectural Advisor and Landscape Advisor for 1996. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy appointed Commissioners Lindstrom and Kearns. Mr. Darryl Jones inquired whether Friday would continue to work out for SARC meetings. Both Commissioners Lindstrom and Kearns advised that Friday at 9:30 a.m. was working for them. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, advised the Commission that at the December 12, 1995, meeting the election of 1996 Chair and Vice Chair would need to take place. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Department, added that staff was recommending that the second meeting in December, December 26th, be agendized to be cancelled at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. to the next Planning Commission meeting of December 12, 1995, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. APPROVED BY:ATTEST: ~ Steve'"Piasecki, Secretary