Loading...
PC 12-10-01CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torr¢ Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 10, 2001 SALUTETOTHEFLAG ROLLCALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Patnoe, Chairperson Corr Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; C iddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner; Peter Gilli, Associate Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Minutes of the November 13, 2001 Planning Commission meeting MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Patnoe moved to approve the November 13, 2001 Planning Conunission meeting minutes as presented Com. Auerbach Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: CONSENT CALENDAR: None Nolle PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: 01-MCA-01 City of Cupertino Citywide Municipal Code amendment to define what constitutes a second living unit. Continued from Planning Commission meeting qf November 26, 2001 Staff presentation: Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, reviewed the backgrotmd of the application for consideration of a Municipal Code amendment to define what constitutes a second living unit, as discussed at the November 26, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, and outlined in the attached staff report. She reviewed the modifications presented, Planning Commissioners' concerns, staff recommendations, changes to proposed modifications, and definitions as outlined in the attached staff report. Plannin Commission Minutes z Occcml cr lO. 2001 Ms. Shrivastava reviewed the modifications suggested to define kitchen; wetbar (definition recommended to be excluded); rename habitable space as living space; new definition For secondary dwelling unit consistent with the government code; the deletion of the definition of accessory dwelling and guest cottage; eliminate the limit on plumbing fixtures; and propose that accessory buildings with living space conform to the second dwelling unit ordinance. Staff feels that including basements in the FAR calculations are necessary ill order to maintain the consistency with the secondary dwelling unit ordinance as basements may be added to detached second units. Recommended modifications were outlined in the attached staff report. Ms. Shrivastava reviewed the proposed process: (1) Projects that meet all ordinance regulations will not require a building permit; (2) Applicants who propose detached accessory buildings with living space will need to comply with Chapter 19.84 Secondary Dwelliug Units; and (3) Applicants who propose detached accessory buildings ill excess of 640 square feet (excluding garage space) would be required to apply for a variance as per Chapter 19.124. She snmmarizcd that staff feels the modifications would clarify the ordinance without being too restrictive; tile definitions do not conflict with tile UBC as was one of the concerns; aud it would ensure that accessory buildings could later be converted into second units and conform to tile ordinance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission request the City Couucil authorize the modifications proposed based on the model ordinance attached. Com. Patnoe said that based on the definition of "kitchen," a cooking appliauce could mcan a microwave oven, and based on that definition, a counter with a mini fridge and a microwave could technically be a kitchen. However, there is no running water and no stove or any way to prepare food. Ms. Shrivastava said that they are sometimes faced with such a sitnation, and that is thc reason the definition for wet bar was included, differentiating it from a kitchen. Some cities have used the word "stove" instead of "cooking appliance" which would eliminate a microwave or a toaster oven. She said it was possible to replace "cooking appliance". Com. Auerbach asked for clarification on an earlier discussion about tile use o1' "and" and '~or~' wherein be had proposed that living space be defined as a habitable space and sanitation. Ms. Shrivastava said that the issue had been discussed since Conl. Auerbach felt that in thc definition of living space, a garage bathroom could be considered living space; and he was concerned and wanted to make sure that any bathroom would have to be combined with the living, sleeping, eating or cooking in order to be defined as living space. She said that "habitable space" and "sanitation" could be used. Com. Auerbacb said he preferred to use the term "habitable space" since it was a nationwide definition; and for consistency, add "aud sanitation" making it "living space and sanitation", or "sleeping space and sanitation," or "eating space aud sanitation," or "cooking space and sanitation". Therefore if someone wanted to create just a pool shower room beside a pool, they would not be constructing living space; it would not fall under thc secondary dwelling unit ordinance. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input; there was ilo one present who wished to spcak. Com. Auerbach read a statement relative to secondary dwelling units. He thanked Chair and fellow commissioners for continuing the item and Ms. Shrivastava and Ms. Wordell for the extra time they spent in reviewing the item. He said be did not like tile formnlation of this measure when it was considered previously; the items are received shortly before their deliberations. I lc said he was suspicious that he would not like its construction and with thepassage of time and the Pl nninl Commigsion Minutes December 10, ZOO1 ability to look into it further, he became more convinced that a different approach was necessary. For most people who are remodeling or building a new home, coming across these ordinances tbr the first time can be daunting. He provided a recent example where he tried to gather information on residential construction noise; and after referring to the municipal code and inquiring from Ms. Murray, the Assistant City Attorney, he experienced the same frustration and roadblocks citizens encounter when they go through the application process. Com. Auerbach reported that the current accessory dwelling structure ordinance is very conl'using for the following reasons: There is no complete or useful definition of accessory dwelling; here is tile definition in the ordinance "accessory dwelling means a dwelling unit incidental to a principle use on a site and intended for occupancy by persons residing therein by reason of employment ol' one of more occupants on the same site". So what does "by reason of employment o1' ouc or more occupants on the same site" mean? What was the intent for the use of an accessory dwelling. Since no examples are given, it is hard to know. Staff surmised that the original intent was for servants or perhaps farm workers quarters. Contrast this with the definition of "accessory structure" in the same ordinance that it is quite clear that it even gives examples. "Accessory structure" means the subordinate structure tile use o1' which is purely incidental to that of the main building and which shall not contain living or sleeping quarters. Examples include a deck, tennis courts, trellis or car shelter. So that is very obvious and clear. There is no definition for secondary dwelling in Cupertino code. I assumed it flows from the government code which you have already seen. In addition, the accessory dwelling unit ordinance calls out an additional type o1' slructurc, the portable structure, but this is not defined anywhere. Cupertino has a provision cottages, but this is strictly covered as a definition with no companion ordinance to define how to implement the cottage. The crux of the problem we were presented with is better framed as defining an accessory dwelling and how it compares to secondary dwelling. The changes staff recommended last time view this by essentially adding to the definition of a second dwelling unit one which has four or more plumbing fixtures, which they have withdrawn. This simply broadens the definition of a second dwelling unit without clarifying what an accessory dwelling unit is. In other words, a primary residence hus one kitchen and a secondary dwelling has four plumbing fixtures. In thct a web search I'or all accessory dwelling retrieved only definitions that were synonymous with second dwelling units; in other words for most people there is no difference. b. It seemed odd to combine in one ordinance buildings that are habitable and structures that are not. There seemed to be a lot of interest to guarantee that uses remain snbordinate to tile primary residence. When asked what kind of secondary structure would not bc subordinate to the primary use even given the restrictions already in place even it' there were a basement; even if it had three plumbing fixtures. It might be agreed that in a residential neighborhood a primary residence is the largest in terms of sqnare I¥otagc or usable space; other than dimension of size or volume, it is difficult to ennmerate any other objective criteria; therefore it may be found that the useof the term "subordinate" in this case is ambiguous. Planning Commission Minutes December I(I, 2001 When one compares the physical requirements for a second dwelliug nnit aud accessory structure in detail, there is a lot of difference between the two types. Ideally there would be rationale rational incremental difference between them, such as buying a car, you can buy the stripped down model and there is a logical progression until you get up to thc leather seats and moonroofi In our case, from toolshed to pool house to guest housc, this is not the case. It is more like choosiug from a sedan and a pickup track; tile requiremeuts are totally different. The three houses that spawned the revision of this ordinance were all tbr large multi-acre lots, wanting to build accessory buildings of 900 square feet or more; therclbre il is exactly large lots that should be considered in the revision of this ordinance and these were not sufficiently addressed iu the first proposal siuce traits of this type were extant, there should be provision for dealing with these legacy buildings. The last time we were told there was a conflict between the second dwelling ordinance and the accessory dwelling ordinance, I maintaiued that it was possible to maintain thcm, not as in conflict but as choices, to be sure one is almost always a better choice than the other one, but a choice nonetheless, ltl fact, unless l missed my guess, the kiuds ol'sccond dwelling units that can be built under the accessory building provisions are more in line with what this commission would like to see in the secondary dwelling ordinance. There is an interesting and relevant document in the AARP website that is a modcl cities to follow to create an ADU or accessory dwelling unit ordinance. Their motivation is to enable seniors to create ADUs on their property to generate extra income either by renting it out or living in it themselves or renting out the house so they can afford to stay in the community. I think this is a goal that Cupertino can strongly identil'y with. When one looks at the government code on second units and one examines some o1' the court decisions surrounding them, it is clear that the State of California is strongly in Ihvor of secondary dwelling units as a way to create affordable housing. Cupertino has created only 14 such units ever and we have a goal of 25 in our newly minted honsiug element. In conclusion, he said the right.~;-h*.~,.., thing to do is to collapse the definitions of secondary dwelling unit, accessory dwelling unit and cottage into oue definitiou that is secondary dwelling unit; that the current accessory dwelling unit dwelling structures ordinance should be redefined for uninhabitable structures only, including portable structures and be reminded accessory structures ordinance; that the secoudary unit ordinance should be revised to be more liberal and generous in its interpretation, possibly following the AARP model, provide grandfathering and amnesty provisions for existing units and be scalable to different property sizes. The confusion over implementation so far as it involves types of structures wonld disappear, either the space is habitable or uninbabitable, and if it is habitable spuce, then it becomes a secondary dwelling. The reference to counting bar units, refrigerator sizes; wcl bar definitions would disappear. Tbe dilemma is a temporal one; we can correct all thc deficiencies of the existing accessory unit ordinance tonight except we cannot address thc secondary dwelling unit ordinance. We therefore have at least two choices; pass the lirst part with the assurance that we will have before us a staff proposal for changing the secondary dwelling ordinance no later tban six months hence;; or we can acknowledge the existing loophole as merely a choice for citizens and one we can address later as part of a revision o1' Plannin Commiggion Minutes December I(L 2001 the secondary dwelling ordinance; i.e., leave everything alone for now and wait until it all comes back. While the latter puts more pressure on staff to address the secondary unit ordinance, I think in the spirit of cooperation and trust, we should take the path of doing as much as we can tonight with the proviso that staff make all and even unreasonable efforts to present us with a revised secondary unit ordinance within six months. Com. Chen questioned the limitation of 640 square feet for secondary dwelling unit, and said it was confusing to have the accessory building structure and a secondary dwelling unit whcn they are making recommendations to comply with the accessory building code. She said they should be combined. She questioned what is done within the six month period if they wait six months to finalize the ordinance. Ms. Shrivastava said if the modifications discussed today are approved, it gives the ability to clarify the ordinance and then try to streamline everything and bring it in to the secondary unit ordinance. She noted that it was recommended to take out the accessory building part; however, the accessory building structure ordinance is geared not only to single family, but to every zone in the city, and it could not be taken out entirely, since there are other zones where these might apply. She said the comment could be considered when they bring out the secondary unit ordinance and possibly try to separate it or try to work out the best way. She said she felt that it could no! be addressed in this particular case because they were modifying a single family accessory building and not every accessory building in every code. Ms. Shrivastava said that any secondary dwelling unit greater than 640 square feet would have to ask for variance. She said one recommendation was to have a sliding scale of the sizes based on the lot size. If the Planning Commission can act on these, it will give a basis for dealing with any incoming applications and then by minute action ask the City Council if they would like to direct that further studies to look at scaling the size to allow larger second units on larger lots and set a six month timeframe in which to accomplish that. It will also allow to test the waters with that principle in the General Plan process. The people want to allow more flexibility iu second uuits. I1' it is scaled, it will probably just help people with the larger lots ill the hillside areas. Mr. Piasecki noted that the variance process was an awkward process; the criteria for qualifying lbr a variance because of the rules of equity under the law are very strict; so they cannot liberally apply them. Com. Chen suggested that in developing the secondary unit code they look into defining tile secondary dwelling unit as a square footage percentage wise to the primary residence with thc total square footage not to exceed the FAR requirements to keep the definition ol' secondary dwelling unit as a subordinating unit to the primary residence and hopefully address the parking, traffic and other issues. Mr. Piasecki suggested a separate motion to ask the City Council to authorize review o1' tile second unit provisions with the idea of being more flexible in allowing larger units and larger lots, and staffcould strive to accomplish that within the next six months. Com. Patnoe said he was supportive of moving forward with the staff proposal kuowing that lhcy would get to work with the secondary units in the near future. He said tile necessary changes would be made, but putting a stop-gap measure in now was the appropriate thing to do. I lc said he supported Com. Auerbach's comment earlier about changing tile word "or" to "and" in "living space." Com. Patnoe commented that it was possible that the City Council might not act on this because they may want to wait for the secondary unit; however he was in favor of proceeding with the process to get more comments from the community and council as well. Chair Corr said he also had concerns with the definition of kitchen and three pieces; but that he was pleased with staff's presentation and felt they were moving in the right direction. Com. Auerbach clarified that the definition for living space would be "habitable space and sanitation." Coms. Patnoe, Corr and Chen said they did not object to including basements in the FAR; and Com. Chen said she would like it looked into in the secondary dwelling unit. Relative to the definition of appliances, there was consensus to keep the broader definition of cooking appliance. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application 01-MCA-01 with tile changes noted Com. Chen Passed 4-0-0 Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application 19-EA-01 Com. Patnoe Passed 4-0-0 Com. Auerbach moved to request City Council through staff to revisit file secondary dwelling unit ordinance with the model of the AARP ordinance in mind and to be addressed within six months Com. Chen Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 25-DIR-01 Yezala Abayneb 19725 Parkview Court Director's refert:al of a minor modification for removal of trees protected as part of a use permit (15-U-96) Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a director's minor modification to remove three specimen redwood trees and plant replacement trees, as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of future trimming and replanting as provided in tile model resolution. Trimming would be permitted on the side where the growth would interfere with the house; but the branches growing toward the neighbor's yard be allowed to regrow privacy reasons. Shorter and longer term privacy issues could be addressed by planting additional shrubbery to help cover up the blank views created by removal of the limbs. Staff recommends tbat either the property owner plant shrubbery to fill in the areas, or the neigbbor concerned with the privacy issues plant on his property since growth is difficult on the property owner's land below the redwood trees. A third condition is recommended to have the property owner record a covenant notifying future property owners that the trees are protected trees. It was clarified that the recommendation is for ex post facto ability to sauction the amount of lrce that has already been removed, not further removal of the tree, which should be kept in mind Planning Commission M)nu es future projects, to have the condition applied to other projects. It was noted that tile City of San Jose required notice be attached to the tree for a specific period. Mr. Piasecki said that notice could be attached to street trees and some language could be contained in the ordinance. Staffwill consult with Public Works regarding the approach to take on street trees. Com. Patnoe expressed concern about how to deal with the problem of residents cutting down trees and what action could be taken. Mr. Piasecki referred to an incident along Highway 17 north of Hamilton Avenne when Callrans came in and installed soundwalls; they trimmed the trees and there was an outcry from tile public, but they grew back. He said he was confident that the tree in question would restore itself and provide the same protection. He said the applicant was not aware of the ordinance requirements and the covenant arrangement will help take care of the issue in the future, and also with Ih¢ provision and his willingness to comply, most of the tree will grow back. He said that part or' the problem was related to the city's desire to preserve as ~nany trees as possible and yet have the houses close to those trees. A conscious effort needs to be made for the furore that the conflict doesn't come up, as it may happen that someone will have to clear some trees to avoid a fire hazard and the same problem would occur. Chair Corr said the covenant idea was appropriate, and said that when covenants or restrictions arc put on a project, something should be done to record that the restrictions are indeed there. I Ic noted that it would not have helped this property owner because it was an action on an adjaccnt property, not on his. He said he was pleased with the progress, and felt certain tile trees wonld grow back. Mr. Yezala Abayaneh, applicant, said that the tree trimming was done to protect the housc, on advice from his insurance company. He said he had approximately 16 large trees on his property. Mr. Abayaneh said that he concurred with staff recommendation. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Robert Johnson, 836 Shetland Place, Sunnyvale; said that his property abutted thc applicanl's property. He said he concurred with Com. Patnoe's remark about the issue of removing trees, and questioned if criminal action could be taken. He said that the trees were radically trimmed with no advance notice, not only on the side facing the property but also on the neighbor's property. I lc said he was not given any notice that the trees would be trimmed and the privacy screening for his property was affected. Mr. Johnson said that the applicant can now look ~¥o~n their second story window into his backyard and patio and no amount of screening in the fi~tt~re will protect his present interest. He said he felt the action required punishment as well as correction; and concurred that the trees should be removed but with conditions. He said he felt that the removal should be done by a certified and bonded arborist. He said it was proposed that other plantings be put either on the property in which the trees were trimmed or on his property. He stressed that il' planting for screening is to be accomplished, it must be high enough to assure them thc same level of privacy they had prior to that radical trimming. Mr. Johnson said he was requesting from thc Planning Commission that the applicant be required to provide planting to screen his property to provide privacy, not 5 to 15 years from now, but as soon as that can be accomplished by a qualified arborist. Planning CommJss}on M}nutes O¢cmb r tO, ZOOt Com. Auerbach said that he shared the concern abont people trimming trees at will, but said they were not a court; and testimony was heard from staff that there would be rapid regrowth of the tree limbs. He said although he understood the inconvenience caused, lie felt it was burdensome to plant 20 foot high trees for the sake of a year or two growth. Mr. Johnsou said he felt a year or two was too long to wait and as part of the corrective process it was possible to plant 20 foot trees. Ms. Wordell said that the replantings would not necessarily be redwood trees, but would be a fast growing species. She said that the applicant could be required as a condition to hire a certified arborist to make a recommendation. Mr. Johnson reiterated that his property needed the level of screening it had prior to the tree destruction. Mr. Robert Reed, 840 Shetland Place, Sunnyvale; said he supported the proposed covenant to make property owners aware that the trees are protected trees. He indicated on tbe map where four trees had already been removed without the city's knowledge. He expressed concern that thc remaining trees not be removed. Mr. Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Avenue, said that he recently conducted a research of his block and the houses on Wilkinson Avenue which were built in 1968. He said the only information found in the Cupertino Scene was a comment that if trees are growing over a property line, one can request the property owner to cut the branches off at your property line so that they are not intruding on your property; or you the property owner can cut the branches off the trees tbat are growing over the fence into your neighbor's yard. He said he fotmd no definition of a heritage tree or what a significant tree was. He said he found a comment in the current General Plan about the city making a list of all heritage trees sothat they could be identified and people would know about them. He said he was inclined to rush home and get a chain saw and take down his trees close to the property line he felt were not providing privacy for the neighbors. I lowcvcr, he was not sure if he was allowed to do that or not, and felt the city needed to clarify the guidelines for all the residents. He said he had no qualms about chopping branches off his trees and it would not occur to him to hire a licensed arborist to take down branches on a tnulberry tree. Chair Corr closed the public hearing. Com. Patnoe noted for the record that there was a note from the Farmers insurance agent that allegedly generated the action and in the letter, the agent suggested that the branches touching thc roof be trimmed back for insurance purposes. Com. Patnoe said it was a hacking job and it was unfortunate they did not have the authority to punish the homeowner. He said Mr. Levy provided some good suggestions about what the city can do. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, said that cutting of heritage or specimen trees over 25% is a misdemeanor; and that when a tree cutting case is taken to court, the goal is not to punish but to get compliance to the code, and hopefully get replanting or remediation regardless el' the expense, which is better than six months in jail. She said she had no interest in punishing people when the goal is to protect the trees or the privacy or remediate the problem. Ms. Murray noted that there was a chapter in the code on specimen and heritage trees that is very clear about what you can do, size of trees protected, and in some cases the species. She said with the rash of trcc cutting recently, consideration should be given to making the ordinance stronger. Ms. Murray said she and Ms. Wordell discussed the possibility of putting the code in layman's language and putting it in the Cupertino Scene every two years as information to the residents. She said that most residents are not aware of the code relative to tree protection. ?lannJng Commission Minutes 9 Dccmbcr 10. Z(l{ll Com. Chen concurred that educating the residents of the code was importaut and publishing Iht code would help to educate them on the restrictions. Com. Auerbach concurred that educating the public was the answer; aud said that an article in thc Cupertino Scene would be helpful. He expressed his disappointment with the city's followup on distributing information to the residents, noting that he had ofl'ered to distribnte inf'ormation oil thc code to the residents of Rancho Rinconada and staff had not yet followed through. Com. Patnoe suggested increase in fines for violators. He said he was snpportive el' the model resolution. Chair Corr said that he supported the model resolution as amended with the recording el' the covenant. He said he felt it was not reasonable to expect that something wonld be planted to provide the same privacy screen as the redwood tree that was trimmed. He said he was supportive of the applicant working with the neighbor and planting on either side of the l'ence for priw~cy. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Chen moved to approve Application 25-DIR-01 according to thc model resolution with inclusion of the covenant Com. Patnoe Passed 4-0-0 In response to Com. Auerbach's concern that other property owners would not be notified el' the covenant, Ms. Murray clarified that a covenant is recorded against the specific property being discussed in the application; not on someone else's property. Ms. Wordell said that a one-time notification of the covenant could be given to other residents relative to the tree protection. Com. Patnoe suggested that the information on tree protection be placed in tile Cupertino Sce,le to make other residents aware of the tree protection guidelines. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 19-ASA-01 Kahn Design (Cupertino Crossroads) 20568-20770 Stevens Creek Boulevard Architectural and site review for a fagade renovation and site improvements (landscaping and walkways) at the Cupertino Crossroads shopping center. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Chair Corr noted that a revised model resolution was received. Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, reviewed the application tbr architectural and site approval for fagade and site improvements at the Crossroads Center for all buildings except for the Mervyns store, as outlined in the attached staff report. It was noted that the McWhorters building and the buildings to the east of it are also under separate ownership. The city's architectural consultant, Larry Cannon, reviewed the project and commented on the following issues: piecemeal improvements, (since Mervyns was not being modified with tile remainder of the center); height; and refining human scale of the project. The applicant is including all buildings in the fagade improvement, except Mervyns; the height of the buildings has been lowered so that the highest point of the far;ade matches the McWhorters property; and the Flanning Commission Minutes l0 December 10, 2001 human scale of the project has been substantially improved by the use of materials, landscaping, and street furniture, as outlined in the staff report. Relative to staff's concerns abont site and landscaping, the applicant and staff have worked together to improve the pedestrian pathways by extending the pathway from Pier I to the bus stop, as well as planting trees along tile pathway to match closer to Pier I. The applicant is also adding one tree for each existing tree in tile parking lot to improve the appearance from the street and to make more shade available. Mr. Gilli discussed the conditions in the model resolution relative to awnings, light fixtures, and noted the amendment to read "architectural and/or landscaping details shall be added to the north faqade" instead of specifically stating it is trees or lattice element. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to model resolutiou No. 2. Mr. Gilli answered questions relative to the placement of trees in the parking lot, placement o1' pedestrian pathways, and a possible new building at the southeast corner of Bandley and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Mr. Piasecki said that staff was supportive of the concept of an additional building for the center, and noted that discussion of the Crossroads area would be included in thc discussion of the General Plan. Mr. Charles Kahn, Kahn Design Associates, distributed colored renderings of tile buildiugs. reviewed the proposed fagade design and site improvements for the center. He noted that Mervyns had veto power over the fa~:ade improvements and were currently iu discussions with tile property owner. He said that be did not anticipate any issues as long as the faqade improvements did not obscure the view of Mervyns. Com. Auerbach illustrated an example of a conversion o1' a strip mall center to bave a new urbanist entry, and Mr. Kahn confirmed that tile concept was wha! they were working toward. Cbair Corr questioned what was being considered in the center to deter skateboarders, which had been a previous concern, particularly the benches. Mr. Kahn said that the issue would be taken into consideration, and noted that corrugated surfaces for ADA ramps would likely be a deterrent to skateboarders. Mr. Kahn was asked to explain the concept of not having the continuous sidewalk on the east side of the main driveway. Mr. Kahn said tbat he was not opposed to thc sidewalk, and actually supported the design principle. However, he said he would submit a sidewalk design as part of the pad building package, rather than build a uew sidewalk and have to remove it and replace it when the pad building was complete. Mr. Piasecki said that the Planning Commission could consider a condition that would reqnire a bond for that sidewalk in the event they do not proceed with tile building within the next two years. Mr. Kahn said that he had no objection to the bond condition. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Patnoe said that he was pleased with the project and was iu favor of the proposed I'uture building to bring some of the buildings closer to the street. He said he was opposed to the center divide in the portion of the parking lot; but was otherwise supportive of the project. Com. Chen concurred that it was an excellent project and said she appreciated the applicant's willingness to spend the money for the facelift. She said she supported the project. Com. Auerbach had no comment. Pl nnin Comrniggion Minute Dcccmbcr 10, 2001 Chair Corr said that he supported the project, but reiterated his concern about the benches. I I¢ said he was appreciative of the efforts in working with the McWhorters and Young buildings, and encouraged open discussion with the Mervyns store. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application 19-ASA-01 in accordance with the model resolution No. 2, with the addition for a provision Ibc a bond to be held for the construction of the eastside sidewalk should the pad building coutemplated at the southeast corner not be constructed within two years. Com. Chen Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Piasecki noted the decision was final, unless appealed within 14 days. Chair Corr declared a recess at 8:45 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. OLD BUSINESS General Plan study session on the previous housing element approval process and on ll~c land use element. Coin. Auerbach referred to Exhibit A, written comments on the housing element port-lnortem, and reviewed the suggestions, adding further comment (shown in italics). Get our input before the work starts on any particular section As discussed previously, some consultants have been working on some sections, some technical in nature, some substantive with regard lo Planning Commissioners' input, and we would like to have them present to hear our input b~Jbre they embark on major work on those elements. · Start now on tables of which policies we are going to keep and which to lnodify/toss. Provided a spreadsheet of thoughts several months which is part of the public record; successful in my mind with the housing element, but shouM see it sooner, because if we know which ones we are focusing on and which ones we are throwing away, il can help focus our attention in the General Plan as well. I wouM like to see that done ASAI'. · Schedule another joint meeting with City Council because there are new members. Do not feel the last one was successful; felt we did not have enough dialog with City Council to go through the various ideas and really understand their positions what their attitudes were on many of the particulars. Com. Patnoe said he felt joint study sessions shouM include an understandin[4 the expectations are heading into those; and that there should be discussion between the City Council members and the Planning Commissioners on what il i.¥ they watll in the housing element. · Have the documents on HTML which has easier accessibility and for capabilities. · Mark each version with the new version number to avoid confusion. · Have data up front, before starting on substantive policy issues: · Nexus study · Jobs/housing · Census Pi nnin CommiggJon Minuteg Decmber II). 2001 · 2002 Godbe Survey (as amended) Schedule a topic for each Planning Commission meeting. Make schedule available At the conclusion, schedule another joint session with City Council Com. Patnoe said he was pleased with the housing element, but did not see the value of thc consultant since she did not contribute mucb to the meeting. He said Com. Auerbach brought comparisons of other cities' housing elements which should have been something tile consultant or city staff brought forward earlier in the process. There are similar communities that are experiencing the same things as Cupertino such as housing shortage, too much office space, etc. He said that with the exception of some of his comments, he agreed with Com. Auerbach. Chair Corr said that Com. Auerbach's comments were appropriate, and he agreed with tile concept of getting information from the website and also noting the version being addressed. Mr. Piasecki said they were excellent comments on the past process. He said it was their intent to follow the principles, and staff viewed it as a tuneup. Much of what is suggested is cleanup of the existing General Plan, restructuring it, removal of parts, and rewriting. Tile concepts of bringing in somebody on new urbanism costs money, and staff will go back to City Council and ask them il' they have the funds to do that. Staff plans to have another meeting with the City Council, which can be a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Mr. Piasecki said he was an advocate of making sure it was a readable document and that the Planning Com~nission puts its valnes up front and that the community can understand what those values are, and that tile policy structure supports that directly. Mr. Piasecki said there were helpful suggestions from the survey. He said if they were not able to dovetail it with the bulk of the General Plan work, they could carry the Godbe survey comb back through the completed work, asking if it was still valid, and did it still work. I lc encouruged the earlier rather than the later dissemination of that particular survey. Ms. Wordell said the suggested main topics for the study session were: land use ele~nent; preferred alternative; jobs/housing plans, and General Plan process. The ~nain topic will be land usc element, and the last item will tie into more of the kinds of things discussed itl terms study sessions and the draft elements. Staff would like to focus on implementing the guiding principles, with the use of maps and images. Sbe reviewed the guiding principles most relevant to the land use element, illustrated in Exhibit B: neighborhoods, connectivity, mobility, balanced community, vibrant, mixed use Heart of the City and attractive community design. Ms. Wordell said discussion would include the potential development allowed in tim General Plan or might be allowed in the new General Plan. She discussed the hypothetical development alternatives that were reviewed before. She said they were introducing the concept now el' what will come out of all of these meetings will be a preferred alternative and tbcusing on numbers and development potential. Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, referred to Exhibit C, the map of Office/Industrial Potential, and reviewed the geographical distribution of the remaining square footage and housing units. Referring to the map of Commercial Development Potential, which illustrated the staff' applied allocation of those development pools to different parts of Cupertino, he pointed out that tile ?l: nnJn9 Commission Minutes Dcccml cr lO. 2001 Vallco development agreement has about 500,000 square feet of commercial development that is locked into development agreement until 2006. He referred to the Draft Urban Design Overlay, which staff updated to reflect the guiding principles and provide a framework for thinking about how this development poteutial might be allocated. He noted the emphasis was on retaining neighborhood commercial centers not only to provide services to the residential areas, but also to give people alternatives to neighborhood services. The other aspect is to look at and encourage certain areas of town, such as the DeAuza Boulevard corridor, Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor to focus on neighborhood serving uses along the corridor or office type developments, but basically a neighborhood orientation to that. What staff is proposing with the design overlay is Vallco regional center, fashion mall itsell~ being viewed as the center of more of a regional type of commercial, au eutertainmeut type center, late night uses, theaters, large department stores. As part of creating much more of a vibrant mixcd use heart of the city, to look at the area between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road and begin to consider that through the General Plan policies as the mixed use, shopping, dowutown, the heart of the city right there. Staff is excited about this area as a potential downtown portion the heart of the city. He also illustrated the various trails, potential trails and the location of' the Mary Avenue bicycle footbridge. He said that at some future date, there would be funding I'or light rail to go through Sunnyvale and down DeAnza Boulevard. Also a transit corridor, primarily bus, that would be strung along to a much better degree along Stevens Creek Boulevard. In looking at encouraging a reduced reliance on the automobile, it would behoove staffto think about creating the types of densities that would make transit work along the trausit corridors. Ms. Wordell ssaid they were going to strive for a better jobs/housiug ratio. Ms. Shrivastawt discussed the Crossroads area and the proposed building pad. She said that a model IBr the Crossroads area is the Walnut Creek plaza. She illustrated streetscape elemeuts, mixed nsc, Vallco Fashion Park and Compaq project images. Ms. Wordell said that the preferred alternative or accomplishing some of these guiding principles can embrace a jobs/housing concept of trying to balance the jobs with the housing. She said there was discussion about the possibility of creating more desirable jobs/housing ratio IBr Ihturc development. Ms. Wordell reviewed the General Plan review process, including the schcdnle public hearings, etc. Mr. Piasecki said that part of the concept is trying to stay within the existing General Plan or very close to it so its not significantly distinguishable. There is sufficieut square lbotage already committed to Vallco Fashion Park; the same can be said for the Compac proprty and the lhctthcre may be too much there relative to our desire to have more housing in that area. North DeAnza Boulevard, a lot of these developments are internally oriented, and perhaps need to provide some square footage, primarily the east side of the street. It brings some building forms out to DeAnza Boulevard. Taking some of the uncommitted square footage for potentially lbr office and allowing it to go onto North DeAnza Boulevard with the caveat that it is expected to see residential 2:1, two units for every 1,000 square feet. It will be a challenge but could be ouc ol' thc pre requisites for any of these allocations of additional space. Ms. Wordell said that the preferred alternatives are benchmarks, ways of doing the environmental assessment. She said that the Planning Commission would be shaping the alternative that they want; Planning Commission Minnies December II), 2ool Com. Patnoe said that the jobs/housing balance number was different from the one used during thc housing element process ABAG provided and questioned if the discrepancy had been corrected. He expressed concern about the future, when tbey would be confronted with another housing element; and he wanted to ensure that all the holes relative to the math were plugged up so that they don't have to add 4,000 more units 6 years from now because the problem was not taken care off Mr. Gilli discussed the ABAG projections, and noted that there were substantial differences I'rom what was anticipated. Some of the differences were due to boundaries; ABAG uses census tracks. and some of the census tracks have more than one city in it. Mr. Piasecki said that they would take the numbers to task when they do tbeir next ABAG projections and will scrutinize it very carefully. The survey and information from tbe census will help back up the numbers. Com. Patnoe said relative to tbe available office and industrial square footage found in the current General Plan and also some of the other bonuses, he questioned if this was the time to scale the square footage in some of the areas back. He asked at what point during those discussions can the Commission start talking about actually reducing the amount of available office and industrial space in this community which might help staff as they maintain the jobs/housing number they are hoping to maintain in the future. Mr. Piasecki encouraged the Planning Commission to look at what the form is and what the basic fundamental principles and objectives are and what you are trying to accomplish. Com. Chen said the future of Cupertino was now clearer. She questioned the differeuce between potential development and potential re-development. Mr. Jung explained that potential development is the additional square footage that would be allowed in different areas o1' towu under the General Plan. Ms. Wordell said that redevelopment would include the old square footage with the potential square footage for a new total. She said the only official redevelopment area was Vallco Fashion Park. Mr. Piasecki clarified that potential development was an umbrella term applying to all Ibrms ol' development, i.e., new development, redevelopment, or uew development not in areas designated as part of the redevelopment project area. Staff briefly discussed the characteristics of the Monta Vista area and noted that the Monta Vista design guidelines were developed specifically to maintain its uniqueness. Mr. Piasecki said that one of the issues in trying to keep the process moving is to define a preferred alternative so that the consultants can move ahead and do the analysis on how it impacts sewers, water, and all the other facilities, infrastructure and traffic withiu the community. There will be some flexibility to work up and around that. Even the 5% alternative, the maximum growth that the City Council authorized, is an additional 750,000 over the square tbotages that arc in the current General Plan. If it was in people's minds to go that way, an addeudum conld be done and assess that additional alternative. Staffwants to get everything analyzed and present it back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Jung said that once there is a new General Plan, all tbe other planning documents would have to be re-evaluated, particularly the zoning plans to make sure they are consistent with the General Plan. Ms. Wordell said that if the General Plan is in conflict with the zoning, the General Plan would prevail, but it is a requirement that they be consistent. Mr. Piasecki said staff was suggesting that there be less of a distinction, that they not call out industrial from R & D, from office and that the term "service commercial" be allowed to occnr within the industrial office designation as well as allowing some residential to occur. Residential would be made a condition of getting additional industrial office. Com. Auerbach asked for staff's opinion about removing the headquarters bonus. Mr. Piasecki said to remove it; and encouraged simplification of the Plan. Com. Auerbach said that he supported the downtown village and came to tile same conclnsion with regard to creating a more concentrated atmosphere in that area, but to the west of that urban edge, it seems difficult to say that the urban edge ends at the Oaks Center and the students nt the Coffee Society now; Hobies is well trafficked, and development along DeAnza is encouraged, lie questioned why the urban edge would not end at Hwy. 85. Mr. Piasecki said it conld bc done; presently the one on DeAnza Blvd. is at Hwy. 85 also. Highway 85 could be defined as where things begin to occur. Com. Auerbach said that there ~veren't many cities with 48 tennis courts on its urban edge. Mr. Piasecki said that many communities do not define the terms and it could be moved. Com. Auerbach asked if staff felt it was the best use of the corner and consistent with tile downtown village. Mr. Piasecki said that he felt there was an opportunity with the redevelopment of the sports center to possibly bring it out to the corner and have it create, along with giving DeAnza some square footage, what real estate agents might call 100% corner, with commercial activities on all four corners of that edge. He said the discussions on the sports center were preliminary; but the opportunity exists. Ms. Wordell questioned if in terms of real options as far as tile Planning Commission being able to recommend something else, was it fair to say that the library and the sports ceuter would most likely be in their current locations with no plans to change. Mr. Piasecki said that they were not looking at radical changes in terms of those two facilities. Com. Auerbach said the discussion of jobs/housing balance is critical because he l'elt tile need for a better model for jobs/housing balance. He said he discussed the issue with staff and accepted Mr. Gilli's evaluation of the number of jobs, but he was uncertain that they had a model that satisfactorily says what the jobs/housing ratio should be. Com. Auerbach requested that it be further delineated in part of something that can be seen and part of the appendix to thc General Plan to see that calculation. He added that he would also like to see how that results in the bahmcc at 2020. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Ave., said one of the ideas he pitched some time ago was that any housing unit sold and was going to be redeveloped that was within one half mile ol'a bus linc should be developed as an apartment complex, and a councihnember said that he could try to sell the idea. He noted that one of the maps showing the urban center, tile Heart of tile City restricted to the area west of DeAnza/Stevens Creek intersection was very interesting; except that Ihcre were four lanes of traffic on each side of the median in both directions, which was a real problem, lie said in Canberra, in their Heart of the City downtown main intersection, they changed the main intersection to a pedestrian mall and had bus lines come in from the main four roads to that center. Commission Minutes December Ill, lll}l It was a thriving commercial area. He said in the mobility field and the traffic item, it talks about traffic as commute traffic; but the real problem in the neighborhoods is not commute traffic, but is the fact that consideration has not been given to all the things that tie up neighborhood traffic 180+ days a year. A solution would be to put more busses in; particularly school busses which would rid the area of a lot of the school traffic. He said a frustrating thing about the housing element was that people talked about the average price of bouses; the county database provides data to come up with median prices for homes rather than the average. He said he preferred the Heart of the City concept as redefined. He said he was concerned that DeAnza College is talking about putting a transit mall in on the east side of the campus property and a new parking structure in the northeast corner to match the one on the northwest corner. He said it would be better if they could move it back from Stevens Creek slightly and put stores along that side. He also expressed frustration at the document referred to in the General Plan; but was pleased to hear talk about the borders. Thc General Plan says the urban service area and the long term growth boundaries are identical; and yet the map goes outside the service areas. He said bis impression is the sphere of influeuce goes up to Skyline. He questioned whether items in the General Plan were acted upon, and noted items in the General Plan stating that people would be compensated relative to allowing trails across their property. He also suggested that the photos in the plan be identified. Mr. Levy said he was pleased that they were going to use the 2000 census figures. Mr. David Greenstern, 10066 Bryne Ave., congratulated staff on their excellent work. Relative to the connectivity, walkability, he said Stevens Creek Blvd. was not cousidered to be walkable by many people. He said there was no connectivity between their suburbs since most everything was created after WWII when everyone thought the communities should be the cul de sacs; hence uo walkable communities by design. He noted that there was a lot of connectivity in older communities such as Monta Vista. The mixed use near residential is importaut; there is a lot or' good features in the Plan to bring mixed use together, but there is also a lot of separation; there arc seas of residential that have no services which brings people to their cars. He referred to Monta Vista as "swiss cheese" and said he would rather be "gouda." There are inconsisteqcies in services, building codes, county between county and city, and inconsistencies with permits. Mr. Greenstern encouraged the discussion to continue on the housing/office balance, connectivity, and mixed use. Chair Corr closed the public hearing. Com. Patnoe said that the General Plan says Cupertino is a community of neighborhoods, parks and schools and it was an image that should be carried through in the revision of the General Plan. As a native of Cupertino, lie said it was disturbing to see homes in the Oak Valley area in the mid $1 million range and said it made it difficult for some people liviug iu Cupertino to afford a home. He said that while they make the discussions about land use, they include at least throw infill housing on the table for discussion, making it easier to encourage people to add a second unit on a piece of property if they would like. There are other people who have worked tbr the city and live in other cities because they cannot afford to live in Cupertino and drive long distances. Think about what it does to the traffic to have that many people drive into Cupertino because so many jobs are being created compared to bow much housing there is. Com. Patnoe said his dream lbr Cupertino is a community where people can live, work, play and raise a family. Withiu those , areas of living, working and playing, there is no reason that Cupertino has to shut down at sunset. There aren't amenities in this community that encourage residents to speud their time and dollars here in Cupertino, so we have to think about the mixed use option is something that is very Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2(101 important. In the current General Plan tb. ey we talk about the neighborhoods, parks and schools and we should continue the practice of trying to provide parks in areas that desire them, itl areas that need them; and in newly annexed areas like Rancho Rinconada where there could be uvailable land to purchase that we can convert to a park. He said he felt it should be in the General Plau revision. Com. Patnoe said he was pleased to hear about the Sunnyvale light rail potential coming down DeAnza Boulevard; and to make sure that it is explicit in the General Plau that we talk about other areas where we might be able to talk about mass transit opportunities and that could be the something along the rail line; at some point in the next 20 years we might have access to that to connect DeAnza College to West Valley College. Stevens Creek is wide enough where we might be able to have something that is just Cupertino centered or that goes from DeAnza College to what we are doing at Vallco. He said the mechanism to allow communication with the county and state officials about mass transit opportunities should be continued. He said he cared deeply about creating housing opportunities for people here; those who want to live here, those who currently live here and can afford to. The General Plan and the housing elemeut is where mechanisms cau be put in place to allow for those opportunities. Com. Chen said she felt the 13 guiding principles were good guiding principles, and questioned why they were addressing only six. Ms. Wordell said that the six were likely the ones that would affect land use most. Com. Cben said she felt they should take a closer look at the Monta Visla area as it is an area that has raised concerns. Mr. Piasecki said that traffic calming is one of those components of tile plan that cau be lbuud in ahnost all of the elements and all the principles of walkability. Traffic cahning is not only in residential neighborhoods, but he would like to explore methods of cahning traffic on Stevens Creek Blvd. and explore ways of reclaiming the streets in the community and de-emphasize traffic so that pedestrians could actually cross the street and walk along the street and use it as a shopping district. He said it would be a challenge to balance. Part of the plan is attempting to look at things holistically and understand how one impacts the other to create a community to be proud ol; I'ecl comfortable in and have places to walk, shop and live. Com. Chen said that balance was the key word; and in terms of externalizing certain community assets, she concurred. Relative to DeAnza College, I am pleased to learn that we are bringing commercial to the site and it is a good direction to go. Com. Auerbach discussed the guiding principles. He proposed that the guiding principles be shortened to be more concise. He said he had concerns about having so ~nany directions und principles that, either it is not clear or it enables you to go in any direction, lie summarized thc proposed guiding principles: (1) Neighborhoods are the building blocks of great cities; they must be safe attractive, have park, schools and other amenities, no more distance than ~¼ mile. (2) Health and safety: great cities protect the health and safety and security of people and property. (3) Connectiw~ess: great cities offer easy connections from one part of the city to another. (4) Balanced community: great cities provide shelter and amenities to the entire range of people who participate in the city's daily lil'c. (5) Attractive community design: great cities give a sense of being in a unique place; this is achieved through a combination of local culture, geography, climate, architecture, and history. (6) Education and technology: great cities are often centers of learning and new ideas. (7) ?lanning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 Environment and sustainability: what I think we should propose as a principle is the assertion that great cities of today make no concessions to the environment and they are polluted, tral'lSc dependent areas that have very little greenery. (8) Fiscal self reliance: all great cities must have economic means to provide for the above. (9) Responsive govermneut and regional leadership: great cities are responsive to their inhabitants needs and play and important role in their immediate regions. He recommended condensing the present guiding principles as a starting point. ColIl. Chen said they were all good guiding principles; if they are collaborated and covered under major titles. Com. Auerbach said some were combined, in au effort to make the documcut more readable, concise, and focused. He suggested moving away from too verbose a statement on the guiding principles. Mr. Piasecki said it was an excellent idea and something to look at wbile moving through tile plan. It is one of the areas that as the Plan is developed, they would have a better understanding oF exactly what is being agreed on. Maybe that is why it is more general than it needs to be. He said he envisioned more words, because people not familiar with the General Plan process, don't want to read the rest of the plan to find out about some of the details. He said it could be taken under advisement and look for opportunities and find tbe right words as we massage the plau to condense the concepts and the ideas. Chair Corr said that caution should be exercised so that tile terms convey tile true message and it is simply understandable. Com. Patnoe said that streamlining was a good idea; and requested Com. Auerbach to put his suggestions in writing so they could have them as they move forward. Com. Auerbach responded that if they change them dramatically in the end, tbey weren't really principles to begin with, aud they should be defined in the beginning. Chair Corr said he was not opposed to changing them. Com. Auerbach concurred, stating that it would be helpful to review tbe principles in a condensed form with amendments by stall'. Com. Chen said the principles were also goals; and based ou the principles staff could come back to see if they had achieved the goals of creating a collaborated community and create thc connectivities of all the centers. She said what she liked most about the plan was to integrate the transportation with the land use by using tile potential light rail system and also the potential transit corridor that is planned for the east part of Stevens Creek. She said she lblt it was a good plan, but she was not sure how soon or how much can be done to encourage tile development. Mr. Piasecki said that it was important to get it into your plan and tnake it a priority that tile community will get behind that; that is how other communities have gotten light rail. I~' it is not in tile Plan, it won't ever be seen and other communities will be competing for it. Com. Auerbach presented his ideas regarding land use: Identify major routes and implement I'ull new urbanist style zoning along those corridors which he felt the downtown village concept meets that criteria; to wit, concentrate development between DeAnza and Hwy. 85 but move the rural boundary out to Hwy. 85; and redefine as either the downtown village or the Heart of the City to replace the existing Heart of the City plan. Establish more predt:cticng proleclion,v lbr thc character of the rural hillside areas and expand the area protected. He referred to the map, and said his vision relative to Hwy. 85, there are atural and uunatural boundaries o1' Cupertino to Commission Minu[cs December I(I, 2(1(11 contend with, but Monta Vista offers all interesting opportunity to think about more of a village concept in this area with more housing and then a band of RI; move the RI in or move thc residential hillside down slightly to capture more of this area; and tile need tbr more o1' a rural standard for roads and other elements. Next to Ricardo Ave. is a street that is completely decimated as rural, and is essentially sprawl; and he said there should be rural standard~ town standards, R1 standards, rural standards and to wit, the Monta Vista dOWlltown area as currently defined should be enlarged so that tile Monta Vista plan should encompass more of that area. He said he would like to clean up zoning and proposed to collapse some of tile zoning designations together to clean up the map.; and to make sure that the zoniug sends the right siguals about the right areas. He suggested removing as staff eluded to, all bonus allocatious of any sort to clean tile whole thing up. He said he would feel uncomfortable committing to any amount square footage permitted, whether it is zero percent growth, 5% growth, or whether it is a-5% growth, in office space until there is a full accounting of the jobs/housing balance and how that looks at 2020. Com. Auerbacb said that it is in the findings in tile current housing element that t!:ey Cuperlino only achieved 10% of their its bousing goal in the previous plan; however, the number is closer to 50% but it came out in the plan as a finding of 10%. He said that achieviug 2300 units in a 5 year plan is going to be extraordinarily difficult, yet people seem eager to build commercial, so unless tbere is a factor in a kind of probability tbat these types will be built, it could end up fl:at we _om:!,,! ....~,4 ..~,r exacerbating the housing shortage, even though the iutent and numbers on paper look good. Referring to No. 4, Com. Auerbach said he felt that the existing General Plan and what we are getting from the General Plan, were inconsistent; that unless you really nail it down, you still get developments which are embarrassing and unless stipulated, some of the concerns about RIIS subdivisions and housing complexes in the hills and really bad looking developments could come to pass. To clarify my own thinking on tbese points, Com. Auerbacb developed a website !lttp://home.pacbell.net\parox_ysm/gp and noted that it was an excellent source of reference material. He illustrated and briefly discussed some of the areas interest on the website: overview/process/bousing; streetscape and urban form; showed examples of design in Mountain View; things to avoid; pedestrianism. He noted that there were linked materials at the end. He said in order to become knowledgeable on the subject and be able to cralt good ordinances and come up with a good General Plan, the Planniug Commissioners owe it to themselves to become knowledgeable on the subject. Relative to his views on west of 85, he said it was an excellent idea aud be concluded that DcAnza Blvd. is such a major thoroughfare that trying to do developments that spans in the medium to long term, is very difficult to do and if bounding the downtown village ideathe Heart of the City in tbe area is the most feasible. He commented on the McWhorters shoppiug plaza and said he felt they should bring in development energy and incentives for the area. Relative to the town center, it is appropriate to develop things this way, off the beaten path. He said the definition of the area concerned him since they did not have a clear articulated view of what it is supposed to look like. He said it was much more difficult to redevelop because tile kinds of buildings that are there, complicated by the frontage of the Compaq plans. There is also the existing development ] l lllllJlll Commission MJlltl[ :s zo Deeeml er.I O, lO(il which has been encouraged, including tile development shown, which is supposed to be mixed use. Com. Auerbach expressed concern that 1~ we did not have a clear vision. Mr. Piasecki said it was a problem and in terms of the framing concept, it is easy to imagine that at Vallco with Wolfe Road you could create some of what Com. Auerbach talked about or at the Crossroads you could create it because there is the opportunity to do it. In the mid block area it is harder to imagine because the amount of development intensity you ueed to create those three story frames and whether that is really compatible is the right concept; so if yon could think about those concepts of where you would like to see that taken, staff would like the Planning Commissioners' input as they were also struggling with it. He said they could do a better.job o1' designing buildings and again if they tried to reclaim Stevens Creek you could imagine on slrecl parking and bike lanes and maybe fewer lanes of through traffic, but then what do yon do with Iht building forms behind that; how big are they, do they really accomplish the frame or not, or do you do it with trees, and that is what we have really resorted to so far is a lot of trees. I lc said maybe that is not so bad; they need to struggle with that. He said lie did not know what thc possibilities are in terms of rezoning this, and did not know how tile numbers work out, but it might be interesting to play with the idea of rezoning this as predominantly resideutial or something to that effect, but wanted to see tile jobs/housiug numbers and some of the other sqnare footage stuff. This is going to be a big problem, trying to get people down here, becanse the same retailers are going to be interested; these are too close to support each other. There is already a development agreement that locks in certain rights for Vallco Fashion Park. Mr. Jung pointed out that Stanford Shopping Center and University Avenue do manage to co-exist with each other. Com. Auerbach noted that it was a unique situation, as the history or mall development generally points the other way. Chair Corr said he wanted to study tile transportation corridor business fi~rther aud work with VTA to scope it. Ms. Wordell said that much of it was up to tile Planning Commissiou and perhaps direction I'rOlll tile City Council as well. She said she felt the concept was that they could condeuse, and present a draft to work with. She reviewed the schedule of meetings REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held. Housing Committee: No meeting held since last Planning Commission meetiug. Mayor's Breakfast: Next meeting is December 11, 2001. Other: Com. Auerbach said he was receiving communication from staff iii Tyvek envelopes, and requested they not be used except for confidential communication as they are not made l'rom recycled materials. Committee assignments: It was suggested as part of Planuing Commissiouers' assiguments to other committees, consideration be given assigning a commissioner to attend City Council functions related to planning. The discussion will be placed on the January meeting ageuda. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasccki reviewed items outlined on tile written report.