Loading...
PC 11-26-01CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 26, 2001 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Patnoe, Acting Chairperson Corr Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, Eileen Mnrray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: CONSENT CALENDAR: None None PUBLIC HEARING 2. Election of new Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair Mr. Steven Piasecki, Community Development Director, reviewed the nomination process for Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved to nominate Com. Corr to serve as Chairperson for the remainder of 2001 and the year 2002 Com. Chen seconded the nomination Passed 4-0-0 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Patnoe moved to nominate Com. Auerbach to serve as Vice Chair for the remainder of 2001 and the year 2002 Com. Chen seconded the nomination Passed 4-0-0 There was consensus to postpone the committee appointments until January when the aew Planning Commissioner would be seated. Coverage for meetings scheduled before January was discussed. Mr. Piasecki explained the assignments to committees, noting that the Vice Chair chairs the Design Review Committee; one other Planning Commissioner serves on the Design Review Committee as well; the Chair of the Planning Commission attends the Environmental Review Committee meetings, with an alternate also. Com. Patnoe presently serves on the Housing Committee; the Economic Development Committee may be another possible appointment; attendance at the Mayor's breakfast meetings is rotated among the commissioners. Application No.: 01-MCA-01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywidc Municipal Code amendment to define what constitutes a second living unit. Tentative City Council Date: January 7, 2002 Staff presentation: Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, reviewed the application consideration of a Municipal Code amendment to define what constitutes a second living nnit, as outlined in the attached staff report. Ms. Shrivastava reported that the single family ordinance seeks to preserve neighborhood character by controlling building mass, limiting traffic, as well as ensuring adequate parking in neighborhoods. She said that it was currently difficult to implement the ordinance because of lack of definitions as to what constitutes a dwelling unit. In some cases, staff encountered building permits that have resulted in accessory buildings that could be converted into secoud units without building permits, and which ultimately do not meet the ordinance requirements. It has also caused inefficiencies and delays in the building permit process when trying to nnderstand what constitutes a second dwelling unit or an additional dwelling unit. The proposed code changes seek to help implement the ordinance effectively by providing the necessary definitions and clear standards by improving the efficiency of planned review and by ensuring the ease of converting an accessory building into a second dwelling unit. She said that Com. Anerbach raised a broader issue of encouraging second units, which will be addressed as a separate work program item as indicated in the General Plan housing element. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission request the City Council authorize the suggested modifications based on the model ordinance, or if the Planning Commission feels that tile issues need further discussion, review, comment and provide direction regarding the amendments. In that case, staff will come back at a later date with the changes as directed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Shrivastava said that in reviewing pool houses, guest cottages and some other building permits for accessory structures, staff encountered some of these structures that come close to dwelling units. A dwelling unit is defined as including living, sleeping, eating quarters and including only one kitchen. The ordinance also allows guest cottages without kitchens, but currently there is no definition of a kitchen, which has made it difficult to identify when all accessory building constitutes a second unit or an improvement constitutes a second unit, or when it could be called a pool house or a guest house. Staff recommends the following modifications to prevent the construction of illegal second units (second units that do not conform to the second unit ordinance): by clarifying the definition of kitchen, wet bar as well as habitable space, and by limiting the number of plumbing fixtures in accessory buildings with habitable space which in fact are not second units. She noted that there were loopholes in the ordinance which allow accessory buildings/structures in single family residential zones where accessory buildings conld potentially end up larger than the principle structure. Ms. Shrivastava referred to the table comparing regulations in other cities; discussed the criteria for developing the ordinance modifications, and reviewed the recommended regulations Ibr prohibiting illegal second units. She also reviewed the proposed definitions for kitchens, wet bars, and habitable space. Staff also recommends modifications to Chapter 19.80 to limit phunbing fixtures to a maximum of three; detached accessory buildings/structures with habitable space and more than three plumbing fixtures would be required to conform to Chapter 19.84 Second Dwelling Units. Staff feels that deed restrictions for detached accessory structures with habitable space are not necessary. Ms. Shrivastava reviewed the advantages of limitiug the size of accessory buildings for single family residential zones. Relative to basements, staff is proposing a code modification to include basements in detached accessory structures/buildings iu the FAR calculations for single family zones; detached second dwelling units would be subject to the same regulations since they are required to conform to Section 19.80. Staff answered questions relating to the proposed modificatious to the ordinauce. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, said that the secondary dwelliug units can easily become enlarged to attract a full size family with all the cars, parking aud traffic that goes with a full size family, which changes a single family lot into a duplex lot. He said the aim was to make sure that did not occur, but with the lack of definition, the potential existed. Com. Patnoe questioned whether some of the concepts were premature uutil the Geueral Plan review, and whether or not to withhold recommendations to the City Council until more dialogue occurred, specifically about allowing homeowners to possibly put a secoud uuit iu to help ease the housing burden, or put mechanisms in place to ease the restrictious, as opposed to muking it harder for them to do it. Mr. Piasecki said much of it was clarifying the existing ordinance and existing policy. IIc said there could still be a second unit, but it needs to meet the ordinance requiremeuts and it might encourage some people to not play games with the ordinance to actually put in the second uuit. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak Com. Patnoe said he supported the proposed language brought forward from staff' and looked forward to the discussion about easing the conversion of accessory buildiugs iuto secondary uuit, which could be accomplished through the General Plan review process. Itc said he agreed tha! it was a good opportunity to clean up some of the language and add some structure to the process. Com. Chen said that the clarification and definition was appropriate aud uecessary. Relative ~o proposed process No. 3, she suggested excluding the garage space if it is euclosed garage, as it would be possible to build a garage larger than the square footage of the buildiug and eventually convert it into living space. She said it could be revised for further restrictiou. Ms. Shrivastava explained that the intent was to set up a structure that if any changes were to be made, clarification would be provided so that both the applicant aud staff understood thc ordinance; and if any changes were made, permits are required so that before they go in and put all the changes in, they would be aware of what the limitatious are. Com. Chen said she felt it was a good idea to clarify issues and provide clear guidaucc to developers and homeowners, and she would support the concept. Planl ing Commission Minutes Com. Auerbach concurred that it was a complicated issue and referred to a table stunmarizing the different types of buildings/structures in addition to the primary residence. He expressed concern about trying to delineate in minute detail what constitutes what type of structure when it is clearly very difficult to tell what is what. He said that the ordinance could encourage people to build secondary dwelling units because they really would have no choice, since to do what they want to do, they would have to meet those guidelines. People are building secondary dwelling units aud the traffic, the parking and all the issues are presently there. He said he did not see it as a negative aspect and did not feel it was a major problem. Mr. Piasecki clarified that he was not commenting on the traffic and parkiug from a secondary dwelling unit which is incidental to the main house and the 640 square feet, but the traffic and parking that may result from it. He said it was widely accepted that second dwelling uuits have nominal impacts. Com. Auerbach said he felt they should allow cottages. Ms. Shrivastava said that as part of the code changes, they were limiting the size of the cottage to 640 square feet; whereas previously there was no limit other than the FAR. Com. Auerbach expressed concern that there is no process defined to take units to convert to second dwelling units legally, or a mechanism to do so. He said definiug kitcheu, defining wet bar, limiting the number of plumbing fixtures was very prescriptive, and it may work this year, but seem totally outlandish and overly prescriptive a year or five years from now. He said he felt it was related to second dwelling units, and they should be addressed together, considering a comprehensive ordinance change that addresses what the second dwelling units should be: their size, whether they are incorporated with the FAR, should basements be counted, etc. I le said the suggestion, that he also concurred with, of defining it by percentage of the primary residence may allow more flexibility. Com. Chen questioned if passing the definition part of the ordinance without going into the changes of the second dwelling unit would be adequate for the present. Cmn. Auerbach commented that staff may feel that having nothing to apply it to, may not be effective. Ms. Shrivastava referred to the Table, Chapter 19.80, and said they had defined habitable space, kitchen, wet bar, in the definition section; in the accessory buildings/structure section, the FAR was limited to that allowed in the second dwelling unit; basements were included in the FAR Ibr detached accessory buildings; and plumbing fixtures in detached accessory buildings. Com. Auerbach said that a property owner wishing to build an 800 square fbot poolhousc is legitimately not building a second dwelling unit, but a poolhouse; but if the ordinance is passed with all the features of second dwelling units, they would have to build it as a second dwelling unit. Ms. Shrivastava said they would be limited to the maximum size of the second dwelling unit, whatever that ends of being finally. Com. Auerbach noted there is no accommodation in ordinance for scaling the size of the secondary unit based on the lot size. Ms. Shrivastava said that as part of the ordinance changes it is linked to the size of the second dwelling trait; and the changes do not preclude the changes in the second dwelling unit ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes 2 No, embet 26, Committee; the Economic Development Committee may be another possible appointment; attendance at tbe Mayor's breakfast meetings is rotated among the commissioners. Application No.: 01-MCA-01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Municipal Code amendment to define what constitutes a second living unit. Tentative City Council Date: January 7, 2002 Staff presentation: Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, reviewed the application t'or consideration' of a Municipal Code amendment to define what constitutes a second living unit, as outlined in the attached staff report. Ms. Shrivastava reported that the single family ordinance seeks to preserve neighborhood character by controlling building mass, limiting traffic, as well as ensuring adequate parking in neighborhoods. She said that it was currently difficult to implement the ordinance because of lack of definitions as to what constitutes a dwelling unit. In some cases, staff encoontered building permits that have resulted in accessory buildings that could be converted into second units without building permits, and which ultimately do not meet the ordinance requirements. It bas also caused inefficiencies and delays in the building permit process when trying to understand what constitutes a second dwelling unit or an additional dwelling unit. The proposed code changes seek to help implement the ordinance effectively by providing the necessary definitions and clear standards by improving the efficiency of planned review and by ensuring the ease of converting an accessory building into a second dwelling unit. She said that Com. Auerbach raised a broader issue of encouraging second units, which will be addressed as a separate work progrmn item as indicated in the General Plan housing element. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission request the City Council authorize the suggested modifications based on the model ordinance, or if the Planning Commission feels that the issues need further discussion, review, comment and provide direction regarding the amendments. In that case, staff will come back at a later date with the changes as directed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Shrivastava said that in reviewing pool houses, guest cottages and some other bt, ilding permits for accessory structures, staff encountered some of tbese structures that co.ne close to dwelling units. A dwelling unit is defined as including living, sleeping, eating quarters and including only one kitchen. The ordinance also allows guest cottages without kitchens, but currently there is no definition of a kitchen, which has made it difficult to identify when an accessory building constitutes a second unit or an improvement constitutes a second unit, or when it could be called a pool house or a guest house. Staff recommends the following modifications to prevent the construction of illegal second units (second units that do not conform to the second unit ordinance): by clarifying the definition of kitchen, wet bar as well as habitable space, and by limiting the number of plumbing fixtures in accessory buildings with habitable space which in [hct are not second units. She noted that there were loopholes in the ordinance which allow accessory buildings/structures in single family residential zones where accessory buildings could potentially end up larger than the principle structure. Planning Commission Minutes 3 November Ms. Shrivastava referred to the table comparing regulations in other cities; discussed the criteria for developing the ordinance modifications, and reviewed the recommended regulations [br prohibiting illegal second units. She also reviewed the proposed definitions for kitcheus, wet bars, and habitable space. Staff also recommends modifications to Chapter 19.80 to limit plumbing fixtures to a maximum of three; detached accessory buildings/structures with habitable space a,~d more than three plumbing fixtures would be required to conform to Chapter 19.84 Second Dwelling Units. Staff feels that deed restrictions for detached accessory structures with habitable space are not necessary. Ms. Shrivastava reviewed the advantages of limiting the size ot' accessory buildings for single family residential zones. Relative to basements, staff is proposing a code rnodification to include basements in detached accessory structures/buildings in the FAR calculations for single family zones; detached second dwelling units would be subject to the salne regulations since they are required to conform to Section 19.80. Staff answered questions relating to the proposed modifications to the ordinance. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, said that the secondary dwelling units can easily become enlarged to attract a full size family with all the cars, parking and traffic that goes with a full size family, which changes a single family lot into a duplex lot. He said the aim was to make sure that did not occur, but with the lack of definition, the potential existed. Com. ?atnoe questioned whether some of the concepts were premature until the General Plan review, and whether or not to withhold recommendations to the City Council until more dialogue occurred, specifically about allowing homeowners to possibly put a second unit in to help ease the housing burden, or put mechanisms in place to ease the restrictions, as opposed to making it harder for them to do it. Mr. Piasecki said much of it was clarifying the existing ordinance and existing policy. I-lc said there could still be a second unit, but it needs to meet the ordinance requirements and it might encourage some people to not play games with the ordinance to actually put iu the secoud unit. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak Com. Patnoe said he supported the proposed language brought forward from staff' and looked forward to the discussion about easing the conversion of accessory buildings into secondary nnit, which could be accomplished through the General Plan review process. He said he agreed that it was a good opportunity to clean up some of the language and add some structure to the process. Com. Chen said that the clarification and definition was appropriate and necessary. Relative to proposed process No. 3, she suggested excluding the garage space if it is enclosed garage, as it would be possible to build a garage larger than the square footage of the building and eventually convert it into living space. She said it could be revised for further restriction. Ms. Shrivastava explained that the intent was to set up a structure that if any changes were to be made, clarification would be provided so that both the applicant and stall' understood the ordinance; and if any changes were made, permits are required so that before they go in and put all the changes in, they would be aware of what the limitations are. Com. Chen said she felt it was a good idea to clarify issues and provide clear guidance to developers and homeowners, and she would support the concept. Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 26, Com. Auerbach concurred that it was a complicated issue and referred to a table summarizing tbe different types of buildings/structures in addition to the primary residence. He expressed concern about trying to delineate in minute detail what constitutes what type of structure when it is clearly very difficult to tell what is what. He said that the ordinance could encourage people to build secondary dwelling units because they really would have no choice, since to do what they want to do, they would have to meet those guidelines. People are building secondary dwelling units and the traffic, the parking and all the issues are presently there. He said he did not see it as a negative aspect and did not feel it was a major problem. Mr. Piasecki clarified that he was not commenting on the traffic and parking from a secondary dwelling unit which is incidental to the main house and the 640 square feet, but the traffic and parking that may result from it. He said it was widely accepted that second dwelling units have nominal impacts. Com. Auerbach said he felt they should allow cottages. Ms. Shrivastava said that as part of the code changes, they were limiting the size of the cottage to 640 square feet; whereas previously there was no limit other than the FAR. Com. Auerbach expressed concern that there is no process defined to take units to convert to second dwelling units legally, or a mechanism to do so. He said defining kitchen, defining wet bar, limiting the number of plumbing fixtures was very prescriptive, and it may work this year, but seem totally outlandish and overly prescriptive a year or five years from now. He said he ['elt it was related to second dwelling units, and they should be addressed together, considering a comprehensive ordinance change that addresses what the second dwelling units should be; their size, whether they are incorporated with the FAR, should basements be counted, etc. He said the suggestion, that he also concurred with, of defining it by percentage of the primary residence may allow more flexibility. Com. Chert questioned if passing the definition part of the ordinance without going into the changes of the second dwelling unit would be adequate for the present. Com. Auerbach commented that staff may feel that having nothing to apply it to, may not be effective. Ms. Shrivastava referred to the Table, Chapter 19.80, and said they had defined habitable space, kitchen, wet bar, in the definition section; in the accessory buildings/structure section, thc FAR was limited to that allowed in the second dwelling unit; basements were included in the FAR t'or detached accessory buildings; and plumbing fixtures in detached accessory buildings. Com. Auerbach said that a property owner wishing to build an 800 square ~bot poolhouse is legitimately not building a second dwelling unit, but a poolhouse; but if the ordinance is passed with all the features of second dwelling units, they would have to build it as a second dwclliqg unit. Ms. Shrivastava said they would be limited to the maximum size of the second dwelling unit, whatever that ends of being finally. Com. Auerbach noted there is no accommodation in thc ordinance for scaling the size of the secondary unit based on the lot size. Ms. Shrivastava said that as part of the ordinance changes it is linked to the size of the second dwelling unit; and the changes do not preclude the changes in the second dwelling unit ordiuance. Planning Commission Minutes s NoYembev v,6, Mr. Piasecki said that 640 square feet works for the majority of the houses within Cupertino, sincc the lot sizes are 6,000 up to 10,000 square feet. In the future, the regulations could be adjusted to reflect 1,000 square foot secondary dwelling unit on hillside lots if needed, but there would be rules under the current policy structure. Com. Auerbach said he needed more time to study it and consider other alternatives. I lc said lie was prepared to accept some of the elements, but was reluctant to do so touight. Chair Corr said he supported the concept providing a clear definition and making the process o1' serving the public easier, so they clearly understood what was being asked or' them. I le said, as Com. Auerbach suggested, he felt they may need to address the issue down the lines in terms ol~ ratios based upon the FAR, the lot size, the dwelling size, so it's a percentage thereot; because that might ultimately be a more reasonable way to look at it especially when dealiug with a multi acre lot, that it doesn't make any difference if you put a second dwelling of more thau 640 square l'cet on it. He said he would support adopting it now as a stop gap measure aud look at those pieces as they go through the housing element. Com. Patnoe said he supported staff's recommendation to review, comment aud provide direction to staff, but to continue the discussion to another meeting to provide more time to discuss it and get more input from the public and other affected parties. He said lie felt auother two lo Ibur weeks would not cause a problem. Com. Auerbach said he concurred with Com. Patnoe's suggestion for additioual study, perhaps in a study session, and then bring it back to the regular Planning Commission meeting. Com. Chert said she agreed with Chair Corr's position to provide clear guidance to staff during thc interim period, until there is the opportunity to address it again. She said it would be a trying time for developers and homeowners to see how well it is received aud how well it is applied to their cases. She said she was not in favor of prolonging it too long and if closnre could come within the year, staff would have clear direction and could have a study session next year. Com. Auerbach said if they were not going to press to get it connected to the secondary dwelling unit ordinance, he proposed that staff recraft the language and discuss some of the elemeuts o1' opposition, such as including basements in calculations for secondary dwelling unit if they arc not included for primary residences. MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved to continue Application 01-MCA-01 to the December 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, with direction to staff to get some witnesses to speak about their experiences with the ordinances SECOND: Com. Patnoe VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 OLD BUSINESS 3. General Plan study session on the amendment process and the major General Plan themes Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, outlined the format of discussiou o1' thc item, i.e., to review the staff report on the first items; focus on addressing the draft vision and thc major themes of the General Plan for input; review of the central features o1' the existing General Planning Commission Minutes Plan that are going to affect the decisions for the next Geueral Plan; and to discnss the development alternatives being looked at in terms of the environmental analysis and how that relates to the eventual decision on what the General Plan development would be. Referring to the vision statement, Page 4-4 of the staff report, Ms. Wordell reviewed the draft vision and major themes, including some new policy directions; and reviewed the development reallocation table. She said that in preparation for consideration of what is desiredtbr the General Plan, staff would evaluate three hypothetical development scenarios: existing Geueral Plan with existing ABAG numbers, sculpted development with ABAG housing needs, and adding 5% growth with ABAG housing units plus additional units. The purpose of the scenark~s is to evaluate the environmental impacts for these various scenarios and then when the Planning Commission and City Council look at what they want, the preferred alternative is measured against the hypothetical alternatives and then judged whether additional environmental evaluation is needed based on the preferred alternative. Lastly, looking at the visiou and the principles of what might change in the General Plan, the Cupertino map will be reviewed relative to how it might fulfill itself relative to the vision becoming reality in terms of the physical development of the city. Mr. Piasecki provided a general overview of changes to the General Plan for benefit of Cupertino. He said staff wanted the Planning Commissiou to focus on the big issues, the changes from the current plan in terms of the bigger concepts. One of those is to move away from the principally traffic driven General Plan and balance travel level of service for the automobile with thc pedestrian needs, the needs of cyclists and the needs of calming traffic in certain locations, being less traffic driven. It changes a lot of things in terms of how to implement the plan where to put square footage, how much square footage is put into the community. He encourage the Planniug Commission to address what they want to bnild, and what is the desired end prodnct at the end of 20 years. He discussed the concept of the Crossroads/City Center area becoming more of a downtown area with a walkability factor, allowing people to walk along Stevens Creek Boulew~rd. He said a model for the downtown area is the Willow Glen/Lincoln Avenue neighborhood where there are two story buildings framing the street yet it has a downtown feeling to it. I Ic also discussed the vision for the Vallco Fashion Park area, with anchor tenants, shops, a walkablc area on Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek. He noted that a model for the Vallco Fashion Park might be the Broadway Plaza shopping district in Walnut Creek. Mr. Piasecki also discussed iI~c possibility of including assets of the community such as DeAnza College as part of commercial activity on Stevens Creek Boulevard to complement the downtown village district in thc Crossroads area. Hewlett Packard and Apple Computer could also be included in the opportunity to interface with the community. He said the major theme of the concept was walkability, which is a community value. Mr. Piasecki said the strategy for trails and parkways should be evaluated relative to providing them in such a way that the community would recognize they are compatible with their interest and they provide connection to parks and create a rich walking environment. The conccpl ol' converting creeks goes along with one of the principle themes in the General Plan which is having a sustainable community. He said that Cupertino has also done an excellent job in providing open space which is another issue. Mr. Piasecki said they should assess if the open space is serving thc needs of the community; and ensure that parks are provided as residential developments occur by using some of the park dedication fees to create more park areas. Mixed use is implied by all this, both in the Crossroads in the mid block areas, both as backfill and which implies more of a horizontal mixed used but also vertical mixed use potentially occurring in some areas such as Planning Commission Minutes Vallco or the Crossroads. Mr. Piasecki said that those are just some of tile major themes that will ultimately shape how the nmnbers play out and how the nmnbers are treated in the General Plan to allow the marketplace and the free enterprise system to collect the right uses and tile right locations. He said that there are successful models to emulate and perhaps de-emphasize tile auto driven General Plan and get more into a people-driven plan and community driven plan. I Ic asked the Planning Commission for feedback on whether it is a feasible model, is there some otl~cr model, or were they content with the present one? Com. Patnoe thanked staff for the presentation; noting that it was evident that some o1' the Planning Commission's comments and thoughts from the previous year with regard to the scoping and what they would like to see in this General Plan revision were taken into account. I le said hc concurred with the suggestions about DeAnza College, Hewlett Packard and Apple; and said to ensure there is a mechanism calling for parks in the areas of proposed residential, as well as Rancho Rinconada. He said he was looking forward to getting involved in the project. Com. Chen questioned what the required elements were. Ms. Wordell clarified that thc law requires that the General Plan includes the required elements; although the city can orga,fizc or combine them and call them other things. She said the chart compares the required elemeuts with the city's elements, and indicates what the city calls them. Com. Auerbach reiterated that his concern was not so much with the overview of the draft vision and themes presented, but with the process by which the document is actually delivered. I lc proposed that the schedule include a post mortem analysis of how the Planning Commission felt the housing element went. He said he felt it was important to find a target jobs/honsing ratio to aim for so that the plan can be consistent with that. Relativeto the jobs/honsing portion, he expressed concern that with regard to the studies already commissioned on the growth scenarios, that those call for evaluation of the ABAG number, and he understood that they are to develop parameters and the end plan may fit within those parameters anyway, or be able to modify those stndies. I le said he was concerned that the numbers for the jobs/housing ratio may turn ont to be vastly different than expected and the commissioned studies bear no relevance, and they become boxed in where decisions cannot be made for fear of incurring additional cousultant expenses to commission additional studies that would actually address that. Com. Auerbach said that it was only a potential concern, but because it is being produced in a parallel way, they may get boxed in by their own studies. Com. Auerbach also stated that he wanted to be snre the nexns study was included before anything is concluded about the General Plan update. He also suggested that thc 2002 Godbe survey be advanced. He said he suggested some additional questions which would serve well in identifying who the Cupertino population is, as such questions are missing from thc census and not in the current Godbe suite of questions. He noted that the local census data was missing when the housing element was done and a report was needed. He suggested because of the time involved, to include a major topic ou each Planning Commission agenda, and as part of the post mortem analysis, to produce a hierarchical list of the big issues to be discussed at each meeting. He said he felt the fundamental issue is to include new urbanist thinking in the plan, and noted that even if done well, it may not work. To the extent there are examples of working systems for residential streets or curb radii, lamp posts, street widths, building heights, commercinl centers, signage, walkability for store fronts; etc. and the data exists and there are findings to support them, Com. Auerbach recommended they be included in the Plan, which means looking at it at some level of detail and gaining an understanding of those elements themselves. He reiterated that it could only be done with a series of study sessions on each topic and said he would endorse that as a process. Plann) g Commission Minutes Chair Corr said he concurred in terms of the uew urbanist thinking and some of the things seen in terms of how cities can be redeveloped over a period of time. He said that it was important to include the direct transit issues with the issue of walkability; how to create altemativestbr people to efficiently and effectively get around town and the greater community. He said he ['elt it was advantageous to take time at each meeting for discussion, rather than try to tackle it all at once. Com. Patnoe concurred that it was more advantageous to break tile discussion up to different meetings, which would provide opportunity for the community to attend meetings and provide input rather than being faced with one of two meetings to cover all the issues. Ms. Wordell said they proposed to discuss land use on December l0th. Mr. Piasecki asked thc Planning Commission to consider the community forum issue also which relates to multiple elements, since it will drive how to approach all the elements and discuss tbem to the degree that they can be defined clearly. Com. Auerbach said relative to meetings with citizens, planners elsewhere fonnd it helpfifl to have small meetings with one or two planners, staff and a handful of citizens at different locations. I le encouraged staff to arrange the smaller meetings to help get the pulse of the various neighborhoods and communities. He also requested staff provide a post mortem on the housing experience to use as a guide on how to improve the General Plan, to give an aualysis of what each commissioner felt worked well and what they would like to see improved. Com. Aucrbach discussed land use, and said it was difficult to discuss the land use issne and make policy in advance of having the data. He said he was not familiar enongh with the hillside ordinances to know whether the hillside ordinances really permit Cupertino to develop similar to Behnont where you can hardly see the hillside because there is so much housing; or is it more like open space with sporadic housing. Com. Patnoe suggested that the Planning Commission send their thoughts and suggestions to staff before the next meeting. In response to Com. Patnoe's question about the City Council's direction to the Planning Commission, Ms. Wordell said that it has been described as a tuneup, with a schedule to adhere no organized citizens' committee, but accomplished through the normal public hearing process to get input. It was viewed that the Planning Commission would follow tile same lines, with threc regular meetings, three public hearings and study sessions or extra meetiugs it' needed. Mr. Piasecki explained that when the City Council defined the tuneup of the current plan, they were in essence saying that the current plan had worthy attributes; aud they set the fairly restrictive upper limit on evaluating growth potential at 5% over the current plan, over a 20 year period. The Council did so with the idea that growth was not now a high interest; at the same time, they understood that a lot of opportunity for change would not be provided. The residential areas are not going to change out; and even though there may not be a lot of growth potential in the hillsides, it still may be good to define what is meant by preserving them. I'reserving creeks is a costly and difficult effort. He said it could be expanded to the hillsides il' they were going to start to try and restore some of the hillside activity; however, the two ma. jot quarries exist and it needs to be known how long they will be around and what opportunities exist Ibr them. Mr. Piasecki said that staff needs to provide some background to those questions. He said he I'elt thc Council's interpretation is that this is going to be a fairly limited scope because of the reliance to a Planning Commission Minutes large extent on the community congresses, two of them held recently; and the survey and thc new survey if it comes out early enough; and on the old goals committee process. Com. Auerbach said that it was an interconnected problem, hard to touch one without the other. Pedestrianism is looking at level of service of traffic, and the urban form will touch on other things. He said he was not opposed to limiting the scope of growth evaluated, but beneath that, it would take the city in a slightly different direction than the General Plan was originally architectcd for. He said with the new Council members, it would be worthwhile to check in agaiu with them in terms of the vision, since people £eeF!e are focused on different things. Relative to thc consultants, he said it was a part of the housing element that did not work very well for him in particular, receiving the materials at the draft stage, and also the fact that there was a lot of confusion regarding which draft was being reviewed and which ideas were being reflected. Com. Auerbach emphasized that the General Plan is the role of the Planning Commissiou, and he was uncomfortable with only being involved at the draft stage. He said be would rather bave thc consultants present to hear the Planning Commissioners' remarks, then write their draft based on hearing the input firsthand, rather than seeing a draft. Once in draft form, it is difficnlt to get things changed, although some accommodations were made in the housiug elemeut, but were made on the basis of the fact that they were going to open it up ouce again at the General Plan timeframe. He reiterated his suggestion that for the larger elements that are most importaut to all, that the consultants be present, give them input and then see the resulting draft. Mr. Piasecki said that on December l0th, the Planning Commission would be asked to cousidcr some fundamental questions, and when answered, the policy structure becomes relatively simple. He encouraged the Planning Commission to remain focused on the fundameutal objectives and goals oftbe community and to scrutinize the policy structure. He said he was less concerned with tbe filler and whether the picture is the right one; they would consider inpnt aud make changes as the drafts come out; but he was more concerned with the big picture ideas beiugendorsed by thc Planning Commission and City Council and reflected in the goal policy structure because that is ultimately what is quoted. Much of the General Plan is boiler plate, which varies from commnnity to community on things such as hillsides, earthquake faults, slide zoues, etc. He said he felt there would not be a lot of disagreement about those things, perhaps the way it is approached. Further analysis may be needed to study it, but it may be agreed that it is a good goal for the community to have. Mr. Piasecki addressed Com. Auerbach's earlier suggestion that they seek clarification from the new City Council members whether the focus should be on a tuneup of the plan or whctbcr it should be addressed in more detail. He said he had envisioned that it would take place in January or February to give them a chance to be comfortable in their new roles. He said at the commission level now they could do some work to show the direction they were headed, and question is they agreed with the work program and limits placed on it, and the direction they were takiug. I lc said he preferred to be able to give something of substance to work from as opposed to a hypothetical concept. Com. Auerbach referred to the Design for Mobility from VTA, and said that it was a good overview of creating a more pedestrian friendly environment. Many examples are keyed to what the city is trying to achieve irrespective of mass transit or other transit elements. He said he felt the overall goals were understood; because some projects built were quite good, such as the Piun Brothers, P. J. Mulligans site; and some have gone the wrong way. Planning Commission Minutes November qq/ NEW BUSINESS 4. Sustainable Building Conference (Com. Auerbach) Presentation on seminar for sustainable building Com. Auerbach reported that he attended a seminar on November 10 and I1 ou sustaiuable building at the Hidden Villa Ranch off Mody Lane in Los Altos. He said that Darrel DeBocr, DeBoer Architects, presented information on sustainable building materials. Com. Auerbach provided staff with a CD on the Building Less Waste book written by Mr. DeBoer. He read some excerpts from the book on using wood wisely. Com. Auerbach illustrated examples ot' three sustainable buildings built by Hidden Villa, including a ranch house converted to an earth berm structure. He illustrated examples of solar energy used in the structures; the rebuilt youth hostel using geo thermal heating; and the use of five 200-foot ~vells that recirculate water and pump hot water through a circulating system in the slab to create radiant heat for the youth hostel. I lc illustrated the straw bale structure built of rice straw, and discussed many of its unique features. He reviewed Gary Gerber's presentation on solar energy and Pacific Energy Ceuter's presentatiou. He reported that Pacific Energy Center has a program whereiu they loan out valuable tools to requesters, and he highlighted a program where they loan out a Nikou camera with a fishcye lens for use in taking a photo of the entire hemisphere of the area you are interested in, for import iuto software that maps the solar path, showing a picture of the entire area where you would plau to put a building or photo voltaic system or passive solar design. Com. Auerbach concluded that there were many ways to create interesting earth-frieudly energy efficient structures. He suggested that staff allow this type of experimentation that California is famous for, in the General Plan. He also suggested that the city encourage builders doing busiuess in Cupertino to attend similar seminars; and to create a pamphlet outliuing some unique ways ol' building houses in more cost efficient energy saving ways. Ms. Wordell said that stronger language would be included in the Geueral Plan related to some ol~ the ideas. Mr. Piasecki said that as one of the major themes previously discussed, staff would like input on sustainability, how far it should be taken beyond the education phase, what to do about some of the city's own buildings and how to encourage it across the board. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held. Housing Committee: No meeting held. Mayor's Breakfast: Com. Patnoe reported that he attended the recent mayor's breakfast. He said he outlined the recent discussion of the monopole and monopine issues to the attendees. I lc noted that a member of the Teen Commission was also present at the breakfast meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasccki reviewed the written report. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: Mr. Piasecki briefly discussed the article ou Santana Row.