Loading...
PC 07-24-00CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 77%3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 24, 2000 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris Staffpresent: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Michele Rodriguez, Senior Planner, Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney Chair Harris commended Michele Rodriguez, Senior Planner, who was leaving the City of Cupertino for employment in Marin County as a principal planner. She presented her with a gift of appreciation on behalf of the Planning Commission and thanked her for her professionalism both in her presentation style and response to the public and Planning Commission. She noted that Ms. Rodriguez had also been recognized statewide for her work. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the duly 10, 2000 regular Planning Commission meeting MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of the minutes of July 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting as presented Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted receipt of a letter from Anil and Kiran Deora relative to the Eichler application, which was in opposition of additional restrictions of the property rights on the Fairgrove community .... POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR Application No.: Applicant: Location: l-V-00, 10-U-00, 5-EXC-00 Ann Welsh, Whalen & Company Located to rear of 10590 Stokes Avenue Use permit to allow 16-panel antennae aerial on top of existing 138-foot tall PG&E lattice tower plus associated cabinets at ground level. Height exception to allow a lattice tower mounted aerial at a maximum height of 150 feet where 55 feet is allowed Variance to allow an aerial to be located less than 50 horizontal feet from a residentially zoned property. Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 24, 2000 Continued from Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 2000 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of August 14, 2000 MOTION: Corn Doyle moved to postpone Application l-V-00, 10-U-00, 5-EXC-00 to the August 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting SECOND: Com. Kwok VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Robert Kirby, 915 Femgrove Drive, addressed the issue of permit application viewing on the Cupertino Planning Department website. He reported that in October 1997 he corresponded by E- mail to former Planning Director Bob Cowan about the possibility of posting Cupertino's permit logs on its website, and Mr. Cowan initially responded that the permit logs would be available as part of a valley-wide website. In January 1999, Mr. Cowan reported that the City's MIS department had revamped their computer system and he was suggesting that a weekly report posting permit activity be posted to the website for the public. Mr. Kirby stated that the permit logs were not part of the website; and although members of the public could view the log by visiting the Planning Department, not all members of the public had the capability of visiting those offices during the day, but could access the information on the website from their home or office. He pointed out that the permit application information could alleviate the fear, anger and anxiety of neighboring residents when unexpected trucks and dumpsters arrive at a neighbor's home for work to be done. He said an essential part of democracy is an informed citizenry, and the simple step of posting the permit log to the City's website is part of that information. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development, said he would discuss the issue with the MIS staff as it would be advantageous to have the permit information posted on the website. Chair Harris encouraged Mr. Kirby to forward his concern to the City Council as well. PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: 3-Z-00 City of Cupertino Fairgrove Neighborhood, generally bounded by Miller Avenue, Phil Lane, Tantau Avenu~and Bollinger Road Rezoning from R1-6 to R1-6e for the purpose of amhitectural control of Eichler homes. Amendment to the Single Family Residential Ordinance (Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code) regarding building mass, setbacks and height. Tentative City Council Date: August 21, 2000 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for rezoning from R1-6 to R1-6e for the purpose of architectural control of Eichler homes. The background of the item was reviewed, as outlined in the attached staff report. Ms. Michele Rodriguez, Senior Planner, reviewed in detail the history of the three surveys of the Eichler neighborhoods, beginning in 1998. She reported that the surveys were significantly responded to, covered issues of growth and change, characteristics of look and feel of the Eichler Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 24, 2000 neighborhood, and whether or not the residents wanted an ordinance versus guidelines. She reviewed the proposed ordinance and design guidelines as outlined in the staff report, and stated that staff recommended continuance of the item to enable staff to work with the neighborhood group to refine the design guidelines to the degree that they would match the direction taken at this point. Ms. Rodriguez illustrated pictures of existing Eichler homes, displaying a variety of characteristics of the Eichler architecture. She responded to Planning Commissioners' questions relative to the surveys, heating installation, privacy protection requirements, and proposed second story additions. In response to Chair Harris' concern about the scale of second story additions, Ms. Rodriguez clarified that there has to be a sensitive transition between single story and two story, and there would not be able to be a massive two story adjacent to a single story; it would depend on the placement of the second story, and is it necessary given perhaps there is space on the first floor. She said that it would be case specific, design specific. Chair Harris suggested language on Page 10 of the staff report stating "nothing in this requirement is intended to preclude a harmonious second story...." Chair Harris referred to Page 12 of the staff report (Solar Design) and suggested deletion of "or property rights" as she felt the language was too vague. Mr. Piasecki said that staff would research state law relative to solar access and report back if the changes could be made. Chair Harri~s opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Margaret L. McAbee, 6059 Bollinger Road, spoke in opposition of the proposed rezoning; and said that they purchased the home in 1960 as a new home, and described the construction as simple post and lintel materials bolted to a concrete pad; the water pipes laid in the concrete slab provide heat to the house; insulated cable on the board roof and covered with tarpaper and gravel serves as the electrical network; dropline wiring to electrical outlets in the various rooms, which is the simplest and most inexpensive form of construction permitted in 1960. She noted that much of construction would not meet today's code requirements. She said that originally only two designs existed and original homeowners attempted to add personal touches to make their homes unique and different; the only restrictions being setbacks from the street and utility right of way. She said that they were able to make changes to the houses, paint them other colors, change garage doors, install or remove the front fence, and add second stor~ies with restrictions on second story windows. She said that the video presentation was misleading in that it implied that results of the three surveys indicated the majority of the residents were in favor of the rezoning. Ms. McAbee indicated that a diverse population now occupied theEichler homes and wanted the freedom to do things their own way, as long as it did not present a danger to others. She said that passing a restrictive ordinance of this kind would abrogate a property owner's inherent right to alter a house to new and changing needs as long as it does not endanger anyone. She said because of the need for additional housing in the valley, it was likely that in the future theEichler homes on Bollinger Road and behind would be removed to provide land for apartment buildings. For a long range view, putting the proposed restrictions on the Eichler homes would severely hamper future Cupertino city planners because the proposals are not productive. She concluded that the Planning Commission should consider the overall evolution of the tract thoroughly and review with legal counsel; stating that the houses were not finely designed structures, were not Victorians or Frank Lloyd Wright houses, and stating that the existing city regulations are suitable as is. Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 24, 2000 Ms. Rodriguez clarified that the existing R1 ordinance had two things regarding second story windows; any new two story that has windows that are facing residentially zoned property are required not to align with existing two story windows on adjoining properties, and they are required to have landscape planting within a 30 degree angle of their side window jams. They are exempt if the lower sill height is greater than 6 feet from grade, and there is no exemption regarding opaque windows. Mr. Alan Falk, 884 Ferngrove Drive, spoke in favor of the rezoning and commended Ms. Rodriguez for her work over the years. He clarified that the percentages shown on the table on Page 4 of the staff report should read 5% and 7%, not .05% and .07%. He commented on input received from different areas of the Eichler homes, and asked that the Planning Commission carefully consider them in making their deliberations. He said he was opposed to regulations restricting what he could do with his home, but said because he was part of a community and because he liked the look and feel of the community, he was willing to accept tradeoffs, as were most of his neighbors. Mr. Udo Strasilla, 902 Brookgrove Lane, spoke in favor of the rezoning relative to the privacy issue. He said that he learned about the Eichler homes in a Sunset magazine article, and has lived in the Eichler neighborhood for 25 years. He said he has enjoyed the design of the home because it allows viewing nature in the front yard as well as the back yard. He addressed the privacy issue, in that a second story was constructed next to his home and behind his home resulting in windows and a balcony viewing directly' into his home and infringing upon his family's privacy. Although the existing ordinance called for landscaping mitigation, he illustratedphotos which indicated that privacy mitigation was not provided. Mr. Strasilla said that he was in favor of the rezoning to provide privacy mitigation for the Eichler homes. Mr. Robert Kirby, 915 Ferngrove Drive, said he wished to address the positive impacts of the proposed ordinance, namely how amhitectural unity promotes a sense of community in its residents. He quoted an excerpt from the history channel website which discusses the importance of historical structural preservation in the United States: "Despite generations of efforts by planning reformers enthusiastic about solving the physical, social and moral problems of urban America, cities remain as they began. They are containers for business, hosting vastly improved physical environments to be sure, but they function as centers for the conduct of economic activities, not as humane habitats meant to enrich the lives of most of their citizens." He questioned if Cupertino was headed in that direction; in t-heir pursuit of business development and housing, are they headed for the "container condition"? Can Cupertino preserve its past architectural history which is the basis for its city sense of community? He said he felt that architecture and streetscapes are fundamental to building a humane habitat, and the Fairgrove Eichlers with their Frank Lloyd Wright influence are an architecturally significant part of Cupertino; they are structurally sound; routine maintenance will keep the homes sound for many years to come, which puts to false developer demagoguery that will be presented. He said he and his wife, like many who live in the Fairgrove community, will retire there; they like the Eichler environment, and it is quintessential California. He questioned ifthe architectural heritage of the Fairgrove neighborhood would be protected, or will Fairgrove, like other architectural and historical components of Cupertino become merely a photograph in the Cupertino 2000 time capsule. He encouraged the Planning Commission to think of the community. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Mrs. Nancy Burnett, 729 Stendahl Lane, addressed her remarks to the three recommendations listed on Page 5 of the staff report. Relative to the voting mechanism, she said that the submitted advisory ballot was an instrument that showed a response significant to warrant rezoning. Use of an advisory ballot or survey for overlay zoning is new in Cupertino. She said that recently Mountain View City Council adopted a policy to accept results of a neighborhood ballot for overlay zoning with 67% agreement, whereas Fairgrove's response exceeded that percentage at 71%. In the past, petitions have been used as instruments in Cupertino and door-to-door surveys regarding a single issue of second story; residents have already accepted that there will be second stories. The advisory ballot addresses so many issues that it could not be accomplished by a petition. There are now 110 returned surveys, which accounts for 50% of the neighborhood; in comparison the number of registered voters in the last Cupertino citywide election was 57%. In a democracy, those who do vote make decisions for those who do not vote. The staff report indicates that the favorable response represents only 38% of the neighborhood; pointed out that the opposition response represented only 14% of the neighborhood. As the mailed responses have been received by the city, agreement for a neighborhood overlay has been running consistently as reports are received at 70%. She said she felt it was significant. Relative to the decision about the six architectural preservation components, Mrs. Burnett said that the ordinance should agree with the ballot statements from which it is derived. There are two instances where the wording would need to be changed to agree with what was voted on in the ordinance. C3 on Page 2-23, exterior materials and finishes, the ballot omits any reference to wood and says simply vertically grooved siding; the owners want to be able to accept other types of siding so long as it still gives the vertical grooving affect. D1 second story window requirements; discussed at one of the committee meetings with staff; it was agreed that the UBC minimum sized windows could provide almost as much privacy invasion as larger windows; the fact that they were smaller windows if it fit in with UBC would not help with privacy, therefore suggested this apply to all windows. Omitting the words "larger than UBC size" and inserting the word "all" earlier would accomplish this. Relative to design review, Mrs. Burner said she felt it was appropriate. She said that she was now taking the opponent stance as she previously remained neutral. She said the results of the ballots were significant, and she recommended enactment of the R1-6e ordinance as amended this evening, and then request staff to continue to work on the design review guidelines and the handbook for approval at another time. She said that thus far, there are few problem houses in Fairgrove, but it is essential that the look and feel of the neighborhood be preserved as well as the privacy aspect of indoor/outdoor living, which was a major factor to most purchasers of Eichler homes. Mrs. Burnett said that the two items were items the committee submitted for a neighborhood vote; the results are in and she supported them. She illustrated a photo of a home in Sunnyvale, surrounded by Eichlers. Ms. Theolyn Farley, 6139 Shadygrove Drive, expressed concern with the privacy issue and said she agreed with other issues discussed by previous speakers. She said that she purchased her Eichler home in 1969. She showed photos of houses surrounding her home which illustrated the privacy impacts of second story additions and decks. She referred to the regulations pertaining to notification to residents of proposed decks and additions. Ms. Rodriguez clarified that decks were handled in the accessory structure ordinance, and not in the single-family ordinance being modified. She said that the Planning Commission in conjunction with the City Council approved in 1999 regulations addressing new two-story decks Planning Commission Minutes 6 ~. July 24, 2000 which are required to go through design review, specifically for the purpose of privacy protection. She pointed out that the exemptions and exceptions include decks that are facing non-residential zoning districts in public right of ways and are exempt from the requirement. She clarified the regulations pertaining to Ms. Farley's concern about decks being built on houses facing non- residentially zoned property. Mrs. Mary Kirby, 915 Ferngrove Drive, said she was a member of the Eichler Integrity Committee and wished to address the recommendations contained in the staff report. Relative to deciding on the voting mechanism, she said her comments concerned earlier statements made by the Planning Commissioners about the degree of neighborhood support needed for protection of the Eichler community. The comment was that at least 95% of the neighborhood should agree before approval; and she stated her disagreement for the following reasons: The voter turnout in any election in this country is typically under half of all potential voters; if the 95% rule is allowed, virtually no one would be elected to office and surely no tax or bond measure of any kind would be passed. In a democracy, a majority in an election is determined by using the total count of those actually voting; those potential voters that voluntarily choose not toovote are obviously not counted, either for-or against any issue. Of the Fairgrove homeowners, 71 ~ are supportive of an ordinance; and as noted from the comments included with the ballot some of these residents prefer a more restrictive zoning ordinance than proposed. The proposed language is a fair compromise between extreme views at both ends. The voting ballot sent to the Fairgrove community by the City was preceded by three years of news articles in the neighborhood newsletter, two surveys to decide whether there was general interest in protection, public meetings for homeowners to come and ask questions and this past week phone calls to all homeowners that are on the neighborhood roster, reminding them of this meeting, and letting them know they can and are encouraged to voice their opinion. The actual content of the ordinance has been reworked several times based on the comments and suggestions from the homeowners; the overwhelming majority of those who~ have chosen to respond clearly want an ordinance. Mrs. Kirby asked the Planning Commission to follow the spirit of the democratic voting process and approve the application for an ordinance. Mr. Gary Virshup, 753 Stendahl Lane, said he was a member of the Eichler Integrity Committee, said that although he didn't like people telling what he could or could not do, he was supportive of the ordinance because it still allows for remodeling the houses, but does not make you become inconsistent with the look and feel of the neighborhood to any greater extent than I am already. He pointed out that he was one of the offending non compliance houses; hut felt the guidelines should be required only for permits requiring exceptions and not for all remodels in the neighborhood, although staff's opinion differed ..... Mr. Helmut Jaki, 874 Brookgrove Lane, said he was a resident of the Ferngrove neighborhood for 35 years and was also an architect. He said he was opposed to any amendment to the existing R1 single~family zoning ordinance for the purpose of additional architectural control of Eichler homes. He said the existing R1 ordinance, particularly Section 19.28.060 and the comprehensive design review process are both in substance and context so restrictive that they offer adequate safeguards against so-called monster homes as seen in Sunnyvale, and designs which are incompatible with the general neighborhood, including Eichler neighborhoods. Mr. Jaki said there was no need for more burdensome bureaucracy or an ordinance to regulate individual taste, as one man's castle is another's eyesore. Any homeowner who feels compelled to maintain or remodel his home in the original character should certainly have the right to do so, but it should not be mandated by ordinance. He pointed out that the neighborhood is not a historic neighborhood, it is Planning Commission Minutes ? July 24, 2000 an older neighborhood, but old does not equate to historical. He respectfully requested denial of the proposed amendment. Ms. Florence Chleboun, 619 Phil Ct., said she was the owner of the 'monster mania' home previously published throughout Santa Clara County without her permission. She pointed out that when rezoning is considered, consideration should be afforded to the people's privacy rights. She pointed out that her privacy rights were violated, as she built the addition to her home 25 to 30 years ago when her home was part of San Jose, not Cupertino; she followed the building code, no windows on the sides of the house; two windows .on the front, and one in the back. One of the stipulations was the addition had to be built in the front of the house so as not to interfere with anyone else's view. She said that in the news article, photos were taken which projected the view out of context. She said that the Eichler neighborhood is the same as when Eichler built it; the homes were the first ones open to all the minorities in California; and restrictions are now being put on the houses which weren't there originally. She said she felt the existing ordinances were sufficient protection, and she felt for the lady with the privacy problems. She said it was the Planning Commission's role to support these ordinances to see that people's privacy is protected. She said it appeared that there were two different factions not getting along at all. Ms. Chleboun said she would retire soon and felt the people living in the neighborhood would be here for another 20 years and should have more input. She said she had faith in the Planning Commission's decisions to try to support the people's views in one form or another. She reiterated that privacy is an issue and felt hers was violated, and she objected to this kind of approach. Although she felt the Planning Commission said she hoped they would not make a decision tonight that sets everything in concrete. She pledged to become more involved in the process. She concluded that she was opposed to restrictions, and the people who run Cupertino should see that all the citizens' privacy is protected. Ms. Martha Rowe, 646 Phil Ct., said that she was a Fairgrove resident for 26 years and planned to remain in the neighborhood. She said she was opposed to the rezoning. She said she wished to address an issue not covered, but was brought up in the cover letter sent out with the ballot, relative to the City stating that there will be no impact to square footage under the proposed R1-6e. She said that she received information from the city stating there would be no impact sing the 60 x 100 lot size, and questioned how the city would uphold it for homeowners with larger lots. She said she hoped that the City would be willing to state unequivocally that in the event the R1-6e setbacks reduce the square footage of an improved area, as compared to what would be restricted under the R1 zoning, that the owner of that property would be given relief by using the R1 zoning. She said she felt as a long-s~anding property owner, slae considered her property rights very important and I asked those who were not Eichler home owners, how they would feel about having the additional restrictions put on their property. Ms. Rowe said she trusted the Cupertino city officials, and felt the present R1 zoning provides adequate protection. Mr. George Mansfield, 6189 Shadygrove, said he was supportive of the privacy aspect of the rezoning. He pointed out reference to the siding was more appropriate as having a vertical characteristic, not tongue-in-groove; reference to louvers for the second story windows should be clarified whether or not they are fixed to block downward views; and the reference to a second story in a previous illustration of a white house with green trim was clarified to be a raised roof over a former atrium, not a second story; therefore could not be used as an example of a second story setback. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Mr. Anil Deora, 672 Stendahl Lane, said he felt the ordinance should not be adopted, and said he was opposed to the restrictions for the Eichler homes. He said that any restrictions should be imposed for all bomes citywide, not just the Eichler homes, as privacy is a concern of all residents. Mr. Deora said he found the process confusing, as discussion included Eichler integrity, while the issues included everything, including privacy and architecture. He pointed out that all residents should bave input; however, only those choosing to be involved are providing their input. He said that he did not like the flat roof on the Eichler homes, as they were not functional for the climatic conditions of the environment. He noted that he had also submitted a letter regarding his concerns. Mr. Steve Wolgast, 747 Stendahl Lane, said that he sided with advocates of property rights and found himself cast in opposition, but there have been a lot of changes to the proposal since his involvement. He said he was enthusiastic about the changes to the privacy impacts relative to the second floor setbacks. He said he understood that the design guidelines were advisory; and he felt that residents who wanted to make changes or preserve the Eichlers, would feel that preserving the privacy of their neighbors is consistent with the property rights aspects as well as the look and feel of the neighborhood; however, they were disinclined to have rules that restrict the way it is changed. He said it would be useful to have the guidelines as a reference, and they c6uld be useful, without being burdensome. Mr. Edward Jajko, 6235 Shadygrove Drive, said that he supported the zoning change for the Eichler homes, as the neighborhood was distinctive and unique. He said he felt if the zoning was not changed and there were no restrictions to keep tbe neighborhood unique, sooner or later the houses would deteriorate and larger homes would replace them. He said that he respected neighbors' privacy and would prefer not to have a second story belfind his home which would infringe on his family's privacy and necessitate putting curtains on his floor-to-ceiling windows. Mr. Dick Schuster, 777 Stendahl Lane, said he agreed with previous speakers who indicated that the present R1-6 ordinance was adequate. He said he felt the R1-6e ordinance was excessive, and the exception process ludicrous and excessive cost-wise for homeowners who wanted to do something different. He said he did not feel that the 1960s architecture should still be imposed. Mr. Ted Lavine, 706 Stendahl Lane, said that he supported the ordinance to preserve the Eichler bomes, which are recognized as quintessential California homes throughout the country. He said bis renovation was designed to coincide with the Eichler architecture, including the tar and gravel roof, heated slab, and post beam architecture Ms. Claire Hirshfield, 734 Stendabl Lane, said she bas lived in her Eicbler home for 37 years and supported the ordinance to maintain the integrity oftbe neighborhood. Chair Harris closed tbe public hearing at 8:40 p.~n. Ms. Rodriguez answered questions relative to the setbacks, exception process and design guidelines. Below is a summary of the issues and the Planning Commissioners' opinions on the issues: Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 24, 2000 Issue Doyle Kwok Harris Corr Stevens Architectural Preserve Preserve Preserve Preserve Preserve Integrity Additional Yes Yes Yes No No Privacy Protection Five Issues in Privacy All 5 All 5 4; not privacy 4, not privacy Ordinance Protection privacy protection; only protection; later changed later changed to all 5 to all 5 30 ft. rear Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove second story setback Pulled items Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes from design guidelines to avoid duplication Ordinance or Privacy Ordinance Ordinance Design Ordinance not protection Review only Committee only Chair Harris outlined changes in the ordinance: (2) Page 2-23 of staff report, remove Item B, Setback-Second Floor ... 30 feet; (2) Page 2-23, 3al: remove wording 'plywood or redwood' (3) Add preamble wording "Nothing contained in these requirements is intended to preclude a harmonious second story addition." (4) Page 2-24, Dl: add 'side and rear yard facing second floor windows'. Com. Doyle pointed out that the guidelines were not yet finalized, outlining the requirements, yet the ordinance stated that the requirements had to be met. Chair Harris expressed concern also that the guidelines were not yet finalized yet the ordinance said that the building or addition shall be in conformance with the guidelines. Mr. Piasecki suggested~that a consensus vote be taken on the ordinance and continue both items. Ms. Rodriguez said that it was her intention to go through the design review guidelines in detail with the subcommittee to be certain they were comfortable with the wording. Chair Harris also requested that staffbring back the property rights issue under solar design 19.28.120, since its present form is a vague statement. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to continue Application 3-Z-00 to the September 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Com. Corr Passed 4-1-0 Planning Commission Minutes l0 July 24, 2000 Com. Corr said he felt action should be taken on the application, and not continued, as there had already been extensive deliberation on the issue. Chair Harris thanked the audience for their input, stating the Planning Commission's main concern was the architectural character of the special neighborhood, and requested that further input be forwarded to staff. Application No.: 7-SP-00 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide One year review of the R-1 ordinance to determine if it has had a positive effect on reducing building mass and better integrating new construction and modifications into neighborhoods. Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Assistant Planner, presented a summary of the one year review of the R-1 ordinance to determine if it has had a positive effect on reducing building mass and better integrating new construction and modifications into neighborhoods, as outlined in the attached staff report. The review is a requirement of the ordinance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: (1) Request that the City Council authorize modifications to the R-1 Ordinance, as outlined in the staff report and in the minute order, including staff level approval of two story homes under 35% to allow for the design guidelines to be applied in order to reduce mass and bulk; and (2) Authorize staffto waive review by the architectural consultant for minor residential additions that require approval by the Design Review Committee. Mr. Gilli illustrated the chart showing the number of permits applied for since June 1999. He then reviewed the applications filed since June 1999, which included second story additions, second story decks, and new homes. Mr. Gilli answered questions pertaining to the data contained in the report. Chair Harris suggested modifications to the language on Page 4-3. Last bullet in first paragraph should read "merged with" rather than "shifted to" as the two committees were combined. Third bulletin from bottom in first paragraph, add "and included in the FAR." MOTION: Com. Corr moved approval of Application 07-SP-00 SECOND: Com. Stevens NOES: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 4-1-0 Com. Doyle expressed concern that they may be imposing another level of constraint upon the people that may not be necessary. Report to the Planning Commission regarding Wireless Communications Master Plan work schedule. Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the summary of the proposed work program for the wireless communications facilities master plan as outlined in the attached staff Planning Commission Minutes l~ July 24, 2000 report. He noted that the proposal would be presented to the Telecommunications Committee for their approval. He answered questions relative to the proposed work program, including plan assumptions, planning process assumptions, plan schedule, and cost of consultant services. Discussion ensued regarding the scheduling of meetings and cost of consultant services. There was consensus that staff review the number of meetings and adjust the total amount to be appropriated if necessary. Com. Stevens commented that there were other antenna policies, calling out for maximum height, and possibly one on amateur radios. He expressed concern about having commercial antenna restrictions completely different from other antenna restrictions unless for safety reasons. Mr. Jung reported that the current ordinance derived from an ordinance that controlled ham radio antennas and much of the information in the ordinance of standards were developed from ham radio standards. He said the concept was to have one cohesive plan. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve the work program, and forward a Minute Order to the City Council requesting a budget allocation to cover costs of consultant services and contingencies related to the preparation of a wireless communications facilities master plan, with final budget amount not to exceed $35,000. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 6. Designation of additional alternates to the Design Review Committee. Staff presentation: Chair Harris explained that recently two Planning Commissioners were not available to attend a DRC meeting, nor was the alternate. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission designate an additional alternate and language of the ordinance be modified. MOTION: Com. Doyle nominated Com. Corr as the second alternate to the Design Review Committee SECOND: Com. Kwok VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF TItE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the written report submitted. He also provided an update on the planner's titles to more accurately reflect the level of work they were involved in. He reported on the meeting of the Economic Development Committee held on July 19, 2000. Mr. Piasecki reported on upcoming conferences for both the Planning Commissioners and staff. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Mayor's Breakfast: Com. Stevens reported on the recent Mayor's breakfast. He said that the Safety Committee reported on the impact of the new Home Depot store relative to workers loitering in the area waiting for potential daytime jobs. The Safety Committee has recognized this and is working towards a loitering procedure, which San Jose imposed. Planning Commission Minutes 12 July 24, 2000 Chair Harris requested that the portion of the July 10, 2000 Planning Commission minutes relative to the study session with the Telecommunications Committee be included with the minute order to the City Council. Mr. Jung noted that he was absent during the portion of the meeting approving the minutes, and he had changes to be made referring to his dialogue. The Assistant City Counsel will research Roberts Rules of Orders relative to modifying the approved minutes. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on August 14, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, Approved as presented: August l4, 2000