Loading...
PC 03-22-99CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 22, 1999 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Harris, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Doyle Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Raymond Chang, Traffic Engineer; Rhys Rowland, Planning intern; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the March 8, 1999 regular Planning Commission meeting MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve the minutes of the March 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting as presented SECOND: Com. Corr VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Doyle noted receipt of correspondence relating to agenda items, and findings relative to an architectural site control committee application. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, suggested that Item 6 be continued to April 26 instead of April 12 because of the lengthy agenda for the April 12~' meeting. 3. Application No.: 32-ASA-98 Applicant: Keith Royster Architects (Woodworks) Location: 875 Stevens Creek Boulevard Architectural review of a proposed remodel of a facade for an existing commercial building. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of Mach 8, 1999 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 1999 5. Application No.(s): 2-GA-98, 28-EA-98, Fence Ordinance Amendment Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Consideration of amendment to General Plan policies 2-33 and 6-17 regarding discouraging electronic security gates. Consideration of amendment to Chapter 16.28 regarding prohibition of security gates in non-single family residential parcels. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 1999 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 22, 1999 Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 16-U-98, 43-EA-98 Adzich Properties 10216 Pasadena Use permit to demolish an existing house and construct four single-family residences (approximately) 2,220 to 2,500 square feet) on a 12,480 square foot (net) lot. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 1999 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 11-Z-97, 8-EA-98 Amendment to RI-Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Public hearing to consider an amendmem to the single family residential ordinance regarding building mass, setbacks and height. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of March 8, 1999 Request continuance to April 12, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to postpone Items 3 and 7 to the April 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, Item 6 to the April 26 Planning Commission meeting; and Item 5 to the May 10, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 CONSENT CALENDAR: None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: Application No.: 4-U-97(M) Applicant: Cupertino Village Associates Location: 11111 No. Wolfe Road (comer of Homestead and Wolfe Roads) Minor modifications to an approved 6,000 square foot retail building consisfmg of relocation of trash enclosure, expanding window area and deleting lattice grids in enlxy area. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for minor modifications to the former Vallco Village shopping center, to an already approved 6,000 sq. fi. retail building consisting of relocation of trash enclosure, expanding the window area, and deleting lattice grids in the entry area. Staff does not object to relocation of the wash enclosure; however, they are recoinmending it be screened by shrubs or vines instead of the proposed agapanthus plants. Staff does not support the request for full length windows in the building because of its comer location and recommends that the botXom 3 feet of the window be replaced with a non-clear building material. This particular request was submitted in 1997 and denied by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staffalso does not recommend approval of the removal of the lattice from the entry way as they feel that the lattice design matches other entry features in the development and provides interest to the structure. The Planning Commission's decision will be considered final and not forwarded to the City Council, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Rhys Rowland, Planning Intern, referred to the site plan and indicated the present location of the trash enclosure and the proposed location, and answered Commissioners' questions. Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 22, 1999 Mr. Peter Pau, Cupertino Village Associates II, explained that the reason for the proposed move of the trash enclosure was to move it to the side of the building occupied by Charles Schwab rather than close to Starbucks Coffee. He explained that the proposed full length windows in the building would match the other buildings in the shopping center, and would not present a cluttered image from the base. He pointed out that the lattice might create a top heavy appearance because of the gable located in the same location, but he was willing to work with staffon its retention. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Doyle recalled that the floor to ceiling windows in the remainder of the center were an unexpected feature when it was built. Com. Harris commented that with the Stevens Creek Plan, the architect considered it a quality issue to have a three foot base rather than floor to ceiling windows. When the Boston Market was built, the glass windows were an unexpected feature, and presented a cluttered image with table legs and customers' legs in view. She said she felt a three foot base would lend a much heater view. Com. Stevens said he visited the location, and removal of the lattice in the proposed area would match the remainder of the area; he said he agreed that the windows should have a three foot base; trash enclosure was appropriate. Com. Kwok concurred with Com. Stevens. Com. Corr said that the proposed placement of the trash enclosure was appropriate; the windows should have a three foot base, and the lattice should remain as originally proposed. Com. Harris and Chair Doyle concurred with Com. Stevens. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved approval of Application 4-U-97CM) Com. Stevens Com. Corr Passed 4-1-0 Application No.: 2-ASA-99 Applicant: Steve Zancich Location: 20030 Forest Avenue Architectural and site approval to construct a 4,715 square foot duplex. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish an existing single family home and construct a 4,715 sq. f~. duplex. The development regulations, building orientation, architectural review, privacy protection and landscape review were reviewed, as set forth in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application; a Planning Commission decision will be considered final unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Cowan referred to a map of the area and illustrated the existing duplexes. He discussed the proposed building orientation, noting that the applicant preferred to orient the building similar to the others along Vista Drive. Mr. Cowan said that he felt that if the building was built in the proposed configuration, the setbacks would work in the orientation and would be more pleasant for the rear yard to stay back, although technically a side area. He said that staff recommended embellishment of the windows to create more interest on the building's front elevation. Staffrecommands approval of the application; with a condition of approval that the trees comply with a 30 degree cone vision proposed for new R1 developers. He said that although the proposed building is larger than the surrounding duplexes, staff feels that the architecture is not overly massive and intrusive; the windows can be treated for privacy. Relative to the 19.34.0180 findings, Com. Harris questioned if it would be appropriate to state the fact that the building is a two story building and larger than the other duplexes and houses in the area, and therefore wouldn't meet the requirements. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, said that all the findings must Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 22, 1999 be made; and if all cannot be made, the proposal would have to be denied. She added that the abrapt changes in the building scale could be interpreted as Com. Harris stated. In response to Com. Stevens question about mixing the R1 standards, Mr. Cowan stated that the properties to the north are duplex, and the only Rl standards recommended are the trees for privacy protection. Mr. Steve Zancich, applicant, discussed the design of the proposed project, noting that the units had added features such as 2 car garages, indoor laundry areas, and an exlxa bedroom. He said that the units were designed for families that were in the area for a two to three year transitional period. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Harris said she felt the proposed project was too large; the neighboring duplexes were one story, and she could not support the application as the findings could not be made. Mr. Cowan urged the Commission, when reviewing the f'mdings, to view the neighborhood as a duplex neighborhood, not single family. He said there were no FAR requirements for duplexes or apartments, and although the FAR was high for some of the recent single family small lot developments, the higher the density, the greater the FAR for the units, which is merely a function of more building on a mixed amount of land. He said the f'mding could still be made for the duplex neighborhood because it is larger than the typical duplex. Com. Stevens said that the FAR did not apply to R2; and although it was a large duplex, the orientation to Vista was appropriate as all the other duplexes along the street are oriented in the same way, and its orientation would complement the neighborhood. He said that the second story was tastefully designed and set back and he felt it was a suitable project. Com. Corr said that he felt the proposed project would be an attractive addition to the neighborhood. Chair Doyle summarized that Com. Harris was concerned about not being able to justify the findings; Com. Kwok said he was comfortable with it as all the setbacks met the minimum requirements; Com. Stevens said it was appropriate although he did not want it to be moved further back; and Com. Corr was supportive of leaving it where it is located, with 20 feet fi.om the facia. Chair Doyle said that overall he supported the project. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 2-ASA-99 with the deletion of the second semence of Condition 3 of the model resolution. Com. Con' Com. Harris and Chair Doyle Passed 3-2-0 Chair Doyle said that relative to the package presented, he felt there was no reason for denial; however, he was concerned with fmding 2b, and stating that the project was in harmony with the associated residences. He said he would like clarification fi'om the City Council level whether or not the ordinance should be examined and modified to reflect the actions occurring in the R1. Mr. Cowan said that it could be a topic for discussion at the March 29~ work study session. Com. Harris said that FAlLs are needed for the duplexes as well; and there is a need to maintain the standard and general plan to have harmony to watch the remodels for consistency. She said that she could not make that finding. There was consensus that the R2 ordinance should be reviewed. Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 22, 1999 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: I-GPA-99, 1-EA-99 City of Cupertino Citywide Consideration of amendments to the land use and housing elements of the general plan related to housing densities and housing opportunities.; Tentative City Council hearing date of April 19, 1999 Staffpresentation: Mr. Jerry Haag, consulting planner, said that as part of the previous General Plan annual review, the Planning Commission and City Council requested the Community Development department to investigate several key transitional parcels to determine the appropriateness of existing General Plan and zoning designations in relation to surrounding development, and if possible look at alternatives. He said five parcels were analyzed and investigated and were outlined in the attached staff report. Mr. Haag reported that they were selected among the consensus of the Planning Department, touring the city, and personal knowledge of the staff as to what constituted a transitional parcel. Mr. Cowan said that the action that triggered the investigation involved a scattered residual 1t3 zoned lot in a single family residential neighborhood. At a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting last year, the decision was made to look at the transitional properties located next to the single family zones, and to consider reducing densities in those areas. Mr. Haag provided a brief history of his background. He reviewed Sites A through E and the staff recommendations for each site as set forth in the staff report. Mr. Haag reported that the Housing Committee unofficially said that preliminarily any thought or attempts to reduce density or to reduce housing would lower the housing opportunities, and therefore they were not in favor of a general plan amendment as recommended by staff this evening. Mr. Cowan said that the general sense of the committee was that they did not want to lose density opportunity and they would discuss it at their next meeting and forward a recommendation to City Council if it is adopted tonight. A brief discussion ensued wherein staff and Mr. Haag answered Planning Commissioners' questions. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Ronald Joelson, 10118 Bandley Drive, expressed confusion with the resolution in the staff report, and questioned whether it had already been passed. Mr. Cowan clarified that the model resolution is prepared for presentation to the Planning Commission as part of the staff report to be acted upon at the meeting. Staff also clarified that Mr. Bianchi's letter was received alter the staff report packet was prepared. Mr. Joelson reported that he was the owner of Site A referred to. He referred to Item (a) of the resolution and said that he disagreed with the statement, because he felt it would substantially be detrimental to public welfare by limiting the availability of public housing in his particular parcel. He also said he felt the statement in Item (c) of the resolution was not true, because the statement is inconsistent with the fact that the majority of the surrounding residents are living in high density housing, and therefore additional high density housing would be consistent with the surrounding types and densities. Referring to Item (d) of the resolution, he said he felt the proposed amendment was incorrect and almost impossible to implement by the city because there is not enough land let~ in Cupertino that would lend itself to the construction of available affordable housing. He referred to an earlier comment that the issue had received support from members of the housing committee who have informally expressed their concerns about reducing densities which would in turn reduce availability of affordable housing in Cupertino. This concern was expressed to the Environmental Review Committee and the Housing Committee intends to make a formal recommendation to the city to reject this general plan amendment. Mr. Joelson referred to the content of his letter dated March 17t~ and his reasons for being opposed to changing the general plan to lower density for Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 22, 1999 the said parcel of land. He added that the downgrading of the parcel of land would substantially reduce his property value and delay his plans to develop the site. Mr. Joelson said that he purchased the three parcels 48, 75 and 76 almost thirty years ago, and allowed the family to reside on parcel 48 with rem~mder interest and developed parcels 75 and 76, with the intention of developing parcel 48 after the deaths of the residents. He said that he proceeded to develop plans on parcel 48 and received notification from the city of plans to downgrade the property. Mr. Joelson said that his units were exemplary units that provided affordable housing to its residents, and he intended to retain ownership of the units and build additional units on parcel 48. He urged the Planning Commission to reject the general plan amendment that would allow reduction of densities on the parcel. Mr. Max Ilic, 20666 Cleo Avenue, requested that Site B remain as R3 as the area is surrounded by townhouses. Mr. Chris Crafford, 20651 Gardenside Cr., referred to Site B, and speaking on behalf of the Gardenside Cr. Homeowners' Association, said that they supported the recommendation to reduce the density. He said that in that area outside Cleo Lane, there are a number of townhouse developments and higher density developments and the traffic and parking on Gardenside Lane is high, and allowing an increase in development on Cleo Lane, would further increase the existing serious parking and traffic problems on the road. He said they would also like to maintain the privacy into their area; the southside is already built up with two and three story buildings and would like to try and keep the northside as single family homes, which keeps the traffic down and maint~fms the privacy for the residents. Ms. Marie Gatto, 20092 Rodrigues Ave., referred to Site C and requested that consideration be given to limiting it to 5 to 6 units, not 10, because the surrounding area was mostly single dwelling homes and one story duplexes. She said that two story duplexes would be out of proportion with the remainder of the street. Ms. Cecelia Attix, 10328 Brittany Ct., referred to Site B, stating that she owned a duplex on the east side of Gardenside, a single family home on the north side of Cleo, (both R3 properties when purchased) and in 1993 purchased a home also zoned R3 on Cleo to develop as additional rentals, and the Planning Department indicated they wanted multiple units in the area. She said it would be an extreme fmanciat loss if the property could not be developed as 1t3. She said that she felt the lots on Cleo should either be all R3 or RI, and that it was not fair to have different zoning for adjoining properties. Ms. Attix said she would prefer that the zoning designation remain at R3 zoning, which it was when they purchased the property. Mr. Brad Burrow, 20652 Cleo Ave., requested that the zoning remain the same, so that the neighborhood could remain as is; as he did not have plans to develop his property. He said he felt fortunate to be able to afford to live in Cupertino. He said he would support lowering the density to RI, to keep the neighborhood as it is and prevent multi family development in the vacant lots. He expressed concern that development in the vacant lots would make the drainage problems worse. Ms. Vera Scott, 1320 Flower Ct., referred to Site A, and noted that there were single family homes and all of Poppy Way were single family homes. She asked that it be considered when making the decision about RI, using 5-10 units instead ora higher density. Mr. N. Lamarche, 1318 Flower Ct., reiterated that there were single family homes surrounding his home, and said he was supportive of restricting development on the prope~3' behind his. He noted that because of the past heavy rains, he replaced the fence along the back property at his own expense, not knowing who the owner of the other property was. He expressed concern about the type of development permitted, and suggested restricting it to single story family dwellings or a reduced amount of housing for the area. Ms. Marie Gueringer, 20075 de Palma Lane, said that her family owned the Site C property. She said that presently there were no plans to develop the property, and they supported the existing zoning. Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 22, 1999 Mr. Joelson referred to Site A, and reported that it was represented that there was only one two story building. He indicated that 50% of his apartments were two story, and illustrated the surrounding apartments as two story buildings. In response to Mr. Lamarche's commem about replacement of the fence, Mr. Joelson stated that he was not contacted about the fence replacement, and said that if he had been, he would have participated in the replacement cost of the fence. Chair Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Harris suggested renumbering the Sites 1 through 4 in the model resolution in order to avoid any confusion as Site C was not mentioned in the resolution because it was not being changed. Com. Stevens expressed concern regarding the Housing Committees' statement. Com. Corr reported that at the recent meeting, the Housing Committee was concerned about the issue of going to R1 on the plots, when there is a need for affordable housing in the city. He said their main concern was that it was not on their last agenda to discuss it before the Planning Commission meeting so they could bring their recommendation forward; therefore they scheduled a special meeting in order to have the opportunity to discuss it and forward a recommendation to the City Council. He said the committee is very concerned with reducing the density on any parcels in the city. Com. Stevens said other than that concern, he supported keeping things as they are or lowering them, not increasing. Com. Kwok said he was also concerned about the statement made by the Housing Committee regarding affordable housing. He said that changing or lowering the densities would defmitely affect the number of affordable housing units in the area, but agreed to keep the density low, especially for Site 1, as 1 to 5, because it is a quiet neighborhood, mostly single dwellings. He said that Site B was close to the freeway, and he was not opposed to increasing the density from Iow to medium density, 5-10, for affordable apartments. Site C is appropriate at 1-5 if possible; Site D is appropriate because it will conform to the Heart of the City Specific Plan; and Site E, Com. Kwok said he supported the staff recommendation. Com. Corr said he was also concerned about the ability to build affordable housing in the city, and if the density were reduced, it would also decrease the opportunity for affordable housing. He questioned what the urgency was to present it to the next City Council meeting; and suggested allowing more time for the community to have the opportunity to talk to the Housing Committee as well as have them review it and come back to the Planning Commission so that they could make a more informed decision. He said that he fell Site A should remain single story, with no reason to take it to R1. Relative to Site B, he said it appeared that there were some R1 houses amongst all the other development going on, and R3 would mean there could be multiple units, with a recommendation to go to 5 to 10. He said he would be interested in hearing community input. Com. Corr said he felt Site C was appropriate and was consistent with what existed; he was not clear about the commemial/office/residential on Site D; Site E on Bollinger Road had some duplexes facing on the street with an empty lot on the corner, with the need for a buffer. Com. Harris said she was in favor of fixing a conflict between the zoning and the general plan. Site A has a general plan 10-20 units and the zoning is RI, 6,000 foot lot, therefore a decision needs to be made between the general plan or the zoning. She said she was in favor of keeping the zoning and amending the general plan to go along with the zonings; therefore she supported the staff recommendation on Site A; staff recommendation on B; Site C should remain as housing; Site D, concur with staff recommendation; however, one of the caveats is to initiate an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to amend the 8 to 35 range down to 5 to 10; Site E, staffrecommendation, concurring with Com. Stevens; same densities or lower and clean up the conflicts between the general plan, the specific plans and the zonings. Com. Haris commented that they had accomplished a great deal in terms of low cost housing, and approved apartments, and complemented the staffrecommendations. Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 22, 1999 Chair Doyle said that from a philosophical standpoint, the community's wishes should be reflected; however, on the five parcels, there was not strong direction fi.om the community. He proposed that Site A remain as its current development and attempt to have the owner and neighbors reach an agreement of what should happen there and potentially proceed on in the future; Site B remain as is. He said Site C should be lowered to reflect what surrounds it; the adjoining property owners and property owner should try to work out what that entails, whether the density is the issue, two stories, or the wishes of the community should be what dictates it and not necessarily by people not related to the project. Site D should meet the staff recommendations and leave Site E as is. Com. Harris commented that the history of the action being taken was a result of a proposal for a triplex in a single family neighborhood, as the zoning was for R3 fi.om a carryover. After much time and expense the result a single family residence. Chair Doyle clarified that what they are responsible for is a public review process; to put together the information, notification, and let the community know that there is a potential for change and they should be aware of the issues and perceived problems and be provided the opportunity for conununity input. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve the negative declaration on Application 1-EA-99 Com. Stevens Chair Doyle Passed 4-1-0 Chair Doyle noted that his concern related to the drainage issues discussed. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to recommend the general plan amendment to the City Council on Application 1-GPA-99 to include the four items in the model resolution Com. Kwok Chair Doyle, Com. Corr Passed 3-2-0 Chair Doyle clarified that the recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council to be agendized within three weeks; the topic would be reviewed together with the recommendation of the Affordable Housing Committee, at which time they would make a f'mal decision. He said that it was important to get input at that point, and asked that questions be directed to staff. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris recommended a Minute Order to suggest that the City Council propose that the Planning Commission initiate an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for Site D to align the dwelling unit range between the general plan and the specific plan. Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: Amendments to Newsmck Ordinance City of Cuperfmo Citywide Consideration of amendments to Chapter 10.21 CNewsrack Ordinance) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to require modular newsracks. Tentative City Council hearing date: April 19, 1999 Continued from Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommendations for the changes to the newsrack ordinance include: (1) The ordinance would establish overall purposes and intent; (2) Require issuance of a yearly encroachment permit by the Public Works Department; (3) Require newsrack contractors to obtain requisite insurance coverage; (4) Require Planning Commission Minutes 9 March 22, 1999 that newsracks be well maintained. Staff has contacted other cities regarding their adopted standards related to replacing existing newsracks with uniform, modular newsracks; and will present five alternative design specifications for Planning Commission review to be forwarded to City Council in April. The Planning Commission may also direct staffto explore possible enhanced newsrack designs and costs. Mr. Haag reported that staff met with local newspaper publishers and distributors, including representatives from the San Jose Mercury News, San Francisco Chronicle/Examiner; USA Today, and the Metro as well as many other free periodical distributors, to review the standards and come up with the Altematives I through 4, described in the staff report. He reported that Alternative 1 was preferred by the newspaper publishers which would remove the city from the process, and allow the newsrack distributors themselves to undertake the voluntary newsrack upgrade program, similar to the one in Los Gatos. Staff recommends Alternative 3, to consider the attached draft newsrack ordinance and design criteria, based on what the other cities have accomplished. Mr. Cowan discussed the location and design of newsracks and pointed out the restraints that the city was faced with relative to regulating the location of the newsracks. Mr. Haag also answered questions relative to the proposed design, location and costs of the newsracks. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Norman Aaro, San Francisco Newspaper Agency, said that he attended meetings with staff and other agencies, and the newspaper agencies preferred Alternative 1 with the Memorandum of Understanding, whereby the newspaper agencies would be responsible for policing the program. Mr. Aaro presented a copy of the legal proceedings relative to the upcoming hearing in the Federal Court regarding a first amendment complaint against the City of San Francisco challenging the constitutionality of the newsrack ordinance. He said that the newspaper agencies were opposed to the City Solutions proposal. Mr. Aaro said that Alternative 3 would be the second option for consideration, wherein the city's ordinance would be followed and the agencies would work with the city. He noted that there were proposed amendments to the ordinance, as they felt some of the setback numbers were urrrealistic. He discussed aspects of the programs followed in Los Gatos and Saratoga relative to the design and location of the newsracks. Mr. Hang reported that in previous discussions with newspaper distributors, they volunteered to purchase the modular units and install them at their cost. City Solutions indicated they would make available their modular newsracks for the newspaper agencies to purchase. Mr. Dennis Obsul, USA Today, said that he has worked with staff and submitted recommendations, and was supportive of the memorandum of understanding. He said that he has worked with other cities and participated in various programs including memorandums of understanding, and voluntary rack agreemems. He said that USA Today and other publishers objected to having a third party vendor sell advertising on the newspaper racks and earn a profit from the various publications. Mr. Aaro said that relative to the advertising on the City Solutions' racks, they were stating that it was unconstitutional as it required the publisher to be associated with the advertising, and specified that third party ads are not allowed. The newspaper racks are placed in a public forum and with the advertising, it is similar to associating the publication and their editorial policies with some outside advertiser utilizing their stand. Ms. Murray explained that she was not able to obtain the complaint relative to the San Francisco lawsuit. She said there were first amendment concerns associated with restricting newspapers, and she had not addressed the annual encroachment permitting issue that could be restrictive, or the cost being too restrictive for smaller newspapers. She said that when restricting the freedom of the press, there is always the Planning Commission Minutes lO March 22, 1999 possibility of a lawsuit, and noted that legal counsel would review the San Francisco lawsuit before making a decision on the ordinance. In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Haag reiterated that City Solutions would make available the modular racks for sale. Chair Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Harris said that she was not supportive of Alternative 2, and was not supportive of including a third party vendor with ads; otherwise she would favor a blending of Alternative 1, 3 and 4. She suggested an attractive newsrack, and the newspapers to be involved in a voluntary program which would satisfy them and their needs and the enhanced newsrack which is the City Council choice. She said the modular racks shown were an improvement over random ones in varying state of disrepair, and with various shapes, sizes and colors. Com. Harris said that a committee should consist of staffmembers also. Com. Corr said that he was not comfortable with Alternative 1 because he had of lack of confidence that it would get accomplished; he was not in favor of Alternative 2 involving third parties, although he felt it would be advantageous to get people involved. He said he preferred Alternatives 3 or 4, and would prefer installing new newsracks, seeing where particular sites would work and those that would not work, and then return with an enhancement later. He said he felt the stands with pedestals would be safer. Com. Corr said that his fa:st choice would be Alternative 3, and Alternative 1 second choice. Com. Kwok said that Alternative 2 was definitely not suitable; Alternative 1 had some merit and could be tried on a trial basis for 6 months to a year, with a staff member representing the city's interest; Alternative 3 was suitable; Alternative 4 enhanced would be appropriate if implemented on certain major intersections in the city, perhaps a hybrid of 3 and 4. Com. Stevens said that Alternative 1 would allow ~eedom and a review or city contact person, to allow communication both ways, which is important because it involved public streets, not private areas. He said he felt Alternative 2 with a third party would not be appropriate. He said he preferred Alternative 3 but did not like the modular racks; Alternative 4, the enhanced newsracks would be of interest, but should be on designated public streets, at city cost, not publisher's cost. Chair Doyle said he felt Alternative 1 would be the preferred mode, with staff and city input at some level as part of that group to assure that it reflects their input, and create an ordinance and proposal that could be agreed upon. He said that enhancements could be added later. He summarized that there was consensus to work on Altemative l, with city input, with the goal to creating Alternatives 3 and 4. He noted that the ordinance did not necessarily have to change significantly, but that a memorandum of agreement should be the result. Mr. Haag summarized that the goal would be to have the city create a newspaper publishers' voluntary committee with staff assistance and input to address coming up with a Memorandum of Understanding or new draft ordinance. He said most of the cities' participation would be ongoing, in order to monitor maintenance and any potential disputes. Ms. Murray clarified that it would be adopted as an ordinance, and the MOU would be supplemental to the ordinance. Mr. Cowan said that staffwould meet with the publishers again, and Assistant City Attorney Murray would review the San Francisco case. Com. Corr emphasized that it was important to address the graffiti issue relative to the newsracks, and the issue of location of the newsracks beyond the public right of way. Mr. Haag said that it had been debated with the publishers and they were adamantly opposed to any private property restriction; and as a planner, the city should have some control over zoning requirements either through a site plan review, conditional use permit, or variance. He said if it were a private issue, there would be some way to regulate it. Ms. Planning Commission Minutes 11 March 22, ! 999 Murray said that it was difficult to regulate newspapers on private property; and it was not an area where the city could want to restrict people's right to free press. Discussion continued regarding inappropriate images or display of materials which would be visible from the newsracks. Methods for dealing with violations and infxactions were also briefly discussed. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None Com. Harris moved to continue the Amendment to the Newsrack Ordinance to the May 24, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Harris submitted a list of suggested items to be included as discussion topics when the workshop for the new Commissioners was held. Mr. Cowan asked for additional suggestions for the list. There was a brief discussion regarding the agenda for the special March 29~' meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. to the special Planning Commission meeting at March 29, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved as presented: April 12, 1999