PC 02-23-87C..'I'I'l! OF aJPERl'JNO, STA'IE OF CALIFOFdUA
10300 'i'crre Av.arrua 01pertino, CP .. 95014
(408) 25~-4505
l-ITNUI'FS OF 1HE RmJI.AA Mfil.'TD!G (;f' TilF. PUiNN1.NG a:lMMISSION
HEID Drl Ffil\f.~.:'Ai?.'i 23, 1987
Meedrq Held b the Interim Counc..L: lhwnbers, 10500 l;J. De Anza 3lvd.
SAI.lT.IB 'IO THE Fil\G;
RDLJ, CALL:
Commissionaro Prese..ri:t: Olail:m:m MaC'..kenz:i.e Vice Olairman Soren."3.en Commissioner Claudy Camnissioner Szabo
7:00 P.M.
Staff Presen'.:: Robert 0:.1t1.:m, Dll'l!l~"tor of Planri.f.n:1 & Developni!mt
steva Piasecki, Assistant Plruming Di!.·l.?Ctor
Mark Caughe'f, Associate Planner <;;lenn Grigg, Traffic Engine1;:1r Peq:y M. OX'Jr .. er, Df:iiputy City Attorney
APPROVAJ:, OF M.TIIDI'ES
Minutes of the Adjourned Regular Meeting of January 28, 1987, the followirq additions were requf?..s't.ed:
-on P;ige 4, the Motion was mndc by Com. Ar.lams, Second.ed by Com. Claudy.
-On Page '5, t:he Motion ·was made. by Com. Szabo, Sec:ooooo by can. Sonm..<Jen.
MJI'ION: Corn. So:r.ei"lSen, to approve the . .r.rinutes of the Adjourned Regular Mootin:;r of January 28, 1987, as ~nded.
SECOND: Corn. Claudy
VOI'E: Passed 4-0.
MOI'ION: Com. Claudy, to approve the Minutes of the Regular MP..eti.ng" of
Febri.ia.ty 9, 1987, as sub:n.i.tted..
SECOND: Com. Szabo
VOI'E: Passed 4-0
I-OSTF01JF.21ENTS OR NEW' AGENDA IT.EMS: -None
-Chr. Mackenzie acJmoo;,Jledged rec<:)ipt of a letter regardi.r.g the Valle.a Application.
-Mr. cowan ackl'lCMledged receipt of a letter: fram Mr. ,Jamr=s E. ,Jack.son in
regard to Item 2 of the Agerrla.
n].-
PI.ANNING cx:M1ISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeti.n3 of Februc-u:y '.D, 1987
PAGE 2 PC -513
ITEMS IID DVED rna1 O'.JNSENl' CALENDAR -None
ruBLIC HEARINGS:
TI'EN 1
Application No ~)., 004 .120"-----Applicant: City of Q.lpert,,,,,ino'-"'.'-----
location: ~"""ide=--·-----
Appl."'oval of Ordinance to amend se.le.."1:00 portions of the Sign Ordinance (No. 746), codifie:i as Title XVII of the MmicipeU. COda.
FIRSI' HEARING
J:lNIR'JNMENTAL OETERMINATIOO: Negative !Jeic::laration
TENTATIVE CITl! CXXJNCIL HEARillG DA.TE: March 16 , 19B7
~ff Presentation: Mr. C:1.ughey reviewed the history of the Sign ordinanoe am. not".e:l the participation of variou.s community groups in draftirq the original ord.L11ance. He emphasized that the c::urrent Sign
Ordinance had rema.ined ~..e.tviceable during a decade of rapid growth because
the original ordinance was carefully crafted to reflect a consensus of ccamnunity c"esign values. 'lbe Plarmin:'J Deparl'ny.>...nt interpreted the City
council's r~'"t for SP..lective amen:lmruTt of the Sign ordinance as technical, but with the goal of naintain~ the integrity of the original
legislative intent: embodied in the doct.Im1?.nt.
Mr. caughey C<.'111!3d attention to d1.anges on Pages 4 and 5 of the Model Ordinance. In response to a::m. Sorensen's que.stion, he stated that there
was an arrerrJroon"':. pa .. ssed which e.ssentia.liy remavoo regulation of political
C:.'1lllpa.ign signs f:r.-am the Ordinance; thi::; anti.on reflect!? the out..ccme of a state state SUpreme court decision.
'Ihe Public Hearing-was then opened.
PI.ANNING O::t1MISSION MINUTES Regular Meetin:J of February 2J, 1987
PAGE 3
Fe -513
ITlli l (Cont'd)
Mr. Her.roan Hijroans, Presicfont of the 0.lpS!rtino Ch.amber of Commerce and an owner of Tq:> Furniture Showcase, CX.."lli!l'.10;ned Staff arrl ASAC for tbe work
done on the Sign ordinance a:merrl:m<>...nt. He noted as a retailer that the section on W,indow Si9D§ was too restrictive; he asked that pe.nt\al"lent winkM signs allw for name brand identification.
He noted .in ~. that shq:pirq oent.ers WOU.::..d find four per year too limited since they have multiple terants. He suggested that the centers cculd p..it llp the reciumd deposit axrl then nnnitor their own temporacy sign displays.
Mr. Mark Wimmer, Property Manager of Orchard Val)LY Market Place, conunented:
~ 'Ihe p.rcposed cliarqe :in ~t:§, allc.:iwin:J th(-1..m. four times a F'..ar wa.<J acceptable; he noted the roliance of saoo types of business activ:lty oo use of banners.
-Freeway Oriented Si™ he favo1:ed Staff recanmer&tion on amP.JldL·,ent to Freew'ay oriented sign application procedure.a. -Real &:fil&i.te S,:igr)§: this was of special illiport sinoe he is a manager of shoppin:;J centers arrl wished to advertise property for lease. Ha noted that the proposed size of these signs was not as large as d.esh"ecl; however, this portion of the Otdinanc.e was acceptable.
-!_'lirdow Si~_;_ concurred with Mr. Hijrnans' st.ate.rents. He asked that the word.in:] 11permanent wirrlo-...r sic;;n be linuted to business identification message cont:P..nt ••• " be removed. -Legal non-confoxniliE sl<;Ir!§: ha asksd that when a change of tenant
occurrerl, a non-conform.in:J sign for a sl1opping cenb=>..r be allO'Wed t.o rer.3in arrl include a minor m:xlification for a ~ tenant r.illile. He favored the use of an .integrated sign program for: a shopp:i.rq center.
There were no other speakers at lli:~ time. The Pllblic Hearit"l<J remained open.
Com. Claudy stated that, oontrary to p..:tblic input, hie was unfavorable to
allowin:J win:iow signs or banners; he noted that t..hese devices are unsightly an:::l unnec...essary.
'IOPIC A: Ex:~lon form Per,:rnits -P@l Estg_te Sjff[!s;. Consensu .. c:; reached
as stated.
'TOPIC B: FreeWqy_QI'.i,entf-<JJ Sign§:
In responsa to Can. Szal::.o' s question, Mr. caurjhB'J reviewed the position of
A.SAC: Allowing applicants to request signs through the Sign Program
process, rather then through the Ex::eption procedure, would rP'..sult :in an .increase in the mnnber of f:r:E?eWay-orientP..d sign :requests rec.eivoo; this
could have a na1ative impact up.::m the p:>.n.cept:ion of the community as seen from Route 280.
PIANNil1G a::t1MISSICN MilIDI'ES Regular ¥.eet.ing of FP..bruary 23, 1987
PAGE 4
FC -513
I'IDi 1 (Cont'd)
'IO cnmteract these effects, the o::mnittee SLiggested that ca:npanies with
fr~y orientatioo .i.nvastig-d."te ot:l1E!r alternatives in identifyirg themselves to the p.l.blic; alb?.J.110.tives were !'CViewed. AS.4C felt that
other avenres ahc.'W.d be explored before the City opr.>....nad up th.a ~y corrir:1oro as an advertia:i.rq medium; this is the rationale fer their positi.on which was contrary to the coon:::il 's direction an the isi:.-ue. Mr. caughey reviewed the histocy of the Fairchild case am the decision
J:-eached. by ASAC. In asser"03, ASN: S'.JggeSt.Eld that if tlwre was, in fa(..t, an issue of hardship, the Excsption process already provided adequate relief for th.ose seeJd.rq freeway identification.
Wo:rd.iD:l of tile staff Report. w:::W.d allow ind~vidual a:i;:plic.:-mts to come before /ISAC as part of the Pla.rire4 Dt..~elop:oont Sign Progra:m. If identified as a l::usiness whic:h would benefit from freeway orientation, or as a business for which freeway identification would enhance the p.:iblic benafit, a f?..'eP.MaY orient.ea sign might be allowed without going thra1gh the Exception precess; this i.J3 the primary clifferen:::e in the alt'lel'din;J
lan;iuage of the 1-bdel ordirarice. .
'111.G Chairman noted the presence of members of the PU:blic who wished to
address the O:mmissian.
Ms. Kathy Myles, Executive. Dizector, CUpe.rtino Chamber of Corrune:rce,
stated:
-~y Oriented s.igns.:. 'Iha Chamber diSc1greed with. the recanroondation
of ASAC; .i:7..1Sinesses which have legitimate needs bt this are.a ought to be penn.i.ttad to freely apply for necessary signs r-<:rther than be lbnited by the c.ode. Staff reo::.tmmerrlation WdS su:pport.ed. . -Q.erviQ9--12tatl.cy1 Signs: ~t by the O'Wtlbe.r with the approach on this b:lpic. -l39!Jnersi Disagre.enlP-nt with the limitation of one banner per year; the
Qiarober supported Staff recoramer.d.ation. 'Ihe Chamber did not suwart the $100 dep:;>.sit required due to the difficulty for shoppin:J oe.nters to cover for their tenants. In addition, she noted that this requ.i.roit~
wo.Ud likely be ignored by sane in:li.vidut:tls. In response to Cam. Szabo's question, she stated fu:tt she did not have an answer as to how to deal wi t.h flagra.nt violators of the Ordinance; the Commi.ssior'.lf'...r note::l t.11at the required deposit seemed to be a fair rurl an 0ffective way in which to enforce the Code. can. Claudy noted t..J.ie requirement of
cbtainirq the. awr.OV'dl of the Planning Director in erect.in;)' any banners;
Ms. Myles s-uggested that iJldividuals W'CJUld ignore this requirement as
well as the requit"'elnerrt to pay a cash deposit.
-~rary arrl S~]~al 1ve.nt Slgoo: 'lhe Chambe.r asked that sr;ecial consideration be gi ve.n to shoppb~ centei'"E due to their 01¥JO:ing' prcgram of special events. · -se.U_ ~9t.ia:l Plar11J§!d _Q?v~~J,ppment f:Lign Pr.~: consensus wi tl1 ASAC recommen:iation.
·.1·
,. f, I
·PLANNING CU'1ML..S.SION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 23, 1987
PAGE 5 PC -513
ITEM l (Cont'd)
-Beal Estate_!i_igns: Con ... <>ensus with A.SAC rea:.mnen::lation. -WindCM Sign§: 'Ihe OJ.aIDber cilsagree::i witt1 ASAC's reoammt?rrlation on the content of pel."Itltil1el1t win::kM signs: in addition, com.e.nt of wi.ndcM signs. was not addressed as a problem: thus, it should not be addressed in solutions. -·Non-confonn.inq si9lli}J Aqreeme.nt with MAC tha.t a c::h.a.n:Je of face is not significant reason to trigger replaaement of a r.on-confonn.ing sign.
Mc;. Myles expressed appreciatia:i to Staff and. the Cornmis.'ilion on behalf of the Clamber in workinq jointly on the topics in question.
Discussion by the Ccmmission was resLl'.IIWad:
TOPIC B: Freeway_orierrted Si..91::§1 (Cont'd)
com. sorensen noted the 11eed for hotels to have freeway sign orientatfon; she ~u:red with the Staff recaumen:'.latlon. can. Clau::ly stata::l that he
felt that the Sign Oi::d:l.nance was too restrictive, initially. He favored
buil~ maunted signs arrl appropriate signage orientated to the freGWay.
On 3, c. , he SUC}Jested striking the final sentence arrl replacing it with
the follcwing: 11 SUCh building mounted sign..."l shall be a part o:: the a.llooable signs." can. Sorensen concurred witl1 this change.
cam. Szabo strorgly favored freeway oriented signs for hotels; in~
where there are IOC>re than one main entrrux:e, he favored multiple signs. Mr. caughey reviewed t..11P-Sign c.ode as it now existed arrl citoo the Planned DeVelor:unent Sign Progra:.n pror..OOure. N.{AC fo allowed thereurrler t.o use the zoning or use of the buildirq as a guideline for deternd.ning the number
and. square footage of signs allor~, but to go beyorrl the strfot limitations of un:ie.rlyir.q zoning or use 'When nece.ssaxy. 'l'he example of Olpertino Inn was cite:i. He noted the concept of "excJ.usive visibl.lit.y11
arrl stated that if it was the Canmission' s intent to a.llcw freeway
frontage to be counted for p.i.rposes of determining number of streets the
businP-ss was adjacent to, it i\Ulld be oorisiderabl.y easier to have identification not only to the public street but to the .freeway as well.
Orr. Mackenzie que..stioned the number of bt.1.sinesse.s to be identified on the building m:runted sign; consensus reached that ~ such identification
si9n.s should be aJ.lCJWl'irl as suggested.
Consensus reached that ·t:.E:>.xt would be addErl to indicate that only OOildirq mounted signs -were authorized for fraway oriented identification, arrl that i:.uch sigr,s wotlld be o...""'lll!1ted as ;:::iart of, not in addition to, the total number of signs allC:Med for. the site. 'Ihese were the only c.lari.fJ.cation.s
to Staff proposal.
In response to questions by can. Claudy, Mr. caughey clarified the intent of section 3.b., to read "six (price displays) par face;" Staff
reco.mioo.rrled that minimum requinJments stat.00 in State law reg-dXd.lrx,J size
arrl content of advertisi.r'I'] medium be t11e Illc"1XiJnurn allc."Med under the City's Ordinance.
:,, "
PI.ANNillG a::M>ITSSION MINUrES
Regular Meet~ of February 23 1 1987
PAGE 6
R: -513
-----------
ITEM 1 (Co.rl:'d)
Cllr. Mackenzie summarized the issues under consideration as:
-number of banners allowed per year
-requj.l."ea'ent of a cash deposlt
-requirement of awrovai cf banners by the Planni.rq DirEct.or -enforcement proc.edure
Mr. Cowan reviewed cede enforoerrent procedures and stated. that the bail
schedule, includ.ing that for sign code offe.nde.rs, will be significantly
raise:i.
Com. Claudy was unfavorable to the proposed four 0anners allCJlw'ed per year. Can. sorensen was favordb1e to this 111..linl:>P...r; in re:s1:onse to discussion
regardirq the use of .l:;.:m.np...rs in shq:ping a>..nters, Ms. M'!Jles reiteiated her
c::anroc>...nts reqa:rdirq Banners and stated that the primacy ooject.ion to banners was the arose of lenqth of display. Mr. Caughey c:on.curn.>d that this was a p:rd:Jlem a.rd lN2!IIl1:iers of the City COOncil had exp:r.e.ssed a conce.m
:reqcrrclirq this issue. can. Claudy added that winJCM signs were of significant cano.?.rn also. ·
Olr. Mackenzie stated that w...e of four banners per year is excessive. He
did not favor the $100 cash Ck..iposit h.rt favored registration of the sign with the Plannirq Director, with a display limitation of 30 days. He suggeste:l all<:Ming only one sign pe:r builclirq when a s.hcg:>ing center had
JOC>re than one building. Can. Claudy suggested the use of a percentage
(15-20%) in detenninin;J the portion of tenants who would be allowed to use banners simultane.ou...~ly; this appro3ch would allcw same flexibility for
shopping ce.nte.r tenants. He b"t¥jgested two per year, 30 day limitation, elimination of deposits, use of a percentage of tenants alla..00 to display banners arrl an active enforcement policy in cases of non conformity.
Mr. Caughey noted the use of $100 cash deposits which were collect.eel on an informal basis in the past; Staff wi&i'1ed to t'ornalize this process. He suggested that rrost other cities probably collect such a ru~it; staff
will researc:.h this is::.-ue.
Ms. Doris Khutson, Mana.gar of Vallco Village Shoppirq Center, stated t.hat this c:enter µit'3 on a number of special events arrl asked for i. '1.formation
reqa:t:ding the use of banners an:l CXJlJ.ection of dc-<p00its; In response to Can. Claudy, Ms. COCker stated tnat events mentioned by the speaker seemed to refer to a sha;,,. for the J?Urpose of selling merchandise.
Mr. Caughey referred to the City Council's adcpted cutdoor P.l.i.-:tl'OCltional
R:>licy, .'10ting the basic provisions thereof. In response to C1r. Mackenzie 1 s observation, he stated that the di.s'tirx..tion between banners run te.rrq;:orary/s-pec:ial event signs 11.ias unclE.>ar; Staff askOO to canb:Lne
these two sections arx:l present tli.9 rE!Vision to the Ccmmission at a later
date.
~ a:J.1MISSION MINUI'E.5 Regular Meetirq of Fe!:i:ruacy 23, 1987
PAGE 7
PC -513
ITEl1 l (Cont'd)
consensus reached that shq:;pin;J c.entenl, defined as three or rrore retail tenants on a parcel, have the right to di.splay one banner at a time en an on:Join:f basis, subject t.o retention of the $100 cash deposit.
cam. Claudy ask.eel that it be made clear that the operator of a Center must infonn tenants that ~ormil'Y with thG adcpt..ed sign program ~d be cited. air. Mackeru:i~ ooted difficulty with the term "self regulatirq;ti Mr. caughey n:Jted the term "self admi.nistratioo prooedure11 wllich denote:i
th.<:.t Center nanagars a:uld determine whet-.her ASAC requi.n:mlents had been met by a new tenant. Consensus reacned that th.1.s section as presente:d was acceptable.
'IQPIC G: Rw.l ~te Sal§} Sj.~;. Acceptable a..s presented.
~IC H: "!~ow Signs:
can. Claudy noted his di.sfavor with wirrlo.>1 signs arrl cited. examples~ he noted the reduction of crime rates when wirdows a.re clear of visual obstructions. can. Szabo was favorable to display of brand names in the window. Commissioners dir::ussed size and methods of 11'1eaSU1."in3 signs; Staff sugge . .sted that other parts of the Code be reviewed to ensure consistency in applying' technical requireroonts for measuring te:mporary wi:rrlow signs, includ.irr:! background.
can. Claudy was agreeable to al.lowirq brarrl names on wJn:.k:iw signs,
al though he preferred that the window he used as such wi t.h advertising
limited to the top and bot..-t:am. ban::ts of the wi.lidcw. can. Szabo l:emained favorable to use of wir.dows for advertising of brand names on a terrpora1:y
basis. Consensus reached that display of advertisin:J brand names and prices on a pe:r:m.-.ment basis was unacoeptable; size of signs are to be limited by includi.rq the backgrou:OO. as part of the :measure.ment of such signs; 25% coverage of w.inicws was acoc:iptable if the backqroi.L-U was counted on earn building face. rl'he C.anmission confir:med . that they
urderstood that wnat was being disa.lSf:led was any combination of permanent. or temporary signs and that arrt combination not exce.edi.nj 25% was allowed in addition to any other sign authodzed.
cam. Claudy raised the question of tenant turn-over in Shopping Centers;
Mr. Caughey e<Jled attention to the a.:m.?..rrled text, Section A, Part 2.
IDrION:
SEct'ND:
VOI'E:
Com. Claucly nnved. to Continue the He.a.ring to March 23, 1987. com. Sorensen
Passed 4-0
Break: 9:02 -· 9:14 P.M.
PLANNING CXM{[SSICN MINUTES
RegUl.rr Meet.in:] of Feb1:uary 23, 1987
PAGE 8 PC -513
NEW BUS.INESS
TI'.EM 2
Application 9-U-83 (R.evil.'w.d) Seva:l1 SprirBS Ranr ... :h Developnent (Gregory
GL'Ollp) Minor rocdification of pravi.ously aw:r:ove?. use pro.;:ii.it. The
property is located on the southoast earner of Rr.l.inbo'w Drive arrl Upland Way.
~f ~i.QD..i. Mr. Piasec.'ld noted that R'Ja.£.ie I of this Applic.,.tion
lm l.?eP...n heard at the Af3AC Meet.i.ng held earlier in the evenirq~ he raview&i the fcur issues under consideration by tba Planning Commission:
-Rainbow Drive Bike Path: As noted in the St.?tt:f Report, the wordj.rg of this Corrlition was specific and did not allow discussion on deletion of a &>parated bike path as a m.inor arne~t. Upon cx:mside:cation,
however, th.era seemed to be conflict between the objectives arrl the c:oooitions of ApprovaL Staff reque.':>t.ed resolution by the Planning canm.ission regar:din;, the p.lblic objective and rea:mmendOO. that the question of a separated bike patm,ray be rega.L"ded as a minor amerrlme:nt w.ith the eUm.ination of Coniltioo 18 A.
-Tree P.r.a-:::uvatiom :E:xhibi·: A, 2nd Hevision was present..a:l The Afplicants
subn.itt.ed. a plan for tc-ee :replacement of th.a ~ Pine.s; Mr.
P.la.socki noted. that the public objectives 'V.m'e ooirq fulfilled by the proposed plan.
With respect to Walnut '.I'.rees, the Applicants had pointed out the difficulty in conforming with this Condition; Staff recamnen:1ed that the
wordirg of the corrlition be amended to allow removal of all of +:.he Walnut Trees should gradirq require such arrl the replanting with 24 inch box trees.
-Interior Sidewalks/Vellicle ca..u:ts: 'Ihe applicants' requested changes on this Condition were acceptable to Staff.
-E.nerLJY Plan: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the 11 .. isto:r.y of the energy plan,
Title 24 and cited the t.h:ree campcu'1i"'...nt.s of Con:lition 20; e.xhlbits WP..re present.ad. 'Ibe issue was the .i:nt:P.ntJ.on of this a::anition at the time of
approval. 'Ihe Applicants have presented an energy plan which wo.lld
achieve the require:l 75% stand.a..w.. Staff agr"€..ed that every p:rr.Nision developed in 1985 need. rci: be i.nplement.ed. in oroer to achieve the 75%
Gtan:lard and asked the Commission for a..~ inb?..l:pretatfon of this
0.)n::il tion of Approval.
Chr. Mackenzie asked the Comtn.issi<.m to determine if these reauests are minor an-e.ndmo.....nts to a prsvic.:usly awrovect use perm.it, and .if t.he
aI1Y2n:lment:s are acceptable.
'f'.
,.
PLANNING crnMISSION M.INlJI'ES
Regular MeetizYJ of February 23, 1987
PAGE 9 PC -513
ITEM 2 (Cont'd)
lmQlicant's P.r;e.sentation: Mr. Jim Jackson, Attorney, introduced
Consultants available to the commission for infonnat.ion. He noted that
there was closure with Staff on the first tl'lree a:me:nd:ments request.Ed an::l stated that the Applicants disagree stl.-orYJlY with Staff on the EneJ:gy
Plan.
He reviewed the histoi-y of the erM3.rgy plan ru1d n:ited that what was initially an tn~ted effort en tr.a :Part of a property CMner to
develcp a project in a reapon.":1.ible manner hai.l becane locked in to an inflexible approach not originally interrled. He u...."'ged that such 'W'Oll.ld not oocur ard. noted a prior letter ar.ldre.ssa::l to the ccr.ranission.
Mr. Jackson stated that the Applicants attempted to reach a 75% efficiency
starrlru:d after the Hearing of this lWPlication in 1985; tllP..re was no diacussion at that time reqa:rdir~ the base :modeJ.. The D.uplication was
that the base model woold evolve through the conoept..s of Title 24; tlw AWlicants believe that S'.JCh was tlva intent of tbB Commission at tha.t time.
In n>..sponse to ml aminnan, can. szal:x:l coI'iCl..l.rr'ed with the staff recamnendation th.at the reqtleh."ted changes WP...ra minor a!UP ... rd:ments. <:an.
Claudy was agi.'"'eeable that Tree Preservation, H.ainbow Drive Bike Path arx1 Interior street Design SidewaJ.Jcs w'&O :minor amendments; he recalled the. discussion on the energy plan am noted that the primary concern WdS the orientation of the propQSed hCJUSes, I19t particular ~eatures to be incorporated in the construction of the hou .. <J.P..S. He was agreeable to
p1-q:x:ised change in the energy plan, provided tliat the 75% Stam.a.rd was maintained; he regarded this change as a minor arcerrlment. can. Sorense.n
concurred that these c:hemges were minor amend.ment..s, an::l was favorable to the staff recomroon::lations. arr. Mackenzie concurred. He noted the dk.""k:ail of · tbe energy plan pres?..nted in 1985 ar.d o:::mmerrled Staff for questfonirq chang"es in so specific a plan.
Mr. Rcb Sawyer, I.arrlscape Architect, resporrled to cam. Szaix>'s question statinq that the Walrn1t Tret"'.B on the property were 15-~') years in age. He noted the spe:::ific requirements of crop trees an::1 cited ,_:ifficultie.s that may occur as this property develops. He favored replacement of the t.reeo
in question. Chr. Macicenzie noted conce.l'.n that trees suitable for residential neighborhocrls cnnposed of youn;; families be considered, He confirmed that the replacement ·of trees would equal Walnut an::1 orcllard trees removed from the interior of the site; Mr. Sawyer reviewed the
lan::lscap:i.n.:J plan.
Mr. Ted Pal.mer, Mechanical Erqineering Con::.-u.l tant for the Project.,
reviewed the EnP_rgy Canmission' s develq::ment of the base mcdel / arrl noted concepts of "historical practice" and the Type A house. He strorqly urgf.."d
the Commission to U...."*.:! the r£M energy n-qulations of californ..i.a as a base;
he answei"'ed technical questions arrl discussed practical applications.
PLANNING <XM1ISSION MINUT.ES
R2gl.llar Meetirq of FP.brua.ry 23, 1987
PAGE 10 PC -513
ITEM 2 (c.ont 'd)
cam. Szabo note:.i tl\at the 75% standard had been acltieved by redefin:l.ng the
baselire, i.e. 1 originally the 75% inprcuement woold have beer1 CCllp.lted on
the 1982 base.line, now the baselL'"!e has been defined as 1975. Mr.. Palmer
camoonted that. t.00 mathodology of ca.lc:ul.ating ~ion of energy was very recent and we:w still in a developoontal stage. can. Clat.rly concurred with Can. Szilbo's obseJ:vat1on.
In response to air. Mackenzie's question, Mr. Grigg 1-evjeltfai the street
and bicycle path aligi.~.
Mr. Donald Sanuta, 1249 Ra.inl:x::M Dr., CUpertino, reviewed the concerns of
this .AWlicatfon: that this de'\relopnvmt . ba int.eqra:ted with the surroun:lin:;f area, i\nd the elimination of traffi.c hazanls on Rainbow Dr.
'lbe plan included an integrated larrlscap.a ~. Ha noted on tha plnns present:OO. that additions an the north aide of Rai.nb;':W Dr. woild oo
landscaped arrl ma:lntained by the heme CMJ."le::C; this was a chanc:Je fr:an the agreed upon plans. Mr. Piasecki reviewed discussion on this point Which occurred at the ASAC zreet.in;r he.ld earl:ler in t.he evening.
Mr. c. Phelic, 1202 Belknap ct., CUpe:rt.ino, asked about the decis:l.on on
bike paths; Mr. Piasecki responded to questions, and noted that Staff had revised their racam:nendC'.tion on this issue. '1110 speaker not.ea the iitnriber of students who biloo to school ir. this area ar.d the rx:rt.ential conflict
between children an bikes and :motorllrt:a.
Mr. Ray Epstein, Rainbow Dr., C.\Ipertino, noted traffic p:i:-OOlerns .on this street and asked for clariil..::ation on traffic circulation patterns, Mr. Piasecki cited COndition 19 and noted that t.l-ie City COUncil will revier"' this issue.
MS. Martha SOnenblick., 11525 Uplar.d Way, CUpertino, stated that she ·was
delighted that the M::interey P.i.Ni..s would l"le rerooved frcm this property arid concurred that more appropriate trees th~m the Walnut tJ..~9 cculd be u.sOO. She expressed her conce.rn regarding the drainage frau this area and noted
that fldcding cxx::urred.
In :respon..c;e to arr. Mackenzie's c.ar:cern, Mr. Grigg reviewed bike lane
starrlards and requireroent.q; the Applicant pre..'Sel'rted a revised drawing
showirq the width of the street t0 be 30 ft. He suggoot:sd tl'lat st..riplnj be rovi.ewP.d on a Sta~1 level. 'Ihe Chairman .ncit.00 his concern that tltls street with its bike paths l:::e safe. t. -
'i
( .;
'· l v
PUNNING cct4MISSION MINU1'ES
R£qular Mootirq of Februacy 23, 1987
Pl\GE 11 PC -513
ITEM 2 (Cont'd)
''•' ,.,_.
MJI'ION: Can. Sorens"m llPVed approval of Application 9-U-83 (Revised) subject to: F.irdings, third paragrai;h to :t:·e.::id, "'Iha Rainbow Drive bicycle path requ..in';JCJ. by Conilt.l.ons of At:Proval. to be oopa.nlb>!
arxi i.rrlependent of Rainbow Dr. roadway area is impr~cticab1a .:.nd conflicts with othe..r sul:xsequently :i.np?sed Con:iitiCO'JI. 'lha canmission firds that eHnLi.ne.tloo of the biJce path in favor: of one located in the roadway area is not a significant varJ.atian fran · the approved corditions." Final para~"il cf F:l.nctings to read, "'Iha eonmi.ission firrls that conformity to State law meet.a
the :require.mw1t." Daleticin of Condition 2. a., fJ.rst ~. Paragrafh to read, "Any of tha 10 Walnut treas located in t:ha
\lleSterly axer. of the site may be 1-emoved a.rd shall be replaced with any deciduous tree of at least 24 ·1nr..h box size to be
approv~i by staf.f at the building permit lwa.l. 11 deletion of Con:lltion 3, Solar system.
SECOND; can. Szabo
'ilOl'E: pQSSE!d 4-0
ITEM 3
Inte:rpretation of Floor Area. Ratio (FAR) Policy
Staff PrE>..sentation: Mr. cowan presented a Model Resolution for:
consideration try the COmt:nisskm; he stated that the Floor Area Ratio inadequately asses.SP..s traffk gEmeration for particular uses. ~ staff
Report addresses alternative approache.<S to the problem. Mr. Cowan answered que.stions and discussed practical applications.
MOI'ION: com. Claudy recaurrended adq::ition of the Model Rei'301utiqn, interpreting Floor Area R..1tion (FAR) Fblicy. SECOND: Cam. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 4-0
UNFINISHED EUSINl::SS:
ITE11 5
status repo:rt on code compliance at the follcwin::J service stations:
a) Mobil Oil -Hcmestead Road,1Be.x1>ardo Avenue b) Uhl.on 76 -DeAnza Boulevard/Pacifica Avenoo
Staff Pre.sentation: Mr. Plasecki presented the• staff report. 0.:lnrpliance with applicable coCles am t:t..'*1 permit conditions for the.se two stations has
been verified, arrl revocation action r:.1f10U1.d be disconti.nu.ed.
MOTION: cam. C1audy, to :t."'e!llOV'e the above sei.-v ice stat.ion use pe...11Ui t revocation actJons from calert:iar. SE<X>ND: cam. Szabo yo:rE: Passed 4-0
PLANNING a:ffilSSION MINtlTES
Reglllar Mae'd.n; of Fcl.:i:ruar.y 23, 1987
PAGE 12
PC -513
•.
,. 1 ·"' ,, ~
, . ~--'-_',
-Cc.1:t<. Sorenser. Md Chr. Mackenzie :represented the Cl:®misaion on an
adviao:l:y body for the new Post Office.
-01.r. ~ie raport.ed an the reamt Mayor's I.lmclieon; the topic of
COde enforcemant was d.iscussed.
REFORI' OF 'IHE PL.l\NNmG DIPJ:X:IUR
-Mr. Cowan reported on ~.nt City Council dooisions of :int.e...""'eS't to the
Planning o:mrd.ssion.
ADJa.JRNMENT:
ATTEST:
Hrorirq conclu:lad its busb')eS.Sr the Planning camnission
adjourned at 11: J.6 P.M. to the next ~ar Meet.in] of
March 9, 1987 at 7:00 P.M.
Approved by the Planning O:::mnission
At the Regular Meet~ of March 9, , 1987:
\. >~~ L ) Donaid Mack.enzia Qi.airman