Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes 03-06-1975CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE HELD ON MARCH 6, 1975, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was opened at 7:15 p.m. by Chairwoman Sallan with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Members present: Dressler (9:50), Koenitzer, Rogers, Chairwoman Sallan Members absent: Weinstein Staff present: Assistant Planner Toby Kramer Assistant Planner Steve Piasecki (8:10) INFORMAL REVIEW OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT USE PERMIT APPLICATION: N UNFINISHED BUSINESS: In answer to Chairwoman Sallan, Assistant Planner Kramer reported there had been no written communication from the City Manager to UCO representative; just conversation. She reviewed context of discussion, reporting it had been resolved to the applicant's satisfaction. Member Rogers reported the Public Safety Commission's comments with regard to security in relation to landscaping. Mr. Quinlan and Mr. Marron had indicated the Sheriff's Office reviews every application and makes input, indicating concerns. The chairman of Public Safety said if ASAC wanted further input they would be happy to cooperate in any way. HC -133 Page 1 IIC-133 Page 2 Minutes of 2/20/75 approved as corrected HC -51,075.40 Vallco Regional Shopping Center MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of February 20, 1975 On page 5, paragraph 5, line 5 should read "...like to see the interior working model as mentioned by Mr. Ward." There being no further corrections, Member Rogers moved to approve the Minutes of February 20, 1975 as corrected. Seconded by Member Koenitzer. Motion carried, 3-0 POSTPONEMENTS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Chairwoman Sallan announced that no item would be initiated after 11:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application IIC-51,075.40 - Vallco Regional Shopping Center requesting approval of lighting and the modification of architecture for the portion of the shopping center on the western side of Wolfe Road north of Sears. Continued from H -Control meeting of February 20, 1975. Staff report: The Assistant Planner reviewed previous discussion. She referred to exhibits of architecture and lighting displays. Ms. Kramer pointed out 30 ft. poles would be used as this was more suitable in an area of this size. Shields will be used to keep the light from spilling over into the residential area. She read condi- tions suggested by the staff. Member Koenitzer asked if the City Traffic Engineer had looked at the illumination level at Vallco Parkway and perimeter road. Ms. Kramer said she did not think so. Mr. Ralph Butterfield, architect, said they were asked to redesign skylights and canopies. They feel they now have a better solution that will conform to the rest of the building. He displayed the study model. Residents adjacent to center will not see the sky lights; they will be seen from traffic coming down over freeway. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING Mr. Butterfield described the proposed treatment, noting the same treatment would be used on larger courtyards. Member Rogers noted the design was the only change being made; there would be no reduction in height. Mr. Butterfield displayed the revised model of entrances between Bullock's and shops and explained changes made to canopies. Chairwoman Sallan questioned angle of sky light since the rest of the roof lines were linear. The canopies were discussed. Mr. Butterfield said they would not exceed the height of Bullock's. Member Koenitzer asked if thought had been given to the sun's angle and reflection off glass into parking lots, perimeter road and adja- cent homes. He asked that calculations be made on this. Discussion followed with Mr. Butterfield agreeing to present these calculation: to staff. Mr. Butterfield then introduced Mr. Seymour Evans, lighting consul- tant for both interior and exterior from New York. Mr. Evans noted they had had to redraw lighting plan to satisfy criteria. He said he had never seen anything like the fixtures at Sears. This plan was produced to be low lighting and energy saving. He explained how his program would fit requirement of .25 candle- power. He spoke about- light and its annoyance factor in a shopping center, pointing out height is not necessarily a factor in glare. He distributed exhibits of fixture they are now planning to use, and explained its operation. Mr. Evans said this fixture would comply with their wishes and complimented the committee on the clarity of their stipulations. He asked for the poles to be 34 ft. instead of 30 ft. He explained how the extra 4 ft. would enable him to flatten out the light at the center and give more efficient use of energy. The foot candles would be evened out over the surface. Member Rogers asked if .25 is a reasonable requirement. Mr. Evans said it was an astute requirement as it quantified objectives. He said it should be designated in foot lamperts rather than .25 ft. candles at fence. He said this proposal was the optimum solution for lighting. It was ascertained the bulb would give off a warm yellowish light. HC -133 Page 3 HC -133 Page 4 Public Hear- ing closed MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1975 I -I -CONTROL MEETING Member Rogers asked if his expertise could be utilized. Mr. Evans said they need the most efficient lighting; there is a quantifiable relationship between lighting and crime. Most cities are converting to yellowish lights. These give 120 lumins per watt. When you have to illuminate a large area the higher you go, the less glare there will be. Mr. Evans clarified the Sears lighting would be changed to this system. The hearing was opened for public comments. There were none. Member Koenitzer moved, seconded by Member Rogers, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried, 3-0 Chairwoman Sallan expressed her surprise that a solution described as being so much better was only now being presented. Member Koenitzer moved to recommend approval of H'C-5 1,075.40 for the lighting and the architecture for the portion of the Vallco Shopping Center on the western side of Wolfe Road north of Sears with the exhibits as shown and submitted at the meeting, including the new lighting exhibit, the standard conditions and the following special conditions: (1) That the foot candlepower at the western wall be no greater than .25. (2) That the lights nearest to the western wall shall be required to have the necessary shields and louvers to achieve the light cut-off at the wall. (3) At the time of the installation of the lights, the developer shall be required to test the illumination patterns at the western wall to certify that the light readings are as required. (4) That the skylights at the west and north entrances to the mall be no higher than the roof line of the Bullock's store adjacent to them. (5) That the applicant will make calculations to determine if sunlight reflecting off sloping glass portions of the western entrances to the mall will cause visual disturbance to the homes and drivers on the perimeter road. Such calculations to be reviewed and approved by the staff. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING Determination of whether there is or is not an impact to be made by the staff. (6) To commend the applicant for change in design of skylights. Seconded by Member Rogers. AYES: Members Koenitzer, Rogers, Chairwoman Sallan NOES: None Motion carried, 3-0 Chairwoman Sallan noted the application had been approved and would be heard by the City Council at its March 17, 1975 meeting. Chairwoman Sallan asked Mr. Evans if he had any information on lighting and signing he would like to share with them; they would be happy to have it. Mr. Evans said his partner was an expert in this field and had written a book. He would send this information to them. Mr. Ward reported on his meeting with Portal Plaza, noting they would be making a submission soon. He said there had been general approval by Sears of the presentation. Mr. Evans showed stlides of the model made in New York. 2. Application HC -51,333.4 of Sobrato-Berg requesting approval of site, architecture, landscaping, grading, lighting and signing for three industrial buildings located at the southeast corner of Valley Green Drive and Beardon Drive. Staff report. Assistant Planner Piasecki went through the staff report dated February 28, 1975, and pointed out highlights. Member Koenitzer asked about the trees for Bandley Drive. Ms. Kramer said there were three trees selected to dominate and the applicant had chosen one of them. Member Rogers asked about signing. Ms. Kramer explained this is one lot with three buildings and the applicant is not going to pursue an exception at this point. Chairwoman Sallan clarified it would be within the ordinance to allow him a wall sign on each of the three buildings. HC -133 Page 5 HC -51,O 75.40 approved w/ conditions HC -51,333.4 Sobrato-Berg Valley Green Business Park Unit II HC -133 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 6 Chairwoman Sallan asked for clarification on the location of loading dock. Mr. Piasecki located it on the site plan and explained the discussions held at the use permit level. With regard to the 5 ft. of landscaping, Mr. Piasecki said there was no excess room for more. Member Koenitzer noted the residential developer to the south would have to build a 6 ft. wall; Ms. Kramer said the construction would be shared between the residential and industrial developers. Mr. John Sobrato, 2775 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, clarified the signing situation. All buildings are being constructed on specula- tion and he would rather not have any signing approved. Chairwoman Sallan explained the design of the building should include conceptual signing. She noted they are talking about a four acre lot. Mr. Sobrato said this could have been divided into three parcels to get one sign for each parcel but they wanted to integrate the site. He feels they are discriminating against future tenants that might want a ground sign. He pointed out there are three street frontages. Chairwoman Sallan said this was why it was important that signing be considered at conceptual stage. Mr. Sobrato said he would like them to consider approving at least in principle allowing three ground signs. Chairwoman Sallan said this could not be done. Mr. Sobrato then briefly went over the proposal. Site: No comments. Architecture: Member Koenitzer felt the air conditioning penthouse spoiled the architecture of building 4. He opined that all the buildings looked like signs at the doors would be appropriate. Landscaping: Chairwoman Sallan asked about Beardon Drive mounding., Mr. Sobrato said each contour line represented 1 ft. Member Koenitzer did not feel a 2 ft. mound would present a problem in mowing. Mr. Sobrato said a 2 ft. mounding would be agreeable to him. Member Koenitzer suggested deleting three trees in front of building 5 and adding -two trees in back of building 4. The three trees to be deleted are redwood and he suggested replacing them with specimen trees in grassy area at the entrance. He also suggested adding two Eucalyptus trees on south property line in front of parking lot so there would be a line of five trees. Mr. Sobrato agreed with this but suggested leaving 3 trees in front land allowing their landscape architect to select type. He explained they wanted to break up the concrete view with the trees. Chairwoman Sallan agreed with this. Grading: Satisfactory. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING Lighting: Mr. Sobrato explained the southern exposure was planned to minimize intrusion. He said they could use two 10 ft. poles instead of the 14 ft. He thought it was unrealistic to expect this property to go residential, but they have agreed to share in the cost of a sound wall. Member Koenitzer suggested conditioning it that if it became a problem, Mr. Sobrato would be requested to correct it. He did not feel it worthwhile it go into calculations of a possible condition at this point. Chairwoman Sallan felt it might be important to consider whether the light would spill over; Mr. Sobrato said the light fixture would not permit light to spill beyond property line as it was hooded. He said if it became a problem, they would change the fixture. Signing: Mr. Sobrato asked if a permit was required for a wall sign if it was not illuminated. Staff member Kramer answered that all signs must have a permit. Mr. Sobrato asked the committee members to approve concept of wall sign as shown on building 6 elevation. After discussion, Ms. Kramer said they could approve location and size of building wall signs for the buildings in the parcel. The committee felt comfortable with this, pointing out however that any deviation would have to be considered at time of specific applica- tions. The hearing was then opened for public comments. There were none. Member Rogers moved, seconded by Member Koenitzer, to close Public Hearing. Motion carried, 3-0 Member Koenitzer moved to recommend approval of HC -51,333.4 to the City Council with the standard conditions, exhibits as presented and the following special conditions: (1) That the three redwood trees in front of main entrance of building 5 be replaced with some other trees satisfactory to the staff. (2) That two additional Eucalyptus trees be added on the southerly boundary behind loading dock of building 4 to make a line of five Eucalyptus trees at that point. IIC-133 Page 7 or Public Hear- ing closed HC -133 Page 8 HC -51,333.4 approved w/ conditions HC -51,362.1 De Anza Storage (Bruce Edwar MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1975 H --CONTROL MEETING (3) That the lighting is approved with the condition that if some time in the future the lighting presents visual intru- sion problems to the area to the south the applicant will change the lighting if necessary. (4) That the conceptual wall sign plan for these buildings be wall mounted signs with an area between 25 and 30 sq. ft. (5) That the mounding on Beardon Drive be of various heights up to at least 2 ft. Seconded by Member Rogers. AYES: Members Koenitzer, Rogers, Chairwoman Sallan NOES: None Motion carried, 3-0 Chairwoman Sallan announced the application had been approved and would be heard by the City Council on March 17, 1975. At 9:05 p.m. a recess was called with the meetingreconveningat 9:22 p.m. 3. Application HC -51,362.1 of De Anza Storage (Bruce Edwards) requesting approval of site, architecture, landscaping, grading, lighting and signing for a mini -storage facility located at the southwest corner of Mary Avenue and Freeway Route 280. Staff report: Assistant Planner Kramer reviewed the application, noting it was felt a mini -storage was an acceptable use for this area providing that the facility could be treated properly with architecture and landscaping to fit in with the character of the neighborhood. The site plan complies.with the approved use permit plan exactly. The applicant has maintained the 40 ft. setback along the front property line as required. The building adjacent to the entry of the mini -storage facility has been adjusted so it is not possible to look directly into the area. Staff has suggested that the planting of Monterey Pines be continued along the western boundary to complete the corner. prior to the use permit approval. Ms. Kramer also explained suggested landscaping for the interior of the site. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING It was also suggested to the applicant that the lights on the exterior of the building be deleted and that lights approximately 5 to 6 ft. in height be used at the driveway entrance to the mini - storage warehouse. Ms. Kramer noted one sign is a 20 ft. pole sign which will be oriented to the freeway. The sign area is 40 sq. ft. per side. According to the sign ordinance, a sign of this type would be permitted adjacent to the freeway since it advertises the business conducted on the property. It has been City policy however not to approve any signs that are directly oriented towards freeway travel. Staff has suggested a temporary sign similar to the one proposed to be permitted on the site for a period of six months. Mr. Larry Angel, 510 Madera Avenue, San Jose, emphasized they had done their best to conform with tone of the City. Slides were shown of the site and the adjacent areas. Chairwoman Sallan noted the slides showed how important the screening would be on this site. Site: Member Koenitzer felt the revised drawings improved the application. Architecture: Member Rogers noted this was after all a mini-storag and the applicants had made an effort to address walls that show to public view. Member Koenitzer asked Mr. Angel to describe the west side of build ing G - the walls that will face the freeway. Mr. Angel said the vertical elements were stained wood. Landscaping: Member Rogers ascertained they were agreeable to all suggestions made by staff except the detailing on Building A on Mary Avenue. The landscaping will be screening this and it would serve no purpose. Chairwoman Sallan said she felt the adding of trees in clusters would provide an extra dimension. Mr. Angel said they had written to PG&E and the State relative to landscaping but had not heard from them. Chairwoman Sallan answered Member Koenitzer that adding extra clusters of trees would be all right, but she preferred the solid line of trees as screening. Member Koenitzer suggested more than one variety of shrub be used in front, using maybe two or three types to provide interest and contrast. HC -133 Page 9 HC -133 I MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 10 Grading: Satisfactory. Lighting: Mr. Angel distributed •copies of the lighting fixture. He explained changes that had been made in lighting proposal. They had deleted the lights as suggested by staff. Mr. Angel said they would like ground lighting at the entrance. Member Koenitzer felt there would be enough light from the four fixtures for the area. Chairwoman Sallan said she did not know what she was dealing with and would prefer having it made clearer what it was they wanted to do. Mr. Angel said it would be of very low lighting accenting landscaping. Signs: Member Koenitzer said the sign on the freeway was too busy and too small in terms of letters on it to be read properly. Mr. Angel explained the address had been put on it because it is located in a rather isolated area. Member Koenitzer said he did not favor a freeway sign. Member Rogers agreed with Member Koenitzer. She could go along with a temporary sign but she was not sure it would serve the purpose. It was ascertained the colors for the sign had not been decided upon. i Chairwoman Sallan clarified that they would come back with detailed proposal if sign approved. Mr. Angel asked for a nine month period on the temporary sign. Member Koenitzer said he could not go along with a freeway sign. Member Rogers said she did not think it would achieve what was wanted but she would go along if rest of the committee members agreed to it. Member Dressler said he did not favor a freeway sign. Chairwoman Sallan said she would let him have a temporary sign for a six month period. Mr. Bruce Edwards, 510 Madera Avenue, San Jose, said the concept of ministorages was for freeway orientation for identification purposes. After filling up process it is not so important. They would be willing to have a temporary sign with some visibility toward the freeway and they would be glad for suggestions from the committee as to where they should put the sign. Mr. Edwards answered Member Dressler that the type of sign would be a dura-ply painted; it would be architecturally compatible to the buildings. Member Dressler then said he could agree to a temporary sign on this basis. Mr. Edwards said it would be beneficial even for a temporary period of time because of their location. Member Koenitzer noted the ground sign could have the address and telephone number on it. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING Mr. Angel pointed out the proposed location of sign on Mary Avenue entrance. It would be a redwood board sign stained dark with lettering on it. Chairwoman Sallan suggested they could approve the sign in concept and the applicant could come back later with details; she was in favor of temporary'sign on freeway. The meeting was then opened for comments from the public. Mr. Bill Schneider, president of Nathanson Ranch Homeowner's Associa- tion, said he was representing 243 homeowners. He said one of the reasons for the association was they wanted to maintain their unique situation. He said he had only heard of the mini -storage within the past week. The association had discussed and reviewed the original plans. A motion had been made for him to express their deep concern over this facility being located in a residential area. They were concerned with how it looks and its actual presence there. It was a 9-1 vote that they would like to have the opportunity to take this to their membership for approval of architectural design. It was generally not accepted. He had talked to staff and Chairwoman Sallan about appropriateness of this and would ask for a possible continuance until after their March 31st meeting. Chairwoman Sallan asked staff for clarification for Mr. Schneider's not having heard of the mini -storage. Ms. Kramer explained the procedure followed. The State law says that owners within 300 ft. of boundary be sent notices. The City also does this for zonings in the City. Home owners were notified and had attended meeting of use permit application. There is no provision for notifying public. Chairwoman Sallan questioned if it was in this committee's providence to continue the application. Ms. Kramer said it had been done on other appli- cations. A discussion was held on this. Member Koenitzer said since this is an authorized public hearing, the committee should hear from developer. Member Rogers said she understood their concern; if developer would be willing, it might be beneficial for developer and homeowners to discuss this together. Chairwoman Sallan asked Mr. Edwards to speak to this issue. Mr. Edwards said they had been working on the project for 2-1/2 yea and he would be interested in meeting with the homeowners. He said they had worked closely with staff. It was determined the applica- tion would not go to City Council until April 21 if it was held over the 31st. After further discussion it was agreed they would meet and return to H -Control at the meeting of March 20. HC -133 Page 11 HC -133 I MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 12 Member Koenitzer summarized what this committee could or could not do. The use, basic layout of buildings are set; architectural treatment and landscaping of buildings can be changed by this committee. Also lighting and signing. Mr. John Crowley, Meteor and Mary Avenues, said part of his concern was the flat wall next to $80,000 - $90,000 homes. Landscaping should be mounded much like apartments. He asked how long it would take the landscape to develop. He referred to plain chain link fence. He noted traffic almost slides into barricade and suggested there possibly should be some obstruction so people won't be going onto grass. He proposed the sign be placed diagonally so it could be seen from both Mary and Meteor. Also the fence should be slumpstone, to blend in with area.. acre should not be any auto repair done inside. It was clarified that there would not be any repair work done on the premises. Ms. Kramer also explained the chain link fence was at the bottom of the overpass and not visible at all from the residential area. Mr. Allen Snyder, 10534 Meteor Place said he had asked questions at the Planning Commission meeting and they had not been answered to his satisfaction. He asked if there would be .any electrical outlets in individual warehouses? Ms. Kramer answered there would not be any electrical outlets or water. The only light would be the ,exterior lights. Mr. Snyder said he had read an article where the warehouses had been used to practice rock bands, etc. He was concerned these might be used.as storage for motorcycles with people from apartments going in and..cut every day. Ms. Kramer read the use permit resolu- tion. If t! ere "are complaints the City has the perogative to go in and resolve them. Mr. Snyder said the only monstrosity left is the City Corporation Yard and something should be planted. Chairwoman Sallan noted this committee had approved plans for upgrading landscaping there. Mr. Don Fultonberg, 21316 Amulet, Cupertino., said the walls facing Mary Avenue should be more compatible with the apartments. They will be covered with plants but not for a number of years, so they should be changed architecturally. Also with a 40 ft. setback, there should be mounding. Mr. Fultonberg, said there should be obstructions in the parking lots to prevent use as racing strip. He questioned if the parking lot flights would be seen from the two story homes on Mary Avenue. He suggested the sign on 280 would be a hazard if it did attract attention of the motorists. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1975 11 -CONTROL MEETING Mr. Fultonberg also questioned if there was no water and.no sprinklers, wouldn't the grass get brown or are the plants compatible with no watering. Ms. Kramer said there would be someone there 24 hours a day and the outside would have a sprinkler system. She explained there would not be any water available to the individual stalls. Mr. Bill O'Leary, 10447 Anson Avenue, Cupertino, said he was here as a private individual. The only part that many neighbors are concerned with is what faces on Mary Avenue. He clarified plans about meeting with Mr. Edwards. Mr. Harold Haselberg, 10709 Nathanson, Cupertino, said he hoped the architecture and landscaping beats what the City did to the hill because they aren't even keeping the hill up. Member Koenitzer moved to continue this application to the next regular meeting on the 20th of March. Mr. Crowley said he was in the construction business and asked how much this would solve in getting the homeowners together with the developer. He felt the Planning Commission should be involved. Chairwoman Salian explained this committee's jurisdiction. Member Rogers seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0 The Assistant Planner suggested the developer make up copies of revised plans for the homeowner's association. 4. Discussion of the Architectural and Site Approval Process Assistant Planner Kramer explained situation as referred to in memo from Planning Director Sisk dated February 27. This was not discussed by the City Council until input could be gotten from H -Control. She then explained reasons for this consideration. She explained the three alternative methods suggested in the memo, noting they had not worked out details; were proposing conceptual ideas. She asked for reaction from the committee members. Member Dressler said he felt the committee had a good average. He would like to see this committee have final approval. He also askec for comparison of staff time supporting Planning Commission. Ms. Kramer said they are working on that now. Member Dressler said he would like to see it continue with their own consent calendar. HC -133 Page 13 HC -51,326.1 continued to 3/20/75 HC -133 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 14 Member Koenitzer said he would like to see a fourth alternative added. He felt the site layout and architectural planning should be out of Planning Commission so they could concentrate on land use. He also noted Alternative III would eliminate a number of commissioners who could not attend afternoon meetings. Member Rogers said she did not know what was wanted in the way of a reaction. One concern seemed to be the time staff is taking to serve the needs of H -Control. That seems to be an administration problem and should be handled at the City Council level. The other question was whether the City wanted citizen input. Chairwoman Sallan said she had written comments. She wanted to know when this committee was formed and what its concept or purpose was. Member Koenitzer suggested researching minutes of discussions that led up to the ordinance for creating the H -Control committee. Chairwoman Sallan said her perspective of being on the committee was that aesthetics were important factor in Cupertino. In functioning on committee this has been her top priority. This report represents confusion to her. There hasn't been a clear directive from City Council which says to her this is an unreasonable] amount of money to spend on this function. The memo seems to say the staff thinks it is not reasonable. The main issue is how to address the issue of aesthetics in the City. What does the City want in the way of a committee; lay, professional or a combination. Planning Director Sisk said the Planning Department is not criticizing the job the H -Control has been doing. This is an attempt to improve process and still maintain aesthetic control. What the City Council wants is this committee's reaction to the three approaches. Mr. Sisk answered Member Rogers that the staff is trying to reduce the work load at all levels. Member Dressler reiterated his amazement at their average. He would like to see a comparison of time used for Planning Commission. The details H -Control can handle are necessary. There are other places to look for cut backs. He would like to see an architect on the committee. He would leave the committee as it stands, include an architect, and if there is only 60 hours needed for this committee, $25,000 a year isn't unreasonable. Ms. Kramer pointed out other concern is coordination with Planning Commission in decisions. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING Chairwoman Sa.11an added it would streamline the process to combine II and III but that organization could be turned around and be a disadvantage. People wouldn"t get to the meeting and they would have missed the boat. She felt there was justification for maintaining separate point of view by having two reviewing bodies. They should continue to get with the Planning Commission to assess how well they are doing but she was not aware of any criticism of areas they are responsible for. She asked at what point the precise plan would be dealt with. This was discussed with Mr. Sisk explain- ing the possible steps. Chairwoman Sallan said anything that can be done to reduce paper work should be done. The critical point is who will be doing the review, under what authority and what conditions. Mr. Sisk spoke on concept of saving of staff time and processing time. Chairwoman Sallan said she was supportive of getting professional help. Mr. Sisk clarified this was not an attack on the job this committee has been doing. Chairwoman Sallan then asked the committee members to evaluate alternatives and comment on their reactions. This would be communicated to the City Council. Mr. Sisk said they would like to see something in writing to send on to City Council. Member Koenitzer aidhe would like to see several more alternatives, Member Rogers said she would not like to see Cupertino become a less open city and she felt it would under alternatives II and III. Member Dressler supported alternative I. Member Koenitzer agreed alternative I would retain citizen input. Chairwoman Sallan said she would also vote for alternative I. She supported getting professional input but this would preserve lay input. She pointed out Mike Katowski of Campbell had said that in the matter of aesthetics, he was in agreement with the lay person approximately 70% to 80% of the time. After further discussion it was agreed to continue this until the next meeting with the committee members providing written comments on what they consider preferable or unacceptable. NEW BUSINESS: Member Rogers reported the Custorrhouse still has weeds.in in its parking lots. Member Koenitzer reported McClellan Square is having a problem with kids riding on the mounding. HC -133 Page 15 !IC -133 Page 16 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 1975 II -CONTROL MEETING ADJOURNMENT At 12:07 a.m. Member Kocnitzer moved, seconded by Member Rogers, to - adjourn to the next regular meeting on March 20, 1975 at 7:00 p.m. Notion carried, 4-U ATTEST: 1LTrlm. E. Ryder City Clerk APPROVED: /s/ C. Nancy Sallan Chairwoman