Diana Perkins, Project Planner, presented the staff report. She summarized the evolution of the study issue and provided the outreach efforts providing the public an opportunity to comment. Staff reviewed the comments received from the public, developers, business owners and chamber of commerce. She summarized staff recommendation to address the privacy issues noted in the staff report.

Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, added that the "glare" definition is covered in the existing ordinance providing flexibility when considering glare as stated in the attached draft ordinance contrary to what was noted in the staff report.

Comm. Satterlee asked for the "glare" definition that currently exists in the code. Ms Ryan read the existing definition in the code that "glare is the effect produced by brightness within the visual field that causes annoyance, discomfort and loss in visual performance and ability."

Comm. Satterlee further asked how the glare requirements could be enforced. Ms. Ryan responded that there could be disagreements among individuals so it would be determined through average or reasonable person rule to determine the discomfort or annoyance.

Further, Comm. Satterlee asked if there is any measurement standards on glare and asked what are the existing code requirements. Ms. Ryan responded that staff researched and worked with contractors and that glare is not measurable even with the use of a light meter.

Comm. Moylan concurred that glare could not be measured but expressed his concerns about a reasonable/average person defining annoyance would be difficult to use.

Comm. Satterlee asked whether the posting notices of future public hearings are published in the city’s web site. Ms. Ryan responded no.

Comm. Satterlee further asked if the city could use San Jose Mercury News’ new feature of focused notices and information for cities such as Cupertino, Sunnyvale and Mountain View. Ms. Ryan responded that legal notices have to be posted in the Sun as the city's official newspaper for legal ads. However, the City uses other newspapers for other activities or information that is of interest to the public.

Comm. Satterlee asked what other posting procedures are used for those who do not receive the Sun subscription. Ms. Ryan responded that posting notices are mailed to adjacent properties, residents and posted at the project site.

Diana Perkins read the current requirements that "light, spotlights, flood lights, reflectors and other means of illumination shall be shielded or equipped with special lenses in such a manner as to prevent any glare or direct illumination on any public street or any other property."

Comm. Moylan suggested using "prevent direct illumination" which would be easy to define and enforce rather than defining glare by a reasonable/average person.

There were no comments from the public.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff to clarify the recommended process on the public notices. Ms. Ryan responded that additional description of the proposed project to the posting notices, city envelopes and the electronic program (EBOT) are parts of administrative actions to improve the noticing process.

Vice Chair Babcock complimented staff for a job well done in addressing the privacy issues and the proposed recommendations could be used for being a good neighbor.

Chair Simons asked Comm. Satterlee whether her second modification is a public outreach effort recommendation. Comm. Satterlee responded that based on the testimonies she heard at the Planning Commission Forum, the residents do not know what is going on in the city. Since it appears that there is an increased use of the website, it would be helpful to use this tool to direct the public on where to obtain and find the information.

Ms. Ryan stated that City Council will consider the study on Tuesday, October 8, 2002.

Return to RTC# 02-295