PC 102401 - Laserfiche WebLink

like to work with staffto come to an appropriate, agreeable decision regarding the location, r- scale, and other issues related to the logo. Larry Cannon, the peer-reviewing architect, advised that, in summary, he feels the project is very finely done. He stated that the only thing he would comment on is the issue of the end of Building A. He suggested that as step number one in looking at the issue, the Planning Commission should determine whether it feels it is appropriate to emphasize the project and give it some identity as part of the entry to the City? He stated that the second step is to determine whether this is an appropriate place to have a logo or signage. He noted that this decision could go either way and if it is determined that it is important to have some sort of identity in this location but that signage is not appropriate, consideration could be given to using some alternatives. He advised that the third issue is the strength of it. He asked the Planning Commission to think about the variations used to light the San Francisco bridges, and while they are both quite legitimate, they are quite different. Mr. Cannon stated that if the logo is going to be displayed, the standard is one inch of height for every 40-50 feet of viewing distance, so the logo will probably have to be about 36 inches in height. Mr. Cannon cautioned using funds for art work in this location, if it is determined appropriate, rather than at the entry or in a location where it is more publicly accessible. ,,- Mr. Cannon advised that he feels the building design is subtle and anyone of the color combinations will be acceptable. He suggested that the selection be left to the architects. He stated that for the most part, the sky is going to be the background, and the lighter the color to blend into the tone of the sky, the less bulky and aggressive the project will appear. The Planning Commission recessed for a break at 8:45 p.m. Acting Chairperson Sullivan reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Jim Merryman, 892 Hopkins Way, voiced his support for the Applied Biosystems project, noting that they are good corporate citizens who are committed to energy conservation. He advised that they have been very responsive to comments from the City and staff. He encouraged the Planning Commission to help bring Applied Biosystems to the Pleasanton. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Arkin, Mr. Merryman advised that he lives about a mile from the site. Mike Glogovac, 2139 Inverness Court, advised that he resides in Golden Eagle. He stated that the environmental and energy issues surrounding this project have been addressed. He noted that the applicant has been willing to work with the City to keep the development of the site something the community really wants to support. He encouraged the Planning Commission to move forward with the project. Russ Swerdon, 6558 Hanover Court, advised that he is a resident and has no vested interest in Applied Biosystems. He stated that he would like to discuss two issues. He recommended that the Planning Commission reject the modification for the height increase. He noted that there may not be a full representation from the neighborhood because many of the neighbors thought ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2001 Page 5