PC 03-28-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. MARCH 28, 2006 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 2006 was called to order at 6 45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty
Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Marty Miller
Lisa Giefer
Cary Chien
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Associate Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Gary Chao
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the March 14,2006 Planning Commission meeting:
Corrections as noted:
· Page 11, Com. Chien, 2n' bullet: delete "applicant" and insert "city channel"
· Page 10, Vice Chair Giefer: 4'· last bullet: revise "cooled" to read "cool"
· 4'· last bullet, 4'· line: delete "reflective" and insert "light"
· Page 10, Com. Wong: last line: "their wishes" should read "City Council's wishes"
· Page 25, Vice Chair Giefer: 2n' last bullet: "board test" should read "bore test"
· Page 12, 2n' bullet, 2n' line: delete "where"
· Page 22: 4'· group: "Mr. Bariteau" should read "Mr. Nelson"
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Wong, to approve the
March 14, 2006 Planning Commission minutes as amended.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Minutes of the March 15, 2006 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Saadati to approve the
March 15, 2006 Planning Commission minutes as presented
(Vote: 4-0-1; Vice Chair Giefer abstained)
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
March 28, 2006
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1.
ASA-2006-02,
M-2006-01
Steve Yang (The
Stargazer Group
LLC) 10062 Miller
Avenue.
Architectural and Site Approval for a 3,600 square foot addition
to an existing office building and existing office building and
exterior and site modifications. Modification to an existing use
Permit (9-U-75) for a 3,600 square foot addition to an existing
office building. Planning Commission decision final unless
appealed. Continued from the March 15, 2006 Special Planning
Commission meeting.
Gary Chao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
· The application is for modification to an approved use permit to add approximately 3,620
square feet to an existing 16,400 square foot office building and Architectural and Site
Approval for exterior and site modifications.
· The Planning Commission previously approved the project in September 2003; however, the
application and approval have expired and applicant is now reapplying for the same
approvals.
· He reviewed the location of the project; exterior enhancements; location of the trash
enclosure; parking; and landscaping as outlined in the staff report.
· Pointed out that the scope was identical to 2003; parking spaces were deleted as part of the
approval.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Use Permit Modification and
Architectural and Site Approval.
Com. Wong:
· Remarked that the trash structure was moved forward and there was a deletion of parking
spaces.
· Raised the issue that if there was a change of tenancy because they are adding more spaces to
the existing office space, or adding a learning center or after school program, it could change
the parking demand on it.
Mr. Chao:
· Said that in the past, the recommendation was to relocate the existing trash enclosure to the
area. In addition, the Planning Commission approved additional landscaping buffer by
dealing with additional stalls. The applicant is proposing to accomplish both at the same time,
but more efficiently by using that area. The square footage, the location of the bicycle
facility, the closure of Richwood Court entrance, the exterior modifications and details are all
the same.
· Said the issue has been discussed with the applicant. They did consider future office,
medical/office changes in the mix currently with what they have currently now; it is
predominantly professional office, no medical and they did consider the parking allocations
which works for them. The parking ordinance does specify that the ratio relating to the
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
March 28, 2006
square footage is actually both a minimum requirement and a maximum, therefore it is hard
to apply the maximum to improve the existing facilities.
· If it was a new project, the applicant would not be permitted to provide more than what is
being required in terms of parking; all to get at reducing the amount of pervious surfaces
onsite.
Com. Wong:
· If office is not doing well in the future, and they wanted to have some flexibility and go into
medical office or after school program and they don't meet the parking requirement, how can
they be mitigated?
Mr. Chao:
· They can do interior allocations or reshufflings of their square footage to accomplish those
different type of uses. The applicant can come back and re-look at striping and see if they
can more efficiently re-stripe some of the stalls in areas to provide more parking.
· In response to Com. Chien's question about the reason for removing the exit at Richwood
Court, he said the applicant suggested the removal of the exit because of the amount of cut
through traffic in the morning.
· He said that staff supported the idea since it provided more buffer if it was closed off from
the residential to the south with the office complex.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Referred to Page 3, staff report relative to parking demand.
· When restriping a lot, do they need to add swales to be in compliance with the parking code?
Mr. Chao:
· Responded that they could have swales in the new landscaping area, the architect would have
to look at placement of trees to see if they can accomplish that, but predominantly at the rest,
90% of the site is being untouched.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Asked if it could be required when they stripe the lot?
Mr. Chao:
· Said it is a guideline in the parking ordinance, and it usually applies to new projects because
there are more opportunities to design such things in with the landscaping features, and with
the exception of the new green area shown everything else is the same; there are existing
shading trees that they are not proposing to touch. If swales are required, you probably
would have to re-look at some of the islands and landscaping which is not being proposed.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· She said her recollections of the parking ordinance were incorrect, and thanked staff for the
clarification.
Steve Yang, architect:
· Asked that the Planning Commission reconsider the application.
The Planning Commissioners had no questions for the architect.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
March 28, 2006
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Nora Chow, resident:
· Said that she waived speaking.
Jennüer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· Said she was pleased with the applicant's proposal relative to retention of the trees on the
property.
· She commented that the proposed project area might be ideal for condominiums in the
complex as there was a large parking lot adjacent to the medical building.
· She inquired whether the city would be open to a housing development in a similar project,
and if that type of housing would be permitted in the area.
· She stated that R4 zoning for high density housing was being considered
in Mountain View, and said she felt something similar would be of interest to the Cupertino
neighborhoods. She asked staff to comment.
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner:
· Said there are housing units allocated to the Stevens Creek area. They are theoretically
available but the conversion would be subject to the new conversion policy in the General
Plan meeting a series of criteria.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Com. Saadati:
· Said he supported the original project and was prepared to move forward with a motion.
Com. Chien:
· Said he was pleased that the applicant was investing in their building, and upgrading it so that
it would last for many more years.
Com. Wong:
· Said he supported the previous project and also supported the present project.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Said she concurred with her colleagues, and was pleased that Richwood Court would be
closed off to prevent the short cuts.
· Also supported the relocation of the trash enclosures.
· Supported the project.
Chair Miller:
· Said he supported the project.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application
M-2006-01 and ASA-2006-02. (Vote: 5-0-0)
OLD BUSINESS
2. Planning Commission's 2006 Work Program Implementation including introduction of
sign ordinance issues.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
March 28, 2006
Ms. Wordell presented the staff report:
· She discussed the work program priorities, including the City Council goals and the Planning
projects, and highlighted the recommended priority projects as listed in the staff report.
· She reviewed the eight-programmed elements as outlined on Page 2-1 and 2-2 of the staff
report.
· She noted that the City Council wanted to make the tree ordinance amendment a stronger part
of the work program, stating they wanted to have the ordinance address protection of trees
during construction, which elevated it to a higher priority project.
· Cleo Avenue affordable housing is ongoing; but this is an estimate of when it might occur and
the green building programs which is also a Council priority; and something that may
probably take some consulting work to help develop. No public hearings are anticipated during
this year; it would be budgeted and work will begin this year, but no public hearing until next
year.
· She reviewed the private development projects, Stevens Canyon Road (formerly
McDonald/Dorsa Quarry site); former Any Mountain store; and North Tantau Road industrial
to residential conversion.
· She reviewed the following unprogrammed projects for the coming year: proactive planning
for Homestead and North Vallco areas; identifying obsolete R & D property citywide. The
City Council had asked that this be tied into their own look at industrial conversions, and they
want the program to be merged with theirs. A study session will be held to determine if the
City Council chooses to move ahead with their own analysis.
· They are still having a study session on this so when it is programmed, it will be determined if
the City Council chooses to move ahead with their own analysis. The last three are lower
priorities for the Planning Commission, apartment conversion senior housing incentives,
public transportation, light rail, those are not programmed.
Chair Miller:
· Asked staff to explain form base codes and whether or not they might apply in Cupertino; and
the use of charettes, which were used in 1993.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that staff was familiar with form base codes but had not worked with them. She said
there was no information on the website for Petaluma, but American Planning Assoc. had
useful information; the example shows what it does, which does not differ from what
Cupertino does. It is possible that something like that could be woven into the Heart of the
City Specific Plan.
· She reiterated that the Planning Commission was interested in involving the community more
in community planning. She noted there was a large process as part of the Heart of the City
Plan when it was first adopted and it didn't come up with a Heart of the City Plan, but it came
up with a lot of the Heart of the City options, and involved many people in a very hands-on
way. She said it was good on some of the broader issues, but she was unsure that it is a
charette type. They are looking at the Heart of the City again, but not reinventing it. She said
it might be something to keep in mind, but not sure it would apply it to at this time.
Com. Wong:
· Said a charette would be an interesting concept. He said that the residents felt they were not
involved in the Val1co Fashion Park planning, and the Crossroads Streetscape Plan will be
another option, as well as the Homestead and North Val1co area. He said he wanted to have
the community active and involved vs. having many public hearing testimonies.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
March 28, 2006
· Said he did not feel that the immediate neighborhood bought into the Crossroads streetscape
plan.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said there was a lot of misinformation passed around about the Crossroads Streetscape plan.
Going into charettes would involve consultants and a great deal of money because they need
to be facilitated. Lessons learned in the General Plan process are that they will not go there
again, and take the time from staff to try to do the extensive amount of work which didn't
work out well. He said it can be done, but would need to be budgeted with the City Council.
He suggested that they not do it for something as minor as a streetscape plan, but rather
something major such as the Civic Center which would have worked well with charettes. He
said that it was a good concept if applied appropriately.
Chair Miller:
· He said there were TUmors of a referendum on recalls of some decisions made by the City
Council. He said he was seeking a better way to use land use planning, weighing the expense
for the city to go through the initiative, and also against the value in terms of bringing the city
together.
Com. Wong:
· Said Coyote Valley was an example of an area where they created almost another city as
large as Cupertino.
· Referred to a smaller development south of Livermore Valley where they used charettes with
property owners, city planners and neighbors. He said it was also featured in the latest issue
of Planners' Institute Magazine. There are some success stories and some don't work.
.
Com. Saadati:
· Said he has been involved with charettes on specific projects and buildings. He suggested that
a community meeting would be helpful, to get input from the residents.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said if the problem is engaging people, a discussion could be held at a separate time on how
to best engage people and not identify the solution, perhaps be form based codes, charettes, or
community meetings. He said Val1co in particular is always the difficult one to describe
because there are a number of applications of comparable size to Val1co and nothing special
was done other than citywide noticing. It brought a lot of attention to those and certainly we
can do a better job. Walnut Creek and Pittsburg did a good job with their downtown plan;
and are considering a complete transformation of an area that worked it through a good
charette process. There is still room for outreach and discussion with neighborhoods with
those kinds of projects.
Chair Miller:
· Said he thought a more appropriate use would have been for the Val1co south area as opposed
to just a condo project. Moving from charettes to form base codes, it makes sense to take a
look at the potential activity that we may see at north Vallco in terms of form based codes.
How we can take a different approach in terms of designing communities with more
connectivity and with the idea in mind of reducing automobile traffic, as my understanding is
that the statistics are that it reduces automobile traffic by up to forty percent. Traffic is a
major issue in town and if there is a different way of doing things and one that has reached
some successes in terms of creating small communities within larger communities and
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
March 28, 2006
designing it in a way that minimizes the use of the automobile, why not take a look at it here.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said they were advising the applicants as they come in thatthey need to engage in a broader
discussion of the master plan for the surrounding area. You just cannot come in with your
parcel alone and try and bring a project to it and ignore everything else that is going on
around you.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· She said she wanted to discuss how priorities were set and timing was determined. She
expressed concern that they would not begin looking at green building until September and
questioned why.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that consulting assistance would be needed, which would be budgeted in July.
Mr. Piasecki:
· He said that the diagram did not show the outfall of all the other projects that have been in the
mill for the last year and a half that they were still dealing with, with current staff. Staff is
trying to budget the time for the Commission's highest priority projects. He said baby steps
could be taken in some of the areas, and they could introduce some concepts that are green
building that don't take a tremendous amount of time or consulting services.
· In response to Vice Chair Giefer's request for clarification on "baby steps" he said that one
could consider the City Council's discussion about reducing the fees on solar as a baby step;
talk about enhanced recycling for commercial projects; and the conditions for Val1co that
they had to have cool roofs could all be considered baby steps.
Com. Saadati:
· Asked if solar would be considered baby steps if they provide some informational pamphlet
to the public.
· Said some other cities developed extensive lists.
Com. Wong:
· Said he was interested in the Crossroads streetscape plan and wanted to ensure that the
community was well informed.
· He recalled that previous discussions included a 20 foot sidewalk, one to one ratio, with
stores in the front and residential in the back.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said there was no mention if it is residential in the back or not; it is a function of the General
Plan. He said the Commission could modify some of the setbacks for 25 to 30 minimum. He
said that could be tweaked and rolled out. The notice could be sent citywide as well as other
property owners, the Chamber and all who were involved the first time around.
Com. Wong:
· Said there was great community interest in the Heart of the City Specific Plan, and
Crossroads streetscape plan. He pointed out that the sign ordinance was being discussed at the
meeting, and there were not many community members in the audience. He expressed
concern about the best way to engage the community for their input on the major work items.
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
March 28, 2006
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that a decision was not being made on the sign ordinance at the present meeting.
· Noted that no notice was sent out.
Com. Wong:
· Suggested citywide press releases, and posting on the CCC website to put the information out
to the public, when the decision is made to bring forward the streetscape plan.
Com. Chien:
· Asked for a status report on the two City Council goals relative to the Center for Living
History and Neighborhood Park in the Homestead area, from the previous year which had no
action taken.
Ms. Wordell:
· Answered Commissioners' questions regarding the charts.
· Said she was not familiar with the Center for Living History which was a Parks item.
· She said the neighborhood park in the Homestead area was connected to a major
redevelopment of some residential units (Villa Serra Project) which did not move forward.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said Com. Wong's suggestion of having a subcommittee to work on the tree ordinance was a
good idea.
· He said they would be suggesting to the applicants in North Val1co that should they come
forward, they will need to bring some concept of how they are going to master plan the
affected properties.
· He noted that the City Council will be having a study session next week to discuss whether
they want to remove the residential overlay.
Chair Miller:
· Said that regardless of what the Council decides, some basic work was still needed; the
obvious one being identifying where the obsolete sites are. He noted that they cannot
necessarily require the applicants to wait, but the applicants are going to be coming in
continuously and they may not get to the planning exercise. The applicant on the table may
not get affected by that but the rest of the applicants that have not come in would be affected.
· He said he was eager to proceed.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Relative to green huilding, North Vallco, she questioned why a master plan for the area
could not be done as a whole, rather than doing it piecemeal, and try to identify obsolete
buildings. She said that identifying buildings as obsolete or not obsolete is a detail that
should be part of an overall master plan.
· Do we want housing or office? What is it that we want in this area; and then as property
owners come to us they can make a case for the obsolete or changing the zoning quarter or
whatever they feel is appropriate. As long as it would fit into that master plan, it would make
sense.
Chair Miller:
· Said his initial suggestion to staff was that they look at North Val1co as a whole area.
· He said he supported the idea.
· He said the point in identifying the obsolete buildings is because those are likely to be more
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
March 28, 2006
immediate applications to the Planning Commission; and the most logical place to start is
with the things that will hit the city in the near future. It is a way to prioritizing the overall
look.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Said she would support that as well because she would rather step back and try to solve the
bigger issue than respond and potentially not do the right thing for the community.
Com. Saadati:
· Questioned what the challenge is involved in identifying obsolete buildings. It IS not
necessarily from the exterior, but internal would be a challenge also.
Com. Wong:
· Said he supported Mr. Piasecki's suggestion, if they are going to consider a form base or a
master plan, perhaps a moratorium should be suggested by the Planning Commission in a
Minute Order to the City Council. There is one project in the pipeline already. We have some
concerns with future referendums that may come before it. The reason I am raising this is
because Sunnyvale is going to continue their six month moratorium on industrial area. We
are not the only city that is grappling this aspect and a moratorium is a very good suggestion.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it involves a lot of time to contact the property owners, to get the documentation. The
Commission had suggested in the General Plan that we remove the residential option from
the HP site. The HP site is a 100- acre industrial office campus. They are actually tearing
down one of the buildings that they considered obsolete, leaving it vacant for the time being.
He said there is a development agreement that over laps things as well. We could go out
there and start planning form base codes around the HP site. Things are really not going to
change out there very much; it is the 800 pound gorilla in North Val1co. Even if we came in
and said that we think after school tutoring services, and churches are the appropriate use.
There are other buildings that mayor may not be functionally obsolete. That is why I
suggested that we have a discussion about it and try and gather as much facts as we can and
see where we are going with it. I want to hear from the Council and understand what their
objectives are next week. They are having the same discussion and feed that into this
discussion so we can make a rational decision about how to approach it, as opposed to doing
some 200 acre master plan that we may find because of development agreements, and
existing General Plan. We really have little influence over shaping this area because it is
really not happening in the core of the industrial areas.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Asked that the Planning Commission ensure that the trees be protected from the large
construction machinery during construction; and said it was important to fence off trees on
construction sites.
. She addressed tech and industrial land conversion and said she felt it was important to have a
manifesto to address the reasons they are converting the tech areas out. Indications of job
openings in the newspaper ads are that the tech industry may be coming back. She asked if
the students living in the condominium conversions would have to cross Lawrence
Expressway to get to school.
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
March 28, 2006
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Said she wanted to discuss the idea that Commissioner Wong initially had with regards to a
moratorium on tech park conversion until after the Council has given the Commission
direction on that. She would like to hear the other commissioners' thoughts on that.
Com. Wong:
· Said it would be more effective to send a message to the City Council prior to their study
session. It would send the message to City Council about the Commission's concern, along
with their suggestion that if they are going to move forward and do the research, perhaps a
form base, a master plan, or a specific plan, that they send that message in the event they are
unable to attend that afternoon.
Com. Saadati:
· Concurred with Commissioner Wong that sending a message was a good idea.
Chair Miller:
· Said he was not clear of the message they want to send to the City Council.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· She proposed that a Minute Order be sent to the City Council in advance of their meeting
notifying them that the Planning Commission would prefer to have a moratorium in that area,
rather than develop it piece meal without a plan.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said he was not suggesting a moratorium.
· It is an option available to the city for six months.
· Six months is the minimum it would take to do a master plan for North Vall co.
· Suggested that a Minute Order be forwarded to City Council stating that the Planning
Commission would like to see a master plan developed for North Vallco and that they
evaluate options for completing that master plan. It may be too soon to say moratorium, but
enough is not known yet and if the Council wants to go in that direction. If they want to, they
will be advised it is an option for them as well.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· She asked if the Planning Commissioners were in effect 'shooting the starter gURs starling
gun' so that every property owner who is inclined to do so, will rush to get an application to
the Commission fearing that there may be a moratorium in the area. She said she wanted to
avoid such an occurrence.
· She said she would not have pity for those other applicants who might rush to get something
in the pipeline. She felt that they lost the opportunity with Vallco by not having a master plan
and she does not want to replicate that.
Chair Miller:
· Concurred with Vice Chair Giefer.
· He said that the reason for a moratorium is if they are being overrun with applications and
have a strong need to plan that area first. However, they are not being overrun with
applications at this point; there is only one application in the pipeline and one other that has
not yet been submitted.
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
March 28, 2006
· He said he did not see the need for a moratorium; and as suggested, using the term
moratorium may encourage people to come in with an influx of applications, which they do
not presently want.
Com. Saadati:
· Said he did not support the moratorium at this point. It is a recommendation to look at the
master plan and move things forward.
Com. Wong:
· Recalled that it was former Com. Angela Chen's idea, and at the time all five commissioners
agreed on a master plan for Val1co South and Val1co North.
· He said he felt that if they had a master plan for the Val1co Fashion Park area, Menlo
Equities, as well as the HP sites. It would provide better connectivity.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Chien, to forward a Minute
Order to City Council recommending a master planned area for Val1co North.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
SIGN ORDINANCE
Ms. Wordell:
· Reviewed the Planning Commission's discussions about the sign ordinance relative to
determining whether or not amendments were needed to provide businesses in Cupertino the
opportunity to successfully advertise their businesses.
· Considerations were discussed about the possibility of allowing more sign allowances for
bilingual signs; removing the temporary two-week break between installations of a temporary
sign; and sign heights.
· She illustrated examples of various signs, and reviewed the details of the discussions as
outlined in the staff report on Pages 2-3 and 2-4.
· She noted that banners were not permitted; they have to be building mounted.
Chair Miller:
· Suggested that the Commissioners provide staff with their input on the discussion items
outlined in the staff report.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· Read portions of Section 17.04.020 of the Sign Ordinance.
· She pointed out that Cupertino emulates certain values; and landscaping, harmony and
structure play an important role in the city's structure. The residents want assurance that the
city is going to provide harmonious signs on the businesses.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Ms. Wordell:
· In response to Com. Saadati's questions, she said that there were approximately 12 temporary
signs; action was taken only on specific complaints about temporary signs without permits.
· She pointed out that they had not been proactive about temporary signs, but change was
forthcoming.
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
March 28, 2006
Com. Saadati:
· Said he would like to get as much public input as possible.
· He said he was unsure if the chart indicated they did not discuss the sign proportion to the
building or building elevation, which would be appropriate to look into.
Ms. Wordell:
· Indicated it was done through exceptions.
Com. Saadati:
· Suggested that it be included in the code. Some of the signs that we have issued with the
exception fit well with the building. They compliment the building and don't necessarily
have to be exceptions. Other signs are completely out of proportion.
· Said he felt permitted signs were out of proportion. The sign needs to be looked at in
conjunction with the building; how it fits the building, and how it complements the building;
possibly becoming a part of architecture of the building. Some signs do add some flavor to
the building.
· Asked for more information on window signs and neon signs.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that code enforcement unfortunately was the lowest priority.
· They will be looking at more of the banners and A Frames first.
Com. Saadati:
· Stated that as long as it is in the building it is not as critical as the way they have looked at it
in the past.
· Said he supported bilingual signs as they served a purpose.
· Said he would support expanding the sign allowance for bilingual signs provided that it fits
with the building. He said he would not support filling the front of the building with signs. It
has to be proportioned, and complement the building.
· He said the purpose of temporary signs is to help the businesses get established until they
erect their permanent signs. He said that he felt six months was a reasonable length of time
for a temporary sign.
· Re-permitting is not practical because it takes more time. When buildings are under
construction, temporary signs are used to let the public know that certain businesses are
coming in.
· Said he was not opposed to vertical, horizontal, or diagonal signs as long as it adds to the
architecture of the building or complements it.
Com. Chien:
· Temporary signs - there is a request from staff to change the process; with the idea that they
should not have to come back for re-permitting.
· He said he supported making things more efficient as long as he understood what the original
rationale was for people to come back and re-permit. He asked staff to comment.
Ms. Wordell:
· Relative to temporary signs, she explained that originally it was likely associated with a 30
day sale; and when the sale was over the sign would be taken down.
· If there was another reason to put the sign up, there would be a waiting period of at least two
weeks and the sign would be put up again. She pointed out that was not how people use
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
March 28, 2006
temporary signs; that it is rarely related to a specific event. It is general promotion, and they
supposedly take it down and put it back up again. The original intent was that it was
associated with a specific event, and that is not what is happening.
Com. Chien:
· Said he felt it would help the city enforce their 120 day limit on temporary signs. Code
enforcement will address the issue; however, it is a low priority.
· Said he supported the streamlining of the permitting process with respect to temporary signs.
· Relative to bilingual signs, he said he did not see specific recommendations, and although he
felt businesses who want to operate in a bilingual manner should have that ability. He said he
could not comment on whether or not he supported any particular recommendation because
there was no information presented.
Com. Wong:
· He recommended that in order to support the businesses that want to advertise in languages
other than English, they be permitted to go beyond certain parameters because the sign
contains a certain space and the space is limited to a certain number of words.
· He suggested not to make an exception, but to incorporate if someone wants to do bilingual
signs that they be allowed to go beyond the square feet as long as it is compatible with the
building.
Com. Chien:
· Asked what the current ordinance said with respect to that because there are existing bilingual
signs, and are they seeking exceptions.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that they did not have bilingual signs.
· Said they were not seeking exceptions, and people have not asked for more sign area for
bilingual.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Relative to fitting two languages on a sign, he said the lettering has to be compressed to fit
within the allowable area. The Commission could consider as a rule of thumb to allow to
150%, for bilingual; giving a 50% increase to allow more room for the spacing of letters so
that they are visible.
· The concept can be studied and brought back with the ordinance amendments and evaluated.
Com. Wong:
· Commented that if English and another language had to be compressed on one sign, it would
make the lettering smaller and more difficult to read for patrons. He said it was important
that the public be able to find the business and read the signs to hotels and other
establishments.
Com. Chien:
· Said he supported having signs that allow people to do business; staff will bring more
specifics to vote on.
· Said he was not opposed to staffletters.
Com. Wong:
· Expressed concern that representatives from the businesses in Cupertino were not present in
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
March 28, 2006
the audience and they were a major stakeholder.
· He noted that as a member of the Chamber of Commerce board, many chamber businesses
had concerns, and he urged that the Chamber of Commerce and the Silicon Valley Realtors
Association be contacted for input.
· He added that the DRC should be contacted for their input if they wanted to make any
changes in the sign ordinance or how to streamline the sign ordinance, because people do get
exceptions.
· Said he agreed with the staff logos.
· Said he agreed with staff relative to streamlining the temporary special sign, and removing
the two.
· Asked staff to bring back suggestions on bilingual signs, increasing it to 150% or an
appropriate amount.
· He commented that while serving on the DRC and hearing the Chamber of Commerce
members talk, he understood Ms. Jennifer Griffin's comments. However, Cupertino wants to
have businesses that serve the residents, and by serving the residents, a sales tax for the city is
generated from those businesses.
· He asked if staff could make a recommendation or work with the Chamber relative to a
standard minimum size of sign, instead of having to go through the exception process, as the
process is so time consuming. He reiterated the importance of residents and visitors to
Cupertino being able to find the Cupertino businesses, and appropriate signage plays a major
part in that.
· Recommended that business owners with a corner store frontage, be permitted a sign
exception for two signs. They pay extra to be located on the corner and should be afforded
consideration.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that two signs are permitted if there is no monument sign.
Com. Wong:
· Recommended that the neon signs be reviewed and included as a set process so that they do
not have to be a sign exception, since they can be eye catching and help to identify businesses
if done in good taste and not tacky appearance.
· Relative to the sign height of 8 feet, he said he was interested in consideration of
accommodating businesses by having signs higher than 8 feet in a shopping center. He noted
an example of Pet Smart which has an attractive sign; however, it is too low and difficult to
see.
· Said he agreed that that they need to look into the window signs and make sure the windows
are not cluttered.
Ms. Wordell:
· Clarified that temporary signs require a temporary sign permit; handled at staff level, as an
over the counter permit, costing $500.
Com. Wong:
· Asked staff to look into the fees for the temporary signs.
· Said that he felt $500 fee should be addressed further as he felt it was too high. He also
questioned how many $500 fees had been collected for temporary signs.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said staff would provide the information.
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
March 28, 2006
Com. Wong:
· He said as a member of the Chamber of Commerce, he talks to businesses and encourages
them to advertise to bring business into Cupertino; however, he said he felt there was a
perception that the city is not business-friendly with its sign ordinance.
· He said he was certain that the Chamber and its members would want to provide input on the
sign ordinance.
· Asked staff to address how they were accommodating the hotels, so that people could locate
the hotels. He said the sign ordinance should be user friendly.
· Said he was interested in streamlining the process relating to logos; so that it was not a
cumbersome process for the national chains to go through the DRC.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Relative to the illumination section of the ordinance, she recommended that it state that the
illumination should not be upward. Most signs have a top over them, so that they are not
reflecting upward to the sky. She asked staff to consider adding that.
· Questioned what the sign exception fees are for DRC.
· Relative to noticing, she reiterated that the Chamber should be involved and they should be
included in the noticing.
· Consider including the Rotary to notice their members since there is an overlap between
people who have businesses in Cupertino and are a part ofthe Rotary Club.
· Suggested sending a notice of the calendar to the Mercury News to include in their new
section on city governments relating to pending items coming before the Planning
Commissions or City Councils.
· Said she agreed with Com. Saadati that it would be more feasible to look at the total surface
available facing the street, which is more in line with the corporate sign program; and it
would also solve the multi-lingual issue because you would be working with a percent of total
available area, and you could put whatever you wanted in the chosen languages. She said
that having done a number of corporate sign programs over a 30 year period, her experience
is that it is an easier way to think about it because they the letters get bigger and smaller
depending on the space available and hopefully they integrate well with the building. She
said they may want to reconsider how to measure that; it also eliminates the need to specify if
it is stacked letters or if it is horizontal letters; it is whatever your logo is.
· She recommended that the logo approvals continue to go to DRC, because it has to integrate
with the building because you are decoupling a national corporate logo in most cases and you
are going to use it as art or as an architectural element someplace on the building. She said
her initial response to that is that for oversize logos that are integrated with the building, they
should continue to a specific review, which is the reason she is interested in knowing the fees.
· There is currently no policy regarding multi-lingual, but the fire department would like us to
make sure that all signs are identified in English. She suggested any changes should stipulate
there needs to be an identifier on the building, what that business is in English, because that
is how the fire department is trying to locate the building, as a public safety issue.
· Recommended that the windows be clutter free, to enable a view into the business, which is a
safety issue. If the business is being burglarized, it would prevent police patrol from seeing
into the building, and not being aware of a problem or danger.
· Reiterated there were separate sign issues; the size of the sign is a different issue. She
suggested they take a different approach and try to look at it as the available space, for
whatever language sign logo goes into that area.
· She reiterated that the fire department said they want the name of the company at that address
on the building. If it is not in English and the address is hidden behind a bush, they may not
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
March 28, 2006
be able to identify the building. She said it may represent a public safety issue.
Chair Miller:
· Said he was unclear about the Appeals portion of the ordinance, i.e., "any person aggrieved
by a decision of the DRC in the approval.... such a decision may appeal to the City Council.
He said it was not clear when going for a sign exception to the DRC and appealing it, is the
appeal to the Planning Commission or to the City Council? He suggested that the language
be clarified.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that staff would address the issue.
Chair Miller:
· Relative to bilingual signs, he agreed with the Commissioners who felt they should be trying
to make it easier for people to add a second language to the signs.
· Staff to address what is an appropriate amount of space because the businesses have their
primary customer base in the language that is most appropriate. He said he would support
that idea.
· Temporary signs - Supports streamlining the process; it is not reasonable to bring them in
every 30 days.
· Building heights - He said since they were allowing all the exceptions for stack signs, they
should change the ordinance.
· Supports staff s comments on logos.
· He said he hoped the outreach would improve the next time. He suggested that rather than
bring the sign ordinance back at the next meeting, it be returned in one month which would
provide ample time to outreach to the Chamber of the Commerce and the Realtors
Association and any other associations.
Ms. Wordell:
· Noted that no vote was needed; staff will bring the application back after further outreach and
present some options.
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No report.
HousiUl! Commission: No report.
Mavors Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners:
Vice Chair Giefer reported the following:
· The Senior Committee discussed senior housing needs; Comcast having a senior rate for
seniors within the community; Telco is looking at federal legislation; Cable services and
entrance of Telco and networking providers into one another's marketplaces and trying to
understand what that means to the city.
· The Fine Arts Committee has not yet established their goals.
· Discussed the Whole Foods exhibit and the upcoming art activities.
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
March 28, 2006
· Discussed City Council taking an advisory vote with regard to fee reduction for solar energy
permits.
· Discussion of sales tax and property tax issues.
Economic Development Committee:
· A quarterly meeting; no meeting held yet.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
· Reported that the Val1co condos and total application were approved last week by City
Council.
SUBMITTED BY:
The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission
meeting on Monday, April 11, 2006 at 6:45 p.m.
~
lis, Recording Secretary
ADJOURNMENT:
Approved as amended: April 11, 2006