Draft Minutes 4-25-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. APRil.. 25, 2006 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The Planning Commission meeting of April 25, 2006 was called to order at 6 45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca., by Chairperson Marty Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLLCALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Staff present:
Senior Planner:
Senior Planner
Assistant City Attorney:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Marty Miller
Lisa Giefer
Cary Chien
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Colin lung
Aki Honda
Eileen Murray
Approval of minutes of the April II, 2006 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to approve the minutes
of the April 11, 2006 meeting as presented. (Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
· Mr. Jung noted receipt of eight email communications received relative to the amendments to
the sign ordinance.
· Also a memo regarding the sign ordinance revisions prepared by Assistant City Attorney,
Eileen Murray.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Martin Bishop, District 5 Disability Advisory to District 5 in the Santa Clara Valley:
· Addressed the Commission regarding the Bubb Road Housing Project which he said has been
canceled at this point.
· Said he felt there should be a mandate included for student housing for 2 to 3 bedrooms with a
kitchen and internet access, and individual rooms for DeAnza College students, and about 50
to 100 rooms available for students of the college.
· He suggested that there be criteria set for any additional housing to be built on the Bubb Road
property owned by Honeywell or Measurex, or the current owner.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
April 25, 2006
Keith Murphy, Cupertino resident:
· Expressed his concern about the recent fmalization of the 2006-2007 city fee schedule,
particularly the new $500 fee placed on the reconsideration ordinance. He pointed out that it
amounted to a 5000% increase as there was no prior fee.
· He said he felt it would affect the civil rights of many residents in the community who may
plan on challenging the City Council's decisions on merit grounds.
· He asked if the Planning Commission could request the City Council to rescind the $500 fee
and ask the city attorney if it is an impact on the civil rights. Being that it is a mandated
process, any individual would have to go through reconsideration before going to litigation.
· He said it suggests that if the resident cannot afford the $500 they would not be able to seek
reconsideration, regardless of merit.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. MCA-2005-02 Municipal Code Amendment of Title 17 (Signs)
City of Cupertino
Varions Property Owners
Location: Citywide
Ms. Aid Honda, Senior Planner presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the background of the sign ordinance as outlined in the staff report.
· fu response to the Commission's comments /Tom the March 28, 2006 Study Session, the city
mailed out citywide notices regarding the public hearing. Notices were also sent out to the
Chamber of Commerce which includes all members of the Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary
Club, the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, and also the previous sign exception .
applicants who applied between December 2003 and the present.
· She reviewed the Commissioners' comments as outlined in the staff report.
· Clarification has been added to the definition for wall signs to enhance the definition to
include signs on structures that are attached to buildings and canopy structures.
· Relative to Chapter 17.24, staff is recommending the 5 inch minimum letter height, as it is a
building and fIre department requirement for addresses on buildings. Public Safety has also
agreed to the requirement.
· There were not any cities that allow a certain percentage of additional sign area for bilingual
signs. It would be the Planning Commission's decision on how much they would recommend.
· Staff recommends that the Commission hear public input at the meeting to determine if there is
Commission agreement on specific sign amendments; to provide staff with additional
direction; and based on the city attorney's suggestion, make no recommendation on the
bilingual signage section of the ordinance until the city attorney has had sufficient time to
investigate the legal aspects.
Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
· Stated that the entire ordinance has to be reviewed by the city attorney's office. She said that
there are unfamiliar areas of the ordinance which requires legal research relative to current
case law and they have only had two days to review the ordinance.
· She suggested that the item be continued for six weeks so that general counsel can provide
legal input to the Commission, as it involved more than just bilingual signs.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
April 25, 2006
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Referred to Page 20 of the ordinance, Section 17.24.090, and stated there appeared to be a
conflict between Paragraph A and Paragraph C relative to the use of neon in a window sign.
Ms. Honda:
· Clarified that neon lighting not used as an advertising fonn, but merely placed to show lighting
around a window was not considered window signage, and would be prohibited.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Referred to decorative statuary and questioned why the Planning Commission and not the Fine
Arts Commission would review the statuary. She asked staff if they wanted to reconsider it
and bring it back to the Commission at a later time.
· She said if it was advertising art work, the Planning Commission should review it; however, a
different commission might be appropriate to make the determination on decorative statuary.
· Referred to Section 17.32.50 of the ordinance regarding remodeling, re·roofing, etc. relative to
contractors displaying temporary signs announcing the name of the contractor performing the
remodeling or construction job. She questioned whether it should be added to the ordinance
for consideration. She said she was not opposed to it.
· Asked for clarification of appeals period, whether it was ten days or fourteen days,
· She questioned whether there should be an abandonment clause in the ordinance.
· She requested clarification on the time period for owners retrieving signs taken down by the
city and stored.
Ms. Honda responded to Vice Chair Giefer's questions:
· Said that staff could look into the issue of contractors displaying temporary advertising signs,
i.e., "This renovation completed by XYZ Company".
· Appeal period - Some are ten day periods and some are fourteen days. Staff can address the
issue further.
· Abandonment clause· Staff can address the issue further. She said it may be appropriate to
discuss the issue with the city attorney.
· Relative to retrieving signs that the city has taken down, she said that currently the sign owner
has 30 days to retrieve their sign after the city has removed the illegal sign. Code Enforcement
is suggesting the time period be lengthened to 90 days, giving the sign owner more time to
claim the sign trom the city.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Said she was puzzled why the city would want to store the illegal sign for an additional two
months.
· She said that she felt an additional two weeks or 45 days was a more reasonable storage time,
not 90 days.
Mr. Jung:
· Explained that the business owner may have expended a certain amount of money for the sign
and is interested in recovering it. Code Enforcement may also have some difficulty in
contacting the perpetrator, the sign owner. He said it sometimes happens that realtors forget
where they put signs up and take a longer time to retrieve them.
· He said the Code Enforcement Division could be contacted to ask how they arrived at the 90
day period.
Com. Wong:
· Commented that it would be difficult for the city to dispose of the signs. He said it would be
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
. April 25, 2006
better that they pay the fine and pick up the sign rather than Code Enforcement disposing of it
because there will be a cost involved for the city.
Com. Chien:
· He stated that the Chamber of Commerce requested the Planning Commission to review the
ordinance with respect to the enforcement of temporary signs. He said there were temporary
signs place throughout the city, and have been displayed much longer than they should have.
· He said the city does not have the capability with resources and code enforcement to go
around and tell the businesses that the signs have been displayed too long.
· He said there were other implications in the revisions such as window signs cannot cover more
than 25 % of the window. He commented that there was at least one business in the
community that would be in violation of that regulation.
· He asked Aki if they have talked to code enforcement and if they have, what they said with
respect to their ability to enforce some of these laws.
Ms. Honda:
· Said that Code Enforcement has the ability; however, there are only four code enforcement
officers in the city, and they are linnted in term:s of being able to cover the entire city. Many
times there are confined to doing it on a complaint basis only.
Ms. Murray:
· She said that the city attorney's office oversees code enforcement. A new officer has been
hired whose duties include sign enforcement; and he stated that there are many complaints
about the high fee for temporary signs, She said they would be meeting to discuss other issues
that have arisen in his dealings with business owners and their signs.
· Relative to other issues that Code Enforcement raised, such as animated signs, if it is going to
be enforced, it must be contained in the code.
Chair Miller:
· Asked staff to clarify why it was being proposed that English be included on all signs, as he
felt the business owners should have the right to advertise in any language they chose.
Ms. Honda:
· Responded that the requirement of English was a public safety measure for the police and fire
department to be able to identify the business and the location.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Said that she was the Commissioner who originally suggested the requirement of English on
signs. She clarified that it was for fire department and police department emergencies, in the
event a caller had to report on their location or the name of a business that required their
services. It was for the purposes of quick identification of the location.
Chair Miller:
· Said that the legal staff would be addressing the issue in tenns of whether it is reasonable or
not reasonable.
Ms. Murray:
· She referred to businesses such as La Hacienda, La Maisson, and La Boulangerie and
questioned whether it would require them to put "The Baker". If it is characters, it may not be
understood; perhaps they could put the name in the language, She said they would research
that further.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
April 25, 2006
· Said that there is no case law specific to foreign language signs, and it was a safety issue of
having an address prominently displayed in English; 2204 Stevens Creek Boulevard would not
be written in character
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Clarified that their concern was with a non-Greek based alphabet; and statement that generally
people do not know the address of where the crisis is happening.
Chair Miller:
· Said that since the address is on the building and is in English, it should suffice.
Com. Wong:
· Said he agreed that the address should be prominently placed on the building which would be
the primary locator that one could describe where and between what two streets.
· He cited an example of a business in West San Jose that has a sign in Konji and one in
English. There is a reason for marketing purposes to have it one way in English and another
way in Konji; in the event of an emergency, once can say "I am in so and so place", and
people would also know it in English in another way.
· Said it needs more review from the legal department, you relative to first amendment rights, as
well as practicality for staff to look at it.
· He said his concern was having it in other languages to provide more flexibility for businesses
to advertise. He said that general counsel and staff will bring the issue back with more
feedback.
Ms. Honda:
· Said that the fire department and police department that the English signs would be helpful.
The fire department said they have not had any instances where they have had problems
identifYing businesses because the sign is in a different language.
· Confmned that staff was recommending a reduction in size of temporary signs to not exceed
six feet in height and 24 square feet per face.
Com. Saadati:
· Asked if there had been in the past any cost recovery for signs that the city held. He said the
cost recovery may exceed the cost of the sign and therefore people will not try to recover their
signs.
Mr. Jung:
· Said that because of staffing problems, the sign enforcement has not been as aggressive as it
had been in the past. He pointed out about two years ago that the Code Enforcement staff
were reassigned to perfonn some of the community duties that were originally done by the
Sheriffs department. He recalled that when they were fully staffed, there was not a large
accumulation of signs.
· He said he would contact Code Enforcement to ascertain if they did fee recovery in the past, or
if there were storage problems with temporary signs.
Ms. Honda:
· Said that Code Enforcement staff would address the Commission when the item was
reagendized.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
April 25, 2006
Rick Guerra, Geueral Mauager, Park Place Restaurant, Cupertino:
· Said that in the future, they would be submitting a proposal for a new building sign that would
level the visual playing field of their business. He said he felt they were at a competitive
disadvantage as their present sign was barely visible because their location was off the
intersection, and was dwarfed by the trees and the hotel.
· He emphasized that visibility as well as accessibility are key elements to their business, and he
wanted to learn more about the process.
· Said he did not know the exact size of the sign as the sign company was in the process of
making a draft of it. He said the letters are about 12 to 18 inches high, with some other letters
about 10 inches high. He said that the company was aware of the Cupertino sign ordinance
and is basing their estimates on the ordinance.
Jennifer Griffin, Raucho Rinconada resident:
· Discussed the importance of signs to a city and said that because of Cupertino's ordinance,
there were good examples of active retail signs appropriate for the city.
· She said she hoped that with ordinance changes, they would continue to have signs of
harmonious nature to Cupertino.
· She said it was wise to have limits on how and where to put signage in buildings; and
suggested for buildings that are for lease, not to have advertising on every window.
· She said she hoped that businesses offering products of an ethnic nature would have English in
their titles so that the curious residents would patronize their shops.
Maria Streeby, General Manager, Cypress Hotel:
· Said that the Cypress Hotel location is visible rrom far away; however, the ground signs or
monument signs on the perimeter of the location do not provide appropriate directional
signage. Having only one monument sign on the location does limit the customers.
· She said that they receive numerous complaints rrom people having a difficult time finding
Park Place Restaurant and the Cypress Hotel.
· She said it would benefit the business to add a monument sign so that customers driving down
either Stevens Creek or De Anza would be able to see the entrance before it appears.
Armadillo Willy's blocks the entrance, and the blue sign is not visible at night. It also reminds
them of the big hospital H so they don't think they are approaching the entrance.
· She said either a lighted monument sign or a higher sign so that their customers can see where
to go on both Stevens Creek and De Anza.
Christine Giusiana, CEO, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce:
· Said the city asked the Chamber to assist in the revision of the sign ordinance.
· Outreach has included sending out postcards to chamber members; meeting with the new Code
Enforcement officer; an article in the Chamber business newsletter asking for input and
awareness of the permitting process; and meeting with city staff members to detennine which
areas would be best served at this time.
· Areas that need to be addressed include bilingual signage, the temporary signage, wall sign
height, ground signs, neon signs, sign exceptions, window signs, illumination, and the general
streamlining of the permitting process. It is on the May 6th agenda for the Legislative Action
Committee to look over the current sign ordinance,
· She said she anticipated that in time they would look over the recommendation changes and be
able to make the recommendations both to the Planning Commission and to staff, first going
through their Board of Directors. She said that at this time, she did not know what the
timerrame would be.
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
April 25, 2006
· She said the Legislative Action Committee may want to fonn a subcommittee, but she hoped
they could conclude in a timely matter and return to the Planning Commission in the near
future.
· Asked if current signs that have been up for many years would be grandfathered in because of
the ordinance change. If a business was required to be bilingual and it is currently in
characters only, would it be grandfathered in or would the owner have to apply for a new sign?
Mr. Jung:
· Said that all legal signs that become nonconfonning are considered legal nonconfonning and
are grandfathered in.
Ty Bash, General Manager, Happy Days Child Development Center:
· Thanked the Planning Commission for keeping in mind that the business community is a
important part of living in Cupertino. It provides a lot of services to the people who live in the
city of Cupertino.
· Relative to temporary signs, he said he was pleased that consideration was being given to
allowing the businesses to display the signs for a period of 120 days.
· He added that each business may be granted a maximum of twelve pennits in a calendar year,
which was stricken out /Tom the ordinance.
· He suggested that with the possible removal of the requirement of removing the sign every
thirty days, the fee be reduced /Tom $161 as it is a high amount for a business trying to bring in
new business.
· He noted that the childcare center had a fence surrounding the property and they were hopeful
that the ordinance would still allow posting of temporary signs on fences.
· Said an example of a temporary sign that would need to be displayed for 120 days would be
the advertisement for the registration for the next academic year which begins in September.
The registration begins in April and the sign is displayed in April for up to four months.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Com. Sadaati:
· Said he looked forward to hearing the attorney's comments, but was disappointed that more
public input was not received. He asked if notices were sent to certain businesses,
Ms. Honda:
· Reported that notices were mailed citywide and to various agencies and clubs, and 500
members of the Chamber were noticed as well.
Com. Saadati:
· Said he felt the modifications were reasonable and he did not have a strong opinion on any of
them. He added that with the Chamber coming back, it would provide another change to
comment.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Said her comments were based on the sign exceptions that have come to the Design Review
Committee over the past two years as well as the public testimony received during the sign
ordinance.
· Said she felt they were on the right track and staff's recommendation was fairly complete. She
said in the beginning she did not have a good ooderstanding of the temporary sign ordinance
and the discussion has been informative.
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
April 25, 2006
· Expressed concern that if they allow larger signs for multi-lingual signs that it will give an
unfair advantage or show bias towards people who would prefer to have the multi-lingual
signs. It speaks to the example if you have La Patisserie or El Torito or something similar and
they want to include the translation. Is it giving them an opportunity to come back and ask for
a 25% larger sign area because they have an English translation? It needs to addressed both
ways because there maybe some freedom of speech issues.
· Said she was concerned about the safety issue addressed by the fire and police departments
during the safety training. They indicated a preference to include or make mandatory some
description of what the name of the business is in English for safety purposes,
· She said she did not support putting a 9 foot logo unattached from the sign name on the side of
a building without approval. It does not mean they would not approve it, but they need to have
control and not develop a sign program that potentially could get out of control.
· Said it was similar to the sign program that was part of the Marketplace. There were good
reasons why it was appropriate to give them extra signs and larger signs in certain cases; but
drew the line at the size of the sign because they wanted to make sure it made sense for the
development.
· Said she would support sign programs for a building or a development that enhances the
business; however, focus should remain on the fact that Cupertino is a suburban area.
Although they want the businesses to be successful, they don't want the residents
uncomfortable with the signs by cheapening the city.
· Said she felt they were 90% there.
· Said there were some key elements that she would not support in the sign ordinance as
presented; and she was interested in what the city attorney would bring back.
Com. Chien:
· Said the reason that they were going to continue the sign ordinance discussion is at the request
of the city attorney to have more time to consider the issue.
· He said it would prove to be worthwhile as some areas ofthe Planning Commission discussion
may not necessarily conform to laws in place.
· He said he looked forward to the city attorney's future report.
Com. Wong:
· Said the goal is to make Cupertino more business friendly and have the ordinance streamlined
so that it is easier for the businesses to get the necessary permits.
· Agreed that they need to review the fee structure for temporary signs to come up with a fair
solution and make it business friendly,
· Suggested more flexibility with monument signs, to allow more for a shopping center or parcel
such as Promethius where there is an apartment building, restaurant and some other
businesses. The size of the sign should be proportional so that patrons are able to see the
building.
· Relative to his suggestion that monument signs be raised higher than 8 feet, he cited the
example of the McClellan Shopping Center with Long Drugs and Albertsons, where the
monument sign is 12 feet, and is legal but not conforming. If a sign was at four feet or twelve
feet and is done correctly and harmonious as a speaker suggested, with the suburban character,
it should be permitted as long as it goes through the process of staff, and the DRC; it can
always be appealed through the Planning Commission, ultimately to the City Council.
· For service industries such as hotels or hospitals where they need directional signs, it may
need more than two or three signs. It should be determined on what kind of business it is.
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
April 25, 2006
· Said he had no further comments until the city attorney presents her report in six weeks. He
said he felt they were headed in the right direction, and that they would likely receive helpful
input ITom the Chamber also.
Chair Miller:
· Said they were moving in the right direction; and would like to get more input. He said he
would not comment on specific points, but reiterated that the purpose of the sign ordinance is
to identify the businesses to their customers and their potential customers; and to make it
business friendly for a business to obtain signage that helps identify his business.
· The balance is to have a sign ordinance that controls the amount of signage so that the city
does not appear to be in a cluttered manner.
· Said he was looking forward to the next meeting when the city attorney has more infonnation
and they hear ITom the Chamber of Commerce as well.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Saadati, to continue Application MCA-
2005-02 to the June 27, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS
· Consider holding a study session on North Va1lco MasterPlan on May 19,2006.
Mr. Jung:
· Said that staff had no further comments; however, he said that it would be helpful to know if
Apple Computer was in a position to divulge if they had acquired or are in the process of
acquiring the nine properties identified. He noted that residents of the Hampton Apartments
and some Santa Clara residents were expressing anxiety about whether of not the properties
were purchased,
· He said that staff would contact Apple to get more infonnation.
Discussion ensued regarding a convenient date and time to schedule the meeting. The suggestion
was made to begin a Study Session at 5:45 p,m. to be followed by the regular meeting at 7:45 p,m.
Chair Miller opened the meeting for public comment.
Ms. Griffin:
· Said she was pleased there would be more input on North Vallco Industrial/ Tech Park area.
· She was pleased that Apple announced that they were going to purchase property along
Pruneridge Avenue, Tantau Avenue and 280, and she hoped the land would be held as
industrial/tech park area. Cupertino has a long history of tech and it is important to keep that
influence in the city,
· She said that every indication is that the job market is booming back, the unemployment rate
was lower than even anticipated for this area. She commended Apple for taking the time to
look back at its roots and to give back to Cupertino by having another campus for Apple in
Eastern Cupertino. Apple gave a lot to Cupertino and Cupertino owes a lot to Apple. She said
she hoped that the partnership continues for many years.
Chair Miller closed the public input portion of the meeting.
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
April 25, 2006
Discussion ensued regarding the appropriate start time for the next meeting and whether or not to
devote the beginning of the meeting to a Study Session.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to begin the May 9th Planning
Commission meeting at 5:45 p.m., beginning with a Study Session, followed by
the regular Planning Commission meeting at 7:45 p.m. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Com. Wong:
· Requested that staff provide a zoning map of the North Vallco area, including the name of the
property owners, for better identification when working through the process. He asked that the
school boundaries for the North Vallco area, including the elementary and high schools.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
HousiDl! Commission:
· Chair Miller reported that no business was conducted at the last meeting because of a lack of a
quorum.
Mavors Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners:
· No report.
Economic Development Meetinl!:
· Com. Chien reported that topics included the sign ordinance; Steve Job's announcement of
Apple's purchase of 50 acres ofland; referendums occurring in Cupertino; and the Economic
Development Plan relative to budgeting.
Report of the Director of Community Development
· No additional report.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning Commission
meeting on May 9, 2006 at 5:45 p,m.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary