PC 09-22-09CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVEiD MINUTES
6:45 P.M. SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of `ieptember 22, 2009, was called to order at 6:45
p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Tone Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chair
Lisa Giefer.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Lisa Giefer
Vice Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Marty Miller
Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner AICP: Colin Jung
Assistant Planner: George Schroeder
Assistant City Attorney: Valerie Armento
Chair Giefer welcomed the new Assistant City Attorney, Valerie Armento
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
August 25, 2009 Planning Commission meetin~~:
• Correction: Page 6, second paragraph: "ex party" should read "ex parte"
September 8, 2009 Planning Commission meeting:
• Page 5, "Velagio" should read: "Vellagio'''
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Brophy, and unanimously
carried 5-0, to approve the August 25, 2009 and September 8, 2009 Planning
Commission minutes as amended.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Cupertino Planning Commission ~' September 22, 2009
PUBLIC HEARING
1. U-2009-04 Use Permit to allow a full bar to operate inside an
David O'Mara existing restaurant. Planning Commission decision
(Byer Properties) final unless appealed.
10630 DeAnza Blvd.
George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for a Use Permit to allow a full bar to operate inside an existing
restaurant building, as outlined in the staff report.
• Parking requirement is 185 spaces; currently the center provided 192 spaces resulting in a
surplus of 7 spaces; the location is approx. 225 feet from the nearest residential property.
• New restaurants adjacent to residential uses require odor abatement systems; however, the
Aqui restaurant specializes in organic dishes and does not expect to produce noxious odors,
and they do not use high odor oils, nor do they have amesquite-fired roaster. The Planning
Commission may waive the odor abatement requirement provided a condition is added that
requires the installation of an odor abatement system if odor impacts become a problem in
the future.
• Building, Public Works, Fire, Environmental Health, and Sanitary have reviewed the plans
for the restaurant with the proposed bar and have recommended approval of the project.
• The proposed restaurant also complies with the location requirements that the establishment
be at least 600 feet away from schools an~i public playgrounds and outside the immediate
vicinity of churches and hospitals.
• Staff recommends approval of the application for a Use Permit.
Gary Chao, City Planner:
• Said that staff would support an odor abatement condition being placed in the future if a
problem occurs.
Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director:
• Stated that the applicant has the ability to e~:tend the hours of operation beyond 11 p.m. with
a conditional use permit, although it is not part of the project.
David O'Mara, Applicant:
• Provided a brief background of the Aqui restaurants. He said he would not object to approval
of an 11 p.m. closing, but only for Friday and Saturdays, as the restaurant closed at 10 p.m.
• He answered Commissioners' questions about the cooking methods used in the restaurant
and operation of the restaurant.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Praised the other Aqui restaurants at other locations, and commented that the other restaurant
locations were responsibly run and were family oriented establishments.
• Said that the issue of odor abatement equipment has been a major concern in Cupertino
restaurants in the past because of close pn~ximity to residential areas; and suggested that
because of the history and sensitivity of the issue in Cupertino, it would be a good idea to go
ahead with the odor abatement equipment.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Com. Miller:
September 22, 2009
• Said he was comfortable with Item 7 in the resolution which says that if it becomes a
problem then they will have to do odor abatement at that time.
• Said there were other restaurants with liquor licenses in the area and it has not presented any
problems; he recommended the flexibility of staying open until 11 p.m.
• Supports the application.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said he agreed with Com. Miller.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he supported putting in the odor abatement requirement after the fact if it is required in
the future. Said he was comfortable having the bar inside the restaurant as experience shows
that having the bar inside the restaurant keeps it a low key atmosphere. The 11 p.m. closing
is appropriate as it is the standard restaurant~bar situations.
Com. Lee:
• Said she did not feel the odor abatement was necessary; the building has always been a
restaurant and has not had prior problems; and she was comfortable with not requiring an
odor abatement system until it is deemed necessary. Hours of operation 10 p.m. unless the
applicant requests 11 p.m. closing.
• Pleased that the restaurant is locating in Cupertino; it will appeal to the community; supports
the application.
Chair Giefer:
• Said she supported how the odor abatement equipment was written in; and said she would
not recommend that it become standard since the site was unique, and did not abut
residential and was different than previous ones put in place. Said she would like to see staff
continue with the direction of including it, sloe agreed in this case that it made sense.
• Said she was comfortable with the liquor license in use; recommended the applicant be given
the freedom other businesses in Cupertino has, to remain open until 11 p.m. if they chose.
She commented that there was a need in the community for post entertainment activities.
Supports the application.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, to approve .Application U-2009-04 per the model
resolution. Com. Kaneda added a friendly amendment to eztend the hours of
operation to 11 p.m. Com. Miller accepted the friendly amendment. The
amended motion was seconded by C'om. Kaneda, and unanimously carried 5-0.
2. MCA-2009-01 Municipal Code ~unendment for a comprehensive sign
City of Cupertino ordinance update. Tentative City Council date:
Citywide location October 20, 2009
Gary Chao, City Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the background of the item, stating that in February 2008, the City Council as part
of their 2008-09 work program, adopted a review of the sign ordinance in order to make it
more business friendly. Public outreach in~:,ludes Cupertino Courier ads, creation of a city
website for showcasing the item; announcements on the City channel, in the Cupertino
Scene, and discussions held with Cupertino Chamber of Commerce and the Legislative
Action Committee. Notification was also sent to the property owners on the preliminary
landmark sign list to inform them that their signs will be looked at and reviewed. A
Cupertino Planning Commission 4~ September 22, 2009
community meeting in July was also held, vrith 8 persons attending.
• Based on the input received from the community workshop and the City's past experience in
working with business owners to address their signage needs, the proposed changes to the
sign ordinance are designed to meet the following three objectives: (1) increase flexibility;
(2) streamline the approval process; and (3) improve the readability of the document while
making it internally consistent an removing redundant language.
• He reviewed the highlights of the changes within the three objectives, as outlined in the staff
report, beginning Page 2-2.
• Relative to increasinn flexibility, staff recommendation in the azea of redefining how sign
dimensions aze measured is removal of the wall sign height restriction and a more flexible
way to measure sign area. The flexibility in addition to the existing design criteria in the
Ordinance will ensure that signs are azchitecturally proportional with the building and of
high quality.
• Staff recommendation in the area of Lanclmazk Signs is amending the sign ordinance to
allow legal non-conforming signs with a distinctive architectural style to be designated as
Landmazk Signs. Minor structural enhancE;ments, minor modifications or relocation of the
sign within the same general area, following review by the Director of Community
Development, may be allowed, provided that the architectural chazacter of the sign is not
compromised.
• For Blade Signs, staff recommends that pedestrian-oriented blade signs be allowed by the
Ordinance.
• For Directory Signs, staff recommends that additional flexibility be allowed to display small
logos, symbols or insignias on directory signs not exceeding 33% of the sign area of the
directory sign.
• For Additional Wall Signs on Corner Buildings, staff recommends amending the Sign
Ordinance to allow buildings with frontages along a public street and a driveway to be
considered corner building and be permitte-d one additional wall sign. Also, single tenant
buildings with more than 5,000 square feet Ise allowed one additional wall sign.
• Staff recommendation for Ground Signs is to allow properties with a minimum street
frontage of 100 feet, one ground sign regazdless of building setback.
• For Logos, Symbols or Insignia, staff recommends that businesses be allowed illuminated
logos, symbols or insignia up to 9 feet with ;~ sign permit.
• Staff recommends for Additional Portable Signs, that retail tenants with more than 20,000
square feet, be allowed one portable sign, uF~ to 4 feet tall and 2 feet wide, per entrance, up to
a maximum of 3 portable signs. One of the signs could be up to 6 feet tall and no lazger than
24 square feet, provided that it is not oriented towazd a public right-of--way.
• Nine other additional changes aze outlined on Page 2-7 of the staff report.
• In the area of streamlining the approval process, relative to neon/LED signs, staff
recommends that approval of minor embellishments in neon and LED be allowed by the
Director of Community Development; witl•i significant use of neon or LED in signs to be
approved by the Design Review Committee.
• Relative to the Sign Program, staff recommends the following changes: Exempt
developments with 4 or more tenants frorr~ having to obtain a Sign Program; Modify the
criteria of the Sign Program to facilitate creative and unique signs; and Allow minor
variations from sign regulations provided shat proposed vaziations aze consistent with the
azchitectural theme and building design and the proposed sign program will enhance the look
and feel of the shopping center.
• Improving readility. improve internal cc-nsistencv and remove redundancy: Various
sections of the Sign Ordinance have been rei:ormatted to improve readability. The Ordinance
language has been clazified or removed to enhance readability and remove inconsistencies
Cupertino Planning Commission
September 22, 2009
and redundancy.
• Removal of Illegal Signs in the Public: Right-of-Wav: Staff recommends that new
provisions be added to the Sign Ordinance: allowing removal of unpermitted and/or illegal
signs location in the public right-of--way without prior notification; sign owners will be
notified after sign removal. Cardboard signs or other non-durable materials will be
considered "de minimus" in value and will be destroyed without notification. Staff also
recommends that a change be made in tl~e number of days that the city must store the
removed signs.
• Relative to a citizen's comment about the need for bilingual signs, the City Attorney has
researched the issue and found that sign content cannot be regulated without violating both
First Amendment and Equal Protection rights. The Planning Commission is advised not to
make any recommendations relating specifying a particular language for signs.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council
based on the model resolution presented.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions about changes to the sign ordinance.
Com. Miller:
• Multilingual signs are not only for Asian proprietors who might be interested in advertising in
English; it is equally well for English speaking proprietors who might want to encourage
Chinese only speaking customers to frequent their shop as well. Is there some way that we
could allow for a larger sign area to accommodate two languages on a sign.
Colin Jung:
• Said the sign ordinance has been loosened in terms of sign height so businesses will be able to
more effectively use the facades of their building to accommodate a second language if they so
chose within the sign area that is allowed by the elimination of the sign height criteria.
Valerie Armento, Assistant City Attorney:
• Said that there is nothing that precludes a business owner from advertising in multiple
languages and the changes to the sign ordinance do provide for more flexibility with regard to
how much copy, etc. they can have on the sign. In a proactive way that addresses the problem;
the issue is that the city cannot mandate the dual language.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said she checked to see if they could have ~~eparate rules for people who are advertising in
more than one language and the answer was " Rio".
Vice Chair Brophy:
• On the section dealing with the preservation of certain non-conformning signs, am I correct in
understanding that the changes in the ordinance would not require them to keep those signs;
this is not the equivalent of a historic preservation clause.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it does not make a sign historic, but it does take some of these kinds of architectural merit
and where before they couldn't even structurally modify them, they can now; but they don't
have to keep them.
Com. Kaneda:
• On the landmark signs, you cannot structurall~~ modify it because it is non-conforming; he said
in his opinion none of the signs had architectural merit. The question is, if they are existing
Cupertino Planning Commission ti September 22, 2009
non-conforming, and the sign has fallen into disrepair and it needs to have work done on it just
so it doesn't fall down and injure or kill somebody, can the owner at least do that.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• No, he would have to remove it.
Gary Chao:
• Said people are hesitant or shy away from exceptions because it cost money and time to go
through the public hearing process, going before a committee. Also the public perception; any
time they ask for an exception, it has a negative connotation, even though what they are asking
for may be reasonable or logical. The cost t~~ file for an exdeption is $3000 to $4000, taking
about 2 months. It doesn't affect places with a streetscape plan; the only rule that may defer it
is in the Heart of the City, but has nothing to do with the streetscape. Staff said that if they do
not feel there will be much support for an exception, they let people know and leave the choice
to them.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Relative to criteria for being a landmark sign, if the Planning Commission and City Council
think there is merit, the idea is to scout the city. The signs have to be older; a new sign cannot
apply for one. If we have missed one, we will look at it, but we don't expect to see many; there
are not that many that would qualify.
Gary Chao:
• If you are less than 50 feet, single row signs are limited to 18 inches; if over 50 feet, and you
go up to 24, and thereafter 100 feet; it goes ul~ from there incrementally. The further back you
are from the road, the harder it is to read the sign.
Colin Jung:
• When we looked at all the sign regulations of the cities surveyed, you really have to
distinguish when you read the ordinance, Borne of it, are references to sign copy height, how
tall the letters are, and other cities the references to sign height how tall the sign is relative to
the grain of the ground. When you elimi~iate those from the matrix in the staff report,
Sunnyvale is the only city that regulates the height of the sign copy. Every other city didn't
even have a restriction on that, other than the obvious restriction that it had to fit on the
building and there was some restrictions ~~n how large the sign is and just sort of a
proportionality of the sign related to the tenanr. frontage.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he had mixed feelings whether or not illuminated signs were a good idea. The examples
given were both restaurants; are there m~iny examples of lit signs that are not night
establishments, such as restaurants open late at night to attract customers late into the evening.
Chair Giefer:
• It would be similar to what Semantec used t~~ have on the building facing Highway 9 and it
was backlit.
Com. Kaneda•
• For the most part are we talking about Wahoos and BJs.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Starbucks is a good example; they have the circular sign that would be considered a logo.
Cupertino Planning Commission ~ September 22, 2009
Com. Kaneda:
• These are all places that aze open during the evening serving food and trying to attract
customers, as opposed to Semantec who has shut down but leaving their sign lit.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• It doesn't differentiate between restaurants and other uses at this point, but could apply to both.
Gary Chao:
• The portable signs as it relates to larger commercial users or tenants, for retail everything
remains the same as the last update with the exception that portable sign rule relates to retail
tenants with more than 20,000 squaze feet, such as Whole Foods where they can have up to a
maximum of 3 signs, one for each entrance tc- the building; sizes to be limited to 4 feet tall by
2 feet wide; but one of these signs could be larger, up to 6 feet tall, maximum 24 square feet.
• Said there were changes to the ordinance regarding banners. In terms of project identification,
temporary banners, instead of only allowing; for two small 32 squaze foot banners, or A-
frames, there is a need as developers comf; in wanting one banner. It is suggested that
flexibility be given that people can have either two 32" or one 64" temporary banner.
Com. Lee:
• What about non-temporary banners for businesses; is there a change for them.
Gary Chao:
• They aze all temporary; there is a section in the ordinance, this is more of a streamline ease of
use that have a schedule relating to how manor banners a shopping center can have, predicated
upon how many tenants the center has. We are taking out the entire schedule; we are saying
that because it is hard for Code Enforcement to keep track of these different dates and different
number of attendants and how many maximunn they can issue; we aze saying we aze taking that
out, but the theory is that because even if them is 10 tenants in the center, not all ten will come
in at one time to go through the same precise time to put up their temporary banners; so there
is going to be over the entire year, it is going to be disbursed, and will not be concentrated in
one azea, so the schedule is unnecessary thing to have. To that extent, it is a small change.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it seemed unreasonable to give it to only three businesses and not to another business that
was opening up, since these were temporary. Staff felt if new businesses were opening up and
need a banner for a month, they could get it, lout they would have to take it down and put up a
permanent sign after that.
Chair Giefer:
• I would like to follow up on Com. Kaneda's question eazlier with regard to the treatment of
two different signs that are 36 inches apart; how did staff come up with that recommendation;
what was the thinking behind that; please provide some examples. Is another city doing that?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• An example is a single business would have one sign; if he had two signs, he wouldn't put it
on the same frontage. This is to separate si;~s between businesses; some cities give you a
percentage of frontage, some cities separate it by distance; Cupertino has chosen to do that and
it is to prevent signs from running into one another between businesses in a strip shopping
center. There are examples in very old shopping centers where you have light boxes, which
look like one big light box, and staff felt that tack in the day, they felt that and it is reasonable;
Cupertino Planning Commission R~ September 22, 2009
3 feet between signs is enough even if you ha~~e a long sign.
Gary Chao:
• Wahoo Fish Tacos would be considered miner use of neon and LEDs illuminated signs; with
type of trimming, minor embellishments as opposed to the entire sign being composed of LED
and neon; but the Commission can help funther define if they feel there is some additional
clarity needed.
Chair Giefer:
• Said she shazed Com. Kaneda's concern, to keep the skies as dark as possible; and when you
see uses of decorative neon, such as the edging on Elephant Baz, you have light spillout into
the night sky. She said she could not come u;p with an idea other than saying you have to turn
them all off at a certain time, although that is not the preferable way to move forwazd. One
cannot control the neon light spillout; LEDs, the technology that it is a little more controllable,
and it is a different lighting type. It is more energy efficient and it is preferable in terms of not
lighting up the sky, but we cannot regulate the people use, the technology vs. another
comparable technology. Perhaps in the sign ordinance, one of the things to be considered is
saying that illuminated signs can only be illuminated when the business is open.
Valerie Armento, Assistant City Attorney:
• Directed the Commissions' attention to Page :?-141 which shows the existing language and the
strikeouts, some of those conditions are already there. In Section 17.24.190, it states that if it
is not necessary to the security lighting of the business and has to be turned off by a certain
hour or within 2 hours of the business closing; that there aze restrictions with regazd to the
intensity of the lighting, that it has to be set iip in certain ways to minimize the impact of the
lighting. A portion of that is in the existing ordinance; if there are specific suggestions, staff
would be receptive to additional concepts, but much of what she heard is the concerns aze
already covered.
Chair Giefer:
I thought that having a business come in for ;3 sign program; a strip mall or such made sense,
but I wanted to address the practicality of th~it because if you have one tenant that comes in,
such as the Plaza across the street with Radio Shack; where they have the awning signs, which
adds chazacter to that building and when Bardies moved in they changed their sign program
and changed the look and feel of the strip mall. Radio Shack remained as a consistent tenant,
so they still have the awning with the signage on it. In my mind as I was reading what was
proposed, I was thinking you may have one thing that worked, you have a change in tenant; if
they come in and ask for a sign program to apply to that, it is going to be rolled in as tenant
turnover. There is no impetus that the entire site changes once the program is put in place.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• If a program is approved, and someone comes in, they would have to modify that program if
there is a substantial change and when they nnodify the program, they have to make sure that
whatever is done as part of the change, keeps the harmony with the existing development.
They can either just reface it or if they want to change it for one tenant, there aze going to have
to look at everything.
• Said it was difficult to require a timeframe to implement the program. They basically have to
do it all at one time; the program is approved and they have to implement the entire program.
They typically see minor variations and unless you have a new owner who is looking at
completely new tenants; you don't really see the big changes in sign programs.
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 September 22, 2009
Chair Giefer:
• With the way this is written wouldn't we still have that inconsistency where you have a new
sign program that is not completely implemented.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Usually it is an enforcement issue, but when eve modify a sign program we are required to look
at the entire sign program and not just allow them to change that one sign. The idea of a sign
program is to give people the ability to pll~g and play with new tenants; it is not to have
something so distinctive that you need a big change every time. The change we are making is
to raise the threshold where before if you had. more than two tenants, we aze now saying more
than three; so some smaller shopping centers won't have to go through that. It is more onerous
typically.
Chair Giefer:
• One of the clean up items that staff is making; a recommendation on is non-conforming. signs;
you want to lengthen the period of time for ahem to become conforming, remove the sign or
whatever, to 180 days, 6 months seems very long because if you have someone who has a sign
which is not conforming, it is because they installed it and it doesn't conform to current code
and then now we aze telling them it is okay to have that non-conforming sign for 6 months?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• It is seen in the case of an older center that ]ias had anon-conforming, illegally put in at the
time, but now non-conforming just to re-tenant that one space, they now have to take the whole
sign down and put up a new ground sigma, that typically a three month gap basically between
the old tenant and the new tenant; we find t}-at six months is more reasonable. Once an old
tenant leaves, it takes awhile to get a new tenant and we always find ourselves going through
this when people are trying to re-tenant their shopping centers.
Chair Giefer:
• Are there examples of where I may have a legally non-conforming sign and have a tenant
move out, and I have a new tenant; I am thinking about specifically the one where Florentines
is, because it is a tall non-conforming sign; they changed the tenants on that non-conforming
sign so we don't make them remove that sign, so how is this different.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• The case is usually exacerbated when you ha~~e one tenant buildings, that is usually where the
big issue occurs; in multi-tenanted buildings :you have enough tenants there to keep that sign.
Bombay Oven is an example, where there is a single tenant building and it takes more than
three months to re-tenant and they can't believe just to get somebody in, with minimal TIs they
are going to have to spend about half the amount of TIs to put in a new sign now. Six months
is a more reasonable period.
Chair Giefer:
• You showed the directional signs for the Town Center and those have just got very simple text
on it to direct you to the correct building. If l~~gos are added to that, we would not increase the
size of those directional signs; we wouldn't e:nd up with 4 foot wide or 4 foot tall directional
signs on a post because it accommodated sorr~ebody's logo. It would continue to be whatever
sign was approved as part of the sign program; there aze some maximum sizes included.
Colin Jung:
• The maximum area of the directional sign hay not changed; it is being given the flexibility of
Cupertino Planning Commission 1 ~~ September 22, 2009
putting their company identification along with the direction, such as shipping for which
business.
Chair Giefer:
• Relative to landmark signs, she said she was surprised to see the Crossroads sign included in
that, with the signs that have been specified were they just let's go out and look at the old signs
that aren't non-conforming or were they recommended by the public.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• It stated they first had to be non-conforming; if the Planning Commission is interested, staff
will follow up, but it is something that was br~~ught up by businesses and property owners.
Chair Giefer:
• As a followup to an earlier question regardin€; the Loree Center sign; it has the marquis on the
top and it looks like it was designed to have individual merchant's names on the planks below
it. With this sign ordinance, could the owner go in and add those business names. Would they
be allowed to go through and add the tenant names underneath that in that area; because it is a
modification to something we are calling a marquis sign.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they could reface it with new tenant :names and they could also structurally keep it
standing where before they couldn't. They would have to take it down if it wasn't structurally
sound; they cannot modify it to add new tenant names.
Com. Kaneda:
• The issue is that when somebody moves out of a tenant space, that owner needs to bring that
sign up to code prior to leasing the space out:; and sometimes it takes time to lease the space
out. Perhaps another way to do it is to say they have to do it before the tenant moves in, or
something similar. If we had been living with anon-conforming sign for 5 years, another 180
days isn't going to matter. I cannot see putti~ig any timeframe on it except that when the new
tenant moves in, the sign needs to be in place ;~t that point. Is there some way to do that.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said the reason for the six months period is, if a building becomes empty, usually the single
tenant building, and that sign is no longer u:;ed for three months; you have to take it down.
Now we are saying you have to take it down ~~vithin six months. The idea is, and that is where
landmark signs are different, over time as si€~s go out of commission or not used any more,
they get replaced by conforming signs. If you give them any length of time, it takes away from
allowing signs to get more conforming over ~:ime unless there is major redevelopment. It is a
problem; therefore they are given a timeframe.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said that San Jose recently changed their sigr~age program to allow for larger signs. She said
that Cupertino needs to make sure that before they do any drastic changes to allow an increase
in the size of signage, that they don't compromise what they already have in Cupertino, which
is elegant, well defined signs that advertise sh~~ps and businesses, for people to come to, but do
not overwhelm the city. She said they should avoid large signs that would be more appropriate
in San Francisco or along El Camino, or Highway 101. Cupertino is a beautiful city, with a
beautiful green canopy, and the owners of commercial property and businesses in town, have
Cupertino Planning Commission 1 l September 22, 2009
the ability to have attractive signs.
• She said she was impressed with the amount of time that Cupertino takes to review their sign
ordinance which will result in quality signage. Said that she resides near the end of town where
Loree Shopping Center is located and she liked the monument sign on the property. She urged
the Commission to keep high quality, subtle si gnage in Cupertino; don't compromise.
John ,Cupertino resident:
• Said that the size of the sign should be consiidered; the business owners want good visibility
from the sign, and take into consideration the view of the signs from the street. Keep the city
looking attractive; the signs should be in keeping with the look of the neighborhood.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Com. Lee:
• Said she felt it would have been more helpful to have more community input; and some things
are at odds of each other; the businesses wall always want bigger signs, more signs, more
banners, brighter signs, and the residents might want something more muted, classier, and
more aesthetic. Staff has done a good j~~b to improve the readability, get rid of the
redundancy; it is now easier to read; there are definitely some concerns regarding neon, neon
should go to DRC; illuminated logos should €;o to DRC. Many residents are concerned about
the dark sky, keeping it not so lit; wall signs directed to residences, should go to DRC.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he had mixed feelings about communit)~ input because only 8 people showed up at the
community meeting. He said he took exception to the landmarks, which are hideous. Possibly
at some point there may be a very large sign that the city might want to approve, but they are
few and far between; that is something you a~uld either do as an exception or something like
that. I am not thrilled with the landmark signs and not with the examples in the packets. He
said he was fine with blade signs, corner buildings of double signs, logos, and ground signs.
He is concerned about illumination; and understood the argument for restaurants even though
it is probably not the best thing to do environmentally. Based on the section read by the
attorney, it seems like that is a reasonable set of parameters as long as it is in force, because
once an establishment closes down, they have: an hour or two hours and they have to turn the
lights out. Plenty of businesses have good sigzis; during his late night drive home, he has seen
many signs lit up.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Thanked staff for their work; the general focus of their efforts were accurate; to increase the
area by which signs can be dealt with on an exempt basis as much as possible, and increasing
what is left to be dealt with at the staff level. Said he did object to any of the changes made;
relative to Com. Kaneda's comments, he said. he agreed that the landmark signs are decrepit,
not historic. In due course most of those wial be taken care of on their own and the idea of
allowing the signs to remain and allowing their owners to maintain them for however long they
will before eventually they meet their end. It is an excellent idea.
• Relative to the illumination issue, he said he i=elt it was covered by the ordinance language; in
the future they will see something at the State; level dealing with the question of illumination
and he would support leaving it for another day and another level and let it go as it is.
Com. Miller:
• Said he appreciated staff's efforts; the changes are appropriate; the goal is to be a business-
friendly town, and the concept of expediting the process of leaving most of the decisions to the
Cupertino Planning Commission 1:? September 22, 2009
staff level, of reducing the expense for appliczurts and the increase in flexibility is on target.
• Said he supported the changes.
Chair Giefer:
Said she was comfortable with the recomme~ided changes except for neon; and the reason is
having sat on many of the DRC meetings where they were approving sign exceptions, I feel
very similarly to the way Com. Lee felt iii that if there is an illuminated sign, it could
potentially add an additional nuisance to a resiidential neighborhood.
At the DRC meetings, they got a lot of public feedback on the light cast off from illuminated
signs, particularly ones that pertained to neon; that is where 1 learned that neon could actually
be dialed back and could be less intense to satisfy the neighbors, and I think that I am not
inclined to wait for the State to solve the 1-roblem, because I think the State has a lot of
problems to solve and this is not likely at the top of their list now. Said she was more
comfortable having neon and LED illuminated signs go to the DRC to provide extra comfort
level for the residents and if it were a minor element in the trim, and we were more
prescriptive and said that no more than 10% of the sign was to be neon or LED, you would
have to come up with some pretty intricate computations to show that surface area. I would
rather have those particular instances go to I)RC to have somebody eyeball it and say "yes,
let's go ahead and do it or not, and give the public an extra opportunity to come in and say it is
a tasteful sign, no I cannot live with that sign that is shining in my bedroom. That would be
my one objection to what I am reading. We 1•iave two commissioners who would like those to
go to DRC, we don't have a majority on it unless someone else is interested in that position.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he would support it.
Com. Lee:
• Said she wanted more, to expand on other things. Staff said most of the exceptions granted
were for wall signs; she did not see the rationale to grant so many different exceptions, misc.
exceptions, grant all these requests, when most of them, and it is basically 40 in 6 years, so that
is like 6 or 7 a year, not really a lot; and we are proposing to recommend to City Council to
change our sign ordinance that would really impact the aesthetics.
• Pointed out that as a business owner, she knew she had one sign, did not have a ground sign
for about 3 years and knows the importance of signs and signage. She said most of her clients
hear about her business through referrals or the building sign. Business owners that are astute
will know that if they want the sign, they will go through the exception process; they will work
with staff; go to the DRC, work with the neighbors. By speed planning through the process,
the process will get faster, but at the same time what is happening, is that by making it faster,
the community input is lessened, and the ~idditional review at the DRC is lessened and
aesthetics can't really be changed.
Chair Giefer:
• While on the DRC, there was a lot of community feedback with the illuminated signs, and it
was normally a neighbor that was affected by the illumination. Said she did not recall any
neighbors saying they objected to additional wall signs.
• Panera Breads is a good example; they had to come in and ask for an exception for their sign
along the driveway; most astute business people know they can come in and ask for that. She
said she didn't recall any conflict or any neighbors who objected to additional signs on the
sides of buildings. That is why it was less of an issue; she did not have a problem with that.
Cupertino Planning Commission 1:S September 22, 2009
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Noted that they would care about how they would look on a building, how they fit, that doesn't
take away from that. It doesn't mean they can just go to the absolute maximum regardless of
how it looks on a building. Staff will continue: with the review they have done in the past.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Staff said the typical exception application is $3,000 to $4,000 and takes two months, which
for many businesses is a steep number. Chair Giefer's experience has just been the
illumination issue that has been a matter of discussion.
• Said he would prefer to just leave it at the illumination issue and not extend it further.
Com. Lee:
• Said the return on investment of building signs was 20:1; investment of $3,000 for an
exception is worth it, more than external marl~:eting, internal marketing, or putting an ad in the
newspaper.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he was not clear on the landmark sign; preferred not having any.
Chair Giefer:
• Said the landmark signs are nice to have; the}~ are not saying they have to keep them and they
are not protected historically, so as long as thc; center is there, business is going along, there is
no impetus for you to remove it; some people's perspective, you cannot regulate taste.
Com. Lee:
• Said landmark signs will come in every 40 years; when it becomes retro again; presently she
does not like the landmark signs; they are not ~irchitecturally superior.
Chair Giefer:
• Said she had no problem crossing the Crossroads off that, since she felt it was too
contemporary and not kitschy at all.
Vice Chair Brophy and Com. Miller:
• Said they supported keeping the landmark sign.
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Vice Chair Brophy, and carried 4-1, to
pprove Application MCA-2009-01 v~iith the modification that neon and LED signs
continue to go to the DRC for review. Coms. Giefer, Brophy, Miller and
Kaneda Yes; Com. Lee voted No.
OLD BUSINESS• None
NEW BUSINESS• None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:
• Chair Giefer reported that the hillside subdivision of Regnart Road was discussed.
Housing Commission:
Cupertino Planning Commission l~l September 22, 2009
• Com. Kaneda reported that the Housing Commission made a recommendation to City Council
to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to develop affordable senior housing along the
Mary Avenue right-of--way.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No meeting.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting.
Report of the Director of Community Develo~nnent:
• Announced that the online permitting has begun for minor permits;
• The State's review of the housing element was received; staff is responding to questions about
some sites.
• Received the 2009 projections from ABAG; :;tall will compile a table similar to the prior one
submitted. Numbers haven't changed drastically; some have gone down in final adjustments;
an updated report will be provided in a future D'irector's report.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for October 13, 2009 at 6:45 p.m.
c
Respectfully Submitted: `~~'"' ~ -,;.
El' eth Ellis, F:ecording Secretary
Approved as presented: October 13, 2009