Loading...
Draft Minutes 6.27.06 Cupertino Planning Commission 1 June 27, 2006 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. JUNE 27, 2006 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The Planning Commission meeting of June 27, 2006 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the 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: City Planner: Ciddy Wordell Senior Planner: Aki Honda Code Enforcement Officer Asst. City Attorney: Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 9,2006 Planning Commission meeting: Corrections as noted: Page 8: Com. Saadati, first bullet, second line: Insert "one" after "another" Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Wong, to approve the May 9,2006 minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: . Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, noted receipt of an e-mail regarding a fence exception, as an information item. . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mayor Mark Brodsky, Mayor of Monte Sereno: . Referred to a potential project that he felt Cupertino could playa major role in helping to solve the jobs/housing/transportation imbalance throughout the city. . He said there was land available, and Cupertino could potentially be the leader in how a city can direct and focus development such that it creates the magnet for circulation and distribution local while at the same time providing large scale regional transportation. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 June 27, 2006 . He said he would schedule a time to make a presentation on Cupertino's potential leadership role in the project. POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 1. MCA-2005-02 City of Cupertino Citywide Location Municipal Code Amendment of Title 17 (Signs) Aki Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Explained that a study session was held on April 25, 2006 when the Planning Commission provided comments to staff on the draft ordinance and opened the public hearing to hear public comments. . Further discussion of the draft ordinance was continued to June 27th to allow the Assistant City Attorney more time to review the entire ordinance and conduct legal research relative to current case law on specific areas of the draft ordinance. . She reviewed the twelve Planning Commission's comments on the draft sign ordinance and staff s response to each comment as outlined in the staff report. The comments and responses related to: 1. Decorative Statuary 2. Lawn Signs 3. Appeal Period 4. Abandoned Signs 5. Storage of Removed Signs 6. Code Enforcement Update 7. Multilingual Signs 8. Cost Recovery of Signs 9. Logo Signs 10. Temporary Sign Fees 11. Additional Ground Signs 12. Ground Sign Height . Reviewed the additional modifications and clarifications to the draft ordinance based on further review and direction from the Assistant City Attorney, including: o Section 17.080.101 (Definitions) o Chapter 17.12 (Administrative Procedures o Section 17.24.060 (Wall Signs - Commercial and Industrial Districts) o Section 17.24.070 (Wall Signs- Office and Institutional Districts) o Section 17.32.090 (Temp. and Special Event Signs and Promotional Devices) . She summarized the comments and recommendations from the Chamber of Commerce, Child Development Center and a resident as outlined in the staff report. . Staff requests that the Planning Commission provide direction on the proposed amendments. Com. Wong: . Requested that the Fine Arts Commission make a recommendation to the DRC relative to the Decorative Statuary. Aki Honda: . Said that the language could be added. Ciddy Wordell: . Suggested that wording be added to say at the discretion of the Director of Community Development to take care of things that might not be considered by the Fine Arts Commission. Com. Wong: . Relative to storage of removed signs, suggested a 60 day period. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 June 27, 2006 Code Enforcement Officer: . Said that historically they have used 90 days as a benchmark because they go out on a quarterly basis to dispose of the signs. He said they would be open to a 60 day period. Com. Wong: . Regarding temporary sign fees, asked what fees were and suggested a minute order to alert City Council that the fees may be excessive. Aid Honda: . Said that the fee is $191 for temporary sign permit fee per year, in addition to a $100 fee for cost recovery. $100 is a deposit; which many temporary sign applicants keep it on the records. It is to provide incentive for taking the sign down when they agreed to; if they don't, the $100 fee is used to recoup the city's cost for removing it. Com. Wong: . Relative to additional ground signs, asked if there was a process to appeal on a case-by-case basis and if it was clearly spelled out in the ordinance. . He asked if i~ was possible to add language for additional ground signs. Ciddy Wordell: . Said that it was a sign exception process for additional signage and additional height in signage. There is an exception section in the ordinance that refers to applying for an exception to any of the regulations; it is best to keep it in one area as an exception reference. If it is specifically cited that ground signs need an exception or could get an exception, it would be inconsistent. Aid Honda: . Said that the administrative process on neon and decorative signs was changed at a previous meeting on recommendation of the Planning Commission that it go to the DRC for review and approval to simplify the process. Com. Wong: . Disclosed that he was President Elect of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce and it was determined by the city attorney that a conflict of interest did not exist because of his Planning Commissioner position. . Expressed concern that it states they cannot regulate signs and cannot put signs in the public right of way because it is against the law since it is impeding traffic. He asked why staff is recommending the change. . Regarding Public Works, questioned why they couldn't have information there if they want to ask for an exception, because the sign ordinances don't explain that. . Clarified that he was looking at advertising for a particular business signage in the public right of way and directional signage. Aid Honda: . Said that the existing portable free standing signs are allotted 6 feet in height and 32 square feet in sign area. Staff is suggesting a reduction of one foot in height and 12 square feet. . There is currently no language that specifies how far they need to be from the sidewalk or driveway entrance; they could be right up to that entrance without any provision. . The Vehicle Code has specific regulations regarding signage and the signage in public right of ways are meant to be directional rather than advertising for businesses. . For directional signage it is covered; e.g., the Cypress Hotel has directional signage for the Cupertino Planning Commission 4 June 27, 2006 hotel but it is not advertising. It is in the city right of way; but is considered directional signage for traffic purposes and the city generally doesn't allow advertising signs in the public right of way. Public Works and the city would have to determine if that is what they would like to see. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: . Relative to the reduction in size of the signs, staff pointed out the obstruction of traffic or visibility, and said setting it back further would be helpful; but there has to be a substantial government purpose to restrict something further. It is up to the Commissioners. Com. Wong: . Said it would be ideal to have a clear process explaining that exception; and suggested that it be included in the exception paragraph about exception in public right of way because there is no current language. Ciddy Wordell: . Said the process would be just an encroachment permit and the information staffhas provided is that the Vehicle Code specifies that it cannot be advertising, just directional in nature; which is likely what occurs at Public Works., An encroachment permit is granted for the directional sign, and the Public Works department approves and possibly installs the directional sign. . Said that when it was first discussed, the Commission was talking about a process if they or the applicant were not pleased with the decision of the Public Works Department. She said she was not certain how much control there would be over copy because it is set to say Hotel, rather than what would describe it in terms of advertising, and there may be other concerns about size or location that an applicant might want to have a process for. She said it may be an administrative appeal process that is for all administrative decisions and it might be a question of whether that needed to be spelled out in the ordinance, and staff could look into that. Com. Wong: . Said that the matrix spelled out the sign height clearly and was helpful. He said he wanted something that was more spelled out rather than on a case-by-case basis. . He said that for directional signs, if they are low enough and don't impede traffic, they should have a process to include that. Ciddy Wordell: . Said that staff could look into the specifics of what that would be. . Said that a maximum of two signs or ground signs were allowed according to the ordinance. Any more would be through an exception. Historically, less than 2 or 3 per year have been allowed. . Said that there was one sign on Wolfe Road and one at the hotel in the public right of way. Com. Chien: . It was stated clearly in order to restrict signs, there needs to be a clear governmental purpose including safety hazards and public right of way. He asked the city attorney what other purposes would be considered. Eileen Murray: . Said that previously there was a purpose of aesthetics which has come under fire recently, so the decision should not be based solely on aesthetics. She suggested looking for something more substantial because of more recent case issues. ,Cupertino Planning Commission 5 June 27, 2006 Com. Chien: . Asked staff how feasible it would be for the business and the code enforcement officers regarding temporary signs being prohibited from within 10 feet ofthe sidewalk or driveway. . He said it would be unfortunate if, as soon the ordinance is enacted, all the businesses protest that 10 feet is much too little and there is no way they can place their signs. Code Enforcement Officer: . Said it would be something they would want to review, especially since there has been a move to bring businesses out more towards the street. The 10 foot right of way may be reduced in many cases; if not now, in the future as there is more redevelopment going on. It may be something to revisit down the road and make it smaller. . Ten feet is plenty for visibility reasons; it might be workable at 3 to 5 feet. It could possibly be revisited in the coming months to see if 10 feet is too much. . He said Public Works staff could do a survey of their cases to determine how many would fall into that category and how that increases their typical caseload. Eileen Murray: . Suggested that Code Enforcement conduct a survey of how many signs are inside the 10 foot right of way, and how many businesses it would affect; because if it is a significant number, it may be too restrictive. Com. Chien: . Said he would like to know the status. Vice Chair Giefer: . Asked staff to clarify the logo sizing; how it would work; will it get larger as the business is placed further away from the street, and specifically about increasing the logo size to 9 feet from 4 because it is more than 100%. Aid Honda: . Currently under exempt signs, logos are listed and allowed up to 4 sq. ft. where they are exempt from that sign square footage and sign area criteria. In the exempt section of definition for logos, the draft language increases it to 9, meaning they are automatically allowed to go up to a 9 square foot logo; anything after that would have to be reviewed. . Said it would be staff approval that would not come to the Planning Commission if it was larger than 4 feet. If larger than 4 feet, it would have to go through review. Without that, if it is allowed to go up to 9 square feet for the draft ordinance, then 9 square feet would be automatically permitted. Typically it is going from a 2 by 2 to 3 by 3 foot sign. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said the DRC oftentimes does sign programs for a property owner such as Marketplace; and Cypress Hotel would fall into that category. However, the sign ordinance doesn't specifically speak about sign programs. . Said she felt it be more efficient if they considered the entire installation of signs as one area in the facility rather than consider individual ground signs, directional signs and ones needed for a comer lot. However, the ordinance does not speak to that as providing that type of service to the property owner. Ciddy Wordell: . Said that the ordinance does require a sign program for every property; staff s task when someone comes in for a sign permit or sign exception is to check to see if they have a sign Cupertino Planning Commission 6 June 27, 2006 program. If a sign exception goes to DRC they should either have a sign program on file or they should have one as part of the sign exception. The Planning Commission would have the opportunity to see the whole project and how the sign exception fits into that project. . The sign program is required in the sign ordinance and staffis given a sign program to review, approve and file; so that each time a new sign comes in for that property, the sign program is checked to determine if it conforms. Vice Chair Giefer: . Referred to the flatbed trucks carrying advertising billboards around the community. Suggested that No Moving Vehicle signs be allowed. Ciddy Wordell: . Said staff would have to research it, beiJ.1g cautious not to lead people to believe they could not have a sign on their truck with their business name. Vice Chair Giefer: . Referred to the language on Page 1-28 regarding neon signs in windows and suggested clarification of wording. She also said that it states a certain type is allowed, but no mention is made about where it is not allowed. Aki Honda said she would look at the language. . She expressed concern about the letter from the Chamber of Commerce; and said she did not feel there was a conflict of interest, but was concerned about possible bias and wanted to disclose the conversation with Com. Wong. She asked the city attorney for clarification. Eileen Murray: . Said that a conflict of interest usually means that the person has a financial interest in the outcome of the vote. She said she saw no evidence of bias. . Said the letter was a recommendation from the Chamber of Commerce which they were asked for; and Com. Wong was assigned to be their representative. The Council can assign anyone as the representative and that is the reason for the meeting with Com. Wong and why he signed the letter. . We explained that everyone is biased in some way or another; all come to the Commission or to the Councilor to their position with preferences in mind; whether or not Com. Wong would stand up for all those things and be adamant in the face of opposition or public opinion, may indicate bias; she said she had not seen that. She said she would not take a position one way or another on that. Vice Chair Giefer: . Expressed appreciation for the information and said that Com. Wong has always been forthright about separating himself from issues in the past, but she wanted to disclose that they had the conversation. Com. Wong: . Referred to the legal non-conforming signs and asked if it would be more practicable for the city to make them all 10 feet vs. handling each on an individual basis requiring them to bring the sign back down 2 feet. It would provide the opportunity to make them all legal vs. legal non-conforming. Eileen Murray: . Suggested that they not be more liberal because there are some who are non-conforming; which they would want to bring into conformance at the time they change. She said it is a Planning Commission decision as to whether it should be 10 feet or 8 feet. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 June 27, 2006 Com. Wong: . Clarified that he was not biased on the issue. He said that when he was Chairman of the Planning Commission he brought up the sign ordinance as well as the fence ordinance and they were issues he was passionate about. He said it was a voluntary position and he felt strongly about some issues, but had no financial interests that would constitute a conflict of interest. Chair Miller: . Relative to the multi-lingual signs he said the reasons for bringing it up were first to consider increasing the size of the sign if a business wanted to have more than one language on the sign. . He noted that staff deleted the entire wording and not left that portion in. He said they were not requiring a particular language, merely offering the opportunity to provide it and giving the ability to do so by allowing a certain percentage of increase in the sign. Eileen Murray: . Said the ability existed to have a multi-language sign; the size of the sign was being limited, not the content. They could have one or two languages on the sign; limiting the content would interfere with their First Amendment rights. . Recommended that the sign ordinance state the size of the sign and that it not be dependent on what is on the sign, because if businesses wanting two languages on the sign received a permit for a larger sign, some other businesses may complain that it is a content related ordinance, giving some businesses more space depending on what they put on the sign. Chair Miller: . Said there was no intent to discriminate; any owner who wanted to provide signage in more than one language would have the option of getting a sign that was larger in order to accommodate that; and in so doing, would be a benefit to the public. Eileen Murray: . Said that it was a First Amendment issue; time place and manner, not content. . She said that there are likely many things that are in the public benefit, but they still may not be within the constitutional rights. Chair Miller: . Asked if the changes relative to temporary signage referred to signs put up for one day, such as a realtor's sign or a special promotion sign. He also asked also about A-frame signs placed on the sidewalk. Aid Honda: . Said they were referring to the portable free standing signs. There are specific regulations for banner signs and things of that nature where they are put up for one day. . A-frame signs are considered portable free standing signs, and are discussed in that section. . The realtor signs fall under the section allowed in the right of way in residential and institutional districts and in the temporary sign ordinance, and there are specific provisions to allow for that. . Relative to the requirements for obtaining an exception, she said the sign ordinance requires that anybody wanting to exceed the sign requirements would have to gain approval of the sign exception which would have to go to the DRC for review and approval. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 June 27, 2006 Ciddy Wordell: . Explained that the three findings for a sign exception are that it serves the purpose of the ordinance; it is the minimal needed to achieve the purpose; and there is a public safety finding. That is what the DRC uses to make an exception if they can make those findings. Chair Miller: . Asked Code Enforcement representative to comment on what is working in the city and if there were any suggestions for improvement. Code Enforcement Officer: . The major concern heard was how cumbersome the previous wording was regarding temporary sign permits and the number of days they can be displayed; the amount of time they have to be taken down and put back up. . The recommendation that was most compatible with the concerns heard, was to give it a more common sense approach; 120 days is easier to keep calendared for the business community as well as which permit expired and who needs to come in for renewal. He pointed out that a vast amount of staff time is spent on reminding businesses to return to renew their permit. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said she was pleased that Cupertino had harmonious signs; there are not a great deal of distractions when driving down the main thoroughfares, and the businesses are identifiable. . Said it was important that the statuary considerations go to the Fine Arts Commission, but also important for the DRC to be able to look at them. . Businesses in Cupertino should be encouraged to have lettering showing what type of business it is, because it would attract more customers. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Wong: . Referred to the exception process, Page 1-98 and 1-99 regarding the three findings, i.e., 17.44-040(a) use monument sign, and asked when someone asks for an exception for a third monument sign, wouldn't the third monument sign be inconsistent with this exception? Ciddy Wordell: . One of the purposes of the sign ordinance is to provide visibility to the commercial business that the sign is for. For example, a large shopping center such as the Crossroads would require a large sign because it is a large center. . The finding could be made that it is consistent with the spirit of the title which does provide adequate visibility for the center. The circumstances of the case will determine whether that finding can be made or not. Com. Wong: . Said that it reverts back to the fence ordinance where there are the exception findings which were prescriptive; it wouldn't meet the spirit in intent, perhaps a higher height, or adding extra signs or an exception. . He said he felt it did not allow that flexibility. . Asked if staff was open to the idea of increasing it to 24 inches. ) Ciddy Wordell: Cupertino Planning Commission 9 June 27, 2006 . Relative to increasing it from 18 to 24 inches as the basic size; the approach to some of suggested changes has been that it appears that if the current heights of some of the signs have adequately served the businesses in the past, and there is no new evidence to show they need more spa ce to achieve the purposes; staff feels that the current ordinance is adequate. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said that most of the exceptions that come to the DRC currently are for larger letters depending on setbacks. She asked if staff went back and looked at what was recently approved by the DRC for consistency. Aid Honda: . Said that staff had not conducted that research yet. Com. Wong: . Said that overall he supported staffs recommendation and asked the Commissioners to consider some items discussed. Relative to storage of signs, he said based on Code Enforcement's recommendation, he felt 60 days was more reasonable than 30 days. . Said he was recommending additional ground signs and since he felt they should not allow too many exceptions, he felt that the third monument sign was more useful. The purpose of the sign ordinance is to make businesses more visible so that residents of Cupertino can find businesses, use their sales tax dollars in Cupertino and not go to neighboring communities like west San Jose, Sunnyvale, but to shop in Cupertino. . Said he recommended a third monument sign. . Relative to ground height, he suggested an additional two feet to make many of the legal non- conforming signs legal, i.e. Albertsons, Longs Drugs, and Peets Coffee on Homestead. . Said he liked much of the material recommended by staff and thanked Assistant City Attorney Eileen Murray for her input on First Amendment rights. . Said he agreed with Chair Miller regarding the multi-lingual signs, but based on the free speech clause, agreed with the city attorney's explanation. . Said he supported staffs recommendation with the noted exceptions. Com. Chien: . Said he felt a purpose of the sign ordinance was to ensure the success of the businesses; signs are the life and blood of a business; if they didn't have it, they couldn't advertise what they were selling and would mean the end of that business. . Said he supported the changes with respect to the comments that Com. Wong discussed; supported the storage removal period of 60 days, the suggestion of the code enforcement officer, the height of the monument sign, and the additional monument sign. . He said he would like to see more evidence about any hazards caused by a sign being too close to a driveway or sidewalk. It is the only fair way to balance out the right of the business vs. the right of the public right-of-way relative to forcing the businesses to move their signs 10 feet away where they can't be seen. He said he felt 10 feet may be too restrictive. . Another purpose of the sign ordinance is to beautify the city; which is the reason for the sign programs and restrictions on sizes and colors. . There have been suggestions from the community and councilmembers that more directional signs are needed and some businesses have requested directional signs to help guide patrons to their businesses. The city can take an active role in providing directional signs as cities have taken that role with libraries and public facilities. . There have been suggestions from the community to beautify the signs by adding the historical moray to the sign. It could help enhance the signs and designate it as a form of city signage to increase the flow of people throughout the city. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 June 27, 2006 Com. Saadati: . Thanked staff for the outstanding work on the document which he supported. . Emphasized they were business friendly and were increasing the size of some of the signs. . Relative to the right of way, he cautioned about putting the signs too close to the street because they get damaged. . There needs to be consistent enforcement and look at these on a case-by-case basis and done in a tasteful manner. . Relative to the storage of the signs, said he supported 30 days, but if it does not cause too many problems, 60 days would be also appropriate. . Said he felt 2 additional ground signs were sufficient; and since there are not many that exceed 2, they should be acted on by exception as well because it appears that 2 signs and 8 foot high signs have worked well with the exception of a few locations. . Other factors that may affect the visibility of the signs are the trees and other items in the visibility path, and motorists traveling at high speeds do not notice the directional signs. . Said it was a good package, and he appreciated everyone's efforts. Com. Chien: . Suggested putting the moray on city created directional signs. . Said there was some discussion about using the word Hotel as a way for the city to provide some type of city sponsored direction. Com. Wong: . Said that when they previously reviewed the sign ordinance he had included the moray on the new street signs. Ciddy Wordell: . Said it was in the General Plan. Com. Wong: . Said he agreed with Com. Chien's suggestion to put it in the ordinance as a reminder to everyone. Ciddy Wordell: . Clarified that Com. Chien was referring to directional signs and Com. Wong was referring to street signs. Com. Chien: . Said he was referring to directional signs, but did not object to street signs. He said it appeared to be in the General Plan and it may be beneficial to include it in the ordinance. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she appreciated the efforts to clean up many of the problem areas with staff recommendations. . The matrix which Com. Wong worked on with Ms. Murray helps clarify the size based upon the street location for the sign which is about 90% of the questions most people have. . Said that of all the signs that come before the DRC, she felt most of the issues were addressed in the staff recommendation. . The primary issue that comes before the DRC is two lines of text on a sign, multi-line vs. having one line of text in a certain font size. She said that during her term on the DRC, she did not recall anyone asking for an additional monument sign or for a sign taller than 8 feet. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 June 27, 2006 . Supports staffs recommendation of two monument signs for a larger tenant or property owner and having an 8 foot height limit for the major site. Said she would agree with legal non-conforming signs that are within the community. . Said she did not want unattractive logo signs in the community, but had confidence in staffs judgment in making the appropriate decision. She said she would support the logo sign. . Said she agreed with storage as long as Code Enforcement is comfortable with what the decision is, whether 30, 45, 60 or 90 days. She said the goal is to solve problems, not create them, and she would support the right number. . Suggested that sign programs not be listed under prohibited signs category since they are not prohibited programs and denote a negative connotation. . Said she agreed with staff s recommendation: height limit to be 8 feet; two monument signs and the third one achieved through exception based on the fact that no requests have come through the DRC; and supported Code Enforcements decision on storage. Chair Miller: . Thanked Aki Honda on the excellent job, her suggestions and making improvements in the ordinance. . Said he supported the 60 days; addition of one ground sign to three; and the height to 10 feet. Aki Honda: . Clarified that it meant automatic approval up to 10 feet. Chair Miller: . The other issue that some of the commissioners talked about was whether or not temporary ground signs should be restricted to 10 feet from the sidewalk or not; Code Enforcement asked the Planning Commission to get back to them on the issue. Ciddy Wordell: . Asked if the Planning Commission would be comfortable with having staff going to the City Council with it in or remove it, contingent upon getting the information from Code Enforcement for the City Council to make the final decision rather than bringing the entire issue back to the Planning Commission. Com. Wong: . Said he felt the sign ordinance should move forward and take out the 10 feet, and Code Enforcement could provide a report to the City Council for them to make the final decision. . Relative to maximum wall sign height, he asked the Commissioners if they were comfortable having both the commercial and office for the single row sign copy that is less than 50 feet setback from the curb, increased from 18 inches to 24 inches to make it more visible from the street. He said he was requesting an increase as a result of the feedback from the Chamber of Commerce that they wanted the signs to be more visible. Com. Saadati: . Said that 18 inches was appropriate. Com. Chien: . Said he supported the current limit. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she supported staffs recommendation. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 June 27, 2006 Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to approve Application MCA-2005-02 with the following additions: Temporary signs and events: delete the 10 feet of any driveway or sidewalk based on Code Enforcement's report to the City Council; Encourage the use of city sponsored directional sign age that includes the historical marker; Increase the monument signs to three; Increase the sign height from 8 feet to 10 feet; and storage removal of signs to 60 days. Com. Chien: . Clarified that Com. Wong suggested two changes to the monument sign; one to allow businesses to have one more sign, the other to increase the size from 8 feet to 10 feet. . He asked how businesses might respond if they were allowed to have one additional sign without an additional increase in height; would that be sufficient? . Questioned if Com. Wong would support bringing the legal non-conforming signs to 10 feet, which would result in them being legal conforming. Com. Wong: . He said there were many legal non-conforming signs and once a tenant has over 50% changes, they would have to lower the signs. He said he supported any way to advertise to the residents of Cupertino to shop in Cupertino, and to help them find the location. . He suggested a condition that it has to be a certain size, perhaps over 10,000 or 20,000 square foot lot size. Com. Wong: . Said he would tie it to the frontage over 150 feet if staff recommended it. Vice Chair Giefer: . She said that in an attempt to bring more retail to the street front with mixed use, horizontal and vertical mixed use, it will create a conflict again such as the one created at the Cypress Hotel. . Trying to work in three 10 foot directional signs along the streets will not be visually appealing and there will not be room in the long term, as they try to move retail more toward the street frontage. . She said she felt they were creating additional clutter along the arterials within the city, which is one of the many reasons does not support it. . Said she felt it would create more problems in the long term by allowing bigger and more monument signs. Com. Wong: . Said he understood Com. Chien's comments and would support 8 feet if a third monument sign was allowed. Com. Chien: . Said he was interested in the goal of getting the legal non-conforming businesses to purely legal, which could be accomplished by height. He said from Vice Chair Giefer's comments of what was going through DRC, he did not think there was evidence of businesses wanting an additional monument sign. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said that it has not been a request in the past two years. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 June 27, 2006 Com. Saadati: . Said that if they were suggesting the 10 feet to bring all the non-conforming into conformance, there were many other codes that fall in the same category. He said they do not go back and change the code so they fit in, but wait until they change the actual structure or building and bring it into conformance for safety reasons. . Having exception to allow 10 feet for a specific reason has worked before; it will have to be studied and have to be aesthetically pleasing, and if the business can present proof that it will increase their business, in the past the DRC and Planning Commission have supported those changes. . There are measures in place by allowing exceptions; they are not being denied categorically. Com. Wong: . Pointed out that Councilmember K wok was not in favor of exceptions to the General Plan and ordinance. . He said it was more feasible to make it more flexible so that businesses don't feel frustrated coming in asking for an exception, because sometimes the process is bureaucratic and technical and they don't know what their rights are as a business person. . Said he stood firm on increasing the height of the monument sign and the third monument SIgn. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said that Com. Wong's objective was a good one. . The goal is to be a business friendly city, which has not been broken as there are not many people requesting those changes. The biggest change requested of the DRC for an exception is multi-lines of text on the sign which previously have not been allowed, and this addresses that. . Said that in each of the codes that is prescriptive, someone is going to have to come in and ask for an exception because there is going to be an iteration not thought of, and the vehicle is in place today to allow them to come to the Planning Commission for a decision based upon the situation at hand; as opposed to changing the code and making it where it mayor may not work by changing it. . Said she appreciated the objective presented but did not think the monument sign or the amount of monuments would fix it. She added that she did not think it was broken and had to be fixed. Com. Saadati: . Suggested the middle ground of 9 feet. Com. Wong: . Said it was his goal to streamline the ordinance to make it simple and more business friendly, and not have to depend on an outside person to read the ordinance or a senior planner to look at it. He said it was a perception in Cupertino that things are not as friendly, and he wanted to make it more user friendly. Chair Miller: . Said that the current sign ordinance is not addressing the issue, and he did not feel there was pressure to come to a resolution at the present meeting. He suggested that staff study the issue and come back to the Planning Commission with additional suggestions. . Said the purpose was to make the city more business friendly and if something is being overlooked, he would rather take more time to study it further to correct it rather than rush to a conclusion and have people still complaining about it. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 June 27, 2006 Ciddy W ordeU: . Said that staff could do so; but it would be in another month as the next meeting schedule was full. Com. Wong: . Said he concurred with the idea, and suggested taking the time to get photos of monument signs around the city and verify the heights. Vice Chair Giefer: . Suggested that when staff comes back to the Planning Commission, they provide more quantifiable data, including what type of sign exceptions have been requested. If there is continual exception requests, that needs to be addressed. Chair Miller: . Said he was always in favor of having more data. Com. Wong: . Withdrew the previous motion. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to continue the application to the July 25, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Miller declared a short recess. 2. TR-2006-10 Carl Payne (Joseph Circle Home Owners Assoc.) Application for retroactive tree removal approval of six coast redwood trees and request to replace the removed trees with one IS-gallon fern pine tree and two 24-inch box Australian willow trees. Aid Honda presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for retroactive tree removal permit for the removal of six coast redwood trees that were removed in December 2005 within the common area of the townhouse complex located at 20182 to 20233 Joseph Circle. The applicant is also requesting to replace the removed trees with a fern pine tree and two Australian willow trees. . She reviewed the background of the item, stating that the trees were removed from the complex by a tree removal company at the request of the homeowners association president Carl Payne, who stated that he attempted to contact the city staff during the week prior to the holiday season. Mr. Payne stated that the tree removal company incorrectly assumed that the trees could be removed per the city ordinance. . The trees were removed because they were damaging the homes, sidewalk and fences in the complex. She showed photos which illustrated the damage to the walls of the homes as well as the fences. A video presentation was shown later which illustrated the location of the complex and the damage to the buildings. . Staff supports the planting of the Australian willow tree as it is has deep non-invasive roots and is a moderately growing tree and has low potential to cause hard surface damage. . Staff also recommends that the hybrid laurel tree could do also do the same as well in the area and is on the recommended list by the city arborist. . Staff is not supportive of the fern pine tree proposed because the IS gallon tree is a very small, slow growing tree and is not on the arborist's recommended list. Staff recommends that the Australian willow tree or laurel tree be considered for that location. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission in accordance with the model resolution, Cupertino Planning Commission 15 June 27, 2006 approve the retroactive tree removal and require a 24 inch box Australian willow or hybrid laurel tree in each of the locations where the trees were removed. Elaine Lois, resident and Treasurer of the Joseph Circle BOA: . Said they appreciated the city's diligence in ensuring that the tree planting citywide would be appropriate and according to plan; and they want to comply with that. She said they were grateful to reach agreement that they could replant some trees, and they did not have any issue with the type of trees. . Said that many of the residents of the complex felt that the area was initially over-planted. . She said although she understood the one-for-one policy, she felt it should not be a blanket applied to all policies, since it doesn't take into consideration certain constraints in the complex. She said she supported the proposal, and it was acceptable to donate some trees, as long as there was a cap on the dollar amount. . As a small development, they requested some considerations to the model resolution. The complex has 11 units, with 33 existing trees in the area; the HOA is pro-environment and always intended to replace the trees. . Asked for consideration on Item 2 of the model resolution which requires 24 inch box trees. It is suitable in the back area where the pine tree was originally proposed, but because of a limited budget, asked if they could plant a smaller size, 15 gallon trees on the side areas, which would be a savings of $760 if smaller trees were planted.; She asked if it was necessary to impose a tree protection bond on the small development of 11 units. Com. Wong: . Questioned why staff was recommending replacement with 3 trees only, since 6 trees were removed. Also asked if consideration was given to planting the other 3 trees in another location on the property. Aki Bonda: . Said the area where the trees were located is very narrow at 7 feet in width and is only 27 feet long; the reason 3 trees is proposed is because the spread of the replacement trees is 20 to 25 feet which would cover the length. . Said that the remainder of the site was full grown and well maintained and did not appear to have any areas where additional trees could be planted. Ciddy Wordell: . Explained the process for posting bond to ensure the planting of the trees, including certificates of deposit, certified checks from the applicant. 1:he funds would be returned to the applicant at the end of the bonding period if the trees were planted. . Clarified that staff could approve tree removals of those trees that are verified as diseased, dangerous or dead trees; which are rarely seen. If the applicant had approached staff before the trees were removed and staff determined that they couldn't say they were significantly damaging the buildings and it had to come to the Planning Commission, it would come to the Planning Commission in the same manner, but before the trees were removed. . Said that she was not aware of any done for projects not under construction. The bond is required as additional insurance that the replaced trees survive. . Said she concurred with Ms. Honda that a similar retroactive tree removal required a bond. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said she sympathized with residents who had redwood trees in their yards as they grow very Cupertino Planning Commission 16 June 27, 2006 large and require a great deal of space, and survive a long period of time. . Expressed concern that the trees were removed during the holiday season when the city offices were closed. . Recommended that any HOA, homeowners, or business owner not remove any trees until the city arborist or city staff member look at the project. Street trees and heritage trees need to be protected and landscape plans preserved. . Said that the removed trees should be replaced and a bond be required to ensure that the replacement trees are planted and survive for the specified period. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Saadati: . Said he concurred with staffs recommendations. It appears that it is a tight area for the redwood trees and is something to look closely at in the future because there is no doubt that the trees have to be removed because of the location. He said the area looks green based on the video shown and he was supportive of the 10 gallon trees. . It is unfortunate that they were removed, but trust that it won't occur as much by being proactive and not putting large redwood trees that grow so fast they damage the adjacent structures. If approached in that way, it can prevent similar situations from happening. Com. Chien: . He said that in his short time on the Planning Commission, it is the second case of retroactive application, and he felt it was too many. He said the cases should be handled at stafflevel. . Of all the policies considered, the tree ordinance is in principle the simplest one of all, because they agree there is room for improvement. City Council has directed staff to tighten up the ordinance so it is not so confusing to people, not only to the residents, but also the contractors who have to read it. . The policy is clear, the overriding principle is if you are going to cut a tree in the city, you have to call the city and speak to someone in the Planning Department; you can call, email and visit the department counter to do that. Speaking to someone is the only way you can prevent miscommunication after the fact. If one is too busy to do that, the contractor hired to cut the trees down is responsible for providing the correct information. . He said he visited the site and felt it was quite dense. He referred to the previous Suburban House site case, where they cut over 10 trees, half of them were topped, the other half were essentially trimmed from the bottom up. They were asked to replace each tree whether they were cut or topped, as one-for-one replacement. He said he would not support anything less for the current application, otherwise it would send the wrong message to the residents about replacement of cut trees. He said he would support one-to-one replacement; however, would support allowing 15 gallons instead of 24 inch box trees. . Relative to the bond, he said it was standard procedure and needs to be incorporated. He said that everyone serving on the HOA boards serve with passion and limited resources, but he could not support the staff recommendation unless it was changed to one-for-one replacement because too many of these violations continue to occur. Com. Wong: . Asked Com. Chien what trees he would recommend and where he would recommend planting the extra trees. Com. Chien: . Said that he did not like to tell applicants what trees they should plant and where to plant them; if there is a preference for a tree they like, they should be allowed to do that. They also had the Cupertino Planning Commission 17 June 27, 2006 choice "to donate extratrees to the city. . Said there has been discussion that as they look at the tree ordinance, perhaps they should look at replacement at the exact site where the tree was removed. Com. Wong: . Thanked the HOA for attending the meeting, and said it was an exercise in Government 101 not to cut trees. . He said communication about the tree ordinance has to improve since many people are still cutting down trees. He said he understood that they cut the trees down in an attempt to protect their personal property. . Said he would support the bond being lowered for the HOA, based on whether or the remaining commissioners would be open to reducing it by 50%. . He said it was fortunate for the applicant that currently the ordinance does not have a fine and even though it was ignorance on the part of the applicant or the tree contractor, he suggested seeking recourse from the tree contractor, if the Planning Commission decides not to lower the bond. He said there were other avenues to follow since he received misinformation. . He explained that staffs recommendations were rather lenient, and emphasized that it was wiser to go through city staff because of the severe consequences in violating the ordinance. He said the HOA will likely be the last applicant not to be severely fined, and noted that such a fine could be potentially thousands of dollars. Motion: Motion by Com. Chien, second by Com. Wong, to approve Application TR-2006-10 per the model resolution with the exception to request a one-to-one replacement for the quantity of the trees. Com. Chien: . Relative to the one-to-one replacement, he said he would not recommend a size requirement, just the quantity. . Said that was the minimum they were asking of applicants that come before the Planning Commission. He recalled that in May it was done for the furniture store application, where they had removed several trees and were required to replace each one. The decision was appealed at the Council level, not only did the Council ask for a one-to-one replacement, they asked for bigger trees, and also asked that existing trees not be cut. . He said he felt that the standard would higher and a minimum of one-to-one replacement is what should be required of the residents when they come before the Planning Commission with such an issue. Com. Saadati: . Asked if they were replaced one-to-one; is there a possibility that the trees will grow in such a way that they are going to damage the building and would have to be cut or would proper pruning prevent that. Ciddy Wordell: . Said it depends on the type selected and the location; if it is a type with narrow spread, it could be one-for-one. If there was an opportunity on the site for trees besides A, Band C, then perhaps it wouldn't be as constrained. She said it was not out of the realm of possibility to plant 6 trees, however, it may require more creativity. Com. Wong: . Suggested that the HOA work with staff about the planting of the required trees. City Council is a firm advocate of replacement of one-to-one. He noted that the option of donation of the Cupertino Planning Commission 18 June 27, 2006 trees to the city existed also. . Suggested applying the bond to the three trees, A, Band C, and the three extra trees. Chair Miller: . Reiterated that there were two separate issues to be dealt with. The first issue is whether or not it makes sense or did it make sense in the first place when they planted the trees there; was it over-planted or not? He said it appeared from his inspection of the site that it was over- planted, hence he would not require planting two trees back in a location that would create the same situation again. . The second issue is that the applicant did not follow the rules which created numerous problems in the city. The Council directed that something should be done to rectify the problem. . If the remaining Commissioners feel as a penalty for not applying before cutting those trees down, that a one-for-one tree replacement be required; and if they wish to donate the trees to the city, he said he would not object, as long as it is understood that the issues are being dealt with appropriately. . He said there didn't appear to be more space to plant other trees, but if the Commission wants the trees to be replaced, they could put them in another location in the city. He said he supported staff recommendations; to replace the trees as proposed, replacing 3 trees of larger size which are similar to those removed; and also that a bond be required which has been done for past applicants in the same situation. As stated by Com. Wong, compared to what might happen in the future, it is a reasonable solution. Ciddy Wordell: . Said she was not certain of the city's procedure for accepting trees; and suggested that it be left open, with language that additional trees offered to the city be accepted as determined by the Public Works Department. Com. Chien: . Said it was an option for the HOA to donate trees to the city; they have the option to replace the trees with any type of trees they want, and could work in 6 trees which the Planning Commission would support. . Relative to Chair Miller's comment that the area was over-planted from the beginning; the landscaping plan approved was done by a professional and a professional should not have suggested those plantings. In this case, much of the responsibility falls back onto the professionals hired and any restitution that you are asked to make should fall back on the professionals hired. Chair Miller reopened the public hearing. Elaine Lois: . Said that many of the residents of the complex felt that the area was initially over-planted. . She said although she understood the one-for-one policy, she felt it should not be a blanket applied to all policies, since it doesn't take into consideration certain constraints in the complex. She said she supported the proposal, and it was acceptable to donate some trees, as long as there was a cap on the dollar amount. . Said that with 33 other trees in the small complex already, having one tree as the city proposed in each location is appropriate. If two more trees are planted on the side, the present bushes will be compromised and they will have to be removed. . Said that although their preferred Com. Wong's suggestion about the bond issue, they would abide by whatever decision was rendered. Cupertino Planning Commission 19 June 27, 2006 . She clarified that it was not their intent to be devious and cut down the trees during the holidays; they thought they were clear to proceed and they weren't. She said they want to move forward and have good replacement trees there. Chair Miller: . Clarified that no one was taking issue with their intent, but said ignorance of the rules is not justification. William Pennington, Cupertino resident: . Said he resided behind the complex, and two of the trees near the fence provided privacy to his property from the townhouses. He assumed that if they were replaced, they would still provide a screening, but the new plan is to replace them elsewhere. Chair Miller: . Clarified that his privacy would not be negatively affected since the recommendation was to replace one tree with two and find places for three more trees. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Chien: . Said he was willing to change his motion so that the other 3 trees could be smaller and they did not have to be on the site. He said he did not want to regulate the size; the applicant should be able to do that; and if they so choose, they could donate those trees to the city. Com. Wong: . Agreed to the changes to the motion; and clarified that the Commission was open to size 12 to 15 inches to assist regarding the cost. . . He said he was aware that the HOA reserves are for capital improvements to be made, and that it was obvious there was damage done to the property by the trees, even though a professional contractor recommended the planting of the trees many years ago. . He said he understood the neighbor's concern about the loss of his privacy when the trees were cut down; but he did not think it was the HOA's intent to jeopardize his privacy. He said it was a fair compromise compared to being faced with costly fines. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Giefer absent) 3. U-2006-07, ASA-2006-10 Wayne Aozasa, Greenleaf Court Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval for three two-story single family residences in a planned development zoning district. Aid Honda presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for a use permit and architectural and site approval for 3 two-story single family residences in a planned development zoning district, as outlined in the staff report. . She referred to the site plan and explained that House 1 is proposed to be 3,150 square feet, House 2 is 3,500 square feet, and House 3 is proposed to be 3,400 square feet. She reviewed the design, setbacks, landscaping and elevations as outlined in the staff report. . Staff supports the design of the proposed homes but suggests revisions be incorporated in the final development plan, including that the garage for Lot 1 be relocated further away from the entrance of the private drive to minimize any potential unsafe vehicular movements; and that the windows for the homes be realigned to improved the symmetry. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the use permit and architectural and Cupertino Planning Commission 20 June 27, 2006 site approval in accordance with the model resolution. Edward Wall, representing applicant: . Said that they have worked with staff to make revisions based on staffs recommendations and would work with staff relative to the relocation of the garage and realignment of the windows. . He said they would comply with the suggestions in the arborist's report relative to the landscaping. . Requested that the use permit be approved per staff s recommendation. Com. Wong: . Questioned what the outreach to the neighbors was, as interest was shown when the property was subdivided. Aki Honda: . Said that the outreach for the use permit was the standard public noticing for all applications, of 500 feet. . She said that story poles were not required. Edward Wall: . Said that they made every effort to respond to all neighbors' concerns; and talked to anyone who presented an issue to them about the proposal. Com. Wong: . He said moving the garage would entail moving the family room and it allows more privacy by having the living space in the rear. It is not prudent to put the garage toward the back because it is more useful the way that they designed the building. . If you put the garage toward the back, it impacts the backyard. Aki Honda: . Said they were not asking to impact the backyard further in the area shown, just flipping it to the side to provide more landscaped area as shown. . The architect can determine whether or not they can shift the floor plan around to see if they can make it a workable floor plan. Edward Wall: . Said he spoke with the architect and that was her intent; and he felt it was a detail that could be worked out between her and staff. He said if it was not a condition of approval to move the garage, but a condition to discuss it with staff, it would be handled. He said he felt staff would not allow it to go forward to building without resolving the issue and it would not waste any more staff time. Com. Wong: . Suggested shifting the garage a little for the ingress/egress by putting it back in the rear area; it is something that can be worked out with staff. . Regarding the remaining parcel designated for the Water District, he asked what the vegetation was, and what was the type of fence and landscaping plan. Aki Honda: . There is a requirement of a wrought iron fence to go along the remaining lot and terminate long the side of Lot 3. . Relative to landscaping, it is the trees shown along the frontage and said she was not sure what Cupertino Planning Commission 21 June 27, 2006 is along the remainder of the lot. Applicant: . Said that the Water District parcel is covered with trees that will remain. If any trees are removed, it would be at the recommendation of the city arborist to help the other trees flourish. The side is well wooded and the side of the property along the cuI de sac and down into the house lot will be wrought iron and will terminate at the side fence. The look will be the identical from the street all the way around. Com. Wong: . Suggested that vines or decorative planting be used on the wrought iron fence. Com. Saadati: . Relative to the Lot 1 garage, he pointed out that it was a private driveway with only three homes there, and said he did not anticipate too many traffic problems. . Said he supported leaving it as is. Com. Chien: . Said he did not agree with the conditions about the second floor windows having to be aligned with the first story windows. He said windows are determined by the way the rooms are, not where you want them to be and that has always been suggested to applicants. He said he did not agree with it in principle and would not require it, and recommended deleting the requirement from the model resolution. Com. Wong: . Agreed with Com. Chien's comment about the windows and Com. Saadati's comment about the garage. . Said he supported the project. Chair Miller: . Said that he concurred with Com. Saadati and Com. Wong and their requirement of not moving the garage. . Said he did not support the change in the windows. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said she followed the project since its inception and was surprised that no residents were present at the meeting. She questioned how the project became a planned development project in a Rl area, and expressed concern about setting a precedent having backyards less than 20 feet from property lines. She emphasized that the neighbors must be notified. . Said she was distressed about the proposal and not pleased with the large homes, or the water companies becoming subcontractors and building homes in areas where they should be attending to their water business. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Chair Miller: . Clarified that even though they are planned development, they are meeting the Rl ordinance and were not monster homes. They are within the 45% FAR that the Rl ordinance requires. . Staff can address why it is a planned development instead of an Rl. Cupertino Planning Commission 22 June 27, 2006 Aid Honda: . Said it was planned development to begin with; the applicant is demonstrating they can meet the typical Rl standard to show that they are doing everything possible to relate to the surrounding Rl homes. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to approve Applications U-2006-07 and ASA-2006-10; deleting 4a and 4b from ASA-2006-10. (Vote: 4-0-0; Vice Chair Giefer absent) OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: . Chair Miller reported that the meeting was cancelled. Housinl! Commission: . Com. Wong reported that the meeting was cancelled. Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners: Com. Wong reported: . The Telecommunications Commission reported a concern about the Wireless Master Plan; a townhall meeting will be held toward the end of the year to educate the residents regarding the telecommunication wireless plan. . The library reported they had the highest checkout in the entire county; Kudos to Mary Ann Wallace. They reported on a successful book sale recently and the summer reading program for young children. . The Senior Commission is meeting regularly. . The Mayor reported the budget was approved. . The Teen Commission supported the OSF event; and is upgrading their website. Economic DeveloDment Committee: . Com. Chien reported that the Committee would meet later in the month. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: . No additional report. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the July 11, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary