Loading...
PC 03-09-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED IVIINUTES OF THE ]REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Com. Harris, Mahoney, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin (Com. Doyle arrived at 7:00 p.m.) Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordetl, City Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Planner II; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the February 23, 1998 regular meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Com. Harris moved to approve the February 23, 1998 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Austin noted written communication from Ann McFarlane in support of the compatible housing. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: PUBLIC HEARING: Application No. Applicant: Location: 2-U-98 and 4-EA-98 AND 2-Z-98 Little Angels/Maple Leaf Investments 10352 N. Stelling Use Permit to locate a day care center in an existing building. Zoning to prezone an approximately .75 acre parcel to a BQ (Quasi-public) zoning district. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 6, 1998 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 9, 1998 Application No. Applicant: Location: 1-Z-98 and 3~EA-98 Ji-Chung Lee 20696 Garden Gate Drive Zoning to prezone a 9,989 square foot parcel to an R1-10 zoning district. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMiNATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 6, 1998 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved that Applications 2-U-98, 4-EA-98, 2-Z-98, 1-Z-98, and 3-EA-98 be postponed to the March 18, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Mahoney Chair Austin Com. Doyle Passed 3 - 1-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None Com. Doyle arrived during discussion of Item 1. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Location: 2-EXC-98 Chevron Service Station 10023 S. DeAnza Boulevard Sign Exception to exceed the allowed number of ground and wall signs in accordance with Title 17 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNiNG COMMISSION DECISION FiNAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to allow one more ground and one mom wall sign for the Chevron service station located at the comer of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard. The existing building and two fueling stations will be demolished and replaced by a fueling station and a food mart building. Because of the public art easement at the comer, the applicant is requesting an additional monument sign, so that one can be placed on each street frontage. The additional wall sign is requested for the food mart building; as one will also be placed on the service station canopy. Staff recommends approval of the additional ground sign because it will comply with the California Business and Professions Code requiring gas prices to be visible from all of the streets the service station faces; however they do not agree that a second wall sign is necessary if both ground signs are installed. The Planning Commission's decision will be considered final and will not forwarded to City Council unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 9, 1998 Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the site plan and illustrated the location of the proposed ground signs and walls signs. She also illustrated the landscape plan, with a double row of trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and single row on DeAnza Boulevard. Mr. Craig Schafer, RHL Design Group, consultants, said that it is a requirement of California State Weights and Measures to address both streets with the monument signs for the price and brand of gasoline. The request for an additional wall mounted sign is to accommodate both buildings, the food mart and the service station. He distributed a photo board illustrating the service station on Homestead Road and DeAnza Boulevard, and different sign elevations at other service stations having more than one wall sign. He requested that the exception for the wall sign be granted as he felt the station would be at a disadvantage to the others that had two wall signs. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Harris said that she supported staff's recommendation, stating that both ground signs were quality signs and were visible on both streets. Corns. Mahoney, Com. Stevens and Chair Austin said that they supported the applicant's request. MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 2-EXC-98, with the modification to the model resolution adding the second sign, and change to the findings Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Com. Harris Passed 3 - 1 - 1 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 3-EXC-98 Wayne Kikuchi - Kikuchi Landscaping 1341 Aster Lane Fence exception to locate a 6 ft. high fence and 8-1/2 ft. high trellis within the 20 ft. setback. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANN1NG COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a fence exception to locate a 6 foot fence and an 8-1/2 foot trellis within the 20 foot setback, as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application. The Planning Commission's decision will be considered final and will not be forwarded to the City Council, unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, referred to the overhead street map and described the property location as outlined in the attached staff memorandum. He said that because of the unusual circumstance of the dead-end street, the adjacent fence to the south, and the fact that there will not be further construction beyond the fence bordering the south property line of the Oka residence, the proposed fence would not be detrimental. Staff supports the applicant's request. Com. Harris expressed concern that the decision not set a precedence relative to front setbacks. Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 9, 1998 Mr. Wayne Kikuchi, Kikuchi Landscape, Inc., said he felt the fence exception would not be precedent setting; and that the proposed 6 foot fence would soften the fence line. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Norm Pestana, 1345 Aster Lane, said that he felt the proposed fence and trellis were appropriate and would enhance the neighborhood. He pointed out that when he purchased the property eighteen years ago, the fence was already built. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 3-EXC-98 in accordance with the model resolution, with the condition that it would not set a precedent to change the regular front setbacks Com. Mahoney Com. Doyle Passed 4-1-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 1-U-98 and 6-EA-98 T-Square Consulting Southwest comer of Lomita & Imperial Avenues Use Permit to construct a 1,835 square foot auto tire and repair shop. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to construct a 1,835 sq. ft. auto tire and repair shop. The shop will provide basic car maintenance including tire, brake and alignment, muffler enhancement, smog tests, routine tests, detailing, and glass replacement. Auto repair shops on Imperial Avenue must obtain use permits to operate even the parcel is located within a light industrial building district. A consultant has recommended the installation of a 7 foot high masomy wall along the west property line to prevent noise impacts to a single family residence located close to the parcel. Staff also recommends that the hours of operation be limited to the daytime as defined by Cupertino's noise ordinance. Relative to the proposed design, staff concludes that it is a significant improvement over the existing vacant lot and will add interest to the other buildings on Imperial Avenue. The proposed landscaping is also consistent with landscape standards along Imperial Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the application. If a Planning Commission's decision is made, it will be considered final unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. The material board and color board were distributed to the Planning Commissioners for review. In response to a question from Com. Harris about amhitectural guidelines, Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner II, said that the building was not in the Monte Vista Specific Plan area and would not have architectural guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 In response to a question from Com. Doyle, Ms. Bjurman illustrated on the site plan where the proposed 7 foot wall was located. She reported that the consultant recommended that the 7 foot masonry wall run all the way along the west property line to reach the north end of the property. Mr. James Wang, T-Square Consulting, 2375 Zanker Road, #225, San Jose, reported that the 7 foot high masonry wall would be constructed in order to adhere to the consultants recommendation; and stated that the landscape plan was consistent with the Imperial Avenue landscape standards. Com. Doyle questioned whether consideration was given to using wood exterior finish rather than the stucco. He said the area had a theme which radically changed down the street, and he felt tying the area together would be more appropriate. He asked if Mr. Wang would consider modifications on the project to be more in line with the Monte Vista guidelines. Mr. Wang stated that the stucco siding was more durable than wood for that type of business, and more appropriate for the environmental area; however consideration of the modifications would not be difficult. Mr. Cowan asked the applicant to address the issue of vehicle storage on the premises. Mr. Wang responded that long term storage of vehicles was not planned and the nature of the business was that the customers would drop off and pick up their autos the same day, sometimes within hours. Chair Austin recommended that a condition regarding storage of vehicles be included. Mr. M. Moazeni, 10190 Pasadena Avenue, said that two of the units of his three-plex opened up on Lomita Avenue, and the fence was shared with another auto body shop. He said that he was opposed to the issuance of the permit for T-Square Consulting. He said it is not pleasant living next to a body shop and his concerns are relevant to the tire shop also. Mr. Moazeni expressed concern with the noise level from the continuous hammering, drilling, etc. on a daily basis, as well as the paint odors from the body shop. Relative to parking, he said that the auto body has taken all the parking on Lomita Avenue and turned the street into a wrecking yard. He said that approval of another auto tire shop would only worsen the situation. He said that the comer is a difficult comer because it is a combination residential/business area. He invited the Planning Commissioners to visit Lomita Avenue to view the traffic and parking conditions before approving the application. Mr. Moazeni submitted two letters of opposition from neighbors for the record. In response to Com. Harris's question, Mr. Moazeni said that a more appropriate use for the property would be office space. Ms. Bjurman explained that the permitted uses in a light industrial zoning district as well as conditional uses in a general commemial zoning district, offices are not allowed and only incidental retail. She said that in the light industrial zoning district, manufacturing, assembly, laboratories, commercial parking lots and garages, wholesale storage facilities, packing, crating establishments, used furniture sales, home garden and farm eqmpment rentals, machinery rentals and heavy construction equipment rentals or sales; light manufacturing; household appliance and apparel service shops; lumber yards; tree houses and nurseries; dry cleaning plants; animal clinics; television/radio motion picture studios or stations and public utility service yards. Ms. Wordell said that the problem with office is that unless you were designated office when the General Plan was adopted and you had some FAR buildout, there is no office to be had. She said Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 9, 1998 that retail was allowed because of the commercial ordinance. Com. Harris asked what the Planned Development overlay did to the parcel. Ms. Bjurman said that it would be triggering the conditional use permit construction and it gives them flexibility to the setbacks that would be built into the lightdindustrial zoning district or the general commercial zoning district. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. Chair Austin pointed out that it was the second time the application had been submitted, the first as a mixed-use project and mixed use was deemed not appropriate. Com. Stevens expressed concern about the potential parking problem. Discussion continued about the present parking problem at the neighboring body shop. Staff indicated they would visit the site and address the parking problems. The issues were summarized as: architecture, wall/noise, and parking. Com. Doyle said that he felt they should try to incorporate some of the Monte Vista guidelines as much as possible which would promote consistency. He said the concrete block next door doesn't help the plan any; but potentially there is some consistency that could be found there. Com. Mahoney said he was not opposed to industrial building looking industrial. Chair Austin called for a straw vote on architecture. Com. Doyle said yes; Com. Mahoney said no; Com. Harris said yes because they could only enforce those guidelines and improvement and consistency at the time of the development or redevelopment. She said if there was an existing building on the street, sooner or later it would develop, and if enfomed with consistency, it would redevelop with some of those features. Com. Stevens said that he did not see a design in that area, but would favor consistency of continuity. He said he was in favor of the proposal, and that it was an improvement. Chair Austin said she concurred; but wanted to tone down the orange awning. She said she did not feel it was realistic to try and incorporate the Monte Vista guidelines in the area. Com. Doyle said he concurred with Com. Harris, that it was important that if the area was to be upgraded, it be started during the new construction area. He said he was not looking for the complete Monte Vista guidelines to be incorporated, but look and see if some of those can be incorporated into this for consistency. Relative to the wall/noise issue, Com. Harris said that she favored the wall because 92-95 decibels was unacceptable and people in msidencas should not have to live with that next door. Com. Mahoney said that he felt there needs to be a wall starting at 7 feet, but suggested it step down and still meet the noise ordinance. Com. Doyle said he felt they should try to minimize the wall impact, but rather than put a fix in place, address the generation of the noise and attempt to minimize the 92 dba or minimize the impact of the noise on that site. Staff said they would visit the exlstmg businesses relative to the parking issue. Chair Austin said she did not like the bright orange awning and suggested that it be toned down. Com. Mahoney agreed; Com. Stevens agreed that it was bright; Com. Harris said she liked the awning; Com. Doyle said that it was not an issue with him. Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 9, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to grant the Negative Declaration on 6-EA-98 Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 1-U-98 per the model resolution with the addition ora parking restriction of 72 hours, consistent with the on-street parking restriction; and that it was preferred for the wall to come away from the street even if it had to angle round, or if it could be lowered, as long as it could meet the owner's requirements Com. Stevens Coms. Harris and Doyle Passed 3-2-0 Com. Harris asked the record to indicate that her no vote was because she was in favor of the use and the size but not the design and would like to see some of the Monte Vista guidelines applied to the property. Com. Doyle concurred. Mr. Cowan excused himself from discussion of the Item 6 as he owned stock in the bank existing on the site as a leasehold interest. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 3-U-98 and 5-EA-98 Scott Trobbe/South Bay Construction 20425 and 20451 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use Permit to demolish 2 existing office buildings and construct a two-story, 34,602 square foot office building. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March t6, 1998 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish two office buildings located near the northeast comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and DeAnza Boulevard. Plans are to construct a new two-story 34,602 square foot office building. Staff has reviewed the application and conferred with Freedman, Tung and Bottomley, and the city's Environmental Review Committee. Findings compiled include: The amount of traffic generated from the new building will not significantly impact the intersection of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard. Traffic Engineer Raymond Chong recommends the widening of DeAnza Boulevard if necessary for a bike lane. Twenty-four specimen sized trees are proposed for removal although 32 trees can be preserved. The trees to be preserved amount of 57%; one of the trees to be removed is a 30 inch coastal redwood located near the center of the building footprint and a 28 inch coast live oak which is located near the east property line. The Environmental Review Committee would like the applicant to preserve the oak tree; however, because it would interfere with proposed driveway aisles, staff believes its continued survival would be problematic. The project meets all required setbacks including the height to setback ratio as well as landscape requirements outlined in the Heart of the City Design Plan. Freedman Tung and Bottomley point out however that a front access doorway should be added to the project plans as well as plans for exterior lighting and trash enclosure details. The design consultant team also finds that the building's proposed design is praiseworthy in indicating a high level of articulation Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 9, 1998 and finish; focuses architectural orientation to the important Com. Stevens Creek DeAnza Boulevard intersection through the use of an arcade and entry towers and is sensitive to a number of existing site trees. To further support both staWs and the design team's approval of the architecture, the architect was instructed not to treat the proposed office building like a comer building, which was a challenge to the architect whose design features a west side tower which addresses the importance of the comer without it being the dominant design element of the building. The site of the abandoned gas station at the corner will be developed separately. Staff recommends approval of this project; the Planning Commission's decision will be forwarded to the March 16 City Council meeting for a final decision. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, referred to the site plan and illustrated the existing and proposed properties. The architectural renderings and material boards were distributed to the Planning Commissioners for review. He noted that staff was supportive of the architecture, and wanted the doorway leading to the Com. Stevens Creek Boulevard sidewalk and would provide access to the passive recreation area that the applicant will be establishing. Mr. Jung expressed concern of the building materials themselves, noting that the base of the building had a separate treatment applied to the concrete for texture and substance. Referring to the landscape plan, Mr. Jung illustrated the trees to be preserved and those scheduled to be removed, as outlined in the video presentation. He said that an issue that could not be addressed tonight, was the fact that this property is developing separately from this corner lot. Staff is recommending approval of the project. Mr. Jung addressed issues raised by the Planning Commissioners. He said that there was no amenity space included. He said the zoning for the property was P, which is the Stevens Creek Boulevard conceptual zoning which allows office, retail or residential, although the historic uses have been office uses, and the applicant is taking advantage of the unbuilt potential of this lot to build it out to a .37 FAR. Relative to the widening of DeAnza Boulevard to include the potential bicycle lane, he said it was included in Condition 16. He said that he asked that the exterior lighting and trash enclosure be approved by the Community Development Director, and that typically it was not included as a condition of approval in the use permits. He said that outdoor passive recreation area is required, and it is already shown on the landscape plans and approved landscape plans are part of the use permit approval. Mr. Deke Hunter, applicant, said that they have been working with staff to address all issues to make it fit with the General Plan and the current designated zoning relative to the height, setbacks, and street trees, and all other issues in the new General Plan and the Heart of the City zoning ordinance. Relative to the planning issues, he illustrated an example of a limestone treatment to be used on the tower elements of the buildings. Relative to the large oak tree, he said that although there are recommendations in the staff report, they are willing to adhere to replacement. He said that if the city provided them the flexibility on parking, which they are over the required parking ratio by one; it would take 6 stalls to manipulate the circulation to get around that tree. He said if provided the flexibility, he would only need 5 parking stalls, and they would amend the landscape r~edians that surround that tree. Mr. Hunter said that they could work with Public Works or planning staff to come up with an amended design to allow retention of the tree. Discussion continued wherein Mr. Jung answered Commissioners' questions. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Planning Commission Minutes 9 March 9, 1998 Chair Austin summarized the issues: tree plan; architecture of building; comer orientation; articulation of the tower and thickness; trash enclosure; and outdoor passive area. Com. Harris said that she was in favor of keeping the oak tree and approving the project; the remaining Planning Commissioners concurred. Relative to the roof color, Ms. Wordell suggested amending the condition to state "that the roof color be muted to the satisfaction of staff." Com. Harris suggested to include that "the exterior lighting and trash enclosures and roof color to be reviewed by staff." ENVIRONMENTAL DETERIVIINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 16, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to grant the Negative Declaration on Application 5-EA-98 Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 3-U-98 according to the model resolution, with changes that the required parking could be reduced to 152 so that the oak tree could be saved; and that the roof material needs to be reviewed by staff for color; exterior lighting and trash enclosures be added as a condition and reviewed by staff as well. Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 Chair Austin declared a recess from 8:35 p.m. to 8:50 p.m. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 11-U-90(M) Apple Computer 4 Infinite Loop Use Permit modification to convert 11,261 square foot of amenity space to office space in exchange for 11,261 square feet of undesignated amenity space in existing buildings. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell referred to the second floor site plan and reviewed the request to convert 11,261 square feet of amenity space to office space and in turn to convert some office space into amenity space. She reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. She clarified that the meaning of amenity space was that the area does not generate additional employees; it is not necessary for the building to function; and it results in a more attractive environment for people. She said that staff feels that the areas totaling 11,378 sq. ft. are acceptable as substitute amenity spaces. Relative to the conference center counting as amenity space, Com. Harris said that they should look at the application of conversion in light of all of the space that they have, and clear space already designated amenity space that is not considered amenity space now. She reiterated that the property needs to be looked at and how it conforms to what is being done elsewhere. Com. Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 Mahoney said that he was not in agreement for this particular amount, and that the building was not going to get any bigger and would not generate any more. Mr. Cowan said that the auditorium is used for civic events as well. Mr. Ed Stallingsmith, Apple Computer, said that when the auditorium is available for public use, it is after hours. He said that in support of their application, included was Exhibit D, which is a recently concluded traffic study done specifically for the Apple R&D campus. He reported that the traffic report resulted in 45% of the approved traffic allowance for that particular campus. He said that in terms of the conversion, the 11,000 sq. ft. represents about 1.3% of the entire Apple campus and if there is any traffic as a result of this change, it would not amount to more than slightly over 1%. He said furthermore, the space proposed to exchange for the amenity space in this particular building, in the past has been counted as usable space, but they were essentially proposing to set it aside as dedicated amenity space, not to be used for any other purposes and as such, provided approval of the request is granted, it would be recorded as such. Com. Doyle questioned why it was not included as amenity space in the original proposal. Mr. Stallingsmith said at the time it was not an issue. He said it was not uncommon for Apple to take pride in their design of their buildings, and as part of an extremely competitive environment in Silicon Valley attracting engineers, the benefit package is important as well as the kind of work space that is provided to the employees as the magnet to bring top engineers to the company. He said that Apple had far more amenity space than their competitors. He passed around a photo album with illustrations of the amenity spaces. Com. Doyle clarified the meaning of amenity space. Relative to staff's recommendation of approval since the approach of discounting existing space and the types of space are consistent with previous amenity space approvals, Com. Doyle said that he did not support staff's recommendation. Com. Harris said that she did not support staWs recommendation. Com. Mahoney said that if you are going to exchange the total site for consistency, it would be worthwhile to see if they were out of line. Com. Doyle said that they should not revisit the amenity space unless it is a major redevelopment. Com. Harris said she would look at it in the total context. Com. Mahoney said that he felt it could be revisited, but if done, it should be in the total context. Com. Stevens said that it should be consistent and should not change. Chair Austin said she agreed with Com. Doyle because had gone through it several times and it was approved; and she was not willing to look at the whole context again. She said she was not in favor of changing the amenity as it was approved 7 years ago. Discussion continued about amenity space, wherein it was decided 4-1 how building 4 space relates to the overall amenity space calculation. Com. Doyle reiterated that a consistent definition of amenity space was needed in order to send a clear message. Mr. Stallingsmith clarified that building 4 was a commons building, taken as amenity space as it relates to the entire campus; 9ot a stand-alone building. He pointed out that building 4 could not be sold to anyone as it is a stand-alone building that is amenity space. He said the reason that Apple was making the request was that Apple has to face the realities of the business climate and in an effort to remain profitable, the decision was made to close the Apple library; therefore there is 11,600 sq. ft. empty waiting for approval. Planning Commission Minutes Il March 9, 1998 Following a brief discussion, there was a consensus to continue the application to allow time to review the concept of amenity space. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 1 l-U-90 (M) to April 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow time to review amenity space as an item Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 NEW BUSINESS 8. Set a Public Hearing date for pre-zoning of the Rancho Rinconada area MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to set a public hearing date for April 22, 1998 for pre-zoning of the Rancho Rinconada area Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF TItE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Mahoney reported on his attendance at the recent Mayor's breakfast. Chair Austin reported on her attendance at the recent Long Beach convention with Ms. Wordell and Mr. Cowan. Com. Harris expressed concern about the sign guidelines in San Jose that is in the Cupertino area. She suggested that a meeting be held between the staff of Cupertino and the staff of San Jose relative to the standards and enforcement of the standards. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNrI'¥ DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. to the special Planning Commission meeting on March 18, 1998 at 6:45 p.m. Approved as presented: March 23, 1998 Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary