PC 08-09-2016CITY OF CUPERTINO
I 0300 Torre A venue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
AUGUST 9 , 2016
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY
The regular Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 2016, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Council Chambers, I 0350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Takahashi.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:
Commissioners Absent:
Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Vice Chairperson:
Alan Takahashi
Winnie Lee
Geoff Paulsen
Don Sun
Margaret Gong
Staff Present: Asst. Community Development Director:
Asst. City Attorney :
Associate Planner:
Associate Planner:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. Minutes of the July 26, 2016 Planning Commission meeting:
The following changes are to be made;
Benjamin Fu
Colleen Winchester
Erick Serrano
Gian Paolo Martire
Page 6, bottom of page, Com. Lee comment: Change "800 and 1000" to read "8,000 and 10,000"
Page 7, 2"d paragraph, change "hem" to read "them"
MOTION: Motion by Com. Paulsen, second by Chair Takahashi, and carried 3-1-0, Vice Chair
absent; Com. Sun abstain, to approve the July 26, 2016 minutes as amended.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None .
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 August 9 , 2016
PUBLIC HEARING:
2. EXC-2016-04
Rita Gupta (Forge-
Vidovich Motel LP
10889 No. DeAnza Blvd.
Sign Exception Permit to allow a freeway oriented , illuminated
wall sign on an existing hotel (Cupertino Inn)
Erick Serrano, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for Sign Exception Permit to allow a freeway oriented, illuminated wall sign
on an existing hotel (Cupertino Inn). The proposal is to remove and replace one wall sign and one new
freeway-oriented illuminated wall sign which requires Planning Commission review. A freeway
oriented sign means any sign which is located within 660 feet and visible from the freeway right-of-
way. He reviewed details of the sign sizes and requirements. The project is considered categorically
exempt; staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the sign exemption per the draft
resolution .
Staff answered questions about the application.
General Manager, Cupertino Inn:
• Said they were asking for the signs because Cupertino Inn is No. 1 in Trip Advisor and No . 1 in
occupancy and it is only fair to have a sign that works at night; there needs to be proper signage on the
highway so that travelers can locate the hotel.
Chair Takahashi opened the public hearing
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Asked them to discuss the size of the sign and whether it is facing 280 or not ; the Cupertino Inn has
been there for many years, if it is facing 280 it is setting a precedent since the issue came up when the
application came in the for the large hotel that is going in behind Vallco's Penneys building . There
was a discussion about the signage coming onto the freeway and redwood trees are there .
• Said it is not San Francisco; if you go along Hwy. 101 by Great America Parkway there are a lot of
signs you can see from IO 1, because it is a hotel , and there is the airport, etc. In Cupertino it is more
like a suburban neighborhood; if the sign is facing Hwy. 280 then it should be something that is low
key , appropriate for the area and not speaking specifically for Cupertino Inn , it is anything that is
coming down the road . A lot of hotel development is being planned all over the city, Vallco has a hotel ,
Main Street has a hotel , another hotel at the Marina project is going in and she understands people want
to have large colorful hotel displays , but probably needs discussion because it is coming up down the
road and she is not sure they have done the signage for the hotel behind Penneys or if they have begun
building it. She asked them to discuss it and keep Cupertino suburban, have people come and stay but
keep it toned down.
Chair Takahashi closed the public hearing.
Com. Paulsen:
• Said he had no questions about the application.
Com. Lee:
• In 2009 the Planning Commission reviewed the sign ordinance. Said she felt the elements of why the
sign should be reviewed by the Planning Commission is because it is directed toward the freeway and
they want any lighted signs directed toward the freeway to be non-distracting to motorists . Said it
would be good for the hotel ; and she supported the application; it would not be distracting.
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 August 9, 2016
Com. Sun:
• Said he understood Jennifer Griffin 's concern, but the sign faces the highway and will not disturb
people's sleep. The sign in question does not have a movie so it will not distract the motorists. Said
he was not opposed to the application .
Com. Paulsen:
• Said he liked the signs.
Chair Takahashi:
• Said he felt the sign was in good taste and an appropriate size; he did not see any significant issues in
supporting it.
MOTION: Motion by Com. Lee, second by Com. Sun, and carried 4-0-0, Vice Chair Gong
absent; to approve Application EXC-2016-04 per the draft resolution
3. MCA-2016-02
City of Cupertino
Citywide Location
Consider amendments to Chapter 19. 124, Parking Regulations of the
Cupertino Municipal Code. The amendment includes allowing
modifications and improvements to legal non-conforming single family
garages. The proposed amendment will also include updates to the standards
for bicycle parking and facilities consistent with the City of Cupertino 2016
Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted on June 21, 2016.
Tentative City Council Hearing Date : September 6, 2016
Gian Paolo Martire, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the citywide amendment regarding amendments to Chapter 19 .124, Parking Regulations,
of the Cupertino Municipal Code; sections being amended are Section 19 .124.030 Regulations of
Parking, keeping vehicles in various zones , specifically how the city treats legal non-conforming
garages in single family homes . The second section is 19.124.040 Regulation for Off-Street Parking
and specifically targeting the standards for bicycle parking facilities to be in conformance with the
Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP). The Municipal Code is constantly being reviewed by the city
and periodically is brou ght to the attention of the Planning Commission and City Council; in this case
to clarify certain standards particularly with the legal non-conforming garages and the consistency
with other planning documents; in this case the BTP. First is the clarification existing standards for
non-conforming garage spaces, as a recap and review for those who aren't familiar with the garage
standards or parking standards for single family residences in the city.
• For RI homes we require 4 parking spaces per unit or per single family home ; 2 of those have to be
covered; 2 of those are unenclosed meaning your driveway space; garage space has to be 20 by 20
space; this city before it was incorporated in 1958; we have a lot of residential tracts such as Rancho
Rinconada or Monta Vista that have or were developed prior to the city's incorporation and we have
a substantial housing stock in the city, particularly Rancho Rinconada which was incorporated into
the city in the late 90s , do not have or are inconsistent with the city's current standards for enclosed
garage spaces. Because of that we treat these legal non-conforming spaces, if someone wants to add
onto it or make modifications to it, they are governed by the non-conforming ordinance and that limits
what fee the property owner can do to that legal non-conforming closed spaces. Typically we do not
allow residents or home owners to substantially modify those enclosed spaces or· garages unles s they
are maintaining it because or rot or disrepair or whatever else that may involve safety issues . If
someone came into the city and said they want to change a roof out or raise t he plate high , typically
it has been our enforcement of the non-conforming ordinance to say they cannot do that because they
have a legal non-conforming structure and if they are going to make any modifications that enclosed
structure has to be 20 by 20 enclosed space. So why are we here doing this? What has happened is
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 August 9 , 2 016
that this has caused a lot of frustration amongst residents who have t he se non-conforming closed
spaces and they want to intensify them, make them better but may not necessarily have the financial
means to make a 20 by 20 space or don 't have the room to do it, becau~e of the way their primary
residence is set up . This has caused a lot of frustration amongst commum .:y and staff to enforce these
regulations ; it puts staff in a bad position sometimes to enforce this. A~ directed by City Council to
re-evaluate the ordinance as currentl y w ritten and to see if there is a w ay that allows legal non-
conforming single car garages and .carports to be modified in a ta'.;reful manner and help the
community but also homeowners themselves. We came up with a w ay that a person or resident
homeowner could significantly modify their enclosed space and still men the code. One of the things
we limit those homeowners to do is yes you can modify, y ou can make it b igger, but you cannot make
the garage space smaller. If part of the non-conformity is that you were ,,.,ithin the setback, you could
go further into the setback. However, if you were going to propose a brand new principle dwelling
unit or brand new home, staff would still require to submit 4 conforming enclosed garage spaces . To
put a face to what we are talking about, what does a non-conforming garage space look like? An
example of a typical style ranch home in Rancho Rinconada is shown in he picture in the staff report.
This is the typical situation staff is confronted with ; homeowners may w:rnt to raise the height, change
the roof out, enclose it; but unfortunately many times the answer is they cannot do that.
. • The second part of the code amendment is bringing consistency between planning documents in the
city. On June 21 , 2016 City Council had adopted Cupertino 's 20 16 BTP, and one of the
recommendations of this TP was to amend the parking ordinance to brin g into conformance zoning
the parking ordinance with this plan . Essentially it is to increase the ov erall onsite bicycle parking
requirements for each land use. As seen in report there is one standard formula for bicycle parking
in the city and that was get the auto parking amount and multiply by 5% and that is the bicycle
ordinance and through this we wanted to increase the requirement an d also add a requirement to
certain land uses. In the handout figure Table 3-1 these are the guideline :, that the BTP has for zoning
and land use requirements and it provided a good framework to look a1 and establish certain parking
requirements for certain land uses. Unfortunately a lot of the land use ~ategories in Column I were
inconsistent with how we define land uses in our parking ordinance; :;o further analysis had to be
done with a consultant who developed the BTP and come up with differ ing standards from this. That
is presented to make recommendations yay or nay to City Council. Staff does recommend one change
or correction to the proposal ; Under Office Land Use Category t here is the Office Pro Type
Manufacturing Land Use class, we have it as one bicycle place for 12 ,00 0 square feet. Staff believes
that was done in error, it should be consistent with the other office land use class right below it and
read "one bicycle parking space per 1,250 sq . ft. or one space per 15 e mployees whichever is more
restrictive." Staff feels it is more consistent all round ; the reason for th~t is they look at a place that
is light industrial such as Bubb Road but has a lot of office space for R & D and technology users
such as Apple that really don 't fit light industrial character but are essentially more of an office use
class .
• Staffs recommendation is that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending that the
City Council adopt the CEQA determinations and e x emptions and further approve an ordinance
amending Title 19, Chapter 19.124, Section 19 .124 .00 Regulations for Parking and Keeping Vehicles
in Various Zones, and Section 19.124.040 Regulations for Off-Street ~arking Regarding Legal Non-
Conforming Single Family Garages and Making Standards for bicycle parking facilities consistent
with the City of Cupertino 2016 BTP. It is anticipated to bring back to City Council for first reading
on September 20th and a second reading to City Council on October 4 th ..
Staff answered questions about the application.
Com. Paulsen:
• Asked questions about the bicy cle racks , style. He said he did not '.think charging stations were
standardized yet for bikes. (
,-·
Jl ,.
)(
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 August 9, 2016
Mr. Martire:
• Said there were various classes and styles of racks.
Com. Sun:
• Asked about different types of bikes such as Moped, electric scooters, pedal bicycles .
Chair Takahashi:
• Should there be specific wording to specify if it includes electric bikes because it is a growing market.
Personal recommendation would be to include them so there is no ambiguity in the future about not
including them; but with that might come some element of restriction with regard to the overall size.
Colleen Winchester, Attorney:
• Said they would have to look at vehicle code preemption; perhaps a way to resolve that if the
Commission wants to include it as part of the recommendation is to say have staff explore that
opportunity because you can't ride a motorcycle on a sidewalk.
Com. Sun:
• Said many people may switch from regular car to bike.
Benjamin Fu:
• Said they could consider it; presently the intent of this proposal is to make it consistent with the bike
plan published; the bike plan did mention further consideration for electric bikes , bicycles and it does
note the capabilities of electric bikes is different than the regular bicycle in terms of charging stations,
batteries, enhanced safety and anti-theft options; those are not exactly considered in this plan and the
intent is to make that plan consistent with the code. Said they would take it under advisement for future
studies.
Chair Takahashi:
• The intent is not to require charging stations at the bike parking as much as accommodating all bike
parking including electric bikes; so parking it there but not necessarily expecting that you can actually
charge it there . Relative to garages, in terms of reviewing the change and determining minor change,
in the spirit of ordinance change that we are proposing, who would be the assigned city staff planner?
Staff:
• Planning would be the call.
Chair Takahashi:
• In case where it is potentially marginal with regard to yes, I want to make it a lot bigger but don't want
to make it 20 x 20; what is the means of reconciliation above just one individual?
Benjamin Fu:
• Said the intent is to make the space more compliant, as much as possible so what the language does is
it restricts from reducing the size, but if you wish it large, you can do that as long as it meets all the
setback requirements although the code requirements is prescribed and they will be reviewed by the
Director of Community Development.
Chair Takahashi:
• In terms of limits as set by proposed change, is there any wording that can be added that these are
minimum thresholds and encourage greater than the minimum thresholds in terms of requirements for
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 August 9 , 2016
parking spaces. There are multiple factors that go into whether or not people are going to ride their
bikes to that location. ls there a way to encourage more liberal interpretation?
Benjamin Fu:
• Said they always encourage more bicycle parking as much as possible ; the concern is when you set the
standard of one space per X number of sq. ft ., what happens when you have less than X number of feet?
Language was placed requiring a minimum number of spaces so that · cj.t least a space provides a
minimum number of spaces even though it doesn 't meet the threshold ~nd the requirement would
increase space of the size . ,,
Chair Takahashi opened the public hearing .
Jennifer Griffin :
• Said she would encourage that bike parking at office buildings, schools or new construction , multi-
family housing be in a well-lit area and that it be accessible; as a woman walking, everyone needs to
be aware of their surroundings ; need to make sure there is lighting in the lock up area; also make sure
there is good cell phone reception; make sure the vegetation is such that there is clear space and safe
area around the bike parking, and have signs for bicycle parking. Relative to legal non-conforming
garages, if you have some of these places the garages or carports may have a 3 or 4 ft . setback from
fences; they may be grandfathered in ; you can 't make it bigger and still have it 4 ft . from the fence can
you? That needs to be discussed. Also can you convert a carport and have it be living space ; how is
that handled?
Chair Takahashi closed the public hearing.
Chair Takahashi:
• In terms of the garages and setbacks the point earlier made was that setbacks would be maintained ;
even if it is a grandfathered setback that is smaller than the current setback, that would be a maintained
setback. The other question related to garage conversions.
Mr. Martire:
• Said they would not want to increase that non-conformity itself so if it is a detached garage, for example,
raising the p late height would require a greater setback, so we wanted basically to maintain that plate
height. Said garage conversions were allowed as long as the garage spaces are replaced ; it has to be
maintained onsite . If the property owner has sufficient space to accommodate it , they can convert the
existing garage into habitable space.
Chair Takahashi:
• In that case if it is a single carport and they convert it and use that current outline to convert into a living
space are the y obligated to create a carport the same size as the original?
Staff:
• Said they would be required to meet the car parking requirements which is 4 and 20 by 20 .
Com. Paulsen:
• Said he supported both proposals and commended staff on an excellent job. Said they are beginning to
move away from the automobile ; they are baby steps but significant in that they are not requiring that
cars have the same parking and they are increasing the bike parking. The speaker had some good
comments about lighting prominence; as a bike advocate he would like to see all bike parking required
to be placed by the front door, but perhaps staff could consider language that would make bike parking
not just safe but also aesthetically visible and accessible. Otherwise some businesses will put it out
Cupe1tino Planning Commission 7 August 9 , 2016
back and say they have met the requirement. Said he would leave it to staff judgment to pursue that
but would recommend that they include not just language about the safety aspects but also the language
about visibility.
Mr. Martire:
• Said the Transportation Plan does address that on table 3-1 and talks about physical location and it
gives guidance to 4 developers where to put it , e .g ., for commercial or shopping centers their guidance
is those facilities should be near with good visibility. He said they would enforce them as much as
possible. Relative to tandem parking, said it appeared shallow for a tandem space. It would have to
meet the parking requirement; if they were to convert the enclosed space, it still has to meet setback
requirements and has to be 20 x 20, tandem would not be compliant under the current ordinance.
Chair Takahashi:
• Said he echoed comments from both Com. Paulsen and Jennifer Griffin to make sure the physical
location makes sense and some level of thought goes into the approval of those locations. Aligning to
the BTP is a significant positive and is happening quickly. He commended city staff and City Council.
Relative to the garages, it is clear that the friction that the current ordinance creates between the city
and its residents , especially when you are trying to make a home improvement and you are not allowed
to , he saw where people become frustrated with that specific element. He said he felt it was also a
positive change and it appears that the staff has thought it out in terms of unintended consequences and
making sure there is adequate review with regard to proposed changes. They are both positive changes
to the ordinance.
MOTION: Motion by Chair Takahashi, second by Com. Sun, and carried 4-0-0, Vice Chair Gong
absent, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the
application for the changes to the Cupertino Municipal Code, Application MCA-
2016-02 and accept correction made by staff to proposal office prototype
manufacturing land use class from 1 per 12,000. sq. ft. to 1 per 1,250 sq. ft. or 1 per
15 employees whichever is more restrictive.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting.
Housing Commission: No meeting.
Economic Development Committee Meeting: No report
Parks and Rec: Asked people to participate in the survey
Sustainability Comm: Going to do radio recording themselves
Fine Arts Comm.: Going to continue street art; 5 utility boxes painted last year;
goal for this year: 6 painted
Bike Comm.: Excited about BTP; next year will start working on Pedestrian Plan
Library Comm.: Reported on library use which was similar to previous year
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Com. Sun reported:
• May or spoke about his vision and reported on his one month trip to China; said he was impressed with
the high speed railroad in China; and was interested in involvement with Si ster Cities and Friendship
Cities
Cupertino Planning Commission 8
Report of the Assistant Director of Community Development: None
Com. Sun:
August 9, 2016
Announced a Cupertino City Candidate forum will be held Sept. 11 , 4:00 p.m . in Community Hall.
ADJOURNMENT:
• The meeting was adjourned to next Planning Commission meeting on August 23, 2016 , at 6:45 p.m .
Respectfully Submitted : c a
Approved as presented: September 27, 2016