PC 9-23-25 Searchable PacketCITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber and via Teleconference
Tuesday, September 23, 2025
6:45 PM
IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION
OPTIONS TO OBSERVE: Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do
so in one of the following ways:
1) Attend in person at Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue.
2) Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV.
3) Watch a live stream online at www.Cupertino.org/youtube and
www.Cupertino.org/webcast
OPTIONS TO PARTICIPATE AND COMMENT: Members of the public wishing to
address the Planning Commission may do so in the following ways:
1) Appear in person at Cupertino Community Hall:
a. During “Oral Communications”, the public may comment on matters not on the agenda,
and for agendized matters, the public may comment during the public comment period for
each agendized item.
b. Speakers are requested to complete a Speaker Card . While completion of Speaker Cards
is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments , it is helpful for
the purposes of ensuring that all speakers are called upon.
c. Speakers must wait to be called , then proceed to the lectern/podium and speak into the
microphone when recognized by the Chair.
d. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. However, the Chair may reduce the
speaking time depending on the number of people who wish to speak on an item. A
speaker representing a group of 2 to 5 or more people who are present may have up to 2
minutes per group member, up to 10 minutes maximum .
e. Please note that due to cyber security concerns, speakers are not allowed to connect any
Page 1
1
PC 9-23-2025
1 of 42
Planning Commission Agenda September 23, 2025
personal devices at the lectern/podium. However, speakers that wish to share a document
(e.g. presentations, photographs or other documents) during oral comments may do so in
one of the following ways:
• At the overhead projector at the podium or
• E-mail the document to planning@cupertino.gov by 3:00 p.m. and staff will advance the
slides/share the documents during your oral comment.
2) Written communications as follows:
a. E-mail comments to planningcommission@cupertino.gov
b. Regular mail or hand delivered addressed to the: Cupertino Planning Commission, City
Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
c. Comments addressed to the Planning Commission received by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the
meeting will be included in written communications published and distributed before the
beginning of the meeting.
b. Comments addressed to the Planning Commission received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline,
but through the end of the Planning Commission meeting, will be posted to the City’s
website by the end of the following business day.
3) Teleconference in one of the following ways:
a. Online via Zoom on an electronic device (Audio and Video): Speakers must register in
advance by clicking on the link below to access the meeting:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_x36JUpEHTu2gIjy8OPd0sg
• Registrants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the
webinar.
• Speakers will be recognized by the name they use for registration. Once recognized,
speakers must click ‘unmute’ when prompted to speak.
• Please read the following instructions about technical compatibility carefully: One can
directly download the teleconference (Zoom) software or connect to the meeting in their
internet browser. If a browser is used, make sure the most current and up-to-date browser,
such as the following, is used: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+.
Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer.
Page 2
2
PC 9-23-2025
2 of 42
Planning Commission Agenda September 23, 2025
b. By Phone (Audio only): No registration is required in advance and speakers may join the
meeting as follows:
i. Dial 669-900-6833 and enter WEBINAR ID: 897 2152 5737
ii. To “raise hand” to speak: Dial *9; When asked to unmute: Dial *6
iii. Speakers will be recognized to speak by the last four digits of their phone number.
c. Via an H.323/SIP room system:
i. H.323 Information:
144.195.19.161 (US West)
206.247.11.121 (US East)
Meeting ID: 897 2152 5737
ii. SIP: 89721525737@zoomcrc.com
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Approval of the September 9, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
Recommended Action: Approve the September 9, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
1 - Draft Minutes
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter
within the jurisdiction of the Commission and not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect
to a matter not on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
Effective January 1, 2023, Government Code Section 65103.5 (SB 1214) limits the distribution of
copyrighted material associated with the review of development projects. Members of the public wishing
to view plans that cannot otherwise be distributed under SB 1214 may make an appointment with the
Planning Division to view them at City Hall by sending an email to planning@cupertino.org. Plans
will also be made available digitally during the hearing to consider the proposal.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
Page 3
3
PC 9-23-2025
3 of 42
Planning Commission Agenda September 23, 2025
2.Subject: Presentation on the Arts & Culture Commission’s recommendation to the City
Council on an Art-in-lieu fee policy. (Application No. MCA-2025-003; Applicant: City of
Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
Recommended Action: Receive a presentation.
Staff Report
1 - Municipal Code Chapters 19.12. 19.148 Required Artwork in Public and Private Developments
(redline)
2 - Amended Policy (City Council Resolution No. 05-040
3 - Jurisdiction Analysis of Art Programming
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for staff to provide any updates on matters pertinent to the
Commission and for Commissioners to report on any Commission related activities they have taken part
in since the prior regularly scheduled meeting.
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING
This portion of the meeting is reserved for the Chair or any two Commissioners to propose a future
agenda item within the jurisdiction of the Commission. A proposal to add a future agenda item shall be
brief and without discussion by the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. In the event an
action taken by the Planning Commission is deemed objectionable, the matter may be officially appealed
to the City Council in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Commission’s decision. Said
appeal is filed with the City Clerk (Ordinance 632).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this
meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should
call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for
assistance. In addition, upon request in advance by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and
writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate
alternative format.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission after publication of the
packet will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Department located
at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 during normal business hours and in
Planning packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the City web site.
Page 4
4
PC 9-23-2025
4 of 42
Planning Commission Agenda September 23, 2025
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section
2.08.100, written communications sent to the City Council, Commissioners or staff concerning a
matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written
communications are accessible to the public through the City website and kept in packet archives. Do
not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not
wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made
publicly available on the City website.
For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda,
contact the Planning Department at (408) 777 3308 or planning@cupertino.org.
Page 5
5
PC 9-23-2025
5 of 42
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject:Approval of the September 9, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
Approve the September 9, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/18/2025Page 1 of 1
6
PC 9-23-2025
6 of 42
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 9, 2025
At 6:45 p.m. Chair Santosh Rao called the Regular Planning Commission meeting to order and
led the Pledge of Allegiance in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre
Avenue and via teleconference.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Santosh Rao, Vice Chair Tracy Kosolcharoen, and Commissioners David Fung,
Steven Scharf and Seema Lindskog. Absent: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Subject: Approval of the July 22, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the July 22, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
MOTION: Lindskog moved and Kosolcharoen seconded to approve the July 22, 2025
Planning Commission Minutes. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Rao,
Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Fung, Lindskog. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
POSTPONEMENTS – None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jennifer Griffin strongly opposed SB79, a housing bill by Senator Wiener, citing its frequent
amendments, vague language, and potential impact on communities like hers near Stevens Creek
Boulevard. She urged elected officials to vote "no" or abstain, arguing that constituents have been
excluded from recent housing decisions and that local control is being eroded. Griffin also pointed
to rising grassroots opposition and called for a new direction in state housing policy.
Luthern Williams, a representative from Tessellations School thanked the Planning Commission
and shared updates made in response to neighborhood feedback, including dropping plans for a
high school at the Regnart campus. The school is now seeking to raise its enrollment cap, ease
event restrictions, and expand programs. Williams emphasized their commitment to being good
neighbors through traffic management and continued collaboration with the city.
Lisa Warren raised concerns about ongoing audio issues during the meeting, noting there was no
sound during the Pledge of Allegiance and that several speakers had unclear or distorted audio.
7
PC 9-23-2025
7 of 42
She also expressed appreciation that Tessellations removed their request to add a high school, but
emphasized that, based on prior assurances, they should never have proposed it in the first place.
Warren concluded by stating it's good the change was made, but it should not have been necessary.
Nori expressed strong concerns about bicycle use in Memorial Park, citing safety risks to
pedestrians, including seniors, children, and people with mobility aids. They noted that bicycles
are considered vehicles under California law and should not be ridden on sidewalks or in areas
without designated bike trails, such as Memorial Park. Nori opposed placing a bike rack near the
park’s gazebo, suggesting it be moved to a less central location to discourage unsafe cycling within
pedestrian areas and urged the city to prioritize pedestrian safety.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Subject: Consider Municipal Code Amendments to multiple chapters of the Municipal
Code to make minor edits for clarity and consistency. (Application No.: MCA-2024-004;
Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide)
Recommended Action: That the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution
(Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance to: Amend
Chapters 14.15 (Landscape), 14.18 (Protected Trees), 18.20 (Parcel Maps), 18.52 (Hillside
Subdivisions), 19.08 (Definitions), 19.12 (Administration), 19.16 (Designation and
Establishment of Districts), 19.28 (Single Family R1 Zones), 19.36 (Multiple-Family R3
Zones), 19.38 (Multiple-Family R4 Zones), 19.40 (Residential Hillside RHS Zones), 19.44
(Residential Single-Family Cluster R1C Zones), 19.46 (Townhomes TH Combining
District), 19.60 (General Commercial CG Zones), 19.100 (Accessory Structures), 19.102
(Glass and Lighting), 19.104 (Signs), 19.124 (Parking), and 19.132 (Sale of Alcoholic
Beverages and Gasoline); and
Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA.
Assistant Community Development Director Connolly introduced Senior Planner
Sugiyama, who gave a presentation.
Commissioners asked questions which staff responded to.
Chair Rao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke:
• Jennifer Griffin
• Lisa Warren
Chair Rao closed the public comment period.
Commissioners continued their discussion, and asked questions which staff responded
8
PC 9-23-2025
8 of 42
to.
MOTION: Rao moved and Scharf seconded to approve the staff recommendation, with
the added condition that any changes not related to state law be removed from the
current item and brought back later as a separate agenda item.
MODIFIED MOTION: Rao moved and Scharf seconded to allow for revisions to comply
with state law, along with corrections to spelling and minor readability improvements,
while still requiring that any substantive non–state law changes be brought back as a
separate agenda item. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Rao,
Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Fung, Lindskog. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
NEW BUSINESS –
3. Subject: An update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a
summary of Phase 1 activities and an overview of what to expect during Phase 2.
Recommended Action: Receive an update on the development of the Active
Transportation Plan and provide feedback on the draft project prioritization criteria
Transportation Manager Stillman introduced Senior Transportation Manager Schroeder,
Petra Reyes from Alta Planning and Design, and David Wasserman from Alta Planning
and Design, who gave a presentation.
Commissioners asked questions which staff and the presenter responded to.
Chair Rao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke:
• Isham Kholsa
• Jennifer Griffin
• Emily Poon
• Lisa Warren
• Jennifer Shearin
• Herve Marcy
• Louise Saadati
Chair Rao closed the public comment period.
Commissioners took a recess at 8:50 PM and returned at 8:55 PM
Commissioners provided the following feedback and recommendations:
9
PC 9-23-2025
9 of 42
MOTION: Lindskog moved to modify the scoring criteria as follows:
• Add a project to make the most high-injury network intersections with red lights
and stop signs safer using tools such as red light cameras, and modify the scoring
criteria as follows:
• Access Criteria: Change the school proximity score to “fifteen points if within half
mile of a school”. Add “senior housing and senior facilities such as the senior
center” to the metric definition of “Parks and Other Destinations Proximity”
• Sustainability and Connectivity Criteria: Change “Sustainability” name to
“Connectivity”. Add ten points if it is within quarter mile of a trail or low-stress
facility like class IV bike lanes, making the total max scores for this section twenty
points instead of ten points.
• Balance Criteria: Focus on impact rather than infrastructure. Subtract ten points if
a removal of a substantial number (five or more) of parking spaces used regularly
fifty one percent or more of the time. Subtract ten points of it eliminates a car lane
for ten percent or more portion of the project length.
• Fairness Criteria: Delete this criteria, as it is not an objective, measurable measure
of the positive or negative impact of a project, and it will lead to an escalating arms
race of competing public comments and create more divisiveness and animosity
within the community.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to add
speeding cameras in addition to red light cameras to the first section of Lindskog’s motion.
Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to modify
the “Access” metric, by specifying that the senior center portion should only adhere to
pedestrian criteria.
Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Kosolcharoen proposed a friendly amendment to the motion
to modify the “Balance” section to change the negative ten points for removing a
substantial number of regularly used parking spaces (five or more) to negative five points,
and changing the negative ten points to negative fifteen points if it eliminates a car lane.
Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Kosolcharoen proposed a friendly amendment to the motion
10
PC 9-23-2025
10 of 42
to do a bike count of existing usage as a baseline before starting a project on major
proposed bike infrastructure.
Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao made a friendly amendment to modify the “Access”
criteria to specify middle schools and high schools.
Lindskog did not accept the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Scharf proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to
partner with bicycle education providers to offer routine adult and family education
classes in Cupertino.
Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to keep
the fairness criteria. He withdrew this friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Fung proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to move
red light runners and speeding section to the end of the motion.
Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to add a
negative score if it caused a no right turn on red to the additional project
recommendations.
Lindskog did not accept the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to add
prioritize sensor driven pedestrian bicyclist detection to the additional project
recommendations.
Lindskog did not accept the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to add
“Consider adaptive right-turn-on-red technology where feasible” to the additional project
recommendations.
Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.
11
PC 9-23-2025
11 of 42
AMENDED MOTION: Lindskog moved and Rao seconded to:
Modify the scoring criteria as follows:
• Access Criteria: Change the school proximity score to “Fifteen points if within one-
half mile of a school”. Add “senior housing and senior facilities such as the Senior
Center” to the metric definition of “Parks & Other Destinations Proximity.” For
pedestrians.
• Sustainability/Connectivity Criteria: Change “Sustainability” name to
“Connectivity.” Add ten points if it’s within one-quarter mile of a trail or low-
stress facility like Class IV bike lanes, making the total maximum score for this
section twenty points instead of ten points.
• Balance Criteria: Focus on impact rather than infrastructure. Subtract five points if
removal of a substantial number (five or more) of regularly used parking spaces
(used fifty-one percent or more of the time). Subtract fifteen points if it eliminates a
car lane for a substantial (ten percent or more) portion of the project length.
• Fairness Criteria: Delete this criterion as it is not an objective, measurable measure
of the positive or negative impact of a project and will lead to an escalating arms
race of competing public comments and create more divisiveness and animosity
within the community.
• Additional Project Recommendations: Add a project to make the most high-injury
network intersections with red lights and stop signs safer using tools such as red
light and speeding cameras. Consider adaptive right-turn-on-red technology
where necessary. Conduct a bike count of existing usage as a baseline on major
proposed bike projects. Partner with bicycle education providers (in addition to
SVBC) to offer routine adult and child education courses in Cupertino.
The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Fung,
Lindskog. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS –
Scharf reported that he and Kosolcharoen took the Cert Class and encouraged fellow
Commissioners to take the Cert Class when it is available.
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING – None
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:10 p.m. Chair Rao adjourned the Regular Planning Commission Meeting.
12
PC 9-23-2025
12 of 42
Minutes prepared by:
Lindsay Nelson, Administrative Assistant
13
PC 9-23-2025
13 of 42
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject:Presentation on the Arts & Culture Commission’s recommendation to the City Council on an
Art
‐
in
‐
lieu fee policy. (Application No. MCA-2025-003; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-
wide)
Receive a presentation.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/18/2025Page 1 of 1
14
PC 9-23-2025
14 of 42
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: September 23, 2025
SUBJECT
Presentation on the Arts & Culture Commission’s recommendation to the City Council
on an Art‐in‐lieu fee policy. (Application No. MCA-2025-003; Applicant: City of
Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive a presentation.
DISCUSSION
Background
On April 3, 2024, the City Council approved the FY 2024-2025 City Work Program with a
total of 20 projects. One of the new projects that is aligned with Council’s Quality of Life
goals is associated with art in public and private areas. This requires revisiting the City’s
Municipal Code standards for art in public and private development, including the
standards in the Municipal Code and developing an Art‐in‐lieu fee policy.
Analysis
The Municipal Code Chapter 19.148: Required Artwork in Public and Private Developments,
is the standard which the City currently uses for evaluating art in the City (Attachment
A). Further, the City Council on March 1, 2005, approved Resolution No. 05-040 adopting
guidelines for the selection of public art (part of Attachment 2). Currently, the City does
not have a separate Art Fund.
In the last couple of years, staff have been reviewing the ordinances, policies, and
programs of various Cities in the Bay Area for comparison. Staff’s research focused on
the following:
• Art Requirements of Private Development: How the City treats in-lieu payments
in contrast to providing onsite art pieces.
15
PC 9-23-2025
15 of 42
• Separate Art Fund: Does the City have a separate art fund or do in-lieu payments
go into the General Fund?
• Fund Distribution: What limits have been imposed on how the funds are used.
What programs/projects can the city subsidize with the funding?
• Decision Making Bodies: Who ultimately decides on use of funds?
For the complete analysis, please refer to Attachment 3.
On September 23, 2024, March 24, 2025, May 19, 2025, and July 22, 2025, staff presented
information concerning this item to the Arts and Culture Commission1. During these
meetings the Commission asked questions and made comments. The staff
recommendations included:
• Arts & Culture Commission approve the in-lieu payment option.
Currently City Council is the approval body, with the Arts & Culture
Commission recommending.
• In-lieu payment and valuation of art pieces on private development
shall be maintained at a consistent valuation of 1%, instead of the 1.25%
that currently exists for in-lieu payments.
• The City shall create and maintain a separate art fund.
• A potential use of art funding should be used to develop an arts Master
Plan, and other Commission recommendations, including an
expansion of funding to art programming beyond physical art.
• City Council to be the decision-making body, upon recommendation
by the Arts and Culture Commission, for the allocation of funds.
The Arts and Culture Commission requested staff to provide a final redline version of
the Municipal Code and Policy for review at its July 22, 2025 meeting. Attachment 1
provides the redline version of CMC Table 19.12.030 Approval Authority and Chapter
19.148: Required Artwork in Public and Private Developments. These changes allow the Arts
and Culture Commission ultimate decision making on art in-lieu payment options and
lower the contribution percentage. Attachment 2 provides an amendment to the City’s
existing Policy (City Council Resolution No. 05-040) by establishing a separate art fund,
as well as parameters for what the funds can be spent on.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT
This Ordinance is not a project under the requirements of the California Quality Act of
1970, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) because it has
1 Art in lieu fees sit within the Planning Code, this item is presented to the Planning Commission for information
only since the jurisdiction regarding this item resides with the Arts and Culture Commission.
16
PC 9-23-2025
16 of 42
no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or
ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is
subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3)
because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the
environment. CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a
significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment,
the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the amendments to the City
Code would have no or only a de minimis impact on the environment. Th e foregoing
determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
The following noticing has been conducted for this project:
Notice of Public Hearing, Site
Notice & Legal Ad
Agenda
▪ Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to hearing)
▪ Display ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to hearing)
▪ Posted on the City's official notice
bulletin board (five days prior to hearing)
▪ Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web
site (five days prior to hearing)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments have been received.
NEXT STEPS
The recommendations made by the Arts and Culture Commission will be forwarded to
the City Council for consideration at the October 21, 2025, hearing.
Prepared by: Gian Paolo Martire, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Michael Woo, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENTS
1. Municipal Code Chapters 19.12. 19.148 Required Artwork in Public and Private
Developments (redline)
2. Amended Policy (City Council Resolution No. 05-040)
3. Jurisdiction Analysis of Art Programming
17
PC 9-23-2025
17 of 42
Print
CHAPTER 19.12: ADMINISTRATION
Table 19.12.030 - Approval Authority
Type of
Permit or
Decision A, B
Administrative
Review A,B
Arts and
Culture
Commission
Planning
Commission
City
Council
Public Hearing/ Public
Meeting/ Comment Period C
Noticing
Radius D
Posted Site
Notice
Expiration Date E Chapter/
Findings
*ALL ROWS ABOVE UNCHANGED*
Public Art
Architectural
and Site
Approval
Permits
Public Art - F - A1 PM None None None
2.80 and 19.148
Art in lieu
payment
- FR - FA1 PM None None None
2.80 and 19.148
18
PC 9-23-2025
18 of 42
Print
2/5
CHAPTER 19.148: REQUIRED ARTWORK IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS
19.148.010 Purpose and Intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review framework for public art in both public and private
developments in the City of Cupertino, commensurate with the following specific goals, as described in
the Cupertino General Plan:
A. Enhance community character and identity;
B. Provide attractive public arts to residents and visitors alike;
C. Stimulate opportunities for the arts through cooperative relations between local business and the City.
19.148.020 Applicability of Regulations.
A. Any development of ten thousand sq. ft. or larger involving construction of new buildings and/or the
expansion of existing buildings shall be subject to the requirements of this chapter.
B. Additional artwork not mentioned in this chapter by means of specific plan, permits or other
discretionary review may be required when deemed appropriate by the City Council.
19.148.030 Permitted Artwork.
Types of art that may be used to satisfy the requirements of this chapter include, but are not limited to,
the following:
A. Sculpture: in-the-round, bas-relief, mobile, fountain, kinetic, electronic, or other, in any material or
combination of materials;
B. Painting: all media, including portable and permanently affixed works, such as murals;
C. Graphic arts: printmaking, drawing, calligraphy and photography, but only when on a large public scale;
D. Mosaics;
E. Functional artwork created by a professional artist, such as benches, tree grates or trash receptacles;
F. Any other form of work of art determined by the Arts and Culture Commission to satisfy the intent of
this chapter.
19.148.040 Ineligible Artwork.
The following shall not be considered eligible to satisfy the requirements of this chapter:
A. Reproductions of original works of art, whether by mechanical or other means. However, permitted
19
PC 9-23-2025
19 of 42
Print
3/5
artwork may include limited editions, controlled by the artist, of original prints, cast sculpture,
photographs, or other art forms;
B. Directional or other functional elements such as supergraphics, signing, or color coding, except where
those elements are integral parts of original signed artworks;
C. Art objects which are mass-produced from a standard design, such as playground equipment,
fountains, flags or banners;
D. Landscaping and garden features, except where these elements are designed by the artist and are an
integral part of a fine artwork.
19.148.050 Application Procedures for Public Artwork.
A. An application for public artwork shall include all requirements of Chapter 19.12.
B. Application for public art for a new development shall be made in conjunction with the review of the
permits for the entire project, in order that the design and location be taken into consideration at the
time of architectural and site planning, as outlined in Chapter 19.168.
C. The Arts and Culture Commission shall review for approval the public art application and artwork. The
decision of the Arts and Culture Commission may be appealed in accordance with Sections 1.16.020
and 19.12.030 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, or as amended.
19.148.060 Design Criteria and Artist Qualifications.
It is the intent of this chapter to provide for public art on private property without imposing the artistic
preferences of the City on the owner or the developer of the property. Artistic preferences are to be
primarily those of the owner or developer of the property, but the artwork and its location is subject to
approval of the Arts and Culture Commission. A permit required pursuant to Section 19.148.050 shall be
granted upon a showing by the applicant that the proposed artwork meets the following criteria:
A. The artwork is of a nature specified in Section 19.148.030.
B. The artwork requirement is to be satisfied with one significant piece of artwork, except that the
requirement may be met with several works of art when specifically found by the Arts and Culture
Commission to fulfill the intent of this chapter. The artwork shall be an integral part of the landscaping
and/or architecture of the buildings.
C. The artwork shall be easily visible from the public street and be located in an area specifically
designated on the project site plan. Appropriate locations include, but are not limited to, entryways to
the property, greenbelts, and building exteriors. The artwork must be in permanent view to motorists
and pedestrians. Artwork located at the entrance to a development should make a major statement
and be visible from the main parking lot, if any. When located in proximity to major traffic
thoroughfares, the artwork should be at a motorist's scale and oriented toward the view corridor of the
motorist.
20
PC 9-23-2025
20 of 42
Print
4/5
D. Artwork located along Stevens Creek Boulevard or De Anza Boulevard corridors shall be large in scale
and oriented to the view corridors of the motorist. Appropriate artwork in these corridors will most
likely be sculptural: however, other forms of art may be considered if consistent with the intent of this
chapter. Artwork should have a visual impact upon passengers in a moving vehicle or pedestrians not
less than 100 feet away.
E. The composition of the artwork shall be of permanent materials requiring a low level of maintenance.
Materials used shall be durable and resistant to graffiti and the effects of weather.
F. The nature and style of the artwork shall be considered in the context of other artwork in the
surrounding area in order to encourage a wide range of art styles and materials, and to create a
balanced and interesting aesthetic appearance. The developer is encouraged to give preference to
artists living or working in the San Francisco Bay area, and to avoid using artists whose work is already
displayed as public art within the City of Cupertino boundaries.
G. Because the artwork will necessarily be highly visible to the public and be associated with City
requirements, expressions of obvious bad taste or profanity shall not be approved.
H. Water and/or electronic sculpture may be permitted if adequate assurance of continued maintenance
is provided.
I. Artwork shall be identified by an appropriate plaque or monument measuring not less than eight
inches by eight inches. The plaque shall be made of a durable, permanent material and shall be placed
near the artwork, and shall list the date of installation, title and artist, and medium.
J. The artwork shall be a permanent, maintained fixed asset of the property, and statements to this fact
shall be attached or recorded to the existing CC&R's or otherwise recorded on the property deed, to
advise subsequent property owners of their obligations to maintain the artwork.
K. The proposed artwork shall meet the criteria for review as set forth in the City of Cupertino Public Art
Program Guidelines for Selection of Public Art, as originally adopted by the City Council Resolution No.
05-040, or as later amended.
L. The artist's qualifications will be evaluated and examples of past work may be reviewed. The review,
however, shall be primarily for the purpose of determining the artist's experience with artwork of
monumental proportion.
19.148.070 Minimum Artwork Value.
The minimum expenditure for the artwork, including but not limited to design, fabrication, and
installation, shall be one percent of the construction valuation, with the following tiers:
A. 1% of the first $100 million of construction valuation.
B. 0.9% of construction valuation for valuation in excess of $100 million.
19.148.080 Maintenance Requirements.
The property owner shall maintain the artwork in good condition continuously after its installation, as 21
PC 9-23-2025
21 of 42
Print
5/5
determined appropriate by the City. Maintenance shall include all related landscaping, lighting, and
upkeep, including the identification plaque. Artwork required or approved pursuant to this chapter cannot
be removed, except for required maintenance or repair, unless approved by the City; at which time the
City may require replacement or relocation of the artwork. In the event that the artwork is located in the
public right-of-way, a maintenance agreement with the City shall be required.
19.148.090 In Lieu Payment for Artwork is Discouraged.
In some instances the placement of artwork on a particular property may not be feasible. The developer
or property owner may apply to the Arts and Culture Commission for an in lieu payment alternative on
projects that lack an appropriate location for public art., although such alternative is strongly discouraged.
In such cases, an in lieu payment of 1. 25% of the construction valuation may be made to the City,
pursuant to the approval authority provisions of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.12.030.
22
PC 9-23-2025
22 of 42
!"#$%&
'()*+ ,"+ -.! /01 -, .2 34564749:;=>0?@@AB4B5AC0?/01 -, .B56@@ )D)E:DF(*+ ==-. ,"&0<0 C=0.,G.H -> !I )K);L- H0 .01M ?, . M -> !O?,AP-. ! CG + H0,0?RS3R7T F
()F9*+ ,+ -.! X[\W[]^V_\X[`_ab_\^[XZ[c_dWeXZ[aW\\][ZefbZWgYW\^^[Xeb^VWh_^befe`^WWjUVWX[`_abe`\[XZ[c_dW\ekWfdWdlY_defaW^[^VWh_^b\^e]]mefd^VWnZ^\efd\_[f][ZXYZaVe\_flWo_\^_fleZ^p[Zqefd][Za[kk_\\_[f_fleZ^_\^\^[aZWe^WfWpe_^bjaW\pVWZW^VWX`eaWkWf^[]ZWgY_ZWdeZ^p[Zq[feXeZ^_aY`eZdWcW`[XkWf^_\f[^efdhY`^YZWh[kk_\\_[faefeXXZ[cWefe`^WZfe^_cW_fi`_WYXebkWf^_f^VWek[Yff\^ZYa^_[fce`Ye^_[f^[^VWh_^bmXYZ\Yef^^[^VWeXXZ[ce`eY^V[Z_^bXZ[c_\_[f\[]hYe`h[dWhVeX^WZtwjtxjyzyjnXX`_ae^_[f[]\YaVe`^WZfe^_cW_fi`_WY]WWaefsW][e`h[dWhVeX^WZtwjt{|jUVWX[`_abp_``Wf\YZW^Ve^efbeZ^_fi`_WY]WW\a[``Wa^WdeZWaWp_^VWo_\^_flX[`_a_W\efd[Zd_fefaW\jF ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰}‚ƒŠ…‹Œ ˆ‡‡†~ƒ †‡ˆ~ŽŒ ˆƒŽˆ‹ ‡ˆ… ~‰‘‡‡‰ƒŒ ‚‘’Œ“‡‘€’…‰‘‹ƒ‚ˆ†…ƒˆ‘‹~ˆ‹ƒŽ„…†‡ˆ‰}‚ƒŠ…‹Œ~‰ ‹‘‹‡–†…~Œ ‘‚ƒŽ‰‘’’ˆ~~ˆ‘‹ˆ‹—‘‹˜ †‚ˆ‰ ƒˆ‘‹˜Œ~ˆ—‹˜ ‹Œˆ‹~ƒ ‡‡ ƒˆ‘‹‘ €…†‡ˆ‰ ‚ƒ”š‹ ŒŒˆƒˆ‘‹˜ …‹Œ~’ – ‡~‘€‚‘—‚ ’’ˆ‹—˜ …‹Œˆ‹— ‚ƒ~Ž‘ ~˜‰‚ ƒˆ‹—~‰Ž‘‡ ‚~Žˆ€~˜~…€€‘‚ƒˆ‹—Œ…‰ ƒˆ‘‹˜ ƒ‹ƒˆ ‡ˆƒ’~ ~Œƒ‚’ˆ‹Œ†–ƒŽœˆƒ–œ‘…‹‰ˆ‡† ~Œ‘‹ƒŽ‚‰‘’’‹Œ ƒˆ‘‹‘…‡ƒ…‚œ‘’’ˆ~~ˆ‘‹” ‡‡–˜ ~ƒŽˆ‹ ‡ˆ…Œ“‡‘€‚ ~ ‚…‹€‚Œˆ‰ƒ †‡ˆ‹‹ ƒ…‚ ‹Œ‰ ‹‘Œ ~‘‹ ƒˆ’‚“‹…~˜ƒŽ–~Ž ‡‡‹‘ƒ† ‡‡‘‰ ƒŒ ‘‚Œ‡ˆ“‚ˆ‹—‘‹—‘ˆ”}~~…‰Ž˜ž‹‚ ‡Š…‹Œ‰‘‹ƒ‚ˆ†…ƒˆ‘‹~ ˆ‡‡†‚™…ˆ‚Œ ‘‚ ‹–œˆƒ–‘ œ…€‚ƒˆ‹‘‚ ’’ˆ‹—˜ˆ‹‰‡…Œˆ‹—˜†…ƒ‹‘ƒ‡ˆ’ˆƒŒƒ‘˜~ƒ ˆ‹— ‹Œ Œ’ˆ‹ˆ~ƒ‚ ƒˆ‘‹‘ ~ ˆŒ€‚‘ ‹Œ€…†‡ˆ‰ˆƒ–Œ“‡‘€’‹ƒ”FE ^]Yfd\\Ve``sWd_\^Z_sY^Wd_fekeffWZ^Ve^_\a[f\_\^Wf^p_^V^VW Y_dW`_fW\][Z¡W
23
PC 9-23-2025
23 of 42
24
PC 9-23-2025
24 of 42
25
PC 9-23-2025
25 of 42
26
PC 9-23-2025
26 of 42
27
PC 9-23-2025
27 of 42
28
PC 9-23-2025
28 of 42
29
PC 9-23-2025
29 of 42
30
PC 9-23-2025
30 of 42
31
PC 9-23-2025
31 of 42
32
PC 9-23-2025
32 of 42
33
PC 9-23-2025
33 of 42
34
PC 9-23-2025
34 of 42
35
PC 9-23-2025
35 of 42
36
PC 9-23-2025
36 of 42
37
PC 9-23-2025
37 of 42
38
PC 9-23-2025
38 of 42
39
PC 9-23-2025
39 of 42
Onsite vs. In-
lieu Fee
Art Fund
Funds
Distribution
Decision Process
for Use of Public
Documents and
Berkeley • 1.75% of the
construction cost
for onsite
• .8% In-lieu fee
contribution
• Developer
discretion
• Combination
possible
Fund
•
profits
• Commission artwork
(temp or
permanent)
• 20% admin of the art
fund (consultant to
oversee program)
• 10% maintenance of
recommends use to City
Council.
CITY OF BERKELEY Public Art in
Private Development Program
Chapter 23.316 Percentage for
Public Art on Private Projects
City of Berkeley Public Art
Webpage
Belmont •
construction for
onsite or in-lieu.
• Developer
discretion
• Combination
Possible
Fund
•
distribution
• Design, acquisition,
commission,
installation, repair,
maintenance,
conservation or
insurance.
• Sponsor or support
cultural facilities and
resources
• As the Art
recommends use to City
Council.
Public Art in Belmont Webpage
Redwood
City
• 1% of the
construction for
onsite or in-lieu.
• Developer
discretion.
Places Fund
•
Art Commission
• 10% for
maintenance
• Ordinance sets aside
recommends use to City
Council.
Redwood City
Public Art Webpage
Chapter 45: Public Art
40
PC 9-23-2025
40 of 42
Onsite vs. In-
lieu Fee
Art Fund
Funds
Distribution
Decision Process
for Use of Public
Documents and
• Combination
Possible
• Required on
commercial
developments of
50,000 square
Outlay Fund to be
contributed to the
Art in Public Places
Fund
Sunnyvale •
construction cost
for onsite
• 1.1% In-lieu fee
contribution
• Combination
Possible
• Developer
Fund
•
distribution.
• .1% of project
valuation is marked
for maintenance.
recommends use to City
Council.
Development
Master Plan for Public Art
San
Mateo
• 1.19% of the
construction for
onsite or in-lieu.
• Developer
discretion
• Combination
Possible
• All commercial
development
projects and
multi-family
projects with a
Places Fund
•
assignment.
• Can be used for
maintenance
recommends use to City
Council.
Chapter 23.60 Art in Public
Places
41
PC 9-23-2025
41 of 42
Onsite vs. In-
lieu Fee
Art Fund
Funds
Distribution
Decision Process
for Use of Public
Documents and
valuation of three
million dollars
Los Altos • 1 % of the
construction for
onsite or in-lieu.
Not to exceed
200k for
multifamily and
non-residential
development
over 1 million.
• Developer
Fund
recommends use to City
Council.
- City of Los Altos MC
Palo Alto •
construction for
onsite or in-lieu.
• Developer
discretion
Fund
-City can
used as a
consultant
for a fee. Fee
goes into art
fund
•
staffing.
• Permanent and
temporary art
installation
• Can’t use art fund
for maintenance.
General Fund.
ultimate decision to approve
all art pieces.
- Chapter 16.61: Public Art for
Private Developments
42
PC 9-23-2025
42 of 42