CC 03-21-2023 Item No. 7. Petition for Reconsideration_Written CommunicationsCC 03-21-2023
Item No. 7
Consider petition for
reconsideration regarding
two requested freeway-
oriented signs for Public
Storage
Written Communications
From:Peter
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Meeting 3/21: Public Storage
Date:Sunday, March 19, 2023 7:02:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
We live right across I-280, facing the Public Storage building directly. The building's light
has been on every night, which has greatly impacted our life. It sheds a lot of light into our
bedroom at night, even with our sun screens completely off.
Now it looks like Public Storage is planning for another huge illuminated sign. As a resident
of Cupertino impacted by the existing lighting of the building, I'd like the council to consider:
1. not allowing the new freeway-facing sign to be put on
2. asking Public Storage to turn off the lights at night after 10pm.
Thanks,
Fei
From:Liang Chao
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Reconsideration Form and Attachments, please acknowledge receipt
Date:Sunday, March 19, 2023 6:52:58 PM
Attachments:Public Storage Reconsideration Form.pdf
ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION.PDF
ATTACHMENT B REJECTION.PDF
This petition for reconsideration is supposed to include two attachments, but they are not
included in the agenda packet, which makes the agenda packet incomplete, I think.
Please enter this to the written communication for the 3/21 council meeting.
And I wonder whether these two attachments should be sent to all Councilmembers as desk
items for completeness of evidence.
Thanks!
Liang
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 11:43 AM
To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>
Subject: FW: Reconsideration Form and Attachments, please acknowledge receipt
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From: Rhoda Fry [mailto:fryhouse@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 11:42 AM
To: 'Kirsten Squarcia' <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; 'City Clerk' <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Reconsideration Form and Attachments, please acknowledge receipt
Dear City Clerk,
Please find attached a Reconsideration Form and Attachments, please
acknowledge receipt.
Warm Regards,
Rhoda Fry
408-529-3560
1
Date: February 17, 2023
From:
Rhoda Fry (and Cupertino Residents Doe 0 – 100)
10351 San Fernando Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-2832
fryhouse@earthlink.net
408-529-3560
RECONSIDERATION PETITON
NOTICE: Reconsideration petitions are only accepted for adjudicatory matters that are
quasi-judicial decisions by the City Council. The reconsideration petition is subject to the
requirements of and must comply with section 2.08.096 of the Cupertino Municipal Code,
available in the City Clerk’s office or online at http://www.amlegal.com/cupertino_ca/.
Please review this form carefully and provide a detailed explanation for each item. Failure
to meet the requirements of section 2.08.096 may result in rejection of the reconsideration
petition.
1. Project for which you are requesting reconsideration:
Application No.: EXC-2022-003
Applicant(s) Name: David Ford, All Sign Services; Location: 20565 Valley Green Dr.; APN: 326-
10-044
3. Contact information for party requesting reconsideration:
Name: Rhoda Fry (and Cupertino Residents Doe 0 – 100)
Address: 10351 San Fernando Avenue, Cupertino CA 95014-2832
Phone: 408-529-3560
Email: fryhouse@earthlink.net
4. Date of Council meeting considering the project for which you are requesting
reconsideration:
February 7, 2023
Reconsideration petitions must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Clerk’s notice.
2
5. Details of grounds for reconsideration (Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.08.096).
A petition for reconsideration must specify, in detail, each and every ground for
reconsideration. Failure to specify the particular ground(s) for reconsideration will preclude
any omitted ground(s) from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding.
In addition, the grounds for reconsideration are limited to the criteria listed below. Failure
to meet these grounds may result in rejection of the petition for reconsideration. Check all
grounds that apply and provide detailed explanations of the facts supporting each ground
for reconsideration (provide supporting documentation and attach additional sheets if
necessary):
By this statement, all information on the City of Cupertino website pertaining to the
10/21/22 Planning Commission meeting and the 2/7/2023 City Council meeting and other
documents pertaining to the Public Storage site, the General Plan, the North De Anza
Boulevard Special Center plan, and the CMC are included in this document.
✔An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could
not have been produced at any earlier city hearing.
Explanation of new evidence and why it could not have been produced earlier:
The City was likely unaware of Public Storage’s updated image policies that tout that “the
building is the sign.” Public Storage’s architect said in this blog post: “We had seven different
types of signs,” she said. “Now, not only do we now have a consolidated sign, the new
building is the sign.” https://www.publicstorage.com/blog/public-storage/public-storage-
locations-get-a-new-look In spite of the following business hours, Office Hours Mon -Sun
8:00am to 7:00pm and Gate Access Hours Mon -Sun 6:00am to 9:00pm, the
Cupertino Public Storage building is illuminated 24x7. If the building is indeed the sign, it must
not be illuminated 24x7. Moreover, it is much too large to have that much illumination.
Interestingly, two sides of the building that are visible from the freeway are illuminated – the
backside that faces offices remains dark. Additionally, the illuminated sign that faces the
adjacent condominiums remains illuminated after 11pm which is a code violation. The excessive
light is a public nuisance to residents. See also EXHIBIT 1.
✔ An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing.
Explain relevant evidence and how, when it was excluded at a prior hearing:
A. The council packet did not show the setting of the building within the community and how it
looked from various residences/hotel or freeway at different times of day. How could the City
Council make an informed decision about freeway-oriented signage without this information?
Furthermore, on February 13, I spoke with Planner Martire and lamented that the proposed
illuminated freeway-oriented Public Storage sign would be in a line view of many residents’
homes. He was surprised and unaware that residents would be facing the signs. If he had
known, then perhaps the council would have been given more information. The proposed signs
are in a direct line view of the De Anza Forge Condominiums and can be seen from the
Markham Apartments and the Cupertino Hotel along with the freeway. The City Council was
denied substantial evidence. Refer to EXHIBIT 1 (setting) and EXHIBIT 2 (nighttime
photographs).
3
B. Council was not provided with detailed images or specifications of the proposed illuminated
Public Storage sign along with other illuminated signage facing the freeway. In fact, there are no
similarly situated properties in the City. The only illuminated sign that somewhat faces the
freeway is the Cupertino Hotel. Council was not given any tools to compare the Cupertino hotel
sign with the proposed Public Storage sign. Its sign is on the northbound onramp, not on the
freeway. It is barely visible driving South on 280 and not at all going North. Nor does it appear to
directly face dwelling units in the way that the Public Storage building does. I walked the length
of the condo complex adjacent to Public Storage and climbed up to the fence-line and could not
see the Cupertino Hotel sign. It is possible that residents on higher floors might have a glimpse
of the sign. If council had made a site visit or had images of the Cupert ino Hotel sign along with
the Public Storage sign (even the one that is installed provides some insight), they would have
realized that these two properties are very different and would need to be treated differently
(19.104.220 C. The sign shall also be compatible with the aesthetic character of the surrounding
developments and neighborhood.)
Council was not provided visuals on the levels of illumination, this would have been needed to
provide an informed decision on the subjective criteria in 19.104.220 (“the aesthetic appearance
of signs is subjective”). When comparing the illumination between the proposed Public Storage
Sign and the Cupertino Hotel Sign, there is no comparison. But the council was not provided a
side-by-side comparison. Public Storage is bright white and huge and the Hotel is soothing dark
blue and is of modest size. Although the proposed sign is within the foot-lamberts requirements
for signage, no explanation of what it means or what it looks like was provided. A foot-lambert
refers to the amount of illumination per square foot. So the bigger the signage, the more
illumination it will have. Note that the applicant explained that he wants signage to be visible to
motorists traveling 70 to 75 miles per hour (which is speeding in our community) past the
property. (19.104.220 G. The sign's color and illumination shall not produce distraction to
motorists or nearby residents.) In other words, the applicant wants motorists to be distracted by
his advertising sign.
If council had gone on an appropriate site visit or been provided appropriate information, they
could have made an informed decision to either not allow any illumination or even no signage.
Installed sign as viewed from adjacent condo. The
illuminated portion of the sign is reportedly 52
square feet. The illuminated portion of the
freeway-facing sign would be 165 square feet.
This gives an idea as to how bright it would be.
The letters appear much brighter than the
building’s interior lighting. This photo was taken
between 10:30 pm and 11:00 pm on 2/15/2023.
IMAGINE A SIGN 3X LARGER THAN THE
ABOVE. IS IT COMPARABLE TO THE
CUPERTINO HOTEL?
CUPERTINO HOTEL: This photo has been
enlarged. Otherwise you would not be able to
recognize it. This is a view of Cupertino Hotel from
the on-ramp to 280 North from De Anza. On the
freeway heading south, the blue sign was
sometimes hidden and other times very subdued.
I was unable to see the sign from the condos
across the freeway having walked the fence line
and even climbed up to it. It is unlikely that much
of this sign is visible from the condos. Pphoto was
taken between 10:30 pm and 11pm on 2/15/2023.
4
C. Please bear with me on this section – it is rather long but makes a point. The council packet
failed to explain that the new public storage building is an intensification of a non-conforming
use within the North De Anza Boulevard Special Center. Consequently, it is even more
important that the look of the building and its signage conform to adjacent uses.
Resolution 19-072 describing the architectural and site approval permit included boilerplate text
pertaining to signage, “c) The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of
outdoor advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively affect
the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development.” The
document as a whole makes various promises that pertain to the entire building and signage,
including but not limited to: (see ATTACHMENT A for the entire resolution)
“In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and in order to
preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new
buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or
compatible with design and color schemes, and, with the future character of the
neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated“ and
“development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and
visually intrusive effects” and
“provide shielding to prevent spill- over light to adjoining property owners”
Regarding the North De Anza Boulevard Special Center: The new building (4 stories 264K
square feet per https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-
development/planning/major-projects/public-storage ) is four times the size as the building it
replaces and has 2600 units. In 2006, Public Storage proposed a new building in this same
location (Application U3-2006-03, ASA-2006-05, EA2006-06. This proposed building (3 stories
155K square feet) was estimated at three times the size of the original and the Planning
Department recommended against it and the Planning Commission concurred:
Public Storage is located in the North De Anza Boulevard Special Center in which self-storage
is a non-confirming use, the description of the Special Center has not changed in decades. The
2006 recommendation for rejection noted that the replacement building would be substantially
inconsistent with the area and would significantly intensify the use of the site,
“The proposed mini-storage facility is a non-office use that does not promote these General
Plan policies for maintaining cohesive office parks and, therefore, staff believes that the project,
which will significantly intensify the use of the site as a mini-storage facility by almost tripling the
amount of existing mini-storage building area, will conflict with these policies. The proposed
project will offer very little public and community benefit, as it is anticipated to generate a
minimal amount of retail sales tax to the City for its sales of packing/boxing supplies, and is
substantially inconsistent with the surrounding uses of the area that include office and multiple-
family residential.”
Additionally, “Staff is also concerned about the height of the proposed buildings as they will be
prominently visible from Interstate 280, the new condominium development currently under
construction to the east, the existing residential neighborhood to the west and the two-story
office buildings occupied by Apple to the south.” The new building has 32 parking spaces and
the rejected smaller building had 80 parking spaces. (https://www.cupertino.org/our-
city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/public-storage)
Because the new building is even more visible than the proposed 2006 building, its
visual impacts from I-280 are greater today than they were in 2006. Consequently, every
possible measure must be taken to minimize its impacts, including signage, on
residents. See ATTACHMENT B for 2006 Public Storage rejection.
5
D. The Council was not provided information on how the signs are measured. The way the
signage has been measured is deceiving. The large sign is made up of orange stripes with
white lettering on top. Only the outline of the white lettering is measured in determining the
sign’s size. The rest of the building is silver gray and tan. Here is the new Cupertino Public
Storage building with the sign already installed that does not face the freeway.
Daytime photo from website of
Cupertino building. The sign is made
up of orange stripes with white
lettering on top.
https://www.publicstorage.com/blog/pu
blic-storage/cupertino-storage-units-
reopen-near-apple-campus
Nighttime photo around
10:30PM as seen from
adjacent condo complex.
Sign and lights remain on
after 11pm. The words
even appear brighter than
the interior lighting. The
proposed freeway-
oriented lettering portion
of the sign is over three
times larger.
Note that the back of
the building, which
faces Apple office
buildings has no
orange rectangles.
Consequently, the
orange rectangles
really do look like signs.
Also, the back is not
illuminated at night.
Following is an excerpt of the plan in the Planning Commission packet. A reasonable person
who looks at the outlined portion of the image on the left sees an image similar to the one
above: a sign made up of orange stripes with white lettering on top. The measurement of this
outlined area is shown on the right. It measures about 800 square feet. The maximum signage
area per CMC is 200 square feet. Effectively, the proposed sign exceeds the 200 square-
foot maximum. The measurement provided to council was the minimum circumference of the
illuminated lettering; this is deceiving.
The staff had many creative options at its disposal to show the public and council the true scale
of the proposed sign. Next to the right schematic, I’ve added an approximate 6-foot tall human
for illustrative purposes.
6
✔ Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess
of its, jurisdiction.
Explain facts and how those facts show that the Council operated outside its jurisdiction:
No validation from Caltrans that the proposal was compliant.
✔ Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing.
Explain facts and how those facts demonstrate failure to provide a fair hearing:
A. The “approval authority” for Freeway Oriented signs is the Planning Commission per CMC
Table 19.104.200. It is customary for Planning Commissioners to make site visits. Because the
Council became the approval authority for a Planning Commission decision, they should have
made a site visit in order to provide a fair hearing.
B. Council was told that the Planning Commission’s decision was not valid – but a portion of
their denial was based on information in the signage CMC 19.104. The denial stated: “The
location of Signs Two and Three along the north elevations of Buildings One and Two could
result in a situation that is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare to the
community…” This would imply that the Council was not permitted to vote on the basis of public
health, safety, and community welfare which is incorrect. The video meeting shows much
confusion on the part of the staff and council members.
C. The council packet lacked clear instructions on what was being voted on and what criteria
needed to be used for the vote. This is surprising because this was the second hearing for the
sign. During the planning commission, the city attorney told the planning commission that their
approval / denial of the sign was discretionary. How did that meeting go wrong and why weren’t
the issues that created a de novo hearing at the council resolved? Because the council did not
have an appropriate rubric, the council could not provide a fair hearing. The packet failed to
explain council could vote for 0, 1 or 2 freeway-facing signs. The packet failed to provide
the relatively short criteria upon which they would be voting. At a minimum, Council
needed this:
19.104.050 Sign Permit Application–Review Criteria.
The Approval Body shall review the sign application to ensure that the following criteria are met:
A. The proposed sign meets the requirements of this title or any special conditions imposed in the development.
B. The proposed sign's color and illumination is not in conflict with the safe flow of traffic on the City streets.
C. The sign is in conformance with the Design Criteria in Section 19.104.220.
19.104.220 Design Criteria–Permanent Signs.
Although the aesthetic appearance of signs is subjective, the City recognizes that certain basic design guidelines are needed in
order to maintain the City's high quality appearance. The following criteria shall be incorporated into the design of signs.
C. All signs shall be architecturally compatible and in harmony with the building with which it is principally associated, by
incorporating its colors, materials, shape and design. The sign shall also be compatible with the aesthetic character of the
surrounding developments and neighborhood.
E. Sign copy shall be simple and concise, without excessive description of services or products.
F. Internally illuminated signs shall not have a directly visible light source.
G. The sign's color and illumination shall not produce distraction to motorists or nearby residents.
D. The lack of clarity in the packet was further muddied by conflicting instructions from the City
manager, attorney, and planner. Examples include, the attorney gave an explanation and the
city manager said no, let me explain. The planner’s presentation failed to mention that the City
Council had the discretion reject all freeway-oriented signs per CMC 19.104. Councilmember
Chao asked whether council can uphold the planning commission decision to deny both signs
and the City Manager Wu said no, but then explained that the council could deny both signs or
allow one (two signs were not provided as an option). The council could not come to the same
conclusion as the planning commission? The City Attorney said that the Planning Commission
decision was not legally justifiable but did not describe how. The council would need to find a
7
legally justifiable basis to deny the sign – but what were the specifics of the basis? He wound up
being interrupted by the manager. Council would need to find a legally justifiable basis to deny
the sign, but what would have basis be? The council could approve additional signs – but could
they deny all freeway facing signs? And there are design criteria that all signs must meet – and
what are they? Chao asks if staff thought there was justification to deny both signs. City
manager implies no. City Attorney stated that grounds for denial is if design criteria is not met,
but Council is not provided the criteria. City manager says that once you have a freeway facing
sign that it is subject to planning commission’s approval. You just have to watch the video. It is
just too confusing.
The planner said the sign met requirements for size and lighting but failed to spell out that there
were additional criteria, some of which is subjective. After council struggled in its deliberation
and were obviously confused, staff requested a break. They came back in another failed
attempt to clarify instructions. The planner showed only the text of 19.104.050, not 19.104.220.
The planner told council that the signage was compliant with 19.104.050 which incorporated
19.104.220, leading council members to believe that they had to vote in favor of the signage.
But it was up to the council to make that determination. The City manager corrected the planner.
Who is the council supposed to listen to? The attorney, the city manager, the expert planner?
The three staff members did not reconcile clear direction to the council even after having
called for a break. Further, the text of 19.104.220 was not shown in the packet or at the council
meeting. Even after Councilmember Moore asked that 19.104.220 be displayed, it was not.
Council needs clear instructions in the packet and during meetings in order to provide a
fair hearing.
E. It bears repeating that the City Attorney stated that the council decision needed to be made
on design criteria but staff never provided the City Council Design Criteria (CMC 19.104.220),
which is relatively short.
F. Had the neighbors across the freeway been notified, the council would have received
significant input from neighbors about the proposed signage. It is appropriate to extend
notification when there are special circumstances that cause unexpected impacts. We know that
freeway-oriented signage is special because approval authority is assigned to the planning
commission instead of the Community Development Director for other signs. See EXHIBIT 3 for
the types of letters they would have received – these are letters that we sent after the hearing
when residents learned of council’s decision. Because of this, council was incapable of
providing a fair hearing.
G. Recall, the City Council was being asked to make a decision that normally has the Planning
Commission as Approval Authority. Specifically, the Planning Commission is the Approval
Authority for Freeway-Oriented signs (19.104.200). Councilmember Moore, is the only
councilmember with Planning Commission experience and mentions distracting spillover
lighting. She asked that the short text of 19.104.220, upon which the decision would be
rendered, be displayed for all councilmembers to see. It was not. She also asked for a
continuation of this agenda item and gave her reasons. It was not. Consequently, council was
unable to have a fair hearing and was hampered in its ability to make an informed decision.
H. It is hard to understand the fairness of a hearing when a building that has not even received
its final inspection report is considered an existing building. The original plan set did contain
signage that is very similar to the current proposal.
I. The council’s lack of planning commission experience and access to the municipal code that
explains the intent of the sign ordinance outlined in 19.104.010 hindered their ability to have a
fair hearing. W as this intent fulfilled? The Planning Commission understood that the purpose of
8
the sign was mainly advertising. The council did not understand how to balance the needs of the
community with the desires of the business to advertise per 19.104.010.
19.104.010 Purpose and Intent.
A. The purpose of the sign ordinance is to identify and enhance businesses while maintaining the aesthetic appearance of the
City.
B. A good sign program will provide information to the public concerning a particular business or use and will serve the visual
and aesthetic desires of the community.
C. The City has adopted this title with the intent to:
1. Provide architectural and aesthetic harmony of signs as they relate to building design and surrounding landscaping;
2. Provide regulations of sign dimensions and quantity which will allow for good visibility for the public and the needs of the
business while providing for the safety of the public by minimizing distraction to the motorist and pedestrian;
3. Provide for sign regulations that will be compatible with the building, siting, and the land uses the signs are intended to
identify;
4. Provide for maintenance of existing signs and a program for bringing nonconforming signs into conformance with the
standards of this title as changes are made to the signs or businesses;
5. Provide procedures which will facilitate the efficient processing of sign applications; and
6. Provide design criteria which will promote attractive and effective signs for Cupertino residents, businesses, employees
and visitors.
✔ Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by:
o (a) Not preceding in a manner required by law; and/or
o (b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact;
and/or
o (c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported
by the evidence.
Explain facts and how those facts demonstrate abuse of discretion related to items (a)-(c):
When council was told that the Cupertino Hotel sign also faced the freeway, some lept to the
conclusion that it was similar to the proposed Public Storage sign. As shown earlier in this
document, it is not. Council relied on the assumption that the signs and locations of the signs
are similar but they are not. Council decision was not supported by facts.
6. Signature(s) Rhoda Fry (and other Cupertino Residents)
PS – per code, I respectfully request refund of fees. Thank You.
Please complete form, include reconsideration fee of $356.20 pursuant to Resolution No. 22-
049 payable to City of Cupertino and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre
Avenue, Cupertino, California (408) 777-3223.
Acceptance of a petition by the City Clerk is for timeliness purposes only and does not constitute a
determination that the petition meets the requirements for reconsideration under section 2.08.096
of the Municipal Code. The City reserves the right to review petitions after submission and reject
those that do not meet the criteria set forth in Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.08.096.
PAYMENT PROOF
9
EXHIBIT 1 – Residents and Hotel Guests who will see the Illuminated Public Storage Sign
View of Public Storage from the Cupertino
Hotel Parking Lot. Imagine what the guests
will see from their guestrooms from a sign
that is over three times larger facing the
freeway. It is likely that hotel guests from the
onramp side and the backside could be
impacted.
10
EXHIBIT 2 –Existing Public Storage Sign, Cupertino Hotel Sign, Views from De Anza Forge
Installed sign as viewed from adjacent condo.
The illuminated portion of the sign is
reportedly 52 square feet. The illuminated
portion of the freeway-facing sign would be
165 square feet. This gives an idea as to how
bright it would be. The letters appear much
brighter than the building’s interior lighting.
This photo was taken between 10:30 pm and
11:00 pm on 2/15/2023.
IMAGINE A SIGN 3X LARGER THAN
THE ABOVE. IS IT COMPARABLE TO
THE CUPERTINO HOTEL?
CUPERTINO HOTEL: This photo has been
enlarged. Otherwise you would not be able to
recognize it. This is a view of Cupertino
Hotel from the on-ramp to 280 North from
De Anza. On the Freeway heading north, it
was sometimes hidden and other times very
subdued. I was unable to see the sign from
the condos across the freeway having walked
the fence line and even climbed up to it. It is
unlikely that much of this sign is visible from
the condos. This photo was taken between
10:30 pm and 11:00 pm on 2/15/2023.
View from a lower unit in a De Anza Forge
condo.
View from a different unit in a De Anza
Forge condo.
11
These photos were taken between 10:30 pm
and 11:00 pm on 2/15/2023 at the De Anza
Forge Condominiums along the various areas
that face the freeway. The sign would be
installed at the highest point on the building.
In all cases, the photos are taken from a
vantage point that is further away from the
Public Storage building than a view from a
condo.
12
EXHIBIT 3 – EXCERPTS LETTERS RECEIVED BY CITY CLERK/COUNCIL FROM
NEIGHBORS WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED BY SIGNAGE BETWEEN 2/8 and 2/16
(names/addresses redacted)
My name is Art Wodecki and I own a condo in the DeAnza Forge community (20718
Celeste Circle Cupertino CA 95014).
Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage facing the freeway
until 11pm daily. This signage will be visible from my home and disrupt our quali ty of
life. The proposed lighted sign is 165 square feet on an 800+ square-foot orange
background. In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the
freeway per CMC 19.104; in February, the City Council ignored their decision. The
City Council should have upheld the Planning Commission’s determination; there
should be no sign. Alternatively, as a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that
the signage have no illumination. The sign does not help prospective customers to
find the building and is big enough for advertising the business during daylight hours.
I am also very concerned about highway/driving safety with that proposed illuminated
sign.
Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage facing the freeway, especially if it is lit
until 11pm daily. The lights from the Public Storage are already very bright in the evening. Adding large
illuminated lettering onto the side of the buildings would only further increase the buildings brightness
and make it an even bigger visual eyesore. Nearby residents don’t want a nightlight. It would only
further increase the amount of light pollution coming inside our homes. Not to mention, it would make
our homes less desirable, if we were to rent or sell it in the future.
The two newly-built, 4-story Public Storage buildings are now the first thing you see when you look out
of our bedroom and living-room widows, since they are now at eye level with our condo. We bought our
condo in 1985, even before the Cupertino Inn was built, when our condo still had the beautiful
unobstructed views of the mountains and there were a lot more planted trees everywhere. I think
around that time, the one-story Public Storage facility was originally built in Cupertino, as well. In fact, in
all the 40 years that it’s been at that location, Public Storage has never had a sign facing the freeway to
advertise its location, much less needed one that was illuminated. We don’t think it should be necessary
for them to have one now. Due to the large size of both buildings and their trademark burnt orange and
grey color, they are very hard to be missed from the freeway. Illuminating the name of the company, so
that it can further advertise its brand, at the detriment of the neighbors and the driving cars, should not
be allowed. Let’s leave the bright lights and lit signs for Las Vegas and not Cupertino. The only entity
benefiting from the proposed illuminated signage would be Public Storage; not the overall community. I
am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination.
All view access to the mountains cutoff by building line.
Thank you so much for taking away what little view we had.
Photo; Feb 15, 735a
13
Jim
Dear City Council:
Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage facing the freeway until
11pm daily. This signage will be visible from my home and disrupt my quality of life. The
proposed lighted sign is 165 square feet on an 800+ square-foot orange background.
The building has already cutoff good views of the mountains. Had it been one story lower, the
tops of the mountains would be visible. Maybe it doesn’t matter to you but it mattered to me.
Public Storage wins. I lose. Poor choice by allowing this.
Now to make it worse already the hallways are lighted projecting across the highway into
bedroom.
Photo : 1020p, Feb 14th, 2023
Views of mountains gone.
To make matters worse, the illuminated sign will be visible from many of the condominiums at
De Anza Forge. We already lost a view to the south of the mountains, there will be a large
obtrusive lighted sign directly in the sight-line. This will negatively affect the value of all
condominiums in the complex.
14
In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104;
in February, the City Council ignored their decision. The City Council should have upheld the
Planning Commission’s determination; there should be no sign.
Alternatively, as a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no
illumination. The sign does not help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough
for advertising the business during daylight hours.
Furthermore, do you think this building meets the City Council’s promise made specifically for this
building? Resolution 19-072 stated “In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing
buildings and in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of
new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with
design and color schemes, and, with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone
in which they are situated.”
If the new City Council truly cares about the residents of Cupertino, please do not allow Public Storage
to have an illuminated signage facing the freeway until 11pm daily. This signage would be visible from
home and would disrupt our quality of life. The proposed lighted sign is 165 square feet on an orange
background measuring over 800 square feet.
Would you like it if you lived here and you saw that sign each night?
In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104. In
February, the City Council ignored their decision. As a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the
signage have no illumination. The sign does not help prospective customers find the building and is large
enough to advertise their business during daylight hours.
I feel this is a very reasonable request. I am not asking for the removal of the sign. Please reconsider so
that the signage is not lit up when it’s dark.
Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage facing the freeway until 11pm daily. This
signage will be visible from my home and disrupt my quality of life. The proposed lighted sign is 165
square feet on an 800+ square-foot orange background. In October, the Planning Commission denied
any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104; in February, the City Council ignored their decision. The
City Council should have upheld the Planning Commission’s determination; there should be no sign.
Alternatively, as a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination. The
sign does not help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough for advertising the
business during daylight hours.
Furthermore, do you think this building meets the City Council’s promise made specifically for this
building? Resolution 19-072 stated “In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing
buildings and in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of
new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with
design and color schemes, and, with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone
in which they are situated.”
Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage facing the freeway until 11pm daily. This
signage would be visible from my property. It will surely disrupt the quality of life.
15
The proposed lighted sign is 165 square feet on an orange background measuring over 800 square feet.
In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104; in
February, the City Council ignored their decision.
As a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination. The sign does not
help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough for advertising the business during
daylight hours.
Please don't allow public storage to have signage facing the freeway until 11 pm daily.
This signage would be visible from my home and would disrupt my quality of life. The proposed
illuminated sign is 165 square feet with an orange background measuring over 800 square feet.
In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104; in
February, the City Council ignored their decision. As a compromise, I am respectfully requesting
that the signage have no illumination. The sign does not help prospective customers to find the
building and is big enough for advertising the business during daylight hours.
Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage facing the freeway until 11pm daily. This
signage would be visible from my home and would disrupt my quality of life. The proposed lighted sign
is 165 square feet on an orange background measuring over 800 square feet. In October, the Planning
Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104; in February, the City Council
ignored their decision. As a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no
illumination. The sign does not help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough for
advertising the business during daylight hours.
Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage and room lighting
facing the freeway until 11p.m. daily. This signage and bright room lighting showing
bright orange doors is visible from my home and has been disrupting my quality of
life. The proposed lighted sign is 16 square feet on an orange background measuring
over 800 square feet.
In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC
19.104; in February, the City Council ignored their decision. As a compromise, I
am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination and room
lightening will be either shut off or significantly dimmed so that the
light pollution will not cause sleep disturbance for the residents. The sign does not
help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough for advertising the
business during daylight hours and bright ugly room lighting is just wasting precious
community electricity.
Please do not allow Public Storage to put up an enormous illuminated sign facing 280. The building,
which was recently constructed, already interferes with the quality of my life since it is lit up all night long
and the light goes directly into my condo on the other side of the freeway. The proposed illuminated light
would only make the problem worse, especially during the summer months when windows are kept open
to let cool air in (letting in also the view of a large glowing sign). Where I once had a lovely view of the
16
mountains, I now have an ugly grey building blocking it, with the threat of an enormous illuminated Public
Storage sign being place upon it. Please do not allow this to happen.
In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.1 -4, so it
seems like this should not happen.
I look forward to seeing the action you take in this matter.
The newly-built Public Storage building is a problem. I live in a condominium De Anza behind Homestead
Square Shopping Center, facing to Freeway 280. Recently the new building was built and the building is a
total obstacle for all the residents in my neighbors. We could see the mountains over Freeway 280 but
now we cannot enjoy the view. What we see through the windows is just a storage building. It's worse.
The building has large windows and the corridors are lit by the light until late at night. But I have never
saw a soul in the corridor. The building in front of our residence is ugly at daytime. The building with
lighted windows is ugly at night. The Public Storage building is already a problem.
And now.
Please do not allow Pubic Storage to have illuminated signage facing the freeway until 11pm daily. This
signage would be visible from my home and would disrupt my quality of life. The proposed lighted sign
is 165 square feet on an orange background measuring over 800 square feet. In October, the Planning
Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104; in February, the City Council
ignored their decision. As a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no
illumination. The sign does not help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough for
advertising the business during daylight hours.
RESOLUTION N0. 19-072
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPEIZTINO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY CONSISTING OF
TWO (2) FOUR (4)-STORY BUILDING5 WITH BASEMENTS .00ATED AT
20565 VALLEY GREEN DRIVE
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTIUN
Application No.: ASA-2018-04
Applicant: Andres Friedman
Property Owner: Storage Equities, Inc.
Location:20565 Valley Green Drive (APN: 326-10-044)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received n application for an
Architectural and Site Approval as described in Section I. of this Resolutio.n; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public noi;ices have been given as required by the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing
in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Comrnission held a public hearing on May 28, 2019 and
recommended that the City Council approve the application, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines(California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et seq.) (hereinafter, "CEQA
Guidelines"), the City staff has independently studied the proposed Project and has
determined that the Project is exernpt frorn environmental review pursuant to the categorical
exernption in CEQA Guidelines section 15332,and the exemption in CEQA Guidelines section
15183, for the reasons set forth in the staff repQrt dated May 28, 2019 and incorporated herein;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:
1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare, or convenience;
i
I
I
Resolution No.19-072 iPage2
i
The proposed project is a redevelopment of an existing Public Storage facility. The Yedevelopment
allows for continued operation and expansion of the existing use. The project will provide for a new
building design that meets new building requirements, provided high quality architecture, and I
improvements in the vicinity, such as the 12 foot easement along the entire north side of the property
for a multi-use trail. The project will also provide increase landscaping and tree canopy coverage
throughout fhe site. Therefore, the proposal will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity.
2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19.134, Architectural and Site
Review, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the General Plan, and applicable specific plans,
zoning ordinances, conditional use permits, exceptions, subdivision maps, or other
entitlements to use which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to,
adherence to the following specific criteria:
a) Abrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. A gradual transition related to
height and bullc should be achieved between new and existing buildings;
The proposed project complies with primary building height of 45 feet listed in he General Plan:
Comrnunity Vision 2015-2040. Further, the project is located far from existing multi-story
buildings. The gradual transition related to height is completed by the use of vari us building
materials, architec ural features, and setbacks that help to avoad abrupt changes in building scale
and make the project compatible with any existing and ficture development(s).
b) In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and i order
to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new
buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or
compatible with design and color schemes, and, with the future character of the
neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated.The location,height
and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting should harmonize with
adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly
elements of parl<ing lots should be concealed. The planting of ground cover or various
types of pa ements should be used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary
destruction of existing healthy trees should be avoided. Lighting for development
should be adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and
building departments, and provide shielding to prevent spill-over light to adjoining
property owners;
The buil ing is designed in a contemporar architectural style to emulate an office building. The
architectural style is consistent with the adjacent office building uses and residential building.
The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, and plantings have been designed to
harmonize with adjacent structures. Utility structures and trash enclosures have been designed
to have landscaping that conceals the structures from adjacent uses. The project uses various
planting and ground cover materials to prevent dust and erosion,and the project is only removing
Resolution No. 19-072
Page 3
trees that are in conflict with necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed project.
Additionally, where trees are proposed for removal, new trees are replacing them. Lighting for the
development has been reviewed and design to minimize impacts to adjacent developmenfs by
preventing spillover light to adjacent properties.
c) The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor
advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively affect
the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development;
and
Signage approval is not included in this application.
d) With respect to new projects within existing residential: neighborhoods, new
development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and
visually intrusive ef£ects by use of buffering, setbacl<s, landscaping, walls and other
appropriate design rneasures.
The proposed project has increased front and rear setbacks from existing residential development.
The project has been designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive
impacts by placing the ac ive uses more than 150 away from neighboring residential areas.
Additionally, the project has incorporated perimeter landscaping to further minimize ariy visually
antrusave effer,ts to adjacent properties.
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2019, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
receive ptxblic testimony on the Project, including the categorical exemption in CEQA
Guidelines section 15332 and the exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15183 and reviewed
and considered the information contained in the staff report pertaining to the Projeet, all other
pertinent docuYnents, and all written and oral statements received by the City Council at or
prior to the public hearing; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the CEQA
exemption memorandum, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in
this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this resolution beginning on
PAGE 3 thereof,
1. The City Council exercises its independent judgment and determxnes that the Project is
exernpt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332 and the exemption 1n
CEQA Guidelines section 151$3. The exernption in CEQA Guidelines section 1,5332 applies
to an infill development project which 1) is consistent with the applicable General Plan
designation and all applicable General Plan policies, as well as the applicable Zoning
designations and regulations; 2) occurs within the City limits on a site of less than 5 acres
in sxze that is substantially surrounded by urban uses; 3) is located on a site that has no
value for endangered, rare or threatened species; 4) would not result in any significant
effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and 5) can be adequa ely served
Resolution No.19-072
Page 4
by all required utilities and public services. The exemption in CEQA Guidelines section
15183 applies to a project that is consistent with General Plan designations and zoning for
the site described in the General P1an, the potential impacts of which would be
substantially mitigated by the irnposition of unitormly applied standard conditions of i
approval. The General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated
Rezoning Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2014032007), certified by the City
Council on December 4, 2014, was prepared consistent with the requirements for
applicability of streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(d)(2), and there are no
environrnental effects that are peculiar to the proposed project or project site that were not
analyzed in the General Plan EIR;
2. The application for an Architectural and Site Approval, Application no. ASA-2018-04 is
hereby recommended to be approved; and
The subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution .
are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no.(s) ASA 2018-
04 as set forth in the Minutes of the City .Council Meeting on June 18, 2019, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Ap roval recommendation is based on the plan set dated k'ebruary 4, 2019 consisting of 26
sheets labeled as, "A Redevelopment for Public Storage" labeled as Sheet 1-26, prepared
by KSP Studio and BKF; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROjECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to v.erify all pertinent p operty data including
but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacl<s, property size, building
square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any
misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require
additional review.
3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2018-03, EXC-2018-01, and TR-2019-
11 are concurrently enacted, and shall be applicable to this approval.
4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first
page of the building plans.
Resolution No.19-072
Page 5
5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS
The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original
approved plans. The final building design and exterior treatment plans (including but not
limited to details on exterior color, materials, architectural treatments, doors, windows,
lighting fixtures, and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director
of Comrnunity Development prior to issuance of building permits and through an in-field
mocic-up of colors prior to application to ensure quality and consistency. Any exterior
changes determined to be substantial by the Director of C ommunity Development shall
either require a modification to this permit or a new permit based on the extent of the
change.
6. EAST ELEVATION
The applicant shall work with the City to neutralize the building color and materials along
the eastern elevation, and sha11 rnodify the vegetation, as necessary, to improve the
aesthetics of the project.The modification shall be reviewed and approved by the Directo.r
of Community Development prior to the issuance of building permits.
7. MAXIMUM PARAPET HEIGHT
The proposed parapet arehitectural feature/screen shall not exceed 37".
8. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard
to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any
misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community
Development Depariment.
9. INDEMNIFICATION
Except as otherwise prohibited by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless
the City, its City Council, and its off'icers, employees and agents (collectively, the
indernnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a
third party against one or rnore of the indemnified parties or one or more of the
indernnified parties and the appricant to attack, set aside, or void this Resolution or any
permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation)
reimbursing the City its actual attorneys'fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation.
The applicant shall pay such attorneys' fees and costs within 30 days following receipt of
invoices from City. Such attorneys' fees and costs shall include amounts paid to counsel
not otherwise employed as City staff and sha11 include City Attorney tirne and overhead
costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation
reasonably incurred by City.
10. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS,RBSERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS
i
Resolution No.19-072
I
Page 6
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the
amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,reservations, and other exactions.
You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest
these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code
Section 66020(a),has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying
with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later
challenging such exactions,
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino
this 18th day of June, 2019, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES: Scharf, Chao, Paul, Sinl<s, Wi11ey
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:
j
Steven Scharf, Mayor Date .
Cit of Cu ertino
ATTEST:
2-- 1 q
Grace Schmidt, Ci Clerk Date
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: U-2006-03, ASA-2006-05, EA-2006-06
Agenda Date: May 9, 2006
Applicant: Timothy Reeves, on behalf of Public Storage
Owner: Public Storage, Inc.
Location: 20565 Valley Green Drive, APN 326-10-044
APPLICATION SUMMARIES:
USE PERMIT and ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL to demolish an existing
53,890 square foot, single-story storage facility and construct a 155,253 square foot,
three-story storage facility.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council:
1. Approval of the negative declaration, file no. EA-2006-06
2. Denial of the Use Permit, file no. U-2006-03, based on the model resolution.
3. Denial of the Architectural & Site Approval, file no. ASA-2006-05, based on the
model resolution.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Specific Plan:
Site Area:
Existing Building SF:
Proposed Building SF:
Industrial/Residential
P (CG, ML, Res 4-10)
North De Anza Boulevard Special Center
130,469 square feet (2.99 acres)
53,890 square feet (to be demolished)
Building A: 74,511 square feet
Building B: 80,742 square feet
Total Building SF: 155,253 square feet
Building Coverage:
Floor Area Ratio:
Building Height:
Required Parking:
Provided Parking:
Hours of Operation (Storage):
Hours of Operation (Office):
Total Employees:
Employees at anyone time:
39.6%
1.19
43 feet maximum, 45 allowed
N/A
80 spaces
6:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. (same as existing hours)
9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (same as existing hours)
5 employees
2 employees
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration
3-1
U-2006-03, ASA-2006-05, EA-2006-06
Page 2
May 9, 2006
BACKGROUND:
Development of the site will require removal of all of the existing mini-storage
buildings on the property, consisting of nine single-story buildings with an associated
rental office. The project site is surrounded by Interstate 280 to the north, existing two-
story office buildings and Valley Green Drive to the south, a condominium
development (Oak Park Village) under construction to the east and a multiple-family
residential neighborhood to the west. The site is accessed from Valley Green Drive by a
30-foot wide driveway easement that is on the adjacent properties to the south and east.
DISCUSSION:
Site Layout.
The proposed project is comprised of two three-story buildings in the center of the
property. Building A is proposed to be 74,511 square feet and will include 631 storage
units with an associated 1,100 square foot rental office. Building B is proposed to be
80,742 square feet with 537 rental units. Eighty parking spaces will be provided around
the new buildings. Landscaping will be provided along the perimeter of the site.
The site is located within a Planned Development zoning district, which does not
provide setback standards. The proposed project will have a setback of 51 feet from the
northern property line (adjacent to Interstate 280), a 15 foot rear yard setback from the
southern property line, a 54 foot setback from the eastern property line (that includes
half of the 30-foot driveway easement) and 50 feet from the western property line
adjacent to the multiple-family residential neighborhood).
Architecture and Building Materials.
The architecture of the buildings has been designed to be compatible with the Oak Park
Village condominium development with respect to wall articulations, building shapes
and variation of wall heights. The proposed buildings provide considerable wall
articulations to break up the 370-foot wall lengths of each building.
Additionally, varying wall heights have been proposed by incorporating different roof
shapes and wall heights. The buildings' heights are consistent with the adjacent three-
story, 45-foot height Oak Park Village development. However, the existing two-story
office buildings to the south are considerably lower, with a height of approximately 33
feet to the top of roof and 36 feet to the top of parapet.
The building materials include use of stucco EIFs (exterior insulation and finish
systems), split face concrete masonry blocks, cornice treatments and metal awnings.
The applicant is proposing to use a combination of gray, sand, and white colors for the
building. Metal awnings are proposed to be painted orange to match the corporate logo
color of Public Storage.
y::¿
U-2006-03, ASA-2006-05, EA-2006-06
Page 3
May 9, 2006
Although the buildings have been designed to be compatible with the surrounding
uses, staff believes they will appear industrial, with a significant amount of three-story
high wall area without windows and significant use of concrete split face masonry
block units. Therefore, the proposed project wiII still appear somewhat different from
the surrounding developments. The Oak Park ViIIage condominiums wiII have a
significant amount of window area and will have a stucco exterior, as do the existing
two-story office buildings to the south.
Staff is also concerned about the height of the proposed buildings as they will be
prominently visible from Interstate 280, the new condominium development currently
under construction to the east, the existing residential neighborhood to the west and the
two-story office buildings occupied by Apple to the south.
Landscaping.
Existing landscaped areas include a planter area adjacent to the rental office building at
the entrance to the project site, some redwood trees along the northern property line at
the entrance to the site, and a five-foot landscaped area with redwood and fern pine
trees. Landscape screening of the site benefits from the landscaping on adjacent
properties, including eucalyptus trees in a planter area on the adjacent property to the
south and mature trees planted in the Interstate 280 right-of-way landscape area
between the freeway and the project site.
The conceptual landscape plan provides enhanced landscaping, due to additional
setbacks provided by the new buildings. No existing trees will be removed. The
landscape plan provides for new and extended landscape planter areas around the
perimeter of the site, including a 10-foot wide planter along the northern property line,
a IS-foot wide planter along the southern property line, a 25-foot planter along the
western property line and a 30-foot planter along the eastern property line.
Additionally, planter areas wiII be installed between parking spaces along the northern
elevation of the building to accommodate new magnolia trees.
Staff finds that although the applicant is significantly increasing landscape area along
the perimeter of the project site, the number of trees to be added appears minimal. If
the Planning Commission recommends approval of the project, staff recommends that
the Commission require additional trees on the site.
Public Art. The recently adopted General Plan requires that new projects of 50,000
square feet or more contribute 1/4 % of their construction valuation toward public art. If
the Planning Commission recommends approval of the project, a condition of approval
requires public art for this project.
3<3
U-2006-03, ASA-2006-05, EA-2006-06
Page 4
May 9, 2006
Parking.
The City's parking ordinance does not include a parking requirement for storage
facilities. As a result, a parking study was prepared by TJKM Transportation
Consultants to determine the parking demands of the project. The study was based
upon analysis of the entry/exit log data for the month of March and driveway counts
collected during the evening peak period between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a
weekday.
The study was also based upon a total projected building square footage of
approximately 204,000 square feet and 83 parking spaces. Since preparation of this
parking study, the proposed square footage of the building was reduced to 155,253
square feet and 80 parking spaces. Staff believes that the proposed number of parking
spaces will be sufficient to accommodate the use.
North De Anza Special Center
The project site is located in the North De Anza Special Center area. Per the General
Plan, this area focuses on development activities including office, industrial, research
and development with supporting commercial and residential uses. Developments. in
this area are required to adhere to design elements by providing extensive landscape
setbacks/ corridors adjacent to De Anza Boulevard. Since the site has no direct street
frontage, the landscape setback/ corridor requirements do not apply.
Maintaining Cohesive Commercial Centers and Office Parks
The General Plan includes policies for the maintenance of cohesive commercial centers
and office parks, which encourage new development and expansion of
commercial( office uses within these areas. The project site is located in an area
identified as an office park.
The proposed mini-storage facility is a non-office use that does not promote these
General Plan policies for maintaining cohesive office parks and, therefore, staff believes
that the project, which will significantly intensify the use of the site as a mini-storage
facility by almost tripling the amount of existing mini-storage building area, will
conflict with these policies. The proposed project will offer very little public and
community benefit, as it is anticipated to generate a minimal amount of retail sales tax
to the City for its sales of packing/boxing supplies, and is substantially inconsistent
with the surrounding uses of the area that include office and multiple-family
residential. More importantly, the substantial intensification of this site will preclude
future development of the site for future expansion of an office park, and particularly a
high tech office park currently occupied by Apple.
Although the applicant has made substantial design changes to provide a design that is
compatible with surrounding buildings, staff believes that the proposed project does
not follow the policies for maintaining cohesive commercial/ office parks. Therefore,
w
U-2006-03, ASA-2006-05, EA-2006-06
Page 5
May 9, 2006
staff does not support the proposed project, particularly since these policies were
developed by the recently adopted General Plan of November 2005, and recommends
that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the project.
Environmental Review.
The Environmental Review Committee (ERq reviewed this project on April 12, 1006
and recommended approval of a negative declaration for this project. Items discussed
included additional landscaping to be provided on the site, staffing and hours of
operation, and parking.
Enclosures:
Model Resolutions recommending Denial
Model Resolutions recommending Approval
Exhibit A: Public Storage Project Description
Exhibit B: General Plan policy for Maintaining Cohesive Commercial Centers and
Office Parks
Exhibit C: Parking study prepared by TJKM Traffic Consultants dated March 20, 2006
Initial Study and ERC Recommendation
Plan Set
Submitted by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner ~
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development &'''
G: CupertinoNT /PlanningIPDREPORT /pcUsereports/2006ureports/ciddyU-2006-03.doc
3~5
U-2006-03
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
MODEL RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 53,890
SQUARE FOOT, SINGLE-STORY STORAGE FACILITY AND CONSTRUCT A 155,253
SQUARE FOOT, THREE-STORY STORAGE FACILITY ACCESSED FROM V ALLEY
GREEN DRIVE (pUBLIC STORAGE).
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has not satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general weIfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title; and
3) The proposed development is consistent with the North De Anza Boulevard
Special Center area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for
denial, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconcIusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
No. U-2006-03 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May
9, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
Jrc,
Model Resolution
Page 2
U-2006-03 May 9, 2006
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
U-2006-03 (EA-2006-06)
Timothy Reeves (Public Storage)
20565 Valley Green Drive
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of May 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Marty Miller, Chairperson
Planning Commission
G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \ 2006 \ U-2006-03 res. doc
9-'7
ASA-2006-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
MODEL RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL TO
DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 53,890 SQUARE FOOT, SINGLE-STORY STORAGE
FACILITY AND CONSTRUCT A 155,253 SQUARE FOOT, THREE-STORY STORAGE
FACILITY ACCESSED FROM VALLEY GREEN DRIVE (PUBLIC STORAGE).
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has not satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title; and
3) The proposed development is consistent with the North De Anza Boulevard
Special Center area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Architectural and Site Approval is hereby
recommended for denial, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this
Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
No. ASA-2006-05 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of
May 9, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
3--'b
Model Resolution
Page 2
ASA-2006-05 May 9, 2006
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
ASA-2006-05 (EA-2006-06)
Timothy Reeves (Public Storage)
20565 Valley Green Drive
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of May 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \ 2006 \ASA-2006-05 denial.doc
APPROVED:
Marty Miller, Chairperson
Planning Commission
3~(.}
From:Liang Chao
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Public Storage Already Has Freeway-Facing Signage and more
Date:Sunday, March 19, 2023 6:47:30 PM
Attachments:ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION.PDF
Please enter this into the written communication for 3/21 council meeting.
Thanks!
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 3:41 PM
To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>
Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning
Commission <PlanningCommission@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>
Subject: Public Storage Already Has Freeway-Facing Signage and more
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Chris,
As I mentioned to you briefly last night, after further research on the signage at the new Public Storage building, I realized
that the building already has a “freeway-oriented sign” on the east elevation (the short end of the building on the De Anza
exit side). Consequently, that signage should have gone to the Planning Commission. In spite of complaints to 311, the sign
has remained illuminated all night long and shines directly into the windows of the adjacent condos (as does the interior
and exterior lighting). Even if the building were to be illuminated until 11PM, all that light would be a public nuisance.
Additionally, the signage does not uphold the intent of resolution 19-072 attached: the design of the building is to emulate
an office building (2b) and the eastern elevation was to be modified to improve the aesthetics of the project (6). As our City
continues to densify, we need to carefully consider the interfaces between residential and commercial land-uses.
Driving on the freeway, you’ll notice that the existing Public Storage sign is by far more visible than the Cupertino Hotel
sign, which runs parallel to the freeway. I can see how the Planning Department might have assumed that the east elevation
sign is not oriented toward the freeway because it does not run parallel. However, the definition of “oriented” in our
Cupertino Municipal Code is clear – it is about being visible.
"Freeway oriented sign" means any sign which is located within six hundred sixty feet and visible from a freeway right-of-
way as defined by Section 5200 of the California Business and Professions Code.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-93096#JD_Chapter19.08
Below are views of the views from the adjacent condos and from the freeway (sign is upper left):
I would also like to draw to your attention that the objective building’s freeway-oriented lighting is to draw attention to the
building from the freeway. Public Storage’s design objective is to have the building be the sign, which is in opposition to
the City’s resolution. Read Public Storage’s story here: https://www.publicstorage.com/blog/public-storage/public-storage-
locations-get-a-new-look. Also notice below that the back of the building is acceptably dark at night and its windows are
frosted.
Here is the modest non-illuminated directional sign on Valley Green Drive which highlights the fact that the existing
illuminated sign is excessive (the newly approved sign running parallel to the freeway would be 3 times larger). The
freeway-oriented interior lighting should be off at night and the existing freeway-oriented sign should be used only to
identify the building - - - office buildings in Cupertino don’t have signs that large.
Thank you for looking into this and for retaining our community values.
Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry (40 year resident, 2022 recipient CREST award for Public Safety)
From:Liang Chao
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Can I take you on a Public Storage Tour?
Date:Sunday, March 19, 2023 6:40:46 PM
Attachments:image002.png
ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION.PDF
I did go on this tour on the 3/15 around 7:30pm.
Please enter this into the written communication for the 3/21 meeting.
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 11:12 AM
To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>
Subject: Can I take you on a Public Storage Tour?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Council Members Chao and Moore,
Can I take you on a Public Storage Tour? After multiple visits, I have gained a number of insights and appreciate your
interest. It is best to go before sunrise or after sunset.
Please let me know what dates/times work for you.
I understand that if I take you on a tour that you will be required to mention ex parte communication with me. This is a
good thing because it demonstrates your interest in the issue.
My suggested tour starts at the condos across the freeway near 20744 Celeste Circle and ends at the 20565 Valley Green
Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014
(that way we don’t have to make a U-turn on De Anza)
1. Start on the long driveway near 20744 Celeste Circle – I’ve always found parking there
(there happens to be another storage company located adjacent to these condos)
2. Walk up the stairs between the buildings and look between the buildings to see what residents see at night. Then walk
around the swimming pool to access the other half of the complex that faces the freeway. You might run into some
residents along the way as I have before. This photo is taken from a resident’s condo and you can get a pretty good idea of
what it would look like by walking the property. I have met residents from the adjacent apartment building who say that
light is spilling into their area as well. The amount of light from those upper stories, gives you an idea as to how much light
would be coming from the proposed new sign.
3. As you drive over to Public Storage, notice the existing signage (about 1/3 of the size of the proposed signage) as you
cross over the freeway. It is much more noticeable than the Cupertino Hotel sign.
4. Upon entering the driveway, notice the modest directional signage. This is an appropriate size.
5. Take a look at the non-descript back side of the building with frosted windows. It has a minimal amount of down
lighting. Here is a day picture and night picture.
6. Take a look at the side of the building that faces the adjacent condos – both lighting and privacy issues. Look for the
Cupertino Hotel sign across the freeway – it is very hard to see!!! After many complaints, Public Storage has turned off the
lighting where the orange doors are but not the lower lighting or the sign. See below of before and after. Having the sign
illuminated all night long is a code violation. Note also that City’s resolution for this building (attached) was to improve
the aesthetics of this side of the building. Having looked at the plans, this does not appear to have happened.
This sign on the short end of the building is a freeway-oriented sign (as defined by municipal code – within 660 ft and
visible from freeway)! Consequently the Council vote on February 7 wound up voting for a second freeway-oriented sign.
Reminder, per the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission can vote for ZERO signs if it does not meet design criteria or
requirements imposed by the development. The Planning Commission can also vote for ONE sign. And the Planning
Commission can make an exception and vote for more signs.
7. As you leave the self-storage parking lot, turn right into the office complex parking lot and get a better look at the back
side of the building facing the offices.
The issue to be heard on March 21 will apply only to the second freeway-oriented sign (now that we have established that
Public Storage already has one) – seeing the amount of light given off from the building gives you an idea as to the impact
that four-and-one-half foot tall letters would have on the residents. Worse, moving forward, I am worried about future
developments. Did you know that there are at least four self-storage businesses in Cupertino? Another replacement self-
storage building was recently approved – how might its signage affect residents if this one is approved? What about other
developments as we densify our City?
Please also keep in mind the architectural and site approval permit that stipulated that the building is supposed to emulate
an office building (attached). Office buildings don’t have big signs. Why? They’re limited to signage that is 40 square feet.
Commercial buildings are allowed 200 sq ft. If the Public Storage building is supposed to look like an office building, then
should it be limited to signage that is 40 square feet? See excerpt of page 3 of 2022 Planning Packet:
Some Excerpts of the Municipal Code:
19.104.010 Purpose and Intent.
A. The purpose of the sign ordinance is to identify and enhance businesses while maintaining the aesthetic
appearance of the City.
B. A good sign program will provide information to the public concerning a particular business or use and will
serve the visual and aesthetic desires of the community.
C. The City has adopted this title with the intent to:
1. Provide architectural and aesthetic harmony of signs as they relate to building design and surrounding
landscaping;
2. Provide regulations of sign dimensions and quantity which will allow for good visibility for the public and
the needs of the business while providing for the safety of the public by minimizing distraction to the motorist
and pedestrian;
3. Provide for sign regulations that will be compatible with the building, siting, and the land uses the signs
are intended to identify;
4. Provide for maintenance of existing signs and a program for bringing nonconforming signs into
conformance with the standards of this title as changes are made to the signs or businesses;
5. Provide procedures which will facilitate the efficient processing of sign applications; and
6. Provide design criteria which will promote attractive and effective signs for Cupertino residents,
businesses, employees and visitors.
19.104.050 Sign Permit Application–Review Criteria.
The Approval Body shall review the sign application to ensure that the following criteria are met:
A. The proposed sign meets the requirements of this title or any special conditions imposed in the
development.
B. The proposed sign's color and illumination is not in conflict with the safe flow of traffic on the City streets.
C. The sign is in conformance with the Design Criteria in Section 19.104.220.
19.104.220 Design Criteria–Permanent Signs.
Although the aesthetic appearance of signs is subjective, the City recognizes that certain basic design
guidelines are needed in
order to maintain the City's high quality appearance. The following criteria shall be incorporated into the design
of signs.
C. All signs shall be architecturally compatible and in harmony with the building with which it is principally
associated, by
incorporating its colors, materials, shape and design. The sign shall also be compatible with the aesthetic
character of the
surrounding developments and neighborhood.
G. The sign's color and illumination shall not produce distraction to motorists or nearby residents.
Thank you for your interest,
Rhoda Fry
(408) 529-3560
From:Liang Chao
To:City Clerk
Subject:Public Storage sign - petition
Date:Monday, March 20, 2023 10:48:47 AM
Please enter this petition into the meeting record since it should be part of the meeting
record.
https://www.change.org/p/say-no-to-huge-illuminated-sign-facing-280-on-public-storage-
building
And the videos it includes:
See video on how this building turned out in comparison to
plan: https://youtu.be/duCbf8is4I0
See video on public comment about the sign after City Council approved
it: https://youtu.be/MVLVzVu2vY0
==========
Say No to Huge Illuminated Sign Facing
280 on Cupertino Public Storage
Building Agenda #7
Rhoda Fry started this petition to Cupertino City Council Cupertino City
Council and 1 other
Stop Giant Illuminated Commercial Sign Facing Highway 280 (3/21 Agenda
#7)
Have you noticed the new Public Storage building facing Highway 280 near
De Anza? The building was supposed to resemble an office building that
would not be seen from the freeway. Now they want to install a huge
illuminated sign with four-and-a-half foot tall letters along a 50-foot long
orange wall that will be distracting to motorists and nearby residents. The sign
will beam into the homes of residents until 11PM nightly and brighten our
mostly-dark Highway 280.
* Please Do Not give money to change .org to promote this petition *
If City Council approves this sign, then any business facing the freeway or
residents' homes might claim entitlement to having their own sign which will
forever impact the quality of life of Cupertino residents.
The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society has also created a call to action:
SCVAS Action Alert: Tell Cupertino to say no to lighted
sign http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/756507/a6fe1796c4/282972443/a
e0cc1ebd3/
The City Council meeting is on March 21 at 6:45 PM in Community Hall next
to the library at: 10800 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014
What You Can Do:
1. Go to the Meeting In Person and speak or attend online
Register for zoom here:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_G-
KTGVhYR_GYoe-yz0zkRg
2. Write to City Council
TO: citycouncil@cupertino.org; CityClerk@cupertino.org
SUBJECT: Agenda Item #7 No Public Storage Sign
Dear City Council,
On March 21, please vote no on the Public Storage freeway-facing sign. Our
community begs you to reconsider your February vote to allow Public Storage
to have a new huge sign with 4-and-a-half-foot tall illuminated letters that face
the freeway. Unfortunately, the staff report lacked the facts you needed to
make an informed decision such as the Cupertino Municipal code 19.104.220
C. and G. that dictates that "The sign shall also be compatible with the
aesthetic character of the surrounding developments and neighborhood" and
"The sign's color and illumination shall not produce distraction to motorists or
nearby residents." You were neither shown that the sign would face
condominiums nor that the building already had its one allowable freeway-
oriented sign. Moreover, this building was approved on the basis of it not
being visible from the freeway. Public Storage needs to have a sign program
that meets the needs of your constituents. You can get an idea as to how bad
the sign is by driving by the over-illuminated building at night; this needs to be
fixed because it is a distraction to motorists and residents. Vote no on the
new sign.
Sincerely,
It is best to write a letter on how you would be affected by the sign and its
illumination on the freeway.
* Please Do Not give money to change .org to promote this petition *
This petition will have a very short lifespan and it is not worthwhile to promote
it with your money. Ask your community to sign on, write your own personal
letter, and show up at City Council on March 21 at 6:45 PM (next to the
Cupertino Library).
See video on how this building turned out in comparison to
plan: https://youtu.be/duCbf8is4I0
See video on public comment about the sign after City Council approved
it: https://youtu.be/MVLVzVu2vY0
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From:Peter Prekler
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Meeting 3/21: Public Storage
Date:Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:56:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Madam / Sir,
Please do not vote for installing the 50 feet long orange sign facing the Highway 280 also our
living room and office . I’m sure there it is not allowed to have such big signs next to the
freeway as iy is distracting for the drivers. According to my knowledge Public Storage doesn’t
really need a sign anyway, if someone really wants find one can easily search for the nearest
one on the internet. The building itself is ugly enough already , I don’t know why people want
to make it more unbearable to watch.
Please be respectful and consider that we live here in the front of that eyesore of a building,
that sign will not help to increasing our apartments worth either.
Please consider also to forbid for Public Storage any signs facing the Highway 280, as it can
cause accidents, if people just watching the signs. The ramp of De Anza Blvd is right here
next to that building, drivers should concentrate on the traffic not on unnecessary signs.
Sincerely
Peter Prekler
20717 Celeste Cir, Cupertino
From:Nina Daruwalla
To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office; Nina Daruwalla
Date:Monday, March 20, 2023 12:32:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney,
I am writing to express my deep concern about the proposed construction of a very
bright sign across from our community. As a local resident, I strongly oppose this
proposal and urge you to reject it.
The construction of a bright sign will not only be an eyesore but also a disturbance to
the peace and tranquility of our neighborhood. The brightness of the sign would be
extremely bothersome to local residents, making it difficult to relax in the comfort of
our own homes. Moreover, it would be a significant distraction to drivers on the road,
increasing the risk of accidents and endangering the safety of our community.
I urge you to consider the impact that this proposed sign will have on our community,
and prioritize the well-being and comfort of local residents. As elected officials, you
have a responsibility to listen to the voices of the people you represent and act in their
best interests. Please do not allow the construction of this bright sign and protect the
integrity of our community.
The De Anza Forge Condominium Homeowners Association represents 96
homeowners. We are asking that you mitigate the impacts of the new Public Storage
building on our health, safety, and quality of life.
Most IMP- it is a Safety Issue disturbing the Drivers on Highway 280, distracting
them with bright lights which natural instinct will have them look up to see the sign!!
The Community of De Anza Forge which is right across the freeway from them will
also have light shine into homes and destroy the enjoyment of personal homes!
Key Points:
1. We were Never notified about the construction of the building which is right AT
the Freeway Wall, and now have lost open views
2. We were Never notified that the building would be illuminated all night long,
which is a public nuisance
3. We were Never notified about the proposed new illuminated sign. Had we
known, we would have protested the sign and are doing so now.
4. The proposed sign violates the Cupertino Municipal Code
19.104.220 Design Criteria–Permanent Signs, “The sign shall also be
compatible with the aesthetic character of the surrounding developments
and neighborhood” and “The sign's color and illumination shall not
produce distraction to motorists or nearby residents.”
5. Additionally, the proposed illuminated sign will be a safety hazard, blinding all
residents entering the driveway that is used by all of the homes at De ANza
Forge. Would Any of you like signs like this one put up across the street
from Your Homes??
6. The building, the illumination on the building and the proposed sign, will reduce
our property values. This will reduce the value of all the homes facing the
freeway by 10% and the remaining homes by 5% as this will need to be
disclosed at every sale!
We would not like to seek Legal Assistance on this but if we have to, we will.
Please mitigate the impacts of this new development to the fullest extent possible.
Please DO NOT Allow this Large Illuminated Sign to go up and ANY Cost!!
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and considering my concerns. I trust
that you will make the right decision and reject this proposal.
Sincerely
Nina Daruwalla
408.219.5743
Realtor- Coldwell Banker Cupertino.
Past-Housing Commissioner- City of Cupertino
Past- Public Safety Commissioner- City of Cupertino
From:Paulina Grzegorek
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:March 21 Agenda #7 No Huge Public Storage Sign Facing Freeway
Date:Monday, March 20, 2023 3:48:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
I am writing for a second time, as I received no response from any member of the city council regarding
this problem. Please do not allow Public Storage to put up an enormous illuminated sign facing 280.
The building, which was recently constructed, already interferes with the quality of my life because it is lit
up all night long and the light goes directly into my condo on the other side of the freeway. The proposed
illuminated light would only make the problem worse, especially during the summer months when
windows are kept open to let cool air in (letting in also the view of a large glowing sign). It is a well known
fact that light interferes with the quality of sleep, and therefore the quality of life. This light and the sign
that provides it will lower the quality of my life. Where I once had a lovely view of the mountains, I now
have an ugly grey building blocking it, with the threat of an enormous illuminated Public Storage sign
being placed upon it. Please do not allow this to happen.
In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.1-4, and yet,
here it comes...
I look forward to seeing the action you take in this matter.
Sincerely,
Paulina Grzegorek