CC 03-21-2023 Item No. 7. Petition for Reconsideration_Supplemental Report
CITY COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL
Meeting: March 21, 2023
Agenda Item # 7
Subject
Consider petition for reconsideration regarding the City Council decision of February
7, 2023 to uphold the appeal in part, approve one of the two requested freeway-
oriented signs, and deny the requested sign exception. Application No(s): EXC-2022-
003; Applicant(s): David Ford (All Sign Services); Location: 20565 Valley Green Dr.;
APN #326-10-044.
Recommended Action
That the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 23-XXXX
denying the petition for reconsideration.
Background:
Subsequent to the publishing of the agenda for the March 21, 2023 City Council
hearing, it was brought to Staff’s attention that two attachments to the Reconsideration
Form filed by Rhoda Fry were inadvertently not included. These attachments are
included in the amended Attachment B Petition for Reconsideration submitted by Rhoda
Fry included with this Supplemental Report.
Further, City Staff has also received questions from City Councilmembers. Staff’s
responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.
Q1: When was the Public Storage Building application approved by the City Council
(Mayor Wei)
Staff response: The Public Storage building was approved by the City Council on June
18, 2019.
Q2: Can you tell me again (1) the size of the new illuminated sign that was approved,
and (2) the brightness? (Vice Mayor Mohan)
Staff response: The approved sign is 165 square feet in size and the foot lamberts is
88.8.
Q3: The CMC states "All developments in a commercial, office, industrial, institutional,
or residential district, with four or more tenant spaces on the same parcel, shall adopt
a comprehensive sign program to encourage creativity and ensure high quality in the
design and display of multiple permanent signs.” (CMC 19.104.130.1) and “The
adoption of a sign program shall be required at the time of the initial construction of a
new project." (CMC 19.104.130.2) Where do I find the “comprehensive sign program”,
as required by CMC 19.104.130 to be adopted "at the time of initial construction"?
(Councilmember Chao)
Staff response: As this development is occupied by a single tenant, a sign program is
not required.
Q4: In the CMC 19.104.200 Freeway Orientation states, under the column
header "Approval Authority", it reads "•Oriented to regular street system adjoining
the property rather than exclusively visible from the freeway - CDD" and under the
column header "Review Criteria", it reads "•Applies to all signs within 660 ft. of
“landscaped freeway” measured from edge of right-of-way"
Case 1: Any sign NOT "without 660 ft of landscaped freeway" is NOT a freeway
oriented sign, per CMC 19.104.200. Right?
Case 2: Any sign "within 660 ft of landscaped freeway" is a freeway oriented
sign, per CMC 19.104.200. Right?
I am curious why the distance 660 ft was chosen? If any one knows...
I assume that I-280 is a landscaped highway. I am curious whether I-85 is one or
not?
Case 2.1: For any sign "within 660 ft of landscaped freeway" (thus, a freeway
oriented sign), if the sign is "Oriented to regular street system adjoining the
property rather than exclusively visible from the freeway - CDD" => Such a
freeway-oriented sign shall be approved by CDD, right?
Case 2.2: For any sign "within 660 ft of landscaped freeway" (thus, a freeway
oriented sign), if the sign is exclusively visible from the freeway => Such a
freeway oriented sign shall be approved by PC, right? (Councilmember Chao)
Staff response: Not all signs that are within 660 feet are freeway oriented. But all signs
outside of 660 feet, regardless of if they are facing a freeway, are not subject to
Planning Commission review as a freeway-oriented sign. Councilmember Chao’s
understanding under Cases 2.1 and 2.2 are consistent with the Sign Ordinance. Both
Highways 85 & 280 are considered “landscaped freeways.”
Q5: The staff report for the Feb. 7, 2023 states that "Council’s review of the Planning
Commission’s determination is de novo. The Council may affirm or modify the
Commission’s decision based on evidence presented at the public hearing, including
any evidence in the record."
"De novo is a Latin term that means "anew," "from the beginning," or "afresh." When
a court hears a case “de novo,” it is deciding the issues without reference to any legal
conclusion or assumption made by the previous court to hear the case."
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/de_novo#:~:text=De%20novo%20is%20a%20Lati
n,court%20to%20hear%20the%20case. )
Since the decision was "de novo", I actually did not look at the agenda packet for
the Oct. 11, 2022 Planning Commission meeting since I thought I am supposed to
make a decision ONLY BASED ON the evidence presented at the February 7, 2023
meeting. Is that correct?
But the Plan Set was NOT in the agenda packet. As a result, the measurements of the
signs were not provided in the "evidence" so that I could realistically calculate the area
of the signs. Therefore, it seems there were insufficient evidence provided in the
February 7, 2023 Council agenda.
Or the evidence made available to the Council on Feb. 7, 2023 would also include
anything presented at the Oct. 11, 2022 Planning Commission? Please clarify the legal
requirement for "evidence" for such a quasi-judicial decision. (Councilmember Chao)
Staff response: Plan sets that were provided at the October 11, 2022 Planning
Commission hearing were also provided to City Council for the February 7, 2023
hearing. The Deputy City Clerk, Lauren Sapudar, sent out an email on February 1, 2023
(6:01 pm) with links to all agenda items, including the plan set for Item 16. The
administrative record for the project will include evidence submitted in connection with
all hearings on the project, including the Planning Commission hearing and both City
Council hearings.
In the plan sets, Sheets 2 & 3 provided area calculations of all the proposed wall signs,
as well as illumination intensity. The area calculation standard is consistent with CMC
19.08 Definitions Appendix D, individually lettered signs.
Q6: Whether the proposed signs comply with the regulation and is harmonious in the
neighborhood and the zone?
I also did not realize at the Feb. 7, 2023 meeting that ALL of letters of the "Public
Storage" will be illuminated bright white. Sorry for my ignorance for not understanding
the terminology used. I thought "internally illuminated with LED lighting" (as stated in
the Feb. 7, 2023 staff report) means the illumination would be less since the
illumination is not outside.
I found the following image from this petition:
https://www.change.org/p/say-no-to-huge-illuminated-sign-facing-280-on-public-
storage-building.
Now I understand that for the Public Storage sign, all the big bold letters are like light
tubes themselves. This is a fact that I did not know on February 7, 2023.
With this new knowledge about the Public Storage signs, I do not think they are
harmonious to the neighborhood and the zone where it is located for office and
residential use.
I find that this style of illuminated bright white signs are not consistent with the existing
regulations as stated in the Resolution 19-072 ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL
PERMIT:
" 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." (Resolution 19-
072 ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT:)
This style of illuminated bright white signs are not consistent with this description of
the development made in Resolution 19-072 ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL
PERMIT:
"The building is designed in a contemporary 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." (Resolution
19-072 ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT)
No other office building in the neighborhood or in the zone uses such illuminated
bright white signs today. And no future use in the zone with office and residential uses
will likely use such illuminated bright white signs.
Since the Resolution 19-072 ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT was not
included in the agenda packet for the Feb. 7, 2023 Council meeting, I was not able to
make the above findings at the time.
I would like to know the staff's rationale for not providing such finding above in the
staff report. Perhaps, there are something I missed or misunderstood?
(Councilmember Chao)
Staff response: The development of the building was approved by City Council on June
18, 2019. As this is not an approval that requires an Architectural and Site Approval,
those findings are not applicable to this application. In addition, the size, design,
luminosity, and location of the freeway-oriented sign was apparent or could have been
discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence prior to the February 7 City
Council hearing. Accordingly, these considerations are not a basis for reconsideration
of Council’s decision under Municipal Code section 2.08.096(B).
Q7: Would the internally illuminated bright signs, where each letter by itself a light
tube have to follow this city regulation as stated in the Resolution 19-072
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT?
"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;" (Resolution 19-072
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT)
I think it should, since it will generate "spill-over light to adjoining property owners"
and shielding should be provided.
It does not matter what's the source of the light, interior, exterior or from illuminated
signs, they are all "lighting from the development".
Right?
Please let me know whether I misunderstood the regulation or have missed anything?
(Councilmember Chao)
Staff response: The Architectural and Site Approval contemplated this for parking lot
and exterior lighting to be in conformance with 19.124.040 and 19.102.040 . However,
lighting for signage has standards in the Sign Ordinance for intensity, with the
maximum 250 footlamberts. In addition, the size, design, luminosity, and location of
the freeway-oriented sign was apparent or could have been discovered through the
exercise of reasonable diligence prior to the February 7 City Council hearing.
Accordingly, these considerations are not a basis for reconsideration of Council’s
decision under Municipal Code section 2.08.096(B).
Q8: This line of questions may or may not be related to the sign permit application,
while I am trying to understand the requirements a development project like Public
Storage need to comply with.
As a policymaker, we adopt resolutions and ordinances, I certainly hope that we can
hold the project applicants accountable to the requirements we approved the project
under, whether they aeconditions of approval or conditions under existing law, such
as CMC or the General Plan.
(CQ = Compliance question)
CQ1: I remember that in the June 18, 2019 the Council was concerned of how a Public
Storage building would fit into the neighborhood, given that they are right across from
a residential development. Thus, we added a condition and the project applicant also
promised at the Council meeting to provide nice landscaping at the front of the
building to reduce the impact to the neighborhood.
I found the following item was indeed added to the "ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE
APPROVAL PERMIT" in Resolution 19-072.
"EAST ELEVATION
The applicant shall work with the City to neutralize the building color and materials
along the eastern elevation, and shall modify the vegetation, as necessary, to improve
the aesthetics of the project. The modification shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of building permit."
(Resolution 19-072 ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT)
=> What has been done to "neutralize the building color and materials"?
=> What has been done to "modify the vegetation, as necessary, to improve the
aesthetics of the project."
When I visited the project last Wednesday, this is what I see:
There is very little vegetation. Perhaps, the plants are just too small right now?
CQ2: The ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT states the requirement:
"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. The location,
height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting should harmonize
with adjacent development. ... 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;" (Resolution 19-072 ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT)
Above is the requirements under the existing regulations.
Below describes how this development will comply with the code:
"The building is designed in a contemporary 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."
=> The Public Storage building constructed does not "emulate an office building" at all,
especially with the blinding interior light, which spills over the adjoining property and
even spilled over to the residential building across the highway. It is not harmonious
with the adjacent structure.
I took this photo from the residential development across I-280. The row of bright
interior lights are not found in any other building in that neighborhood or zone and is
not found any where in Cupertino.
How does this Public Storage building harmonize "the future character of
the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated," which is zoned
for office and residential uses.
Residents expect that the City Council adopt policies and then the policies are followed
by project applicants and the promises made are not broken.
It is my responsibility as a City Councilmember to ask these questions.
Since the question CQ2 has to do with whether the development, including its signs, is
harmonious with the neighborhood and the zone where it's located. It is relevant to the
reconsideration for signs too.
Thus, I would appreciate an answer before the meeting. (Councilmember Chao)
Staff response: The development of the building was approved by City Council on June
18, 2019 and is not presently before the City Council. In addition, the conditions
discussed above were apparent or could have been discovered through the exercise of
reasonable diligence prior to the February 7 City Council hearing. Accordingly, these
considerations are not a basis for reconsideration of Council’s decision under Municipal
Code section 2.08.096(B).
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
Staff Report
A – Draft Resolution
B – Petition for Reconsideration submitted by Rhoda Fry
Attachments Provided with Supplemental 1:
B – Amended Attachment B – Petition for Reconsideration by Rhoda Fry