CC 03-21-2023 Item No. 7. Petition for Reconsideration Sign Exception_Petitioner's PresentationThe Public Storage Sign Mistake &
How We Can Fix It
1.Why Reconsider the February 7 Council Vote?
Council voted to approve a Public Storage sign without having
necessary data/direction to make an informed decision
2.Why Deny the Sign Application?
The Proposed Sign does not meet the Municipal Code
1
This Response to the Staff report addresses 3 areas (CMC 2.08.096)
1. Evidence improperly excluded from hearing
2. Council had unfair hearing
3. Council inadvertently abused its discretion
You Only Need ONE Reason to Reconsider
and There are Many!
Now you have the opportunity to
Respond to your Residents’
Health and Safety needs and to
follow the Municipal Code
My apologies for using the harsh language of improper exclusion, unfair, abuse of discretion –those are required by code
2
“The Sign Ordinance provides the regulations that the City
has adopted to ensure that signage
does not impinge upon the aesthetics of the City and
does not inconvenience the public”
https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/non-residential-mixed-use-development/sign-information
Public Nuisance –excessively bright lights on building and sign all night long
The building’s excessive exterior lighting gives you an idea as to the impact of the proposed sign
3
1) You could not have a fair hearing because relevant evidence was improperly excluded. You
were told that you had to vote for 1 freeway-oriented sign because the building had none. In fact,
the building already its one allowable freeway-oriented sign.
A business is allowed to have 1 freeway-oriented sign (CMC 19.104.200)
"Freeway oriented Sign" = located within 660 ft of a freeway and visible from a freeway(CMC 19.08.030 S.7)
Existing Sign Visible from Freeway –Brighter than Green Freeway Sign (and excessive illumination on building)
Missteps During the Sign Approval Process
4
Staff Report (2/7 page 2) assumes that only sign 2 and 3 are freeway-oriented and incorrectly
assumes that sign 1 is not freeway-oriented: “Sign 1”, proposed on the east elevation of
Building One, is not oriented toward I280 (see Figure 2). Of the three wall signs, two (2) are
freeway oriented where only one is permitted.”
As mentioned in the Reconsideration Petition, Sign #1 is visible from the highway 280, which
is proved to be visible and considered to be a freeway-oriented sign on the previous slide.
(CMC 19.104.220 Freeway Orientation –1 per business/tenant in a building).
Council rendered a decision
that was not supported
by findings of fact.
Sign 1 “east”
Sign 2, 3 exclusively
Freeway oriented
Mistakes Happen –We Can Fix This
FYI –Planning staff
who allowed the
building no longer
work for the City
5
2) It might not have been obvious at first, but the homes and hotel across the freeway are
being flooded with light pollution all night long. The fact that the proposed sign directly faces
homes across the freeway, was improperly excluded.
The sign has HUGE 4’ 6” tall illuminated letters.
Your Constituents are Directly Impacted (and were not noticed):
•De Anza Forge
•Markham
•Cupertino Hotel
Actual Setting
(Blue arrow is
proposed sign 3)
Oak Park
Village Homes
The Voices of Your Most Impacted Constituents were Muted 6
< -------------51’ 4” ------------->
Not In My City|
11’
6”
|
Letters 4’ 6” tall (total of 165 sq ft of illuminated white letters); Person is about 6’ tall
3) The sign (#3) has the appearance of being 625 sq ft, but the
Council was told it was 165 sq ft. An explanation as to how signs
are measured was improperly excluded, leading one to believe that
the sign would be smaller (by nearly a factor of 4).
Staff could have asked the applicant if the sign plan could be shown.
And staff could have provided a schematic with the length and height of
the orange wall (11’ 6” x 51’ 4”), the height of the letters (4’ 6”), and a
photograph of a similar sign on the building which is about 1/3 of the
size of the proposed sign.
An illuminated sign is not
measured by the size of the
rectangle, it is measured by
the area of the illuminated
letters.
7
4) You were not told that the building was supposed to be nearly invisible from the freeway;
how can you justify approving highly visible signage now?Planning Commission approved this
building because it was given the impression that this would be a low-key, low-impact building. A low-
impact building doesn’t require multiple signs, illuminated signs, or giant signs. The previous building
had no freeway-oriented sign for 40 years. Now, Public Storage wants 3 freeway-oriented signs for
advertising purposes that are visible to motorists driving by at “75 mph.”
Applicant:
“We did a couple of visibility studies
to see the impact from the freeway”
“from the 280, you can barely see
the property”
“even when we are at 4 stories”
Staff Report 2/7: allowing more than one wall-mounted sign to a single business is contrary to the
intent and purpose of the Sign Ordinance (CMC 19.104), which seeks to balance the architectural and
aesthetic harmony of signs into the overall building design but still allow for good sign visibility for
both the public and the needs of businesses, without over-signage.
Relevant Evidence was
Improperly Excluded
8
5) Council assumed that the Cupertino Hotel sign looked just like the proposed Public
Storage sign. Even the existing Public Storage sign, which is 1/3 the size of the proposed
sign, is more impactful. Council approved the new
Public Storage sign based on the false assumption
that it would be the only freeway-oriented sign and
its impact would be comparable to that of the hotel.
Photo taken from 280 on-ramp North
Council abused its discretion by rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact
Existing Sign on East Side of Building
9
6) Council was unable to provide a fair hearing because Council failed to obtain clear
instructions from staff.
•The City Attorney was not provided the opportunity to explain why the prior
Planning Commission’s decision had no legal standing. Planning Commission had
listed non-compliance with the sign ordinance as one of its reasons for denial.
Consequently, Council could have been confused as to what reasons they could give
for rejecting the applicant’s appeal.
•Council received inconsistent and conflicting direction from staff members.
•After Public Comment had closed, staff told Council that they could only base
their decision on a certain portion of the municipal code. Consequently, the
residents were denied the opportunity to provide relevant testimony.
•Council was confused about whether they could vote for 0, 1 or 2 signs.
Council was given the impression that they had to vote for at least 1 sign,
when in fact they could vote for 0.
•Council was told that the proposed sign is compliant with CMC 19.104.220 Design
Criteria and it is not. However, it was up to Council to determine compliance, not
staff. Council was not shown the code, even after it was requested by a council
member. The Design Criteria, which is key to sign-approval, was improperly
excluded. It is so important that it is listed 12 times in the Municipal Code!
10
7) The CMC 19.104.220 Design Criteria, which is key to approving signs, was improperly excluded from the
staff report and from the hearing –even after a councilmember requested its display –and subsequently
asked for a continuance. The development requirements were also improperly excluded.
CMC 19.104.220 C. The sign shall also be compatible with the aesthetic character of the surrounding
developments and neighborhood With the exception of Public Storage, the area is residential and office
per the N De Anza special area of the General Plan. In fact, a proposal to replace the single-story Public
Storage buildings in 2006 with 3-story buildings was recommended for rejection by the City Planning
department because it was an intensification of a non-conforming use. Staff was also concerned that a
new 3-story tall building would be prominently visible from Interstate 280.
No adjacent offices have wall signs –the maximum size for a wall sign is 40 square feet. In order to be
compatible, the existing sign at 52.5 square feet would need to be reduced –or not be there at all. It has
been illuminated all night long in spite of complaints. (The new sign would be 165.8 sq ft)
South Side is dark
at night and faces
offices. Somewhat
compatible.
East Side nearest freeway is
bright, faces adjacent homes,
visible from freeway.
Not compatible 11
All Signs are Subject to Design Criteria
Unfortunately, Council Conflated Objective Criteria with Design Criteria
CMC 19.104.220 color and illumination shall not produce a distraction to motorists
The applicant stated that he would want the sign to be visible to motorists passing by at 75
mph. Consequently, the new sign would produce a distraction. All De Anza Forge residents will
be blinded by the sign when they enter their driveway, a Safety Hazard.
CMC 19.104.220 color and illumination shall not produce a distraction to residents
Because the smaller sign produces a distraction, the larger one will too. Public Storage
is not complying with Municipal Code and turning off the sign by 11PM –a Health Hazard.
Allowing lights to shine into bedrooms until 11PM –or at anytime –is a Public Nuisance.
12
All Signs are Subject to Design Criteria (page 2)
Case Study: How a Good Sign Program Works
The Sign Ordinance provides the regulations that the City has adopted to ensure that signage
does not impinge upon the aesthetics of the city and does not inconvenience the public
cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/non-residential-mixed-use-development/sign-information
1. Determine Size limit depending on building size
Commercial Maximum = 200 square feet; Office Maximum = 40 square feet (CMC 19.104.140)
2. Determine Illumination limit
Commercial/Office/Industrial = 250 ft-L; Others = 100 ft-L
The foot-lambert readings shall be used as a guide by staff to evaluate signs which
are deemed to be a problem to passing motorists or residents in the surrounding
neighborhood. The color and thickness of the sign panels as well as the brightness
of the bulbs used to illuminate the sign shall be designed in such a manner as to avoid
excessive illumination and glare. (CMC 19.104.230)
3. Refine Design basic design guidelines are needed in order to maintain the City's high
quality appearance (CMC 19.104.220)
-compatible with the aesthetic character of the surrounding developments and
neighborhood
-color and illumination shall not produce distraction to motorists or nearby residents
4. Notice Impacted Residents, including those beyond minimum 300’ requirement. “The City
may also give notice of public hearings/public meetings in any other manner it deems necessary
or desirable. If the Director of Community Development believes the project may have impacts
beyond the range of the mailed notice, particularly on nearby residential areas, the Director, in
his or her discretion, may expand noticing beyond the stated requirements” (CMC 19.12.110 E)
“Following the formal application, the applicant worked with Staff to further refine the plans,
including the size of the sign, percentage of store front area, and illumination intensity.”
Applied May 2 2016, Approved August 9 2016 (PC Staff Report 8/9/2016)13
Comparing Public Storage with Hyatt House
What Makes Public Storage Different?
-Not supposed to be visible from the freeway
-Extremely Visible (effect on adjacent freeway sign?)
-Faces Residents’ Homes
-Intensification of a Non-Conforming Use
-Violates Municipal Code 14
Mistakes Happen –We Can Fix This!
Accepting that the hearing went wrong and rejecting the sign proposal allows the
applicant to re-apply and work with staff and propose a more appropriate signage
Consequences of Accepting the Sign
Public Nuisance, Health Hazard, Safety Hazard, Excessive Energy Use, Light Pollution
Please also do something about the excessive illumination on the building
Question?
If my home was allowed to have only 1 swimming pool and I already had one that
was accidentally permitted as a small hot tub, upon realizing that error, would the City
allow me to have a second swimming pool?
Public Outcry
•Many Personal Letters
•Over 144 signatures from change.org petition to:
Say No to Huge Illuminated Sign Facing 280 on Cupertino Public Storage Building
•Audubon Society Action Alert: Tell Cupertino to say no to lighted sign
•Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter: Call to Action
15
Now you Have over 7 Reasons
Why you must Reconsider this Application,
You Only Need
1.The building already its one allowable freeway-oriented sign.
2.The fact that the proposed sign directly faces homes across the freeway, was improperly excluded. By
failing to notify your most impacted residents, they were muted.
3.An explanation as to how signs are measured was improperly excluded, leading you to believe that the
sign would be smaller (by nearly a factor of 4).
4.You were not told that the building was supposed to be nearly invisible from the freeway; how can you
justify approving highly visible signage now?
5.Council approved the new sign based on the false assumption that it would be the only freeway-oriented
sign and its impact would be comparable to that of the hotel.
6.Council was unable to provide a fair hearing because Council failed to obtain clear instructions from staff.
7.CMC 19.104.220 Design Criteria, which is key to approving signs, was improperly excluded.
1
16