Presentations (Updated 03-22-2023) — Cupertino City Council, March 21, 2023

CC 03-21-2023
#7
Petition for
Reconsideration Sign
Exception
Petitioner's
Presentation
The 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
CC 03-21-2023
#7
Petition for
Reconsideration Sign
Exception
Updated Presentation
20565 Valley Green Drive
Sign Exception
EXC-2022-003
Subject
● Consider petition for reconsideration
regarding the City Council decision of
February 7, 2023, to uphold the appeal of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6962
in part, approve one of the two requested
freeway-oriented signs, and deny the
requested sign exception.
● Applicant: David Ford (All Sign Services)
● Petitioner: Rhoda Fry
Background
● Council on February 7, 2023 upheld the
appeal of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 6962 in part, approved one of the two
requested freeway-oriented signs, and
denied the requested sign exception.
● On February 17, 2023 Rhoda Fry submitted a
Petition for Reconsideration for Council’s
decision.

City Council Reconsideration
● CMC Section 2.08.096 authorizes any interested person to petition the City Council to reconsider any adjudicatory decision made by the Council.
● A petition for reconsideration must “specify, in detail, each ground for reconsideration.” (CMC § 2.08.096(B).)
Grounds for Reconsideration -1
An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing.
● Petitioner cites a Public Storage blog post, without
explaining why post is relevant to interpretation of Sign Ordinance.
● Staff recommends denying reconsideration on this
ground as:
● Presents arguments and evidence that were available at time of Planning Commission and City Council hearings; and
● Offers no explanation as to why such evidence could not have been introduced at time of those hearings.

Grounds for Reconsideration -2
An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly
excluded at any prior city hearing.
● Petitioner argues that evidence was improperly excluded from hearing, citing various evidence that was allegedly not presented to Council.
● Staff recommends denying reconsideration on this
ground as:
● No evidence was excluded from the hearing.
● The failure of an interested party to submit
evidence that could have been produced at prior
hearing is not a basis for reconsideration.

Grounds for Reconsideration -3
Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council
proceeded without, or in excess of its, jurisdiction.
● Petitioner argues that City Council proceeded without or in excess of its jurisdiction, citing an undefined “validation from Caltrans.”
● Staff recommends denying reconsideration on this ground as Council has jurisdiction to review the Planning
Commission’s decision and affirm, modify, or reverse it.

Grounds for Reconsideration -4
Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing.
● Petitioner argues that Council failed to provide a fair hearing, citing discussion of the Sign Ordinance by City staff.
● Staff recommends denying reconsideration on this ground as there is no evidence that any interested party:
● Was deprived of opportunity to present evidence; or
● The hearing did not meet standards of procedural
fairness, including notice and an opportunity to be
heard.

Grounds for Reconsideration -5
Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City
Council abused its discretion by:
- Not preceding in a manner required by law;
and/or
- Rendering a decision which was not
supported by findings of fact; and/or
- Rendering a decision in which the findings of
fact were not supported by the evidence.

Grounds for Reconsideration -5
(cont.)
● Petitioner argues that Council abused its discretion
because a Councilmember compared the Public
Storage sign to the Cupertino Hotel sign.
● Staff recommends denying reconsideration on this
ground as petition does not explain why this comparison undermines constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Staff Report - Errata
Revision to Staff Report, Page 2, Paragraph 4:

First, the petition argues that reconsideration is warranted because there is no relevant evidence, which, in the
exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been
produced at any earlier City hearing….

Recommended Action
That the City Council conduct a public
hearing and adopt Resolution No. 23-
XXXX (Attachment A) denying the
petition for reconsideration.

CC 03-21-2023

Petition for
Reconsideration Sign
Exception

Presentation
20565 Valley Green Drive
Sign Exception
EXC-2022-003
CC 0 3-21-202 3 Item No. 7
Subject
● Consider petition for reconsideration
regarding the City Council decision of
February 7, 2023, to uphold the appeal of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6962
in part, approve one of the two requested
freeway-oriented signs, and deny the
requested sign exception.
● Applicant: David Ford (All Sign Services)
● Petitioner: Rhoda Fry
Background
● Council on February 7, 2023 upheld the
appeal of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 6962 in part, approved one of the two
requested freeway-oriented signs, and
denied the requested sign exception.
● On February 17, 2023 Rhoda Fry submitted a
Petition for Reconsideration for Council’s
decision.

Grounds for Reconsideration -2
An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing.
● Petitioner argues that City Council proceeded without or in excess of its jurisdiction, citing an undefined “validation from Caltrans.”
● Staff recommends denying reconsideration on this ground as Council has jurisdiction to review the Planning
Commission’s decision and affirm, modify, or reverse it.

Grounds for Reconsideration -3
Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council
proceeded without, or in excess of its, jurisdiction.
● Petitioner argues that evidence was improperly excluded from hearing, citing various evidence that was allegedly not presented to Council.
● Staff recommends denying reconsideration on this
ground as:
● No evidence was excluded from the hearing.
● The failure of an interested party to submit
evidence that could have been produced at prior
hearing is not a basis for reconsideration.

Staff Report - Errata
Revision to Staff Report, Page 2, Paragraph 4:

Recommended Action
That the City Council conduct a public
hearing and adopt Resolution No. 23-
XXXX (Attachment A) denying the
petition for reconsideration.

CC 03-21-2023

I-280 Trail Name Change

Presentation
March 21, 2023
Cupertino City Council
I-280 Trail Name Change
CC 03-21-2023 Item No. 8
Agenda
I-280 Trail Name Change
• Background
• Survey - Research
• Survey - Outreach
• Survey - Naming Options
• Survey - Results
• Recommended Action
Background
• December 21, 2021 City Council Meeting: City Council directed staff to refrain from using the Junipero Serra name, research alternatives, utilize interim name I-280 Trail, and collaborate with the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission.
• May 18, 2022 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Meeting: The Commission recommended that staff research potential names, develop a survey based on findings, and conduct public
outreach.
• February 23, 2023 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Meeting: The Commission endorsed the top choice selected by the public, Tamien Innu (Tamien Trail).

Survey - Research
• Staff worked in collaboration with:
• Tamien Nation
• Cupertino Historical Society
• Stocklmeir library at De Anza College
• Staff also reviewed:
• Publications from the San Francisco Estuary Institute and Cupertino Chronicle
From that research, 7 options emerged
Survey - Outreach
Survey Schedule :

January 9 - 30, 2023
Outreach Methodology:
• City-wide mailer
• Items of Interest
• Cupertino SR2S Newsletter
• Social Media
• E-Notification

Survey – Naming Options
Based on location:
• Option 1: I-280 Trail
Based on Tamien Nation:
• Option 2: Tamien Innu (Tamien Trail)
• Option 3: Ruume Innu (River Trail)
Based on Historical Vegetation of West Santa Clara Valley:
• Option 4: Chaparral Trail
• Option 5: Punta del Roblar (Point of the Oak grove)
Based on Historic Cupertino:
• Option 6: El Hermoso Camino (Beautiful Path)
• Option 7: Cupertino Crossroads
Survey - Results

Survey - Results
• Option 1: I-280 Trail had 15 responses
• Option 2: Tamien Innu (Tamien Trail) had 37 responses • Option 3: Ruume Innu (River Trail)had 1 response
• Option 4: Chaparral Trail had 14 responses
• Option 5: Punta del Roblar (Point of the Oak grove) had 4 responses
• Option 6: El Hermoso Camino (Beautiful Path) had 8 responses • Option 7: Cupertino Crossroads had 33 responses
Recommended Action:

Conduct a public hearing and adopt a
Resolution approving
Tamien Innu (Tamien Trail)
as the officially recognized trail name.

Thank You
CC 03-21-2023

#10

General Plan Annual
Report and Housing
Element Annual Progress
Report (APR)

Presentation
City Council
March 21, 2023
2022 General Plan Annual Report
CC 03-21-2023 Item No. 10
General Plan Annual Update
• Required by State Law
• Two parts
• Progress on General Plan policies
• Housing Element Annual Progress Report
(APR) on forms from CA Dept. of Housing &
Community Development (HCD)
2022 General Plan
Annual Report
● Reviewed by PC (December 13, 2022)
● Suggested adding policies with next
comprehensive GP Update regarding:
● Requiring telecommunication projects to
meet 5G Architectural standards
● Public health and safety/environmental
changes
● Smart City Initiatives
2022 Housing Element Annual
Progress Report (APR)
2022 Report
• Reporting Year: January 1 – December
31, 2022
• Must report building permits issued
towards RHNA
• Due April 1, 2023
RHNA Generation by Developers

Entitlements By City

Table A- Housing Development Applications
Submitted
• City processed 4 housing development applications in 2022 • Marina Plaza
• Alan Row
• Canyon Crossing
• McClellan subdivision)
Note: An “application” is a formal submittal of a project for approval, either for a discretionary entitlement, or where only a ministerial process is required (e.g., zoned by right), the application for a building permit
Table A2- Annual Building Activity Report
Summary
In 2022, City:
● Entitled 263 net new units
● Issued Building Permits for 128 net new units
● Issued Certificate of Occupancy for 29 net new units
Thank you

Cupertino City CouncilMarch 21, 2023

Cupertino City Council
March 21, 2023