Loading...
CC 02-21-2023 Oral CommunicationsCC 02-21-2023 Written Communications Oral Communications From:Jenny Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Fwd: Confusing Agenda for City Council Meeting on Feb. 21, 2022 Date:Monday, February 20, 2023 4:20:21 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. FYI. Please add to the Public Record for the Feb. 21, 2022 City Council meeting. Thank you. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Confusing Agenda for City Council Meeting on Feb. 21, 2022 From: Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023, 4:17 PM To: citycouncil@cupertino.org CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com Dear City Council: The agenda for the City Council meeting on Tuesday, February 21, 2022 is very confusing And no one seems to know what any of it means. What does "Action Calendar" mean? I have been going to City Council and other meetings in Cupertino for 23 years and I have never heard of this wording before. So I am supposed to feel stupid because I, as a member of the public, can't figure out what the Agenda means? Why change all the wording all at once? What is Consent Calendar now and what is Action Calendar again and why is there an Action Calendar put at the beginning of the Agenda and then some Consent Calendar items stuck After it and then two more Action Calendar items put after that and then two items Called "Informational Items" put in after that. What is any of this supposed to mean? The agenda looks like it was set up completely irrationally. It makes no sense at all. Why change all the wording of the Agenda and what everything means one month into A new Council? Is this supposed to intentionally try to confuse and mislead the public, changing the names of everything, the wording, the placement and the order?I We are not off to a very good start when the public can't even figure what is on the City Council Agenda or let alone what it means. The first rule of software programming is don't change everything all at once. Unfortunately, This is what is happening here with this City Council Agenda, everything is being changed All at once. Probably not a good plan straight out the door of this new year of 2023. Let's go Back to our old tried and true 23 old City Council Agenda. It was good enough for previous Councils and it should be enough for this new Council. Thank you. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:Kirsten Squarcia Cc:City Clerk; City Council Subject:2023-02-21 CC Agenda - contradiction Date:Sunday, February 19, 2023 8:57:41 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. Hi Kirsten, Just FYI…Because the rules keep changing I’ve read every word in the agenda and found this contradiction: Also, “not on the agenda for discussion” is not clear to the public. It would be clearer if it specifically listed what is in this category i.e. Informational Items, etc. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Shankar To:City Clerk Subject:Requesting reconsideration of the planned illuminated freeway-oriented Public Storage sign Date:Friday, February 17, 2023 4:27:37 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. Hello Cupertino City Council, I am Shankar Garikapati, a homeowner & resident of Cupertino, and I love this city. However, I would like to express my frustration and concern with some of the recent developments regarding the planned installation of illuminated Signs by the Public Storage company. Both of my bedrooms are in the line of sight to the newly constructed public storage and to the newly approved external signage, and therefore I would be among the cohort of people most impacted by this project. I live with my wife and young kids aged five and seven. With the new proposed lighting, I am strongly concerned about the impact to sleep and health of my family. You should be aware that “due excess or poorly timed artificial light exposure can cause a person’s circadian rhythm to be misaligned with the day-night schedule. This can throw their sleep out-of-whack and induce other concerning health impacts including worsened metabolism, weight gain, cardiovascular problems, and perhaps even an elevated cancer risk”, citing from Sleep foundation website (https://www.sleepfoundation.org/bedroom- environment/light-and-sleep). Given that these risks are well known, I have no doubt in my mind that all of the council members who have approved this project proposal are motivated by their personal interest in power rather than serving the interests of the community they have been elected for. I hope my letter provokes at least some of you to do the right thing and stand against corporate greed which puts profits over everything else ! I welcome you to visit my community and home during night time to check for yourself the impact it will cause to the community. Thank you for your time, Shankar Garikapati From:Brenda Boyle To:Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:Resident request re: Regnart Creek Trail Date:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 12:55:10 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. City of Cupertino City Council Members: Re: RCT – Regnart Creek Trail Dear Honorable Mayor Wei and City Council Members: First, I would like to commend Mayor Wei on her State of the City Address. I particularly want to call attention to the statement about “we are a city united and not a city divided.” I honestly believe in the sincerity of this call for not just city council and staff, but also for the citizens of this great city. Thank you for such focus and commitment for working toward this goal for all. In light of this commitment, I’d like to call attention to some historic actions the City Council made to a small few of the homeowners along the trail. I believe there are 8 homes in all that selected for Precast Concrete fencing mediums. At the time this was all being discussed (approximately 2-3 years ago now) we were led to believe the City would work with those of us directly abutting the trail (i.e., we are 1 foot from property line!) to provide us with a solution to not only to mitigate any apparent risk, but also to address our concerns about expected increased noise and other issues that may arise. At that time, we were told by the Sheriff's office and council that there would be little to no risk from the trail and it’s opening however, sadly I want to make you aware if not already known, there have been two felony arrests in recent times on this trail and it’s not even officially open as of yet! Prior council and staff worked together in concert to not bring forward a plan that included our concerns, but rather deferred our questions, refused to provide us with ample time frame for signature to a contract committing contribution for our fencing choices, while creating a “inequitable” delivery to the remaining 123-125 residents that don’t abutt the path by providing them “Free” fencing replacement and without mandatory resident contribution. Some homeowners across the creek from the path have coverage areas that far exceed our lot coverage and presumably cost the same if not more than our precast applications. Lastly, we were also told that we could not exceed fence heights of 8 ft. and this was because it was building code. Prior City Staff told us that these codes did not apply to those of us who may want heights up to but not to exceed, 9 ft. Height of those homeowners across the creek have 8 ft., 9 inches in some cases (corner home at E Estates and Vicksburg) and additionally Homes on La Mar Court that abut the entrance to Creekside Park. Our fence heights have settled at 7.5 inches in spite of the many times we reached out to staff requesting evaluation to make our fencing at least 8+ feet high. We are by no means trying to avert our prior signed contract commitment , but would like Council to reconsider inequitable resident contribution and instead incorporate these costs as part of this project which apparently was not adequately scoped or budgeted for. I want to thank you in advance for your time in considering our request. Kind regards, Rich and Brenda Boyle 19773 La Mar Drive From:Rhoda Fry To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:2/21/2021 for City Council - Oral Communications Agenda Item Date:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 12:35:27 PM Attachments:image049.png ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION.PDF ATTACHMENT B REJECTION.PDF 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, On February 7, you made a very consequential decision about allowing giant illuminated signage facing highway 280. After reviewing the meeting online, I came to the conclusion that you were not provided the information or guidance you needed to provide an informed decision. - Did you know that there are no illuminated signs in that proximity to the freeway or of that size facing the freeway and in direct line view of residents’ homes? - Did you know that you were only given the square-footage of the illuminated letters (they’re 4 ½ feet tall) but not the actual area of the sign? - Did you know that approval of this signage will open the door to even more residents being impacted by illuminated signage? - Did you know that our City Planning Department rejected a much smaller replacement building in 2006 because it would cause an intensification of a non-conforming use per our General Plan and the North De Anza Specific Area? The old Public Storage building had no freeway-facing signage. In my opinion, the applicant’s goal of advertising its business to motorists driving by at 70 or 75 miles per hour cannot justify the harm to motorist or especially residents. Consequently, I filed for a reconsideration so that you can review the facts in a proper hearing with hopefully all of the data and guidance for you to make an informed decision. And yes, you can vote for zero signs if signage would be against the code or the conditions of approval for the building. I followed the directions on the form provided by the City, which quotes the reconsideration ordinance. The language in that form, such as abusing power, is in the ordinance and is not my voice. I wanted you to know that because I have every intent on engaging in respectful and civil discourse. The contents of the reconsideration is below and attached. Sincerely, Rhoda Fry (Cupertino Resident for 40 years) 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. 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). 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 Cupertino 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. 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. 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/public- 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 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. lettering portion of the sign is over three times larger. 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. ✔ 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 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. Was this intent fulfilled? The Planning Commission understood that the purpose of 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 EXHIBIT 1 – Residents and Hotel Guests who will see the Illuminated Public Storage Sign 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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, theCity Council ignored their decision. As a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have noillumination. The sign does not help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough foradvertising 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 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:Kirsten Squarcia To:Lisa Warren Cc:City Clerk Subject:RE: Lisa image for oral communications Feb 21 2023 City Council Date:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:13:25 PM Attachments:edited MAP p 17 of Fehr and Peers Jan 2023 Main Street Shared Parking Memo_MAP Draft.pdf image002.png image004.png image006.png image008.png image010.png image012.png image014.png image016.png Hello Lisa, yes, received and I can open and share during your time to speak. Kirsten Squarcia​​​​ City Clerk City Manager's Office KirstenS@cupertino.org (408) 777-3225 From: Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:15 PM To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org> Subject: Lisa image for oral communications Feb 21 2023 City Council 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. Kirsten, Please confirm you can open and see the attached one page. I will ask for you to show it during oral at tonight's reg meeting. Thanks. Lisa