Written CommunicationsPC 02-14-2023
Oral Communications
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:31 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk
Subject:2/14/2023 Planning Commission Public comment
Attachments:public storage denial excerpt 2006.pdf; Public Storage Resolution 19-072.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 Clerk,
Please add the following and attached to oral communications for 2/14/2023 Planning
Commission Public comment.
Did you know that in 2006 a new public storage building had been proposed where the new one
is today?
The Planning Department recommended against it and the Planning Commission agreed.
That building would have been 3 stories and 155K square feet.
The new building is 4 stories and 195K square feet!
The grounds for denial have not changed.
The North De Anza Special Area general plan description has not changed.
Why was the new building approved when we already knew that it violated the General Plan?
An excerpt of the denial is attached; it makes for interesting reading.
AND THERE’S MORE!
Did you know that in 2019, the City Council approved the new Public Storage building given
certain conditions.
Do you think that the new building is in conformance with those conditions? I don’t.
Here is an excerpt of Resolution 19-072 (it is attached)
“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
“with respect to new projects within existing residential neighborhoods, new development
2
should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects …
and other appropriate design measures.”
The resolution also contained requirements for signage, which was not included in the
application:
“outdoor advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively
affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development”
How do you all think it turned out?
Finallly, I don’t believe that this new building should have been categorically exempt from
CEQA; Class 32 Exemption is not available if “the project and successive projects of the same
type in the same place will result in cumulative impacts.” Even the denial of the smaller
building proposal mentioned an unacceptable intensification of a use that failed to promote our
General Plan’s policies.
What is the purpose of the Planning Department, Planning Commission, and City Council if it
doesn’t adhere to its promises to the citizens of Cupertino?
Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry
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~(.}
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