The URL can be used to link to this page

07. Hotel 10165 N. De Anza Blvd,City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Cor+-+munity Development Department Sumrnary Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: Tanuary 20, 2009 Application: U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09, EA-2008-08 Applicant : Rajeev Chopra, Shashi Corporation Property Owner. Ebrahim Kaabipour Property Location: 10165 North De Anza Blvd. APPLICATION SUMMARY: USE PERMIT and ARCHITECTURAL AND' SITE APPROVAL (file nos. U-2008-02 and ASA-2008-07) to demolish an existing gasoline station/carwash and construct a 5-story, approximately 85,000 square-foot, 138-room hotel that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge, and conference rooms built over a t~vo-level underground parking podium that contains tandem 8z lift parking. TREE REMOVAL (file no. TR-2008-09} request to remove six protected trees and replace them with a comprehensive landscape plan. RECOMMENDATION: On a unanimous vote the Planning Commis~•ion recommended: 1) Adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project (file no. EA-2008-OS); 2) Approval of U-2008-02 per the model resolution; 3) Approval of ASA-2008-07 per the model resolution; and 4) Approval of TR-2008-09 per the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential Zoning Designation: P(CG, ML, Res 4-10) North De Anza Blvd. Conceptual Zoning Plan Acreage (Net): 0.8 acre Building Area: Existing G+asoline Station/Carwash: 1,855 sq. ft. 138-Room Hotel: 84,410 sq. ft. Building Height: 45 feet/ 5 :stories Max. Height Limit: 45 feet ~-i Applications: U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09, EA-2008-08 10165 North De Anza Boulevard Page 2 January 20, 2009 Buildin Setbacks Av . or Min. Re aired Front De Anza 56' 50' av ., 35' min. from curbline Street Side Alves >40' 25' av ., 15 min. from curbline Other Side 8'11" none stated Rear 7.5' - 10' none stated Provided Parking Type First Level Gara a Second Level Gara e Total S aces Standard 36 11 47 Handica ed Accessible 6 O 6 Tandem O 2 2 Standard w/car lift O 122 122 Tandem w car lift O 24 24 Total Provided Parkin 42 159 201 Code Re aired Parkin 265 Stud - Re wired Parkin 179 Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: Planning Commission Comments: The Planning Commission reviewed the project on November 25~ and tentatively approved aII aspects of the project (Exhibit A-2), except the building design, which was reviewed at its second meeting on January 13~ . The Commissioners felt the original architectural style was too boxy and did not translate into a luxury hotel design. The Commission requested the applicant to make changes and gave the following directions: • A traditional form, preferred by staff, was not an imperative; • Amore modern interpretation that is more compatible with the surrounding styles was preferred by the Commission; and • Apply design techniques to soften the mass of the building, reducing the setback a few feet to accomplish this objective is acceptable. The applicant redesigned the hotel. The design changes include: • Using traditional architectural forms with a more modern design interpretation, • Using complementary traditional and modern building materials, • Articulating the wall plane, ~-z Applications: U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09, EA-2008-08 10165 North De Anza Boulevard Page 3 January 20, 2009 • Increasing the detailing of building elements, and • Changing the building materials from base to top. ORIGINAL. HCITEL DESIGN The Planning Commission was satisfied with the hotel redesign. It also discussed and addressed the following issues: 7-3 Applications: U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09, EA-2008-OS 20265 North De Anza Boulevard Page 4 January 20, 2009 • Outdoor Lighting A couple of residents raised this concern about potential glare from outdoor lighting. The Commission examine the locations, type of shielding, reflectivity of building materials and distance from residences and determined there would not be an impact on the Parlett Place neighbors. • Trash Enclosure. The Commission discussed with staff measures that have been integrated in the trash enclosure to limit any perceived impact on the adjacent office building which has two entrances: one toward the rear of the office building and the other in the middle of the easterly side, which is about 40 feet away from the rear of the enclosure. The design measures included: - No trash enclosure openings facing the office building, - Green screen on the enclosure wall, - Not allowing a trash compactor that generates additional noise and is difficult to screen from street views, - Requirement to double bag food waste, and - Further use permit review if there are problems. Hotel Allocation. There is no hotel development allocation in the North De Anza Blvd. planiiiizg area. The Commission considered four different allocation options presented by staff, involving the use (or non-use) of the uncommitted portion of the South Vallco hotel development allocation, and commercial development allocations from North De Anza and Heart of the City planning areas, including discounted and non-discounted commercial allocation options, ' based on peak hour traffic trip equivalency (See Exhibit D). • North De Anza Blvd. Landscape. A couple of residents on Parlett Place felt the hotel would visually intrude on their privacy and noted that some dead trees were removed along the North De Anza Boulevard right-of-way and were not replaced. The tree loss and presence of deciduous trees may have created some visual gaps in the landscape screen for this neighborhood from which the hotel may be seen. The Planning Commission approved the project on a unanimous vote, adding or modifying the following conditions of approval: 1) Add a modified trash enclosure condition that requires double-bagging of food waste and additional use permit review if there is a future problem with smells and vectors. 2) Recommend Option No. 1 for development allocation That involves using the uncommitted hotel allocation from the Vallco Planning Area and commercial development allocation from North De Anza Blvd. and Heart of the City 7-4 Applications: U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09, EA-2008-08 10165 North De Anza Boulevard Page 5 January 20, 2009 Planning Areas without discounting any of the square footage based on hotel peak hour traffic trip equivalency. 3) Require the planting of evergreen trees on the easterly side of North De Anza Boulevard to fill in the gaps in the l:~ndscape screen between the hotel and the residences on Parlett Place. Tree planting to be reviewed by City staff. 4) Delete Architecture and Site Approval condition requiring redesign of front entry canopy. 5) Applicant shall apply for a LEED Silver designation and evaluate the costs/benefits of a photovoltaic versus a solar water heating system (or a combination) as part of-its green buikLing measures. 6) Prepare a construction management plan with an assigned complaint coordinator. Public Comments: City staff received five e:rnailed comments over the two hearings and eight individuals testified at the two hearings. The public comments reviewed at the November 25~ meeting are summarized in the January 13~ Commission report. Additional public comments received at the January 13~ meeting are summarized below: • The revised hotel design is much better than the original and will make a race addition to the City. • The smell and noise generated by the dumping and picking up of hotel/restaurant trash will be hazardous to the adjacent office tenants (to the west) whose building entrance is ve~.y close to the trash enclosure. • The above situation will make my property difficult to lease and lower my property values. • The hotel design (original design), its location, size and the crowding of its facilities does not translate to a luxury hotel. • Parking and traffic will overflow onto the abutting office property. ' The hotel will have views into the y~irds of the residential neighbors on Parlett Place even with the existing landscaping on De Anza Blvd and that proposed by the applicant. • Concern with the outdoor lighting and whether it would create glare on the residential properties. • Desire for construction hours that are limited to 8-5 p.m. on weekdays and no construction on the weekends. • Project violated the General Plan by not abiding by the building height/setback ratio and not using design principles for taIl buildings adjacent to residential areas. • Project is supported by the C,~'lamber of Commerce. Hotel will cater to a clientele not being served in Cupertino. Hotel will bring jobs and tax revenue to the City. ~-s Applications: U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09, EA-2008-08 10165 North De Anza Boulevard Page 6 January 20, 2009 Additional Staff Comments: General Plan and Zoning Consistency. Project is consistent with the general plan and the development standards of the zoning district. The building height to setback ratio ranges from 0.97 to 0.80, which is within the 1:1 design standard. The property does not abut any residential property, which would trigger a more critical review of building height and mass. The closest residential property is 173 feet away on the other side of De Anza Boulevard. Building Design. The setbacks have been slightly reduced and the hotel increased in square footage (not rooms) to accommodate the design changes, but are still within the zoning regulations. The City Architect's comments have been addressed, except for the canopy element at the circular building corner element, which he felt was very plain. Staff supported the new hotel design, but felt the main hotel entrance canopy on the south side could use more design flair (See Exhibit A-2, January 13th Commission report). Staff had recommended adding a condition to the ASA requiring staff approval of a redesigned southside entry canopy, but that was deleted by the Planning Commission. If the City Council finds merit in redesigning the southside hotel entry canopy, then it should add a condition requiring canopy redesign at the building permit stage to be approved by the Community Development Director. ENCLOSURES: Model Resolutions Exhibit A-2. Planning Commission staff report dated January 13, 2009 Exhibit B-2: Emailed comments for January 13, 2009 meeting Plan Set Submitted by: -~~ hao City Planner Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager G:\Planning\PDREl'ORT'\CC\ U-2005-02, ASA-2008-07, TTZ-2008-09 CCi Reporkdoc 7-6 ASA-2008-07 CITY OF CIJPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, Cahifornia 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6543 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 5-STORY, 138-ROO1•ii HOTEL OF APPRO7QMATELY 85,000 SQUARE FEET THAT INCLUDES A RESTAURANT, BAR, LOUNGE, AND CONFERFENCE ROOMS BUILT OVER ATWO-LEVEL UNDERGROUND PARKING PODIUM LOCATED AT 10165 NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD SECTION L• FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Comrr,iGSion of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval, 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 rnet the burden of proof required to support said application; and has 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; and 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General I'Ian and the purpose of the Architectural and Site Review Chapter of the Cupertino Municipal Code; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, faicts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Architectural and Site Approval is hereby approved, 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-2008-07 as set forth irL the Minutes of the Planning Com*-nicsion Meeting of November 25, 2008 and January 13, 2009, Arid are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. ~-~ Resolution No. 6543 ASA-2008-07 January 13, 2009 Page 2 SECTION II. PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.. ASA-2008-07 Applicant: Rajeev Chopra (Shashi Corporation) Location: 10165 North De Anna Boulevard SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNI'T'Y DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXfIIBITS The approval is based on F..xl-iibits titled: Cupertino Hotel by Shashi Corporation, "consisting of 22 pages labeled Cl, C2, Al-A16, L1, L2, CP1 and CP2, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct a 5-story, 138-room hotel that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge and conference rooms built over a two-level underground parking podium. 3. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive the uncor-~+m;tted hotel allocation from the South Vallco Planning Area, the remaining commercial allocation from the North De Anza Boulevard Planning Area and any needed remaining commercial allocation from the Heart of the City Planning Area. There will be no discounting of the commercial square footage for hotel use based on peak hour traffic equivalency. Any co*~+~*-+~+ercial allocation granted to the hotel will be readjusted at the time additional hotel allocation becomes available in the General Plan. 4. LENGTH OF HOTEL STAYS Hotel stays shall be limited to a maximum of 30 days per reservation. 5. SPECIAL PARKING ARRANGEMENTS Approval is granted for the tandem, lift and also valet parking arrangements as described in the approved plan set. 6. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide bicycle parking facilities for the proposed development in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 7. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall include: ~-e Resolution No. 6543 ASA-2008-07 January 13, 2009 Page 3 1) water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in confo*-**-+a*~ce with Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping, 2) pesticide control measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollutior~ Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, and 8. GREEN BUILDING At the building permit stage, the applicant shall apply for a LEED Silver designation for the building and corisider a power purchase agreement. The applicant shall also evaluate the costs and benefits of a photovoltaic versus a solar water heating system (or a combination) as part of its green building measures. 9. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials will be recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. YO. NOTICE OF FEES: DEDICAT:[ONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS '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. 11. PUBLIC ART The applicant shall provide public art in accordance with General Plan policy 2- 66. Public art selection will be reviewed by the Fine Arts Commission. 12. CLOSURE OF ABANDONED WELLS Prior to grading and demolition pernut issuance, the applicant shall provide the City with a well closure letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District as that agency may deem necessary. ~-s Resolution No. b543 ASA-2008-07 January 13, 20Q9 Page 4 13. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide a geotechnical report for the hotel and basement for review and approval by the City and City Geologist. 14. AGREEMENT TO TOIN AN OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall record a covenant on the property agreeing to join an open space maintenance district for the purpose of maintaining the De Anza Blvd. landscaping if and when such a district has been formed. Until such time, the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining their landscaped area in a manner acceptable to the City. 15. TRASH ENCLOSURE ODOR CONTROL All food refuse shall be double bagged (or placed in containers) and be sealed to prevent leakage. No refuse or recycling products shall be stored or placed in a manner that would cause odor and/ or vector problems. In the event that there is evidence that there are problems with vectors and/or odors, the Planning Commission may hold a public hearing to review, modify or revoke the use permit. 16. LANDSCAPING SCREENING OF HOTEL The applicant shall supply and plant (if requested) evergreen trees on the easterly side of the North De Anza Boulevard right of way to fill in the gaps of the landscape screen between the proposed hotel and Parlett Place residences. The tree planting shall be reviewed and approved by City staff. 17. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall provide a construction management plan for the project, including and name and contact information of the complaint coordinator. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 18. STREET WIDENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 19. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 20. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of ~-~o Resolution No. 6543 ASA-2008-07 January 13, 2009 Page 5 visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 21. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as requir~ad by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 22. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino A~Iunicipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact: Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 23. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre- and post- - development calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be installed. 24. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related ~~rdinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with sffected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The devesloper shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 25. IMPROVEMENT' AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreemer~t shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking 8z Inspection Fees: b. Grading Permit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tree $ 6% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $3,847.00 minimum $ 6 % of Site Improvement Cost or $2,239.00 minimum $ 2,000.00 N/A ~~ N/A N/A By Developer ~-~~ Resolution No. 6543 ASA-2008-07 January 13, 2009 Page 6 '~~ Based on the latest effective PGBrE rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100 % of Off-site and On-site Improvernents b. Labor 8z Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100°,6 of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that tune will reflect the then current fee schedule. 26. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 27. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 28. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The applicant shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 29. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 30. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) The applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment BMP's,-which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and 7-12 Resolution No. 6543 ASA-2008-07 January 13, 2009 Page 7 certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMP's are required. 3I. EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should inc]!ude all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 32. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan shall be desig~ied to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. 33. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTII~ICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/Si7fZVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section N. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices /s/Ralph Qualls Ralph Qaalls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13~ day of January 2009, at a Regular Meeting of the P1aT•n7ng Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Millc~r, Vice Chair Giefer, Rose, Kaneda, Brophy NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department G: IPlanninglPDREPORTIRESl20081~1SA-2008-07 res.doc APPROVED: / s / Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chair Planning Commission 7-13, U-2008-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6542 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TF-~ CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH A GASOLINE STATION AND CARWASH AND CONSTRUCT A 5-STORY, 138-ROOM HOTEL OF ABOUT 85,000 SQUARE FEET THAT INCLUDES A RESTAURANT, BAR, LOUNGE, AND CONFERENCE ROOMS BUILT OVER ATWO-LEVEL UNDERGROUND PARKING PODIUM THAT CONTAINS TANDEM 8z LIFT PARIGING LOCATED AT 10165 NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD 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 met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has 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; and 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manrier in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the Conditional Use Permits Chapter of the Cupertino Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence 'submitted in this matter, the application for a Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution begiru~iulg 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. U-2008-02 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Comm;~sion Meeting of November 25, 2008 and January 13, 2009, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 7-14 Resolution No. 6542 U-2i~08-02 January 13, 2009 Page 2 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: U-2008-02 Applicant: Rajeev Chopra Location: 10165 North De Anza Blvd. SEC'T'ION IIL CONDITIONS ADMI]~TISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPNIII~TT DEPT. T. APPROVED E7CCI-IIBITS The approval is based on Exhibits titled: Cupertino Hotel by Shashi Corporation, "consisting of 22 pages labeled C1, C2, A2-A16, L1, L2, CPl and CP2, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct a 5-story, 138-room hotel that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge and conference; rooms built over atwo-level underground parking podium. 3. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive the uncommitted hotel allocation from the South Vallco Planning Area, the remaining commercial allocation from the North De Anza Boulevard Pla*•n;ng Area and any needed remaining commercial allocation from the Heart of the City Planning Area. There will be no discounting of the commercial square footage for hotel use based on peak hour traffic equivalency. Any commercial allocation granted to the hotel will be readjusted at the time additional hotel allocation becomes available in the General Plan. 4. LENGTH OF HOTEL STAYS Hotel stays shall be limited to a maximum of 30 days per reservation. 5. SPECIAL PARKING ARRANGEMEI`1TS Approval is granted for the tandem, lift and also valet parking arrangements as described in the approved plan set. 6. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide bicycle parking facilities for the proposed development in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 7. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall include: ~-~s Resolution No. 6542 U-2008-02 January 13, 2009 Page 3 1) water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping, 2) pesticide control measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, and 8. GREEN BUILDING At the building permit stage, the applicant shall apply for a LEED Silver designation for the building and consider a power purchase agreement. The applicant shall also evaluate the costs and benefits of a photovoltaic versus a solar water heating system (or a combination) as part of its green building measures. 9. DEMOLI'T'ION REQUIREMENTS All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials will be recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. 10. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS 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. 11. PUBLIC ART The applicant shall provide public art in accordance with General Plan policy 2- 66. Public art selection will be reviewed by the Fine Arts Commission. 12. CLOSURE OF ABANDONED WELLS -Prior to grading and demolition permit issuance, the applicant shall provide the City with a well closure letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District as that agency may deem necessary. ~-~s Resolution No. 6542 U-2:008-02 January 13, 2009 Page 4 13. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide a geotechnical report for the hotel and basement for review and approval by the City and City Geologist. 14. AGREEMENT TO TOIN AN OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall record a covenant on the property agreeing to join an open space maintenance district for the purpose of maintaining the De Anza Blvd. land::caping if and when such a district has been formed. Until such time, the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining their landscaped area in a manner acceptable to the City. 15. TRASH ENCLOSURE ODOR CONTROL All food refuse shall be double baggE~d (or placed in containers) and be sealed to prevent leakage. No refuse or recycling products shall be stored or placed in a manner that would cause odor and/or vector problems. In the event that there is evidence that there are problems with vectors and/or odors, the Planning Commission may hold a public he~iring to review, modify or revoke the use permit. 16. LANDSCAPING SCREENING OF 730TEL The applicant shall supply and plant (if requested) evergreen trees on the easterly side of the North De Anza Boulevard right of way to fill in the gaps of the landscape screen between the proposed hotel and Parlett Place residences. The tree planting shall be reviewed and approved by City staff. 17. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEIVIEN7C PLAN Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall provide a construction ,,,anagement plan for the project, including and name and contact information of the complaint coordinator. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERI?D BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 18. STREET WIDENING ' Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 19. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEME1~fTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards <<s specified by the City Engineer. 20. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATIOl~f Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of ~-~~ Resolution No. 6542 U-2008-02 January 13, 2009 Page 5 visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is Located. 21. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 22. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 23. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre- and post- deveiopment calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be installed. 24. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES Z'he developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 25. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking 8s Inspection Fees: b. Grading Permit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tree $ 6% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $3,847.00 minimum $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $2,239.00 minimum $ 2,OOO.U0 N/ A N/A N/ A By Developer ~-is Resolution No. 6542 U-2008-02 January 13, 2009 Page 6 '"""` Based on the latest effective PGBLE rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor 8i Material Bond: 100°~ of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100`,6 of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final rnap or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 26. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaLilts and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side Uuilding setback area. 27. BEST MANAGEMEN'T' PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board; for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 28. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The applicant shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agree~rnent with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 29. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHAEtGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMI'T_ The applicant must obtain a Notice of I~Ztent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board, which encompasses :preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 30. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BES7' MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS The applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment BMP's, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities O~~eration and Maintenance Agreement, and ~-~s Resolution No. 6542 U-2008-02 January 13, 2009 Page 7 certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMP's are required. 31. EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 32. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. 33. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section N. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices / s /Ralph Qualls Ralph QLtalls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND .ADOPTED this 13~ day of January 2009, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Rose, Kaneda, Brophy NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department G:1PlanninglPDREPOR71RES420081 U-2008-02res. doc APPROVED: /s/Many Miller Marty Miller, Chair Planning Commission 7-20 TR-2008-09 CITY OF CIJPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, Ca]ifoniia 95014 RESOLU"TION NO. 6544 C-F THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT '7C0 REMOVE SIX PROTECTED TREES AND REPLACE THEM WITH A COMPREI3ENSNE LANDSCAPING PLAN AT 10165 NORTH DE ANZA BOI;JLEVARD SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Co*r+.-.~icsion of the City of Cupertino received an application for Tree Removal, 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 Co*r*r;asion has held one or more public hearirigs on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1} The location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting the use of property in a ma~u-er not typically experienced by owners of sir..;laTly zoned and situated property,. and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the trees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tree Removal is hereby approved, 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 concemit~g Application TR-2008-09 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 25, 2008 and January 13, 2009, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II. PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR-2008-09 Applicant: Rajeev Chopra (Shashi Corporation) Location: 10165 N. De Anza Boulevard ~-zi Resolution No. 6544 TR-2008-09 January 13, 2009 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. TREE REMOVAL 'The applicant is authorized to remove six protected trees consisting of two Coast Redwoods, two Deodar Cedars and two Canary Island Pines identified as Nos. 1$ in a report prepared by Arbor Resources. The approval is based on the Exhibit entitled: "A Review of the Proposed Removal and Replacements of Six Trees Located at 10165 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, California APN 326-34-057; ' and dated August 18, 2008, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. TREE REPLACEMENT To mitigate the Ions of the subject trees, the applicant shall implement the Indscape plans titled: "Cupertino Hotel Conceptual Landscape Plan, Shashi Corporation, Cupertino, CA" and "Cupertino Hotel Landscape Cross-Sections and Notes, Shashi Corporation, Cupertino, CA;' consisting of two sheets labeled L1 and L2 dated 1/06/09 by KLA Landscape Architecture Pla„r,i,,g_ 3. NOTICE OF FEES DEDICATIONS RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Gove^^+~*^+ent 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 Govenunent 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 this 13th day of January 2009, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Com*rission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Rose, Kaneda, Brophy NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSEN"i': COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: / s /Steve Piasecki Steve Piaseclci Director of ComT„unity Development G:\Planning\PDREPORT~RHS\2008\TR-2008-09 res.doc / s / Marty Miller Marty Miller, Planning Chair Planning Co**~*+~+ission 7-22 - .- _ .. CITY OF CUPERTINO E71d1ibit A - 2 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application:. U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09, Agenda Date: January 13, 2009 EA-2008-08 Applicant : Rajeev Chopra, Shashi Corporaizon Property Owner: Ebrahim Kaabipour Property Location: 10165 North De Anza Blvd. APPLICATION SUMMARY: USE PERMIT and ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL (file nos. U-2008-02 and ASA-2008-07) to demolish an existing gasoline station/carwash and construct a 5-story, approximately 85,000 square-foot, 138-room hotel that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge, and conference rooms built over a t-wo-level underground parking podium that contains tandem 8z lift parking. TREE REMOVAL (file no. TR-2008-09) request to remove six protected trees and replace them with a comprehensive landscape plan_ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Plarir.;ng Commission recommend to the City Council: 1) Adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project (file no. EA-2008-08); 2) Approval of U-2008-02 per the model resolution; 3) Approval of ASA-2008-07 per the model resolution; and 4) Approval of TR-2008-09 per the model resolution. BACKGROUND: Planning Co*-nm;ssion Comments: The r'lann;ng Co*r*YC;ssion reviewed the hotel proposal on November 25, 2008 (Exhibit E~-1) and were agreeable on the following aspects of the project: • Remove protected trees and replace v~ith other trees, • Accept adequacy of parking supply, • Note insignificance of traffic impact, • Qualify the building for a LEED Silver designation, • Consider a power purchase agreement, • Screen the west wall of the trash enclosure with landscaping, • Require trash disposal to be similar to Murakai use permit modification condition, 7-23 Use Permit, ASA, Tree Removal for 10165 N. De Anna Blvd. January 13, 2009 U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09 Page 2 of 5 • Choose development allocation, option 1, involving: 1) the uncommitted portion of the South Vallco Planning Area hotel allocation, 2) the remaining commercial allocation from N. De Anza Blvd. Planning Area, and 3) any needed remaining commercial allocation from the Heart of the City Planning Area-- the commercial square footage will not be discounted based on hotel peak hour traffic trip equivalency. The Com*•-•asioners felt the architecture style was too boxy and did not translate into a luxury hotel design. The Commission requested the applicant to make changes and gave the following directions: A traditional form, preferred by staff, was not an imperative, A more modern interpretation that is more compatible with the surrounding styles was preferable, Apply design techniques to soften the mass of the building, reducing the setback a few feet to accomplish this objective is acceptable. The Commissioners felt they adequately addressed all of their issues, except the hotel design and the development applications were continued to January 13, 2009. Public Comments: 'The Com**•~~sion received two emailed comments from staff before the hearing (Exhibit B-1) and four individuals testified at the hearing. Their comments are st~mmari~ed below: • The 5-story hotel was too close to the homes (across De Anza Blvd.) and would look down into the bedrooms of the houses. • City should ensure that new com,.,ercial construction does not have a detriment effect on residential property values. • The hotel was too large for the Iot and would overwhelm the abutting one-story building. • Hotel generated traffic would negatively affect office tenants by causing overflow parking problem. • Potential noise and odors from adjacent trash enclosure. • Hotel not needed. There are two hotels nearby. • A commercial office building might fit in better. • Outdoor dining would not work on De Anza Blvd. • Hotel architecture was too severe in appearance. • Hotel would enhance local employment, address the needs of the business traveler and support local businesses. Aynlicant Comments: The applicant wants to build a first class luxury hotel in Cupertino that would appeal to a world-class traveler. He has addressed all of the comments made by staff, except those made by the City Architect, Larry Cannon. The ~-Za Use Permit, ASA, Tree Removal for 10165 N. De Anza Blvd. January 13, 2009 U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09 Page 3 of 5 City Architect was favoring a more traditional architectural form. The applicant wanted to do a more modern design. Staff CoTn*nents: Staff recommended approval of the hotel project. Project is consistent with the general plan and the development standards of the zoning district. Traffic generation is not significant and parking supply exceeds demand as indicated in Hexagon Transportation Consultants traffic and parking study. Onsite water and soil contamination from the existing, leaking underground gasoline tanks can be remediated as part of the property redevelopment and tree loss will be mitigated with onsite tree replacements. There is no hotel development allocation in the North De Anza Blvd. planning area. Staff presented four different allocation options for the Co*nm;ssion to consider, involving the use (or non-use) of the uncommitted portion of the South Vallco hotel development allocation, and commercial development allocations from North De Anza and Heart of the City planning areas. Discounted and non-discounted commercial allocation options, based on peak hour traffic trip equivalency, were presented. Staff and the City Architect had issuers with the hotel design and made a recommendation toward changing it. DISCUSSION: The Cori+*n;Gsion s directions were incorporated in the three resolutions. Staff modified the "Murakai ' trash condition to delete the requirement for self-contained, compactor style trash containers. The enclosure is too close to the abutEing commercial building, where compactor noise may be an issue. Also, the equipment may be so large that it would be visible from Alves Drive and difficult to screen. Staff's preferences are the standard dumpsters and toters screened by an enclosure. The applicant shows additional landscaping on the trash enclosure (See plan set, sheet L1). Hotel Architecture: The applicant has redesigned the hotel and responded in writing to the Comm;csioners comments (Exhibit C-1 and plan set). The design changes include: • Using traditional architectural forms with a more modern design interpretation, • Using complementary traditional and. modern building materials, • Articulating the wall plane, • Increasing the detailing of building elements, and • Changing the building materials from base to top. 7-25 Use Permit, ASA, Tree Removal for 10165 N. De Anza Blvd. January I3, 2009 U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09 Page 4 of 5 ~ _-~- _: ~- --,.-_ _ . .. -.r . ORIGINAL HOTEL DESIGN REVISED HOTEL DESIGN Staff feels the architect has significantly softened the building mass and responded to comments from the City Architect. The setbacks have been slightly reduced and the hotel increased in square footage (not rooms) to accommodate the design changes, but are still within the zoning regulations. The City Architect's comments have been addressed, except for the canopy element at the building corner, which he felt was very plain. Staff supports the new hotel design, but feels the main hotel entrance canopy 7-26 Use Permit, ASA, Tree Removal for 10165 N. De Anna Blvd. January 13, 2009 U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09 Page 5 of 5 could use more flair. A condition has been added to the ASA resolution, requiring the applicant to rework the entry canopy design at the building permit stage for approval by the Corn.nunity Development Director. ]Kere is a sample canopy design. ENCLOSURES: Model Resolutions Exhibit A-1: Pianr;ng Commission Staff Report datedl November 25, 2008 Exhibit B-1: Public written comments Exhibit C-1: Letter to the Planning Commission from the Project Architect, RYS Architects, dated 2/6/09 Plan Set Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Pianner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Co:nvnunit-y Developrnant~ - G: Plarming/PDReport/pcUreports/2008ureports/ ti"-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09 pc2.doc 7-27 CITY OF CUPERTINO E~~ibit A ~~. 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09, Agenda Date: November 25, 2008 EA-2008-08 Applicant : Rajeev Chopra, Shashi Corporation Property Owner: Ebrahim Kaabipour Property Location: 10165 North De Anza Blvd. APPLICATION SUMMARY: - USE PERMIT and ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL (file nos. U-2008-02 and ASA-2008-0~ to demolish an existing gasoline station/carwash and construct a 5-story, approximately 82,000 square-foot, 138-room hotel that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge, and conference rooms built over atwo-level underground parking podium that contains tandem parking. TREE REMOVAL (file no. TR-2008-09) request to remove six protected trees and replace them with a comprehensive landscape plan.- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to. the City Council: 1) Adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project (file no. EA-2008-08); 2) Approval of U-2008-02 per the model resolution; 3) Approval of ASA-2008-07 per the model resolution; and 4) Approval of TR-2008-09 per the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential Zoning Designation: P(CG, ML, Res 4-10) North De Anza Blvd. Conceptual Zoning Plan Acreage {Net): O.8 acre Building Area: Existing Gasoline Station/Carwash: 1,855 sq. ft_ 138-Room Hotel: 82,000 sq. ft. Building Height: 45 feet/ 5 stories Max. Height Limit: 45 feet Buildin Setbacks Av . or Min. Re aired Front De Anza 60.2' 50' av ., 35' min. from curbline Street Side Alves >40' 25' av ., 15 min. from curbline Other Side 10' none stated Rear 7.5' - 10' none stated ~-za Use PP~-*r~t, ASA,'1'ree Removal for 10165 N. De Anna Blvd. U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09 November 25, 2008 Pa~e2of6 Provided Parkin T e First Level ~:>arage Second Level Garage Total Spaces Staridard 36 10 46 Handica ed Accessible 6 _ O 6. Tandem O 2 2 Standard w/car lift O 122 122 Tandem w/ car lift O 24 24 Total Provided Pazkin 42 158 -200 Code Re uired Parkin 265 Stud - Re uired Parkin 179 Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: Site Description: The project site is located on the northwest: corner of North De Anza Boulevard and Alves Drive. The present use of the propert!T is a gasoline station/car wash. The site is bordered by office buildings to the north and- east, a freestanding restaurant to the south and single-family residential to the west across De Anza Boulevard. It is located in the North. De Anza Boulevard Planning Area. -a- - ~ - '~ ~ ... .~ 1 a ~,;, yp ~ ~ ~ ~M ~ a rt l "Mni+ i ~ z 1 a ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~i" fib. ~'~~ F_ : ~ _ ~ ~ i- '''ee _ _ _ .r. m.. `s'ix ~ ~ ~u s _ r ,U `9` ~ ~ i „tom r } ; i-a • • ' __ ~ ~ s $ _' 9 " ~ _ F ..: _. ~._ ~ t .. ,~: f _. ~ ~ • ' ""~` E?1vc ~ Da ~. • ~ a F ~ ,- - _ _ ~._ ~ ,. , ._ f . _•• _. R J f .. • ~ _ ~' ~4'! al! ~~ ~ f -• ~ °"* '`` - -'~ '3 'T a S '~ ~.. ~ ~ A i. s a ~ ~.~ v t x t -.n„ M1 .. fi.~",:. 'e,•t ~ .._ .~.• f .. 1:~., L ..~ . h, h: - ' Use Permit, ASA, Tree Removal for 10165 N. De Anna Blvd. - U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09 November 25, 2008 Page 3 of 6 Project Description: The applicant Rajeev Chopra, of Shashi Corporation, is proposing to demolish the gasoline station and construct a 5-story, luxury, 138-room hotel over a two-level underground parking structure. The hotel contains a restaurant, bar, lounge and conference/meeting rooms. The applicant is requesting special parking arrangements as part of the use permit, which includes tandem parking, parking with lifts and probably valet parking. Six mature trees that are part of an approved landscape plan are proposed for removal and will be replaced with other trees as part of a comprehensive landscape plan. DISCUSSION: General Plan Hotel Allocation: Currently, there is no hotel room allocation in the General Plan for the "North De Anza Blvd." area. The only remaining, uncomm;fled hotel allocation exists in the South Vallco Planning Area {78 rooms). In July 2008, Sand Hill Properties filed the "Main Street" application with up to 250 hotel rooms and seeks to utilize this 78 room allocation. If the Planning Commission finds merit in the proposed project, it must either: 1. Transfer the 78 room hotel allocation from the S. Vallco Planning Area; and/or 2. Convert coT*+**+ercial allocation to hotel rooms The Planning Commission has the option of reducing the commercial development allocation for the proposed hotel since hotels generate fewer peak hour trips than standard commercial uses and are unlikely to be converted to a more intensive use. The Council has previously approved a reduction when for the new 101,363 square foot Public Storage facility, the Council drew down only 10,000 square feet from the development allocation. However, in recent months, the Council approved the Oaks Shopping Center Hotel without discounting the co*r*nercial development allocation. There is the possibility that additional hotel rooms will be added to the General Plan or that some of the hotel rooms committed to the Cupertino Square/Evershine (KCR) properties in the Development Agreement will be available in the future. Whichever of the above options is chosen the conditions of approval should reflect that the reduction of commercial space will be readjusted at the time that additional hotel rooms become available in the General Plan. Exhibit D illustrates four examples of how the development allocations can be distributed to entitle this project: 7-30 Use Permit, ASA, Tree Removal for 10165 N. De Anna BIvd. U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09 November 25, 2008 Page 4 of 6 Traffic: A traffic/parking study was prepared for this project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (Exhibit A). The proposed :hotel generates fewer A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips than the gasoline station/carwash it will be replacing. The net change is 8 fewer A.M. peak hour trips and 25 fewer P.l~i. peak hour trips. A Iarge portion of gasoline station vehicle trips are "pass-by-trips," because the gasoline station is an intermediate stop for a certain percentage of motorists on their way to other destinations. Pass-by-trips account for up to 50°~ of all gas station trips. According to the project traffic engineer, if triese pass-by-trips were discounted, the net increase in hotel traffic generation would be a nominal 35 trips during the A.M. peak hour and 28 trips during the P.M. peak hour. This level of traffic increase is not considered significant. Parking: Parking Supply: The ordinance-required parking for this project is summarized in the table below. It takes into account the likely sharing of parking among uses: Use Parkin Ratio Parking Code- Re uirement Hotel 138 rooms 1 stall/room 138.00 Conference Facili 2,892 s uare feet 1 stall/250 s.f: 11.57 Restaurant Patio 192 seats 1 stall/4 seats 48.00 Bar 21 seats 1 stall/3 seats 7.00 Em Io ees 60 est. 1 stall/em to ee 60.00 Total 255 The parking ordinance (CMC section 19.1OO.040(A}) allows decisionmakers to consider and approve a development plan with a di~Eferent parking requirement from the code requirement if the applicant provides a parking study that supports a different number of parking spaces. A traffic/parking study was prepared for this project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (Exhibit A). The parking cansuitant surveyed the parking demand of comparable hotels for weekday and weekend occupancies and adjusted the numbers to account for the worst case occupancy (100%) of the conference spaces, restaurant and bar. The numbers were normalized fora 138-room hotel (with a 100% occupancy) to estimate an average parking demand of 156 :paces on the weekdays, and 178 spaces on the weekends. The proposal has 200 parking stalls, which is 22 spaces more than the parking study indicates is needed. 7-31 Use Permit, ASA, Tree Removal for 10165 N. De Anza Blvd. U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09 November 25, 2008 Page 5 of 6 Special Parking Arrangements: The parking ordinance (CMC section 19.100.040(G)) allows the City to approve special forms of parking, such as tandem, valet and lift parking in conjunction with a conditional use permit in a planned development zone. The applicant is proposing tandem parking (one stall behind another) and lift parking (one stall above another) for a total of .348 spaces of the 200 spaces supplied. Lift parking, which requires mechanical equipment to vertically stack parked vehicles, has been in use for over 20 years in Europe. Locally, lift parking structures can be found in San Francisco, Berkeley and Palo Alto. Irt a hotel setting, staff feels both tandem and lift parking work best with valet services, where the hotel controls the parking operations for its employees and guests. Onsite Soil,/Water Contamination: Fuel from leaking underground tanks at the gasoline statiori have contaminated the property soil and ground water. The property owner is aware of the problem and has been working with County Environmental Health to study the problem and remediate the site. The County Department has reviewed project plans and has confirmed that the site could be redeveloped if a portion of the site was reserved for a remediation compound near Weil MW-3 (Exhibit B). Therefore, the site can be redeveloped without impacting ongoing soil and ground water clean-up activities. The existing monitoring wells not needed for soil and water remediation should be capped before demolition and grading is allowed. A condition has been placed in the model resolution. Trees: A supplemental arborist .report was prepared by the City Arborist, David Babby (Exhibit C}, to identify existing trees and candidate replacement trees that will grow in the proposed environment. The applicant is proposing the removal of six trees and replacing them with other trees identified on the project landscape plan. The trees proposed for removal are summarized in the table below: Tree No. Tree Name T~~ iTiameter irL Overall Condition ` 1 Coast Redwood 20 Fair 2 Coast Redwood 15 Poor 3 Deodar Cedar 18 Fair 4 Deodar Cedar 18 Fair 5 Canar Island Pine 19 Fair 6 Canar Island Pine 25 Good The City's tree ordinance requires twelve 24 inch box replacement trees, or six 24 inch box and three 36 inch box replacement trees. The landscape plan in the plan set shows 7-32 Use Permit, ASA, Tree Removal for 10165 N. De Aiiza Blvd. U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, 'I"IZ-2008-09 November 25, 2008 Page 6 of 6 seven 36 inch box trees along De Anna Boulevard and at feast thirteen 24 inch box trees in the front setback area. Site Design 8z Architecture: The N. De Anza Blvd. Zoning Plan has specific landscaping and setbacks requirements for De Anza Blvd. and the bisecting side streets. The project meets the setback requirements and is proposing no vehicular access to De Anza Blvd. The proposed De Anza meandering sidewalk and informal tree planting arrangements are also consistent with the master Landscape plan for this area. Other amenities in the front landscape area consist of outdoor dining areas and! water features, which will activate the pedestrian street environment. The City Architect, Larry Cannon, reviewed the design and provided the following key comments relating to building architecture: 1) Redesign the corner glass tower to follow a more traditional form and Link its design to the adjacent facades; 2) Redesign the building to provide an identifiable base, middie and top to the building (e.g, a definable cave elennent); 3) Redesign windows and add arc:Eutecttcral elements, such as balconies, to increase the interest axtd texture of the building facades; 4) Change the entry element so it is highly visible from De Anza Boulevard. Staff concurs with the City Architect's comrn~ents and a condition has been placed in the model resolution. ENCLOSURES: Model Resolutions Initial Study, ERC Recommendation Exhibit A: Parking and Traffic Study for Proposed Cupertino Hotel dated October 21, 2008 Exhibit B: Letter from County Deparment of Environmental Health to Colin Jung dated Oct. 24, 2008 Regarding Redevelopment of Fuel Leak Investigation Site: Cupertino Clean Scene. Exhibit C: Report from Arbor Resources titled: A Review of the Proposed Removal and Replacements of Six trees Located at 10165 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, California Exhibit D: Options for Distributing General Plan Development Allocation for the Hotel Plan Set Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner ~'_~y~ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Coy unity Developme~~`~ G: Plat,.,~T,g/PDReport/pcUreports/2008ureports/ iJ"-2008-02, ASA-2008-07, TR-2008-09 pcdoc 7-33 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project Title: ~.~ fbs'fi Project Location: 1 Ot Pro~ect De~cripXion: ~s~ ,.__ r ,._- ,~ Environmental Setting: ~ ~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A File No. ESQ-21~t ase File No. tl-2af ttachments 'T.-a•~.: ~1 _ G~ ~•~ aS~. _ ._.~ Site Area ~'.) - 3~-~'-~la Building Cove ge - ~~ % Exist. Building - s_f Proposed Bldg. -fin '~s_f. Zone -~FirCe:stMt-1 R~`~'~.P_ Des gnatlon - C~ ' Jjt_~,r,v~:4.~(2.es _ Assessor's Parcel No. - .37~ -~_-_L~ ~~ if Residential, Units/Gross Acre - r`1 /A Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. ~ Price Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) ~ Monte Vista Design Guidelines O S. De Anza Conceptual N. De Anza Conceptual O S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual O Stevens Crk 81vd_ Conceptual O Stevens Creek Blvd_ SW & E.andscape ffHon-Residential, Building Area - f~2- _ t~. s_f. FAR - ~-s 3-7 Max. N ~ x3 Employees/Shift - Parking Required ~ ~ ~y Parking Provided 1 -7 `~ Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban .Service ea - YES ~ NO O Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 1`3SF~ 2Ce+~-a°~ -T P -~no$-- o~ ~'"1- ~te,~ Q~.~ ~a~ 7-34 A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1 _ Land Use Element 2. Public Safety Element 3_ Housing Element 4. Transportation Element 5. Environmental Resources B_ Appendix A- HIIlside Devebpment 7. Land Use Map 8. Noise Element Amendment 9. City Ridgeline Policy 1 O. Constraint Maps B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11_ Tree Preservation ordinance 778 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 13. "Cupertino ChroniGe° (California History Center, 1976) 14. Geological Report (site specific) 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 16. Zoning Map 17. Zoning Code/Speclfic Plan Documents 18. City Noise Ordinance C. CITY AGENCIES Site 19. Community Development Dept List 20. Public Works Dept 21. Parks & Recreation Department 22. Cupertino Water Utility D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES - 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 25. County Departmental of Environmental Heattfi D_ OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 29. Fremont Union High School District 30. Cupertino Union School District 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 33. County Sheriff 34. CALTRANS 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District E_ OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37. SAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 39. USDA, °Sotls of Santa Clara County" 40_ County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 41_ County Heritage Resources Inventory 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Sits 43. CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and Sulastances Site F. OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan Sst/AppllcatJon Materials 45. Field Rsconnaissancs 46. Experience w/project of similar scope%haracterlsNcs 47. ABAG Projection Series A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM 1S NOT AF'PLICASLE_ B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist infomtation in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question too which they relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet expla}Wing the potential impact and suggest mitigation if Her=ded. E. When expSaining any yes response, label yo~lr answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each aasle. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date: the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the initiai Study to the City. /Project Plan Set of Legislative Document /Location map with sKe Dearly marked (wh~sn applicable) 7-35 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: c ~ +-' ISSUES: _ ~ ~ vi ~ -~ m- ~ ~ .~ ~ _- ~ z Q- E [and Supporting Information Sources] o rn ~ m ~ ~ ~ d a~ ~ a ~ y _ ~ 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ~ O O ~( scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, L7 O O including, but not limited- to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a - state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ~ Q 0 - character or quality of the site and i#s - surroundings? j1 ,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantia[ light or O , O D glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In - determining whether impacts to agricultural • resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (7997) prepared by - the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts - on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique O C7 O Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide {mportance (Farmland}, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the " California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for ~ O O agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing O O i~ ~. environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] 7-36 T = t6 V~7 o R = CTr Z ~ t ,'fir ~ ~ C t V ISSUES: c~ `O ~ w~~ m Q 3 ~~ a ~ z a ~ [and Supporl:ing Information Soutces] a ~ J N ~ = J ~ 111_ AIR QUALITY -Where available, the sigr-ificance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of Q ~ D ;~. the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or O O O ~C contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? j5,37,42,44] . c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net O ~ O :;~(, increase of any criteria pollutant for which -- the project region is non-attainment under any applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial o 0 1~ ~, pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] •£ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a l~ © O substantial number of people? [4,37,44] -• ~` IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would the project: ~ - a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either O ~ O directty or through habitat modifications, on - any species identified as a candidate, - sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Cal--ifornia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? . [5,1 Q,27,44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ~ ~ ~ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in focal or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Q ~ ~ federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (includin ,but not limited to, marsh, vernal 7-37 a ~ y... C ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ C r.+ ISSUES: c r~ a m ~ ,,, ~ -- ~ ~ 3 ~ a ~ ~ a ~ Z a ~ [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ ~ m g ~ m vi a va N -- c ~ to pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement ~ L7 ~ ,~ of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any- local policies or ~ ~ ~ - ~ ordinances protecting biological resources, " such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] ' f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ` • Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural p p O Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat " conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] ' V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the - project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in ~ ~ 0 ~;~ the significance of a historical resource as "~ defined in § 15064.5? [5,13,41 ] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in ~ ~ ~ ~ the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §'{5064.5? [5,13,4i] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique D O ~ ~, paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including o o a ,~(, those interred outside of formal cemeteries? I1 ,5] VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the " project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as O O O ~ delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zonin Map issued b the 7-38 ~' ~ is '}:a ea era o ~'a -~ .- ~ ~ ~ ~a c '~ an ~ ~. R o = ~ ~ ~' ~ O '~ . . ~ F y~ t0 Z f0 d Supporting Information Sources] [ c ~ E ~ o ® m f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. V) -- N C ~--~ V7 State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ~ ~ a d [2.5.1 o,4a] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ~ O ~ liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] ~ ~ D b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the O ~ O loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that i~: ~ O O .~. L7 unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site Landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined l~ l7 O in Table 18-1-5 of the Uniform Building Codee (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] - e) Have.soiis incapable of adequatey O O O - supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal_of waste water? [6,9,38,39] - VIl. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS (MATERIALS -Would the profact: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ~ O O ~ the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (32,40,42,43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or D O Q ~ the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle o 0 o n hazardous or acutey hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile 7-39 l0 V ~ t V = ~ i4 ~ ° L V ~! ~ ~! ISSUES: S i I fo ti c ~ a o m E y ~ ~ of m 3 z o s'= c m m E Z G. ~ ources) on n rma ng [and Support m , -J ~ ~ t/~ d V? N C - of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a t7 ~ D D list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] e) For a project located within an airport land O O O ,~ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] f) Fora project within the vicinity of a private Q C] Q = - '~ airstrip, would the project result in a safety - hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically D D O .)~.. - interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a D II O )~ significant risk of foss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including -where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?[1,2,44) VIII_ HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or O E] L7 waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater O Q L7 f.+~, supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby weE1s would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42] ~-ao a = o t i t °~ = s ~ v ~a ISSI)1?S: c ~ N m ~ N L- ~ to ~. m 3 ~ N ~ Q ~ Z Q. ~ land Supporting Information Sources] c ~ m _ J ~ m m d N ~ C J t!! c) Substantially alter the existing drainage O O 17 pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-sitei' • [14, 20,36] d) Substantially alter the existing drainage I~ ~ ~ pattern of the. site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site [20, 36, 38] e) Create or contribute runoff water which O ~ Q ,~ would exceed .the capacity of existing or ' planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water L7 D ~ quality? [20,36,37] g) Place housing within a 100-year flood Q O ~ ~` hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,3g] _ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area O O ~ ' '~ structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a sign cant o o O risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding„ inGuding flooding as a result of the failure ~of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or Q ~ ~ mudflow? [2,36,38] IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established D ~ ~ 0 community? [7,12,22,41 ] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ~ O ~ oficy, or regulation of an a en with 7-41 ~ ~ V V G. ev ~ r:.. ~ = ~ ~ se ~ V ~ ..+ V ISSUES: S ti _ ~ 16 ~ .. ~ ~ = ~ c 3 H ~ Q. ~ z a ~ ources] on jand Supporting Informa ~ y J N ~ c J N jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [ 1,7,8,16,17,18,4-4] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat Q Q Q .mot conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,8,26] X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the - project_ - - a} Result in the loss of availability of a known O 0 ~ mineral resource that would be of value to ~ - the region and the residents of the state? [5.10] b) Result in the loss of availability of a 1=7 0 n locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, - spe~c plan or other land use plan? [5,1 O] XI. NOISE -Would the project result in. a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, 17 O a ~ noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of O D D k~ .excessive groundbome-vibra#ion or groundbome noise levels? [8,18,44] c) A substantial permanent increase in Q O O ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8.187 d) A substantial temporary or periodic O ~ ~_ i7 increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] e) For a project located within an airport land O d O use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project ex ose peo ie residin or workin in the 7-42 lC ~ V O t V ~ L t V [7 ~ C ISSUES: i S - m c `a a ~ = ~ ~ 3 °' e- o ~ ~ c. ~+ E . z° s ~ on ources] nat [and SupporEing Infon , o m o> ~ ~ c ~ w ~ a to va -- t%) project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18,44] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private O ~ O ~. airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] X11. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Woulcl the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an D O O ,~ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44} b) D'esplace substantial numbers of existing o o a ~ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, O D O necessitating the construction of - replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] X111. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the .~ provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? j19,32,44] ~ =7 ~ i~ Police protection? [33,44] D ~ ~ ~ Schools? j29,30,44} ~ O Q Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] O ~ O ,~ Other public facilities? [19,20,44] o 0 0 `~ XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of O ~ Q existin neighborhood and re Tonal parks or 7-43 - f{S V~ Z V= ~ L .~ V V V ISSUES: m c E ~= 3 a~ ~- y= E z [and Supporting Information Sources] a ~ _ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ y . other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project inGude recreational O Q Q facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: - a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 Q Q .~ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e_, result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] • b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, D D Q a level of service standard established by the I ' • • county congestion management agency-for - designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] - c) Result in a change in air traffic patEems, Q O Q - including either an increase in traffic levels or ' a change in locatirin that results in - substantial safety risks? [4,?] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a O. O D '~ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or ' dangerous intersections} or incompatible - uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D C7 D [2,19,32,33,44] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? O O Q [17.x] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or O O D r~ programs supporting attemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would thg protect: 7-44 R ~ V C ~ t V= O~ C ~' t V ~' V IS$l3ES: [and Supporting Int'ormation Sources] ~~ ~ a~. y c 3 °~ c m m ~ w c E m_ Z o a in ~ in ~ ~ m ~ y a) Exceed wastewater treatment D ~ O ~ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of O ~ II new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of ~ O Q new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the - construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e} Result in a determioa#ion by the O ~ D ~ . wastewater treatment provider which serves _ or may serve the project that it has adequate- - capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22;28,36,44] f) 13e served by a laniifill with sufficient O ~ ~ ;= permitted capacity to ac~mmodate the - project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] g) Comply with federal, state, and local ~ ~ 0 )~. statutes and regulations related to solid .. waste? [?] 7-45 a) Does the project have the potential to ~ O O degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below sell-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ^ b) Does the project have impacts that are O - O ~ ~(, individually limited, but cumulatively . considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable° means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past ~ - projects, the effects of other current projects, - and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental O D ~ O effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ^ i hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; 1 certify that 1 have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references ~ . when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. _ ~ ~ Preparer's Signature Print Preparer's N 7-46 D Aesthetics O Agriculture Resources D Air Quality Biological Resources O Cultural Resources O Geology /Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials O Hydrc~logy /Water Quality ~ Land Use /Planning ~ Mineral Resources ~ Noise ~ Population /Housing ~ Public Services ~ Recre:ation ~ Transportation/Traffic O Utilities /Service Systems a Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: ~ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. O Although the proposed project could Ihave a,significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. O The proposed project MAY have a signficant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required_ L] The proposed project MAY have a °p~otentiaFly significant impact" or °potentially . significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect ~) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal- standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it mus# analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ~ Although the proposed project could f~ave a significant effect on the environment, because a!I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Staff Evaluat ERC airperson 1 o~/ng Dat~/~ -~/ ~?- Date 7-47 Environmental Analysis Sum*rary for.. U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07 8z TR-2008-09 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Property soils and ground water has been contaminated by gasoline from leaking underground tanks from the existing gasoline station. Gasoline station owner is working with the County Environmental Health Department to remediate the site. The County Department has reviewed preliminary plans and has commented that the site could be redeveloped if Iand was set aside for a remediation compound near well MW- 3. This is shown on the plans. Therefore the site can be redeveloped without impacting soil and ground water clean-up activities. Transportation/ Traffic A traffic/parking study was prepared for this project. The proposed hotel generates fewer A,M. and P.M. peak hour trips than the gasoline station/carwash it will be replacing. The net change is 8 fewer A.M. peak hour trips and 25 fewer P.M. peak hour trips. A significant portion of gasoline station vehicle trips are "pass-by-trips," that is the gasoline station is an intermediate stop for a certain percentage of motorists on their way to other destinations. Pass-by-trips account for up to 50°~ of all gas station trips. If these trips were discounted, the net increase in hotel traffic generation would be a nominal 35 trips during the A.M. peak hour and 28 trips during the P.M. peak hour: Pazkin~ The zoning code allows the City to adopt a parking requirement different from the numerical standards if it is based on a parking study and one has been prepared for this project. The parking consultant surveyed the parking demand of comparable hotels for weekday and weekend occupancies and adjusted the numbers to account for worst case (10Q% occupancy) of the conference spacds, restaurant and bar. The numbers were normalized fora 138-room hotel, which suggested a pazking demand of 156. spaces on the weekdays and 178 spaces on the weekends. The proposal has 174 parking stalls. The applicant is proposing valet parking as well, which would increase parking capacity by 20% (35 spaces) if the entire parking garage was utilized. Adequate parkirig is being provided by this project. . Biological Resources (Trees) There aze six protected trees on the property that were part of the landscape plan. An arborist report was prepared and reviewed by City Arborist David Babby. They are: 7-48 Tree No. Tree Name Trunk Diameter in. Overall Condition 1 Coastal Redwood 20 Fair 2 Coastal Redwood 15 Poor 3 Deodar Cedar 18 Im ro erl tuned. Fair 4 Deodar Cedar 18 Im ro erl tuned. Fair 5 Cancer Island Pine 19 Im ro erl tuned. Fair 6 Cancer Island Pine 25 Im ro erl runed. Good Relandscaping exceeds City's tree replacement guidelines. Seven 36" box Camphor trees are proposed along N. De Anza Blvd. and at least six 24" box trees at other places on site. 7-49 CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDA'T'ION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE October 22, 2008 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on October 22, 2008. - PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.. U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07 (EA-2008-08), TR-2008-09 Applicant: Rajeev Chopra (Ebrahim-Kaabipour) Location: 10165 N. De Anza Boulevard DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Use Permit and Architectural and Site approval to demolish an existing gasoline station/car wash and construct a 5-story, 138 room hotel of approximately 82,000 square feet, which will include a restaurant, bar, lounge and conference rooms built over a two-level underground parking podium that contains tandem parking; and a Tree Removal request to remove 6 trees and replace with a comprehensive landscape plan FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no signific vironmental impacts. Steve iasec - Director of Community Development g/erc/REC EA-2008-OS 7-50 I~""'~1 Exhibit A ~~ WEXAGON YRANSD~QTATlON CONSULTANTS, (NC_ ,' MEMORANDUM TO: Colin Jung, City of Cupertino FROM: Gary K. Black Leilani Valerio DATE: October 27, 2008 SUBJECT: Pazking and Traffic Study for Proposed Cupertino Hotel Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., has completed t11is study of traffic and pazking for a proposed hotel located at the corner of De Anza Boulevard and Alves Drive in Cupertino, California. The project site currently contains a gas station with a convenience market and car wash. The project as proposed would consist of 138 rooms with 3,928. square feet of conference space and 4,095 square feet of restaurant bar space. Parking would be provided in two underground levels. This study comprises a trip generation analysis, parking analysis, and review of site access and circulation. Because the hotel would generate little, if any, traffic greater than the gas station it would replace, no off- site traffic analysis is necessary. Trip Generation Analysis Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of tralTic produced by common land uses. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied to help predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. Trip generation data aze published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) publication, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition_ The applicable land use category for this development is Hotel (ITE Land Use Codc: 31 O). While the hotel trip estimates are based on the number of rooms, hotels aze defined as including restaurant and meeting room space. Based on the published rates, it is estimated that the proposed hotel would generate 77 trips occurring the AM peak hour and 81 trips during the PM peak hour. Also using ITE trip generation rates, trip credits were estimated to account for the gas station with convenience market and car wash currently on the site (ITE Land Use Code 946). After subtracting the existing trip credits, it is estimated that the proposed hotel would generate 8 fewer trips during the AM peak hour and 25 fewer trips during the PM peak hour (see Table 1). Another issue to evaluate is that many people stop at gas stations while on their way to other destinations. These are called "pass-by trips" ITE has measured pass-by trips at gas stations and determined that they accoum for up to 50% of all gas station trips. Even if this factor is considered, however, the proposed hotel would generate little more additional traffic (see Table 2). 40 South' tVlarkg}: Street, suite b00 -San.-Jose, Cali#oma 'ir5l 7'3 phone:A08.971'.ba00 •-fax 406d971.b1'02 •'viww.hsxfratis.mrsm ~-s~ Mr. Colin Jung October 21, 2008 Page 2 of 6 Table 1 Project Trip Generation Estimates - - -- AIN Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size Dally Daily Pk-Hr Trips Pk-Fir Trips Land Use Rate Trips Rata In Oul Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Use - - ~ - H otel /1 / 138 8.17 1,127 0.56 47 30 77 0.58 43 38 81 F~dsting Usa - Gasoline Station w Convience Market and Car Wash /2/ B 152.84 1.223 10.64 43 42 ___ 85 13.33 53 54 107 Net Pro)ed TNps: 4 (12) (8) (10) (15) (25) Notes: /1/ Slze rate expressed h trips Par room /2/ Size rate expressed per vehide fueling position Source: Institute of Trensportatton Engineers, Trip Genara(!on , 7th Edition. Table 2 Project Trip Generation Estimates wititt Pass-By Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size Dally Daffy Pk-Hr Trlpa Pk-Hr Trips Land Use Rata Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Vse H olel/t/ - 738 8.17 1,127 0.58 47 30 77 0.59 43 38 81 Existing Usa Gasoline Station w ConNence Market and Car Wash 2/ 8 152.84 1,223 10.64 43 _ 42 BS 13.33 53 54 107 Pass-By Reductlan /3/ - ~ (5096) (22) (21) (43) (27) (27) (53) Nat ProlaaY TNps: 28 - 9 35 17 12 28 Notes: /1/ Siza rate expressed i'f trips par room /2/ Size rate expressed per vehide fueling posltlon /3/ A redudkm of 50% was applied to the existing 9a soYne station trips Sou rca: Institute of Tre nsportaHon Engineers. Trip GanereHa~n, 7th Edttlon. Parking Analysis Tfte project as proposed would consist of 138 rooms with 3,928 square feet (s_f) of conference space, 3,789 s.f. of restaurant space, and 306 s_f. of bar space. To determine the peak parking demand for a hotel with these different components, Hexagon conducted surveys at three similar hotels: Toll House Hotel in Los Gatos, Cypress Hotel in Cupertino, and Hilton Garden Inn in Cupertino (see attachment for survey data). Table 3 summarizes the parking survey data and hotel descriptions of each hotel. 7-52 Mr. Colin Jung October 21, 2008 Page 3 of 6 Table 3 Hotel Description Propose Project Comparable Hotel #1 omparabie Hotel #2 Comparable Hotel #3 Hotel Details Cupertino Hotel Cypress Hotel 10(150 S. De Anza Blvd Cu ~ertlno, CA Toll House '140 S. Santa Cruz Ave Los Gatos, CA HIRon Garden Inn 10741 N. Wolfe Rd Cu rtino, CA Rooms ~ ~ 138 224 115 165 Conference S ce af. 3,928 - ~ S,OOU - 2,766 ~ 1 ,650 Restaurant Facilities s.f. 3 789 2,400 4 800 900 Bar (s.f.) 306 O O O Hax on Parkin Surv s Weekda Parkin 141 77 Weekda Room Occu an ~ 100% 100% Weekda Conference Occu n O% O% eekend Parkin 126 - 104 60 eekend Room Occu n 64'Y° 100°i6 50% Weekend Conference Occupancy O% O% 33% Hexagon used the survey data to calibrate a model of parking demand. Hexagon calculated the parking spaces per room based on the parking surveys and factored in the occupany of the hotel rooms, restaurant, and conference rooms for each hotel on the day of the counts. The rates were used to estimate how much parking the proposed hotel would need (see Tables 4 Sr. 5). The conference rooms at the Cypress Hotel and Toll House: hotel were not in use during the time of the parking surveys. The Hilton.Gazden Inn Cupertino conference morn was at.33% Qccupancy during the count. Therefore, the additional parking spaces that would be needed if the conference rooms for the proposed hotel were at 100% occupancy were estimated. The City of Cupertino's parking code does not have a parking standazd for hotel conference space, therefore the "General" category was use;d. Based on this category, conference space requires 1 parking space per 250 s.f. These spaces were added into th~~ parking estimate. The restaurant occupancy for the surveyed hotels was asswrtled to be 50% on weekdays and 100% on weekends. The additional parking spaces that would be needed if the restaurant for the proposed hotel was at .100% occupancy were calculated. The City of Cupertino's parking requirement for restaurants without a bar are one stall for each four seats plus one for each employee on a shift. Since the number of'seats for the restaurant portion of the proposed project are unknown, Hexagon estimated the requirement based on the: proposed square footage. Assuming 15 square feet per occupant, the requirement would be 1 space per 60 square -Feet. It is assumed that there would be 8 employees on a shift.These spaces also were added into the adjusted parking estimates for the proposed hotel. The adjustments were based on the square footage of the proposed hotel compared to the comparable hotel square footage. Since the Toll House hotel restaurant space is larger than the proposed hotel, there is a negative number adjustment. The City of Cupertino's parking requirement for restaurants with a bar are one stall for each three seats plus one for each employee on a shift. Since the number seats provided for the bar portion of the proposed project are unknown, Hexagon estimated the requirement based on square footage. Assuming 15 square feet per occupant, the requirement would be 1 space per 45 square feet. It is assumed that there would be approximately 1 employee on a shift. These spaces also were added into the adjusted parking estimates for the proposed hotel To be conservative, it was assumed that the comparable hotels did not have a bar. 7-53 Mr. Colin lung October 21, 2008 Page 4 of 6 Table 4 Parkinst Estimate Based on Surveys - Weekday Comparable Hotei #1 Comparable Hotel #2 Comparables Study - Weekday Parking Cypress Hotel '10050 S. De Anza Blvd Cupertino, CA Toll House 140 S. Santa Cruz Ave Los Gatos, CA Number of Rooms 22 11 Occupancy 100% 100°,6 Hexagon Parking Count 141 7 Spaces Per Room 0.63 0.67 Parking for 938 Rooms ('100% O ccu pancy)t 87 92 Worst Case Adjustments (900% Occupancy) Conference Space2 16 16 Restaurant Facilities3 52 32 Bar4 8 8 Adjusted Parking Estimate Based on Comparables 963 149 Average Park~g Estimate 156 Project proposes 138 rooms. z Corfer~c¢ occupancy adjusted for size of space and to 1009'0 occupancy teased on 1 space per 250 s.f. a Restaurant occupancy adjusted for s¢e of space. Assumed 50% restaurant occupancy for comparab~s at 100°,{, room-occupancy, and 100% restaurant occupancy for proposed hate) based on 1 space per ~ s.f., with 9 empbyees on a shift ° Bar occupancy assumed at 1009'0 occupancy for propos¢d hotel bas¢d on 1 space per 45 s.f., with 1 employee on a shift - According to the Urban Land Institute (ULI) publication, Shared Parking, 2005, research shows that many guests in a business hotel, such as proposed herein, would walk, carpool, take a shuttle, or be dropped off at the hotel. Also, many of the restaurant and conference facility users would be hotel guests. Therefore, although some of the hotels were at 100% occupancy, the parking counts are not higher than the number of hotel rooms. 7-54 Mr. Colin Jung October 21, 2008 Page 5 of 6 Table 5 Parking Estimate Based on Sutvevs -Weekend Comparable Hotel #1 ~ Comparable Hotel #2 Comparable Hotel #3 Com parables Study - Weekend Parking - ~ Cypress Hotel 10050 S. De Anza Blvd Cupertino, CA - Toll Houses 140 S. Santa Cruz Ave Los Gatos, CA - Hilton Garden Inn Cupertino 10741 N_ Wolfe Rd Cupertino, CA Numt~er of Rooms 224 115 1g5 Occupancy ti4% 100 ~ 50% Hexagon Parking Count 12 1 g0 Spaces Par Room 0.8 - O. ~ 0.73 Parking for 138 Rooms (100% Occu pancy)t ~ 721 12 - 100 Worst Case Ad ustments (100X Occu an Conference Space2 76 .1 14 Restaurant Facilities' 32 -8 - 57 Bar° 8 8 8 Adjusted Parking Estimate Based on Co mparables 177 14 179 Average Parking Estmmate4 ~ - - 178 Project proposes 138 rooms. - - ' Conference occupancy adjusted for size of space and to 100% occupancy based on 1 space per 250 s.f. ' Restaurant occupancy adjusted for size of space. Assumed 10096 n3s:taurant occupancy for com parades, and 100% restaurant occupancy for proposed hobal based on 1 space p~ 60 s.f., w(th 9 employees on a shift ° Bar-occupancy assumed at 100% occupancy for proposed hotel based on 1 space per 45 s.f., with 1 empbyea on a sh ttt s Based on Cypress Hotel and Hilton Garden Inn Cupertino ony. Based on the surveys, the peak demand for the proposed hotel is estimated to be 178 spaces. The proposed hotel includes 179 parking spaces. If valet parking was used throughout the parking garage, the number of cars that could be accommodated would increase by about 20%: Therefore, the proposed hotel would provide adequate parking supply. Site Access Analysis This analysis is based on the site plan dated 7/30/08 by RYS Architects. The pro}ect site currently is occupied by a gas station with carwash. The gas station has two driveways on Alves Drive and one driveway on De Anza Boulevard. The hotel proposes to have two driveways on Alves Drive and no driveway on De Anza Boulevard. Since the hotel would generate less traffic than the gas station and since the De Anza driveway would be closed, the hotel actually would result ip an improvement to driveway operations compared to existing conditions. Alves-Drive is a fairly low volume street, so driveway operations are not di::ruptive to traffic flow. The elimination of the De Anza driveway would remove a source of disruption to traffic flc~w on De Anna 7-55 Mr. Colin Jung October 21, 2008 Page 6 of 6 While two-way traffic would be allowed at either hotel driveway, the predominate direction of flow would be inbound at the eastern driveway and outbound at the western driveway. The driveways lead to a porte cochere, which is where drop-offs and pick-ups will occur. Leading off of the pone cochere is a ramp down to the underground parking levels. This design is common at hotels and works well. All elements have been designed with sufficient widths and radii to accommodate turning movements. The ramp from the poste cochere leads to the first level of underground- parking. From there is another ramp that leads to a second underground level. The turn radius at the base of the first level ramp is very tight. Also, some.of the parking spaces would require multiple maneuvers to get in or out. Consideration should be given to revising the layout of the first parking level at the detailed design phase of the project. The layout of the second parking level is much better for maneuvering: the radii are larger; and the spaces can be easily accessed. Conclusions The proposed hotel would not have any noticeable impact to traffic in the area because it would generate little, if any, additional trafi=rc compared to the gas station that it would replace. The parking analysis showed that the proposed hotel would provide adequate parking supply. The site plan review showed that some of the turn radii and parking spaces on the fast parking level would be difficult for maneuvering. This level should be modified at the detailed design phase of the project. ~-ss J N J Hotel Parking Survey Hotel Name: Toll House Date: 9-13&17-08 Counter. Jo Weather. Clear -Los Gatos Saturday Underground Upper Street Total S aces 106 45 14 6:00 61 33 6 6:30 66 32 6 7:00. 64 34 6 7:30 65 32 4. 8:00 6L 33 4 8:30 64 31 3 9:00 66 31 3 9:30 66 28 4 10:00 PM 69 29 4 Total 185 100 101 99 98 100 98 102 Weekday Underground Upper Street Total aces 106 45 1'4 6:00 36 18 6 6:30 42 19 5 7:00 45 16 6 7:30 54 16 7 8:00 58 12 7 8:30 54 14 6 9:00 50 13 6 9:30 51 12 6 10:00 PM 56 15 5 Total 165 60 66 67 77 7T 14 69 89 76 J N Hotel Parking Survey Hotel Name: Cypress Hotel Date: 9-13&17-08 Counter Patti Weather. Clear • Cupertino Saturday Lot Valet Total Spaces 156 0 6:00 101 2-- 6:30 108 4 7:00 104 2 7:30 99 0 8:00 104 0 8:30 109 0 9:00 108 0 9:30 125 1 10:00 PM 126 0 Total 156 103 112 106 99 .104 109 108 1Z6 Weekday Lot Valet Total Spaces 156 0 6:00 79 3 6:30 89 0 7:00 93 0 .7:30 104 2 8:00 104 3 8:30 108 1 9:00 121 1 9:30 137 1 10:00 PM 141 0 Total 156 82 89 93 106 107 109 122 138 141 Hotel Parking Survey Hotel Name: Hilton Garden Date: 912712008 Counter: Patti. Weather:. Clear -Cupertino Saturda Lot Restaurant Event Total Spaces 150 # Of people Risin Stars 6:00 54 0 8 6:30 52 0 8 7:00 49 4 4 7:30 36 same 4 4 8:00 34 0 0 . 8:30 40 3 0 9:00 49 same 3 0 9:30 57 same 3 0 10:00 PM ,_.' 60_ !, '; same 3 0 J rn County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental l-ie<-tlth Hazardous Materials Conlpllance Division t S55 Berger Drive, Suite 300 S~-tn Jose, California 95 t 1 2-271 G (408) 918-3400 FAX (408) 2806479 www.EHinfo.org _ October 24, 2008 Colin Jung Senior Planner Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 F~ibit B ~,ou/~r), ~ - y,~,T Faso ~~ ~ Subject: Redevelopment of Fuel Leak Investigation Site: Cupertino Clean Scene, 10165 N. De Anza Boulevazd, Cupertino, CA; Assessor Parcel No_ 326-34-057, SCVWDID No_ 07S2W 13F02f Deaz Mr. Jung: We have reviewed the plans for the proposed redevelopment of the above-referenced site with a 5-story hotel with 2-levels of underground parking. The plans address our needs for a remediation compound and wells located onsite. We do not have concerns with the proposed redevelopment plans_ If you have any questions or need further assistance, please feel to contact me directly at (408) 918-1977. Sincerely, _..~--~ Lani ee Hazardous Materials Specialist II ~,ocal Oversight Program lani.lee~a deh_sccgov.org cc: File Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gaf3e, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, Ken Yeager, l..iz Kniss County Cxecuiivc: Peter Kutras. Jr. ~ 7 _ 6O .-m. ARBOR RESOD:ROES E7~ibit C _.. _. professional consulting arborists and tree care .A REVIEW OF THE PROIPOSED REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENTS OF SI:~ TREES LOCATED AT 10165 NORTH DE A]~T~A BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA APN 326-34-057 Submitl:ed to: Colin .Jung Community Develo~~ment Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Prepare-d by: David L. Babby Registered Consultrng.4rborist #399 Board-Certifred Master.4rborist #WE-400IB August 1.3, 2008 p. o. box 25295, san mateo, cal~fornia 9440?_ ~ email: arborroso~rcesQcomcast.net phones: 650.654.335 I ~ fax: 650.240.0;'77 ~ licensed contractor x9796763 7-61 David L. Bobby, Registered Conszrlting Arborist August 18, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION -------° .................................................. 1 2.0 REVIEW OF TREES ........................................•-----.......... 2 2.1 Trees #1 and 2 (coast redwoods) ............................................ 2 2.2 Trees #3 and 4 (deodar cedars) .............................................. 2 2.3 Trees #5 and 6 (Canary island pines) ...................................... 3 3.0 REVIEW OF PROPOSED TREES ...................................... 3 4.0 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS .............................°----------.... 4 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT TITLE A TREE INVENTORY TABLE B SITE MAP C PHOTOGRAPHS (includes photo index) i ~-sz David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist August I8, 2008 1.0 IN'I`RO:DUCTION I have been retained by the City of Cupertino Community Development Department to review a proposed application to remove .and replace six trees located at 10165 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, California (the site is currently occupied by a gas station, car wash and store). To my understanding, the removals are being proposed to accommodate the development of a five-story, approxima#elly 82,000 square-foot hotel with atwo-level underground parking garage. Tasks performed for my review are as follows: ^ Identify and verify the location of the six subject trees. ^ Measure the trees' trunk diameters at approximately 54 inches above grade; trunk diameters are rounded to the nearest inch. ^ Estimate or measure tree heights and canopy spreads. ^ Evaluate the health and structural colidition of each tree; my observations were obtained during a site visit on 8/13/08. ^ Obtain photographs of the trees; these c:an be viewed in Exhibit C. ^ Specify which trees are regarded as ";specimen trees" pursuant to Appendix B of Chapter 14.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ^ Review the proposal by Roy Bradshaw, dated 7/22/08, and utilize tree numbers and the map ~ presented the proposal. ^ Review the following project plans doted 7/30/08: A10, L1 and L2. ^ Identify which trees listed on Sheet L,2'. are appropriate for installation in restricted planting areas. ^ Prepare a written report containing the .aforementioned information. ~ The map is a copy of the Boundary and Topographic Map by LC Engineering, Inc., dated 6/16/08. 10165 North De Anza Boulevard Cupertino Page 1 of5 City of Cupertino Community Development Department - 7-63 David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting flrborist August-18, 2008 2.0 REVIEW OF TREES The six trees are located on the subject site. They are sequentially numbered as 1 thru 6, and include two coast redwoods (#1 and 2), two deodar cedars (#3 and 4), and two Canary island pine (#5 and 6). Specific information regarding each is presented within the Tree Inventory Table in Exhibit A. The trees' locations are presented on the map in Exhibit B. 2.1 Trees #1 and 2 (coast redwoods) Trees #1 and 2 are located immediately adjacent to another near the northwest property corner_ Both appear to have been adversely impacted by a lack of water supplied to their root zones, as exhibited by the sparse canopies and poor shoot growth. Tree #1 appears to have declined slightly, however, could likely recover through a regular watering program being implemented. Conversely, tree #2 is well-beyond recovery and its demise appears imminent. If tree #1 was retained, a minimum 10-foot setback from its trunk (closest edge) would be necessary for all grading, compaction, trenching and scraping. 2.2 Tree #3 and 4 (deodar cedars) Trees #3 and 4 have trunk diameters of 18 inches, and due to their trunk size and species, are regarded as "specimen trees" pursuant to Appendix B of Chapter 14.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Both cedars appear healthy and vigorous. However, they have been severely pruned in recent prior years, and in a manner contrary the City's or professional industry standards. The pruning raised the canopies to unusually excessive heights, and results in the loss of an estimated 70-percent of tree #3's canopy and 50-percent of tree #4's canopy. Consequently, the extent of canopy loss adversely impacts the trees' longevity, natural 10165 North De Anza Bautevarc~ Cupertino Page 2 of S City of Cupertino Community Development Department 7-64 David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting ~Irborist - August I8, 2008 form, and structural integrity. Additionally, due to the amount of canopy removed, the two trees qualify as being "removals" pursuant to Section 14.18A30(J) of the City Ordinance. 2.3 Trees #5 and 6 (Canary Island pines) Trees #5 and 6 are healthy and vigorous panes that have also been severely pruned in recent prior years, as discussed for tree #3 and 4. The pruning, which involved elevating. the canopies to excessive heights, resulted in the loss of an estimated 65-percent of tree #5's canopy and 45-percent of tree #6's canopy. As with trees #3 and 4, the extent of canopy loss adversely impacts the trees' lon€;evity, natural form, and structural integrity, and the two trees qualify as being removals per the City Ordinance. Tree #5 is comprised of a main trunk that divides into two leaders at about 14 feet high. These leaders grow with a very close angle, a situation that creates a weak attachment, and predisposes one or both to a potential risk of failure. Consequently, this tree can be regarded as having a poor or weak structure regardless of past pruning practices. 3.0 REVIEW OF PROPOSED TREES On Sheet L2, I reviewed the first two groupings of trees below the heading "Preliminary Planting Legend" to identify suitable tree replacements appropriate for installation within restricted planting areas. The first group includes "street trees," and is comprised of the following three trees: camphor, evergreen ash and maidenhair tree. Of these, maidenhair tree is the most appropriate for installing near hardscape due to its less aggressive growth rate and root system compared to the other two. Camphor trees would be the next best appropriate 10165 North De.4nza Boulevard Cupertino Page 3 of5 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 7-65 David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 18, 2008 tree, followed by evergreen ash as the least favorable due to its rapid growth rate, inherent weak branch limb attachments, and invasive and aggressive root system. Regardless of whether the maidenhair and/or camphor trees are chosen, they should be installed at least 24 inches from any proposed hardscape. I also recommend the base material for the sidewalk and concrete walkways consists of an engineered structural soil mix,2 By doing so, a more compatible, long-term growing environment can be established for trees while reducing the risk of future damage to adjacent hardscape. The second group of trees is titled "Small to Medium Accent Trees," and consists of 15 various species. The following three grow to very Iarge sizes, and would not be appropriate: fern pine, coast (Soyuel) redwood and coast live oak.. I also do not suggest the Chitalpa tree due to its inherent weak structure and short-life span, and the Southern magnolia would be appropria#e .provided the `Little Gem' and/or `Saint Mary' variety is planted (the standard variety grows to be very large and has an aggressive root system). Additionally, I suggest Brisbane box (7'risicsnia conferta) is added to the list. 4.0 ADDITIONAL CONIIVIENTS The proposed plans identify the retention of the existing tall shrubs/small trees along the western property line, and eucalyptus immediately north of the northern property line. There are also two coast redwoods located on the western neighboring property, immediately west of tree #2 (see map in Exhibit B}; these redwoods should also be identified on the plans. ~ Additional information can be viewed at rvmv.amereq.com/pages/l4/index.htm. 10165 North De Anza Boulevard' Cupertino Page 4 of S City ofCuper[ino Community Development Department 7-66 David G. Bobby, Registered Consulting ftrborist August I8, 2008 Although anticipated for retention, the grading and architectural design will need to be refened to achieve a reasonable degree of assurance of tree survival. Measures #o achieve this are as follows: 1. The trunk locations shown on the landscape plan (and any site-related civil and architectural plans) should reflect their surveyed locations. 2. Setbacks from the trees' trunks (closest edge) are necessary and should involve a minimum distance of five times their diameters for any soil cuts, fill, compaction, trenching and scraping. Note that an,y proposed feature should be established at least 24 to 36 inches beyond this setback to allow for any necessary overcuboverbuild, or soil disturbance occurring with shoring. 3. Vertical shoring is necessary to maintain as much existing grade as possible. Note that soil should not be disturbed be:rond 24 to 36 inches from a retaining or underground parking garage wall proposed along the north and west sides of the property. 4. Additional measures should also be provided for the contractor and design team to follow in minimizing impacts to the trees. Prepared By: ~~~~-~~"' ~ ' Lf''~~ Date: August 18.2008 David L. Bobby ~ Registered Consulting flrborist #399 Board-Cert~edMasterflrborist #WE-400IB ~~„rcon~„y~~~ '~. .,, ~~ ~q r4~ ~uhs~:~z~~ 10165 North De Anza Boulevard Cupertino Page S oJ5 City afCupestino Community Development Department 7-67 David L. Bab by, Registered Consulting Arborist ~ August I8, 2008 EXHIBIT A: TREE INVENTORY TABLE IOIGS North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino - - - City of Cupertino Community Development Department 7-68 ARBOR RESOLIRC'ES ,.. _. pro tesaional congult~ng arbonsts-and tree care TREE INVENT~~RY TABLE Coast Redwood 2 (Se uoia senr rvirens) I S 30 25 25% 50% Poor Comments: Tree is nearly dead and appears well-beyond recovery due to seemingly a lack of water. Its canopy is extremely sparse, and the tree's demise is expecaed. Deodaz Cedar 3 (Cedrus deodara 18 40 25 75% 50% Fair X Comments: Has been improperly pruned- The lower 25 feet of its canopy has been removed, an amount that accounts for about 70% of the Iive canopy. Deodar Cedar 4 (Cedrus deodaro) 18 45 30 75% 50% Fair X Comments: Has been improperly pruned. The Lower 25 feet of its canopy has been removed, an amount that accounts for about 50% of the live canopy. Has an asymmetrical canopy, and remaining branches are heavy at their ends. Canary Island Pine 5 (I'inu_s canoriensis~ 19 50 30 75% 25% Fair Comments: Has been improperly pruned. The lower 30 feet of its canopy has been removed, an amount that aca~unts for about 60% of the live canopy. its structure is comprised of a main trunk that divides into two leaders at about 74 feet high; they form a weak atta ~hment due to the close angle in which they grow. Canary Island Pine 6 Pinus canariensis 25 55 25 100% 50% Good --? - - - Comments: Has been improperly pruned. The lower 30 feet of its canopy has been removed, an amount that accounts for about 45% of the live canopy. Tree appears stable. Site: 90165 North De Anza Soufevard, Cupartfno Prepared for: C/ty of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Oept. Prepared 6y: David L Babby August 98, 2008 7-69 Coast Redwood 1 (Se uoia sem rvirens) 20 40 25 50% 100% Fair Comments: Tree canopy is somewhat sparse due seemingly to a Lack of water. Its vigor can be expected to improve through regular watering. Tree appears stable. , David L. Bobby, Registered Cotnru/ttng Arborfst August l8, 2008 ~xxlslT s: SITE MAP /O/65 North De Anza Boulevard Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department 7-70 1D165 NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD, CUPERTINO V J ._._~ "'''.'Uwv_ !~5a!!.n~-,.. - ., ft1k0 NP..M._NWi1N ~f WYZfi Nl.!~1 C~N1Y kf. NO David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arbortst August I8, 2008 " EXHIBIT C: PHOTOGRAPHS Photo Index Page C-1: Trees #1 and 2 Page C-2: Trees #3 tlini 6 /0165 North De Anza Boulevard Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Dc-velopmen[ Department 7-72 David L. Ba66y, Registered ConsultingArborist August 18, 2008 10165 North De Anza Boulevard Cupertino, CA Page w City oJCupertino Community Development Department David L. Ba66y, Registered Consulting Arborist August 18, 2008 10165 North De Anza Boulevard Cupertino, CA Page C-1 ~ City of Cupertino Community Development Department DA ~® THE DAVEY TREE EXPERT CO_ July 22, 2008 Attn: Rajeev Chopra Shashi Corporation 10050 Wolfe Road Ste_SW1-276 Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 996-2750 Phone (408)996-2729 Fax Email: rchooraC7a,shashillc.com Re: 10165 De Anna Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 1055 Commercial Court San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 453389 (408) 453-2940 - Faa CA License #694001 SERVICE ANALYSIS: On July 18, 2008 I cooked at six trees at various local:ions on property at 10165 De Anza Blvd. First tree located South West corner of property line along Alves. One coast Redwood {Sequoia Sempervirens) D.B.H. 19 inch approximately 40 ft. vi height poor health, poor vigor, fair structure. This tree has been deprived from water in previous years zmd shows decline and sparce canopy growth. In order to save this tree I recommend increased watering and fertilizing_ Second tree located on same side, Coast Redwood (Sequoia Sempervirens). This tree had a D.B:H of 15 inch and is approximately 30 ft. in height very poor health, very poor vigor, poor structure. Again tree shows signs of drought stress and spider mite infestation. This tree may be to far gone to save, if wanted to save recommend increased watering, fertilizing and spraying for spider mite. Third tree, front North Fact corner along De Anza Blvd. 1 Deodara Cedar (Cedrus Deodara). This tree had a D.B.H. of l8 inch and is approximately 45 feet in height and had a crown spread of 10 feet. Health is fair, vigor poor, structure poor. This tree has been elevated (large limbs removed along main tttu~k) approximately twenty feet above ground for sign and building visibility and is a one sided tree. Fourth tree, Deodara Cedar (Cedrus Deodara) D.B.H.. 17 inch approximately 45 feet in height and a crown spread of 12 feet. This tree's health fair, vigor ;poor, tree has been elevated as well, approximately twenty feet above ground and had been severely pruned causing a very poor structured tree and little scaffold limb structure. Fifth tree, Canary Island Pine (Finns Canariensis) D.B.H. 17 inch health poor, vigor poor, structure poor. This tree has been poorly pruned in past years and showing decline in canopy beetles not detected at this time at base. Tree has been elevated above ground approximately twenty feet. Codominant standard, enciuded bark noted between two codominant standards. Sixth tree, Canary Island Pine (Finns Canariensis) D.=6.H. 22 inch, health poor, vigor poor, structure poor, approximately 60 feet in height. This tree again has been elevated_ approximately twenty feet above ground, beetles noted at base. 7-75 Page 2 contsnued IOI65 De Anza Blvd RECOMMENDATION: In summary, I recommend removing all 6 tree's mentioned due to various reasons including poor health, poor structure, and poor vigor. Trees are drought-stressed with insect infestations, encluded bark noted, and have been subject to poor pruning practices in prior years. I recommend planting a more suitable tree for the site such as neighboring Eucalyptus along North side of property. To avoid possible root disturbance to neighboring trees from construction during development of property I recommend avoiding roots within dripline. When necessary prune roots with clean sharp hand tools and keep to a minimal. If we can be of further service or if you have any questions, please contact me at (408) 453-3389 ext. 14. Sincerely, Roy Bradshaw Sales Representative Certified Arborist WFr6889A IF THIS PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTABLE, PLEASE SEND ONE APPROVED COPY TO OUR OFFICE AUTHORIZED SIGNATU DA RB:co ~-~s IB~NA~MINe i/4{I ry« ~nW Y 1i~ RnR • YNM C W ~ M Ofl µ~rq p5yq RMR~~ 6IYIpiI M n~iipM~1~ U WIUI IRAI MYIRIRpAq 4AANA YM M~ u A~MRP R1AIW i q10 nni W w 0 R ~ yAnl MbRn Y[ 1gRM0pleilgRA RR41A ~n~RR •[ Pw ~ RIR ~1~ ~ WPR M AeR[ Anm V' qnl /~fi { ~s { ~ r R pY.tp pnuA _ P ^ 04~sv1 `.~ ~R, o ~. RAa _,A_~Pg ~ _. .. ~~, crra~ ~' --- I ~_ ~ -- A~vee DeIYE Q I J p 9 m Z ^ ~Qy $ 0 < N W~ III qq<O y{`~ ~~Qy i3 S. v ~ 55 ~~E~ 0 F W 1\I S ~ e ____ APPLICANT: DIPESH ROAD NAME • NORTH DE ANZA BLW COUNTY FlLE NO . Exhibit D Exhibit D: General Plan Hotel Development Allocation Options for File No. U-2008-02 Option 1: Use Uncommitted South Vallco Hotel Allocation &c No Discounting of Commercial Allocation for the Hotel Proposed Hotel square footage: 82,059 sq. ft. Credit demolished gasoline station: - 1,855 sq. ft. Transfer uncommitted S. Vallco P.A. hotel allocation (78 rooms): -37,337 sq, ft. (est.} . Utilize N. De Anza Blvd. retail commercial allocation: -14,867 sq. ft. Transfer commercial allocation from Heart of the City P_A.: -28,000 sq. ft. O Option 1 ramifications • precludes other developers from using the uncornm,tted hotel allocation, • draws down the retail commercial allocation in N. De Anza Boulevard to zero, and • reduces the Heart of the City retail commercial development allocation balance to 79,274 square feet. Option 2: Use Uncommitted South Vallco Hotel Allocation 8z Discount Commercial Allocation for the Hotel Proposed Hotel: 138 rooms Transfer uncommitted S. Vallco P.A. hotel allocation: -78 rooms Remaining hotel rooms (60 rooms) converted to commercial sq. ft. Based on peak hour traffic equivalency (discounting): 9,231 sq. ft. Credit demolished gasoline station: -1,855- sq. ft. Utilize N. De Anza Blvd. retail commercial allocation: -7,376 sq. ft. O Option 2 ramifications • precludes other developers from using the uncommitted hotel allocation, and • reduces the N. De Anza Blvd. retail commercial allocation balance to 7,491 square feet. _ 1~ - ~e Option 3: Save the South Vallco Hotel Allocation 8z Use Only Commercial Allocation for the Hotel Proposed Hotel square footage: 82,059 sq. ft. Credit demolished gasoline station: - 1,855 sq. ft. Utilize N. De Anza Blvd. retail cornmerci,al allocation: -14,867 sq. ft. Transfer commercial allocation from Heart of the City P.A.: -65,337 sq. ft. O Option 3 ramifications • saves the uncommitted hotel allocation for another hotel project, • draws down the retail commercial allocat_ ion in N. De Anza Boulevard to zero, and • reduces the Heart of the City rei:aii commercial development. allocation balance to 41,937 square feet. Option 4: Save the South Vallco Hotel .~ilocation 8z Discoun# the Commercial Allocation for the Hotel Pronosecl Hotel: 138 rooms Convert hotel rooms to commercial squax•e footage Based on peak hour traffic equivalency (dliscounting): 21,231 sq. ft. Credit demolished gasoline station: -1,855 sq. ft. Utilize N. De Anza Blvd. retail eommerci:~l allocation: -14,867 sq. ft_ Transfer commercial allocation from Heart of the City P.A.: -4,509 sq. ft. O Option 4 ramifications • saves the uncommitted hotel allocation for another hotel project, • draws down the retail commercial allocation in N. De Anza Boulevard to zero, and • reduces the Heart of the City retail commercial development allocation balance to 102,765 square feet. 2~-~s Exhibit B - S. Colin Jung From: Traci Caton Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 8:35 AM To: Colin Jung Subject: FW: Planned Five Story Hotel on De Anza between Stevens Creek and l~zaneo Oops -should have sent this to you... ----Original Message----- From: Tracl Caton On Behalf Of City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 8:34 AM To: Aki Honda; Gary Chao Cc: Steve Piasecki Subject: FW: Planned Five Story Hotel on De Anza between Stevens Creek and Lazaneo ---Original Message-- From: Jim 8~ Pat Tapley [mailto:pjtapiey@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 2:30 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: mmiller@interorealestate.oom; rosetracy3@sbcglobal.net; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; dkaneda@ideasi.com; paulbrophy@yahoo.com; Dolly Sandoval Subject: Planned Five Story Hotel on De Anza between Stevens Creek and Lazaneo I live in the residential area across the street from the planned Hotel site. I would like to voice my objection to the construction of a five story hotel so close to a residential area that the hotel rooms would look down into bedrooms of at least 20 homes. I think the Planning Commission should insure that any new commercial constnaction planned in the city, does not have a detrimental effect on existing residential properties. Property values have been declining over recent months as you well know. This planned action , if approved, woutd have.a further negative impact on these declining values. ' You already have a major hotel being planned for the Valco expansion. How many additional vacant hotel rooms does the city really need. Please do not approve this project. Jim & Pat Tapley 10'193 Miner Place Cupertino (408) 446-9177 7-ao 1 1 /24/2008 Page 1 of 2 Colin Jung From: Traci Caton on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:12 PM To: Colin Jung; Gary Chao Cc: Steve Piasecki Subject: >=W: Notice of Public Hearing 10165 N DeAnza, Opposition from Alves Technology, etc. ----Original Messag-_ From: DChengCDE@aol.com [mallto:DChengCDE@aol.c:om] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 12:58 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: lisiting@aol.com; DChengCDE@aol.com Subject: Notice of Public Hearing 10165 N DeAnza, Opposition from Alves Technology, etc. date: November 25, 2008 to: Cupertino Planning Commission and Cupertino City Council from: Alves Technology, LLC and Tenets apt 20565 Alves Dr. Cupertino, CA Subject: 10165 N De Anza -Blvd, APN 326-34-•0057: Construction of 138 room 5 story hotel We oppose the plan to build a 7-story hotel in the lot where there is currently a gas station First of all, it is too small of a lot to squeeze such a big structure in_ Since the lot is so small that our one story building [less than 20 ft away] will be totally shadowed over, no matter how they try to set the structure back. Secondly, the hotel will create lots of unwanted traffics and noises which will be a huge distraction to our current high tech tenants, consequently my yenta! space might become undesirable to my tenants, therefore my business and property value will be negatively affected. This is also an environmental hazard. Thirdly, we don't think it is a great- business idea where there are already two hotels down the same street, Cypress Hotel and Cupertino Inn. We believe a commercial office building might fit in better with the surrounding office buildings and high tech neighbors. It will also be an eye sore. It will reduce the value of our building. Sincerely, Alves Technology, LLC and 1 1/25/2008 ~-e~ Page 2 of 2 Tenets of Next Door at 20565 Alves Dr, One alts has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL_com todayi 7-82 I 1 /25/2008 KYS January 6, 2009 The Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 950'14 Re: Cupertino Hoteil 10'165 N. De Anza Blvd_ Dear Planning Commissioners: Exhibit C -1 We respectfully submit our revised design of the (~upertino Hotel at 10165 N. De Anza Blvd. At the Planning Commission public hearing on November 25, 2008, we listened to your comments regarding the exterior design of the hotel and have made substantial revisions based on those comments. Below are our responses. Design Issues raised by the Planning Commission at the November 25, 2008 public hearing: ~. Create the image of a high end luxury hotE~l • Use more traditional elements that will not become dated with time Response: A cohesive design which maintains the delicate balance between traditional elements and a fresh, modem design is the con~;ept for the new design scheme. This is achieved by incorporating traditional elements but maintaining an overall fairly modem sensitivity through the selection of materials, details, and form_ The simple, bold forms of the original contemporary design have been replaced with a more traditional, classical approach by the hew massing and articulation. The new design is a cohesive blend of some tr2~ditional elements and subdued modem elements. The base is more traditional. The middle floors with elegant recessed windows provide a somewhat neutral base to focus more attention to the base and the top. The top floor is more contemporary with significant articulation at the continuous metal awning and horizontal fins in the window glazing. The granite base at the street frontages is detailed with colonnaded pilasters and a pediment cap at the second floor to pn~vide timeless, traditional elements at the pedestrian level of the hotel. At the gn~und floor, the high level of articulation and quality materials including brushed chrome c~rnopies and window frames can be directly experienced by the hotel guests. To continue the sense of luxury materials on the exterior of the building, the middle floors are clad with limestone file and limestone plaster in harmonious color and material 7-83 balance with the granite. The top floor and comer elemenE glazing is blue glass for a touch of contemporary elegance. • Re-design comer a%ment Response: The very contemporary glass curtain wall "wave" corner element in the original design has been redesigned to be more subdued and elegant to withstand the test of time, but is still intended to provide a stunning design element to appeal to the sophisticated international tech-savvy clientele. The materials are granite with recessed brushed stainless steel window frames and blue glass vertical glazing at the corner scot window. The entrance at the comer element is designed such that it serves as a visual entrance to the building as well as a functional entrance to the corner caf(r and hotel iaunge, but does not interFere with the main hotel entrance on Alves and the other highly visible entrance on De Anza. 2. Soften the bui/ding massing • Create a base, middle and top Response: Along the main frontages on De Anza and Alves, the new design has a two-story high granite base, slime-stone clad "middle" on floors three and four, and a mostly glass and metal top floor. This massing of base, middle and top reflects classical proportions and composition. The top floor along the street frontages and partially down the side and rear elevations has a metal awning to provide a cap element to the building and also to shade the top floor windows. This metal awning will incorporate photovoltaic panels_ Changes in building materials also enhance the base, middle and top_ At the street frontages the base is dark granite, the middle floors are light colored limestone, and the top floor is glass.- At the rear elevations, base elements have been added. A change of window type at the fifth floor creates the top to the composition. • Use lighter materia/s at the top Response: A glass band of windows at the top floor not only creates the top to the massing, but it figuratively and literally creates the appearance of a lighter top. • Use more articulation at the building facades; OK to reduce the setbacK on De Rnza by a few feet (The original average setback provided was 60', which is 1 O' more than required by City Code) Response: 7-84 The granite base is highly articulated ~rvith reveals at the column edges, column bases, recessed windows, and granite cornice molding at the second floor cap. The middle floors have recessed windows, and the top floor has projecting fins at the glass window band. Building massing is further articulated on the De Anza and Alves frontages by projecting the lower two floors two feet out from the middle floors, and by recessing the top floor two feet in from the middle floors. The main hotel entrance on Alves also has a curved, recessed entrance underneath the deeply projecting porte cochere canoF>y. • Provide landscape scre@ning on north and west sides. Response: The north side of the building is effectively screened by an existing row of eucalyptus trees just on the other side of the property line on the adjacent office building site. These trees are taller than 45 feet. On the hotel side of the north property line, a continuous row of evergreen hedge is proposed as shown on the landscape plan. On the west side of the hotel, an existiing row of evergreen hedge will remain and be supplemented with new evergreen screen trees and evergreen hedge - 24" box size at installation. 3. E»try element c/aarly visfb/e from Oe Anza • Hote/ entrance vlsibllity from Da-Anza Response: On the De Anza frontage, the restaurant provides a visual and functional building entrance. Canopies have been added above the two-entrance doors and the middle window-wall section. The canopies project eight feet out from the building to provide cover for outdoor seating in the center section. Much of the restaurant entrance and De Anza building fagade will be screened by the row of street trees_ The hotel lobby entrance and porte cochere are on Alves, since driveway entrances are not allowed on De Anza_ However, th~~ Alves entrance is visible from De Anza since the porte cochere canopy projects out substantially from the building and there are no street trees at the corner of De Anza and Alves to screen the porte cochere_ 4. LEED comp//ante • A /eve/ of LEED Si/ver wlI/ be rgqulred for the hotel Response: We intent to not only have a LEED certified building, but we are using green technology as design elements in the form of photovoltaic panels in the building exterior canopies, ~-as awnings and porte cochere. This provides a functional use as well as a visual element that can be associated with green energy. Green elements and features already in the design or being considered in the design are: Site Design - Redevelopment of existing urban site - Pervious paving - Stormwater run-off management plan - Bicycle stalls - Access to public transportation and pedestrian routes - Water efficient landscaping - plant species selection - Irrigation efficiency - use of captured rainwater - Alternative transportation strategies: - Bicycles and showers provided - Reserved spaces for carpooling - Use of water features to reduce ambient outdoor temperature around buildings - Dedicated area for collection and storage of materials for recycling Building Design - External shading - Tinted or reflective glasses - High pertormance glazing - High-albedo roofing -cool roof - Photovoltaic system on the roof and in the awnings and canopies - Water conserving fixtures - Reuse of existing building concrete slab as aggregate - Use of low-emitting materials - Operable windows - Individual control of thermal comfort system -small thermal zones - Day-lighting - Use of local building materials - Tobacco free - Housekeeping uses green cleaning products - Recycle bins in every room - All fabrics are machine washed (no dry-cleaning) - Guestroom key card. After allowing guests into their room, the card becomes a powerful energy-management system. Guests activate the room's lighting and mechanical systems by inserting the card into a box near the door. When they leave the room, they remove the card from the box, turning off all systems except for one outlet, which can be used to charge laptops or cell phones. We appreciate the comments we received from the Planning Commission, Planning staff, and the City's architectural consultant Larry Cannon. We believe this new design achieves the level of design quality that we can all be proud of and will be an asset to the City of Cupertino. Sincerely, Robert Y. uvageau, AIA Principal, YS Architects ~-ss Page 1 of 2 Colin Jung E71Ch~b~ g.~, From: Traci Caton on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept_ Sent: Tuesday, January ~ 3, 2009 4.12 PM To: Colin Jung; Gary Chao Subject: FW: Comments about the application of building a hotel at the comer of De Anza Blvd. and Alves Drive -----Original Message----- From: Ilsiting@aol.com [mailto:lisiting@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:54 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Comments about the application of building a h~~tel at the comer of De Anza BNd. and Alves Drive Tuesday, January 13, 2009 Dear Cupertino City Planning Committee Members: My name is Li Li, the property owner of the lot next to the site, which is on tonight's public heari ng agenda. Application No.(s) U-2008-02, ASA-2008-07 (EA-2008-08), TR-2008-09 Applicant: Rajeev Chopra (Ebrahim ICaabipour) Location: 10165 N. De Anza Boulevard I have attended the public hearing meeting on Nov. 25th, 2008. It was the first time I went to such a meeting. Even though I only got 3 minutes to spea k after six hours of long waiting, I was very impressed how the committee members conducted the hearing. It was very clear to me that all the members wanted to do the right things for the city of Cupertino for generations to come. I respect tlhe fact you didn't take your responsibility lightly and that earned my respect and trust_ Erased on the understanding that you will have in mind the best interest of the city of Cupertino and all of its community members, I want to share-with you my concerns regarding the mentioned project. First of all, as the property owner of the adjacent lot, I was very offended that the applicant intends to build a trash center right next to our front entrance. As you can see from their building plan, the trash center and our front entrance are only a couple meters away. A trash center from a busy hotel with all the old food and daily waste is hugely different from one of a simple office building. The smell and the noise resulted from the daily activities of dumping and picking up gaarbage in the trash center will become great hazard to our tenants. It is clear to me=2 Othat: the applicant did not care about their neighbors when they put this hazardous part of their hotel directly under our nose. As the property owner, Pm very concerned I will lose my high tech company tenants when they are forced to face a trash center day in and da;y out. Consequently, my property value will also be jeopardized. Since I'm also a taxpayer of the city, I don't think it is a great benefit for the city to have one property increase in value and another dimi_n;sh in value. Secondly, as a member of the Cupertino community, I highly doubt the applicant's plan to build a "luxury" hotelis a feasible plan, but just a wishful thinking. When talking about "luxury hotel", we associate it with graa-td view, spacious room and magnificent ~-e~ 1/13/2009 Page 2 of 2 design and so on. From the design we are presented, it looks so plain that it is no difference from any other common office buildings. We don't see how it can stand out a the city icon or tourist destination. We are no experts on architecture designs, but we can recognize it when seeing one. As to being spacious, the mentioned project is totally on the opposite side of it. The height of the hotel room according to its plan is even lower than a regular apartment. The applicant is trying to squish a 5 stories building into a very small lot when the neighboring buildings of the same height has only 3 stories_ The structure will leave no breathing room for viewers and it will make one feel esthetically monstrous, not "luxury", or even pleasant due to the wrong proportion of the structure to its own site and its surroundings. On the aspect of hotel views, the intended project is even further off. The hotel will have our roof in its west view, loading dock of a busy supermarket in its front view, a parking structure in its back and heavy traffic on their east side. What kind of "luxury" hotel can this be for the city of Cupertino? Thirdly, the mentioned project stretches the limit of many building codes, in some cases, breaks them (like in the required parking space category)_ Even though the applicant tried to down play it with some theoretical numbers and circumst antial analysis. Our experiences with the parking problem from our restaurant neighbor tell us that the overflow of the traff c and parking needs from the hotel will in reality become hassle to its neighbors. For over 1 O years, I have worked and gone to school in Cupertino. I drive on De Anza. Boulevard on a daily basis and I'm very proud to be part of this community. I have enjoyed the fact the city is changing for better and better. So I trust you will consider all the facts involved in such a plan and make the best decision for the city and all its members. Sincerely, Li Li The property owner of: 20565 Alves Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 408-314-6192 lisiting~a,aol.com A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours Indust 2 easy steps! ~-as i /13/2009 Page 1 of 2 Colin Jung From: Colin Jung Sent: Monday, January 72, 2009 '10:33 AM To. 'gcwalters@sbcglobal.net' Subject: RE: Hotel Planning Meeting 1/13/09 Galen: 1 can answer most of your questions now. Youfemail message will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for tl-~is Tuesday evening's meeting. 1. Hotel construction work hours The City already has an ordinance that regulations construction noise and other types of noise. Citywide, the noisy construction activities are limited to 7 a.m. - 8 p.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. - 6 p.m. on weekends. Construction is prohibited on the major holidays. You can look up the noise ordinance (Section 10.48) in the City•s Municipal Code at this web address: &ttp:/lwww.amlegal com/nxt/gateway d11/CaLfornia/cuoertino%itvofcunertinocaliforniamunicipalc fn=attmain-nf htmS~templates~3 O~vid=amlegal:CUDerNno=ca 2. Hotel Outside lighting. The plans indicate outdoor lighting on the first, .second and fourth floors. The lighting has shield fixtures and is designed to illuminate the wa1L 3 Hotel Advertising siests outside The applicant has not proposed signage yet, but staff has disenssed it with the applicant. It will likely be on the upper floor and directed toward the southbound and northbound De Anza Boulevard motorist_ The applicant will also want a ground sign. 4 Hotel building height (above ground The ground level varies on the property and the b:otel is being dug into the ground. The building height is 45 feet and the rooftop equipment screen at its maximum is 10 feet above that height. 5. Hotel set back line on De Anza The minimum building setback from the De Aaza. Boulevard curbface is about 44 feet and the average is 56 feet. The minimum requirement is an average of 50 feet from the curbline. The building setback from the rear residential Parlett Pl. property line is 219 feet minimum. Colin Jung Senior Planner City of Cupertino ---Original Message----- From: Traci Caton On Behalf Of City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 8:38 AM To: Colin Jung; Gary Chao Subject: FW: Hotel Planning Meeting 1/13/09 ~-ss i /1 ~/~nnq Page 2 of 2 ----Original Message---- From: Galen Walters [mailto:gcwafters@strcgiot-ai.net] Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 7:37 AM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Hotel Planning Meeting 1/13/09 Dear Sirs, I live at 10141 Parlett Pl. across the street from the proposed Hotel. My kitchen bay window (eating areal will look directly at the hotel. I am concerned about the following five items and would like them addressed at the Cupertino Planning meeting on 1/13/09. I_ Hotel construction work hours. No construction work before 8:OOam or after Spm preferred. No Saturday or Sunday construction work. 2. Hotel Outside lighting. Lighting on the building and surrounding area. What type of lighting? What height above ground? Where are lights located? 3. Hotel Advertising signs outside. Where are signs located? What height and size and lighting? 4. Hotel building height (move ground) What is the Hotel *rsximum height above ground including any air conditioning units? 5. Hotel set back line on De Anza Please define and explain. Sincerely, Galen Walters 1 O 141 Parlett Pl Cupertino, Ca. 95014 gcwaltersnas,sbcglobal.net ~-so 1/12/2009 Page 1 of 1 Colin Jung From: Traci Caton on behalf of City of Cupertino Plainning Dept. Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 9:58 AM To: Colin Jung; Gary Chao Subject: FW: Regarding the Hotel replaying gas station ---Original Message---- From: Maly Soha [maitto:matysoha@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:20 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Regarding the Hotel replacing gas station Couple requests: During construction -Please request working hours 8-5 and no weekends Hotel sign should not illuminate strong light towards the houses acros:a De Anza. Replant new trees that were removed on the other side of De Anza to provide better shield from noise traffic and line of site from the hotel Thanks, -Maly ~-s~ 1 /12/2009