Loading...
ASA-2014-06b ��� OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE•CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT 1 N� TELEPHONE: (408)777-3223• FAX: (408)777-3366 To: Planning Department From: Kirsten Squarcia Subject: Subject: Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's approval of the Hyatt House Hotel development project Description: Application Summary; Applications: DP-2014-04, U-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28,TR-2014-40, EA-2014-06; Petitioner: Darrel Lum, Concerned Citizens of Cupertino; Applicant: Edward Chan; Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC; Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (Southeast quadrant of Wolfe Road and I-280, APN 316-20- 094) and 10150 North Wolfe Road (JC Penney site, APN 316-20-094) Date: November 20, 2014 At its November 18, 2014 regular meeting, the Cupertino City Council took the following action: CONSIDERED THE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION N0. 14-215 DENYING THE PETITION FOR FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.08.09 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE•CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT 1 N O TELEPHONE:(408)777-3223• FAX: (408)777-3366 November 19, 2014 Re: Subject: Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's approval of the Hyatt House Hotel development project Descri�tion: Application Summary; Applications: DP-2014-04, U-2014-04, ASA- 2014-06, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28,TR-2014-40, EA-2014-06; Petitioner: Darrel Lum, Concerned Citizens of Cupertino; Applicant: Edward Chan; Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC; Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (Southeast quadrant of Wolfe Road and I-280, APN 316-20-094) and 10150 North Wolfe Road (JC Penney site, APN 316-20-094) To Whom It May Concern; At its November 18, 2014 meeting, the Cupertino City Council CONSIDERED THE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 14-215 DENYING THE PETITION FOR FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.08.09 Also included is the Resolution that Council adopted at the meeting. Please call the Planning Department at 777-3308 if you have any questions. The decision by the City Council above described is final effective October 21, 2014. The time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by §1096.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure which is 90 days follozving the above effective date. Sincerely, ����- Kirsten Squarcia Deputy City Clerk cc: City Attorney, Planning Department RESOLUTION N0. 14-215 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITION OF DARREL LUM SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION TO APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (DP-2014-04), USE PERMIT (U-2014-04), ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL (ASA-2014-06), PARKING EXCEPTION (EXC-2014-07), AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TR-2014-28) FOR A FIVE- STORY, 148-ROOM HOTEL OF APPROXIMATELY 102,700 SQUARE FEET THAT INCLUDES A RESTAURANT, BAR, LOUNGE, AND CONFERENCE ROOMS BUILT OVER A 35,800 SQUARE FOOT UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE THAT CONTAINS TANDEM PARKING AT 10380 PERIMETER ROAD AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TR- 2014-40) AT 10150 NORTH WOLFE ROAD TO FACILITATE THE OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOTEL PROJECT WHEREAS, on October 21, 2014, the City Council of the City of Cupertino held a public hearing and at the conclusion of the hearing approved on a 4-1 vote applications DP-2014-04, U- 2014-04, ASA-2014-06, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28, and TR-2014-40 for a hotel project located at 10380 Perimeter Road (Decision); and WHEREAS, the City Council's Decision was within its discretion and made at a properly noticed public hearing; and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2014, Petitioner Darrel Lum (Petitioner) filed a Reconsideration Petition (Reconsideration Petition) requesting that the City Council reconsider its October 21, 2014 decision under the provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the November 18, 2014 reconsideration hearing; and WHEREAS, based on the evidence above, the City Council hereby makes the findings in Exhibit "A", and, based upon these findings,; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer proof of facts which, in the exercise of reasonably diligence, could not have been produced at an earlier city hearing as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096(B)(1). 2. Petitioner failed to offer evidence which was improperly excluded at a prior city hearing as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096(B)(2). Resolution No.14-215 Page 2 3. Petitioner failed to provide proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its,jurisdiction [See Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 (B)(3)]. 4. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Specifically, the City Council determines that the City Council's Decision of October 21, 2014 is supported by findings of fact and the findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings [See Municipal Code Sections 2.08.096]. 5. The Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's Decision of October 21, 2014 on agenda item 13 is DENIED, thereby affirming the original decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 2014, Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, State of California,by the following roll call vote: AYES: Wong, Sinks, Chang, Mahoney, Santoro NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: APPROVED: /s Grace Schmidt /s/Gilbert Wong Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor City Clerk City of Cupertino EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1. Ground for Reconsiderntion #1 (Section 2.08.096 (B)(3) of the Municipal Code]—Council acted in excess of its jurisdiction Petition Findin The General Plan allows buildings with a retail The petitioner presented this claim at the component located in the South Vallco area to August 26, 2014 Planning Commission hearing be constructed up to 60 feet tall. Otherwise, and submitted similar written comments for buildings may be constructed up to 45 feet the October 21, 2014 Council hearing. Both the without a retail component. The petitioner Planning Comnussion and the City Council alleges the hotel project has no retail thoroughly considered and discussed this component and therefore should not be claim and acted upon the project accordingly. allowed to be constructed at its approved height of 60 feet. Restaurants are considered legitimate retail uses and are allowed in the City's General Commercial Ordinance since they provide direct contact with customers and generate sales tax. The intent of the General Plari s 60-foot building height policy in South Vallco is to promote active ground floors. Based on past approvals and Council practice, restaurants have been deemed to be an appropriate ground floor retail use that supports the 60-foot height allowance. Finding and conclusion: It is within City Council's jurisdiction to interpret the General Plan and make decisions on its implementation. The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 2. Ground for Reconsideration #2 (Sections 2.08.096 (B)(5)(b) and (c) of t1Te Municipal Code] — Council's decision was not supported b�facts or the findings of fact were not supported b� the evidence. Petition Findin The petitioner notes that Hyatt House is an The General Plan's building height policy was extended stay, business service hotel with discussed in detail in the October 21, 2014 staff limited amenities to serve hotel guests, such as report and at the Council hearing. The Council complimentary breakfast and in-room kitchen considered the petitioner's testimony as facilities. The petitioner claims that there was provided but found that the hotel's restaurant, no finding of fact in the October 21, 2014 staff bar, and other active commercial ground floor report and meeting minutes that the hotel's uses are considered retail, thereby allowing the restaurant and bar is considered retail. 60-foot building height. In addition to servin the hotel uests, the hotel restaurant is required to be open to the public and is considered a full service restaurant similar to other restaurants in the Ci Finding and conclusion: The City Council considered, and rejected, the claim that the hotel's restaurant should not be considered retail. The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council abused its discretion by rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact, or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE•CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408)777-3223• FAX: (408)777-3366 CUPERTINO October 23, 2014 Re: Subject:Hyatt House Hotel development project Descri�tion: Application No.(s): ASA-2014-06, DP-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28, U-2014-04, TR- 2014-40 (EA-2014-06); Applicant: Edward Chan (Cupertino Property Development II, LLC.); Location: Perimeter Rd @ Wolfe Rd;APN:316-20-092;Architectural Site Approval for a new 5-story, 148 room hotel and associated site and off-site improvements; Development Permit to allow the demolition of an existing parking lot and construct a 5 story, 148 room hotel of approximately 102,700 square feet that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge and conference rooms built over a 35,800 square foot underground parking garage that contains tandem parking; Parking Exception Permit to allow eight tandem parking stalls;Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 96 trees to facilitate the construction of a new hotel; Use Permit to allow a 24-hour hotel, including a restaurant with interior bar; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 19 trees to facilitate the off-site improvements associated with the construction of a new hotel At its October 21, 2014 meeting, the Cupertino City Council took the following action: 1. Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06); and 2. Adopted Resolution No. 14-202 approving Development Permit (DP-2014-04) which includes approval of the South Vallco Connectivity Plan; and 3. Adopted Resolution No. 14-203 approving Use Permit(U-2014-04); and 4. Adopted Resolution No., 14-204 approving Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06) with the additional condition to have staff and applicant contact Caltrans to consider a direct public bicycle and pedestrian access path from the existing Wolfe Road sidewalk to the project site along the westerly boundary, in order to allow direct access onto Wolfe Road and access over the freeway overpass. If Caltrans approves of the access path, the property owner shall work with staff to construct the path; and 5. Adopted Resolution No. 14-205 approving Parking Exception(EXC-2014-07); and 6. Adopted Resolution No. 14-206 approving Tree Removal Permit (TIZ-2014-28) with the additional condition to require a tree condition report to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development one year after final ASA-2014-06,DP-2014-04,EXC-2014-07,TR-2014-28, � U-2014-04,TR-2014-40(EA-2014-06) October 21,2014 Page 2 occupancy of the project. The City's consulting arborist shall inspect the new and existing trees to ensure proper irrigation, maintenance, and compliance with the arborist's recommendations. All additional recommendations resulting from the one-year review shall be implemented by the property owner; and 7. Adopted Resolution No. 14-207 approving Tree Removal Permit(TR-2014-40) Enclosed are the resolutions that Council adopted at the meeting. Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory decision of the City Council, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city clerk within ten days after the date of mailing of this notice. Any petition filed must comply with Municipal Code §2.08.096. Sincerely, i Kirsten Squarcia Deputy City Clerk cc: City Attorney Community Development Darrel Lum Bradley Syverson 7746 Orogrande Place J.C. Penney Properties, Inc. Cupertino, CA 95014 PO Box 10001 Dallas,TX 75301-1106 Erik Alm Department of Transportation Mike Rohde District 4 Vallco Shopping Mall Local Development—Intergovernmental 10123 N.Wolfe Road, Suite 1095 Review Cupertino, CA 95014 PO Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Cupertino Property Development II, LLC c/o KCR Development Attn: Edward Chan 19620 Stevens Creek Blvd #200 Cupertino, Ca. 95014 e � RESOLUTION N0. 14-204 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PERMIT FOR A NEW FIVE-STORY, 148- ROOM HOTEL AND ASSOCIATED SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, LOCATED AT 10380 PERIMETER ROAD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2014-06 Applicant: Edward Chan Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (APN 316-20-092) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; Given tliat tlze project is consistent witl2 the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Heart of t11e City S�ecific Plan, and Soutli Vallco Master Plan; lzas �ieen designed to �e compatll�le witli and respectful of adjoining land uses; and tlzat relevant mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of tlze CEQA review process to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level, tlie project will not �e detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in tlze vicinity, and will not be detrimental to tlie public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Resolution No.14-204 Page 2 � 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other entitlements to use which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria: a) Abrupt changes in building scale have been avoided. A gradual transition related to height and bulk has been achieved between new and existing buildings. Tlie project is compatible witli tlze scale of tlie surrounding buildings and streetscape in terms of height, bulk, and form. TJie building is proposed at five stories and 60 feet in lieiglzt, witllin the heTglit limit specified by tlze General Plan and Heart of tlie City Specific Plan. The building lieigl�t is compar�able to the Nineteen 800 (formerly Rose Bowl) mixed-use building and several ap�roved buildings in t11e Main Street Cupertino project. Tlie building is well witlzin tlze setback to lzeiglit ratios establislzed in tlie General Plan. b) Design harmony between new and existing buildings have been preserved and the materials, textures and colors of new buildings harmonize with adjacent development with design and color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which it is situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parking lots have been concealed. Ground cover or various types of pavements have been used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees have been avoided. Lighting for development is adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments, and shielding to adjoining property owners. The hotel building is designed in a contemporary tlzeme similar to tlie liotel building approved in tlie Main Street Cupertino development and tlze Aloft Hotel on De Anza Boulevard. Tlie building exteriors feature flat roof forms witll arcl2itectural features along t12e rooflines; plaster exterior walls witli smootll stone accents and fiber cement and metal panel systems; aluminum storefi�ont windows and sliding pocket doors along tlze gi�ound floor; and otlier visual relief ineasures sucll as ground floor canopies, inset windows (varying fronT tliree and a half to five and a lialf inches), wall projections (varying fi�om one foot, five inches to four feet, nine inclles) and varying liorizontal and vertical wall reveals. A glass tower element serves as the focal point fi�om tlze main driveway. TITe proposed project design is consistent witli tlze objectives of tlie South Vallco Master Plan as it will improve tlie identity and cliaracter of tlie area and is compatible witli existing developments. All above ground utility installations a��e required to be screened from public view. T12e design has incor�orated decorative paving material tliat maximizes permeability and water-efficient landscaping, as well as liglTting to illuminate pedestrian patlis and veliicular routes, wlZich will not glare onto adjoining properties. Most of the existing trees recommended for preservation by t11e City's consultant arborist lzave been retained in tl�e project design. Replacement trees and landscaping screen tlze site from tlie fi�eeway and I2elp to soften tlie building. Resolution No.14-204 . Page 3 c) The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures have been designed to minimize traffic hazard, positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development. Signage is required as part of the project conditions of approval to be separ�ately reviewed and approved as part of a Master Sign Program. d) This new development has been designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures. The project lias �een designed to protected residents fi�om noise tlzrough traffic, liglit and visually inti�usive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and otl2er appropriate design measures. Tlie proposed landscaping features and vegetation will provide adequate screening and buffering from tlze streets and adjacent uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are. enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby adopted; and the application for an Architectural and Site Approval, Application no. ASA-2014-06 is hereby approved 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-2014-06 as set forth in the Minutes of City Council Meeting of October 21, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Planning Division: 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set received October 2, 2014 consisting of 51 sheets labeled A- 0.0 to A-0.3, C-1.0 to C-7.0, L-1 to L-5, A-1.0, A-1.Oa, A-1.1 to A-1.4, A2.0, A-2.Oa, A-2.1 to A- 2.6, A-3.0 to A-3.8, A-4.0, A-4.Oa, A-4.1, A-4.1 a, A-4.2, A-5.0, A-6.0, A-6.1, E-0.1, and E-1.0 to E-1.2, entitled, "Hyatt House, Cupertino California, Wolfe Road & Interstate 280," drawn by Gene Fong Associates, Sandis, Bruce Jett Associates, and Emerald City Engineers, Inc.; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROTECT PLANS Resolution No.14-204 Page 4 - The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2014-04, U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, TR- 2014-28, and TR-2014-40 shall be applicable to this approval. 4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans. 5. DIRECT PUBLIC BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PATH FROM WOLFE ROAD Per City Council clirection, the applicant and City staff shall contact Caltrans to consider a direct public bicycle and pedestrian access path from the existing Wolfe Road sidewalk across Caltrans' property to the project site along the westerly boundary, in order to allow direct access onto Wolfe Road and access over the freeway overpass. If Caltrans approves of the access path, the property owner shall record a public access easement on their property for the path and work with staff to construct the path. 6. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL, SITE, AND LANDSCAPING DETAILS Prior to buildin�permit issuance, the final architectural, site, and landscaping details shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development, including, but not Iimited to: a. Building design and exterior treatments (with consideration to further enhancements to the south and west elevation main entry tower projections with stone or other similar high quality material) b. Widening plaster reveals beyond 3/4 inch c. Frontage details, including work on adjacent parcels d. Pool fencing design e. Paving details for drop-off area, plaza, walkways, and public sidewalk f. Parking stall adjustments (with consideration of moving surface employee parking stalls behind the loading area in order to minimize disruption to hotel patrons) g. Landscaping and tree selection and arrangement h. Perimeter Road plaza details and amenities (with consideration for water features, passive play areas, decorative planters, and places to sit) i. Perimeter Road street furniture and pedestrian amenities j. Enhancements to Perimeter Road driveway intersections k. Trail pathway design and materials 1. If Caltrans approval is obtained, Wolfe Road access path design and materials m. Screening of retaining walls Resolution No.14-204 . Page 5 n. Fencing and lighting details o. Other features consistent with the South Vallco Master Plan The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. The Director of Community Development may approve additional designs or make minor modifications as deemed appropriate to the above following building permit issuance and final occupancy with review by the City. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a modification approval. 7. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER APPROVAL The applicant shall obtain the written approval of the property owner of 10150 N. Wolfe Road (APN 316-20-094) prior to implementing any project improvements on their property. Proof of written approval shall be provided to the City }�rior to issuance of buildin�permits. 8. UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE CIRCULATION Prior to issuance of buildin��ermits, the applicant shall revise the layout of the underground parking garage stalls to minimize conflicts with parking stalls near the entry/exit ramp to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and Public Works. 9. SIGHT DISTANCES AT PROTECT DRIVEWAYS The project driveways shall be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles traveling on Perimeter Road. Landscaping at the project driveways shall not conflict with a driver's ability to locate a gap in traffic. Adequate sight distance (sight distance triangles) shall be provided at all project driveways in accordance with Caltrans standards. Sight distance triangles should be measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. The sight distance for outbound vehicles exiting the first driveway is limited due to the downward slope on Perimeter Road, west of the project site as Perimeter Road runs beneath Wolfe Road. However, since the intersection of this driveway at Perimeter Road will be controlled by an all-way stop sign, vehicles will be able to exit safely onto Perimeter Road. The second driveway to the east will have adequate sight distance for exiting vel-ucles to safely locate a gap on Perimeter Road. Also, because of low traffic volumes on Perimeter Road, vehicles exiting the hotel will be able to easily find gaps in traffic on Perimeter Road. 10. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. Resolution No.14-204 Page 6 • 11. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 12. 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 21st day of October, 2014, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Wong, Chang, Mahoney, Santoro NOES: Sinks ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Grace Schmit /s/Gilbert Wong Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor City Clerk City of Cupertino ASA-2014-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6752 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEW FIVE-STORY, 148-ROOM HOTEL AND ASSOCIATED SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, LOCATED AT 10380 PERIMETER ROAD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2014-06 Applicant: Edward Chan Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (APN 316-20-092) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WI IEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Heart of the City Specific Plan, and South Vallco Master Plan; has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land uses; and that relevant mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other Resolution No.6752 ASA-2014-06 August 26,2014 entitlements to use which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria: a) Abrupt changes in building scale have been avoided. A gradual transition related to height and bulk has been achieved between new and existing buildings. The project is compatible with the scale of the surrounding buildings and streetscape in terms of height, bulk, and form. The building is proposed at five stories and 60 feet in height, within the height limit specified by the General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan. The building height is comparable to the Nineteen 800 (formerly Rose Bowl) mixed-use building and several approved buildings in the Main Street Cupertino project. The building is well within the setback to height ratios established in the General Plan. b) Design harmony between new and existing buildings have been preserved and the materials, textures and colors of new buildings harmonize with adjacent development with design and color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which it is situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parking lots have been concealed. Ground cover or various types of pavements have been used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees have been avoided. Lighting for development is adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments, and shielding to adjoining property owners. The hotel building is designed in a contemporary theme similar to the hotel building approved in the Main Street Cupertino development and the Aloft Hotel on De Anza Boulevard. The building exteriors feature flat roof forms with architectural features along the rooflines; plaster exterior walls with smooth stone accents and fiber cement and metal panel systems; aluminum storefront windows and sliding pocket doors along the ground floor; and other visual relief ineasures such as ground floor canopies, inset windows (varying from three and a half to five and a half inches), wall projections (varying from one foot,five inches to four feet, nine inches) and varying horizontal and vertical wall reveals. A glass tower element serves as the focal point from the main driveway. The proposed project design is consistent with the objectives of the South Vallco Master Plan as it will improve the identity and character of the area and is compatible with existing developments. All above ground utility installations are required to be screened from public view. The design has incorporated decorative paving material that maximizes permeability and water-efficient landscaping, as well as lighting to illuminate pedestrian paths and vehicular routes, which will not glare onto adjoining properties. Most of the existing trees recommended for preservation by the City's consultant arborist have been retained in the project design. Replacement trees and landscaping screen the site from the freeway and help to soften the building. c) The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures have been designed to minimize traffic hazard, positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harxnonize with adjacent development. Signage is required as part of the project conditions of approval to be separately reviewed and approved as part of a Master Sign Program. d) This new development has been designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures. Resolution No.6752 ASA-2014-06 August 26,2014 The project has been designed to protected residents from noise through traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures. The proposed landscaping features and vegetation will provide adequate screening and buffering from the streets and adjacent uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby recommended for adoption; and the application for an Architectural and Site Approval, Application no. ASA-2014-06 is hereby recommended for approval 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- 2014-06 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of August 26, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Planning Division: 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received August 13, 2014 consisting of 47 sheets labeled A-0.0 to A-0.3, C-1.0 to C-5.0, C-5.1, C-6.0, L-1 to L-5, A-1.0 to A-1.4, A2.0 to A-2.6, A-3.0 to A- 3.8, A-4.0 to A-4.2, A-5.0, A-6.0, A-6.1, E-0.1, and E-1.0 to E-1.2, entitled, "Hyatt House, Cupertino California, Wolfe Road & Interstate 280," drawn by Gene Fong Associates, Sandis, Bruce Jett Associates, and Emerald City Engineers, Inc.; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2014-04, U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28, and TR-2014-40 shall be applicable to this approval. 4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans. 5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL SITE, AND LANDSCAPING DETAILS Prior to buildin�,�permit issuance, the final architectural, site, and landscaping details shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development, including,but not limited to: Resolution No.6752 ASA-2014-06 August 26,2014 a. Building design and exterior treatments (with consideration to further enhancements to the south and west elevation main entry tower projections with stone or other similar high quality material) b. Frontage details, including work on adjacent parcels c. Pool fencing design d. Paving details e. Parking stall adjustments (with consideration of moving surface employee parking stalls behind the loading area in order to minimize disruption to hotel patrons) f. Landscaping and tree selection and arrangement g. Perimeter Road plaza details and amenities (with consideration for water features, passive play areas, decorative planters, and places to sit) h. Perimeter Road street fumiture and pedestrian amenities i. Enhancements to Perimeter Road driveway intersections j. Trail pathway design and materials k. Screening of retaining walls 1. Fencing and lighting details m. Other features consistent with the South Vallco Master Plan The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. 'The Director of Community Development may approve additional designs or make minor modifications as deemed appropriate to the above following building permit issuance and final occupancy with review by the City. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a modification approval. 6. SIGHT DISTANCES AT PROJECT DRIVEWAYS The project driveways shall be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles traveling on Perimeter Road. Landscaping at the project driveways shall not conflict with a driver's ability to locate a gap in traffic. Adequate sight distance (sight distance triangles) shall be provided at all project driveways in accordance with Caltrans standards. Sight distance triangles should be measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. The sight distance for outbound vehicles exiting the first driveway is limited due to the downward slope on Perimeter Road, west of the project site as Perimeter Road runs beneath Wolfe Road. However, since the intersection of this driveway at Perimeter Road will be controlled by an all-way stop sign, vehicles will be able to exit safely onto Perimeter Road. T'he second driveway to the east will have adequate sight distance for exiting vehicles to safely locate a gap on Perimeter Road. Also, because of low traffic volumes on Perimeter Road, vehicles exiting the hotel will be able to easily find gaps in traffic on Perimeter Road. 7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 8. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, Resolution No.6752 ASA-2014-06 August 26,2014 action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 9. 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino,State of California,by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gong, Sun, Takahashi NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Gary Chao /s/I'aul Bro�h� Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair Assist.Director of Community Development Planning Commission G:\Plann ing\PDREPORT\RES\2014\ASA-2014-06 res.doc • • or a i � ona . n orma ion . ee � e : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _