Loading...
EXC-2014-07b ��� 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: Sub�ect: Hyatt House Hotel development project Descri�tion: Application No.(s): ASA-201406, 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 consiruct 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 (TR-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, 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 Slvd #200 Cupertino, Ca. 95014 � RESOLUTION N0. 14-205 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A PARKING EXCEPTION TO ALLOW TANDEM PARKING, LOCATED AT 10380 PERIMETER ROAD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: EXC-2014-07 Applicant: Edward Chan Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (APN 316-20-092) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A PARKING EXCEPTION: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Parking Exception 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: a) The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter; Tlze project proposes 156 parking stalls, or 1.05 stalls j�er room. Table 19.124.040 (A) of tlze City's Parking Ordinance requires tlie project to provide a total of 187 parking spaces (assuming separate ratios for the 1TOtel, restaurant/bar, and conference room space) at a rate of 1.24 spaces per �room— resulting in a deficit of 28 stalls in tlie proposed parking supply. However, Section 19.24.040 (H) of tlze ordinance p�rovides foi� alte��native pa��king considerations tl�rougli a parking study pre�ared by transportation pirofessionals. Parking studies are especially useful for liotels since there are overlapping uses and activities tlzat may not be addressed by the ordinance ratios in Table 19.124.040 (A). Tlie parking study found tliat tlie proposed supply is adequate to meet tlze needs of tlze 12otel and otlzer ancillary uses. Applying Table 19.124.040 (A) would result in a large number of excess stalls and would be inconsistent witl� otlier liotel pa��king ratios in tlie City. Resolution No.14-205 Page 2 - b) The granting of the exception will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare; Given that the project is consistent witli tl�e General Plan, Zoning O7�dinance, Heart of tlze City Specific Plan, and Soutli Vallco Master Plan; has been designed to be compatible witli 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 t1Zan significant level, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or irnprovements in tlze vicinity, and will not be detrimental to tlie�ublic Izealth, safety, general welfare, or convenience. c) The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification and the minimum variance to accomplish the purpose; See Section A above. d) The proposed exception will not result in significant impacts to neighboring properties; Given that tlze p��oject�1^ovides more tJzan tlie minimum supply recommended by tlie parking study and tliere are transportation demand measures proposed by tlie applicant and included in tlze conditions of approval, the proposed exception is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to neigliboring properties. e) The applicant submits a detailed parking study which demonstrates that the proposed use is compatible with the proposed parking supply. Adjacent on-street parking may be included in the parking supply; Field parking surveys were conducted at tlzree similar hotels in Cupertino (Aloft, Cupertino Inn, and Hilton Garden Inn) during the period of peak parking demand. Tlze results indicate tliat weekday parking rates varied from 0.32 to 0.59 (occupied stalls/occupied room). Weekend parking ��ates ranged from 0.40 to 0.81 stalls per room. The Hilton Garden Inn 1Zad tl�e l�igliest parking demand of 0.81 stalls per room, and is tlze most similar to tlie pro�osed pr�oject since it contains a full service restau��ant and bar and conference room space. Tlzei�efore, the study recommends a �a��king supply ��atio of 0.81 stalls �er room (or 120 stalls)for tlze p��oject. T)iis ratio is higJZer tlzan tlie 0.71 stalls per room rate specified for liotels in tlie Institute of Tr�ansportation Engineers (ITE) parking generation manual. Since the project provides 1.05 stalls per room, tlie parking study concluded tllat tlze project parking supply is adequate. � The project is owned or managed by a single entity; and The project is owned by a single entity. g) If adjacent properties are used to share parking, they are in close proximity to each other, and reciprocal parking and access easements and maintenance agreements are recorded on the applicable properties to run with the land. Tlzere is no slzared parking for tlzis project. All of the parking study's recommended parking supply is provided onsite. Resolution No.14-205 � Page 3 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 a Parking Exception, Application no. EXC-2014-07 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. EXC-2014-07 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-4.1a, 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 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 rnay invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. ASA-2014-06, U-2014-04, DP-2014-04, 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. Resolution No.14-205 Page 4 5. PARKING EXCEPTION APPROVAL AND PROTECT AMENDMENTS Parking Exception approval is granted to allow eight tandem parking stalls. The Director of Community Development may approve minor modifications to the locations of the tandem stalls, provided it does not increase the quantity of tandem stalls. The Planning Commission shall review modifications considered major by the Director of Community Development. 6. TANDEM PARKING STALL MANAGEMENT Prior to final occu�an�, the applicant shall submit a tandem parking stall management plan. Tandem parking stalls shall be reserved for employee use only. Employee vehicles shall be moved when necessary in order to allow employees to leave when their shift is over. The plan shall take into accound the start and end times of employees' shifts in order to minimize the amount of vehicle re-parking that needs to occur. 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, 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. Resolution No.14-205 � Page 5 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 Schmidt /s/Gilbert Wong Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor City Clerk City of Cupertino EXG2014-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6754 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PARKING EXCEPTION TO ALLOW TANDEM PARKING AND 156 STALLS WHEN 184 STALLS ARE REQUIRED, LOCATED AT 10380 PERIMETER ROAD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: EXC-2014-07 Applicant: Edward Chan Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (APN 316-20-092) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A PARKING EXCEPTION: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Parking Exception 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 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: a) The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions incon sistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter; The project proposes 156 parking stalls, or 1.05 stalls per room. Table 19.124.040 (A) of the City's Parking Ordinance requires the project to provide a total of 184 parking spaces (assuming separate ratios for the hotel, restaurant/bar, and conference room space) at a rate of 1.24 spaces per room—resulting in a deficit of 28 stalls in the proposed parking supply. However, Section 19.24.040 (H) of the ordinance provides for alternative parking considerations through a parking study prepared by transportation professionals. Parking studies are especially useful for hotels since there are overlapping uses and activities that may not be addressed by the ordinance ratios in Table 19.124.040 (A). The parking study found that the proposed supply is adequate to meet the needs of the hotel and other ancillary uses. Applying Table 19.124.040 (A) would result in a large number of excess stalls and would be inconsistent with other hotel parking ratios in the City. Resolution No.6754 EXC-2014-07 August 26,2014 b) The granting of the exception will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public safety,health and welfare; 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. c) The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification and the minimum variance to accomplish the purpose; See Section A above. d) The proposed exception will not result in significant imp acts to neighboring properties; Given that the project provides more than the minimum supply recommended by the parking study and there are transportation demand measures proposed by the applicant and included in the conditions of approval, the proposed exception is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to neighboring properties. e) The applicant submits a detailed parking study which demonstrates that the proposed use is compatible with the proposed parking supply. Adjacent on-street parking may be included in the parking supply; Field parking surveys were conducted at three similar hotels in Cupertino (Aloft, Cupertino Inn, and Hilton Garden Inn) during the period of peak parking demand. The results indicate that weekday parking rates varied from 0.32 to 0.59 (occupied stalls/occupied room). Weekend parking rates ranged from 0.40 to 0.81 stalls per room. The Hilton Garden Inn had the highest parking demand of 0.81 stalls per room, and is the most similar to the proposed project since it contains a full service restaurant and bar and conference room space. Therefore, the study recommends a parking supply ratio of 0.81 stalls per room (or 120 stalls)for the project. This ratio is higher than the 0.71 stalls per room rate specified for hotels in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking generation manual. Since the project provides 1.05 stalls per room, the parking study concluded that the project parking supply is adequate. f) The project is owned or managed by a single entity; and The project is owned by a single entity. g) If adjacent properties are used to share parking, they are in close proximity to each other, and reciprocal parking and access easements and maintenance agreements are recorded on the applicable properties to run with the land. There is no shared parking for this project. All of the parking study's recommended parking supply is provided onsite. 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,: Resolution No.6754 EXC-2014-07 August 26,2014 A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby recommended for adoption; and the application for a Parking Exception, Application no. EXC-2014-07 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. EXC-2014-07 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of August 26, 2014, and are incorparated 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.; and the Transportation Impact Analysis (including parking survey) dated August 14, 2014 consisting of 180 pages entitled, "Hyatt House Hotel Transportation Impact Analysis," prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 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 ad ditional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. ASA-2014-06, U-2014-04, DP-2014-04, 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. PARKING EXCEPTION APPROVAL AND PROJECT AMENDMENTS Parking Exception approval is granted to allow eight tandem parking stalls and 156 stalls when 184 are required. The Director of Community Development may approve minor modifications to the locations of the tandem and regular stalls, and the quantity of regular stalls, provided it does not reduce stalls below the approved parking ratio. T'he Planning Commission shall review modifications considered major by the Director of Community Development. 6. AUTO PARKING RATIO The project auto parking supply shall be provided at a minimum ratio of 0.81 stalls per hotel room, or 120 spaces based on the parking study contained in the project transportation impact analysis. Resolution No.6754 EXC-2014-07 August 26,2014 7. TANDEM PARKING STALL MANAGEMENT Prior to final occu�anc� the applicant shall submit a tandem parking stall management plan. Tandem parking stalls shall be reserved for employee use only. Employee vehicles shall be moved when necessary in order to allow employees to leave when their shift is over. The plan shall take into accound the start and end times of employees' shifts in order to minimize the amount of vehicle re-parking that needs to occur. 8. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MEASURES(TDM) The Director of Community Development has the ability to require additional transportation demand measures (TDM) to address any future parking concerns. Examples of TDM may include, but are not limited to: a. Valet service b. Off-site parking c. Carpool or vanpool services d. Additional onsite parking e. Transit improvements f. Non-motorized improvements g. Shift peak-shared parking h. Guaranteed ride home i. Taxi service j. Pricing k. Increased shuttle service 9. 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. 10. 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. T'he City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 11. NOTICE OF FEES DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS T'he 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. Resolution No.6754 EXC-2014-07 August 26,2014 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: COMMISSIONEIZS:none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Gary Chao /s/Paul Brophy Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair Assist. Director of Community Development Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2014\EXC-2014-07 res.doc EXG2014-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PARKING EXCEPTION TO ALLOW TANDEM PARKING AND 156 STALLS WHEN 184 STALLS ARE REQUIRED, LOCATED AT 10380 PERIMETER ROAD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: EXC-2014-07 Applicant: Edward Chan Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (APN 316-20-092) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A PARKING EXCEPTION: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Parking Exception 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 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: a) The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter; The project proposes 156 parking stalls, or 1.05 stalls per room. Table 19.124.040 (A) of the City's Parking Ordinance requires the project to provide a total of 184 parking spaces (assuming separate ratios for the hotel, restaurant/bar, and conference room space) at a rate of 1.24 spaces per room—resulting in a deficit of 28 stalls in the proposed parking supply. However, Section 19.24.040 (H) of the ordinance provides for alternative parking considerations through a parking study prepared by transportation professionals. Parking studies are especially useful for hotels since there are overlapping uses and activities that may not be addressed by the ordinance ratios in Table 19.124.040 (A). The parking stuay found that the proposed supply is adequate to meet the needs of the hotel and other ancillary uses. Applying Table 19.124.040 (A) would result in a large number of excess stalls and would be inconsistent with other hotel parking ratios in the City. Draft Resolution EXC-2014-07 August 26,2014 b) The granting of the exception will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public safety,health and welfare; Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Heart of the City Specific Plan, ana 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. c) The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification and the minimum variance to accomplish the purpose; See Section A above. d) The proposed exception will not result in significant impacts to neighboring properties; Given that the project provides more than the minimum supply recommended by the parking study ana there are transportation demand measures proposed by the applicant and included in the conditions of approval, the proposed exception is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to neighboring properties. e) The applicant submits a detailed parking study which demonstrates that the proposed use is compatible with the proposed parking supply. Adjacent on-street parking may be included in the parking supply; Field parking surveys were conducted at three similar hotels in Cupertino (Aloft, Cupertino Inn, and Hilton Garden Inn) during the period of peak parking demand. The results indicate that weekday parking rates varied from 0.32 to 0.59 (occupied stalls/occupied room). Weekend parking rates ranged from 0.40 to 0.81 stalls per room. The Hilton Garden Inn had the highest parking demand of 0.81 stalls per room, and is the most similar to the proposed project since it contains a full service restaurant and bar and conference room space. Therefore, the study recommends a parking supply ratio of 0.81 stalls per room (or 120 stalls)for the project. This ratio is higher than the 0.71 stalls per room rate specified for hotels in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking generation manual. Since the project provides 1.05 stalls per room, the parking study concluded that the project parking supply is adequate. f) The project is owned or managed by a single entity; and The project is ownea by a single entity. g) If adjacent properties are used to share parking, they are in close proximity to each other, and reciprocal parking and access easements and maintenance agreements are recorded on the applicable properties to run with the land. Tliere is no shared parking for this project. All of the parking study's recommended parking supply is provided onsite. 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,: Draft Resolution EXC-2014-07 August 26,2014 A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby recommended for adoption; and the application for a Parking Exception, Application no. EXC-2014-07 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. EXC-2014-07 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.; and the Transportation Impact Analysis (including parking survey) dated August 14, 2014 consisting of 180 pages entitled, "Hyatt House Hotel Transportation Impact Analysis," prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROTECT 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. ASA-2014-06, U-2014-04, DP-2014-04, 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. PARKING EXCEPTION APPROVAL AND PROJECT AMENDMENTS Parking Exception approval is granted to allow eight tandem parking stalls and 156 stalls when 184 are required. The Director of Community Development may approve minor modifications to the locations of the tandem and regular stalls, and the quantity of regular stalls, provided it does not reduce stalls below the approved parking ratio. The Planning Commission shall review modifications considered major by the Director of Community Development. 6. AUTO PARKING RATIO The project auto parking supply shall be provided at a minimum ratio of 0.81 stalls per hotel room, or 120 spaces based on the parking study contained in the project transportation impact analysis. Draft Resolution EXC-2014-07 August 26,2014 7. TANDEM PARKING STALL MANAGEMENT Prior to final occu�anc� the applicant shall submit a tandem parking stall management plan. Tandem parking stalls shall be reserved for employee use only. Employee vehicles shall be moved when necessary in order to allow employees to leave when their shift is over. The plan shall take into accound the start and end times of employees' shifts in order to minimize the amount of vehicle re-parking that needs to occur. 8. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MEASURES (TDM� The Director of Community Development has the ability to require additional transportation demand measures (TDM) to address any future parking concerns. Examples of TDM may include, but are not limited to: a. Valet service b. Off-site parking c. Carpool or vanpool services d. Additional onsite parking e. Transit improvements f. Non-motorized improvements g. Shift peak-shared parking h. Guaranteed ride home i. Taxi service j. Pricing k. Increased shuttle service 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. Draft Resolution EXC-2014-07 August 26,2014 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: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair Assist. Director of Community Development Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2014\EXC-2014-07 res.doc • • or a i iona . n orma ion . ee � e : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _