Loading...
17. Metropolitan at Cupertino HOACOMMUNITY DEVELOPPJIENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (403) 777-3333 CUPERTINO SUMMARY Agenda Item No. Meeting Date: September 1, 2009 Application: M-2009-06 Applicant: Elaine Chong (Metropolitan at Cupertino HOA) Owner: Meh opolitan at Cupertino HOA Property Location: 19501, 19503, 19505 & 19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption APPLICATION SUMMARY: Modification to a Use Permit (U-2003-04) to remove the Public Pedestrian Easement at the Metropolitan at Cupertino condominium complex. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Coirunission recommends that the City Council approve the Modification (M-2009-06) application to remove two internal public pedestrian easements in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution 6562 (See Attachment A consisting of the conditions of approval recommended b~~ the Planning Commission). BACKGROUND: On August 11, 2009, the Planning Commi~;sion recommended approval on a 4-1 vote (Chairperson Giefer abstained) to remove two internal public pedestrian easements at the Metropolitan at Cupertino mixed-use residential/commercial development. The internal public pedestrian easements are located in the internal courtyards of the residential development. (See Attachment b, for a site plan and parcel map showing the location of the easements). The applicant is not requesting removal of two additional public pedestrian easements along the north and east property lines. These easements will remain to facilitate pedestrian connections between the Metropolitan complex and the Main Street and Rosebowl development;. Chairperson Giefer abstained from voting f~~r the project because of her commitment to the principle of facilitating connections bet`n~een projects and neighborhoods. DISCUSSION: The applicant, Elaine Chong, a representative for the Metropolitan Homeowner's Association (HOA), explained that the resic'ents of the complex are requesting rem~lvall Metropolitan HOA M-2009-06 September 1, 2009 of the two internal easements because the complex has experienced security problems, including crime, vandalism, stolen property and littering (See Attachment C for list of Santa Clara County Sheriff's service calls for the complex). The residents believe that these issues have been caused by the non-residents loitering through their complex (See Attachment D consisting of the HOA's letter dated January 19, 2009). The easements in question run through the residential portions of the complex to the private internal courtyards consisting of a children's playhouse, a fountain area, and a swimming pool. The residents are requesting approval to modify the previously approved Use Permit (U-2003-04) Condition No. 22 (See Attachrrient E consistng of the condition requiring the easements) to remove the public pedestrian easements that run "through the interior paths, courtyards and plazas" of the complex. Staff is supportive of the Planning Commission recommendation because the remaining public access easements along the perimeter of the project site are sufficient to facilitate pedestrian connections between the adjacent developments. Additionally, the removal of the internal easements would not violate any existing zoning or general plan policies. Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner Submitted by: . ~ A rti Shrivastava Community Development Director Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager Attachments: Attachment A: Planning Commission Resolution 6562 Attaclunent B: Plan sets showing the project site, the parcel map highlighting the two internal public pedestrian easements to be removed, and a site plan showing these two easements leading to internal courtyards Attachment C: List of Santa Clara County Sheriff's service calls Attaclunent D: HOA's letter dated January 19, 2009 Attachment E: Condition No. 22 requiring the public pedestrian easements Attachment F: Planning Commission staff report of August 11, 2009 H: Grout's/Planni~ig/PDREPORT/CC/2009/M-2009-OG, CC Report 77-~ Att~tchtn~n~ A CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, C~ilifornia 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6562 M-2009-06 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING A MODIFICATION TO A USE PERMIT (U-2003-04) TO REMOVE TWO PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ]BASEMENTS AT THE METROPOLITAN AT CUPERTINO CONDOMINILIM COMPLEX LOCATED AT 19501,19503,19505 & 19507 S7'EVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: M-2009-06 Applicant: Elaine Chong (Metropolit~in at Cupertino HOA) Location: 19501,19503,19505 & 19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the Modification to 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, end will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan, a~; amended, and the purpose of this title; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, :Facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for the Modification to the Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, 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. M-2009-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Corrunission Meeting of August 11, 2009, and are incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein. 17-3 Resolution No. 6562 M-2009-06 August 11, 2009 Page-2- SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL All prior use permit conditions for U-2003-04 shall remain in effect, except as amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. REMOVAL OF INTERNAL PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS Condition No. 22 of U-2003-04 as approved by the City Council on December 15, 2003 shall be modified to remove the two public pedestrian easements that run through the interior pedestrian paths, courtyards and plazas of the mixed-use complex as highlighted in the Approved Exhibits. 3. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on Exhibits consisting of a vicinity map and a parcel map and site plan highlighting the public pedestrian easements to be removed, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of August 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: Vice Chair Brophy, Miller, Kaneda, Lee NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: / s / Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development APPROVED: Js/Lisa Giefer Lisa Giefer, Chairperson Planning Commission 17-4 G: ~ Planni~ig ~ PDREPORT `RES ~ 2009 ~ AQ-2009-06 res.doc Attachment B rn i ~- '~ ~, ` ~~~ I ~ B'SS'4! 11 r ! ~~I MENLO EQUITIES :~BkF r aMmf ~ awwa] ~ n~.r.fas µ +°~e r..n THE GUZZARD~ PARTNfRSHIPFNG Ianda+p~ WAiattc•Land N+n~vn aaa M.ntpmry hn.! 71n M.MbAG fall] fa3 ~]].fi2 51TED4TA t,s"]s.n II ~~ I I~ i ~ lit c~1 II I r ,~'~+ . ! t ~` %` Q ~~ III z '' ~I '~ ~ ~ i f '~i ~L 0 i ro hh4 ~ W ~i v ^~ 7I n ~ ~ ~I o t N O~ V z I2F ! ~'` I i I I Y~ °4,00' --------+1,11 ,~, ,~~~ ~:, R=6C.07~\ ~=69'36'00' ~` hJL=9353' JJ.` ~'O'~~ 1~ I ~ _ _ ~~~~I r~ ; ~^ ~ E r ~,.. =~-- ^tr4xvuti _~ /^I If•1~"r1TIA Id^ r''r'1I InTlIA n11 S'il G ~'~ ;rte PARKiNCr _F _ I, I~~L~ ..,_..,...J ~'.~ ~ ....II ... / RD -' '-- 11 CCLLLL _ I N89'36'CD'E~:94' "_^"697.69,^ ,r., _ STEVENS CREEK BLVD. ! I iW '~"s I.. !`! I ~~ raw RF.i:?Jd nrre5 Ex*cry Cf.':r. 1.3x10 m; ft; :' S P.1R 5];atNg ^aMtT ~rea:1:5,~7 a} a• .Ct I N~T:4.+O l.;~ae .Jl I GPtse:+~7rrro 5>dit.r, ivFNs r1lt]• P+rul StYt: IQ;'I;:.rc f:, 5aS =~R :x. 2 NET: 3.'.=kre: Lct 2 cRC~S: s,sa W~ E]htlu U!d: ~7rr'cC PnPaaaA L!t R',]gao*rlai2rwtvSf4v. Gmer+;'u+d ~eriJvt+ar ACia51rJILP~+, ;9~;;,fri:4 Pa. h•ea lot 1; iti,ESS e} f; 33A of teua lot'c. ZI."3E aq.,~;';, thew' U1 iifn :C1'; :Ydf L7t 1.45.b7: aq. f• tot, ul t>tal Ivt is eDSti:S .A i-: ~ of tokl L]resur Lot'; E7J71.A, is ;£~S c tcgl ~z ~,~~,l~~~md t~ Buildirg !~.•ea ><mtmary R,y'drtlal b•.U (aa;. s Lny ' b;d ~ doi (fkt;: 2 write ' brd t dm (br."tk ~unlCa 2 brl {la~rhxad: 3 h0.a 2 bM {Ant;: i~ Lh7e 3 bad ;Ar.1:;0 tln'ta teca! tl' L • :! )dnyy~=32 ~~is ]]r+w Jree r: es t+a:5i3 eq rt '~~~ L•ICb62e.JFt, UaitZ:k-~at;ft. L~it'::IW sq.F Unlt 4.?,'.ova. Lvt ~'T/+q.'t. Lhk 7a: 1`G'ta} F Lrit6 EO ev, 16 Jnlt'i: l.a eq . L'~it n C x} t, TMlel~,r)52 sq. ti. :nrant7t Ilosbb am: E235-S.^.AfiA.8.15,3F'+~IE'2.3.t1S -3ar15.21,Ea; a} it,'I;•r Jrnn~.2.'<] ro, h. S:t!rliElrvm~a-.,r,W iat4n: Uf~~9 ny k incr. 91w aq. f: RC.~r F:b6 ro A: ParYnq Rd+W.~ P]1zu•e e~n« ns,xa.~eh ::gin =~~ Retak n,'.~5.^. - 2%'aFcrrt RnNa~ct]i KAd-B':2. 3~h Spacer i~l.nl• F0'1 c.a-.. PsrR ca ,v~'Lii Rddw.t a: 4'r2 5a+,:ae trvcturx Par#r~; fat bP+~" C gr!9:.'!r'cc4j: 21' Soa 2t (:rer &u13~g Pa~~g: t'1 SPnrea 'ot+h ~.' Syacc? Sua -rw. F:SI: 7P1 Spacee Lv 15i ,.pa:ae Hwft+F; tl :prsr 7aW: 57.0poe+ ~uildlrg : dgl'A _zktlry rftr 4~'-4" NeN bt,d[r.~~: .tinge. ad-0'' .M~y7htnf Uzi:36.7 Pand:n 36'~C' 3eibacks 1fi' m M9Nkr+ x7.10' :c 4.Ilrlitt .~ Qetal:4.aFt ^an '}[Iss~ l 52'•4' to 5a: a rs h R:ratl~d: 4tn CIn zr•s ,n e,+~r. 5 RatalnT'. fu, rmeuty u. 57-; to BJlay GFr:a~Lcit frv~ CK: buil.i~9 Pad ElevdG'D.'7 fiaroae: d'7'd'-0 1s Fktr firdvasb G tyC• :' Pa:r3 e~ ~~ y •;~,11~,s~ SITE PLAN SCALD i'=3D'•D" r. .a: M xv OCTOBER 1770 PROJiC1 NC; SES.W' vnan; ~ a ~EtmEs _ ~-- g ~. :~ ~R- ~ ~~ ~i- r r ~~ ~~ ~ ~_~ ~-~-, ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ Fi ` ~ 1~ i ~ ,-.. s IP~ ~F'AC 1 .~ I .~ ~` ~ ~ 1 1 ~ + I ~f ~J~_„~- ~ i w` .If ~~C ~w .r ~u ter'` ~'• .r ~ r I ~ ~. .. .. •~~. ~~ C- .~. 1 ~~~ ~ a .• ! ~ ~~ ~~1~ .? `` ^' ~M ~" L ~~ ~~ s ~~ b '~~ ~~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~~K ~~ a s a ~ ~ h` ~' ~~,~s~~~ ~ s u~ y ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ,~~ . ~ ~ re 0 A a N r ~ .q, ~O ti` w ±~ 3 ~' ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `,~ E.~ R, (~~ ~~I~ s Q~~~ ~~ ~~li ( 7iU ~~1f1~~ IWIIVI ~ ~1 ~ I 1 H ~ tC ~ it fl PL4 9 'ODM/~ JO l17WIDM (~ WIV t{ 1~ R~ w 117M/ti ~ IO1tY61 ~~ ~~~ ~ $ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~{ r ~ N Y i 74 ii ~ 4 ~y ~~ ~ ~~ r ~•M ._ _~ /_-~ L~ w~ ~~ ~~ t ~j ~ z~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ a ~~~ ~~ ~~~ M i II ~+ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ _~ ~~ ~ N ~' ~~ ~V y "G A to Rm ~r -v m a~ E s end ~,,, EXHIBIT' 'A" CONDOMINIUM PLANS METROPOLITAN AT CUPERTINO DATED: OCTOBER 2005 VICINITI~' MAP N.T.S. ,, ~~ VICINITY MAP K: \SUR03\036049\DWG\CONDO\SHEET 04.DWG SHEET 04 ~W, w f~ ~~, OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF LAURIE SMITH Type and number of calls for service at 19503 Stevens Creek Boulevard for Jan. 1 2009 to current. B CAL~~S'FOR'~SERVICE ~ ATE TIME D 1 I ©,~tl=~`S ~~ 1 ~ _ ~ 'CITY ` DISPOSITION ur la Residential _ .__. g ry, I . .1/12/09 3 00 PM ~ 19503 TEVEN S S CREEK ~ EL ,CU (REPORT 'r ,Vandalism, Felony .._. ;2/8/09.3 15 PM ,19503 _ jSTEVENS CREEK BBL CU ~REPORT iBurglary, Vehicle 3/5/09 8 00 AM R f 19503 STEVENS CREEK BL _ ,CU _ _. REPORT .. (Burglary, Vehicle -- !3/5/09 10 50 AM .. _ _-- -, -_.. i 119503 i ___ ___ _ BL ;CU _ _ __ ,REPORT '~ Disturbance Juvenile X3/6/09 1 10 PM 119503 _ _. _ STEVENS CREEK - BL CCU _ NO REPORT ___ _ !Suspicious Person, _ 13/9/09 9 30 PM _ ;19503 _ !STEVENS CREEK ~BL 'CU 'NO REPORT ! (Disturbance, Juvernle ;3/20/09 10:00 PM (19503 STEVENS CREEK 7BL 1CU _ iNO REPORT ` Theft, Auto ?3/25/09 12 15 AM 19503 , STEVENS CREEK ,BL _ CU _ ..... REPORT + (Disturbance, Adult j4/8/09 4 20 PM 19503 _ _ ..__ iSTEVENS CREEK ~BL CU NO REPORT, iBurglary, Residential X4/23/09 12 30 PM 19503 _STEVENS CREEK ;BL ,CU iREPORT iJUJ~.JII:IVUJ fill l:UIIIJld11l.C, ._.. sa~~iua Ic 4u r11v1 ,.. ._.. __ + la~u3 _ .. ~J 1 CvtlvJ l.Kttl~ J . _ ... ..... ........... .__. tfL _..~ ._ . _` '.:VU .NU RENVK I Burglary, Residential ,_. 1.6/9/09,9 25 PM _ _ 19503 ,STEVENS CREEK ~BL 7CU :REPORT i (Alarm, Intrusion __.. _.. 17/13/09 9 35 AM _. 19503 _ ` _. ____ !STEVENS CREEK _..+ _ _._.._ _ . IBL i _ _ i CU NO REPORT jSuspicious Circumstances 7/27/09 6 00 PM ,19503 :STEVENS CREEK BL ;CU ENO REPORT. t7 3 CD ~rt ~ ~ it Attachment D --- The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan at Cupertino January 19, 2009 Via Electronic Mail (aki@cupertino.or~) Aki Honda-Snelling Cupertino Planning Department 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 To Project Manager Honda-Snelling: The elected Board of Directors of the Metropolitan at Cupertino Homeowners Association (the "Metropolitan HOA") is sending this letter on behalf our homeowners in order to formally request a modification to the Use Permit Conditions for our project. We would like to modify Condition #22, "Public pedestrian easement," which addresses two public easements associated with pedestrian pathways through our community. Please find the attached Parcel Map recorded by the county, along with the additional attachment highlighting the specific easements we would like to remove. With the planned Sand Hill development adjacent to our property, the Metropolitan HOA feels that it is imperative to remove the easements that currently allow the general public to pass through our community by walking from the parking lot on the West side of our main building to the Sand Hill development on the East side of our project. As you have already heard from some residents through emails and oral statements at the recent Planning Commission Meetings, the Metropolitan HOA feels that it is important to remove the two public easements for the following reasons: - Our community has already experienced vandalisms, crime, and property being stolen from ground level balconies/patios. With the influx of more public pedestrian traffic, we would expect that more incidences would occur. Requiring pedestrians to walk around our community, not through it, would reduce the access that non-residents have to our community. - Currently, up to 50 students from Cupertino High School use the aforementioned pathways each day as a shortcut from the High School to a cafe in the Cupertino Financial Center. On their way back to school, the students litter trash in our community along the pathways. We imagine that the litter would only increase as the number of people walking through our community increased, requiring us to install trash receptacles and to take other measures to maintain the cleanliness of our community. - Along one of the pathways through our community is a children's playhouse and water fountain, and along the other is a swimming pool. Both of these community common areas encourage loitering and we would not want non-residents loitering in these areas at all hours of the day disturbing residents of nearby units. - Our ground level parking lot has extremely limited parking to be shared by office building tenants, residents, guests, and customers of our retail units. The convenience of being able to ~~-s walk through our community would encourage patrons and customers of the Sand Hill development to use these parking spaces. - Encouraging pedestrians to use the sidewalk of Stevens Creek Boulevard, rather than the pathways through our community, will help activate the five retail units that are part of the Metropolitan along Stevens Creek Boulevar~~. Currently, only one of the five units is leased, and having more foot traffic by the storefronts ~nrill help attract, businesses. Given the narrow width of the aforementioned pathways, we feel that requiring pedestrians to use the sidewalk of Stevens Creek Boulevard or the pathway in between the Metropolitan and the Rosebowl project will not impact the walkability of the South Vallco area, while significantly improving the quality of life of Metropolitan residents. We look forward to hearing back from you with the Staff s recommendations. Thank you for your help in getting started on the application process needed for the modification of the Use Permit. If you have any questions for the Metropolitan HOA, please contact Elaine Chong at elainech~@~mail.com or 650- 906-8024. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, On behalf of the Metropolitan at Cupertino Homeov~rners Association, Robin Su, President Elaine Chong, Vice President Encl: Metropolitan Recorded Parcel Map, Parcel MaK~ page 2 with easements highlighted 17-7 U-2003-04 A~ChmQ,nt E December 17, 2003 21. SC All mechaiucal an g or on t ~e site shall be screened so as not to be visible. ater~a h building features and materials. The location of. e and necessary screening shall be re a proved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building perms . 22. PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT Public pedestrian easements over the sidewalk areas (portion on private property) and through the interior pedestrian paths, courtyards and plazas shall be prepared by ,the developer, approved by the City Attorney and recorded against the subject property prior to issuance of building occupancy. . AIR QUALITY The following measures shall be followed during construction to ensure dust control: Use dust-proof chute for loading construction debris onto trucks. b. Water all active construction areas at lest twice daily or as often as needed to control dust fissions. c. C er all truck hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or ensure that all trot hau such materials maintain at least two feet of freeboard. d. Pave, ly water three times daily or as often as necessary to control dos apply non- toxic soi tabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and st g areas at e. Sweep daily o often as needed with water sweepers all pa access roads, parkng areas and stagin eas at construction sites to control du f. Sweep public stree daily or as often as needed to ke streets free of visible soil material. g. Limit vehicle traffic spe son unpaved roads 5 mph. h. 111sta11 sandbags or other e ion control sores to prevent silt runoff onto public roadways. i. Replant vegetation in disturbed e as quickly as possible. 24. I~TOISE a. The placement of roofto echanical e ment shall be uidicated on plans and a review shall be provided by acoustical speciali pith recommendations for noise attenuating measures if neces so that noise levels me 'mits established in the I~TOise ordinance. b. Noise abatem measures in the recommendario of the Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc, dated tember 12, 2003 shall be followed. Q ifying common and private open spacer red by the Heart of the City Plan shall be sit ed in a location that provides acre le noise levels. The building permit plans shall b viewed by a qualified a stical consultant for compliance with necessary noise co of treatments and a report gall be issued prior to issuance of building permits. Noise generating activities associated with demolition and construe n of the proposed project would temporarily elevate noise level in the area surrounding project site. ~~-$ CITY OF CUPERTINO Attachment E= City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 SUMNTARY Community Development Department Application: M-2009-06 Agenda Date: August 11, 2009 Applicant: Elaine Chong (Metropolitan at Cupertino HOA) Owner: Metropolitan at Cupertino HOA Property Location: 19501, 19503, 19505 & 19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption APPLICATION SUMMARY: Modification to a Use Permit (U-2003-04) to remove t<vo Public Pedestrian Easements at the Metropolitan at Cupertino condominium complex. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Modification application (M-2009-06) to eliminate two internal Public Pedestrian Easements that run through the residential portions of the complex. BACKGROUND: On December 15, 2003, the City Council approved a Use Permit, U-2003-04, (See Attachment 1 consisting of the City Council approval letter with <:onditions of approval) to allow the development of two mixed-use buildings consisting of 107 residential condominium uiuts and 6,400 square feet of retail space. As part of the development approval, public }pedestrian easements were also required (See Attachment 2 consisting of Condition No. 22 requiring the public pedestrian easements) over the sidewalk areas on the development site and through the interior pedestrian paths, courtyards and plazas. These easements consist of perimeter sidev~alk easements that run along the east and north perimeters of the mixed-use complex and two internal easements that run through the residential portions of the complex. In January of 2009, during the public hearings for the adjacent Main Street mixed-use project, the City Council heard requests from residents of the Metropolitan condominium complex to remove the two public pedestrian easements that run internally within the residential portion of the complex due to security problems in recent years and the fear that the security of their interior courtyards may be further compromised with the development of the T/Iain Street project. The residents of Metropolitan indicated that one sway to enhance security is to eliminate non-residents from passing through the internal corridors of their complex. After hearing these concerns, the City Council advised the residents to apply for a Use Permit Modification to formally request the removal of these easements. M-2009-06 Pare 2 DISCUSSION: August 11, 2009 On June 25, 2009, the Metropolitan Homeowners Association (HOA) submitted a Modification application to eliminate the t~vo internal public pedestrian easements (See Attaclunent 3 consisting of the plan sets shoving the project site, the parcel map highlighting the t~~•o internal public pedestrian easements to be removed, and a site plan shoving these t~vo easements leading to internal courtyards). Below are photos of the t~vo internal public pedestrian easements that pro~Tide access into the condominium complex: Entrances to the internal public pedestrian easements on the east perimeter of the complex adjacent to the future Main Street project site Internal public pedestrian easements through the complex to internal courtyards The applicant, Elaine Chong, also clarified that there is no intention to remove the exist>szg perimeter side~~,-alk public pedestrian easements along the north and east property lines. These public easements will remain to allow for future public cross access betwee~z the 1`-letropolitan complex anc the future Main Street and Rosebowl development sites. 17 - 10 M-2009-06 Page 3 August 11, 2009 The application includes a letter (See Attachment ~E consisting of a letter dated January 19, 2009) that the HOA had originally shared with the City during the Main Street project public hearings regarding residents' concerns and the request to remove the internal public pedestrian easements. The letter from the HOA states the following re~~sons for requesting removal of the two internal easements: • The Metropolitan community has already experienced vandalism, crime and property being stolen from ground level balconies/patios. With the influx of more public pedestrian traffic with the adjacent Main Street project site, they expect more incidences would occur. The HOA believes that reducing access to non-residents would reduce the possibilities for such vandalism and crime. • Cupertino High School students use the internal pathways as a shortcut from the high school to a local cafe. This has created litter problems within their complex. • One of the internal pedestrian pathways leads to a courtyard with a children s playhouse and water fountain. The other internal pedestria pathway leads to the complex's swimming pool. Residents wish to prevent loitering in these ~ireas by non-residents for safety reasons. • There is limited ground level shared parkin; on site between the residents, office complex and retail units. The HOA is concerned that the convenience of walking through the complex will encourage non-Metropolitan residents, patrons and office employees to park in these spaces. • Encouraging pedestrians to walk along Stevens Creek Boulevard rather than cutting through the complex may help activate the Metropolitan retail units along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Staff is supportive of the applicant's request to remove the two internal public pedestrian easements for the reasons that have been stated, and becaL~se the remaining easements of access along the perimeter are sufficient to facilitate pedestrian connections between adjacent developments. ENCLOSURES: Model Resolution Attachment 1: City Council approval letter of U-2003-04 with conditions of approval Attachment 2: Condition No. 22 requiring the public pedestrian easements Attachment 3: Plan sets showing the project site, the parcel map highlighting the tzvo internal public pedestrian easements to be removed, & a site plan showing these two easements leading to internal courtyards Attachment 4: Applicant's letter dated January 19, 2009 Attachment 5: Authorization letter from Metropolitan HOA to submit the application Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner AICP Reviewed by: Approved by: -, `~,, mar ao `~~ity Planner / '. Aa ti Shrivastava Community Development Director 17 - 11 G: ylnnning/I'D reyort/pcMreyorfsl1009/AQ-2009-06.doc EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE ~~/q_/-a9 #/7 Cupertino Planning Commission 2 August 11, 2009 r. LIC HEARING: L M-2009-06 Modification to Use Permit (U-2003-04) to remove Elaine Chong two Public Pedestrian Easements at the Metropolitan (Metropolitan at Cupertino at Cupertino condominium complex. Tentative City HOA) 19501, 19503, 19505, Council elate September 1, 2009 & 19507 Stevens Creek Blvd Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Plannner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application to remove two public pedestrian easements within the Metropolitan at Cupertino condominium complex, as outlined in the staff report. The HOA summarized the reasons for their request to remove the internal easements, including vandalism and theft to the lower level balconies and patios of the residents; the use of the internal pathways as a shortcut from Cupertino High School students, which has added littering problems to the likelihood of vandalism and theft. If the internal pedestrian easements are kept, it might encourage non- Metropolitan residents and non-Metropolitan retail patrons to use the site particularly when the Rose Bowl site and Main Street project are developed. Staff also feels that it might be better if pedestrians are funneled along Stevens Creek Blvd. to help activate the retail/commercial sites rather than having them pass through the complex not seeing those retail/commercial units. • The applicants are requesting to modify Condition 22 of the use permit which deals specifically with public pedestrian easements, particularly to eliminate the public pedestrian easement that requires the easements to run through the interior pedestrian paths, courtyards, and plazas but are requesting to still maintain the public pedestrian easements along the sidewalks which are on the perimeters of the property on the east and the north so that there would still be future access to the future Rose Bowl site to the north and the future Main Street site to the east. • Staff supports the removal of the internal easements. Since the remaining perimeter easements are sufficient to facilitate the public pedestrian connections, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the modification application to remove the two internal easements. Staff answered questions about the application. Elaine Chong, Member of Board of Directors, Metropolitan at Cupertino: • Said they felt that closing off the two easements would have minimal impact to the walkability of the Vallco area, but would make a big difference in the safety and security of the residents of the complex. She said that they have hacl repeated problems with graffiti on a playhouse and people climbing on the roof of the complex, and break-ins on different floors of the complex. She said when viewing the walkways from the outside, they seem like they should be interior walkways and part of the interior of the complex; especially with the Main Street and Rose Bowl projects moving forward, there will be more people and traffic in the area. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing; there was no one present who wished to speak; the public hearing was closed. Com. Kaneda: • Said he supported the removal of the easements. Com. Lee: • Said in the past two years there have been ~~roblems with non-residents passing through the complex. The Rose Bowl and Main Street sites will develop in the next few years and it is not Cupertino Planning Commission August 11, 2009 unreasonable to expect more problems in the future. She said she supported modifying the use permit to remove the two easements. Com. Miller: • Said he supported the removal of the easements; stating that whenever there is an interface between two different uses, there is the potential for issues and it is a good idea to head them off in advance. He said the residents were justified in coming forward with their concerns. Vice Chair Brophy: • Said he concurred with the other Commissioners. Chair Giefer: • Said she visited the complex and could appre~~iate the concerns of the residents. She said she was concerned about the pedestrian traffic because as these developments were built, one of the things they did in planning was to give serious consideration as to how they would move pedestrian traffic and integrate the entire area. She said it would have been helpful to have the police report numbers or have access to the police reports, in considering home ownership, they have the right to make that request. • Said she was not opposed to the removal of th-; easements, but may abstain because in principle she would like to keep as much circulation as possible. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second bar Com. Kaneda, and carried 4-1, with Chair Giefer abstaining, to approve Application M-2009-06 per the model resolution. 2. -2008-03, EXC-2009-OS Use Permit to allow a personal wireless ser 'ce fillip Thomas (AT&T/ECI facility consisting of a 74 foot tall tree e with six Two esults Way, LLC) paned antennas and an equipment en osure with the Near 5 alts Way associated equipment in the west y landscape Strip in the rear parking lot of existing office park; Height exception to allow ennas to be mounted at a Height of 67.1 feet, here 55 feet is allowed. Plan~zing Commissio decision final unless appealed. Gary Chao, City Planner, presen d the staff report: • Reviewed the application fora Permit requ and exception request to allow fora 74 foot tall tree pole with 6 panels of a nna:~ s an enclosure at the base of the equipment. The height exception is to permit an ant a to go up to 67.1 feet where 55 feet is allowed by the ordinance. Staff is comfortable itli e height exception; the ordinance requires 75 feet; it is well beyond the mini require because there is a grade difference of approximately 20 feet from whe the pole is situate to the McClellan Road grade. Because of the reception the freque needs, the pole has t be elevated to the same level as McClellan to be effective The proposed facili s within the federal safety standards terms of health and safety implications. Staff suggests at the faux pine tree pole lie a more mottled green for to conform to the deep fores reen color found on the Miller Avenue tree; the top hal f the tree pole be design with a more conical form to simulate the shape of a real pine tr and the base equ' ment screen wall be clad with high quality metal panels with a color to ma the metal ork in the approved project. The area around the enclosure shall be landsc ed with shrubs, except the entry area. #i~ Metropolitan at Cupertino HOA is requesting: ^ Modification to a Use Permit (U-2003-04) approved on December 15, 2003. ^ To remove two public pedestrian easements at the Metropolitan at Cupertino mixed-use complex 1 4 ^ Applicant is requesting to modify Condition No. 22 of the Use Permit to eliminate the requirement for public pedestrian easements that run "through the interior pedestrian paths, courtyards, and plazas" ^ Existing public pedestrian easements on the north, east and west perimeter of the complex will remain ^ The applicant cites security concerns as a reason for requesting the modification UPERTINO PARCEL. MAP _.z.. _~ 3E ..~. rz ~' '__~FL_ '~:i.i~rs ~~srr ~v =~ _~ _ • =z- F s~r.~ ____ y G~ _... .ter _ ~pXp ~~~~'. _~: ... 4 ~ ~YS't _ :~+~_ _'" tiers. ..~~~~.~ _.. ~ _ _.. - ~ ~,- : ~ - -- - ~ - _ =,. i - ,.- T. 3 _ ~ a i . _ ~ _, - ._=_, _ _,.~__ :~ 2 CUPERTINO On August lit", the Planning Commission recommended approval: ^ Modification application t:o remove the two internal public pedestrian easemE~nts, subject to Resolution No. 6562. 3