The URL can be used to link to this page

22. The Hamptons Use PermitOFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CUPERTINO CITY BALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE - CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 - FAX (408) 777 -3333 - planningQcmpertino.or CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. APPLICATION SUMMARY Agenda Date: May 18, 2010 Consider Modification (M- 2010 -01) to a Use Permit (14 -U -96) to remove an existing reciprocal access and parking easement bAween an existing apartment complex (The Hamptons) and an existing industrial office property (Apple, Inc.), Application No. M- 2010-01, James Fowler (The Irvine Co. & Apple, Inc.), 19500, 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue, APNs 316 -06 -032, 316 -06 -037, 316 -06 -050, 316 -06 -051. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve M- 2010 -01 (Attachment A). BACKGROUND On April 27, 2010, the Planning Commission recommended approval (on a 4-0 vote, Chairperson Brophy absent) to modify the existing use permit to remove a reciprocal access and parking easement between the Hamptons apartments complex located on the southeast corner of Wolfe Road and Pruner:idge Avenue and the adjacent industrial office complex to the east owned by Apple. During the public hearing, Michael Foulkes, on behalf of Apple and the Irvine Company (owners of apartments), explained that the :reciprocal access and parking easement on the Apple properties has not historically been used. Please refer to the attached April 27, 2010 Commission staff report for the detailed project background (Attachment B). DISCUSSION Apple Inc. and The Irvine Company, LLC have submitted a joint application requesting the removal of the reciprocal access and parking easement (See Easement Diagram as Attachment C) since both have indicated (See Applicant's Description Letter as Attachment D) that neither the access nor parking have been used by residents of the apartment complex, and both owners note that their properties can independently function without the benefit of the easement. In addition, the removal of the easement 22 -1 M- 2010 -01 Apple /Hamptons easement removal May 18, 2010 Paze 2 will allow Apple to maintain and secure their office campus. Please refer to the attached Commission staff report for the detailed project discussion (Attachment B) Parking A parking analysis (See Attachment E) was prepared by Fehr & Peers dated April 20, 2010 that compared the existing on -site parking supply against the mid- week /weekend peak parking demands for the 342 -unit apartment complex. The analysis concluded the existing on -site parking supply is not only sufficient to meet the apartment's existing parking demand, but has an excess of 26 on -site parking spaces. The parking analysis and observations were conducted when the apartment complex had a 95% occupancy rate and the parking requirements in the study were adjusted to include a 100% occupancy rate. CONCLUSION Based upon the parking analysis, the Commission supports the application to remove the reciprocal access and parking easement on the Apple property, with the additional requirement that emergency access shall be maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department. Both Apple and The Irvine Company are agreeable to this condition. Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner C 7- ' C- Reviewed by: arti Shrivastava Community Development Director Approved by: / Datiid W. Knapp City Manager ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Pl annin g Commission Resolution No. 6597 Attachment B Planning Commission staff report of April 27, 2010 Attachment C Easement Diagram Attachment D Applicant's Description Letter Attachment E Parking Analysis by Fehr and Peers dated April 20, 2010 Attachment F Draft Minutes from the April 27, 2010 Planning Commission meeting G: l Planning � PDREPORTI CC ti 2010 � M- 2010 -01. doc 22 -2 Attachment A M- 2010 -01 CITY OF C UPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6597 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO A USE PERMIT (14 -U -96) TO REMOVE AN EXISTING RECIPROCAL ACCESS AND PARKING EASEMENT BETWEEN AN EXISTING APARTMENT COMPLEX (THE HAMPTONS) AND AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PROPERTY (APPLE, INC.) ASSOCIATED WITH PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 19310,19320 & 19500 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: M- 2010 -01 Applicant: James C. Fowler, Apple, Inc. (on behalf of Apple, Inc. and the Irvine Company) Location: 19310,19320 & 19500 Prune ridge Avenue SECTION H: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the Modification of 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 project, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed project will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan 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 Modification of the Use Permit are 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- 2010 -01, 22 -3 Resolution No. 6597 M- 2010 -01 Page -2- April 27, 2010 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 27, 2010, and are incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Exhibits. submitted by the applicant including the Project Description, entitle? Attachment A, Easement Diagram showing the proposed easement to be removed and easement to be retained, and the parking analysis prepared by Fehr and Peers dated April 20, 2010, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution 2. PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL All previous use permit conditions of approval, in accordance with Use Permit 14 -U- 96 as approved by the City Council on January 6, 1997, shall remain in effect, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 3. PARKING Condition No. 11 of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 4773 pertaining to parking as approved by the City Council on January 6,1997, shall be modified herein to state that the existing on -site parking supply of 604 parking spaces at The Hampton Apartment complex located at 19500 Pruneridge Avenue is sufficient to meet the parking demand of the apartment complex based upon the parking analysis prepared by Fehr and Peers dated April 20, 2010. Therefore, off -site parking is no longer required to meet the apartment complex's parking demand as long as the existing 604 on -site parking spaces are maintained. 4. REMOVAL OF EASEMENT Condition No. 3 of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 4773 pertaining to Improvement of Secondary Access as approved by the City Council on January 6, 1997, shall be modified herein to allow the removal of the easement for general purpose use along the eastern and southern perimeters of the Apple properties located at 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue as indicated in the approved exhibits and for the benefit of The Irvine Company for The Hamptons apartment complex located at 19500 Pruneridge Avenue. However, the easement access shall be required to be maintained for emergency .purposes only for public safety access to The Hamptons apartment complex. 5. FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENT The applicant shall be required to maintain the easement access for secondary emergency access purposes only for public safety access to The Hampton apartment complex in accordance with requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The applicant shall be allowed to provide a gate with a knox box at the access into The Hampton apartment complex at the southeast corner of the site in accordance with requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department. 22-4 Resolution No. 6597 M- 2010 -01 April 27, 2010 Page -3- PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April 2010, 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 Lee, Miller, Kaneda, Giefer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Brophy ATTEST: / s / Aarti Shrivastava Aard Shrivastava Director of Community Development APPROVED: / s/ Winnie Lee Winnie Lee, Vice Chair Planning Commission 22 -5 Attachment B CUPERTINO OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUI'ERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 77 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 e pl_annina pertino.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: Agril 27, 2010 Application: M- 2010 -01 Applicant: James C. Fowler, Apple Inc. (on behalf of Apple, Inc. and the Irvine Company) Location: 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue (Apple, Inc.) & 19500 Pruneridge Avenue (The Hamptons Apartments /Irvine Company) on the south side of Pruneridge Avenue, east of Wolfe Road Application Summary: Modification to a Use Permit (14 -U -96) to remove an existing reciprocal access and parking easement between an existing apartment complex (The Hamptons) and an existing industrial office property (Apple, Inc.). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: + The Modification M- 2010 -01 to Use Permit 14 -U -96 to remove the reciprocal access and parking easement on existing industrial office properties owned by Apple, Inc. for the benefit of The Hamptons apartment complex, in accordance with the Model Resolution (Attachment 1). BACKGROUND On February 17, 2010, Apple, Inc. and The Irvine Company, LLC, submitted a joint application proposing to remove a reciprocal access and parking easement involving the Hamptons apartment complex (consists of 342 units) owned by The Irvine Company and the adjacent industrial office properties owned by Apple located on the south side of Pruneridge Avenue, east of Wolfe Road. The reciprocal access and parking easement between the two properties was required by the City originally (14-- U-96) to facilitate ancillary / emergency access and overflow parking. Apple, Inc. and the Irvine Company are jointly requesting to remove the reciprocal access and parking easement requirement on the Apple properties, since neither the access nor the parking have been used by residents of the apartment complex and both owners note that their properties can independently function without benefit of the easements. Additionally, the removal of the easement will allow Apple to maintain and secure access to their properties. See Attachment 2 (the Applicant's Project DescrjBtipn) for additional details. M- 2010 -01 Removal of Hampton /Apple Easement April 13, 2010 _ Page 2 DISCUSSION Site Access Currently, the Hamptons Apartment complex is accessed from Pruneridge Avenue. The secondary access is through the reciprocal access and parking easement on Apple's properties (See map below), which is the easement that is proposed to be removed. Easements on the Subject Properties Hamptons primary access Existing easement to remain to be retained h Easement Diagram . -,_ Proposed access & parking eisemernt to be removed / 10 - .. _ Aerial Photo oi' Subject Properties M- 2010 -01 Removal of Hamptons /Apple Easement April 13, 2010 Paze 3 As mentioned earlier, the secondary access has not been used by the apartment residents. The Fire Department supports the removal of this access easement for general purposes ' provided that emergency access be maintained with an emergency gate and knox box access. Pam As part of the project, the applicant is also requesting the removal of any ancillary apartment parking rights on the Apple properties. The reason for the reciprocal parking was to allow The Hamptons the ability to share 48 parking spaces on the adjacent industrial office properties now owned by Apple when the apartment complex development was approved by the City Council in 1997. Historically, the designated parking easement area has never been used by apartment residents (See easement diagram above), since the Hamptons onsite parking supply is sufficient to satisfy their needs. A parking analysis (See Attachment 3) was also prepared by Fehr and Peers dated April 20, 2010, that analyzed and compared the existing on -site parking supply and mid -week and weekend peak parking demand for The Hamptons Apartment complex. The parking analysis concluded that the existing on -site parking supply is not only sufficient to meet the apartment's existing parking demand, but has an excess of 26 on -site parking spaces. Staff supports the removal of the parking easement. Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, AICP, Senior rlanner Reviewed by: Approved by: 0 City Planner ATTACHMENTS /a A ti Shrivastava Community Development Director Attachment 1 Model Resolution Attachment 2 Applicant's Project Description Attachment 3 Parking Analysis by Fehr and Peers dated April 20, 2010 22 -8 G: \Planning \PDREPORT\pc M reports \2010 \M - 2010 -01doc N N (O Hamptons primary access Existing easement to remain to be retained 'IZ ji ..'�^ c ` 1 >+ rI't;� ,,• ,� „ - ...�,• r •. 4l",;w - ` •,1 , ..i �~ t 1 j] AA ..� . \� \\ i �. i� � "., • � ._,,,'" Ci s �i{ .. f \ f:bfxZ...r! "J'' ••,L •... - �'��.. � , (� ri 1 .� .. r a: \� 1 �+. \ti ... �. i_ � "'l. I J % }`': 1J' !: ;. i �4'1 ..'. - 1 ' r ..•.�} II � 'T .. \,\ \� ,,• \ � ��\� .. _ � �- r ._;.__ ' ,. -� _� � .. �Ilr� -�� 1� ' �.. �� ( ar ' it , �. -. �' t f r,•�1 ` k-I \� L \ . H4r a 8 d1 CI t e A R r r' , � ^•, Apple \� ` (' :�� ` � .�.,_ .-, ; � r -i �n _� l •� � �� r �� PA � S i s . �'ti `• - .� � ti ��y y ,> fit•." � � ` '",:l� :! t�._ � J r l i I y r jt rMM A in j Y f f Y ,7� � 1 .:.� t 'y,� �'••�` ,1 •�. �... ,+. .... . Easement Diag Pro.' osed access & ar as ' #o.be + f-n i I� Z rt a rA o Attachment D This is an Application by The Irvine Company LLC ( "Irvine "), joined by Apple Inc. ( "Apple ") as a co- applicant, to modify Use Permit 14 -U -96 (the "Use Permit "). Irvine and Apple are collectively the "Applicants ". The City issued the Use Permit in 1998 to Irvine's predecessor in connection with development of the Hamptons Apartments at 10750 N. Wolfe Road (APN's 316- 06-032 and 316 -06 -037). This property is more particularly described in the Preliminary Report issued by First American Title Insurance Company on December 4, 2008 under Order Number NCS- 378243 -SC, a copy of which is attached to this Application (the "Irvine Property "). The Use Permit required 1.96 parking spaces per unit, which could not be completely accommodated on -site. The City also required a second means of vehicular access for residents, as well as a second entrance to the site for emergency vehicles. To meet these requirements Irvine's predecessor entered into an "Easement Agreement Regarding Parking and Access ", recorded as Document Number 14047825 on February 11, 1998 (the Easement ") with Apple's predecessor. The Easement burdens the property subsequently acquired by Apple at 191310- 19320 Pruneridge Avenue (APN's 316 -06 -050 and 316 -06 -051). This property is more particularly described in the Preliminary Report issued by First American Title Insurance Company on December 4, 2008 under Order Number NCS- 378245 SC, a copy of which is attached to this Application (the "Apple Property "). The burdens consisted of a single 12' wide traffic lane leading from Pruneridge Avenue through the Apple Property to a linear parking lot on the Apple Property. The linear parking lot has about 48 parking spaces. Neither the 48 off -site parking spaces nor the secondary access has ever been used by the Hampton residents. Section 19.100.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission or City Council to approve a development plan that deviates from the established parking standards if the applicant provides a parking study that supports the deviation. At the Applicants' request, the City conducted an informal parking /traffic analysis of the access and parking easement area. The City reported its results in a letter to Apple dated November 3, 2008, a copy of which is attached to this Application. The observations were made during AM/PM peak hours. The study concluded that "... the easement area was primarily used by the construction crew and construction related vehicles from the Hampton' remodel project. Residential traffic /parking was not observed within the easement area. In addition, parking usage was significantly below the parking provided even after discounting the easement spaces ...." The informal analysis demonstrates a peak occupancy of 384 spaces, or about 63% of the 609 spaces available on -site. Therefore, the Applicants request a Use Permit Modification reducing the parking ratio for the Hampton Apartment to the number of spaces currently on the Irvine Property (609 spaces for 342 units, or 1.78 spaces per unit), which is more than sufficient to meet the actual parking demand. The Modification also would eliminate the need for a secondary means of vehicular access for residents, which the informal survey indicates the residents do not use, and permits relocation of the emergency entrance to one of the three areas shown on the diagram attached to this Application. All of these locations have been approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. Over the 11 -year period in which the Hampton Apartments complex has been operating, the pa- 1369263 22-10 City's initial concerns about parking and traffic : 'aave not materialized. The Applicants request the City to acknowledge this fact by granting the Use Permit Modification to reduce the parking ratio and eliminate the secondary access. This action also will allow Apple and Irvine to eliminate the Easement. . pa- 1369263 r 22-11 Attachment E f FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM Date: April 20, 2010 To: Aki Honda Snelling, City of Cupertino Gary Chao, City Planner, City of Cupertino From: Franziska Church, AICP /Jason Nesdahl P.E. Subject. Parking Analysis for The Hamptons Apartment Complex in Cupertino, CA SJ10 -1152 Fehr & Peers has completed a parking analysis for The Hamptons apartment complex located at the southeast corner of Wolfe Road and Pruneddge Avenue in the City of Cupertino, California. The purpose of the analysis is to determine the existing parking demand of the residential site and whether the on -site supply is sufficient to meet the demand. This memorandum summarizes the analysis and findings. PARKING OCCUPANCY SURVEY Manual parking occupancy counts were conducted from midnight to 3 AM on Thursday, February 4, 2010, and Saturday, February 6, 2010, to capture midweek and weekend parking demand rates at the residential site. The midnight to 3 AM survey periods correspond to peak residential parking demand periods based on national parking data collected for Shared Parking, 2" Edition (Urban Land Institute, 2005). Per information obtained from The Hamptons management company, the vacancy rates for the residential development was approximately five percent during the data collection periods; i.e. the residential development is 95 percent occupied. PARKING SUPPLY Parking at The Hamptons is supplied via 363 surface parking spaces, 57 secured parking garage spaces, and 184 underground garage parking spaces distributed among three garages for a total of 604 parking spaces. Figure 1 illustrates The Hamptons parking supply. The secured parking garages spaces are locked garages and not easily accessible; therefore we assumed that the parking occupancy rate for secured spaces was the same as for the remainder of the site. PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS As shown in Table 1, the total maximum parking demand for the project site is approximately 86 percent, or 520 parking spaces. Since the development is 95 percent occupied, the demand rates were adjusted by five percent to reflect what the demand would be at 100 percent occupancy. Increasing this parking demand by five percentage points, results in an adjusted parking demand for The Hamptons of approximately 91 percent. Thus, during the site's peak parking demand period approximately nine percent of the parking spaces are unoccupied; this equates to 550 occupied and 54 unoccupied parking spaces. 160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278 -1700 Fax (408) 278 -1717 www.fehrandpeers.com 22-12 Aki Honda Snelling and Gary Chao April 20, 2010 Page 2 of 3 FEHR & PEERS 4"SPOVATIO► CONSULIAK S Typically, the parking supply for a residential project includes a factor to account for parking demand variations. Increasing the site's parking demand by an additional five percent to allow for some excess parking would equate to 578 parking spaces (550 x 1.05 to account for parking demand variations). Based on our surveys, the marking supply of 578 spaces would be adequate to accommodate The Hampton's parking demand. Therefore, based on the parking demand surveys up to 26 parking spaces could be removed from the site without negatively affecting the site's demand. TABLE 1 THE HAMPTONS PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Data Collection Handi- Secured North- Middle South Percent Vacancy Total Period Surface capped Spaces' Garage Garage Garage Total Occupied Adjustment Demand Total Spaces: 354 9 57 45 94 45 604 - ` Thursday, February 4, 2010 12:00 AM 325 4 48 36 70 29 512 85% 90% 538 1:00 AM 323 4 48 33 75 31 514 85% 90% 538 2 :00 AM 324 4 49 35 74 32 518 86% 91% 55D 3:00 AM 1 325 4 49 36 74 32 520 86% 91% 550 Average 324 4 49 35 73 31 516 85% 90% 544 Maximum 325 4 49 36 75 32 520 86% 91% 550 aturday, February 6, 2010 12:00 AM 321 5 48 34 73 29 510 84% 89% 538 1:00 AM 323 5 48 33 72 28 509 84% 89% 538 2:00 AM 323 4 48 34 72 30 511 85% 90% 544 3:00 AM 324 4 48 34 73 31 514 85% 90% 544 verage 323 5 48 34 73 30 511 85% 90% 541 Maximum 324 5 48 34 73 31 514 85% 90% 544 Total Average 324 5 49 35 73 31 514 a5% 90% 544 Total Maximum 325 4 49 36 75 3 27 520 86% 91% 550 Notes: Secured spaces are locked private garages and not easily accessible; therefore we assumed that the parking occupancy rate for secured spaces was the same as for the remainder of the site. ' Percent occupied = total demand / total supply Z Percent occupied adjusted for the five percent vacancy rate for the residential development. 3 Total demand including vacancy adjustment (6D4 spaces x Vacancy Adjustment) Fehr & Peers, February 2090. 22 -13 Aki Honda Snelling and Gary Chao April 20, 201 D Page 3 of 3 CONCLUSION f? - F EHR & PEERS tcs ncri kTAT,A¢ [i��SilifAl;'S Based on the data collected, the 'existing on -site parking supply at The Hamptons apartment complex is sufficient to meet the site's parking demand. Adjusting the parking demand rates for the residential vacancy rate (five percent) and a five percent excess allowance to account for parking demand variatiuns, The Hamptons has a parking demand for approximately 578 parking spaces, resulting in 26 parking spaces that could be removed to accommodate changes to the site's parking supply. 22 -14 Attachment F Cupertino Planning Commission 2 April 27, 2010 was interested in hearing more of his input Lased on his insight and consideration from tjbe last meeting. Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director: ,� { • Said 'the only issue was that the Council wonted to see this as early as P,v9sible, but Planning Commission can make the decision. There was a discussion about the advantages and disadvantages o ontinuing the application until Chair Brophy was present; - -so that a full contingent of the CopAissioners was present to provide input. Corns. Giefer and Kaneda were absent from the priQr meeting when the Matrix study was discussed. Com. Giefer said she'would prefer to wait tynel Chair Brophy was present to provide his perspective. She said she had maxiy questions wAt'h regards to why staff was recommending some of the recommendations and she needed mere background information. Cam. Kanesa said that he did not have a strong opinion either u�a;�, but would support continuing discussion of the item until the next meeting. Com. Miller stafed that he would prefer to discuss the item tonight so that those present could express their opinions a:ad provide input, and then continue the discussion to the next meeting when Chair Broiiy was present. Motion: Com. Giefer moved, second by Com. Kaneda, Com. Brophy absent; to 01, continue,11em No. 3, Application CP- 2010 -01; Vote 1-2 -0, Com. Brophy absent Motion failed. COATMR7NICAT'IONS: None CALENDAR: None 2. M- 2010 -01 Modification to a Use Permit (14 -U -96) to remove James Fowler (The Irvine an existing reciprocal. access and parking easement Company, LLC & between an existing apartment complex (The Apple, Inc) 19310 -19320 Hamptons) and an existing industrial office And 19500 Pruneridge Ave. property (Apple, Inc.) Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Modification to Use Permit to remove an existing reciprocal access and parking easement between an existing apartment complex and an existing industrial office property, as outlined in the staff report: • She reviewed the site access and parking as detailed in the staff report. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the modification subject to the model resolution. Mike Folkes, Apple, Inc. • Said that the easement hasn't been used for parking which it was designed for; the site is currently being used to hold some equipment that the Hampton Apartments use for the refurbishment of their property, and they may continue its current use for a period of time. He noted that the gate was actually locked so it could not have been used for parking, except for emergency access. Vice Chair Lee opened the public hearing. 22 -15 Cupertino Planning Commission April 27, 2010 Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Commented that for any future use of the Hampton apartment complex homes, or any future development that the complex has, she wanted to ensure if the property was ever redeveloped and had higher buildout there, that enough parking would remain on site because it does have excellent access to Highway 280 and Wolfe Road etc. She said obviously you would not want the extra parking out in the Apple lands over there. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Giefer, and carried 4 -0 -0; Cam. Brophy absent; to approve Application M- 2010 -01 per the model resolution. CP- 2010 -01 Review of they Management Study of the Permit Process aid City of Cupertino opportunities to enhance the quality of the City's permit services and organizational efficiency. Continued from the April..13, ` 2010 Planning Commission meeting; Tentative City Council date: May 18, 2010 Aarti ShrivastAva: • Said there was no formal staff presentation; comments provided' previously by the Commissioners are provided in the staff report. 4 T Com. Giefer: • She said in reading the reUmrnendation, the one thin g that struck her*is they P want to improve their processes; but how is community involved in this. T: ey have talked to developers and architects, people who have pulio permits. Out of one of Ae people who pulled pen how many of them were residential A, developers or house_. flippers, and how do they ensure that the community's voice is heard as pig of this. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said it was difficult to get people to respon&g. d they tried to get a good cross section. They did a comparative study of how Cupertino compares with other studies; which pulled in people who had worked in multiple cities. They: 1so got,,comments from residents but did not have the exact numbers. It is a good question staff should be able to get an answer. Gary Chao, City Planner: • Clarified that Matrix conducted,.a focus group using a cross section of single- family, property owners that had done projects. -io medium size business owners`Who had built their buildings, to large developers including architects, civil. engineers, structural engineers and firms that have worked with the city. Matrix interviewed them and went over ; their opinion about the city's process. In add}tion Matrix also did an interview with staff members to go through the internal opinion to get input from folks who are working and using the Stem to see if there are any deficiencie's or enhancements that could be made; and the comparative study of other industry practices in other cities similar to ours with similar characteristics comparing processes and- seeing where the improvements can be made. "t f h � Com. Giefer • Said that having sat on the Planning Commission long enough and involved in sev`b aV R1 revie'w's, what she heard loud and strong was that the community felt they didn't have a voice. She said that they have to have continuity in the background in terms of how they got tovliis ,.point; and she felt it was lacking -in the report. She said if she were a developer or somebody 22 -16 �?I�H NIrJIS SJIEHIHXJ - [i81i 0 e :, y : ..#,,,„-f COPE RTINO Modification (M- 2010 -01) to a Use Permit (14- U -96): ❑ Remove an existing reciprocal access and parking easement ❑ The easement is located on - 4 '�. i Apple's adjacent industrial ° ' .. .� -, 4 4 , :', office property to the east - ` along Pruneridge Avenue ' . 4 , 1-..---1111 4 1 1 ..,., '', _ _ - .) ,...... -, CUPERTINO _ . 7 . +1, l i. ' \, - ' - .. , ti , .. ••,, { 1 CU PE RTINO April 27, 2010 • Planning Commission recommended approval (on a 4 -0 vote, Chair Brophy absent) to remove the reciprocal access and parking easement for general purpose use, but retain it as an emergency access only per the Santa Clara County Fire Department's request. ript- CUPERTtNO ❑ In 1997, the City approved Use Permit, 14 -U -96, that allowed for development of the 342 -unit Hamptons Apartment complex. ❑ The easement was required in conjunction with the use permit to facilitate ancillary/emergency access & overflow parking. ❑ Both Apple and The Hamptons are jointly requesting removal of the easement since neither the access nor parking have been used by residents of The Hamptons. ❑ Both properties can function independently without the easement. 2 CUPERTINO Hamptons primary access Exi..ting easement to remain to be retained a Easement Diagram A Proposed access & parking easement to be removed / I '' gyp CUPERTINO ❑ Santa Clara County Fire Department supports removal of this access easement for general purposes, provided that it is still maintained as an emergency access to The Hamptons with an emergency gate and knox box. ❑ Both The Hamptons and Apple are agreeable to the Fire Department's request. ate -- •.4 • h 1 Y}T X11 ^'4,. —.�«"�.. "' `�►. 3 CUPERTINO ❑ The reciprocal parking easement allows The Hamptons the ability to share approximately 48 parking spaces on Apple's adjacent industrial office properties. ❑ Historically, the spaces have not been used by the apartment residents. ❑ Parking analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers concluded that The Hampton's existing on -site parking (604 spaces) is more than sufficient to meet the apartment's peak parking demand, with an excess of 26 spaces, at full occupancy. ❑ Therefore, the overflow parking in the reciprocal parking easement is not needed. sr CUPERTINO The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Modification (M- 2010 -01) to the Use Permit, subject to the Resolution No. 6597. 4