101-Staff Report.pdf
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 5, 2010
Subject
Application for modification of an existing mixed-use development located at 19501-19507
Stevens Creek Boulevard (Metropolitan).
Recommended Action
Consider a Modification to the Use Permit, Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, and
a Tentative Map for the Metropolitan mixed-use development.
Description
Applications: M-2010-03, EXC-2010-03, TM-2010-03 (EA-2010-04)
Applicant: Jane Vaughan (Cupertino Housing Partners, LLC)
Location: 19501, 19503, 19505, 19507 Stevens Creek Blvd (Metropolitan), APN:316-49-
009, 500 ft noticing radius.
Application Summary: Use Permit Modification (U-2003-04) to allow general commercial uses
at an existing mixed-use project (Metropolitan) located at 19501-19507 Stevens Creek
Boulevard; Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow non-commercial uses to
exceed 25% of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard; Tentative Map to
subdivide an existing ground floor commercial space into five commercial condominiums
(Metropolitan).
Background
Approval History
In December 2003, the City Council approved the Metropolitan mixed use development through
a Use Permit (U-2003-04) (See conditions of approval as Attachment C) and associated
applications to allow for the construction of 107 residential units and 6,400 square feet of retail
space in two buildings on a 3.2 acre site on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, east of
Wolfe Road.
Modifications to the use permit and tentative map were approved in 2004 to convert the 107
residential units into condominium units. By virtue of separating the residential condominium
units from the ground floor retail space, the two separate retail building portions each became a
retail condominium unit. Therefore, the City recognizes that there are a total of two existing
retail condominium units on the site.
Currently, the commercial space is occupied by three tenants. Building A on the west side of the
driveway is fully occupied by two tenants, VJones Salon (hair salon) and Shaolin Martial Arts
(martial arts academy). Building B on the east side of the driveway is occupied by Visique Eye
Care, a retail eyewear/optometry business). The other two units in Building B are vacant.
Discussion
Intent of the Original Council Condition
The City’s original intent of retail use restrictions in mixed use developments is based upon the
General Plan policies for the Heart of the City area to be commercial-oriented, to enhance
pedestrian and commercial activities, and to have residential as a supplemental use:
“Mixed commercial and residential development may be allowed if the residential units provide
an incentive to develop retail use, if the development is well designed, financially beneficial to
Cupertino, provides community amenities and is pedestrian-oriented.”
In addition to Metropolitan, the City imposed similar use restrictions on the following projects in
the Heart of the City area:
Verona (corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard)
Villagio (De Anza Boulevard and Civic Park Lane)
Rosebowl (Vallco Parkway and Wolfe Road)
Travigne Villas (Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue)
Adobe Terrace (south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Torre and Blaney Avenues)
General Commercial vs Retail
The applicant requests modifications to the Use Permit to remove the retail-only restriction and
allow 60% of the building to be used for non-retail uses (medical offices). The applicant (See
Attachment D, applicant’s justification letter) reiterated support for the applications based upon
the following reasons:
The commercial spaces have not been viable for retail businesses since they have been
unable to fully lease the building in four years.
There is a lack of a critical mass and synergy of surrounding commercial uses; it would help
when the surrounding uses are successfully developed.
Without on-street parking along Stevens Creek Boulevard and pedestrian traffic from nearby
sites, it is difficult to support the spaces as retail uses.
Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report (See Attachment E) for the full
discussion on the applicant’s justification and staff analysis.
The City has in the past approved modifications for mixed use developments to lower their retail
requirements due to difficulty in leasing spaces. These include:
Adobe Terrace – On October 6, 2009, Council approved 50% of the retail building to be
occupied by a State Farm Insurance office for the current property owner; subsequent owners
would have to comply with the retail only requirement.
Villagio – In 2006, the City Council permitted Villagio to lower their 100% retail/restaurant
restriction to 50%. Subsequently, in 2009, the Council further allowed vocational and
specialized schools to occupy up to 50% of the Town Center Lane frontage (excluding
building corners).
Planning Commission
On September 28, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the
applicant’s request. Generally, the Commission expressed support for adding more flexibility to
facilitate leasing of the commercial spaces.
The Commission recommended the following on a 3-1 vote (See Attachment A, Planning
Commission resolutions):
The Modification to the Use Permit to allow up to 60% non-retail uses,
The Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow non-retail uses to occupy up to
60% of the project frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and
The Negative Declaration (See Attachment B).
Commissioner Lee voted no because she felt that the project is located in a prime retail location,
is highly visible from Stevens Creek Boulevard, and there is no reason to deviate from the retail
intent of the original use permit along the street frontage. Commissioner Lee also felt that there
may be other factors – such as, lowering lease rates - that have not been exhausted to attract
retail tenants.
Recommendation regarding Modification to the Use Permit
The Planning Commission recommendation to modify the original Use Permit to allow non-retail
uses are summarized as follows:
1.Allow up to a maximum of 60% of non-retail commercial uses in the 6,400 square foot
commercial space.Non-retail commercial spaces shall be allowed to have retail uses.
2.The non-retail uses shall limited to Building B (consisting of three units); Building A
(consisting of two units) shall remain for retail uses only. This was requested by the
applicant.
3.Up to a maximum of seven (7) parking spaces in the underground condominium garage may
be used by the commercial units with the provisions that these spaces be used only by
employees of the commercial space, that such parking spaces are to be striped for
commercial employee parking only to ensure that the surface parking is made available to
customers of the commercial uses only, and that these requirements will be incorporated into
the CC&Rs.This will allow a maximum of 2 spaces or 40% of the commercial spaces to be
used for medical offices.
Exception to the Heart of the City Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended (on a 3-1 vote) to allow a maximum of 60% of the
store frontage to be occupied by non-retail commercial uses (three units in Building B).
Tentative Map Recommendation
The Planning Commission unanimously voted (4-0) to recommend denial of the tentative map
(See Attachment F, Tentative Map) to subdivide the commercial space into five commercial
condominium units.
The Planning Commission agreed with the following reasons provided by staff to deny the
Tentative Map:
1.Enforcement Issues
With multiple owners there is less ability to ensure that each owner will adhere to, and
comply with, the conditions of approval, particularly each time the ownership of a unit
changes hands.
2.Maintenance Issues
Multiple ownerships also tend to have greater maintenance issues due to the fact that there
are more members that need to agree upon maintenance work before the work can be
accomplished. The applicant’s justification letter states that each owner will be responsible
to maintain their own exclusive common areas fronting along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Such multiple ownerships could lead to inconsistency related to maintenance of the public
plaza in front of these units.
3.Precluding Possibility of Future Retail Uses
If these units are sold individually, and if medical offices occupy these spaces, the potential
in the future for retail uses in these spaces as originally intended will not be realized, even if
the economy improves and adjacent projects such as Main Street and Rosebowl are
developed.
4.Inability to Enforce CC&Rs
The applicant suggested that the solutions to a number of these issues could be written into
the CC&Rs. However, as noted by the City Attorney, the City does not have control over the
CC&Rs, which is controlled, and can be amended, by the Home Owner’s Association
(HOA).
Council Options
The Council may consider the following options:
1.Approve the Negative Declaration;
2.Deny the applicant’s request to subdivide the 6,400 square foot retail space into five
commercial condominium units;
3.Consider the applicant’s request to modify the existing use permit relating to allowable uses
in the retail commercial space; and
4.Consider the applicant’s request for an Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan
related to store frontage requirements.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner and Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development
Director
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments: A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6607, 6608 and 6609
B. Negative Declaration/Initial Study
C. Conditions of Approval for U-2003-04
D. Applicant’s Justification Letters
E. Planning Commission staff report of September 28, 2010
F. Tentative Map