Exhibit CC 05-15-2012 #18 Main Street Cupertino 5/15/2012
41.1
: '
Construction Project Phasing
• To correct inconsistencies in Condition Nos.14 and 23:
• Condition No.14 --Staff recommends deleting the last sentence"The park shall be
constructed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any structure on the
entire project."
• Condition No.23-Staff recommends amending this condition to add the following
language regarding construction milestones:
A.Prior to granting a certificate of occupancy for the first of the hotel or office
buildings,the Town Square,street and sidewalk improvements along Finch Avenue
loop and the street and sidewalk improvements along the interior roadway connecting
Finch Avenue loop to the office parcel shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City.
B.Prior to granting a certificate of occupancy for the second of the hotel or office
buildings,certificates of completion for shell,core,exterior facades and related
landscaping and improvements shall be obtained for at least 50'X,of the retail approved
for Phase I of the project.
C.Prior to granting a certificate of occupancy for the third of the hotel or office
buildings,certificates of completion for shell,core,exterior facades and related
landscaping and improvements shall be obtained for 100"4 of the retail approved for
Phase I of the project. In addition,the Park shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
City.
In Street 't
Construction Project Phasing
OR(Option for Item 3)-Prior to granting a certificate of occupancy for the
third of the hotel or office buildings,certificates of completion for shell,core,
exterior facades and related landscaping and improvements shall be obtained
for all the retail buildings located east of Finch Avenue loop. In addition,if
the Park is not completed to the satisfaction of the City,the City shall have
the option of calling in the bond for the park and constructing it.
1
Cs1isfia
Background:
*1f
With the latest plans for the "Main Street Cupertino"project, the homeowners and
residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino are left completely exposed to disruptive light,
noise, and odors from a busy entrance road, auto court/parking lot, restaurants with
outdoor seating, and the paved Town Square. The arrangement of the 0.75 acre "passive
park", tiered and landscaped senior housing, and green space that was described to buffer
the Metropolitan has been disrupted or completely eliminated.
Petition:
We,the homeowners and residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino, respectfully ask the
City of Cupertino to take the lives and well-being of our families into consideration.
We request the following changes:
• eliminating the access road located right next to our homes,
• moving the auto court/parking lot underground or further away from the
Metropolitan,
• returning to the original plans for a tiered and lushly landscaped senior housing, to
allow for light and air to flow between the residential projects, and
• restoration of the 20' green space buffer between the Metropolitan and "Main
Street Cupertino".
Name Signature Address/Unit#
7—)7 — CdN 2 v a.....r ,T9
51 WI r,✓41 3,- � ., z.__(-?
xir y an \\, .�C 24S-
RA '717.(1, 2/!
CRC. " HeIN /-`
C :1. 2341
4_ , c.-1,Q_ Qiiv, C S a 0 4 ..4 /
0 i7 kzli A, 6, C%u,i,, Gam'--- - --1____._ 31
, „
Jridie'l'4 51/ it ►3 (0. , , __
04 v4
4 , / /
ye A --,._.---
y , 0,
Lv ../414 I . - - ' 5--X
/./)j ,s‘k iz-i) 1 k I I (-I I i- -2 A lk-\((5-\ \LL( /.(e 'S
I a K di >D' K(c 11/ '7,,/ „ L 't7`
DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR (To be completed after the above signatures have
been tamed)
I, i. '/s 7%JJ f G 2-///s , am registered to vote in the County of Santa Clara. My
residence address is 19503 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino CA 95014. I circulated this
petition and witnessed each of the appended signatures being written. Each on this
petition is, to the best of my information and belief, the genuine signature of the person
whose name it purports to be. All signatures on this document were obtained between the
dates of`5/i,- / i and -`1)_/3 / /j . I declare under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on.5 1/3 / 7,--) at Cupertino, : ornia.
CIRCULATOR'S COMPLETE SI. . •.ri' ;/
Background:
With the latest plans for the "Main Street Cupertino"project, the homeowners and
residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino are left completely exposed to disruptive light,
noise, and odors from a busy entrance road, auto court/parking lot, restaurants with
outdoor seating, and the paved Town Square. The arrangement of the 0.75 acre "passive
park", tiered and landscaped senior housing, and green space that was described to buffer
the Metropolitan has been disrupted or completely eliminated.
Petition:
We, the homeowners and residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino, respectfully ask the
City of Cupertino to take the lives and well-being of our families into consideration.
We request the following changes:
• eliminating the access road located right next to our homes,
• moving the auto court/parking lot underground or further away from the
Metropolitan,
• returning to the original plans for a tiered and lushly landscaped senior housing, to
allow for light and air to flow between tie residential projects, and
• restoration of the 20' green space buffer between the Metropolitan and "Main
Street Cupertino".
Name Signature Address/Unit#
PY4k /41444
chcitt i/
Ce/ tiky at^^-1- 64.*/1/
k ►f �u � ' � /z
P6*-
\;), c), 1/\
•
•
Lean _ ,57
Ck1AriiN'er 10/
5 � ►- pIII ')
DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR(To be completed after the above signatures have
been obtained)
1
_if&))//« /9711- , am registered to vote in the Coun ty of
Santa Clara My
residence address is 19503 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino CA 95014. I circulated this
petition and witnessed each of the appended signatures being written. Each on this
petition is, to the best of my information and belief, the genuine signature of the person
whose name it purports to be. All signatures on this document were obtained between the
dates of t-5 //, /J and j /13 / /2__ . I declare under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on.c5 1/3 / /2 at Cupertino, California ----;.
CIRCULATOR'S COMPLETE SIGNATURE
/ /
Background:
With the latest plans for the"Main Street Cupertino"project, the homeowners and
residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino are left completely exposed to disruptive light,
noise, and odors from a busy entrance road, auto court/parking lot, restaurants with
outdoor seating, and the paved Town Square. The arrangement of the 0.75 acre "passive
park", tiered and landscaped senior housing, and green space that was described to buffer
the Metropolitan has been disrupted or completely eliminated.
Petition:
We, the homeowners and residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino, respectfully ask the
City of Cupertino to take the lives and well-being of our families into consideration.
We request the following changes:
• eliminating the access road located right next to our homes,
• moving the auto court/parking lot underground or further away from the
Metropolitan,
• returning to the original plans for a tiered and lushly landscaped senior housing, to
allow for light and air to flow between the residential projects, and
• restoration of the 20' green space buffer between the Metropolitan and "Main
Street Cupertino".
Name Signature Address/Unit#
/-7
.CAy tvi o Ai li=. -.1.--t --7..) i 2 7
nt kt-1 A..e,' ,,1
C----/\/ --(
A ki k-a, 4A-7-c,..., ,
.. ,,0 h-,vt--,--, ,,), 7
._,
r/P-(4.7.-i 1-//a4 2 ,!-_ D 2_1
(ill, e. ,,
m €,..\ r_ s ,.,--
______
3 �_{ heoco� w S
- /?�i J2 u c c, w OuNs-i-sks(Airtz___
0 3/ 9
_______,_._--- _.__----- 2-2,c(
•
DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR (To be completed after the above signatures have
been obtained)
I, ,\ 0(�� 1,(141 , am registered to vote in the County of Santa Clara. My
residen address is 19503 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino CA 95014. I circulated this
petition and witnessed each of the appended signatures being written. Each on this
petition is, to the best of my information and belief, the genuine signature of the person
whose name it purports to be. All signatures on this document were obtained between the
dates of j-/11• / 1 v and 5/)v/ 1 . I declare under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on S / i Z—/ f vat Cupertino, California.
CIRCULATOR'S COMPLETE SIGNATURE rt
Background:
With the latest plans for the "Main Street Cupertino"project, the homeowners and
residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino are left completely exposed to disruptive light,
noise, and odors from a busy entrance road, auto court/parking lot, restaurants with
outdoor seating, and the paved Town Square. The arrangement of the 0.75 acre "passive
park", tiered and landscaped senior housing, and green space that was described to buffer
the Metropolitan has been disrupted or completely eliminated.
Petition:
We,the homeowners and residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino, respectfully ask the
City of Cupertino to take the lives and well-being of our families into consideration.
We request the following changes:
• eliminating the access road located right next to our homes,
• moving the auto court/parking lot underground or further away from the
Metropolitan,
• returning to the original plans for a tiered and lushly landscaped senior housing, to
allow for light and air to flow between the residential projects, and
• restoration of the 20' green space buffer between the Metropolitan and "Main
Street Cupertino".
Name Signature Address/Unit#
41A-1-,1) X its
A- e 1■ in'e L►►�ti �- 155
-I(Votrrkti) P,A .',,Z, /_AA--
kimvti- G A -
L fhJ/ o / ie o ///
IL: \ . 4 Zi_..._ u _ , • e' ��c/ /.. 4 /f 2
' , Sel7 'Von s'C--- --.4.__ _
)6.---....:" N-...........k1.4_...zr ,--):c- 7
ii. rris 1 H4 11
Miry z— ‘44041 Sty L‘ ' 7
DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR (To be completed after the above signatures have
been obtained)
I, 1.-i yv.. , am registered to vote in the County of Santa Clara. My
residencY address is 19503 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino CA 95014. I
Pe circulated this
petition and witnessed each of the appended signatures being written. Each on this
petition is, to the best of my information and belief, the genuine signature of the person
whose name it purports to be. All signatures on this document were obtained between the
dates of 5- /I 211 L and 5/1.2 / 12- . I declare under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on 6 /17- / t -- at Cupertino, California.
CIRCULATOR'S COMPLETE SIGNATURE
Background:
With the latest plans for the "Main Street Cupertino"project, the homeowners and
residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino are left completely exposed to disruptive light,
noise, and odors from a busy entrance road, auto court/parking lot, restaurants with
outdoor seating, and the paved Town Square. The arrangement of the 0.75 acre "passive
park", tiered and landscaped senior housing, and green space that was described to buffer
the Metropolitan has been disrupted or completely eliminated.
Petition:
We, the homeowners and residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino, respectfully ask the
City of Cupertino to take the lives and well-being of our families into consideration.
We request the following changes:
• eliminating the access road located right next to our homes,
• moving the auto court/parking lot underground or further away from the
Metropolitan,
• returning to the original plans for a tiered and lushly landscaped senior housing, to
allow for light and air to flow between the residential projects, and
• restoration of the 20' green space buffer between the Metropolitan and "Main
Street Cupertino".
Name Signature Address/Unit #
`W ift, out, `1
b ;)- -"-----?S-
I
tG/G-rim(I( (/(A./11 #_- <q-
(1W( L- ---e-- --) . -# -.-!)__.
■ -- Oi ' �l? � ',,- �� 7 1 .25
Jika/vi NOt. c_ __,,- __________), ---e, 4t .t-7
VA1 r- , l'it / -1-,-:S-°1
Sfpve 0 L_\fii ,______
< S0u fARIc
(s.ti, it 3 °/
favicUr f-4 i aci ��,` / Z3 u' _ ./-- ''t s,-)(6')
DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR (To be completed after the above signatures have
been obtained)
I, A .e ti in.
am registered to vote in the County of Santa Clara. My
residency address is 19503 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino CA 95014. I circulated this
petition and witnessed each of the appended signatures being written. Each on this
petition is, to the best of my information and belief, the genuine signature of the person
whose name it purports to be. All signatures on this document were obtained between the
dates of S /fi / v and S/ / , , I declare under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on % /12—/ 1 Z- at Cupertino, California.
CIRCULATOR'S COMPLETE SIGNATURE
Background:
With the latest plans for the "Main Street Cupertino"project, the homeowners and
residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino are left completely exposed to disruptive light,
noise, and odors from a busy entrance road, auto court/parking lot, restaurants with
outdoor seating, and the paved Town Square. The arrangement of the 0.75 acre "passive
park", tiered and landscaped senior housing, and green space that was described to buffer
the Metropolitan has been disrupted or completely eliminated.
Petition:
We, the homeowners and residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino, respectfully ask the
City of Cupertino to take the lives and well-being of our families into consideration.
We request the following changes:
• eliminating the access road located right next to our homes,
• moving the auto court/parking lot underground or further away from the
Metropolitan,
• returning to the original plans for a tiered and lushly landscaped senior housing, to
allow for light and air to flow between the residential projects, and
• restoration of the 20' green space buffer between the Metropolitan and "Main
Street Cupertino".
Name Signature Address/Unit#
G`
4 Ai& - -- aig -3pj___
ibliti i illt.% :r
AIL
C ,0 / (, _) _ ,----
-41-- -,e.. C /Yv-
/
-__
Lim%i / far Ial%L�w•._-.�(-Z'
V'M /v t i`1� i
/--/51G-1 /qe; Treci
' /4=e-e-t 3//4e,--,‘ /v-- __ .
,_____,66,
-I)4.1/1 )v „ -i 45 n-(2(?_,5 l 5
DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR(To be completed after the above signatures have
been obtained)
I, ►h� yti , am registered to vote in the County of Santa Clara. My
residen�V c&address is 19503 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino CA 95014. I circulated this
petition and witnessed each of the appended signatures being written. Each on this
petition is, to the best of my information and belief, the genuine signature of the person
whose name it purports to be. All signatures on this document were obtained between the
dates of 5-/12- / 12- and S /11/ )Z . I declare under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on S/ Z/ 17_ at Cupertino, California.
CIRCULATOR'S COMPLETE SIGNATURE (e5M"
Background:
With the latest plans for the "Main Street Cupertino"project, the homeowners and
residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino are left completely exposed to disruptive light,
noise, and odors from a busy entrance road, auto court/parking lot, restaurants with
outdoor seating, and the paved Town Square. The arrangement of the 0.75 acre "passive
park", tiered and landscaped senior housing, and green space that was described to buffer
the Metropolitan has been disrupted or completely eliminated.
Petition:
We,the homeowners and residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino, respectfully ask the
City of Cupertino to take the lives and well-being of our families into consideration.
We request the following changes:
• eliminating the access road located right next to our homes,
• moving the auto court/parking lot underground or further away from the
Metropolitan,
• returning to the original plans for a tiered and lushly landscaped senior housing, to
allow for light and air to flow between the residential projects, and
• restoration of the 20' green space buffer between the Metropolitan and "Main
Street Cupertino".
Name Signature Address/Unit #
- --'ye- X--,i,-( ( f/
C / 0,,,,c),,,id 1
SIA)109SM le 6u/vTuCg ‘', C.- i(- --A-- Jt 11 6 ,
b'AR.-rol J
in‘t5W91/ A 6 \1t)A -- --‘ ' ' --''''''-- ----- 7r -'9-'24)
3 Ltd JUL f kiA4-6l. - 46 i►A. 0219
)Ce f-r ice- #
ptc..,J,e, t T-1.1- '14,- _____,V Isf-) 4--2- (1
utvle. Chnvt _ #324
DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR(To be completed after the above signatures have
been obtained)
I, I i L vi., , am registered to vote in the County of Santa Clara. My
residence./address is 19503 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino CA 95014. I circulated this
petition and witnessed each of the appended signatures being written. Each on this
petition is, to the best of my information and belief, the genuine signature of the person
whose name it purports to be. All signatures on this document were obtained between the
dates of S /12/ 12 and S/124 12. I declare under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on S / 12-/ )Z at Cupertino, California.
CIRCULATOR'S COMPLETE SIGNATURE
Background:
With the latest plans for the "Main Street Cupertino"project, the homeowners and
residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino are left completely exposed to disruptive light,
noise, and odors from a busy entrance road, auto court/parking lot, restaurants with
outdoor seating, and the paved Town Square. The arrangement of the 0.75 acre "passive
park", tiered and landscaped senior housing, and green space that was described to buffer
the Metropolitan has been disrupted or completely eliminated.
Petition:
We,the homeowners and residents of the Metropolitan at Cupertino, respectfully ask the
City of Cupertino to take the lives and well-being of our families into consideration.
We request the following changes:
• eliminating the access road located right next to our homes,
• moving the auto court/parking lot underground or further away from the
Metropolitan,
• returning to the original plans for a tiered and lushly landscaped senior housing, to
allow for light and air to flow between the residential projects, and
• restoration of the 20' green space buffer between the Metropolitan and"Main
Street Cupertino".
Name Signature Address/Unit#
H _ 227
7:1(i"1-. Truk«.., �_ 33(
\716/9ti /761. 1tel/ ......--.--- 23,,,
2-rfA/Le_ S I� vd G.02,c
-.--\$e_is
T C
) .,S-
/ . / A , .. _3 Z
my
1_ 1 7 /X t 1 Alle41,4111t,
Qie-_,1 ,1-ifT\14-.
, /,
- pry.►♦
//,(2-LAV (.___.,---- 12ct
g I \S6 v(, emu- 7, . -L��1 Z �_
DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR (To be completed after the above signatures have
been obtained)
1, 1I Vie P , am registered to vote in the County of Santa Clara. My
residen /i�address is 19503 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino CA 95014. I circulated this
petition and witnessed each of the appended signatures being written. Each on this
petition is, to the best of my information and belief, the genuine signature of the person
whose name it purports to be. All signatures on this document were obtained between the
dates of 5 / 17- and s / -2---. I declare under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on S /Ix/ ) 2- at Cupertino, California.
CIRCULATOR'S COMPLETE SIGNATURE_PA...--
G s/t�/i (8
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 5:04 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: FW: Concerning mixed used projects: Main Street Cupertino
From: Madeline.Ling @emc.com [mailto:Madeline.Ling(aemc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:10 PM
To: City Council; Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks
Subject: Concerning mixed used projects: Main Street Cupertino
To Whom It May Concern,
I'm writing as a concerned homeowner at the Metropolitan at Cupertino. I am a concerned homeowner because I foresee
an imminent risk of a significant decline of the quality of my life and that for my family. I'm concerned because the Sand
Hill project will soon put my family's peaceful life into potential misery...
The Main Street Cupertino project as proposed by Sand Hill will put an auto court/parking lot adjacent to the Metropolitan
(where I call home!). This contradicts with their earlier promises of green space and quiet buffering for our community.
I understand that there will be a hearing tonight at the City Council. As the mother of a one-year old child, I am
unfortunately unable to attend this very important meeting. But please understand that I care deeply about this decision.
Your decision will dramatically affect the lives of real people. The development of the 18 acre parcel to the east of
Metropolitan at Cupertino will have a huge, detrimental impact on the daily lives for all of us at the Metropolitan at
Cupertino.
If I may, let me ask that you please imagine for a minute, if the following was to happen to you and your beloved family...
• A noisy road is put up right adjacent to your lovely home, leading to a high-traffic auto court/parking lot... you or
your loved ones must have kids—so can you relate to trying to put a one-year old to sleep late into the night
amidst all those noises?And worrying about her breathing in the unhealthy fumes?Would you want to have that
kind of harm done to your family?
• Restaurant patios would be placed to be facing your home, again, a source of light and noise disturbances which
prevented you from getting a restful evening—something that you strongly believe that you deserve after a full
week of hard work and the stress of raising infants at your home.... Would you like some faceless, big, for-profit
corporation to take that away from you?
• A dramatically reduced greenery right next to your home... do you remember what it was like when you first put
your significant savings into a property you were to call home? Now imagine that you were promised a 3.5 acres
greenery right next door, and now it is to be moved back and reduced to only 0.75 acres?Wouldn't you feel
cheated just like me?
1
Please, consider the lives of real people. Because after all, the real people of Cupertino are the ones who write your
paychecks! Please take this into serious considerations and reject Sand Hill's proposal.
Thank you for your consideration.
Madeline Ling
EMC2 I Corporate Consulting
?��31 Mi';s1( ' ColH.;E f�ivd, Santa Chra, CA 95054
(408) ,50 1()71 madeline.ling@emc.com
2
<_ c c/.S-/ z # / 8
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 1:37 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: FW: Main Street Cupertino
From: Darrel Lum [mailto:drlumPoacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 12:23 AM
To: Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Amy Chan; Timm Borden,: Aarti Shrivastava; Aki Honda
Subject: Main Street Cupertino
Many of the community have been involved in his property prior to the current project.
Main Street Cupertino was approved in 2009. However, due to circumstances beyond anyone's control, the project has
been on hold for several years. After some 20+ revisions the project has evolved into the present project, a better project.
The City's vacation of Finch Avenue will result in substantial community benefits of a town square w surrounding retail and
roadway, the Cupertino Downtown.
Sandhill Property has been very generous in providing an approximately 0.75 acre park and
the relocation of park to the interior will benefit the residents of Metropolitan, the Rosebowl, and the Main Street
Cupertino.
Sandhill Property has shown a willingness to provide some space for meetings and conventions and incubator space for
startup companies.
The position of the hotel and the addition of a second level of underground parking has reduced the massiveness of the
parking structure.
The open interface space between the Metropolitan and the Rosebowl and Main Street Cupertino will provide connectivity
in the South Vallco neighborhood.
Thanks to Sand Hill Property, project manager Kevin Dare and project architect Ken Rodrigues for listening at numerous
meetings and working with the community, to the City Planning staff for all of their expertise and guidance and to the
members of the Planning Commission for their constructive comments and recommendations.
And special thanks to all of the residents of Cupertino who attended hours of meetings, discussion, and voicing their
comments.
Main Street Cupertino will be a landmark project for City and Residents of Cupertino. I favor the approval of the project at
the May 15th City Council meeting and look forward to its start and completion.
Darrel Lum
Resident of Cupertino
1
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 2:14 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: FW: Letter to Vice Mayor Orrin Mahoney Regarding Main Street Cupertino
Attachments: Solution to the Problem on Main Street.pdf
From: GB Hein [mailto:gbhein @hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 2:13 PM
To: Orrin Mahoney
Subject: Letter to Vice Mayor Orrin Mahoney Regarding Main Street Cupertino
Dear Vice Mayor Mahoney,
I am a ten-year resident of Cupertino who participated in two public workshops for the South Vallco Master Plan, as well
as a private meeting that Sand Hill had with our own Metropolitan HOA. I also followed with great interest the Planning
Commission and City Council meetings about the Main Street Cupertino project. Most recently, I attended the May 9
meeting hosted by Sand Hill. The project is of considerable interest to me, because I live in a second-floor unit at the
Metropolitan that faces the Sand Hill property.
In particular, I remember the January 20, 2009 City Council meeting where many of my Metropolitan neighbors spoke out
in support of the park, which Sand Hill was keen on reducing o-eliminating from their plan. I appreciated how kindly you
received my neighbors; and that you, Mr. Wong, and Mr. Santoro supported the park at that time. As a result, Sand Hill
agreed to restore the park to .75 acres.
Now, at the very last hour of this long process, Sand Hill is proposing an 'auto court' and outdoor restaurant seating next
to the Metropolitan. These new proposals contradict all of the public meetings and assurances that preceded this. I fear
these latest plans would be a disastrous idea resulting in numerous noise complaints and other incidences.
And something else has significantly changed- Sand Hill has re-imagined their "Town Square". As you know, their new
Town Square is no longer a green space; it is plaza - a paved event space with lighted trees and evening entertainment.
This makes the remaining park, which Sand Hill has dismissively referred to as a "passive park", even more important for
the 450+ residences planned for this neighborhood. Moreover- it makes it essential to effectively buffer the existing
homeowners from the noise and lights of Town Square. Their latest plan doesn't do that.
Please see the very brief attachment which highlights my concerns and offers two possible solutions. I ask that you please
insist that Sand Hill makes good on its stated intention to be good neighbors to the homeowners of the Metropolitan.
Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter!
Sincerely,
George Hein
Metropolitan at Cupertino
Resident
Encl. Solution to the Problem on Main Street
1
P.S. Sand Hill has very recently posted large color renderings around their property which illustrate an earlier unapproved
version of their plans showing the park along Stevens Creek and a grassy Town Square - all of which is very different than
their latest plans. This might have created some public confusion about their current plans. In addition, the plans posted
on the signs posted around their property have also changed including most notably the addition of the auto court along
the Metropolitan. Some area residents might not have noticed the sign has changed.
2
Problem on Main Street "
�. -
Sand Hill's latest plan,Option A(1)-2, leaves PARK `f 4.1,' \A'4101%7-
CIS ACRES
the Metropolitan completely exposed to 71110.1.4., t'
disruptive noise and light from the auto court, fr:
restaurant(s)with outdoor seating, and events ro!i - 1—'' ,
on the Town Square beyond including: ' ' 1 Z���� .e,, ""
• early-morning deliveries to the restaurants EX WINO I. tt +�
and retail buildings mou c r'` r�e T f
i
r' r$*eM T. f t''- > f,
• all-day and all-night car traffic in the auto ,1 kf';
court—a situation ripe for numerous noise ' .. ` : ,r. j ' ,
~'
complaints and other incidences _. sr . -_
2 l ,F
• no barrier preventing noise from the active R i
Town Square (including evening musical
' F
events)from reaching the Metropolitan _ _
Solution
-- ------ ti E i 1. An underground parking garage extending
under the Retail Anchor and two shops
replaces the disruptive"Auto Court".
2. Eliminate(or restrict hours of)the outdoor
cs: restaurant seating facing the Metropolitan.
3. Restore the Retail Shops building in the NW
1 corner of Town Square to screen both the
`y�"0 if, Metropolitan and Rose Bowl residences
MO $ t441
JECT 400° AO
from noise and light from Town Square.
,i 4n '"` 4. Increase setback of the remaining parking
`'i it #� lot from Metropolitan and provide a safer,
- ,f pedestrian-friendly walkway from Stevens
;, ', Creek Blvd.to Main Street so pedestrians
. °"M' 3 don't need to cross busy driveways to reach
t" the park and Town Square.
f
1
Solution #1
based on Sand Hill's Option A(1)-2
Restore the Retail Shops
building in the NW corner of
Town Square to screen both
the Metropolitan and Rose
Bowl residences from noise
tu" _ °. ' 'iiva<°' � and light from Town Square.
A, t .
Eliminate(or restrict
hoursof)the OAK
proposed outdoor ,t..
restaurant seating
facing the
Metropolitan. alto
tfis
Jecr
increase setback of the iFx
remaining parking lot ,•
from Metropolitan and
provide a safer,
pedestrian-friendly
walkwayfrom Stevens
Creek Blvd.to Main
Street so pedestrians
don't need to cross busy An underground parking
driveways to reach the garage extending underthe
park and Town Square Retail Anchor and two shops
replaces the disruptive
"Auto Court".
Sand Hill's"option A(1)-2" is modified in four key areas, including
Replacing the'Auto Court'with parking under the retail buildings.
(Alternatively,it might also be possible to put the parking under the park)
2
Solution #2
based on Sand Hill's Option A(1)-1
No gap in the Retail Shops
along Town Square to screen
both the Metropolitan and
Rose Bowl residences from
t noise and light from Town
t e t+:._ w . .. Square.
An uncle rground par king ,
garage extending underthe ✓ - f
-- Eliminate(or restrict
Retail Anchor and possibly r` 4 '
under the park hoursof)the
k,. proposed outdoor
restaurant seating
ps*Alta facing the
°P Metropolitan.
increase setback of the *1,ix
parking lot from
Metropolitan and
provide a safer.
pedestrian-friendly MOpifIEO Att)l wITN MAJOR RETAIL REPLACING SENIOR MOUSING AND
walkway from Stevens NO GRP iN RETAIL ALONG TOWN SQUARE
Creek Blvd.to Main
Street so pedestrians
don't need to cross busy
driveways to reach the
park and Town Square.
The Senior Housing on Option A(1)-1 is replaced with the Retail Anchor with parking below.
Underground parking could be extended under the park if more parking were needed
3
CC -c-7(s-/f2 11 03
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:09 AM
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: FW: Main Street Cupertino Project by Sand Hill
From: Shinnan Kiang [mailto:shinnan kiangvahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:07 AM
To: City Council; Mark Santoro
Subject: Main Street Cupertino Project by Sand Hill
Dear Council Members and Mayor:
As the owners of Metropolitan Condo we would like to express our objections to the proposed revision to the
Main Street Cupertino Project.
Noise and traffic issues were our main concerns all along. The "original" Plan was acceptable. The newly
proposed revision is NOT! Specifically we are opposed to --
* reducing the park to 0.75 acres from 3.5 acres that was promised to us when we bought the Metropolitan
Condo,
* putting a noisy road adjacent to our Condo,
* removing the greenery and tiring of the senior housing that would give us space, air and light,
* eliminating the 20 feet buffer between the Metropolitan and the Development,
* placing restaurant patios facing the Metropolitan, a source of light and noise pollution.
That a big company unilaterally makes major changes to an acceptable plan reached after long negotiation is
utterly unfair to us little citizens. We respectfully ask you to uphold the original acceptable plan by denying the
new proposed revision. Thank you very much for listening to our voice.
Shinnan and Lucy Kiang
Metropolitan Condo, #231.
1
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:30 AM
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: FW: Concerns of new proposed Main Street Cupertino
From: Emily Shieh [mailto:emily shieh@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:48 AM
To: Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks
Subject: Concerns of new proposed Main Street Cupertino
Dear council members of Cupertino,
I am one of the home owners in Metropolitan @ Cupertino complex adjacent to the new proposed
Main Street project. I'm writing you to express my deep concerns about this new development.
In the initial public hearings in 2008, the homeowners and residents of the Metropolitan expressed
our concerns about the Sand Hill plans, focusing on noise and traffic issues as well as the green
space/public park that would help buffer our homes from the busy "Main Street" development.
Because of our involvement, locations for loud loading docks were moved away from the
Metropolitan, and we were assured that the public park and lushly landscaped, tiered senior housing
would remain to buffer our complex from the project.
However, the latest plans have completely disregarded the Metropolitan. Sand Hill is now
proposing:
• putting a noisy road adjacent to our complex, leading to a high-traffic auto court/parking lot,
• moving back the park (now reduced to 0.75 acres from the initial 3.5 acres described to
potential homeowners when the Metropolitan units went on the market),
• removing the greenery and tiering of the senior housing that would give us space, air, and
light,
• eliminating the 20' green space buffer between us and the Sand Hill development,
• placing restaurant patios facing the Metropolitan, a source of light and noise disturbances.
We are very unhappy about this transformation from 2008 approved site plan design. This is going
totally opposite direction. We are extremely nervous and will not support this design unless we see
the design provide the buffer and park we desperately need along east facing facade.
Thank you for your consideration. We will attend tonight's meeting and speak out.
Emily and Steve from unit 153
1
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 1:36 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: FW: draft resoulution question
From: Lisa Warren [mailto:la-warrenCa att.net]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 12:39 PM
To: Aki Honda
Cc: Aarti Shrivastava; Gary Chao
Subject: draft resoulution question
Hi.
Question related to DR par 14 vs. par 23 B.
Park completion required prior to occupancy of any structure on entire project (par 14)
vs.
Phasing reference in par 23 B where park is part of phase 2 with Sr. housing
These two confict.
I prefer par 14, but if this resolution is adopted, seems like Sand Hill has an option to
put park in phase 2 (don't like that idea)
I just want to be sure that is clarified before any voting is done on the resolution
Thanks.
1
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Aki Honda
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:52 AM
To: Grace Schmidt; Kirsten Squarcia
Cc: 'Kevin Dare'; 'Ken Rodrigues'
Subject: FW: Main Street project -CC Meeting May 15
Hi Grace and Kirsten,
Could you possibly include this as a desk item on the Main Street project for tonight's Council meeting?
Thanks very much,
Aki
From: Lisa Warren [mailto:la-warren @att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:07 AM
To: Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong; City Council
Cc: Amy Chan; Carol Korade; Timm Borden; Aarti Shrivastava; Aki Honda; Gary Chao
Subject: Main Street project- CC Meeting May 15
Mayor, City Councilmen, and others,
I would like to begin this email by thanking the numerous people who have spent
multiple hours and evenings reading, dissecting, discussing and sharing information and
ideas related to the 'evolution' of Sand Hill Properties' (and the city's) Main Street
development project. This includes staff, residents, Kevin Dare et all, and city appointed
and elected individuals.
Up to this point, I think that the group effort has resulted in improvements to what
appears to be perhaps the last chance that Cupertino has for a down town environment
that is so widely hoped for.
I would like this to become a reality and for the applicant to begin, and continue, steady
progress with the goal of providing retail occupancy as a priority.
As far as the 'layout' and 'use mix' in Option A(1)-2, I can support most of what I have
seen.
I am not able, as I write this communication, to voice complete support for the project
as there are still a number of unknowns as to what may actually be presented to City
Council by the applicant. I have been a witness to enough of these proceedings in the
past to know that surprises occur, and direct statements and impressions that are
shared prior to 'show time' don't always play out as expected.
I can say that I agree with the applicant that Option A(1)-2 is the best option that has
been submitted to Planning for analysis at this time. It makes sense for everyone to
concentrate most discussion around this option.
I believe that Staff has done a good job of analyzing the three options they have been
given to work with, and agree with most of their comments and suggestions.
However, I believe that Staff(and everyone) is at a large disadvantage as the project
relates to the actual architectural design of the individual pieces of Option A(1)-2. As of
1:30 pm today, the day before the City Council meeting, the applicant had not
submitted elevation plans, etc. for Staff to review OR for their Architectural Advisor
(Arch Advis) to review. I caution you in this area. Plan sets should ALWAYS include
elevations and landscape plans when submitted. A project of this magnitude should
follow stricter guidelines in this area. Comments in the report that relate to architectural
design are limited to the proposed hotel. This creates a large gap in this detail of the
project. You have, in your attachments (Attachment N) comments from the March 27
Planning Commission report that address some important findings related to design in
the previously submitted plans. There MUST be an opportunity for Staff, Arch Advis,
residents, and yourselves to properly view and digest details that accurately reflect
design features that represent the current plans. You will most likely be shown
elevation and landscape images on May 15 during the applicant presentation.... but it is
impossible to be able to responsibly and adequately process this information during a
public hearing where you (and everyone) are seeing it for the first time in who
knows what level of detail.
The comment.... "Staff recommends that City Council condition further refinement of the
architectural elevations for the hotel and that the architectural and site approval for the
hotel be required to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee
incorporating the City's Architectural Advisor recommendations including any additional
review for revised elevations." .... SHOULD NOT be limited to the hotel. Office, garage,
retail buildings and pads, Sr. housing, etc ALL need to have this condition. There is no
other way to have the proper time to evaluate these things that are still unknown on the
eve before a decision is to be made.
Having said that, I would like to formerly request (and hopefully have added to the
minutes) that there be some effective noticing efforts made for residents who would
like to be part of the process headed by the Design Review Committee for this project.
Given that the publicly available plan set is inc:omplete at this time, I think this
request is critical if there is to be a motion to approve this project on May 15, 2012.
I am concerned about the increase in parcels being requested, and hope that parcel
count is limited.
I also have concerns related to the condominiumizing of the Sr. housing units, and
absent some compelling argument, would agree with Staff's recommendation regarding
that.
Phasing and occupancy are key pieces of this puzzle. Please consider these things
carefully.
2
The version of the Draft Resolution for this project has some contradictory statements
related to this. I have been told that this is being worked on and the Draft Resolution
should have some corrections made in time for tomorrow's meeting.
While the type and mass of hotel that is now being proposed is not what I would like to
see on this site, I am not by no means an expert on what will 'work' here and be the
best solution for Cupertino as a city.
I would ask that everything possible be done to minimize the bulk and visual of the
parking structure. Particularly where it is being proposed to protrude ABOVE the two
story retail/incubator spaces. Applicant has indicated that they are able to 'step, or
terrace' this portion of the garage, but... again... NO ONE has seen this in actual design
elevations or other parts of the submitted plans.
I still believe that traffic flow should be limited to one-way on the loop around town
square. Staff makes a comment that despite the fact that this would appear to help
with safety, there may be a concern from a retail standpoint because of possible
'looping' needed to park by a particular shop. I argue that these are developer labeled
'teaser parking' spots anyway and there is clearly no guarantee shoppers will be able to
park close to their main destination....regardless of what direction they come from.
Please consider that fact when discussing traffic flow. I am certain that we have all been
in 'nightmare' parking lots where traffic flow was designed by 'experts'.
Your packet includes direction for applicant to improve pedestrian walkways across
streets that border the project. I would like to add that I believe that the 'porkchop' on
Stevens Creek Blvd at Tantau, that was (l0000ng ago) designed to limit Southbound
traffic on Tantau, be eliminated as part of this project. The right hand lane of the two
lanes of traffic on Tantau that are adjacent to the proposed office building should be able
to proceed on Tantau, across Stevens Creek.
I believe that this is something being discussed by the City, and feel it should be
incorporated into this project as part of the intersection improvement, if it is not done
prior to that time.
The unknown lighting and signage details make me a bit nervous, but as I understand it,
these are not addressed at this time and I will try to learn more at the appropriate stage
of things.
Hopefully you have all made it down to this paragraph (without skipping :-/ ) and will
consider the thought that this email contains. If so, (you could email me to confirm) I
thank you for your time and consideration. I welcome any questions and/or comments.
Lisa Warren
408-472-9879
3
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 7:42 AM
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: FW: Talked to Ken Rodgrigues-you should have new plans now
From: Lisa Warren [mailto:la-warren @att.net]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 3:12 PM
To: Aki Honda
Cc: Aarti Shrivastava; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: Talked to Ken Rodgrigues - you should have new plans now
Hi Aki.
When I left you at 1:30 today, I phoned Ken Rodriguez.
Since he kept mentioning at the community meeting last Wed, May 9, that people could
look renderings, elevations and other (current) details on 'the website' I had hoped that
when you loaded things last week, they would be available.
As you know, you indicated that the planning department was still awaiting new
elevations, etc. that match the May 4 submitted plans.
Ken told me that you would receive the new elevations and details, that are currently
available, by 2:00 pm today.
I know that you are incredibly busy getting things ready for tomorrow's CC meeting.
Even if you receive the new info, you likely won't be able to review it, and the
architectural consultant won't be able to comment....
But.... I am hoping that you can send me whatever was (presumably) sent to you by Mr.
Rodrigues's office.
He told me that he was unable to send it directly to me.
Also, I mentioned to you that I have concerns about the recent posting done at the site
that shows renderings that DO NOT match the current plan.
If the public is to trust what is posted by applicants, there needs to be some kind of
control as to it's accuracy. Please pass this concern on.
Thank you !
Lisa
1
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 1:26 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: FW: Main Street Cupertino
From: Li Xu [mailto:li xu22102Cayahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 1:25 PM
To: Mark Santoro
Subject: Main Street Cupertino
Dear Mayor Santoro,
As a homeowner at Metropolitan of Cupertino, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the developer's
revision of its plan to put an auto court and parking lot on its promised green space and quiet buffering for our
community. Its objective is obviously to seek more commercial benefits at the compromise of Cupertino's green
area and the life of our community.
We support you and city Council for your hard work to build a greener Cupertino and to maintain the quality
life of us residents. Your consideration in favor of our petition is greatly expected and appreciated.
Li Y. Xu
Unit 333
Metropolitan at Cupertino
1
CC 5/15/12 Item #18
Problem on Main Street =
Sand Hill's latest plan, Option A(1)-2, leaves PARK fry ` :s 1 —''.
the Metropolitan completely exposed to a.
disruptive noise and light from the auto court, . ' _
restaurant(s)with outdoor seating, and events ✓. .,
on the Town Square beyond including: ,„ ;t
I - r:
• early-morning deliveries to the restaurants EXISTING T iii
and retail buildings pko;ENNcT ' " °.
• all-day and all-night car traffic in the auto "
court—a situation ripe for numerous noise #? -;
complaints and other incidences '" `
r iikei —.rii
• no barrier preventing noise from the active ,.
Town Square(including evening musical .
.
events)from reaching the Metropolitan - it
Solution
= 1. An underground parking garage extending
under the Retail Anchor and two shops
u. r
replaces the disruptive"Auto Court".
rF 2. Eliminate (or restrict hours of)the outdoor
MX restaurant seating facing the Metropolitan.
r " 3. Restore the Retail Shops building in the NW
corner of Town Square to screen both the
aviG
so.oci t , Metropolitan and Rose Bowl residences
aecr from noise and light from Town Square.
-.' * *' . - ' 4. Increase setback of the remaining parking
;. '
� lot from Metropolitan and provide a safer,
* , pedestrian-friendly walkway from Stevens
All ►. Creek Blvd.to Main Street so pedestrians
°# ( 1 don't need to cross busy driveways to reach
the park and Town Square.
1
Solution #1
based on Sand Hill's Option A(1)-2
Restore the Retail Shops
building in the NW corner of
Town Square to screen both
the Metropolitan and Rose
Bowl residences from noise
ult. and IightfromTown Square.
t
Eliminate(or restrict j ;.
hoursof)the RAC
fi"
proposed outdoor `_
restaurant seating
facing the
Metropolitan. ,
i3
JECT
P
increase setback of the �.
remaining parking lot
from Metropolitan and
provide a safer, "
pedestrian-friendly
walkway from Stevens
Creek Blvd.to Main
Street so pedestrians
don't need to cross busy An underground parking
driveways to reach the garage extending underthe
park and Town Square. Retail Anchor and two shops
replaces the disruptive
"Auto Court".
Sand Hill's "option A(1)-2" is modified in four key areas, including
Replacing the'Auto Court'with parking under the retail buildings.
(Alternatively,it might also be poss ble to put the parking under the park)
2
Solution #2
based on Sand Hill's Option A(1)-1
No gap in the Retail Shops
along Town Square to screen
both the Metropolitan and
Rose Bowl residences from
noise and Iightfrom Town
Square.
•
►Mt a
An underground parking
garage extendingunderthe •
Retail Anchor and possibly Eliminate(or restrict
under the park hours of)the
proposed outdoor
restaurant seating
r , facing the
Metropolitan.
•
Increase setback of the
parking lotfrom
Metropolitan and -
provide a safer, .."■."'"*."'_4P'
pedestrian-friendly hy0 r EO A(: v4irN NtAgDA RETA, RERLAErfG SE%0, N04.,SAG AND
walkway from Stevens !.O GAP,S RETA;L&LONG TOV.%Sp.ARE
Creek Blvd.to Main
Street so pedestrians
don't need to cross busy
driveways to reach the
park and Town Square.
The Senior Housing on Option A(1)-1 is replaced with the Retail Anchor with parking below.
Underground parking could be extended under the park if more parking were needed
3
CC 5/15/12 Item# 18
SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND REVISION.
Table 1. Main Street Cupertino Land Use Plan Summary
Land Uses
General Commercial Space Residential(units) Open
Scheme/OptionNariant Office Hotel Parking
Maximum Athletic Market Space 3
Retail(sf) (s� Senior Rate (rooms) (ac)
Spaces
Restaurant Club(sf)
2008 Scheme 1 150,000 10%(15,000 sf)4 145,000 100,000 160 0 150 1.63 1,520
2008 Scheme 2 146,500 10%(14,650 sf)4 0 205,000 160 0 250 1.63 1,830
Scheme 1(Scheme 1c)1 78,700 11%(7,870 sf)4 60,000 292,000 0 120 180 1.55 1,956
Variant la 69,700 15%(10,455 sf)4 60,000 292,000 143 0 180 1.55 2,191
Variant lb 78,700 15%(11,805 sf)4 60,000 292,000 143 0 180 1.55 2,159
Variant 3a(1) 78,700 11%(8,657 sf)4 60,000 289,000 143 0 250 1.55 2,159
Variant 3a(2) 138,700 16%(22,192 sf)4 0 265,000 0 0 250 1.55 1,956
Variant 3b 69,700 11%(7,667 sf)4 60,000 292,000 143 0 250 1.55 2,191
Scheme 2(Scheme 2b) 92,200 19%(17,518 sf)4 0 292,000 143 1202 180 1.55 2,074
Variant 2a 83,200 21%(17,472 sf)4 0 292,000 143 1202 180 1.55 2,107
a n .. < �. *. ' 4,1;va u" t 4s alb' a d t£t ' ,;41,4144,14 p � v&s '
a5 tw<n �,u'�"av«+ 'a�`°�nF ev.. � ""*.� � ���. � "�a�. '�5 s&. o4r.�'v#�A s "s}a 44,14 v' .X v'� �.e4,v a. ' �� 4 .;..
,Ii' „a s,s ';, t0,, ,:; ec ; ;1:% ' xt , ',' a u a r Via.
f B bfFIk `ik� 4��::,,''':0:,, ,,,:;,'
�'"'�' A '"t ;4,a �y*� ,�. ��� �iv*�p"vt s�nr�x � 'ti � �,; �. �� V'''',Y�ry� �+1 " E � .,�"�� f tai �Ini
;aa i" .A t s t . ., ,3 . . ,,i �' X1 rsw t as g "') nr}.`a
Sub 1 120,000 43.8%(52,560 sf) 0 292,000 0 35 180 1.55
Sub 2 113,500 45.7%(51,870 sf) 0 292,000 0 120 180 1.55
Sub 3 120,000 43.8%(52,560 sf) 0 280,000 0 120 180 1.55
Sub 4 115,000 45.2%(51,980 sf) 0 292,000 0 105 180 1.55
Sub 5 120,000 43.8%(52,560 sf) 0 282,000 0 105 180 1.55
R X k ., . . , ' . . ., ,, .. 017
Sub 1 138,700 38.6%(53,538 sf) 0 260,000 0 25 180 1.55
Sub 2 130,500 40.3%(52,592 sf) 0 260,000 0 120 180 1.55
Sub 3 138,700 38.6%(53,538 sf) 0 245,000 0 120 180 1.55
Sub 4 114,000 44.7%(50,958 sf) 0 260,000 0 105 180 1.55
Sub 5 138,700 38.6%(53,538 sf) 0 248,000 0 105 180 1.55
Notes:
(1)Under 2012 Scheme 1,the 60,000 sf athletic club can be replaced with 60,000 sf of additional retail space;and the 120 market-rate apartments can be
replaced with 143 senior units. If 60,000 sf of additional retail and 120 market-rate apartments are constructed, 1,956 parking spaces would be
provided. If a 60,000 sf athletic club and 143 senior housing units were constructed instead,2,159 parking spaces would be provided.
(2)Assumes that Market Rate Housing is constructed to 105 units with additional iestaurant space.
(3)Restaurant uses would also generate higher parking demand;therefore,the parking supply shown in this table may need to be adjusted to reflect an
increased restaurant occupancy of the commercial space.
(4)Assumes 100%high-turnover restaurant space.Blue and purple schemes have modified restaurant mix.
Source:Fehr&Peers,2012.
SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND REVISION.
Table 2. Main Street Cupertino Trip Generation Summary
Weekday AM Peak- our Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips
Scheme/Option/Variant
Trips Mal 0 t Total EMI Out Total
2008 Scheme 1 13,751 423 199 622 591 673 1,264
2008 Scheme 2 10,692 450 133 583 408 628 1,036
Scheme 1(Scheme 1c) 10,985 529 207 736 474 692 1,166
Variant la 10,345 523 167 701 425 661 1,086
Variant lb 10,676 527 170 697 441 676 1,117
Variant 3a(1) 11,154 543 185 727 458 688 1,146
Variant 3a(2) 10,928 505 151 657 424 672 1,096
Variant 3b 10,847 543 182 724 443 676 1,119
Scheme 2(Scheme 2b) 9,802 501 171 672 382 630 1,012
Variant 2a 9,490 497 168 665 367 615 982
MMEMMMwm
Sub 1 11,501 516 165 680 533 692 1,225
Sub 2 11,640 517 191 707 544 692 1,236
Sub 3 11,787 506 192 697 554 692 1,246
Sub 4 11,629 517 186 702 543 692 1,235
Sub 5 11,736 508 187 694 550 692 1,242
Sub 1 11,828 491 162 653 552 692 1,244
Sub 2 11,972 492 190 682 564 692 1,256
Sub 3 12,133 478 191 669 574 692 1,266
Sub 4 11,958 493 185 678 562 692 1,254
Sub 5 12,090 481 186 667 571 692 1,263
Source:Fehr&Peers.2012
SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND REVISION.
Table 3. Main Street Cupertino Parking Demand
Summary
City Unshared Shared
Scheme/OptionNariant 1 Parking Parking
Code Demand2 Demand3
Sub 1 :.,981 1,912 1,734
Sub 2 2,121 2,016 1,805
Sub 3 2,109 1,996 1,784
Sub 4 2,097 1,998 1,793
Sub 5 2,086 1,981 1,775
Sub 1 1,920 1,840 1,667
Sub 2 2,009 1,928 1,717
Sub 3 2,057 1,931 1,716
Sub 4 2,057 1,941 1,731
Sub 5 2,038 1,918 1,710
Notes:
1. Based on City of Cupertino Mu iicipal Parking Code
2. Based on ITE Parking Generation,2008
3 Based on ITE Parking Demand,adjusted with time-of-day factors
from Urban Land Institute Shared Parking.Assumes that all uses
share parking on the site.If offce and residential parking is
reserved,the demand would be similar to unshared parking
demand,since only hotel and retail uses would share a minimal
number of parking spaces.
Source:Fehr&Peers,2012.
A , ' :,,"" • %
,
# h..
1- -, - ..-
1 Iv ,moollmi
11, ■ , 1— '..-- it,..-4-"*-4 . I°
I_• .11 a +Ai ',"'" Z=I .11 ■,-, r' .4,6 "....:',. i -. , i = ,..,
=rt. I. mg_...IL cv■ ..--11 tk 0 . -...-.. ‘ / t===tti t ,
401, Y
''''•n ci", :1 'oki.1,_ ,i4--,..,111.1141. -.:_v `, -4 ,: , ',..---i 1 ... 4,
I 1' -1.-" .1
,
/
0
(71; a : K "I lig MI6 E '4' C .' '*•;...:
t7 I
.o,
A'
. .:1.111111 51,4".
<V ..p.• 4„
,
rb▪ cn .c...... ..,,. .... _ .. , ci. ',..;:... i
-%.cp • 1
... 111
„.......re. , .4P.. I z..... .111 ,..... .. '
eT R ' - -- %'• 11
-▪ — = =`,..- .1=- •,... Flo , ,,'k in ti
i■
- i• ,
A 4 A.
013 - . 4 RE Mill _.'" s'`.,, • "' I=
13 (1) 1 t ts\ 5 CD ly -
co 3 3 i-,
15-e ,--.--ever4 .„ . .,, ,,,,, •.„:„.......,,Ti„ \:, -A 0
'NI& C 0 $*
(14 AA Cr-
Ci) 5 ,
•---0 ti I. I IN : rd c u)
4 0. 1.1 = In ma= 1 ...g :;7
.'1 ..{ 10 lorier , m — = Pte.:
, 4 1 i 1 0
4. II
' Pe 3
1 = .
,
1 co a
•
_ r 0
--• 4,1-1 • t, / 0 (CD i. po
:---"---.r FPlemmo• IN ...-- -I -.
P401601 0 WM W. 2, _ 0
- ,-.S*, ■•••• ,f
"""... • 167 , 6.4-•._:2 1.1*
•"•••..
..k au. INN,. . 1.-
IN .0 Ps PS to2 I. , .
O• M g:■■■ 1 — s .
• =1 • a AV- gDit*F:A ‘
mum • 1 41 12211,6,—2
* .
'=-- r . s 1
VW
CD g
-4 INA imizr.-a 0 ...
• 0. i =, 1 _ CA „
CD e
t '-". '4 ' ... - -: ---,p• .
13 7 *Is- , . - +-,„, ,.--111. •t= 0 M 3 0
0 ---4
ye .,. , sok=
0 0 iltrI '.'i +4 I. - .tt p4tirj g c o
—, .. !AI 31/.11116 3 .,.., (i) _......
-_
0 * ;13.21.13. ‘4 .'' ' a 4 . ra 2. z.= „...
2
11 0 = /
_it 1 gp 0 ,„1 0 0
.. -.- ...;
• 1 romi mo. I 1 0 $2) X Q. co
i..1 1 - , so = :49
- 1 ' CIL*4' f a 0
ttZ 0- 1 v. 1 1 I ai 1113c III , m im -L-.2..
611 _111 r ta,p, =
0
,., 0. 6...
4) ai r ,, ft.-11 = 10 0, .."
C12 . r, . :: 1 isoa ma a ri: ,3 ,... =
, •s. 4 i - ........ i-e, - --- ,.., co n
r)
,„1_ I a• Ent. • at:. = -I
st.0. ;a ii,„ i t mai ow.-11 1 za- p•I•
= ul
.... -
(0 (1) • - . —. I= CO H
A"' 4. P IF I Ille 3 .tt = - _ ul
AIIII 0 I NM NM -1_11 6&,:i frt '"*.
Ilt .4s....or---t.
* -
m
4
A E .-_-% irsimons 111:=,
i
• 4,14 Ais -2 .7 Z
i E
• trty 0
-k ■.'A ," 1.. 1111111 I : ,.. CD Et
• ii,,I ' ' , 1 7= "0 t - _t---gilir - '
1 --
■P•
„.„, CD ,,„.,7 r'
L ... _ ....
O - ,.; ...... . .,. . 0 . 0 .... ....„........
„i„...„
iNNE •-• 3 -,
...
.,. c %,.
_
_. ,,,
.9 = 11, .,. ess.,....
Ill CO E -I .4. ,... .
N) - " ' 0 .... 3
Cl) o o
m a
r- m
...
m