Exhibit CC 06-04-2012 #12 Lake Biltmore Apartments 6/4/2012
-Wlol
DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-20, TR-2012-18
DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19,TR-2012-13
20030,20060 Stevens Creek Blvd,10041 S Blaney Ave,Vacant Lot,and 10159 S Blaney Ave
The applicant,Prometheus Real Estate Group,is requesting approval of the following
applications:
.-ate 4 `1,. h . ,i0 M1 4 M }
LU ! Fii�'`I �� 'i"r gl i
, l'i6� r' 12 ei ,
Stevens Creek Site Mixed-Use Project Biltmore Apartments
• Development Permit(DP-2011-06) • Development Permit(DP-2011-05
• Architectural Site Approval(ASA-2011-20) • Architectural Site Approval(ASA-2011-19)
• Tree Removal Permit(TR-2012-18) • Tree Removal Permit(TR-2012-13
Revisions
Gross Lot Acreage Original Gross Lot Acreage Revised
Original(60'SCB) Units Revised(30'SCB) Units
Project(includes
Chili's,excludes 3.5 87 3.22 80
Village Falafel)
Housing Element 100%=83 100%=76
Sites(excludes Chili's, 3.36 units 3.07 units
includes Village 85%D=68
85%=65
Falafel) units units
1
6/4/2012
Revisions
.. _ _
16/13
Non-Housing u- ____,,,:,76/_,...,5T-. _
Element Site '' j ^',11 Ili lT L, 1 1
---• , ,W� Imo_ J
Housing I� N,` �"" --
� r _
Element Site - .- 'rf tii p i''j r 7
' t /�wi
,y 1.XN..1 Sri c ' £ i 'I --I��..�7.�
16113I_il____ - '.
I I IL = = j--- —
;( w
1 ----- I
Project Site & Background Information p t �jti^"f =r5 �tfe m .� „+^ • Biltmore Apartments has existed
d{'.jmme y`^d -44 A.. -• '�, as an apartment complex since
� !);a4411-A.',. ;z, tbi. ' "43 4. -� �: the 1970s
. � �n& r
` `1r-bS 4,,..�# a'ry 10!!,, 1 .' • The existing apartments were
tY ' v t 4 J t Yr3 t approved for an expansion in
.)yjf;',I r j nit� XJ1 1 1998/1999 for 24 additional units
i !� choet S } o ,1(d Z
(K{ra4 r'B•t; G"` ,, :� • Currently surrounded by
At j commercial,office,quasi-public,
e . !t b/!... vf{ and residential uses
P ,pgn�; ��. , New 7,000 square foot
: l s ;.i ,; „ �Ct i,+,z commercial building fronting
= i
' �`- ff � Stevens Creek Blvd
vr' �Pa„ 87 apartment units proposed on
t l _ -z Stevens Creek site(staff supports
t �� 80),12 proposed on Biltmore
a
.:a /`-T"f�� � Apartments site.
2
6/4/2012
Heart of the City Specific Plan/
Housing Element Site
• Project complies with Heart of the City requirements for
landscaping,common open space,private outdoor space,access,
streetscape,setbacks,height,building bulk,and design. Complies
with density with 80 apartment units.
• The project site is a designated Housing Element site(excluding the
Chili's site and Biltmore Apartments)
• Adoption of Housing Element was a communit,'process which included public
participation from community groups,focus group meetings, and workshops
• Total of 13 Housing Element Sites identified
• Site visits with Housing and Community Development to convince them that these sites
were viable
• Final adoption by Council in June 2010
• Chili's restaurant(6,000 sq ft)will be replaced with 7,000 square foot
commercial building
Housing Element Sites
F l`.,C,r t k n.,...�• 4, w k
vim,��~ ® ,m I
E
" '
1',. ' _.
L ° cW
_
L
\_,..,:,......:4_,„_=:-.... r
,,..., ... ,...-,t-,emu.,,.. ...,,,..... ..,. ._.............._.._...,........
1164:11:r.n....a l'rvi.L,Il..,,w.%A,.
•...b, tutu en T.,...A Ur...nSn.. U•.:4,•,
nanny.Umn
-- 3
6/4/2012
Development Allocation
• Project will not draw from Heart of the City's commercial balance of
105,870 sq ft. A net of 14,082 square feet will be returned to balance,
for a new commercial balance of 119,952 sq ft
• Project will draw from Heart of the City's residential balance of 308
residential units. A remaining balance of 216(308-92)residential
units will be available if proposed project is approved
Site Plan
422, .r
j Commercial B Ilding I Y; 1
1 1 G t` _ 3 �r 9w
1. f II
�p IF
av ,
1 BulldingB r A ,1 t •;� w z1,3 ,•
, w,„ _ i'L �M
r
Proposed Site Plan Existing Site Plan
4
6/4/2012
Enlarged Site Plan
yeisi#2-1
/L4ra � i1146� 1 ,!� % E
- L�' -c "? 1 ...® � 't o
, :N
O !^I; 1 1 . R. .
1. -_-'1;--'"="27 - a s ...
CEExE[T b.
I
N ! I
LEPL^ ...._._--
Enlarged Retail Elevation
� i ,, x a ' ..-_ ' -.-----I
-11*.
vs p sag Pr
5
6/4/2012
Architecture Overview
Building A
. APr ' — I - :13e. :;:airti _ , . I: 417 L-7,r.sit_i.:::t 7 . : ,..,,........,,t.,,, c.;.,,
it
1 11 ..1 a 11 we. v 09.4 no- ! i P
Building B Building C
it a I .d 9r
Building D
Additional Architectural
Recommendations
• Add more glazing or features to enhance visual transparency
• Highlight main entries to the buildings
• Define more architectural details
• Provide high quality building materials
• Redesign the stoop entries
• Consider flat roof structures instead of pitched
6
6/4/2012
Commercial Building and
Retail Viability
#X I .. at '‘-',,*-t';',.'0,,::;
'- ; "r4c....77:r - - eartt,........ „ , i;:,.,:„ ,.7.,,:4:-.,,''''''
au .a * � SI
...ii h 'i,4 (�t i !,
_ _ 7 ..-
• Provide tenant bay depths of at least 40 • Rear entrances for customer convenience
feet
• Sig:1 program as integral part of the design,
• Provide outside patio as added amenity should not be an afterthought
• Provide 14'sidewalk for a comfortable • Accessible,adequate and visible commercial
and inviting environment parking stalls
• Widen the glazing on front elevation for
tenant space flexibility
Landsca •in: and Trees
d- . tt.-: ..'B
s
P��
dypb4Y- rTW'.wr,� .. ...
K
't 1y�r ,yam.:I :{ :yy t
�
p V.
el _
f e.
L_ I
L , 'LJ
3GLn,:nvir„,,,,n,
7
6/4/2012
Parking
Biltmore Apartments Site Stevens Creek Site
Existing Addition Future Apartments Commercial
1-Bedroom 78 4 82 46
2-Bedroom 93 8 101 34
3-Bedroom 8 0 8 0
Sq Ft 7,000
Total Apartments 179 12 191 80
155 Residential(68
Provided On-Site Parking 320 Underground) 42 Commercial
Parking Ratio 1.69 per unit 1.93 per unit N/A
42(28 Restaurant,14
Required 2 1.14-1.54 per unit Commercial)
Community Outreach
• On Wednesday,March 14,2012,a neighborhood meeting was held
• On Thursday,May 31,2012,a second neighborhood meeting was held
• City Notice of Public Hearing mailed out to neighbors within 300 feet(and
neighbors that attended the community meeting)on April 18,2012
• City website created and updated with project details and information
• Several community members have expressed their concerns with the impact
the project will have on schools,traffic,placement of driveways,and density
• Under State law,the City is not permitted to consider school impacts as a
determining factor for project review and approval
8
6/4/2012
Recommendation
A. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the
Planning Commission's recommendation of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration EA-2011-16,
Development Permit DP-2011-06, Architectural Site
Approval ASA-2011-20, and Tree Removal Permit TR-
2012-18 in accordance with the Draft Resolutions, with
the revision to 80 units.
B. Staff also recommends that the City Council approve the
Planning Commission's recommendation of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration EA-2011-15,
Development Permit DP-2011-05, Architectural Site
Approval ASA-2011-19, and Tree Removal Permit TR-
2012-13 and in accordance with the Draft Resolutions.
9
*1 a_
K.- ...-' c.:.)) ec ./"1/ b,z.
,
-- -- STEVENS --- CREEK - BLVD -/''
'
ROS 242-M-■9
-- 20F00 br G[BOi i75 ' l 1 ar ""
i O
P_ I '
\n 6' 8 l N
n e
�4 �U .�„ -2S QJ
` r ,0 U ! �, --- 200 79 - D
AV_ D m z
Un
O T
m
n m 20C 79 z
I.. D 336 51 1
D r
�i z m I° ,i `
Z y
m
S[Bo∎ I �0 3}6 0 0
{ v.
. 59
o � T m
O
D -
Cl 0
e
--- ------ STEVENS • CREEK BLVD
ROS 242-M-19
–,- — 20100 00060 - 09066 3 3
r- ;1001 0
IU ...
0 8 A N
D o•D -I O 5 ' co I mIP = i2s r-
��u 7g 1 200-8 D
A D
Z
v �N n m J. ,q m
n
0
Z , -<
n'' D O m yea I Si 207 79 7
•^ n D ' <
Gt 00 Z-+ '.--) 4
336 79 '9.
s
10 9''', - 0
0
D A
\\ f
r; A D
^.
0
I �
—7—STEVENS— CREEK -- —___ _ _ BLVD.
—
a
,,I
R.0 S. 242-M-19
— 2oioa rooed.. ,. edoao zoo i0
9CBOL 135 I 140
o
I lI n
o ��. m
O y 8 m IA
cn
CO C) O ul o
\ m-1 u IN 1(9 .� _. is
w
mvN
N i v, 20078
UN. T.a) _ I D
0 n N - n m o °-°0 1°
I
T, r 200.79
N D n I D 336 51 y 0 I 2 I Z m la n IN mll- <
rn
m
1" 336.51
D
719.84
i (0 N
N
o I m m
n
N
D
co
- 30 "� o in
0
m
- STEVENS— CREEK - - - - - BLVD. --- t--
ROS 242-M-19 -
i
20700 0066 20030
...
10010 r s[ea 35—Y
40
I o,
of IU L(0) , A8�
m D� - I I.4 o
IW m--Ie ® M IN IW i 125 Co
U�
F l 200 78 D
0 cr, n v`�' 7J m t m 0 m N I 0 ° < z^ O
I pJ r Z m I 200.79 z 0 r
(A D I D 336 51 -,
n n
n I m Z Z m I.> n 1 mI
m
, .
0(601 336 SI n
71984
TN
I 0 m
N
,o 30 . `^
D o
0 A
a
" .r r1
1, q
1 .. 1,1 � 14 I _ Y.
J s k4
.9 �OJn W 6� f - E
4 'SD C:3 "6 ' �_
C? ^1 D 0.
;'G o o f
N
N Gd
I
r0
--STEVENS— CREEK -- -- - _—BLVD. , o
R.OS. 242-M-19
-— 20700
20060_.... 20030 200/0
r 56'97 1 135 I 140 .
0
n m
•
•
k9 n
�= >-1 m IaY; N
0D� 0
m u (T 1 N 1(y 1x5 - co m
N O 0 N
N °' t 290.78 D
�,
XI - _ n oo Z n
mN o _ - 1 Iq `^'o m O
o C c
D I 4'"
n O m y
\, D D SI'
co O D O m n °I -<
z m to r Imo`:,.--.-
SG;901 I -1 ~ i -
-t 336.51 ...
... 719.84 N
v, o
m•
O , n N
I m
n 30I „ N
0
D A
o
F•
- 7—STEVENS— CREEK - -- - _ BLVD. --
R OS 242-M-19
10100 10060 20030 1c0,0
5190: 135 _. 1 --- - 1• I o
m
`� 0�8 r A N
D� o
n m
No -W-1(--Iu O }6 IN' I(.l 125 _
,Zmj�N co 200 78 D
�p�j� _ - D m_I , Z r
D N _ I n -� 1 ° fTl
D N m o 0
to
, m
2CG 79 z P h O r m -+ 336 5: <n n m
z z ml
T m
sc eoi -a
... ... 336 5'' D
19.4 0
I o
T
0
o n
- 30 I T.7-
US 0
D -
x
n
- -T--STEVENS— CREEK _ _ BLVD a , -
,
R OS 242-M-I9
10/00 10060_...- 20034 000,0
cc 90: �... 175 140 I.
•
0
r
1
Pol n
(t+ S o�8 -t, N m
T` ��� o
\ -(G O ti � Ia, zs
rn r
rro (3 u, m
D�- cD mj 20078 D
d D , z r,
m N O I _ Ip1 .-' rr1 O
o n m r ___ 200 79 _ y
D D 336 91 I
CA 1 - m
m y 2 I� n IV �1
51 901 -1
1 336 5
... 719 84 ... N
CO cc
o I I m r'
.7_ N
fl 3'J N
o
Simon Vuong
From: Ducote, Michael [MDucote @prometheusreg.com]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 1:14 PM
To: Simon Vuong
Subject: FW: Re-development proposal, Cupertino
Simon,
Please forward the email below to all of the CC members. Thanks.
Michael Ducote - Senior Development Manager
Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 150, San Mateo CA 94403 Direct 650.931.3457 - Fax 650.931.3657
mducote(laprometheusreg.com - http://www.prometheusreg.com
Original Message
From: Carl Tucci [mailto:carltucci(ame.com]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 1:00 PM
To: Ducote, Michael
Subject: Re-development proposal, Cupertino
After viewing your plans for the project on Stevens Creek and Blaney Avenue. I
enthusiastically support your project. I own the property on the corner of Stevens Creek and
Randy Lane, which is practically across the street from your site. I think your plan shows
care and concern for the neighborhood and for those of us who have an interest in Cupertino.
My best wishes Carl Tucci .
Carl Tucci Attorney at Law
408-377-1600
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This communication and any accompanying document(s) are confidential and may be privileged.
They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you received this transmission in
error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any
action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such
inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney-client privilege as to this
communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in error, please contact
me at the above Internet address or by telephone at 650-931-3400. Thank you.
1
C fy(f # /-z
Simon Vuong
From: Beth Ebben on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:09 PM
To: Simon Vuong
Subject: FW: Prometheus Real Estate Project--please reject proposal
From the Planning Department's general mailbox:
From: DOROTHY BRENTARI [mailto:brentari @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:53 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Prometheus Real Estate Project--please reject proposal
Hello,
I am against the proposed development project. I feel that this will make the area too dense. I live in the
Cupertino Waterfall complex and have been a resident for 30 years. I feel that my complex will feel the
additional traffic and noise from this development. Rodriquez is already busy due to the office buildings near
by. Blaney is already crowded as it is a narrow street and already has a large apartment complex on it's
proximity. The addition of 99 apartment units is going to bring an additional 200 cars to this area of the
neighborhood! (Based on each unit having two cars-)
In addition, home owners in Cupertino will feel the additional tax burden of these apartment units.
This is unacceptable Please do not allow this project to proceed as planned.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dorothy
Dorothy Brentari
Cupertino CA 95014
home 408-973-0685
cell--408-406-8828
1
cc /q/i * í
Simon Vuong
From: Aarti Shrivastava
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 9:15 AM
To: Karen B. Guerin
Cc: Simon Vuong; Gary Chao
Subject: RE: 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd - Prometheus Apartments
Thx
Aarti
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 7:38 AM
To: Aarti Shrivastava
Subject: FW: 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd - Prometheus Apartments
FYI—just in case you haven't seen it.
From: Jason Freund [mailto:jason.freund @gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:50 PM
Subject: 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd - Prometheus Apartments
Hi,
How will the planning department and city council ensure that current Cupertino residents are not subsidizing
the construction of apartments -- in particular,the impact of the apartments on CUSD?
As our schools' calendars are shortened, programs are cut, and class sizes increase, new apartment construction
compounds systemic problems with school funding. Apartment complexes do not change hands or get re-
assessed as often as single family residences or townhomes. Furthermore, apartment residents are not assessed
parcel taxes which schools have come to rely on more and more.
I would like to see sensible growth that is governed by capacity of our infrastructure. The current system does
not do that, and the impact falls squarely on the shoulders of home owners who are typically longer term
residents. School impact reports seem to be a formality, school impact fees are a short term bandaid, and we
have not heard any proposals from the city for how to balance growth with school impact. I hope this changes
before you approve a new apartment complex.
Thanks,
Jason Freund
10401 Plum Tree Ln
i
Cc (o (y/'z #
Simon Vuong
From: Beth Ebben on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:03 PM
To: Planning Dept.
Subject: FW: Notice of Public Hearing 103C0 Torre Avenue Development Permit
Categories: 24-Hour Response
From the Planning Department's general mailbox:
From: Msbubak@aol.com [mailto:Msbubak @aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 7:36 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Notice of Public Hearing 10300 Torre Avenue Development Permit
Dear Gary Chao,
Just a note from the HOA of Travigne Villas Condo Association.
I am president of the Board of Directors at Travigne Villas Condo
Address 19999 Stevens Creek Blvd #206 Cupertino CA 95014
I am writing this memo to address my feelings in regard to this project
to begin on 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino
I would like to make my feelings known going forward that we are
very concerned with the density of the project and how it will effect
homeowners in the area with so much more traffic. I hope the city
will address this issue in the building of commercial and residential
apartments to make the flow of traffic liveable for all
Thank you for listening to my comments
Mary Bubak
Board Member
Travigne Villas
1701 14-12-- cC' 6C(111,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2-17
Table 2-A. Development Allocation.
Commercial(sq.ft.) Office(sq.ft.) Hotel(rooms) Residential(DU)
2010 Built Buildout 2010 Built Buildout 2010 Built Buildout 2010 Built Buildout
Neighborhood
Monta Vista 92,387 99,698 431,153 456,210 - - 828 902
Oak Valley - - - - - - 178 178
Fairgrove - - - - - - 220 220
Other Areas - - - - - - 17,620 17,776
Commercial Centers
*Heart of the City 1,408,093 1,476,115 510,531 521,987 122 - 262 570
Vallco Park South 1,507,189 1,902,546 708,057 708,057 250 764 471 711
Homestead Road 193,678 193,678 69,550 69,550 126 126 600 784
Other Areas 497,247 495,415 268,735 250,604 - - 6 306
Employment Centers
N DeAnza Blvd. 36,657 51,372 2,181,021 2,266,206 138 - 49 146
City Center 64,144 79,011 1,050,227 1,050,227 224 224 556 656
Vallco Park North 133,147 133,147 2,981,930 3,069,676 315 315 554 851
Bubb Road - - 428,645 444,435 - - - 94
Other Areas - - - .. - - - 100
Major Employers - - - 633,053 - - - -
Citywide 3,932,542 4,430,982 8,629,849 9,470,005 1,175 1,429 21,344 23,294
*Development allocations in the Heart of the City area are net of the Vallco Park South and City Center sub areas
Rancho Rinconada and Oak Valley. Factors neighborhoods have suburban, one-and two-
that contribute to their distinct character are story architectural styles, while others have
architectural style, density or street bound- chosen to retain a single-story appearance or
aries. These and all neighborhoods must be unique architectural features. Planning for
planned carefully to be sure that residents live neighborhoods should consider proximity
safely and comfortably, that they have access and connections to necessary services, and
to shopping and recreation and that their setting design standards for private property
property investment is reasonably protected. and public rights of way that reflect the char-
acter of the surrounding area.
Neighborhood planning is affected by
different neighborhood characteristics. Neighborhoods must offer housing
Multi-family or mixed-use neighborhoods opportunities to meet a spectrum of lifestyle
may have easy access to shopping and tran- needs. Cupertino encourages a variety of
sit; single-family neighborhoods may be housing types, as demonstrated in the hous-
more isolated from services. Homes in most ing element of the General Plan. Mixed
rilli1H".■
' 0*
CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN Midi
c 0 0 c 00 0 7 0 n 0 n c 0 ' CO
n 0 c 03 Al
CO 0
3 0 01 0 01 0) 0
M N M N ON
C -C
CO
A
CO
N CO 0 t0 0 .--I v L0 t0 t0 .-( V 0 ' Q
0 n N n n .-1 00 0 O VI en al 0 al
3 Ol .-I N N Vl N n M e-( t0 00 .--I N
O
N
0 7
"'"m
00 00 0 N .-t 'N 0 t0 01 t0 0 ' CO
CY N N N M t0 N 0 O Vl Vl (A
m CO .-1 N t0 N V l0 ((l Vl m
9 O NI N
tii w O
CO N
•+ Vl CO O t0 .--I .-1 0 l0 t0 (0 .-i ' ' '
•� N n N n t0 N CO V Ill (I1 0 Ii
m CO N N (f1 N M c IA (A O (D
Ul O NI N ID
O IN
N v
3
3
.E.
' 0 Ol O ' O O O ' ' ' O) -0
VD (O L
Y N N 0
C 1
A J-
10 CO
m
' ' N O) t0 ' M 0 IA ■ ' ' Ol
a
ii H N N N N M N
H (--
0/ O n
O p (n
2 N (n
I I I . t0 . I C U I I I N 3
m N N M (00 (0
I
N (0
O VI
N .i
w 0
a v
H .3
C p
O L0 O O O o 0 t0 O ' M IA N
10 rn N. 0) n a
p c n.:. n CC) CO ,^
Q
co M m
0 N
C
CO CO '3
E O 1 1 1 N Vn) (0A 0 0 N n frl 1 (M f) 0 C0
O N 0) O Vl t0 N N t0 V 0 0
7 tD .1 00 0) O LD O 0) V M o 0
> 0 (f) N O t0 Vl t0 (A t0 V M n [_
w y C (A N N N O O V t0 0 I_
0 .--.'' N.I. 1-1 M O1 p :.
w .f-' m 6) 0
N P• .. r/..11 ' ' ' NI n 0 IA .'-1 n 0 (n ' Ol CO iJ
(6 v Al (f) N M N N M N L .3
O n to O (A N O N 0) t0 O 3 i3
w m an 1 O 00 0) 00 . O . 00 N 'U
O u 0 M .-I O t0 t0 co (A o0 N m 6`t
H N V IA n N NI 0 0) V CO "a' 'U
CO O N N .-I N 00 i3
V :.
•3 ' ' ' 1f1 0 (1) N 0 N .a'I LL0 ' (mf 4- 9j
m (: O 00 Ol 00 00 O 00 00 01 V "13
N 4 .1 0 (0 l0 c V) t0 N CO V I.
co c{ V) N N O 0 Ol 0 0 C Ij
N N Ni. Ni 00 CO '
L (0
N. I)
0 O .:
to i0
Y 6
1
f0 '.
a
.,
u E:
c " 0 c 0 N 0 v 0 O CO ES
N- 00 co CO 00 .N-I 0 > 11 E
CO NO N N 0 +Lw' j3 H
H
N p ii VTl
0 0l
m =C O
00 ' ' (A t0 00
en .-1 n ' ' ' N C _
LL0 .1 � LL0 V (nf 0 .--I all v C� CO
u
7 Ol LC.'N M Vl .-1 Ol M CI r,',', ii O r.Cr 001 ,-I C 01 /ft n .M-( R `1 Q
N
•� ri ri v 1a c
m o w
•a ±+ ' ' ' ' to N CO n N n n ' ' N U C3 d
y 7 O N O r.. m.N M CO 00 NI Om) Y (f O
E O 0) On N m m V1 M N '' N
OO M 00 .) V ti N O yl p
.
.--I ti 00
V N - C
m
y, t0 ' IA V1 .-I (A V l0 ' 00 w 13 d
N to n CO 0 0 0 O x
'j CO .--I '-I n c (n '-I 00 n --
6p w ° `t
00 OQl n M al M (00 N N +L' "U w
0 (Cl Vl N c NI 00 C (1 C
N .4 .4 0 - 1) �
()
O O
v. 6 • O
CO C u 0 N
O C• Z aL+ C a m c) w al 0 H
O u w O K u O C �3
ce,rsi E CO N 0 - CO CO CO w ' •O CO Oi L w w CO w •` CO 20
y w E C m w E CO a N. C
L C •
00 CO Y m L E N O E t O'pw V O a t 'IO^p • N O1 d
0. CO � 0 (i0 U . > = 0 W zu> CO0 V • • a
IVII#12- Cc (o/titCLz
B74 TECHNICAL APPENDIX B:HOUSING TECHNICAL REPORT UPDATE 2007-2014.
Figure 6.2: Potential Housing Sites in the Heart of the City District
kSSr�t_aauna _ ooe_ {c _iwe usaasr i ` -
— -.. .ti' - •
4... -t rx ? ii 3 .`w 4? ��`Sx fl ,-.1.„....-1.-
.
�. °.� i '2 !L 1 - It �+°,s ,' ' z ":-41.-,°-'.
t
_suissLork t if—I t i r . _— � I f '-k::.:-:.;'- � J U : __
Sources:City of Cupertino,2009;BAE,2009;DC&E,2009.
Table 6.2:Vacant and Underutilized Land in the Heart of the City District
Allowed under Current Zoning
Size Max. Max. Realistic
ID APN Site Address Existing Use Density Yield Yield
(Acres) (DUA) (Units) (Units)(a)
1 316 21 031 19875 Stevens Creek Blvd Furniture 2000 1.78 25 44 37
316 21 032 19855 Stevens Creek Blvd Yoshinoya 0.24 25 6 5
2 316 23 093 20007 Stevens Creek Blvd I-Restaurant 1.35 25 33 28
3 326 32 041 10073 Saich Way 7-11 site behind Bon-bay Oven 0.77 25 19 16
4 369 03 004 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd Grand Buffet/Boas 1.16 25 29 24
369 03 005 20010 Stevens Creek Blvd Corner of Stevens Creek&Blaney 0.47 25 11 9
369 03 006 10071 S Blaney Ave Lackey Prop.(Stevens Creek&Blaney) 0.37 25 9 7
369 03 007 10031 S Blaney Ave Lackey Prop.(Stevens Creek&Blaney) 1.36 25 34 28
5 369 05 009 19930 Stevens Creek Blvd Arya 0.44 25 11 9
369 05 010 19936 Stevens Creek Blvd Arya Parking Lot 0.52 25 12 10
6 369 05 038 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd SD Furniture 1.92 25 48 40
7 369 06 002 10025 E Estates Dr United Furniture Site 0.92 25 23 19
369 06 003 10075 E Estates Dr United Furniture Site 0.53 25 13 11
369 06 004 10075 E Estates Dr United Furniture Site 0.86 25 21 17
8 375 07 001 19160 Stevens Creek Blvd Barry Swenson Property 0.55 25 13 11
9 375 07 045 10029 Judy Ave Loree Center 0.43 25 10 8
375 07 046 19060 Stevens Creek Blvd Loree Center 0.86 25 21 17
Total Units 357 296
Notes:(a)Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources:City of Cupertino,2009;DataQuick Information Systems,2009;DC&E,2009;BAE,2009.
.7(17..-1
Mat CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
B80 TECHNICAL APPENDIX B:HOUSING TECHNICAL REPORT UPDATE 2007-2014.
Vallco Park North District relatively good condition, the site is
Vallco Park North is an employment area appropriate for residential develop-
of predominantly office and light industrial ment because a residential project was
activities with neighborhood commercial previously approved for this location.
uses. The Vallco Park North District allows Although the approvals for the resi-
for residential densities up to 25 dwelling dential project have expired,the prop-
units per gross acre. The total residential erty owner has requested that the resi-
buildout for the Vallco Park North District is dential zoning remain on the property.
851 units, with a remaining residential allo-
cation of 300 units as of January 1, 2007. Non-Designated Areas
There are two sites located outside desig-
As shown in Table 6.3, there is one nated neighborhood planning areas. These
site in the Vallco Park North District with remaining areas are not planned as unique
potential for residential development. The neighborhoods in the City's most recent gen-
site is comprised of two parcels totally 8.5 eral plan. Development intensity in these
acres. In 2005, the site was rezoned to allow non-designated areas is determined by the
for residential development at a density of up existing zoning and land use designations.
to 25 dwelling units per acre.
Both sites contain existing garden
• Site 10. The site is comprised of two apartment complexes that are not built to
parcels totally 8.5 acres. In 2005, :he the maximum allowed density. These apart-
City Council approved a general plan ment complexes have large open spaces that
amendment and zoning change to exceed the City's open space requirements.
allow for residential development at As such, additional units could be built on
a density of up to 25 dwelling units these two properties. This type of expansion
per acre at this site. The site contains of garden apartment complexes was recently
two office buildings, one of which is approved and completed in Cupertino at the
partially occupied, and large surface Villa Serra and Biltmore developments. At
parking lots. The site is held in cc m- the Biltmore, carports were demolished and
mon ownership and lot consolidat;on new units were constructed above ground-
would not be necessary for redevelop- floor parking.New units and additional park-
ment. While the building remains in ing were added to the Villa Serra complex
Table 6.3:Vacant and Underutilized Land in the Vallco Park North District
Allowed under Current Zoning
Size Max. Max. Realistic Yield
ID APN Site Address Existing Use (Acres) Density Yield (Units)(a)
(DUA) (Units)
10 316 06 050 10500 Pruneridge Morley Bros./Industrial 2.80 25 70 59
316 06 051 10400 Pruneridge Morley Bros./Industrial 5.69 25 142 120
Total Units 212 179
Notes: (a)Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
• i
Sources:City of Cupertino,2009;DataQuick Information Systems,2009;DC&E,2009;BAE,2009.
rt0:0
CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT B81
Figure 6.3: Potential Housing Sites in the realistic yield for Sites 11 and 12 are 92 units
Vallco Park North District and 64 units, respectively, which falls within
the range of other expansion projects that
�-;...:.. , .l have been successfully completed in the past.
L. 1 r The financial feasibility of additional units
at Site 11 and Site 12 is particularly strong
�` because both properties have long-time land-
. Vallco Park North owners who purchased the land when prices
were more affordable.
'-'7 Pt ralki—Nt.....
-4, �,\ Figure 6.4: Potential Housing Sites in the
10:3•' Non-Designated Areas
it\�
\•1 0' s#4
Sources:City of Cupertino,2009;BAE,2009; " ...:• PA„<;3;,
DC&E,2009. I "'G
in surplus open space and recreational areas. := c.—
i-
The Biltmore project added 29 units for - .. .�
a total project size of 179 units, while the = ' '
Villa Serra development added 117 units to M.Taf ': s:: : ::ii :::: M `��'
achieve a total of 506 units. In both cases, I.hoi. •. El
existing units were not destroyed by the con ::?;;;;;;;;;;;;;•111;...,•,,-:*),'_'
:'�;"g::<:<t;':y';:;• North DsAa1 Boulevard
struction of the new expansion.
'A- p '."":>_ < : ::: ;�T
- l1it9 -1 ryI,i I I 1 l I I I I I I;,1 LT"
The trend of adding new units to exist-
Sources:City Cupertino,2009;BAE,zoo9;DC&E,2009.
ing garden apartment complexes is expected
to continue in Cupertino due to the limited
supply of vacant land and the high demand
for residential units in the City. Site 11 and • Site 11.Site 11 contains the Glenbrook
Site 12 share many of these characteristics Apartments. Spanning across 31.3
and present opportunities to provide rela- acres, the site could accommodate 626
tively affordable rental housing units in the units under existing zoning, which
City. In addition,both sites have older struc- allows for a density of 20 dwelling units
tures and low vacancy rates. Often, when to the acre. However, the Glenbrook
property owners of older projects decide to Apartments only contains 517 units,
upgrade units, they may choose to do addi- resulting in additional potential for
tional expansion work at the same time.The up to 109 residential units. Assuming
jr("7:0
CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
B82 TECHNICAL APPENDIX B:HOUSING TECHNICAL REPORT UPDATE 2007-2014
Table 6.4: Vacant and Underutilized Land in the Non-Designated Areas
Allowed under Current Zoning
Size Max. Max. Realistic
ID APN Site Address Existing Use (Acres) Density Yield Yield
(DUA) (Units) (Units)(a)
11 326 27 036 10160 Parkwood Glenbrook Apartme its 11.62 20
326 27 037 21297 Parkwood Glenbrook Apartme Its 19.72 20
31.34 20 626
Less Existing Units -517
Remaining Units to be Built 109 92
12 326 09 040 20800 Valley Green Dr The Villages at Cupertino 5.35 20
326 09 041 20975 Valley Green Dr The Villages at Cupertino 5.49 20
326 09 053 20990 Valley Green Dr The Villages at Cupertino 6.78 20
326 09 054 20800 Valley Green Dr The Villages at Cupertino 2.69 20
326 09 064 20875 Valley Green Dr The Villages at Cupertino 6.79 20
27.10 20 542
Less Existing Units -468
Remaining Units to be Built 74 62
Total Units 183 154
Notes: (a)Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources:City of Cupertino,2009;DataQuick Information Systems,2009;DC°&E,2009;E AE,2009.
Glenbrook Apartments is able to density. The 27.1 acre property could
achieve 85 percent of the site's accommodate a total of 542 units
remaining capacity, the realistic yield under existing zoning. Currently the
for Site 11 is 92 new units. Similar to development contains 468 units,
the Biltmore Apartments, Glenbrook allowing for up to 74 additional units
Apartments has large areas of land to be built. Assuming the Villages of
dedicated to carports. As was done in Cupertino is able to achieve 85 per-
the Biltmore development, the car- cent of the site's remaining capacity,
port areas can be converted to ground the realistic yield for Site 12 is 62 new
floor parking with new units above. units. The Villages of Cupertino have
Additional units could be constructed large green spaces that exceed the
without affecting existing residential City's open space requirements that
units at the site. This site was reccm- can be developed with new units.The
mended by members of the public and Villa Serra development expanded in
the community supports the expans:on this way by constructing units on sur-
of the Glenbrook Apartments. plus open space and recreation areas.
This site was recommended by mein-
• Site 12.Similar to the Glenbrook Apart- bers of the public and the community
ments site,the Villages of Cupertino is supports the expansion of the Villages
not built to the maximum allowable of Cupertino.
CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT B83
North De Anza Boulevard District Figure 6.5: Potential Housing Sites in the
The North De Anza Boulevard District is North De Anza Boulevard District
intended to be a regional employment center
with supporting commercial and residential r c p
land uses.The area,located south of Interstate L ""
I I
out
280 around North De Anza Boulevard,
includes the Apple Computer campus and e1 17-W.F1?;
other office, industrial, and research and b;.-Vi :.:<:;
development uses.The total residential build-
out
::•x :;::::•::a:.:>•. N.�,D.Aaa Boulevard
for the North De Anza Boulevard District i 3 i'r
is 146 units,with a remaining residential allo _;� ;r, F 4
cation of 97 units as of January 1, 2007.
Sources:City of Cupertino,2009;BAE,2009;DC&E,2009.
• Site13.Site 13, which was built on in
1975, currently has light industrial
(research and office) uses with a large industrial land uses will remain as per-
amount of surface parking. Residential mitted uses in addition to higher den-
development is currently allowed at sity residential use. In addition, the
Site 13, though at lower densities. Site remaining residential allocation for
13 is currently zoned P(CG, ML, Res the area allowed in the General Plan
4-10), which allows general commer- should be increased from 97 to 169
cial, light industrial, and residential units. This would increase the total
development at densities of four to 10 residential allocation from 146 units
dwelling units per acre. The City will to 218 units. Site 13 is ideal for hous-
rezone the property to P(CG,ML,Res) ing because it is adjacent to an existing
and allow for residential densities of residential neighborhood, including a
25 dwelling units per acre. The higher new multifamily residential develop-
residential density at the site will make ment across the street. Additionally,
redevelopment of the site for residen- the site is accessible to neighborhood
tial use more economically viable than amenities, including an elementary
leasing the existing building for office school and restaurant and retail uses.
use. The general commercial and light
Table 6.5:Vacant and Underutilized Land in the North De Anza District
Current Proposed Rezoning
Size Max. Max. Max. Realistic
ID APN Site Address Existing Use (Acres) Density Density Yield Yield
(DUA) (DUA) (Units) (Units)(a)
13 326 10 046 20705 Valley Green Drive Light Industrial 7.98 10 25 199 169
Total Units 199 169
Notes: (a)Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources:City of Cupertino,2009;DataQuick Information Systems,2009;DC&E,2009;BAE,2009.
M1419.44\.:
CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
•
Cc G! VI .2_ T-E-e„►l , a . 1 Z
Karen B. Guerin
From: Dicksteinp @aol.com
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 5:29 PM
To: Mark Santoro
Subject: Biltmore project
Attachments: Biltmore.docx
Dear Mr. Santoro,
Attached is the full text of my arguments in favor of
-- paring down the number of units in the project
-- re-doing the traffic survey, with the focus on Blaney Avenue.
I will doubtlessly have to pare down my own speech, even if I am granted ten minutes!
Sincerely
Phyllis Dickstein
19999 Stevens Creek Blvd, Unit 103
408-996-2652
dicksteinp(c�aol.com
1
My name is Phyllis Dickstein, and I am with Travigne Villas, at the intersection of Blaney and Stevens
Creek, diagonally across the street from the Biltmore project. Our basic premise is that the proposed
number of housing units is way excessive.Twenty-five units per acre is a cap, not a goal. Whether that
number of units should be built on a given site depends on the impact on the neighborhood in question,
with consideration given to the number of multifamily units already in place. I have already expressed
these views before the Planning Commission, as have a number of my neighbors. We regret that the
Planning Department report glossed over opposition to the project by simply listing points pro and con
without going into detail and without indicating the percentage of comments pro and con. We regret
that our pleas fell on deaf ears with the Planning Commission. We regret that the developer does not
even accept the two-unit reduction that the Planning Department did propose for technical reasons,
but is seeking to get those units restored.
The intersection of Blaney and Stevens Creek is now roughly in balance between retail,offices and
housing. In fact, some residents would like a few additional stores(and unfortunately two commercial
sites on the NW corner are perhaps being warehoused).The project would eliminate existing
businesses, some of which have been in existence for over 20 years, the livelihoods of small
businessmen.These may not be glamorous, but they do provide the services--a grocery, a dry cleaners,
a barber shop-- that ordinary people in a residential area may want close at hand. And, despite the
offer from the developer, it is hardly likely that these shops can close down and then return months or a
year later.The intersection also has offices, and a reasonable mixture of single family and multifamily
housing .The 46 condo units in Travigne Villas and 179 rental units at the Biltmore (plus townhouses
across South Blaney from the Biltmore)should normally be considered adequate for one intersection.
I have read the EIR and traffic surveys,and can hardly take their conclusions seriously. 101, or 99,
units means a minimum of 150 cars, as confirmed by the allowance for parking spaces in the Biltmore
proposal. Since the number of schoolchildren is assumed to be minimal in the impact reports (figures
that some of my neighbors with children in the schools will dispute)these cars must belong largely to
employed adults, who will be heading out to work each morning. In any event, one cannot have it both
ways: fewer than 40 schoolchildren and fewer than 100 cars. And who is to say that all the children will
walk to school? So, how can it be said with any assurance that"less than 100" cars will be leaving the
premises each morning? These cars will be funneling into Blaney, a narrow street with only one lane in
each direction. Furthermore, you cannot consider only traffic at signaled intersections and forget about
the stop signs(which have school crossing guards to hold up traffic for the children who do walk and
their guardians). Another factor noted by one of the Townhouse parents is the danger children face as
a result of traffic already emanating from the Biltmore Apartments. How can 150-plus additional cars
have merely a "minimal" impact on the neighborhood? Minimal from whose point of view?
I live on the north side of Blaney. I can report that when the Collins school is receiving or dismissing,
you can barely drive between Stevens Creek and Merritt. While traffic is lighter in the middle of the day,
it is not insignificant--one can hardly ever make a left turn out of Travigne Villas without waiting for
several cars to pass in each direction.As far as Stevens Creek is concerned, at noon on a week day, it can
on occasion take 15 minutes to go from Travigne to the Cupertino Senior Center on Mary Avenue.
We are not troglodytes--opposed to any housing or any upgrading of retail--but it has to be within
reason and it has to be fair--and the process of determination has to be open, transparent and
democratic.
I was not here when the Heart of the City Plan was adopted, but I do note two things:for our central
area it emphasized retail and then office space,with housing in a supporting role. Any subsequent
zoning changes may not have been too well-publicized in advance because local residents seem not to
have been aware of them at the time. I also note that the Heart of the City area is defined very
narrowly, as only one or two streets on either side of Stevens Creek.Which brings me to a question --
why does the current plan call for more than doubling the number of residential units (from 262 to 570)
in this narrow strip? There is also an anomaly, for which I have not been given a satisfactory explanation
-- a few years ago, 296 existing units were counted in the Heart of the City.What happened to 34 units?
Were they torn down, or was the boundary redefined, squeezing the local community still further?
Now, if Cupertino is really mandated to erect an additional 308 residential units in the Heart of the City
as currently defined (which some residents may regard as questionable),these still have to be allocated
fairly. Selecting a few sites for high density development may be profitable for developers and
possibly easier for the city to oversee, but it is not fair to local residents. Residents of suburban cities
have chosen an environment less dense than downtown San Jose and this should be respected. Scatter
site is the fair approach.
The quality of life in this neighborhood is now threatened, in terms of significantly more congestion,
additional air pollution,danger to children,even the loss of useful retail outlets. We who live at
Stevens Creek and Blaney do not deserve to be designated as sacrificial lambs. If 300 units are really
needed, they should be distributed among various sites, at different intersections. The burden of
density should be shared. I might add that, if the residential portion of this project is reduced, the
developer could perhaps upgrade at least some of the retail buildings instead of razing them, saving
themselves some costs and sparing the neighborhood the pollution that inevitably occurs when
buildings are torn down.
Next, I come to the issue of process. Why was the community,at least the north side of Blaney, not
informed until this past March,when the project specs were virtually completed?Could there not
have been a well-publicized preliminary meeting, held by public officials not the developer, months ago,
to discuss the concept with local residents?
Perhaps the Planning Commission considers mainly compliance with regulations. You gentlemen,
however, are our City Council, bound to represent small business and ordinary residents, not just large
enterprises.We appeal to you to pare this project down.And,we have a very specific request. Do not
approve the project,certainly not as it stands,without first conducting another traffic review,this one
focused on Blaney Avenue. Especially those of you who pride yourselves on protecting the
environment,do not choke the residents of Blaney Avenue.
I was not here when the Heart of the City Plan was adopted, but I do note two things:for our central
area it emphasized retail and then office space, with housing in a supporting role. Any subsequent
zoning changes may not have been too well-publicized in advance because local residents seem not to
have been aware of them at the time. I also note that the Heart of the City area is defined very
narrowly, as only one or two streets on either side of Stevens Creek. Which brings me to a question --
why does the current plan call for more than doubling the number of residential units(from 262 to 570)
in this narrow strip? There is also an anomaly, for which I have not been given a satisfactory explanation
--a few years ago, 296 existing units were counted in the Heart of the City. What happened to 34 units?
Were they torn down, or was the boundary redefined,squeezing the local community still further?
Now, if Cupertino is really mandated to erect an additional 308 residential units in the Heart of the City
as currently defined (which some residents may regard as questionable),these still have to be allocated
fairly. Selecting a few sites for high density development may be profitable for developers and
possibly easier for the city to oversee, but it is not fair to local residents. Residents of suburban cities
have chosen an environment less dense than downtown San Jose and this should be respected. Scatter
site is the fair approach.
The quality of life in this neighborhood is now threatened, in terms of significantly more congestion,
additional air pollution,danger to children,even the loss of useful retail outlets. We who live at
Stevens Creek and Blaney do not deserve to be designated as sacrificial lambs. If 300 units are really
needed, they should be distributed among various sites, at different intersections. The burden of
density should be shared. I might add that, if the residential portion of this project is reduced,the
developer could perhaps upgrade at least some of the retail buildings instead of razing them, saving
themselves some costs and sparing the neighborhood the pollution that inevitably occurs when
buildings are torn down.
Next, I come to the issue of process. Why was the community, at least the north side of Blaney, not
informed until this past March,when the project specs were virtually completed?Could there not
have been a well-publicized preliminary meeting, held by public officials not the developer, months ago,
to discuss the concept with local residents?
Perhaps the Planning Commission considers mainly compliance with regulations. You gentlemen,
however, are our City Council, bound to represent small business and ordinary residents, not just large
enterprises.We appeal to you to pare this project down.And,we have a very specific request. Do not
approve the project,certainly not as it stands,without first conducting another traffic review,this one
focused on Blaney Avenue. Especially those of you who pride yourselves on protecting the
environment,do not choke the residents of Blaney Avenue.
Cc / fez — N0. I -Z
Karen B. Guerin
From: Darrel Lum [drlum @pacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 9:14 PM
To: Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong; City Council
Cc: Amy Chan; Aarti Shrivastava
Subject: June 4, 2012 City Council Meeting/Agenda Item#12: Prometheus/Steven Creek Blvd &
Blaney Avenue Project
Attachments: PrometheusCC 6412 .pdf
To summarize our comments regarding the above noted project for your consideration, as follows:
1. Initiate and complete master plan as required by Housing Element of the General
Plan.
2. Consider the proposed Prometheus mixed use development as a horizontal mixed
use project.
3. Recalculate the maximum allowable residential density for the proposed Stevens
Creek Blvd site, excluding the parking and traffic lanes and all land areas
devoted to the commercial portion of the project(43,867 sf) and street dedication
land areas (26,450 sf).
•
4. Adjust parcel lot lines to eliminate existing lot lines and introduce a single lot line
between the retail parcel and the residential parcel. Retail and residential
development should be self sufficient on their own parcel.
5. Allow 54 to 56 residential units, as mandated by Housing Element of the General
Plan.
6. Increase retail to 10,500 sq (50% of existing 21,082 sf).
7. Traffic to be monitored for 1 year; additional traffic mitigation to be done if necessary.
8. Independent fiscal impact analysis (FIA) of project's retail/residential effect on City,
Library, Schools, Fire, Sheriff, and other public services.
Please see details regarding the above on attachment. Thank you for your consideration.
Darrel Lum
Resident of Cupertino
1
COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROMETHEUS PROJECT
City of Cupertino General Plan
Appendix B
Housing Element.Technical Report Update 2007-2014
Site 4 is expected to redevelop into a mixed-use multifamily residential
development at a density of about 25 du/acre.
Site 4a. Site 4a consists of three parcels held in common ownership on Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Blaney Avenue.
Site 4b. Site 4b is located at the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue.
The City will encourage Site 4b to be redeveloped in conjunction with Site 4a....Even if
the two sites are not consolidated, the City will require that proposals for redevelopmer
of parcel in Site 4a or 4b be undertaken within a larger master plan that takes all four
parcels into consideration. The City would require that a coordinated access and
circulation plan would be developed for the site, even if Site 4a and Site 4b were
developed separately.
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS' TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
ANALYSIS DATED MARCH 30, 2012 DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF
CORNER PARCEL (SITE 4B). FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION AND STUDY INTERSECTIONS
SHOWS SCOPE OF STUDY AREA WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE SITE 4B.
SITE PLAN SHOW FUTURE CROSS EASEMENT TO SITE 4B, WHICH WILL RESULT IN
THE LOSS OF 3 TO 5 PARKING SPACES DEPENDING UPON ITS DESIGN.
ALSO THIS CROSS EASEMENT WILL IMPACT REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE 4B DUE TO
ITS LOCATION IN MID-PROPERTY LINE OF SITE 4B; AT THE 77 FOOT POINT TO 1 01 FOOT
(24 FEET DRIVE LANE) OF A 160 FEET PROPERTY LINE.
Heart of the City Specific Plan
Land Use
Central Stevens Creek Boulevard
Primary Use: Commercial/Commercial Office
Secondary Use: Office above ground level
Supporting Use: Residential/Residential Mixed Uses
Development Standards
B. Residential -at a maximum density of twenty five (25) units per acre,...For
mixed residential and commercial developments,this shall be net density, excluding
parking and/or land areas devoted to the commercial portion of the development.
The following is an illustration of how net density is calculated: ...
In mixed residential and commercial developments,the preferred location for
residential units shall be behind primary street-fronting retail/commercial uses....The
amount of building space devoted to retail/commercial uses shall be such that the
retail/commercial uses shall have a viable and substantial retail component.
PROJECTS THAT HAVE COMMERCIAL/OFFICE ON THE GROUND FLOOR WITH
RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE ARE VERTICAL MIXED USE PROJECTS WITH COMMERCIAL
STRUCTURES ON THE FRONT PORTION OF THE LOT WITH RESIDENTIAL PLACED AT THE
REAR ARE HORIZONTAL MIXED USE.
"THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN PRESCRIBES A VERY SPECIFIC
FORMULA TO CALCULATE THE NET ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR ALL
MIXED-USE PROJECTS." NOT A VERY SPECIFIC FORMULA, BUT AN ILLUSTRATION.
THE SINGLE ILLUSTRATION OF NET DENSITY CALCULATION SHOWN IN THE HEART
OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN IS FOR A VERTICAL MIXED USE PROJECT; DEFINITION OF
VERTICAL MIXED USE: A SINGLE STRUCTURE WITH THE ABOVE FLOORS FOR
RESIDENTIAL OR OFFICE AND THE GROUND FLOOR FOR RETAIL COMMERCIAL OR
SERVICES USES. THE PROMETHEUS PROJECT IS NOT A VERTICAL MIXED USE
PROJECT. THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN DENSITY CALCULATION
ILLUSTRATION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROMETHEUS PROJECT.
ALSO, "IN ACCORDANCE TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN, THE TOTAL
LAND AREA USED TO CALCULATE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
FOR THE PROPOSED STEVENS CREEK SITE EXCLUDES THE PARKING AND LAND
AREAS DEVOTED TO THE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE PROJECT."
Primary Use: Commercial/Commercial Office
Secondary Use: Office above ground level
Supporting Use: Residential/Residential Mixed Uses
Development Standards
B. Residential - at a maximum density of twenty five (25) units per acre,...For
mixed residential and commercial developments,this shall be net density, excluding
parking and/or land areas devoted to the commercial portion of the development.
The following is an illustration of how net density is calculated: ...
In mixed residential and commercial developments, the preferred location for
residential units shall be behind primary street-fronting retail/commercial uses....The
amount of building space devoted to retail/commercial uses shall be such that the
retail/commercial uses shall have a viable and substantial retail component.
PROJECTS THAT HAVE COMMERCIAL/OFFICE ON THE GROUND FLOOR WITH
RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE ARE VERTICAL MIXED USE PROJECTS WITH COMMERCIAL
STRUCTURES ON THE FRONT PORTION OF THE LOT WITH RESIDENTIAL PLACED AT THE
REAR ARE HORIZONTAL MIXED USE.
"THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN PRESCRIBES A VERY SPECIFIC
FORMULA TO CALCULATE THE NET ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR ALL
MIXED-USE PROJECTS." NOT A VERY SPECIFIC FORMULA, BUT AN ILLUSTRATION.
THE SINGLE ILLUSTRATION OF NET DENSITY CALCULATION SHOWN IN THE HEART
OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN IS FOR A VERTICAL MIXED USE PROJECT; DEFINITION OF
VERTICAL MIXED USE: A SINGLE STRUCTURE WITH THE ABOVE FLOORS FOR
RESIDENTIAL OR OFFICE AND THE GROUND FLOOR FOR RETAIL COMMERCIAL OR
SERVICES USES. THE PROMETHEUS PROJECT IS NOT A VERTICAL MIXED USE
PROJECT. THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN DENSITY CALCULATION
ILLUSTRATION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROMETHEUS PROJECT.
ALSO, "IN ACCORDANCE TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN, THE TOTAL
LAND AREA USED TO CALCULATE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
FOR THE PROPOSED STEVENS CREEK SITE EXCLUDES THE PARKING AND LAND
AREAS DEVOTED TO THE COMMERCIAL. PORTION OF THE PROJECT."
SINCE THE PROMETHEUS PROJECT IS A HORIZONTAL MIXED USE PROJECT,
THE ENTIRE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT OF 43,867SF (351 .5' x 124.8') SHOULD BE
EXCLUDED TO CALCULATE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.
Diagram
THE LANDS PREVIOUSLY DEDICATE:D TO STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND
BLANEY AVENUE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE GROSS AND/OR
NET LOT. IF THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER WAS REQUIRED TO DEDICATE ITS LAND
AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF THE. PRESENT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, THEN
THE DENSITY SHOULD BE CALCULATED USING THE SIZE OF THE LOT PRIOR TO STREET
DEDICATION. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
THE STREET DEDICATION WAS DONE BY A PREVIOUS OWNER AND THE PROPERTY
LINE WAS ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. PROPERTY TAX, REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS,
PUBLIC SERVICES ARE BASED ON THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE.
THE HOUSING ELEMENT USES LOT SIZE BASED ON PARCEL, NOT ON LAND USED
FOR STREET DEDICATION. SEE TABLE 6.2 VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND IN
THE HEART OF THE CITY DISTRICT.
CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN, HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN,
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES, OTHER LANID USE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER CITIES DO NOT
CONSIDER STREET DEDICATED LANDS TO DETERMINE HOUSING DENSITY FOR SINGLE
OR MULTI-UNITS DEVELOPMENT.
Diagram
Heart of the City Specific Plan
Policies
3. Subdivision of commercial parcels is discouraged
INSTEAD OF THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION OF 4 PARCELS TO 1 ;
CONSOLIDATED THE 4 PARCELS TO 2, RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL.
"THE CHILI'S PARCEL IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF HOUSING ELEMENT SITES."
PRESERVE SOME OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE CHILI'S PARCEL BY PLACING IT IN
THE PROPOSED RETAIL AREA (43,867 SF).
AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL = 97,336 SF = 2.234 ACRES X 25 = 56 UNITS
141 ,203 - 43,867 = 97,336 SF
OR ALL OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE CHILI'S PARCEL, INCREASING DEPTH OF
PROPOSED RETAIL PARCEL FROM 125 FEET TO 135 FEET TO ALLOW AN INCREASE OF
RETAIL SPACE.
AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL = 93,792 SF = 2.153 ACRES X 25 = 54 UNITS
141 ,203 - 47,411 = 93,792 SF
AVAILABLE FOR RETAIL PARCEL = ADDITIONAL 3500 SF
PRESENT PROPOSAL: 87 UNITS 1 2.234 ACRES = 39 UNITS PER ACRE
Diagram
CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report Update 2007- 2014
Table 6.2 Vacant and Underutilized Land in the Heart of the City District
369 03 004 1.169
Heart of the City Specific Plan
Policies
3. Subdivision of commercial parcels is discouraged
INSTEAD OF THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION OF 4 PARCELS TO 1 ;
CONSOLIDATED THE 4 PARCELS TO 2, RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL.
"THE CHILI'S PARCEL IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF HOUSING ELEMENT SITES."
PRESERVE SOME OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE CHILI'S PARCEL BY PLACING IT IN
THE PROPOSED RETAIL AREA (43,867 SF).
AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL = 97,336 SF = 2.234 ACRES x 25 = 56 UNITS
141 ,203 - 43,867 = 97,336 SF
OR ALL OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE CHILI'S PARCEL, INCREASING DEPTH OF
PROPOSED RETAIL PARCEL FROM 125 FEET TO 135 FEET TO ALLOW AN INCREASE OF
RETAIL SPACE.
AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL = 93,792 SF = 2.153 ACRES X 25 = 54 UNITS
141 ,203 - 47,411 = 93,792 SF
AVAILABLE FOR RETAIL PARCEL = ADDITIONAL 3500 SF
PRESENT PROPOSAL: 87 UNITS / 2.234 ACRES = 39 UNITS PER ACRE
Diagram
CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report Update 2007- 2014
Table 6.2 Vacant and Underutilized Land in the Heart of the City District
369 03 004 1.169
006 .374
007 .618
2.161 ACRES X 25 = 54 UNITS
PLEASE NOTE THAT HOUSING ELEMENT LISTED APN 369-03-007 AS 1 .36 ACRE;
ASSESSOR MAP LIST DIMENSIONS 80' x 336.51 = 26,920.80 SF = 0.618 ACRE
54 UNITS WOULD PROBABLY ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR UNDERGROUND PARKING.
RESTAU RANT
"THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DESIGNATE 50% OF THE 7,000 SQUARE FOOT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING AS FOOD RELATED OR RESTAURANT USES." LOGICAL TO
REPLACE THE TWO RESTAURANTS WITH AT LEAST ANOTHER RESTAURANT.
HOWEVER, ALLOCATING ONLY 3,500 SQUARE FEET DOES NOT SEEM SUFFICIENT
SPACE COMPARED TO THE 5,952 SF CHILI'S, 4,679 (50% OF 9,359) SF SHAN
RESTAURANT AND THE RECENTLY APPROVED 5,086 SF ISLAND RESTAURANT.
"THE PROJECT WILL NOT DRAW FROM THE HEART OF THE CITY'S COMMERCIAL
BALANCE OF 105,870 SQUARE FEET. INSTEAD, A NET OF 14,082 SQUARE FEET
WILL BE RETURNED TO THE BALANCE."
PARKING
Page 25 & 26 of Draft Transportation Impact:Analysis dated March 30, 2012 by Hexagon
Retail Parking Supply
....The total requirement for the commercial component of the project is 42 parking spaces. The
site plan shows 52 spaces in front of the project near the retail building, 42 of these spaces could
be attributed to the retail space to meet the requirement. The other spaces could be attributed to
the residential units.
Page 26
Shared Parking
It should be noted that since the project proposes two complementary land uses, some of the
parking could potentially be shared between the general retail and residential uses....Because of
potential late night hours, the restaurant spaces probably cannot be shared....Restaurant parking
was not assumed for shared parking because the restaurants could potentially be open late hours
at night.
Cover Sheet AO
Therefore 15 retail spaces shall be available for residential use during non business hours on an
assigned basis.
WHY IS THE PROPOSED RETAIL PROJECT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PARKING FOR
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL?
52 PARKING SPACES IN RETAIL PARCEL
- 3 LOSS FOR FUTURE WEST CROSS EASEMENT
- 2 FOR 2 TRASH ENCLOSURES (RETAIL AND RESTAURANT)
WHY IS ONLY SINGLE RETAIL TRASH LOCATED 125 FEET AWAY FROM
RETAIL BUILDING IN THE RESIDENTIAL PARCEL?
47 PARKING SPACES
42 REQUIRED
Cover Sheet AO
Therefore 15 retail spaces shall be available for residential use during non business hours on an
assigned basis.
WHY IS THE PROPOSED RETAIL PROJE:CT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PARKING FOR
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL?
52 PARKING SPACES IN RETAIL PARCEL
- 3 LOSS FOR FUTURE WEST CROSS EASEMENT
- 2 FOR 2 TRASH ENCLOSURES (RETAIL AND RESTAURANT)
WHY IS ONLY SINGLE RETAIL TRASH LOCATED 125 FEET AWAY FROM
RETAIL BUILDING IN THE RESIDENTIAL PARCEL?
47 PARKING SPACES
42 REQUIRED
CC- f f z
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 9:08 AM
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: FW: Prometheus application
From: Aberg, Fari [mailto:fari.aberg @hp.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 7:35 AM
To: Mark Santoro
Subject: FW: Prometheus application
Good morning Mark,
Just wanted to let you know that I am very concerned with the proposed Prometheus application for their development at
the corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and South Blaney Ave. and would like to express my opposition to the project.
I am concerned about the well being of our city and quality of our schools.
The following are the reasons that I am against this development:
1. Location of the proposed development is not right: The area of the project is one of the last remaining parcels available in
the City of Cupertino which is part of"Heart of the City" and is needed for retail; please do not allow any high density
development in this location, this is the most inappropriate location for the project of this magnitude.
2. High Density housing: The proposed project is just too dense for the location. There are already several apartment
complexes and town houses within a walking distance from this project(City Center, Waterfall, Podium, existing Biltmore
Apt., etc). If one stands at the intersection of Stevens Creek and S, Blaney one can see the beautiful hills, with this
proposal, this view will be taken away, please do not take away this from us and turn our city into a high density
complexes!
The existing Biltmore Apt. is 16 dwellings per acre and the new project is 25
dwellings per acre, this is way too much.
3) Impact on Traffic: South Blaney is a narrow residential street and already has daily congestion, in particular during peek
hours (before and after school, normal morning and afternoon commute). Making left turns on S. Blaney is a daily
challenge for the people who live in the area. During the commute hours, the traffic backs up to two stop signs on S.
Blaney. The proposed project will affect the traffic on both S. Blaney and Stevens Creek. Let's not forget the upcoming
Apple campus, which will definitely affect the traffic on Stevens Creek between Wolfe Road and Hwy 85.
4) Safety of children crossing Stevens Creek: S. Blaney is the main artery to get to Collins and Eaton elementary schools,
Lawson middle school and a day care center, Children bike or walk to school and adding additional traffic to this already
congested intersection will put our children in more danger.
5) Impact on our schools: As you know, number one reason that people move to Cupertino is for our excellent schools.
You also already are aware that all our elementary,junior high and high schools have reached their capacity! The school
district has recently raised the class room size to 24 and if we continue to approve project after project, very soon this size
will increase to 30 students per classroom. Please do consider this important fact in making any decisions that will
jeopardize our excellent schools and their quality:At one point, tax payers are not going to approve new bond measures
to improve our schools.
6) Residents of Cupertino do not support housing along Stevens Creek Blvd: Please refer to page 69 of City of Cupertino
2008 Resident Satisfaction Survey. As the above survey bas indicated, 58 percent of the survey respondents indicated
that they do not support building housing such as condominiums, town homes and apartments in areas along Stevens
Creek Blvd. from Stelling Road to Wolfe Road. in proportion to growth to support Cupertino's major corporate tenants.
7) Loss of local retail: The Prometheus project is taking away 21000 sq. ft. of retail, putting small and very popular
businesses out of business and providing only 7000 sq. ft. of unknown retail! Haven't we learned form the Travigne,
Metropolitan, etc projects that have failed to deliver quality and consistent retail tenancies over the years? Please support
the small businesses in our city and do not allow this project to affect the existing quality businesses.
1
8) On street parking: Taking away the onsite parking at Biltmore is a huge mistake. This will move more cars to the side
residential streets. More new parking spots have recently been added on Rodrigues to deal with this issue. We do not
wish the tenants of apartment buildings to start parking on neighboring residential areas.
9) Loss of surrounding hill side view: As mentioned in item 2 above, this project is too dense and will take away the view
that we look forward too as we return home from work every day. It will take away the Cupertino's visual setting; please do
not allow this to happen. Please do not take away this view from us.
10) Parcel Tax: No need to explain the unfairness of the tax system which is not to the benefit of the home owners. I really
hope that one day the council comes up with a solution to address this by looking at what is already done in other cities
and implement a solution for Cupertino. Apartments put additional burden to our overcrowded schools and do not pay
their share.
11) No benefit to the city from this project: I am afraid I do not see any benefits to the city if this project is approved. This
project will have negative impact on our schools, traffic, safety, environment, air quality, etc. and consumes additional city
resources and changes characteristic of our city for the worst.
Please review the above concerns and do not allow this high density project to get through and deny the application.
Please imagine yourself and your family living at or near this intersection and the impact this project will have on your life.
This project, if approved, will affect the future of Cupertino and its personality and take away a lot from the residents who
live in the surrounding area of this project. Please do not do this to us.
Regards,
Fari Aberg
Concern Cupertino resident
2
8) On street parking: Taking away the onsite parking at Biltmore is a huge mistake. This will move more cars to the side
residential streets. More new parking spots have recently been added on Rodrigues to deal with this issue. We do not
wish the tenants of apartment buildings to start parking on neighboring residential areas.
9) Loss of surrounding hill side view: As mentioned in item 2 above, this project is too dense and will take away the view
that we look forward too as we return home from work every day. It will take away the Cupertino's visual setting; please do
not allow this to happen. Please do not take away this view from us.
10) Parcel Tax: No need to explain the unfairness of the tax system which is not to the benefit of the home owners. I really
hope that one day the council comes up with a solution to address this by looking at what is already done in other cities
and implement a solution for Cupertino. Apartments put additicnal burden to our overcrowded schools and do not pay
their share.
11) No benefit to the city from this project: I am afraid I do not see any benefits to the city if this project is approved. This
project will have negative impact on our schools, traffic, safety, environment, air quality, etc. and consumes additional city
resources and changes characteristic of our city for the worst.
Please review the above concerns and do not allow this high density project to get through and deny the application.
Please imagine yourself and your family living at or near this intersection and the impact this project will have on your life.
This project, if approved, will affect the future of Cupertino and its personality and take away a lot from the residents who
live in the surrounding area of this project. Please do not do this to us.
Regards,
Fari Aberg
Concern Cupertino resident
2
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Mark Matsumoto [markm @cupertiro-chamber.org]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 1:49 PM
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Letter of Support for Item#12
Attachments: Support for Biltmore Adjacency Project.doc
Dear Mayor Mark Santoro and Cupertino City Councilmembers
Please refer to the attached document for a copy of our letter of support for Item#12 on tonight's agenda. We appreciate
you taking the time to review the reasons behind our support for the Biltmore Adjacency Project.
Best Regards,
Mark Matsumoto
Mark Matsumoto, Government Affairs Specialist
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
markm cr cupertino-chamber.orq
(408) 252-7054 x14
20455 Silverado Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
APlease consider the environment before printing this email
1
June 4, 2012
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Mayor Mark Santoro and Cupertino City Council Your Partner In Silicon Valley
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014 Cupertino Chamber of
Commerce
20455 Silverado Avenue
Re: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce support for Biltmore Adjacency Project Cupertino,CA 95014
Tel(408)252-7054
Fax(408)252-0638
Dear Mayor Mark Santoro and Cupertino City Councilmembers, www.cupertino-chamber.org
I am writing to express our support for the mixed use development at Stevens Creek
Blvd and Blaney Ave. 2012 Board of Directors
Board Officers
Housing remains an important issue in the Silicon Valley and is directly tied to our John Zirelli,President
ability to grow in a responsible and sustainable manner.The Silicon Valley Recology South Bay
Leadership Group conducts an annual survey of CEOs representing a wide spectrum
of industries and sectors.When the CEOs were asked to identify the top challenge a to Mike Rohde,i VP Special Events
'Y Vallco Shopping Mall
providing their employees with a high quality of life here,housing costs were
highlighted by 87%of the respondents. Kevin McClelland,VP LAC
Leeward Financial&Insurance
Services
Furthermore,when asked to identify the top challenges to doing business in the
Silicon Valley,63%of the CEOs pointed to"high housing costs for employees."This Matt Wheeler,VP Finance
comes only in second place to employee recruitment and retention challenges (69%). LMGW Public Accountants
Darcy Paul,VP Community
Both these figures are the result of a growing problem in our region,our housing Relations
Law Offices of Darcy August Paul
growth has not matched our job growth. By pushing new and affordable housing to
cities such as Stockton and Gilroy,the housing prices in our employment centers in Lynn Ching,Membership
the Silicon Valley have increased to unaffordable levels. In addition,because of this Development
geographical shift in housing development,we see longer commutes,increased Sustainable Living Group,Inc.
congestion,greater greenhouse gas emission and other negative environmental and Board Members
social impacts. Neil Bhatnagar
BowlMor Lanes
The Biltmore Adjacency project possesses many features of a balanced mixed-use
Yogi Farm
1 Y p ) P Y State Farm Insurance
development that will help address the situation described above for Cupertino and Mike Foulkes
the region.
Apple,Inc.
Tamon Norimoto
PG&E
Discourages urban sprawl-The project discourages urban sprawl and protects Sandy James
open space lands from further development by building up in an already built area. LeHigh Cement Company
Scott Jeng
HSBC Bank USA,N.A.
Promotes Public Transit-The project decreases auto-dependency and promotes Dean Munro
the use of public transit along Stevens Creek Blvd.The project is also located along a Via Services
Mahesh Nihalani
proposed VTA BRT(Bus Rapid Transit) route,which would be a complimentary Jewels in Style
development. Barbara Perzigian
Cupertino Inn
Vicky Tsai
Provides mixed uses within a neighborhood-The project envisions the creation Dry Clean Pro
of a walkable neighborhood with frequently visited services and retail within close Joanne Mansch
proximity to the residences. It embodies one of the City's goals of creating places for Alotta's Delicassen&Catering
y
people to live,work and play.Furthermore,the open community design of the project
promotes pedestrian uses and opportunities for neighbors to interact and gather.
Promotes economic development-As revealed earlier in the CEO survey,building
housing closer to employment centers would encourage the expansion of business
and industries within the region. Furthermore,we are happy to see that extensive
market research informed both the size and design of the proposed retail.The
market research,combined with the fact the developer intends to both build and
oversee managing the property,provides assurances that we are moving forward
with a development that will be successful and viable.
We acknowledge that the increase in density at this site may be followed by an
increase in traffic and other concerns. However,for walkability,environmental and
other reasons listed above,we believe there are many benefits to look forward to as a
result of this project.
We would also like to highlight the analysis done by Chairman Miller and the entire
Planning Commission.To sum up their comments,the selection and approval of this
site for housing came as a result of extensive community outreach and participation
two years ago. While the specifics of this project were not approved,the use and
density of this area were approved. The Commission also pointed to the fact that the
State requires cities to plan for a balance between job creation and housing.We risk
action from the State if we do not respect our Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) obligations.
Thank you for taking the time to consider our comments.We respectfully request
you approve this project as recommended by the Planning Commission on May 8,
2012.
Best regards,
John Zirelli
2012 President
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
- 2 -
CC 614112 At. i2-
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 3:57 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: FW: Biltmore Apartments Expansion
Original Message
From: Doug Frieson [mailto:dlfriesonftmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 3:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Biltmore Apartments Expansion
Dear Councilman,
I am opposed to allowing any apartments to be built that will increase the traffic on Blaney
Ave between Homestead and Stevens Creek Blvd. I live at 10551 N Blaney Ave and I currently
cannot use Blaney, Merritt or Vista in the morning and in the afternoon when parents are
dropping off / picking up their children.
I am also concerned about the potential impact on the quality of our schools. It appears to
me that many young families will do almost anything to get their children into Cupertino
schools. This speaks volumes for the quality of our schools, but I think it may impact that
quality in the long run. I expect that there is a significantly larger percentage of school
age children in apartments than there are in condominiums and/or single family homes in
Cupertino. If so this puts a significantly larger burden on schools that is not being paid
for by property and other related taxes.
I know apartments are needed for young working adults, especially in Cupertino, and I believe
there is a simple solution -- only rent the new apartments to adults without school age
children. Additionally, I think you need to put an emphasis on building affordable
condominiums for young adults with school age children
Thank you for serving our city.
Doug Frieson
1
cc._ 6 /1itz_ # l2-
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:05 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: FW: Biltmore Adjacency
From: Bena Chang [mailto:bchang(asvIg.orq]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:03 PM
To: Rod Sinks
Subject: Biltmore Adjacency
Dear Councilmember Sinks,
I understand that the Council will be considering the Biltmore Adjacency proposal today at your council
meeting.
While the Leadership Group has not had the time to take an official position on this proposal, we think the plan
is intriguing and would encourage you to consider it.
Silicon Valley is in need of more homes, especially as the economy rebounds and additional jobs come to the
Valley. I understand that the sites in this proposal have already been identified in the City's housing element as
future housing sites.
Again, we hope that you will take a look at this site for future homes (and retail).
Bena
Bena Chang
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Senior Associate, Housing & Transportation
2001 Gateway Place, Suite 101E
San Jose, CA 95110
Phone: (408) 501-7870
Fax: (408) 501-7861
www.svlg.net
Learn and join Santa Clara County's community effort to support
quality housing and development in our valley at
WWW.HACSCC.ORG
Fan us on Facebook
1
CC_ 6 (4 /12 4P ( 2._
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:25 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: FW: Build 87 more apartments
From: Ping Ding [mailto:dingyiyahotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:25 PM
To: City Council; Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong; Karen B. Guerin
Subject: Build 87 more apartments
Dear City Council members,
I am the residence of Cupertino, my house is on N. Blaney ave. I really concern about building 87 more apartments. I
think it is a really bad idea for the community. Blaney ave is a small street, it is already too busy compared to its size.
Please walk on the street in the morning around 8:30am!
As a mom for two little kids, I need to take care of my kids' safety. Can't image if 87 apartments are built, how busy the
blaney ave will be? It is really bad for kids' safety.
Please consider the safety of the whole community, please consider the future of the kids, please cancel the proposal!
Thanks!
Ping