7/11/2022 9:12 AM
General Planning Application
City of Cupertino
Project Site Address:
10145 N DeAnza Blvd., &
10118-
10122 Bandley Drive, Cupertino CA 95014
Project Name:
Marina Plaza
(“Project”)
City Document
Community Devel
opment Department A
pril 29, 2022
DeAnza Venture LLC Checklist Item
Original Applicati
on
Item 1
7. Density Bonus
, revised 7/22/22
See the attached letter dated March 23, 2022
along with an
Addendum
dated July 18,
2022 from Erik
Ramakrishnan, Berline
r Cohen, 10 Almaden
Boulevard, 11
th Floor San
Jose CA 95113 (the Letter”)
, responding
to Item 1
7. Density Bonus
.
Attached to this Letter
are reduced copies of the following Sheets which are referenced in the Letter.
The reduced sheets are:
• A3.2 1st Floor (Courtyard)
Affordable Unit Plan
• A3.3 2nd
Floor Affordable Unit Plan
• A3.4 3rd
Floor Affordable Unit Plan
• A3.5 4th
Floor Affordable Unit Plan
• A1.0A
Setback Encroachment Plan
• A1.0D 45’ Height Affected Area –
Plans/Sections
These same sheets are included in
the full-size version of
the building plans submitted
as part of the Project application.
TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD
ELEVENTH FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-2233
TELEPHONE: (408) 286-5800
FACSIMILE: (408) 998-5388
www.berliner.com
Branch Offices
Merced, CA • Modesto, CA
____________ ____________
FOUNDERS
SANFORD A. BERLINER (d. 2020)
SAMUEL J. COHEN
OF COUNSEL
STEVEN L. HALLGRIMSON
FRANK R. UBHAUS
RALPH J. SWANSON
NANCY L. BRANDT
LESLIE KALIM McHUGH
BRADLEY HEBERT
ERIC D. CAPRON
BRUCE J. HENDRICKS
STUART B. SPENCER
July 18, 2022
Jeffrey Tsumura
Associate Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Marina Plaza Housing Development Project Application Ad d end um to Affordable Housing Plan and Density Bonus Report, Checklist Item Nos. 11 & 17 10118-10122 Bradley Dr. & 10145 De Anza Bvld. (APN 326-34-043 & -066)
Dear Mr. Tsumura:
This letter is on behalf of Larry Wang (the “Applicant”), the applicant for the above referenced housing development project (the “Project”). The letter supplements the March 23, 2022 Affordable Housing Plan and Density Bonus Report for the Project attached hereto as Exhibit A.1 The primary purpose of this letter is to respond to Comment No. 18 in the City’s April 29, 2022 incomplete letter for the Project, which states: “It appears that some areas designated as common open space includes areas and portions of hallways for circulation (see screenshots of two areas below). Please address and revise as necessary.” This letter also amends certain information identified on page 5 of the March 23, 2022 letter regarding parking for the Project.
1 Page 5 of Exhibit A is not an identical copy to that provided with the original March 23, 2022 letter. As indicated in greater detail below, the original page 5 contained minor errors in describing parking ratios for the Project, which have been corrected. No other changes were made to the March 23, 2022 letter in Exhibit A. 4888-3755-3446v2
ERAMAKRISHNAN\29621001
ANDREW L. FABER
PEGGY L. SPRINGGAY
SAMUEL L. FARB
JAMES P. CASHMAN
STEVEN J. CASAD
NANCY J. JOHNSON
JEROLD A. REITON
JONATHAN D. WOLF
KATHLEEN K. SIPLE
KEVIN F. KELLEY
MARK MAKIEWICZ
JOLIE HOUSTON
BRIAN L. SHETLER
HARRY A. LOPEZ
CHARLES W. VOLPE
CHRISTINE H. LONG
AARON M. VALENTI
CHRISTIAN E. PICONE
SUSAN E. BISHOP
SANDRA G. SEPÚLVEDA
MICHAEL B. IJAMS
KIMBERLY G. FLORES
DAWN C. SWEATT
TYLER A. SHEWEY
JAMES F. LANDRUM, JR.
MICHAEL J. CHENG
EILEEN P. KENNEDY
JOSHUA BORGER
BENJAMIN M. JOHNSON
STEPHEN C. SCORDELIS
C. DAVID SPENCE
THOMAS P. MURPHY
ALESHIA M. WHITE
DENNIS CHIN
EDWARD C. HSU
ALEXANDRIA N. NGUYEN
ANDREW J. DIGNAN
ERIK RAMAKRISHNAN
LEILA N. SOCKOLOV
TIMOTHY K. BOONE
ANGELA SHAW
DAVID A. BELLUMORI
MARY T. NGUYEN
ELLEN M. TAYLOR
NATHAN C. BRADY
BRANDON L. REBBOAH
LINDSAY I. WALCZAK
IRIS C. CHIU
MAKAYLA A. WHITNEY
MARISA J. MARTINSON
MARIA I. PALOMARES
BENJAMIN H. WOHLFORD
KEVIN S. LANDIS
TIFFANY A. SCOGGIN
CHRISTIAN D. WICK
STACEY A. MACIAS
JENNIFER N. WISE
SAM ATABAY BIDGOLI
-2-4888-3755-3446v2
ERAMAKRISHNAN\29621001
Jeffrey Tsumura
July 18, 2022
Comment No. 18
The applicable objective standard referenced in Comment No. 18 appears to be the common open space standard for residential projects found at Section 1.01.040.C.2 of the Heart of the City Specific Plan, which requires a minimum of 150 square feet of common open space per unit. Nothing in the standard expressly indicates that courtyard areas needed for circulation cannot be included in this area. As explained in a separate letter from this firm included in the Applicant’s resubmission, and as stated in Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(4), the City is required to find that the Project is consistent with the City’s standards “if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the Project is consistent. Because the specific plan does not preclude use of circulation areas in the calculation of common open space, a reasonable person could conclude that the Project is consistent with the City’s open space standards, and the City should therefore find that the Project meets the standard.
Even if the Specific Plan specified that circulation areas cannot count toward common open space, the Applicant is entitled to a waiver from the open space standard. As explained in Exhibit A, citing Government Code Section 65915(e) and Bank ers H ill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.4th 755, 774, once an applicant proposes a project at the allowed density that qualifies for a density bonus, the City is required to waive any standard that physically precludes the project.
Here, if circulation areas are excluded, additional square footage is required as common open space. As explained in the memorandum from the Applicant attached to this letter as Exhibit B, providing that additional square footage would require the removal of five units from the Project.
Therefore, enforcing the common open space requirement as the City construes it would physically preclude construction of the Project at the proposed density, and a waiver must be granted. Such a waiver is hereby requested, in addition to the two waivers from height and setback requirements that were previously requested in the Density Bonus Report attached as Exhibit A.
Parking
Information about parking ratios contained in the March 23, 2022 letter is hereby amended as follows, strikethrough indicating deletions and underlined text indicating additions:
The Project also incorporates the parking ratios set forth in Government Code Section 65915(p), as follows:
• The Project is required to provide one parking space per one- bedroom unit and 1.5 parking spaces per two- or three-
bedroom unit.
• The Project proposes 10 nine one-bedroom units, requiring 10 nine parking spaces.
• The Project proposes 196 197 two- and three- bedroom units, requiring 294 296 parking spaces, for a total of 304 305 spaces to serve the residential component of the Project.
Jeffrey Tsumura
July 18, 2022
-3-4888-3755-3446v2
ERAMAKRISHNAN\29621001
• The Project exceeds this requirement by proposing 367 338 residential parking spaces.
For ease of reference, this information has been edited in Exhibit A. Please let me know if you have any questions about these edits.
Very Truly Yours,
BERLINER COHEN, LLP
ERIK RAMAKRISHNAN
[email protected]
4888-3755-3446v1
ERAMAKRISHNAN\29621001
Exhibit A
March 23, 2022 Affordable Housing Plan
and Density Bonus Report
4872-3699-5861v5
ERAMAKRISHNAN\29621001
TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD
ELEVENTH FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-2233
TELEPHONE: (408) 286-5800
FACSIMILE: (408) 998-5388
www.berliner.com
Branch Offices
Merced, CA • Modesto, CA
____________ ____________
FOUNDERS
SANFORD A. BERLINER (d. 2020)
SAMUEL J. COHEN
OF COUNSEL
STEVEN L. HALLGRIMSON
FRANK R. UBHAUS
RALPH J. SWANSON
NANCY L. BRANDT
LESLIE KALIM McHUGH
BRADLEY HEBERT
ERIC D. CAPRON
BRUCE J. HENDRICKS
STUART B. SPENCER
March 23, 2022
Community Development Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95104
Re: Marina Plaza Housing Development Project Application Af f ordable Housing Plan and Density Bonus Report, Checklist Item Nos. 11 & 17 10118-10122 Bradley Dr. & 10145 De Anza Bvld. (APN 326-34-043 & -066) To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is on behalf of applicant Larry Wang (the “Applicant”)1 in support of its entitlement application f or a housing development project at the Marina Plaza shopping center (the “Project”). This letter is responsive to Item Nos. 11 (Af f ordable Housing Plan) and 17 (Density Bonus Report) in the City’s housing development project application checklist (the “Checklist”).
Project Overview
In addition to proposing commercial uses approximately equal in size to existing commercial f loor space, the Project proposes 206 residential units, with a base density of 179 units calculated based upon a base density of 35 du/ac at 5.11 gross acres.2 Of the total 206 units, the 1 Larry Wang is an architect with Tectonic Builders Corporation. He is the project architect and is also the project applicant on behalf of De Anza Venture, LLC; Cupertino 10145, LLC; and Marina Plaza, LLC. Marina Plaza, LLC and Cupertino 10145, LLC are the owners of the project site, and De Anza Venture, LLC was f ormed as a joint venture among the property owners f or the purpose of cooperating in seeking project entitlements. 2 Density f or purposes of a density bonus is calculated based upon dwelling units per gross acre. See Gov. Code, § 65915(f ); see also HCD Technical Assistance Letter to Encinitas, dated March 25, 2021, available here:
(Continued)
ANDREW L. FABER
PEGGY L. SPRINGGAY
SAMUEL L. FARB
JAMES P. CASHMAN
STEVEN J. CASAD
NANCY J. JOHNSON
JEROLD A. REITON
JONATHAN D. WOLF
KATHLEEN K. SIPLE
KEVIN F. KELLEY
MARK MAKIEWICZ
JOLIE HOUSTON
BRIAN L. SHETLER
HARRY A. LOPEZ
CHARLES W. VOLPE
CHRISTINE H. LONG
AARON M. VALENTI
CHRISTIAN E. PICONE
SUSAN E. BISHOP
SANDRA G. SEPÚLVEDA
MICHAEL B. IJAMS
KIMBERLY G. FLORES
DAWN C. SWEATT
TYLER A. SHEWEY
JAMES F. LANDRUM, JR.
MICHAEL J. CHENG
EILEEN P. KENNEDY
JOSHUA BORGER
BENJAMIN M. JOHNSON
STEPHEN C. SCORDELIS
C. DAVID SPENCE
THOMAS P. MURPHY
ALESHIA M. WHITE
DENNIS CHIN
EDWARD C. HSU
ALEXANDRIA N. NGUYEN
ANDREW J. DIGNAN
ERIK RAMAKRISHNAN
LEILA N. SOCKOLOV
TIMOTHY K. BOONE
ANGELA SHAW
DAVID A. BELLUMORI
MARY T. NGUYEN
ELLEN M. TAYLOR
NATHAN C. BRADY
BRANDON L. REBBOAH
LINDSAY I. WALCZAK
LEA M. NEMETH
IRIS C. CHIU
MAKAYLA A. WHITNEY
MARISA J. MARTINSON
MARIA I. PALOMARES
BENJAMIN H. WOHLFORD
KEVIN S. LANDIS
CHRISTIAN D. WICK
JENNIFER N. WISE
SAM ATABAY BIDGOLI
Community Development Department
March 23, 2022
-2-4872-3699-5861v5
ERAMAKRISHNAN\29621001
Project will provide 36 Below Market Rate (“BMR”) units, or 20% of base density (35.8 units), rounded up to the nearest whole number. Of these 36 BMR units, 18 BMR units will be available to moderate-income households at a moderate-income sales price (the “Moderate Units”), and 18 BMR units will be available to median-income households at a median-income sales price, in both cases as calculated by the City (the “Median Units”).
Providing 20% of base units as Moderate Units (including Median Units) in a f or-sale development entitles the project to a 15% density bonus, pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(f )(4). Fif teen percent of the base density of 179 units is 26.85 units. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(f )(5), this number should round up to 27 bonus units, to yield a total of 206 units in the Project.
The location of the BMR units has been chosen with two goals in mind: (1) to spread the units throughout the Project, and (2) to ensure comparability of size and unit type between the BMR units and market rate units. With respect to distribution throughout the Project, please ref er to Sheets A3.2 to A3.5 in the plan set, which may be summarized as f ollows:
• First Floor:
o Building A: One Median Unit.
o Building B: Four Median Units, Two Moderate Units.
o Building C: One Median Unit, One Moderate Unit.
• Second Floor:
o Building A: Two Median Units, One Moderate Unit.
o Building B: One Median Unit, Three Moderate Units.
o Building C: Two Median Units, One Moderate Unit.
• Third Floor:
o Building A: One Median Unit, One Moderate Unit.
o Building B: Three Median Units, Two Moderate Units.
o Building C: Two Median Units, Two Moderate Units.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sdiencinitas-nov-densitybonus- 03252021.pdf.
Community Development Department
March 23, 2022
-3-4872-3699-5861v5
ERAMAKRISHNAN\29621001
• Fourth Floor:
o Building A: One Median Unit, Two Moderate Units.
o Building B: Not applicable. Building B has only three f loors. o Building C: Three Moderate Units.
With respect to comparability of unit size, please ref er to the f ollowing table:
Average Bedroom Count Average Gross Area
Overall 2.4 Bedrooms 1,304 SF
Moderate Units 2.4 Bedrooms 1,307 SF
Median Units 2.4 Bedrooms 1,301 SF
The Project is eligible f or two concessions/incentives, pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d)(2)(B). At this time, the Project does not propose any concession/incentive, but the Applicant reserves the right to modif y the project to take advantage of concessions/incentives, if necessary or appropriate. As explained in f urther detail below, the Project proposes to take advantage of the parking ratios set f orth in Government Code Section 65915(p). Finally, the Project requires two waivers, including the f ollowing:
• An exception to the 45-f oot height requirement per Section 1.01.030 of the Heart of the City Specif ic Plan (the “Height Requirement”), as illustrated in Sheet A1.0D of the plan set.
Sheet A1.01D depicts the 30 units that would be lost if the Height Requirement were enf orced, which includes the entire f ourth f loors of Buildings A and C. • An exception in three locations, as shown in Sheet A1.0A of the plan set, to the side setback requirement at Section 1.01.030.C of the Heart of the City Specif ic Plan (the “Side Setback Requirement”). If the Side Setback Requirement were enf orced, the Project would lose a combined total of approximately eight units per f loor in Buildings A and C, f or an overall total of at least 30 units.
Checklist Item No. 11: Affordable Housing Plan
The Checklist states that the Af f ordable Housing Plan shall describe how the Project “will comply with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Program requirements set f orth in the BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual.”3 The f ollowing is a discussion of how the Project complies with each of the chapters in the City’s BMR Manual:
3 The BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual is ref erred in this letter to the “BMR Manual.” Community Development Department
March 23, 2022
-4-4872-3699-5861v5
ERAMAKRISHNAN\29621001
• Chapter 1 (Introduction): Not applicable.
• Chapter 2 (Housing Mitigation Program):
o Section 2.3.1 requires that f or-sale projects shall provide 50% of required BMR units as Moderate Units and 50% as Median Units. The Project meets this requirement by proposing 18 Moderate Units and 18 Median Units, as set f orth above. o Section 2.3.2.A requires that where the number of BMR units required by a project results in a f ractional unit between 0.5 and 0.99, then the number of BMR units shall be rounded up. As indicated above and under the discussion below regarding Chapter 4 of the BMR Manual, the Project’s BMR obligation is 20% of base density, which equals 35.8 units.
Theref ore, per Section 2.3.2.A, the Project proposes 36 BMR units. o Section 2.3.3 requires the Applicant to submit an af f ordable housing plan. This letter, together with the pages of the plan set identif ied in it, which are hereby incorporated into this letter by ref erence, sets f orth the Project’s af f ordable housing plan. o The BMR units will comply with Section 2.3.4 pursuant to conditions of approval and an Af f ordable Housing Agreement with the City. The BMR units will be dispersed throughout the Project and of comparable size and bedroom count with the market rate units, as discussed in the Project Overview above.
o The Applicant understands its obligations pursuant to Sections 2.3.5, 2.3.6, and 2.3.7 to price the BMR units at an af f ordable sales price and to guaranty their long-term af f ordability pursuant to an Af f ordable Housing Agreement with the City and resale agreements governing individual units f or the required term of 99 years. • Chapter 3 (Mitigation Requirements f or Non-Residential Developments): This chapter requires payment of a commercial linkage f ee f or non-residential space within the Project.
The Project proposes commercial space roughly equal in size to the existing shopping center, so that the Applicant does not anticipate owing commercial linkage f ees. If f ees are due, they will be paid at the appropriate time pursuant to conditions of project approval. • Chapter 4 (Mitigation Requirements of Ownership Residential Developments): This chapter requires 20% of base density in ownership projects to be provided as BMR units, as indicated above in the discussion regarding Chapter 2. Twenty percent of 179 units is 35.8 units. The Project proposes 36 BMR units to meet this requirement, half of which will be Moderate Units and half of which will be Median Units. Theref ore, the inclusionary requirement will be met.
• Chapter 5 (Mitigation Requirements of Rental Residential Developments): Not applicable.
The housing units in the development will be ownership units. • Chapter 6 (Mitigation Requirements f or Mixed-Use Projects): Because the Project is a mixed-use project, the Applicant acknowledges that Chapter 6 requires the Project to comply Community Development Department
March 23, 2022
-5-4872-3699-5861v5
ERAMAKRISHNAN\29621001
with the requirements of both Chapters 3 (Non-Residential Developments) and 4 (Ownership Residential Developments).
• Chapter 7 (Alternatives to BMR Requirements): Not applicable. The Project does not propose any alternative to meeting the City’s BMR requirements. • Chapter 8 (City Incentives): The Project requests a density bonus, and the Applicant welcomes any additional incentives the City may be willing to provide.
Checklist Item No. 17: Density Bonus Report
The Project proposes an increase of 27 bonus units pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, as outlined above in the Project Overview. Note that this Project site does not include any existing or f ormer housing units, so that no replacement housing requirements apply to the Project.
The Project also incorporates the parking ratios set f orth in Government Code Section 65915(p), as f ollows:
• The Project is required to provide one parking space per one-bedroom unit and 1.5 parking spaces per two- or three-bedroom unit.
• The Project proposes nine one-bedroom units, requiring nine parking spaces. • The Project proposes 19 7 two- and three-bedroom units, requiring 29 6 parking spaces, f or a total of 305 parking spaces total to serve the residential component of the project. • The Project exceeds this requirement by proposing 338 residential parking spaces.
The f ollowing discussion addresses Item Nos. 17.a to 17.d of the Checklist:
Item No. 17.a (location and square f ootage of units that qualif y the project f or a density bonus): Please see the discussion in the Project Overview above as well as Sheets A3.2 to A3.5 in the plan set.
Item No. 17.b (location and square f ootage of the density bonus units): Nothing in Government Code Section 65915 requires applicants to identif y or distinguish between base units and those units being granted pursuant to the density bonus. Moreover, the statutory scheme does not lend itself well to making such a distinction because it is the actual Project proposed that is under review and not a hypothetical project that does not qualify f or a density bonus. Nonetheless, in an attempt to satisf y this application requirement, the Applicant hereby identif ies as bonus units the market rate units on the f ourth f loors of Buildings A and C since those f loors could not be constructed without a density bonus. The f ourth f loors of Buildings A and C are proposed to include a total of 24 market rate units, which are labeled with square f ootage indicated in Sheet A3.5 of the plan set. To arrive at a total of 27 density bonus units, the Applicant also identif ies Units A-305, A-306, and A-307, which are market rate units on the third f loor of Building A that Community Development Department
March 23, 2022
-6-4872-3699-5861v5
ERAMAKRISHNAN\29621001
could not be constructed without a density bonus because of the Side Setback Requirement. These units are labeled with square f ootage indicated in Sheet A3.4 of the plan set.
Item No. 17.c (concessions/incentives): None requested at this time.
Item No. 17.d (justif ication of requested waivers): Government Code Section 65915(e) states that the local agency shall waive any applicable development standard that would have the ef f ect of physically precluding the Project unless the City f inds that the waiver would violate state or f ederal law or would have a signif icant and unmitigable impact on public health or saf ety, as def ined in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2).
Recently, the standard f or considering waiver requests was interpreted by the court in Bank ers H ill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755 (“Bankers H ill”). In Bank ers H ill, the applicant f or a housing development project that was approved by the City of San Diego sought various concessions/incentives and waivers f or a project that qualif ied f or a density bonus.
Neighborhood groups challenged the approval, including on the ground that a height waiver f or the project should have been denied because the project could have been redesigned with a smaller courtyard to avoid the need f or the waiver.
According to the court, the city lacked discretion to deny the waiver because once the applicant “established its eligibility f or the density bonus …, it was entitled to a waiver of any development standards that would preclude construction” of the proposed project unless the city could make f indings of a specif ic, adverse impact on public health or saf ety, or unless granting the waiver would violate state or f ederal law. (Bank ers H ill, p. 774.) Citing earlier caselaw, the court explained that: “Standards may be waived that physically preclude construction of a housing development meeting the requirements f or a density bonus, period. [Citation.] The statute does not say that what must be precluded is a project with no amenities, or that amenities may not be the reason a waiver is needed.” (I d. at p. 775, emphasis added.) Stated dif f erently, the applicant’s burden to justif y a waiver is to show that under Government Code Section 65915, the project qualif ies f or the density proposed, and that the project cannot be constructed as proposed unless a waiver is granted. If the applicant meets this burden, the burden shif ts to the local agency to identif y a signif icant, adverse impact on public health or saf ety or a violation of state or f ederal law. The applicant is not required to consider or propose alternative projects that attempt to achieve the same density without the waivers sought.
As indicated above in the Project Overview, the Project requires waivers of the Height Requirement and the Side Setback Requirement. The Height Requirement af f ects the Project’s ability to provide approximately 30 of the proposed units, and the Side Setback Requirement also af f ects the Project’s ability to provide approximately 30 of the proposed units. The Project qualif ies f or a density bonus with a maximum density of 206 units. The Applicant has designed a project with 206 units. The development standards f rom which waivers are sought would physically preclude construction of the Project. Thus, the Project is entitled to be granted waivers f rom those standards unless the City makes the f indings f or denial articulated above. The Applicant is unaware of any circumstance that would justif y f indings f or denial.
Community Development Department
March 23, 2022
-7-4872-3699-5861v5
ERAMAKRISHNAN\29621001
For the f oregoing reasons, the Project complies with the requirements of the City’s BMR Manual, and it qualif ies f or a density bonus and associated parking reductions and waivers. Please let me know if I can assist you f urther in understanding the Project.
Very truly yours,
BERLINER COHEN, LLP
ERIK RAMAKRISHNAN
E-Mail: [email protected]
4888-3755-3446v1
ERAMAKRISHNAN\29621001
Exhibit B
Applicant’s Memorandum Dated June 16, 2022
-1- 4865-0482-9221v1
NON-BC\29621001
M EMORANDUM
TO: Erik Ramakrishnan, Esq.
FROM: Larry Wang, AIA
Architect, Tectonic Builders Corp.
RE: Marina Plaza Shopping Center – Impact on Project of Providing Additional Open Space
CC: Greg Endom
DATE: June 16, 2022
The City of Cupertino construes the term “common open space” in the Heart of the City Specific Plan to exclude outdoor areas that provide space for ingress and egress. Under this interpretation, as currently designed the project does not provide adequate common open space. You requested an architectural opinion of the effect of providing additional common open space on the unit count in the absence of concessions and waivers.
Regarding the Common Open Space, our current design is 634 sf short on what is required by the city. The City requires 150sf per 1 dwelling unit hence it requires 30,900 SF for the total of 206 units. Our current plans provide 30,266 SF.
The 634 SF shortage is distributed as such, 319 sf on building A, 217 sf on building B and 98 sf on building C ( see chart below)
UNIT # FACTOR
COMMON OPEN
SPACE
R EQUIR ED
COMMON OPEN
SPACE
PR OVIDED SUR PLUS
BUILDING A 56 150sf/1 8,400 sf 8,081 sf -319 sf
BUILDING B 86 150sf/1 12,900 sf 12,683 sf -217 sf
BUILDING C 64 150sf/1 9,600 sf 9,502 sf -98 sf
SUM 206 30,900 30,266 sf -634 sf
This shortfall in open space will require us to remove a total of five (5) units from the project (Bldg. A– 3 units, Bldg. B- 2 units, and Bldg. C- 1 unit)
27'-0"
35'-0"
A A
A A
BBB B
3 CY
4 CY
4 CY
4 CY
3 CY
4 CY
4 CY
2 CY
2 CY
2 CY
2 CY
27'-0"
35'-0"
22'-6"
35'-0"
35'-0"
10'-0"
22'-6"
10'-0"
10'-0"
3 CY
3 CY
3 CY
3 CY
4 CY 4 CY
4 CY
4 CY
4 CY
4 CY 4 CY
28'-6"
0 1206030
SETBACK
ENCROACHMENT PLAN
PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 30'
N
A1.0A
10145 DE ANZA BLVD. AND 10122 BANDLEY DR. CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 7-01-22
10118 Bandley Dr. #E
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-216-0804
JOB NO.
DATE
De Anza Venture, LLC
MARINA PLAZA
Tectonic Architects & Associates
LOBBY
LOBBY
TRASH
TRASH
TRASH
LOBBY
RETAIL/
RESTAURANT C103RETAIL/
RESTAURANT C100
RETAIL C104
RETAIL/
RESTAURANT C101
RETAIL C102 RETAIL/
RESTAURANT C103
RETAIL/
RESTAURANT B101
RETAIL/
RESTAURANT B100
RETAIL B106
RETAIL/
RESTAURANT B105
RETAIL B104
RETAIL B103
RETAIL B102
RETAIL B107
RETAIL B108
RETAIL A100
RETAIL/CAFE A104
RETAIL A102 RETAIL A103RETAIL A101
RETAIL B109
COMMUNITY
ROOM B110
RETAIL
C105
ELEC.
MECH
FIRE RM
ELEC
ELEC
MECH
RETAIL A105
GAS METER
GAS METER
GAS METER
ELEC
MOTORCYCLE
MOTORCYCLE
SETBACK
SETBACK
SETBACK
SETBACK
SETBACK
SETBACK
SETBACK
SETBACKSETBACK
(E) ADJACENT
BUILDING
(E) ADJACENT
BUILDING
(E) ADJACENT
BUILDING
(E) BUILDING
(E) ADJACENT
BUILDING
(E) ADJACENT
BUILDING
SETBACK
SETBACK
BUILDING C
BUILDING B
BUILDING A
STEVENS CREEK BLVD.
ALVES DR.
BANDLEY DR.
N. DE ANZA BLVD
ENCROACHMENT AREA
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL &
SALE OFFICE
LOBBY
TRANS.
TRANS.
TRANS.
TRANS.
6' HEIGHT
LOW WALLTRASH
ENCLOSURE
C
BUILDING C
COURTYARD
RETAIL PARKING
45'-0"
4 3
2 1
4 3
2 1
RESIDENTIAL
14'-0" 14'-0"
55'-0"
10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 3'-0"
GROUND FLOOR
238.5'
HIGHEST ADJACENT
GRADE 240.5
10'-0"
4TH FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
2ND FLOOR
1ST FLOOR
BASEMENT
EL: 238.5'
EL: 224.5'
ROOF DECK
PARAPET
PROP. LINE
24'-6"
SETBACK
A
PARKING RETAIL
BUILDING A
COURTYARD
PARKING
THE MAIN
PASEO
45'-0"
4 3
2 1
4 3
2 1
RESIDENTIAL
3 2
1 B
13'-3 1/2" 14'-0"
58'-8"
10'-0" 10'-0"
GROUND FLOOR
236.38'
10'-0" 10'-0"
DE ANZA BLVD.
PARAPET
ROOF DECK
4TH FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
2ND FLOOR
1ST FLOOR
BASEMENT EL: 223.20'
EL: 235.88'HIGHEST ADJACENT
GRADE 234.75'
3'-0"
PROP. LINE
FACE OF CURB
35'-0"
SETBACK
@ DE ANZA BLVD.
96-GAL
96-GAL
27'-6"
35'-0"
27'-6"
35'-0"
22'-6"
35'-0"
35'-0"
10'-0"
22'-6"
10'-0"
28'-6"
2 2
11 A1.0D
10145 DE ANZA BLVD. AND 10122 BANDLEY DR. CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 2-24-22
10118 Bandley Dr. #E
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-216-0804
JOB NO.
DATE
De Anza Venture, LLC
MARINA PLAZA
Tectonic Architects & Associates
3 1 /16" = 1'-0"
BUILDING C 45' MAX HEIGHT AFFACTED AREA
SECTION 2-2
1 BUILDING A & B 4TH FLOOR PLAN
45' MAX HEIGHT AFFECTED AREA
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK
LEGEND
BUILDING C
4TH RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR
BUILDING A
4TH RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR
BUILDING B
ROOF PLAN
45' MAX HEIGHT
AFFECTED AREA
ALVES DR.
N. DE ANZA BLVD
BANDLEY DR.
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK
LEGEND
45' MAX HEIGHT
AFFECTED AREA
PLANS / SECTIONS
2 1 /16" = 1'-0"
BUILDING A 45' MAX HEIGHT AFFACTED AREA
SECTION 1-1
45' MAX HEIGHT
AFFECTED AREA
45' MAX HEIGHT
AFFECTED AREA