101-Staff Report.pdf
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777--planning@cupertino.org
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 2 Agenda Date: June 28, 2011
Application: MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Location: Citywide
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28, Single Family Residential Zones, for a limited review of
the requirements for sloped single-family residential lots, the two-story design review process, public
noticing and story poles.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1.Recommend to the City Council, amendments to Chapter 19.28, Single-Family Residential Zones
related to:
Two-story design review process
Public noticing requirements
Story pole requirements
Standards for lots with slopes
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take straw votes for each of these items before
combining them into a final recommendation for the Council.
BACKGROUND
On February 15, 2011, when reviewing the City’s Development Permit Process Review project, the City
Council initiated a limited review of the Single Family Residential (R1) Ordinance related to the two-
story design review process, public noticing, and story poles based on comments provided by the
Planning Commission subcommittee on February 14, 2011 (Attachment 2).
On April 6, 2010, the Council had approved the review of standards of lots sloped between 15% and 30%
in the Single-Family Residential (R1) zone as part of the FY 2010-11 work program. Since both projects
required a review of the Single-Family Residential (R1) zone, the two projects have been combined.
Community Workshop
A citywide community workshop was held to get comments from residents, builders and architects. On
May 17, 2011, citywide notices were mailed out to property owners, builders and architects to announce
the community workshop on May 24, 2011. Fifteen residents and developers/architects, as well as all
five Planning Commissioners attended the workshop. The workshop provided the attendees information
MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011
on the key topics being reviewed and the opportunity to discuss ordinance options in order to streamline
the development process. Workshop attendees were also asked to fill out a questionnaire (Attachment 3)
on the potential ordinance amendment options and provide comments. See Attachment 4 for a tally of
the attendee responses and comments and Attachment 5 for a summary of comments and questions
from the workshop discussion.
Improving Readability, Consistency, and Effectiveness
In order to improve consistency between past ordinance revisions and improve readability of the
existing ordinance, staff has revised the ordinance (Attachment 6) to:
Implement the use of tables to reduce repetition and optimize readability. The Sign Ordinance is an
example of where this was done.
The existing Two-Story Design Principles, which are an appendix to the ordinance, have been
revised to make them more user-friendly (see Attachment 7)
Staff would like to note that the reformatted version does not include any amendments to the ordinance.
It merely reformats it into a more user-friendly document.
DISCUSSION
Single-Family Ordinance History
The Single-Family Residential Ordinance was enacted in 1971 and has undergone a number of changes
in recent years. Here are some key points related to the ordinance amendments being discussed in this
report (for greater detail regarding the ordinance amendments, see Attachment 8):
Beginning in 1999, the City initiated a two-story design review process and noticing procedures for
single-family residential planning projects;
Also beginning in 1999, the City applied Residential Hillside (RHS) standards to single-family
residential lots with slopes 30% or greater;
In 2007, the City revised the ordinance to only apply select hillside standards to 18 sloped single-
family residential lots in a specific geographical area
Since 2005, story poles have been required for all two-story projects
Options for Ordinance Amendments
Based on experience with the single-family residential review process, analysis, public comments
received during the public workshop as well as previous comments at the Development Permit Process
workshops, staff has put together options for each of the four issues under consideration. Each section
includes a brief discussion of the options; advantages and disadvantages of each; public comments
received; and other pertinent policy implications. It should be noted that keeping the current ordinance
is provided as an option in all the discussions. As noted earlier, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission take straw votes on each section prior to making a final recommendation to the City
Council.
Comparison with Neighboring Communities
Staff also looked at similar processes in six neighboring communities. These communities include
Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Los Gatos, Palo Alto and San Jose. These communities were
chosen because they all have a mix of commercial and residential zones as opposed to communities
whose only focus is residential development. Each section below also has a discussion of how other
communities approach the review process.
MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011
CityTwo-Story Noticing Noticing Story Poles Maximum Total
Design Radius Materials FAR
Review
San JoseNo ---- --45%, up to 65%
with planning
approval
Santa Clara No ---- --45%
Sunnyvale Yes 200 feetMailed notice, --45% or 3,600
site sign square feet,
whichever is
more restrictive;
or more with
public hearing
Palo Alto Yes Adjacent Mailed notice, --45%
site sign
Los GatosYesAdjacent and MailednoticeBasedon lot
across the size, generally
street 35-40%
Mountain View No ---- --Basedon lot
size, generally
40-50%
I.Single-Family Residential Two-Story Design Review
Currently, all two-story projects require planning applications and are reviewed at staff level for
conformance to the Single-Family Residential Ordinance development standards and two-story
guidelines through a two-story planning permit. Each project is also assessed to ensure a reasonable
level of visual compatibility with the neighborhood. Projects with second to first floor ratios of 45% or
less have less restrictive requirements while projects with second to first floor ratios greater than 45%
require compliance with more stringent two-story design principles as well as the City Architectural
Consultant review. All two-story projects require neighbor notification with a two-week public comment
period. There is a two-week appeal period after the Community Development Director’s decision is
made.
Design Review Discussion
Based on experience with single-family residential design review, the two issues that appear to be of
greatest concern to neighbors are visual impacts related to larger second stories and privacy impacts of
second story windows and balconies. Experience with the design review process shows that neighbors
are most concerned when homes are proposed with larger second stories (above 45% second to first
story ratio) than with those that propose smaller second stories. Second story windows that are proposed
close to neighboring homes also typically generate comments from neighbors. When second story
windows have larger side setbacks (15 feet and greater), there is more space to plant privacy planting
and address privacy issues.
A review of neighboring communities shows that about half of them do not require design review of
two-story homes, while the other half do.
Most of the public comments received at the workshops appeared to be mixed with a larger percentage
of the public favoring the current process. However, if the Commission wishes to focus on issues that
typically appear to be of most concern to the public, the following recommendations and options could
MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011
be considered.
Options for Design Review:
1.Require design review only for:
a.Homes with second stories larger than 45% of the first story; and/or homes that propose second
story windows with less than a 15-foot setback from the property line (windows with sill heights
of greater than five feet from the finished second floor; obscured, non-openable windows;
windows with permanent, exterior louvers up to six feet above the finished floor; and/or
skylights would not be required to go through a review).
All other two-story projects would not be required to submit a planning application or notify the
neighbors. They could apply directly for a building permit but would be reviewed at this stage to
ensure that they complied with the design standards and guidelines in the ordinance.
2.Remove review process entirely – under this option, there would be no design review or public
notification and applicants would directly apply for a building permit.
3.Keep existing design review requirements for all two-story permits.
Note: Under the current ordinance, Minor Residential Permits are required for:
Second story decks with views into the side and/or rear yards of neighboring properties
Extensions of non-conforming one-story building wall lines; one-story additions encroaching no
more than 10 feet into the rear setback
One-story projects with a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space projecting outside the building
envelope with a wall height of 17 feet, 1 inch to 20 feet.
Passive or active solar structures that require variation from the setback or height restrictions
If Options 1or 2 were to be adopted, then minor one-story projects would have more stringent review
than a two-story project with second to first story ratios less than or equal to 45%. While staff is not
suggesting amending this, we thought this was an issue the Planning Commission might want to
consider.
Pros of Design Review
Ensures that a project is architecturally consistent.
Ensures that the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Opportunity for public notification, comments, and appeals.
Cons of Design Review
Prolongs the approval process for applicants.
Additional time means more cost to the applicants.
Occasionally issues brought up by a neighbor for one project may not be the same as a neighbor for
another project. Some applicants feel that this is not consistent for each project.
Does not allow a large variety in design - staff believes that with the ordinance now allowing larger second
stories there is ample room for varied designs.
Public Comments from the workshop
57% of attendees felt the existing process should remain.
71% of workshop attendees opposed eliminating design review but keeping public noticing.
79% of workshop attendees opposed removing design review altogether.
Mixed comments related to how the existing process is too complex with minimal public benefit and
how the existing process works well and should not be changed.
MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011
Other considerations
While overall, the planning review time and process are shortened by eliminating the design review and
the two-story planning application, staff will still be required to work with the applicants at the building
permit stage to ensure full project compliance with the development standards and two-story design
guidelines prescribed by the Single-Family Residential Ordinance. Consequently, building permit plan
check time and cost for two-story homes will likely increase by about 35%. This will still result in a net
reduction in cost for two-story homes that do not have to submit a planning application.
II.Public Noticing
Noticing Radius
Every single-family residential planning permit currently requires public noticing. Two-Story Permits
for homes over 35% total floor area ratio (FAR) and/or Exception projects require 300-foot noticing.
Two-Story Permits for homes under 35% total FAR and/or Minor Residential Permit projects require
adjacent and across the street noticing. An estimate of the typical number of property owners that are
notified within 300 feet of a project are as follows:
Projects in R1-5 and R1-6 zone (5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots) - 50-65 property owners
Projects in R1-7.5 zone (7,500 square foot lots) - 45-50 property owners
Projects in R1-10 zone (10,000 square foot lots) - 40-45 property owners
Projects in R1-20 zone (20,000 square foot lots) - 30 property owners
Typically, five to eight property owners are notified in adjacent/across the street noticing.
Noticing Materials
Mailed notices are sent for every project. Eleven by 17-inch plan sets are sent for all Two-Story Permit
and Minor Residential Permit projects. For Exception projects, plan sets are sent to adjacent property
owners only. Notice boards or site signs, which contain the pertinent project information as well as a
color perspective or black and white elevation, are required for all Two-Story Permit projects and remain
onsite during the two-week notice period and two-week appeal period.
Noticing Discussion
Currently, there appears to be an inconsistency with thresholds for design review and noticing. While
design review is required for all two-story homes, there is a higher threshold for homes with larger two
stories (over 45% of second story to first story ratio). However, the noticing requirements are for projects
with a total FAR of over 35%. Total FAR appears to be less of a concern than the size of the second story
and privacy issues. For example, there is currently no planning permit review for large one-story homes
(up to 45% FAR) and we don’t typically get complaints about such homes. In order to address which
projects should get additional noticing (i.e. focusing on primary community concern of larger two
stories), it would be more appropriate to relate noticing requirements to issues that appear to be of
greatest concern to the public, i.e. larger second stories and windows on the second story, as discussed in
the previous section.
Regarding the radius of noticing, a typical planning application requires mailing notices and plan sets to
about 40-65 neighbors. Staff typically only gets comments from people who are directly adjacent to the
project or those who live across the street from a project. The current process already requires site signs
with a color perspective or black and white elevation of the project to be posted at the site.
In comparing requirements for other cities, two out of the three cities that have design review only
require noticing of adjacent neighbors and those who live across the street. In addition, none of the
reviewed cities mail plan sets.
MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011
Public comments at the workshop were mostly in favor of keeping the existing process. However, if the
Planning Commission wishes to focus noticing on neighbors who typically express concerns, reduced
noticing could be considered since the site sign would continue to inform all neighbors who could
possibly be affected by the project.
Noticing Options
1.Radius -
a.Require only adjacent and across the street noticing for all projects.
b.Require 300-foot noticing for projects with greater than 45% second story to first story ratio
and/or projects that propose second story windows closer than 15 feet from the property line. All
other projects requiring review will have adjacent and across the street noticing.
c.Keep existing radius requirements.
2.Plan sets -
a.Send site plan and elevations to adjacent and across the street neighbors and require a site sign.
b.No plan sets sent and only require a site sign.
c.Keep plan set mailing requirements.
It should be noted that for projects where the planning process is eliminated entirely, there will be no
notification requirements.
Pros of noticing
Neighbors get to review, comment, and have relevant concerns addressed on a project
Cons of noticing
Cost and time associated with the notification process (notification costs are typically between $100
and $150).
Some applicants have expressed concerns of having plan sets sent to 60 neighbors since they can now
see the entire layout of the interior of their home.
Most questions to staff are from people who cannot read architectural plans and need additional
help.
Notifying and sending plan sets to 40-65 neighbors is not necessary since most comments come from
those who are adjacent and live across the street.
There may be more efficient ways of notifying the neighborhood (i.e. site sign and project
information).
Applicants note that the process is not consistent from one project to the other since neighbor
complaints vary.
Public comments from the workshop
85% of workshop attendees felt that that keeping the 300-foot noticing radius was appropriate.
85% of attendees disagreed with changing all noticing requirements to only adjacent and across the
street.
62% of workshop attendees felt that the existing process was appropriate.
69% of workshop attendees disagreed with only notifying adjacent neighbors.
77% disagreed with only having a site sign and mailed notices only.
Some felt that the noticing radius should be increased.
III.Story Poles
Story poles are currently required for all two-story projects, even for minor additions. They are required
to be in place for the two-week public comment period and two-week appeal period. They are required
to be installed by a licensed contractor and certified by a contractor, architect, or engineer to ensure
MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011
accuracy.
Story Pole Discussion
The installation of story poles generally ranges from $1,500-$4,000 depending on the complexity of the
project and surveying requirements. Most applicants have commented that story pole requirements are
costly and damage roofs of existing homes (if the applicant later decides not to build). While story poles
do announce a project, comments received by staff indicate that they do not provide an accurate
reflection of the architecture of the proposed homes. In fact, when staff receives comments from the
public, they tend to be complaints that the story poles do not accurately depict the future design of a
home.
A majority of the public felt that story pole requirements were not necessary. However, some did
indicate that it helped announce a project in the neighborhood. The site sign requirement does that as
well. A review of other jurisdictions showed that only one out of the three cities that require design
review of second-story homes require story poles.
A color perspective on the site sign would provide a more accurate depiction of the design of a home. If
the Planning Commission wishes to focus on requirements that best depict the design of a home, it may
wish to consider removing the story pole requirements and requiring a color perspective or a three-
dimensional photo simulation on the site sign instead.
Story Pole Options
1.Remove the requirement for story poles and:
a.Require a color perspective on the site sign; or
b.Require a three-dimensional photo simulation on the site sign.
2.Keep existing story pole and site sign requirements.
Pros of story poles
Would announce the project and provide neighbors with a sense of the siting and maximum height
of the project.
Cons of story poles
Does not give an accurate depiction of what the house will look like.
Creates safety concerns to neighboring properties or people on-site during inclement weather and
applicants have to bear the burden of the additional costs to reinstall them.
Additional cost to applicants without a commensurate benefit.
Installation materials may be wasted after they are removed from the site.
If the project is not a full rebuild, the installation of story poles may damage existing roofs and
structures creating more cost to repair.
Public comments
58% of workshop attendees did not want to keep the existing requirements.
66% of attendees did not want to give an option of story poles or three-dimensional photo-
simulation.
Some felt that the three-dimensional photo-simulations provide a better visual resource than story
poles.
Mixed comments related to those who felt they were valuable to the existing neighborhood while
others felt that they did not properly serve their purpose.
MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011
IV.Standards for Sloped Single-Family Lots
The requirements for lots with slopes between 15% and 30% has been discussed and amended several
times. See Attachment 8 for additional details on these requirements. The current requirements for
sloped lots were approved in 2007. Eighteen sloped single-family residential lots generally located south
of Linda Vista Drive, south and west of Santa Teresa and Terrace Drive, west of Terra Bella Drive, and
north of Lindy Lane, have additional requirements ranging from grading limitations to special fencing
requirements. These lots were selected mainly because they were perceived to be larger lots with hillside
characteristics.
It should be noted that the ordinance currently addresses development on slopes of over 30% by
requiring additional review through a Hillside Exception; similar to what is required for lots in the
Residential Hillside (RHS) zone, Chapter 19.40.
As part of this project, the Council wanted to review whether special requirements should apply to all
single-family residential lots with slopes of between 15% and 30% (the 18 lots mentioned above would
be included).
Analysis
Through an analysis of the City’s Geographical Information System (GIS) digital elevation model, staff
identified a total of 389 lots with slopes between 15 to 30%, including the 18 sloped single-family
residential lots previously mentioned (see the map on Attachment 9). Staff reviewed the sites with the
City’s Consulting Geologist to verify the slopes, categorize the lots, and assess which
geologic/geotechnical and physical characteristics were of concern.
Based on this analysis, the 389 lots have been characterized into two types—toe-of-hill lots and
embankment/flood plain lots. There are 184 toe-of-hill lots and 205 embankment lots. Generally, toe-of-
hill lots slope up towards the hillside at the rear of their property while embankment lots slope down
towards a creek or other feature to the rear of their property.
There are essentially two major concerns related to development on sloped single-family residential
lots—structural safety and visual/aesthetics. Structural safety is addressed for all projects by the
Planning, Building, and Public Works Departments during building permit plan review and inspections.
Soils/geotechnical reports are required for all hillside development in the building plan review phase. In
addition, geologic and/or geotechnical reports with peer review are required for development within
geohazard zones. The ordinance and subsequent planning process helps to address visual, aesthetic, and
grading impacts – all of which are noted in our General Plan Policies 2-48, 2-52, 5-10 through 5-12, and 5-
19 through 5-23 (Attachment 10). In order to determine which regulations would be appropriate to
address these issues, staff looked at the following items:
1.At what point does slope become a concern?
2.Are any other geological characteristics a concern?
3.Which regulations should be applied to sloped lots in order to reduce visual, aesthetic and
environmental impacts?
The following discussion highlights the analysis and recommendations related to the above issues.
Slopes and Setback Standards
The City’s Consulting Geologist felt that slope starts becoming an issue when homes are built on slopes
of 20% or greater (see Attachment 11). Staff additionally notes that building on existing flat pads (as long
as the geologic/geotechnical issues are addressed) is not a concern.
MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011
About 259 lots in the City have slopes of between 20% and 30%. Of those, 112 are toe-of-hill lots and 147
are embankment lots.
Regarding setbacks, the Geologist felt that it would be best to keep a 25-foot setback from slopes of 20%
and greater. He noted however, that for some lots, it would make building difficult and that geological
and/or geotechnical review would be able to take care of structural issues. He did note that any
visual/aesthetic concerns could be addressed by requiring additional review for excessive grading.
Grading
Under the current ordinance, grading for the 18 sloped single-family residential lots is limited to 2,500
cubic yards. Grading above 2,500 cubic yards requires Planning Commission review and is consistent
with the Residential Hillside (RHS) ordinance. The intent is to avoid excessive grading as well as the
resulting visual impacts of homes on lots with natural slopes.
Based on a discussion with the City Geologist and staff engineers in the Public Works and Building
Departments, staff notes that the 2,500 cubic yard limit is adequate for most single-family homes. A large
truck can carry up to 10 cubic yards; therefore, 2,500 cubic yards would equal 500 round trip truck trips.
Staff believes that any additional grading should require additional review to limit grading and visual
impacts.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Second Story Requirements
The current ordinance allows the 18 sloped single-family residential lots to build up to 45% total FAR on
the flat portion of the lot. However, homes larger than 4,500 square feet and located off the flat pad
require Planning Commission review. The 259 lots sloped between 20%-30% range from a size of 4,950 to
74,812 square feet, or 1.71 acres. Only about two lots are over an acre. Applying a single house size
limitation does not appear to be appropriate to address visual impacts on lots of such varying sizes. A
more appropriate criterion to address visual impacts would be the FAR, which would vary based on the
size of the lot. Based on this, staff recommends additional Planning Commission review for homes with
over 35% FAR. While a house size on larger lots is quite large, staff notes that there are only two lots
over an acre, most of which have been already recently developed. Also, the screening and setback
opportunities offered by the larger lot would likely be adequate to address visual or privacy issues.
Second story and balcony requirements for the 18 sloped single-family residential lotsare currently
consistent with the Residential Hillside zone, which does not have a specified review process for second
stories and balconies. The RHS Ordinance does not limit the size of second stories, and at the time of the
2007 ordinance amendments for the 18 sloped single-family lots, second stories in the other R1-zoned
properties were limited to 45% second story to first story ratio. The current Single-Family Residential
Ordinance does not have that limitation any more, provided that there is additional review and the
design criteria are being met. As noted above, the special requirements referring to RHS zones have only
applied to the 18 specified sloped single-family residential lots and not to other sloped single-family
residential lots. Staff therefore believes that the Single-Family Residential Ordinance requirements
would be adequate and should apply to all sloped lots between 20% and 30%.
Fencing Requirements
Fencing requirements for the 18 sloped single-family residential lots are similar to those in the RHS zone.
The requirements have a limitation on the amount of yard area that can be fenced with solid board
fencing and also encourages open fencing in order to preserve views to the hillsides. Many of the sloped
lots in the City are smaller and do not share the same characteristics as the hillside properties that are
currently under these regulations. Therefore, staff recommends that only fences that are widely visible to
public view and create visual impacts on the look and feel of an area (for example, blocks public views to
MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011
the western hills or an open space preserve) be required to maintain the special fencing requirements.
This is consistent with General Plan Policy 2-53. All other sloped lots would have fencing requirements
similar to lots in the Single-Family Residential zone (no restrictions on fence material).
Based on the discussion above, staff is recommending consideration of the following options. Staff
additionally notes that the recommendations are generally in keeping with the majority opinions of the
public at the workshop.
Options for Sloped Single-Family Residential Lots
1.Slopes – Require additional review for homes built on lots with slopes of between 20% and 30%.
Buildings on existing pads with slopes lower than 20% should not require additional review.
2.Grading – Continue to require Planning Commission review for projects that propose grading of
over 2, 500 cubic yards.
3.FAR and Second Story requirements – Keep the same as for other Single-Family Residential lots.
However, homes with an FAR of greater than 35% would require Planning Commission review.
Staff believes that additional review for increased grading and FAR will address issues related to
visual and environmental impacts.
4.Fencing requirements – Same as for other Single-Family Residential lots. However, fences that are
widely to public view andcreate visual impacts on the look and feel of an area (for example, blocks
public views to the western hills or an open space preserve) be would have fencing requirements
similar to that in the RHS zone Section 19.40.080A.2. and B. (limited solid board fencing, unlimited
open fencing- see Attachment 12).
5.Tree removal and retaining wall requirements – Remove current requirements for the allowance of
certain protected tree removals and retaining wall screening. Staff believes that the tree removal
requirements should be the same as for other Single-Family Residential lots. The Protected Tree
Ordinance (Chapter 14.18) currently protects species of a certain diameter such as Oaks, Deodar
Cedars, and Bay Laurels; and trees that were required to be protected as part of an earlier approval.
Also, staff believes that all retaining walls (regardless of the district they are built in) should be
screened with landscaping to reduce visual impacts. Staff will review placing this requirement
elsewhere in the zoning ordinance to apply to all retaining walls.
6.Building and roof forms; and Exterior color requirements – These two regulations from the RHS
Ordinance (section 19.40.070) should be carried over to assist in reducing visual and aesthetic
impacts and help house designs blend with the natural surroundings.
7.Keep existing requirements in either of the above categories.
Pros
Grading restrictions would allow additional review in order to reduce visual and aesthetic impacts.
Would allow the public and Planning Commission to ensure that excess grading is done properly
from a visual and environmental standpoint. As noted earlier, a large truck can carry up to 10 cubic
yards, and 2,500 cubic yards would equal 500 round trip truck trips.
FAR limitations would reduce potential visual impacts of buildings on slopes. Staff notes that
additional review for increased grading and design review would address this issue.
Permitting larger second stories would allow for more varied designs.
Larger second stories on sloped lots would allow buildings to fit into the natural slope and reduce
excessive grading.
Open fencing requirements would reduce the potential visual impacts associated with solid board
fencing on highly visible upslope portions of lots.
MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011
Cons
Setbacks from slopes could potentially make certain lots difficult to build on – Geologic/geotechnical
requirements would make it safe and grading limitations would address visual impacts.
Additional review for increased grading would delay the review process for applicants.
Larger second stories could create greater visual impacts. Staff notes that design review for large second
stories (above 45% second to first floor ratio) would address this issue.
Public comments
42% of the workshop attendees felt that there should be setback standards from steep slopes.
67% of the workshop attendees felt that there should be additional review for buildings built on
slopes as opposed to flat pads.
50% of the workshop attendees felt that there should be higher review for grading beyond the
existing quantity limits.
58% of the workshop attendees felt that there should not be additional FAR restrictions.
50% of the workshop attendees felt that second floor area should be limited to 45% or more with
additional architectural review criteria required for second stories that are larger. This is the case in
the current R1 ordinance, particularly if design review for larger second stories is preserved.
50% of the workshop attendees felt that there should be open fencing requirements for lots near
hillsides.
Environmental Assessment
On June 16, 2011, the Environmental Review Committee recommended that a negative declaration from
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) be adopted since none of the potential ordinance
amendment options wouldhavesignificantadverse environmental impacts.The Negative Declaration
will be brought to the City Council for approval along with the ordinance amendments.
Next Steps
The Planning Commission comments and recommendations will be forwarded to City Council in
August for consideration of potential ordinance amendments.
Prepared by: George Schroeder, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Approved by:
/s/Gary Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Draft Resolution
Attachment 2 Planning Commission Subcommittee report on process improvements
Attachment 3 Limited R1 review questionnaire from the May 24, 2011 workshop
Attachment 4 Tally of workshop attendee responses on the limited R1 review handout
Attachment 5 Comments and questions from the limited R1 review workshop discussion on May 24,
2011
MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011
Attachment 6 Proposed R1 ordinance text amendments for readability and consistency
Attachment 7 Revised Two-Story Design Principles for projects with second to first floor ratios
greater than 45%
Attachment 8 Additional information on two-story design review, noticing, story poles, and R1-
20/single-family residential sloped lots
Attachment 9 Map of sloped single-family residential lots
Attachment 10 Existing General Plan policies related to development on sloped lots
Attachment 11 Memo from Cotton, Shires, and Associates regarding geotechnical constraints of sloped
single-family residential lots
Attachment 12 Existing RHS fencing requirements
G:\\Planning\\PDREPORT\\pc MCA reports\\2011\\MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05.doc