The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Agenda Packet 06-28-2011 Table of Contents �. Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 draft minutes 6/14/2011 draft minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2• limited review of the Single Family Residential (R1) Zone Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1. Draft Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2. Planning Commission Subcommittee report on process improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3. Limited R1 review questionnaire from the May 24, 2011 workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4. Tally of workshop attendee responses on the limited R1 review handout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 5. Comments and questions from the limited R1 review workshop discussion on May 24, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6. Proposed R1 Ordinance text amendments for readability and consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 7. Revised Two Story Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 8. Additional information on two-story design review, noticing, story poles, and R1-20/single-family residential lots.................................79 9. Map of sloped single-family residential lots. . . . . . . . . . . 84 10. Existing General Plan policies related to devleopment on sloped lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 11. Memo from Cotton, Shires, and Associates regarding geotechnical constraints of sloped single- family residential lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 12. Existing RHS fencing requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 1 AGENDA C U P� FtT I�'+� C� CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Community Hall Tuesday, June 28, 2011 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:45 p.n1. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Subiect: draft nzinutes 6/14/2011 Recommended Action: approve draft minutes Pa�e 2 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Tl1is portion of the nleetuzg is reserved for persons wishing to address the Conlnussion on any nlatter not on the agenda. Speakers are linuted to three (3) nlulutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Comnussion from nlaking any decisions wiflz respect to a matter not on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING 2. Subiect: linuted review of the Single Fanuly Residential (R1) Zone Reconinlended Action: approval or denial of MCA-2011-03 and EA-2011-50 Description: Application: MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: citywide Municipal Code Amendnlent to Chapter 19.28, Single Fanuly Residential (R1) Zones, for a linlited review of the requirements for sloped single-fanuly lots, the two-story design review process, public noticing and story poles Tentative City Cowlcil nleeting date: August 2, 2011 PaQe 14 OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 2 Tuesd�y, June 28, 2011 P�i�e -2 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Commission Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners Economic Development Comrnittee Meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADJOURNMENT If yoi� challenge the actio�r of the Planning C'om�nission in coi��°t, yoi� may be limited to Naisivrg only those issi�es yozr o� someone else raisec� at the �ublic hearing descr�ibec� in this agenda, or in wr�itten cof�res�ondence delivered to the C'ity of C'zr�er•tino at, o�°�f�ior• to, the �z�blic hearing. Please note that Plav�ni�rg C'ommissiovr policy is to allow an ap�licant and groups to speak, for 10 mi�utes and inclividi�als to speak fot� 3 mi�utes. In conlpliance wifll the Americans wiflz Disabilities Act (ADA), fl1e City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to acconlnlodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the nleetulg. Materials related to an itenl on this agenda subnutted to tlle Plannulg Department after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public ulspection in the Planning Deparhnent located at 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours. For questions on any itenls in fl1e agenda, or for docunlents related to any of t11e itenls on t11e agenda, contact the Plaruzuzg Departnlent at (408) 777-3308 or �laiuling@cut��ertulo.org. 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 9�014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. June 14, 2011 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planiung Coininission ineeting of June 14, 2011 �z-as called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Coininunit�- Hall, 10350 Toire Avenue, Cupertino, Ca., b�- Ch�iiperson Winnie Lee. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Winiue Lee Vice Chairperson: Mart�- Miller Coinmissioner: Paul Broph�- Coininissioner. Clinton Bro��nle�- Coininissioner: Don Sun Staff present: Citv Planner: Gai Chao Senior Planner: Colin Jung Assistant Plasiner: George Schroeder Assistant Planner: Piu Ghosh APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of Mcry 10, 2011 Plunning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Sun, and carried 4-0-1, Chair Lee abstained; to approve the May 10, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as presented. 2. Minutes of Muv 2�, 2011 Plctnning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Vice Chair Miller, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve the May 24, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR None CONSENT CALENDAR None Chair Lee inoved the agenda to Itein 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4. U-2011-06 Use Perinit to 1llo�v �0% office use �vhere 2�% is allo�ved Kenneth Frangadakis at an eiisting center located in a P(CG) zone (DeAnza Professional Center) Pla�r�i�rg C'ommissio� decisio�r final unless crppealed. 10601 S. DeAnza Blvd 4 Cupertino Plannin� Cominission 2 June l�, 2011 George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Revie�ved the application for a Use Peimit to allo�v up to �0% office uses �vhere 25% is allo« ed at an e�isting coimnercial center in DeAnza Professional Center. as outlined n the staff report. No ph5�sical building or site inodifications are proposed. • He revie«-ed the previous site approvals ��hich ��ere not built. • Staff supports the proposal to allo�� inore off�ice, since the builduig �vas origuiall�- constructed to allo« more office uses than currentiv allo��ed. Conditions recominended include reducing tenant spaces in building fronta�e for active coinmercial use; lot line adjustment to inerge the t�vo parcels parlung lot and inain parcel into one in accordance �� ith citti- policti-; parlcing anal�-sis for ever�- change of use; and screen rooftop equipment along DeAnza and other minor site iinproveinents. • Staff recoininends approval in accordance «ith the draft resolution. • Staff ans��ered Commissioners' questions relative to the application. Kenneth Frangadakis, Applicant: • Said he �� ould prefer it to be 100%; it is not a shopping center, but an office building since he purchased it. Said over the y�ears he has been denied tenants aud it is difficult to restrict different t�pes of offices. Chair L,ee opened the public hearing. As there ��-as no one present ��-ho «ished to spealc, the public hearing �vas closed. Vice Chair Miller: • Asked if the Coininission hacl the fleiibilit�- to increase the percentage higher than �0%. Gaiy Chao: • Said the Planning Cominission could do an�-thing the�- �vanted. He refei7 to Attachment 4, ��hich provided infoi7nation on ho�� the�r reached the conclusion, the comfort level of supporting �0%. Presentl� there a�e on1�- t��-o vacant spaces; assuming both those spaces are going to �o in as professional off�ice, �vhich means the�- «i11 have a fu11�- occupied center, that �voi�ld still �vork �vith the �0% ratio. • Staff felt that given the past histoi�- of approval, and other iinplications to consider, it �voi�ld set a precedent for allo�vuig a higher ratio. It �vould haVe to app1�- the same logic to other t�pe properties and given the fact that if the�- fill ��-ith professional off�ices, that ��-ould still operate under the 50% rule, ��-hich staff felt «as reasonable �uid consistent «ith the prior decisions. If the Coininission �vants to discuss it and feels there are reasons to go be�-ond that, it is something the Commission can consider. Vice Chair Miller: • Not sure it is setting a precedent becal�se it «as originall�- designed as an office building and it doesn't fit; �tihere the intention froin the start �tias to have soine other use in there; this �ti��s designed as a 100% office and it loolcs that «a�; it is not conducive to the public going in there. Said he ��-ould have parking out front that ��as easy to access if they �vere going to design it another �� av. It is reasonable to sa�- that siuce that «-as the use that it «-as intended for and originall�- approved, that it is appropriate to let thein continue to use it that ��a�-. Gaiy Chao: • Said staff cares about the frontage more than an��thing else; there have been discussions about it «hen the Hea�t of the City caine up even though this is not Heart of the Cit�T, but the South DeAuza area is a core retail area. Said it �� as critical that the frontage tenants be more active, �vhich is �vh�� the coinmercial/office idea ca�ne about. He sug�ested that the Coininission inalce sure the frontage tenants are inore active oriented as cominercial/office or coinmercial. 5 Cupertino Plannin� Cominission 3 June l�, 2011 Com. Brophy: • Said that lool�in� 1t the list of tenlnts, he h1d diffictiltv understanding the difference bet«�een a general cominercial tenant and professional office tenant or the difference bet�� een an 800 square foot lebal office and an 800 square foot i�isurance office. Gaiy Chao: • Said the ordinance defllies those uses; there is a lot of flezibilit� : all those other uses are allo�ved and the�- are not considered professional off�ices. Chair Lee: • Said she disagreed, and felt that in inan�- cases, the professional off�ice ��as a higher quality building, �� a�i overhang, more detail in the la�idscaping, a separate enh to escort patients out. In a coininercial district, there �vill be retail, �� ith some travel agencies and sunilar businesses. • Said she agreed �vith staff that the professional office is different; medicaUdental a�id tai accountant or la��-er is different than real estate or traVel agenc� it is t«o separate thin�s. She said she felt the buildin� �v1s set up inore for �eneral coinmercial. • Said she did not feel it shol�ld be increased to �0%: it is not one size fits all, in this situltion it looks right, 10% to 2�% generll coininercial seeins reasonable. It is iinportant to have a balance of general coininercial, a coinmercial district is needed. There are about �0,000 cars that go do��-n DeAnza Boulevard; there a�e defiuitely coinmercial «orlcs on DeAnza Boulevard; this building is not retail, but there still are a lot of possibilities for general cominercial. Said it ��as iinportant to lceep pait of the general coininerci�l and not coinpletel�- turn even-thing over to professional or off�ice. The applic�uit has been able to rent a majorit5- to some general cominercial, it is mostly rented out. Gaiy Chao: • Said the�- �� ere eiperiencing a high demand for commercial offices in to« n, including tutoring and specialized classes; if � ou keep it at �0% �-ou are allo�viug for these t�pes, ��hat �ve see �s more appropriate facilities to accommodate these commercial offices; personal seivice uses, dance classes, etc. You are preseiving at least 50% ensuring that tllere is space for thein, and there is a lot of demand, not just professional offices. Com. Sun: • Said he agreed �vith the analy�sis; there are differences bet��een professional and general cominercial uses. He questioned ��hat ��-ould happen if the�- turn 2�% to �0% or 2�% to 100% blsed on the coinmercial building o��ner; he l�io��s ho�v to use his propert�T for his best interest, and then the regulation m1�- be changed for the purpose of the entire communit�-. Gaiy Chao: • Said the Coinmission could consider raising the percentage, the�- �ti-ent throl�gh t«o rounds of prior requests «here thev got approvals for it to be 100% office. In that re�ard there a��e justifications to loosen thlt requirement. • Recoininended that the Cominission be clear on the findings; he felt the�- ��ould loolc at it differentl�- if it �z as 1 iniied use plaza in the saine zoning district. He understood that the�- a�e ackno��-ledgin� that the facilit�� itself is built not to facilitate successfi�l retail therefore the�- «ant to give thein the flezibilit�- of gouig to 100% office. • Said he agreed ��-ith that justification; but to thinlc about it in terins of caivin� out a percentage for those uses that are actuall�- stiuggling to find spaces as ��ell, because there mav be a deinand for office, and if all the offices go in it leaves little space for the tutoring cl�sses and dance classes to be able to find a place. It is up to the Cominission to strilce a balance, staff fees that 50/�0 is a good balance: in this case it is set up inore as a professional office coinple�. 6 Cupertino Plannin� Cominission � June l�, 2011 Vice Chair Miller: • Said his issue ��-as thlt if the building and site ��as initiall�r designed for a specific use. he �iould have difficult�- sa�-ing �-ears later t11at the applicant is going to hlve to chan�e the uses that the building ��-as put to. If it ��as originally designed and approved as buildings for multiple uses, that is one thing; but ��hen it is specifically designed and beuig l�sed for a single use or certain cate�oi uses, it is diff�icult to make a deterinination after inan�- y�ears that «e a��e no��- going to change ho��- the building is going to be used, even thoi�gh the bi�ilding m��- not be designed for those other uses. He said that is �vh�- he did not see it setting a precedent or creating issues for other applications coini�ig in, and he felt it «-as reasonable to allo��- the applicant the fleiibilit� that he has al« a�-s had «ith the building. Com. Brownley: • Said that he lgreed that the o�vner had a good understlnding both froin having o�vned the building for a long time and understandi�ig ho�� to malce the best use of the space. He a�reed that the�- should enable thlt fleiibilit�- especilll�T if it ��-as developed that �v1�T in the first place. Com. Brophy: • Said one possibilit�- is to allo«� 100% but consider the staff recoininendation on eicluduig the spaces that face directh- onto DeAnza Boulevard, approiimatel�T 85%. Given the design of the structure, it is not easilv suited on the inteiior spaces for man�- general coininercial uses. Com. Brownley: • Said he liked the idea; loolcin� at the buildi�ig neit door that shares the parlcing lot, it looks lilce it is being renovated and ��ill have doors facing DeAnza and there ��ill also be adjacent properties ��ith that sa�ne loolc and feel, so it «ould fit ��ithin that side��-allc section. Com. Brophy: • Suggested phrasing it to e�clude that the front spaces 107, 108, 208, 209 be reseived for uses permitted under the general coininercial ordinance; st�ff can clean up the language on the final docuinent. Gaiy Chao: • If that is the direction, he suggested avoiduig usi�ig nulnber of tenant spaces because tliat changes soinetiines; either square footlge, or the fact that the tenant spaces that have footage along DeAnza, are good references for consideration. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Sun, and carried 4-1-0, Chair Lee voted No; to approve Application U-2011-06 with the change to permit office uses for most of the center except for the offices that front on DeAnza Boulevard. The agenda �v�s moved blck to Item 3. 3. U-2011-05, ASA-2011-06, Use Pei7nit for four, t��o-stoi single fa�nil�r d«ellings on EXG2011-06, TM-2011-01 0.30 acres; Architectl�ral and Site approval for four, t«o- Chris Weaver (Habitat for stoi single fainil�- d«ellings; Parking Eiception to allo�� Humanity) � parlcing ratio of 2 stalls per d�velling, in lieu of the Cleo Avenue required 2.8 stalls, �arage and open) per d��-elling, for a sinall lot fainil�� residential project; Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 0.30 acres into 41ots 1nd a coininon area lot for a single fainil�- residential development. Postponed from May 2=1, 2011 Plcrnning C'ommission meeting; Tentc�tive C'ity C'oz�ncil dcrte: Ja�1y �, 2011 7 Cupertino Plannin� Cominission 5 June l�, 2011 Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Revie�ved the application fi Habit�lt for Humanit�- for Tentative Map, Use Pei7nit, Architectural and Site Approval and Plrlcing Ezception, for consti�uction of four sin�le-fainil�- residences on 0.30 acres, as outlined in the staff report. He revie��-ed the background of the application a�id the project site data. Staff feels that there �vill not be a significant econoinic i�npact fi the project; and feels it «i11 unprove the nei�hborhood as presentl�- the area is in a state of blight. • Staff ans��ered questions relative to the project. Chris Weaver, Director of Development, Habitat for Humanity, Silicon Valley: • Ans��ered questions relative to the inaintenance agreeinent bet��-een hoine o��ners and Habitat for Huma�ut� and eiplai�ied the selection process for potential hoine o��ners. Preference is given to cui7 Cupertino residents. the�� must provide �00 s�z-eat equity hours of labor ui building the hoine; and the�- ini�st fi�lfill reqi�irements siinillr to those of regular inortgage applicants, and ha�e a good credit rati�ig and the abilit�- to manage the inortga�e pa�-inents. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she felt the potential homeo��ners should be entitled to the sa�ne Cupertuio parlcing standards of 2.8 spaces, not the inodified 2 spaces. Chris Weaver: • Said Habitat for Hl�manit�- ��ould provide the full 2.8 spaces per unit if possible; ho�vever, the space for the project is limited. She noted that Habitat for Huinanit�-'s regulations pennit 2 persons per bedrooin, and the proposed units are 2 bedrooin l�nits; therefore onl�� 4 people «�ould be pei7nitted in each unit asid 2 spaces per unit is adequate. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Brownley, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve Application U-2011-05, ASA-2011-06, EXC-2011-06, TM-2011-01, per the model resolution. 5. U-2010-02, TR-2011-09 Use Perinit to allo�v a ne�v da��care facilit�- at an ezisting Tony Chen (Yunjian Zou/ office building. Tree Reinoval Perinit to allo��- the reinoval O-Mei Academy) and replaceinent of 3 trees in conjunction �� ith parl�ing lot 10070 Imperial Ave. and landscaping improvements 1t a ne«- da�-care facilit�-. Plcrnning C'ommission c�ecision final zrnless appealed. George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Revie��ed the application for Use Pennit for a da�-care center and tree reinoval perinit for removal and replaceinent of three trees, on Iinperial Avenue, as outlined in the staff report. The proposed site is located in an area ��-ith general cominercial uses, condos. single fainil5- housinb and automotive repair uses; the pla�-ground does not abut the residential area. The eiisting bl�siness operates as a martial arts acadein�- and a dance studio, �vhich ��-il1 be eipanded to operate a dav care/after school program seiving up to 40 children. The business currentl�- operates as a heritage school �vhich is not subject to State DepaOrtinent of Social Seivices regulations. • The site is currentl�- accessed b�- one ezisting non-conforini�ig 16-foot �vide drive�� a� entrance froin linperial Avenue. Staff is requirinb the applicant to ��iden the drive��a�- to 22 feet to allo« for safer passage of ingress and egress vehicles: eiisting po�tier poles and cable utilit�- boi inust be reinoved in order to facilitate the ��videning of the drive�� a�-. • Staff supports the project and recominends Planning Coininission approval of the application 8 Cupertino Plannin� Cominission 6 June l�, 2011 in accordasice «-ith the draft resolutions. • Staff ans��ered questions regai�ding parl�ing, drop off/picic up of children, and removal of utilitv poles. Yunjian Zou, Applicant: • Said he �vas proud to offer the seivices and daycare services to Cupertino. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Michael Trotter, Cupertino resident: • Supports the project. • Said his son attends O-Mei Acadein�- and his famil�- also talces other classes offered bti the Academ�-. He complimented the Academ�- on its high standards and curriculum. Shirley Long, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Said the business has changed the enviromnent of their street �vithout the after school prograin; and she had concerns about safet�-, noise level, traffic, 1nd parlcing. She s�id she also felt it �vol�ld ha�e a negative impact on the propert� values on their street. • Although the school offers parlcing in the bacic, during the after school hours, no parents like to go to the bacic, the�r parlc on the street and l�ids a�e ��allcing out on the street freel�T. She said she «-anted to address her conceins about safet�-. • Relative to the report on noise. she said there �tiere man�- issues that needed to be acldressed, and information corrected. It should address compound noise level; currentl�- the program has an after school prograin, add 40 children, tSTpically Cupertino offers additional classes and attendance is inore than ��hat the report sa�-s. Address the 15 ininute outdoor brealc for each group; holida�-s offer all d1v pro�rain; a four inonth period has pro�rains all da�-long; lddress traffic conhol. Surjit (no last name given): • O«ns propert�- across the street froin the academy; pa�ents drop children off and don't supeivise their crossing the street «hich raises safet�T concerns. Noise le�el ��ith inore children is higher; concerned about parldng. • Said she thought day�care licenses �vere not approved ��-hen neit to an auto rep�ir shop: said she �vas told her propert� ��as ml�lti-use commercial and residential. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Cupertino h�s man�- ne��- da� care facilities going in; the site is appropriate for a da�-care center; the o«�ner seems veiy responsible; martial arts is a good cultural eiperience for children: good idea to e�tend drive«av to 22 feet. • She eipressed concern about the railroad tracic in the bacic of the propertti- and the safet�� concerns for the children; ��-ould fencing be provided? Also concerned about I�nperial Avenue running into Stevens Creelc Boulevard �vhere there is no traffic light. Charles Chan, Cupertino resident: • Supports the project. • Said he has assisted ��ith translation seivices at the acadein�-. He has visited the facilities for a couple of �-ears and has not seen an�- cars speeding in the area, and not eiperienced an� traffic conceins or issues ��ith eicessive noise. The utilit�- pole should be the responsibility� of PG&E and not the propert�T o��ner to pa�- the cost of removal, • He said in his opinion the acaclein�T beautifies the neighborhood and if safet�T issues arise, Mr. Zou «ill act in a responsible manner to address them. 9 Cupertino Plannin� Cominission 7 June l�, 2011 Yongolong Liu: • Said his children have benefited from the progra�ns offered at the Academv. Said he apprecilted its seivices and felt it ��-as an important p1rt of the coininunit�-. Brenda Liu: • Said she �vas a resident of San Bruno and teaches classes at the acaclem�- three tiines a�veelc. She coinpliinented Mr. Zou on his high caliber of eipertise. She said that evei�- bl�suiess runs into obstacles and particularly� in a school area, there are nei�hbors «�ith fi and concerns. She s�id the�- �vould «ork to iinprove on coinpl�ints fi neighbors. She felt the cost of reinoving the utilit�- pole should not be the propert�- o�vner's responsibilit�-. Hui Zhang, Cupertino resident: • As a parent of a child in the d1�-clre, said she understands the concei7is of the neighborhood on parking and safet�T. Said that pa�lung �z-as not a big issue, most of tlie students are after school hours. Options to help initigate any concerns could iuclude hiring people to inonitor the parking. • The school is an important part of the coininunit�-, it creates a good enviro�nent for the children, and provides eicellent prograins. Sharon Chan, Cupertino resident: • Supports the application. • Said her daughters talce tai chi lessons at the acadein�r, and ��as gratefi�l for Mr. Zou's instruction and dedication as a teacher and coach. She said that she «-as not concerned about safet�- near the acacleinv as traf£ic inoved slo« 1�- in the area; soinetimes her children ride their bikes to the lcademv and she does not feel the�- are in danger. Chair Lee closed t1�e public hearuig. Com. Brophy: • Relative to outdoor pla�- area tiines, he aslced ho�� it ��-ould be handled adlninistrativel�- if the�- �vanted to ch�uige the tiine in the future. Gaiy Chao: • Said that if the hours of outdoor pla�- or nuinber of children are increased, staff «�ould have to use soine discretion because of soine noise iinplications; and it ��-ould have to be presented at a public hearing. If the change is «ithin the scope of «hat the�r are presenting, and tliere is no significant iinpact, the Director can inalce the minor inodification. Vice Chair Miller: • Is staff concerned about traffic flo« ; it loolcs lilce there is potential for probleins ��-hich is that no one �iill pull in and use that drop off; the�- ��-i11 just continue to drop off 1t neighboring sites. Gaiy Chao: • Said he ��-as not a��-are of eiisting traffic concerns at the site or ui front; he felt the project �vill enhance the interface, �vhich is the reason for recommending «�idening the drive«�a�- to 22 feet. • Reinind eveiti-one that currentiv there are 9 parlcing stalls in the bacic parlcing lot, ��hich ��ill be enha�iced to 13. There is also onstreet parl�ing availlble for the patrons to use. He said he did not foresee an5- problems. Vice Chair Miller: • Suggested opening up on the south side; talce parlcin� stalls 7 and 8 and inalce access to the neighboring lot so people can be one ��a�T in and one �� a�- out; or at least give people a separate egress. 10 Cupertino Plannin� Cominission 8 June l�, 2011 Gaiy Chao: • Said it «-as a potentill option for thein to consider: in order to malce that happen, it «-ould require thlt the property- o��7ier provide a consent of reciprocal access agreeinent, usu111�- standard for projects ��here the applicant is requi� to provide consent to their adjacent propert�- o��ner; the flip side is that the other pa� �vould have to also provide a�i access easeinent. There is a slight potential grade differential, but �iven that could be resolved, the hindrance �vould be seci�iing the access easement froin the adjacent propert�- o�vner. Vice Chair Miller: • Relative to the issue of some children beiug dropped off across the street from the academ�� and n�nnnig across the street; it ma�- �tiork at the cui�rent level. bl�t if adding a significant nuinber of additional children, he said he ��-ould lilce to kno��- there is soine «a�r of addressinb it, similar to «hat has been done in the plst during drop off and pick up hours. The school �� ould have to provide a traffic inonitor or someone to inalce sure tliat the parents are doing �vhat is eipected of thein �vhich is to facilitate the drop off and picic up. (Staff noted th�t it is included in the condition that a staff inember from the da��care center is to facilitate safe drop off and picic up or assist �vith the trlffic navigation) • Relative to the utilit�- pole reinoval, if the pole is not high voltage, the o��ner has options; there are i�ules thlt state belo�ti a certain level of voltlge, �-ou can use a private part�- to reinove the pole. It is �z-orth checldng into since the private part�- fee ma�- be lo�z-er than the PG&E fee to reinove the utilitST pole. Gaiy Chao: • Staff c1n coordivate ��ith Public Works �uid PG&E and draft a condition to inention that applicant �tiill �tiorlc �� ith staff to eiplore alternative options of either relocating or reinoval of the utility pole. Ultimatel�r the rule is «hat the n�les a�e, so staff ��ill help the applicant eiplore that «ith PG&E. Com. Brophy: • Said he ��1llcs past the acadeiny t�vice �veeld�� and does not perceive an�- traffic probleins; the traffic moves slo�� 1�- and there are not a large number of cars at an�- one time, Said he did not feel that a condition ��-as necessai ; ho��-ever the propert�- o��-ner should inforin his clients not to park on the properties across the street, «hich �tiould help alleviate the concern and unhappiness of the residents across the street froin the acaclemy. The noise level is not an issue; and there are m�uiv satisfied customers of the academ�- ��ho look foi�vard to the eipansion of offerings from the academ�-. Com. Sun: • Welcoined the acadein�- to Cupertino. Relative to the safet� issue. he encour�ged the applicant to talce the responsibilit�r to make sure his clients don't infringe upon neighbors' privac�-. Chair Lee: • Concui7ed ��ith Conunissioners' cominents and said it �vas iinportant to educate the parents and encourage them to use the blcic area for parlcing. Gaiy Chao: • Pointed out that Condition 6, alread�- requires a drop off/pick up plan, and aside froin delineatuig the stalls ��ith proper signage, safet�- features, the plan shall delineate general pedestrian vehicular safet�- guidelines for parents. The language is included to einphasize that to the �ppliclnt the�- need to prescribe an educational plan, if not guidelines, perhaps part of the agreement the�- have to sign «ith parents agreeing to compl�- «ith those �l�ideli�ies for them to revie��- as part of tl�eir orientation. 11 Cupertino Plannin� Cominission 9 June l�, 2011 Vice Chair Miller: • Asked if the�- could add that staff «i11 e�plore 1 reciprocal easeinent agreeinent. Com. Brophy: • It appelrs that b�T removing that pole and ezpanding it from 16 to 22 feet, the applic�uit has reached a reasonable solution, 16 feet is rather tight and �vould discourage people. He said he «ol�ld be hesitant to hold l�p the project dependant on the «huns of an adjouung propert�- o«ner. Vice Chair Miller: • Said he �� asn't suggesting that it be a reql�ireinent. bl�t inerel�- have staff loolc into it. • If the applicant has to deal ��ith PG&E on the pole reinoval, it could be a�-ear before it is tal�en care of as PG&E inoves slo��1�-. Suggested that the project be allo«-ed to inove foi��ard «ith the underst�uiding thatthe pole could be reinoved �vhen PG&E gets to the project. Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve Application U-2010-02, TR-2011-09 per recommendations. Chair Lee declared a recess. 6. DP-2011-01, ASA-2011-08, Developinent Permit applicltion for t«-o ne�ti, 2,697 sq. ft. TM-2011-02, t«�o-stoi single fainily residences; Architectural and Site Teriy Brown (Robert Adzich) Approval application for t« o ne« 2,697 sq. ft. t��-o-stoiy 10216 & 10232 Orange Ave. single famil�- residences; Tentative Pai Map application to subdivide a 028 acre pa�cel into ri�-o parcels of 6,000 square feet each. Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: • Revie�tied the application for Developinent Perinit application for t�tio 2,697 sq. ft. t��-o-stot single fainil�- hoines, Architectural and Site Approval application and Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a.28 �cre pa�cel into ri�-o parcels of 6,000 sq. ft. each, as oi�tlined ui the staff report. • Staff recoinmends approval of the application. Teriy Brown, representing Robert Adzich, Property Owner: • Said that the demolition of the properties ��ill coinmence as soon 1s possible. «-ith constn�ction of the t«o units to follo��-. • In response to a recent email coinplaint received about the plumbing on a previous project he �vas responsible for, he said he �vas not a�z-are of the coinplaint until � He said that the hoine ��-as in � development he �vas responsible for, built b�- Jun Sislc and the hoine is over 20 �-ears old, and the sender has o�vned the home for ��-ears, and �vas the third o��mer of the hoine. He eipressed regret that soineone ��as diss�tisfied �vith �� the�T assumed he had done; 1nd he called thein the previous evening and invited them to ineet �tiith hiin sho��- hiin �tihat ��as ��rong. He said he «-as ��illing to repau an� thi�ig he did and stands behind his ��-orlc; but reiterated that he had not been a��-a�e of a problem l�ntil the previol�s evenin�. Chair Lee opened the public hea�ing. Tom Adamo, Property Owner of 10206 Orange Avenue, adjacent to project property: • Supported application in general. • Did not see an�- resolution about utilit5- poles; the�- 1re in the iniddle of the road: once this is constructed and the side��allcs are pulled back and there is a dedication, there �vill be a pole i�i 12 Cupertino Plannin� Cominission 10 June l�, 2011 the line of sight of an�T cars. What is the cit�'s position on the poles; is it responsibility� of the cit�- or PG&E. • Asked if there «-1s a requirement for fencing on the propert�- lines of the project; Eipressed concein about the long construction hours, particularl�r the �veelcend hours, and aslced that consideration be biven to reducuig the ��eelcend hours. • Aslced if street lighting ��ould be incoiporated i�ito the project; said it unpacted the neighborhood pa� at his site neit door. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Piu Ghosh responded to Mr. Adamo's questions: • An�� poles in the right of ��a�-llong the frontage of this particular propert��, Public Works �vill �vork to �et those pulled back, �� here it �tiill l�nderground utilities to the hoines; • The cit�- does not require fences along propert�- lines: it is at the pleasure of the propertv o�tiner. Regulations regarding fences are available on the citv's ��ebsites: 6 foot fences are allo« ed «ithout a building permit at the propert�-line behind the building setback line; • Construction hours are dictated b�- the noise ordinance; the�- are in the resolution to clarif�- for the contractor and applicant. • Street lighting ... page 107, should be uistalled and approved b5T the cit�- engineer: Public Works �vill look to see if a light �vill be required; if one is required, the applicant is responsible for putting it in along the frontage. Gaiy Chao: • Said that the conditions require street lighting; it does have provisions to prevent glare, and other forms of visual interference. Public Worlcs has standards �vhich the propert�- o«ner must adhere to. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve Application D P-2011-01, ASA-2011-08 and TM-2011-02 per the model resolution. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: Meetin� scheduled for this «eelc. HOUSING COMMISSION: No ineeting. MAYOR'S MONTHLY MEETING: No meeti�ig. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: No ineeting. 7. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Written report. Adiournment: The ineeting ��-as adjouined to the nez regular Planni�ig Coininission meeting schedl�led for June 28, 2011 at 6:4� p.in. Respectfull�- Subinitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretan- 13 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPEPTINO, CA 9501�-3255 (-�08) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • ��lannin�@cupertino.or� CUPEFiTIN+a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 Agenda Date: Twze 28, 2011 Application: MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: Citywide APPLICATION SUMMARY: Municipal Code Anlendnlent to Chapter 19.28, Single Fanuly Residential Zones, for a linuted review of tlle requirenlents for sloped single-fanuly residential lots, tlle two-story design review process, public noticing and story poles. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that t11e Planning Conmlission: 1. Reconlnlend to the City Council, amendments to Chapter 19.28, Single-Family Residential Zones related to: • Two-story desib z review process • Public noticulg requirenlents • Story pole requirenlents • Standards for lots with slopes Staff recomnlends fllat the Planning Conu7ussion take straw votes for eac11 of fllese items before conll�ululg t11en1 into a final reconlmendation for the Council. BACKGROUND On February 15, 2011, w11en reviewing the City's Developnlent Pernut Process Review project, t11e City Council initiated a limited review of the Single Family Residential (R1) Ordinance related to tlle two- story design review process, public noticing, and story poles based on conlments provided by the Planning Commission subcommittee on February 14, 20ll (Attachment 2). On April 6, 2010, the Cowuil had approved the review of standards of lots sloped Uetween 15% and 30% in fl1e Single-Fanuly Pesidential (P1) zone as part of the FY 2010-11 �nTork progranl. Since both projects required a review of the Single-Fanlily Residential (R1) zone, fl1e two projects have been conlbined. Conimunity Workshop A citywide coninlunity workshop was 11e1d to get coninlents fronl residents, builders and arcllitects. On May 17, 2011, citywide notices were nlailed out to property owners, builders and architects to announce the comnlunity workshop on May 24, 2011. Fifteen residents and developers/architects, as well as all five Planning Conlnussioners attended tlle workshop. The workshop provided the attendees information 14 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 on the key topics being reviewed and the opportunity to discuss ordinance options u1 order to strean11u1e the development process. Workshop attendees were also asked to fill out a questionnaire (Attachment 3) on the potential ordinance amendment options and provide coninlents. See Attachment 4 for a tally of the attendee responses and conlnlents and Attachnlent 5 for a sumnlary of conlments and questions fronl t11e worksho� discussion. Improz�ing Rec�c�c�bilit�, Consistenc�, anc� E ffectiveness In order to inlprove consistency betweeil past ordinance revisions and improve readability of the existing ordulance, staff 11as revised t11e ordinance (Attachnlent 6) to: • Inlplement the use of tables to reduce repetition and optinlize readability. The Sign Ordinance is ai1 exanlple of where this was done. • T11e existing Two-Story Design Principles, wl�icll are an appeildix to fl1e ordinance, have been revised to nlake t11en1 more user-friendly (see Attac11n1ent 7) Staff would like to note that t11e reformatted version does not include any ainendments to the ordulance. It merely reformats it into a more user-friendly document. DISCUSSION Single-F�amil� O��c�inance Histo��y T11e Single-Family Residential Ordinance was enacted in 1971 and 11as undergone a number of cllanges u1 recent years. Here are some key poults related to the ordinance anlendments beuzg discussed in this report (for greater detail regarding the ordinance amendnlents, see Attachment 8): • Be� iu�uzg uz 1999, the City initiated a two-story desib z review process and noticuzg procedures for sulgle-fanuly residential plarululg 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 sulgle- fanuly residential lots u1 a specific geograpllical area • Since 2005, story poles have been required for all two-story projects Options for Ot�dinr�nee Amendments Based on experience with tlle single-fanlily residential review process, analysis, public comments received during the public workshop as well as previous coninlents at the Developnlent Pernut Process workshops, staff has put together options for each of the four issues under consideration. Each section includes a brief discussion of fl1e options; advantages and disadvantages of each; public comtnents received; and other pertulent policy inlplications. It should be noted that keeping fl1e current ordiilance is provided as an option in all the discussions. As noted earlier, staff reconinlends fllat the Planning Conln�ission take straw votes on eac11 section prior to nlakulg a final reconlnlendation to the City Council. Conip�zrison u�itli Neighbo��ing Communities Staff also looked at sulular processes in six neighboring conlnlunities. T11ese comnlunities ulclude Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Los Gatos, Palo Alto and San Jose. These conlnlunities were chosen because they all have a nlix of conlmercial and residential zones as opposed to conmlunities whose only focus is residential development. Each section below also has a discussion of how other conlmunities approach the review process. 15 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 City Two-Story Noticing Noticing Story Poles Maximum Total Design Radius Materials FAR Review San Jose No -- -- -- 45%, up to 65% with plannulg a�proval Santa Clara No -- -- -- 45 % Sunnyvale Yes 200 feet Mailed notice, -- 45% or 3,600 site sib 1 square feet, whichever is nlore restrictive; or nlore with public 1learul Palo Alto Yes Adjacent Mailed notice, -- 45% site siml Los Gatos Yes Adjacent and Mailed notice X Based on lot across the size, generally street 35-40 % Mountain View No -- -- -- Based on 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 confornlance to the Sulgle-Fanlily Residential Ordinance development standards and two-story guidelines through a two-story planning pernlit. Each project is also assessed to ensure a reasonable level of visual conlpatibility with the neighborhood. Projects with second to first floor ratios of 45% or less have less restrictive requirements while projects wiflz second to first floor ratios greater than 45% require conlpliance with more stringent two-story design principles as well as the City Architectural Coilsultant review. All two-story projects require neighbor notificatioil with a two-week public conunent period. There is a two-week appeal period after the Conununity Development Director's decision is nlade. Design Review Diseussion Based on experience with single-fanuly 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 wuldows �1d balconies. Experience with the design review process shows that neighbors are nlost concerned wheil homes are proposed with larger second stories (above 45% second to first story ratio) than with tllose t11at propose snlaller second stories. Second story windows that are proposed close to neigllboring honles also typically generate coninlents from neighbors. When second story wuldows have larger side setbacks (15 feet and greater), there is more space to plant privacy planting and address privacy issues. A review of neighboring conununities shows that about half of them do not require design review of two-story honles, while the other half do. Most of the public conmlents received at the worksllops appeared to be nuxed with a larger percentage of the public favoruzg the current process. However, if the Coninlission wishes to focus on issues that typically appear to be of nlost concern to the public, the following reconinlendations and options could 16 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 be considered. Options for Design Rez�iew: 1. Pequire design review only for: a. Homes with second stories larger than 45% of the first story; and/or honles 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 frotn the finislled second floor; obscured, non-openable windows; wuzdows �nTith pernlanent, exterior louvers up to six feet above the finished floor; and/or skylights would not be required to go fllrougll 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 pernut but would be reviewed at this stage to ensure that they complied with the design standards and guidelines in the ordinance. 2. Penlove review process entirely - under this option, there would be no desib review or public notification and applicants would directly apply for a building pernut. 3. Keep existing design review requirements for all two-story pernuts. Note: Unc�er the ciar��ent ordin«nce, Mino�� Pesidentinl Permits a��e rec�ui��ed fo��: • Second story c�ecks with z�ieu�s into the sic�e c�nd/or rec�r �c�rr�s of neigllborin� properties • Extensions of non-confoa�ming one-stor� bi�ilding wc�ll lines; one-story r�dc�itions encroacliing no more t1u�n 10 feet into the rear setback • One-story projects u�ith n gnble end of �a roof enclosing an attic space p��ojecting outside t12e building enz�elope z��ith a zvall Ileight of 17 feet, 1 incli to 20 feet. • Pnssive or actiz�e sola�� stt�uctia�es tllc�t ��ecjui��e z�ariation from the setbc�ck or heiglit ��estrictions If Options 1or 2 u�ere to be c�c�opted, t12en niinor one-story projects u�oi�ld have rrio��e stringent reviezv t�ian n tz��o-story project z��ith second to first story rc�tios less than or ec�ilal to 45%. Wllile staff is not sitggesting c�niending this, u�e tlloiaght this z��c�s nn issiae the Plnnning Conrniission might u�ant to conside��. Pt�os of Design Rez�iezu • Ensures that a project is architecturally consistent. • Ensures t11at the project is compatible wit11 t11e surroundulg neighborhood. • Opportunity for public notification, comments, and appeals. Cons o f Design Rez�ieu� • Prolongs the approval process for applicants. • Additional time means nlore cost to tlle applicants. • Occasionally issues brought up by a neighbor for one �roject may not be t11e same as a neighbor for another project. Some applicants feel that this is not coilsistent for each project. • Does not allow a large variety u1 design - str�ff beliez�es thc�t u�itli the ordinance nou� alloz��ing lr�rger seconc� stories there is r�mple roorri for z�aried c�esigns. Public Comments fi�om tl2e zvorkshop • 57% of attendees felt the existing process should remaul. • 71 % of worksllop attendees opposed eliniuzatulg design review but keepulg public noticuzg. • 79% of workshop attendees opposed reinoving design review altogether. • Mixed conmlents related to how the existing process is too complex with nlininlal public benefit and how flze existing process works well and should not be changed. 17 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 Otlie�� consic�e��ations While overall, the planning review tiine and process are shortened by elinunating the design review and t11e two-story planning application, staff will still be required to work with the applicants at the building pernlit stage to ensure full project conlpliance wit11 the development standards and two-story design guidelines prescribed by the Single-Fanlily Residential Ordinance. Consequently, building pernut plan check time and cost for two-story homes will likely increase by about 35%. This will still result in a net reduction u1 cost for two-story honles that do not have to subnut a plannulg application. II. Public Noticing Noticing P«diias Every single-fanuly residential planning pernut currently requires public noticulg. Two-Story Permits for honles over 35% total floor area ratio (FAR) and/or Exception projects require 300-foot noticing. Two-Story Pernlits for honles under 35% total FAP and/or Muzor Pesidential Pernut projects require adjacent and across the street noticulg. An estinlate of fl1e typical nunlber of property owners t11at are notified wifl1u1300 feet of a project are as follows: • Projects in P1-5 and P1-6 zone (5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots) - 50-65 property owners • Projects u1 P1-7.5 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 P1-20 zone (20,000 square foot lots) - 30 property owners Typically, five to eight property owners are notified in adjacent/ across the street noticing. Noticing Mc�terinls Mailed notices are sent for every project. Eleven by 17-inch plan sets are sent for all Two-Story Permit and Mu1or Residential Pernut projects. For Exception projects, plan sets are sent to adjacent property owners only. Notice boards or site signs, which contain the pertinent project inforination as well as a color perspective or black and white elevation, are required for all Two-Story Permit projects and remaiil onsite durulg 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. Wllile desigil review is required for all two-story homes, there is a higher threshold for 1lomes with larger two stories (over 45% of second story to first story ratio). However, the noticing requirenlents are for projects with a total FAP of over 35%. Total FAP appears to be less of a concern fl�an fl�e size of the second story and privacy issues. For example, tllere is currently no planning permit review for large one-story 1lomes (up to 45% FAR) and we don't typically get conlplaints about such honles. In order to address w11ic11 projects should get additional noticing (i.e. focusing on primary community concern of larger two stories), it would be nlore appropriate to relate noticing requirements to issues that appear to be of greatest concern to the public, i.e. larger second stories and wuldows on the second story, as discussed u1 the previous sectioil. Pegarding the radius of noticing, a typical plaruzuzg application requires nlailing notices and plan sets to about 40-65 neighbors. Staff typically only gets coninlents from people w110 are directly adjacent to t11e 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 t11e site. In conlparing 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 additioil, none of the reviewed cities n1ai1 plan sets. 18 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 Public comments at t11e worksllop were nlostly in favor of keeping the existing process. However, if the Planning Comnussion wishes to focus noticing on neigllbors who typically e�ress concerns, reduced noticing could be considered since the site sign would contulue to inform all neighbors who could possibly be affected by the project. Noticing Options 1. Padius - a. Require only adjacent and across t11e street noticulg for all projects. b. Require 300-foot noticing for projects with greater t11an 45% second story to first story ratio and/or projects fllat propose second story windows closer than 15 feet from the property lu1e. All other projects requirulg review will have adjacent and across the street noticing. c. Keep existulg radius requirenlents. 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 nlailing requirenlents. It sllould be noted t11at for projects where the planning process is elinlinated entirely, there will be no notification requireinents. Pros of noticing • Neighbors get to review, comment, and 11ave relevant concerns addressed on a project Cons of noticin� • Cost and tinle associated with t11e notification process (notification costs are typically between $100 and $150). • Some applicants have e�ressed concerns of 1laving plan sets sent to 60 neighbors since flley can now see the entire layout of the uzterior of their honle. • Most questions to staff are from people who cannot read architectural plans and need additional 11e1p. • Notifyulg and sending plan sets to 40-65 neighbors is not necessary since most comments come fronl tllose who are adjacent and live across the street. • T11ere nlay be nlore efficient ways of notifying the neighborhood (i.e. site sign and project inforination). • Applicailts note that the �rocess is not consisteilt from one project to the other since neighbor conlplaints vary. Pi�blic comnlents fi�om the z��orksllop • 85 % of workshop attendees felt that t11at keeping t11e 300-foot noticulg radius was appropriate. • 85% of attendees disagreed with chan�ing all noticing requirements to only adjacent and across the street. • 62% of workshop attendees felt t11at the existing process was appropriate. • 69% of workshop attendees disagreed with only notifying adjacent neighbors. • 77% disagreed with only 1laving a site sign and nlailed notices only. • Son1e 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 conunent 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 19 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 accuracy. Sto��y Pole Discitission The installation of story poles generally ranges fronl $1,500-$4,000 depending on the complexity of the project and surveying requirements. Most applicants have conlmented that story pole requirenlents are costly and damage roofs of existing homes (if the a�plicant later decides not to build). While story poles do announce a project, coninlents received by staff uldicate that they do not provide an accurate reflectioil of the architecture of the proposed 11on1es. In fact, when staff receives conlnlents fronl the public, they tend to be conlplaints that t11e story poles do not accurately depict the future design of a honle. A nlajority of the public felt that story pole requirements were not necessary. However, some did indicate that it helped alulounce a project in the neighborhood. The site sign requirement does that as well. A review of other jurisdictions sllowed that only one out of the three cities that require desi�z review of second-story honles require story poles. A color perspective on t11e site sib would provide a nlore accurate depiction of the design of a honle. If t11e Planning Commission wishes to focus on requirenlents that best depict the design of a 11on1e, it nlay wish to consider removing the story pole requirenlents and requiring a color perspective or a three- dimensional photo sinlulation on the site sign instead. Story Pole Options 1. Renlove the requirenlent 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 existuzg story pole and site sign requirenlents. Pros o f stor� poles • Would announce the project and provide neigllbors with a sense of the siting and nlaxinlunl 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 inclenlent weather and applicants have to bear the burden of the additional costs to reulstall t11en1. • Additional cost to applicants without a conlnlensurate benefit. • Installation nlaterials may l�e wasted after they are reinoved fronl the site. • If the project is not a full rebuild, the ulstallation of story poles nlay danlage existing roofs and structures creating nlore cost to repair. Public comments • 58% of workshop attendees did not want to keep t11e existing requirements. • 66% of attendees did not w��t to give an option of story poles or three-dimensional photo- sinlulation. • Son1e felt that the three-dinlensional photo-sinlulations provide a better visual resource than story poles. • Mixed conlments related to those who felt they were valuable to the existing neighborhood while others felt flzat fl�ey did not properly serve fl�eir purpose. 20 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 IV. Standards for Sloped Single-Family Lots T11e requirements for lots wifll slopes between 15% and 30% 11as been discussed and amended several tinles. See Attachment 8 for additional details on these requirements. The current requirements for sloped lots were approved in 2007. Eighteen sloped single-fanuly residential lots generally located south of Linda Vista Drive, south and west of Santa Teresa and Terrace Drive, west of Terra Bella Drive, and nortll of Lindy Lane, have additional requirenlents rangulg fronl graduzg linlitations to special fencuzg requirenleilts. These lots were selected nlaiilly because they were perceived to be larger lots with hillside characteristics. It should be noted t11at the ordinance currently addresses development on slopes of over 30% by requiring additional review through a Hillside Exception; sinular to what is required for lots in the Pesidential Hillside (RHS) zone, Chapter 19.40. As part of this project, the Council wanted to review whether special requirements should apply to all sulgle-family resideiltial lots with slopes of between 15% and 30% (the 18 lots nlentioned above would be uzcluded). Anr�lysis T1lrough an analysis of t11e City's Geograpllical Information Systenl (GIS) digital elevation inodel, staff identified a total of 389 lots with slopes between 15 to 30%, ulcludulg the 18 sloped single-family residential lots previously mentioned (see the nlap on Attachment 9). Staff reviewed the sites with the City's Consulting Geologist to verify the slopes, categorize the lots, and assess whicll geologic/geotecluzical and pllysical characteristics were of concern. Based on fllis analysis, t11e 389 lots have been characterized into two types—toe-of-11i11 lots and einl�ankment/flood plaul lots. T11ere are 184 toe-of-hill lots and 205 enlbankinent lots. Generally, toe-of- hill lots slope up towards t11e hillside at the rear of tlleir property while enlbanknlent lots slope down towards a creek or other feature to the rear of their property. There are essentially two major concenls related to developnlent on sloped single-fanuly residential lots—structural safety and visual/aesthetics. Structural safety is addressed for all projects by the Planning, Building, and Public Works Departnlents during building pernlit plan review and inspections. Soils/geoteclulical reports are required for all hillside developnlent ii1 the buildulg plan review phase. In addition, geologic and/or geotecllnical reports with peer review are required for developnlent witllul geohazard zones. T11e ordinance and subsequent planning process 1lelps to address visual, aesthetic, and grading impacts - all of which are noted in our General Plan Policies 2-48, 2-52, 5-10 throug115-12, and 5- 19 through 5-23 (Attachnlent 10). In order to determine which regulations would be appropriate to address these issues, staff looked at the followulg itenls: 1. At what point does slope beconle a concern? 2. Are any other geological characteristics a concenz? 3. Which regulations sllould be applied to sloped lots in order to reduce visual, aesthetic and environnlental impacts? The following discussion highlights the analysis and reconunendations related to the above issues. Slo�es and Setback Standards The City's Consulting Geologist felt that slope starts beconiulg an issue when 1lomes are Uuilt on slopes of 20% or greater (see Attac11n1ent 11). Staff additionally notes fllat buildulg on existulg flat pads (as long as the geologic/geotechnical issues are addressed) is not a concern. 21 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 About 2591ots in the City have slopes of between 20% and 30%. Of tllose, 112 are toe-of-hill lots and 147 are embanklnent 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 sonle lots, it would nlake 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 gradulg. Gradin� Under the current ordinance, grading for fl1e 18 sloped single-fanuly residential lots is linlited to 2,500 cubic yards. Grading above 2,500 cubic yards requires Planning Conlmission review and is consistent with the Residential Hillside (RHS) ordinance. The intent is to avoid excessive grading as well as the resulting visual inlpacts of 1lomes on lots with natural slopes. Based on a discussion wit11 t11e City Geolob st and staff engineers in the Public Works and Building Departnlents, staff notes that the 2,500 cubic yard lu7ut is adequate for nlost single-fanuly honles. A large truck can carry up to 10 cubic yards; therefore, 2,500 cubic yards would equa1500 round trip truck trips. Staff believes that any additional gradulg should require additional review to linut grading and visual impacts. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Second Story Requirenlents The current orduzance allows the 18 sloped suzgle-fanuly residential lots to build up to 45% total FAP on t11e flat portion of the lot. However, 1lomes larger than 4,500 square feet and located off the flat pad require Plannulg Commission review. T11e 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 1louse size linutation does not appear to be appropriate to address visual inlpacts on lots of such varying sizes. A nlore appropriate criterion to address visual inlpacts would be the FAR, which would vary based on the size of the lot. Based on this, staff reconinlends additional Planning Coninlission review for homes wiflz over 35% FAR. While a house size on larger lots is quite large, staff notes that tllere are only two lots over an acre, nlost of which 11ave beeil already recently developed. Also, the screenulg and setback opportwlities offered by the larger lot would likely be adequate to address visual or privacy issues. Second story and balcony requirements for t11e 18 sloped single-fanuly residential lots are currently consistent with the Residential Hillside zone, which does not 11ave a specified review process for second stories and balconies. The RHS Ordinance does not linut the size of second stories, and at the time of the 2007 ordinance anlendments for the 18 sloped single-fanuly lots, second stories in the other R1-zoned properties were linuted to 45% second story to first story ratio. T11e current Sulgle-Fanuly Pesidential Ordulailce does not have that linutation any nlore, provided that there is additional review and the desigll criteria are being met. As noted above, t11e special requirements referrulg to RHS zones have only applied to fl1e 18 specified sloped single-fanuly residential lots and not to otller sloped sulgle-fanuly residential lots. Staff therefore believes fllat t11e Single-Fanuly Residential Ordinance requireinents would be adequate and should apply to all sloped lots between 20% and 30%. Fenculg Requirements Fencuzg requirements for the 18 sloped single-fanuly residential lots are sinular to those uz the PHS zone. T11e requirenleilts have a linutation on the anlount of yard area fllat can be fenced with solid board fencing and also encourages open fencing in order to preserve views to t11e 1lillsides. Many of the sloped lots in the City are snlaller and do not sllare the sanle characteristics as the hillside properties that are currently under tllese regulations. Therefore, staff reconlmends that only fences that are widely visible to public view and create visual inlpacts on the look and feel of an area (for example, blocks public views to 22 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 t11e western hills or an open space preserve) be required to nlaintain the special fenculg requirements. T11is is consistent with General Plan Policy 2-53. All other sloped lots would have fencing requirements sinular to lots u1 the Sulgle-Fanlily Residential zone (no restrictions on fence material). Based on the discussion above, staff is reconinlending consideration of the following options. Staff additionally notes that the reconlnlendations are generally uz keeping with the nlajority opinions of the public at fl1e workshop. Options for Sloped Single-Fnmil� Pesic�ential Lots 1. Slopes - Require additional review for honles 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 - Contimie to require P1aru1ulg Comnussion review for projects fllat propose grading of over 2, 500 cubic yards. 3. FAR and Second Story requirements - Keep the sanle as for other Single-Fanlily Residential lots. However, honles with an FAP of greater than 35% would require Planning Comnussion review. Staff believes that additional review for ulcreased grading aild FAR will address issues related to visual and environmental impacts. 4. Fencing requireinents - San1e as for other Single-Fanlily Residential lots. However, fences that are widely to public view and create visual inlpacts on t11e look and feel of an area (for example, blocks public views to the western hills or an open space preserve) be would have fencing requirenlents sinular to that in the RHS zone Section 19.40.080A.2. and B. (linuted solid board fencing, unlinuted o�en fencing- see Attachment 12). 5. Tree renloval and retaining wall requirenlents - Remove current requirements for the allowance of certain protected tree renlovals and retauling wall screening. Staff believes that the tree renloval requirenlents should be the sanle as for other Suzgle-Fanlily Pesidential lots. The Protected Tree Ordinance (Chapter 14.18) currently protects species of a certain dianleter 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 t11ey are built in) should be screened wifll landscaping to reduce visual impacts. Staff will review placing this requirement elsewhere u1 the zoning ordulance to apply to all retaining walls. 6. Building and roof forms; and Exterior color requirements - T11ese two regulations from the PHS Orduzance (section 19.40.070) sllould be carried over to assist in reduculg visual and aesthetic inlpacts and help house designs Ulend with the natural surroundings. 7. Keep existing requirenlents in either of the above categories. Pros • Grading restrictions would allow additional review in order to reduce visual and aesthetic inlpacts. • Would allow the public and Planning Conlnussion to ensure t11at excess gradulg is done properly fronl a visual and environnleiltal standpoint. As noted earlier, a large truck cail carry up to 10 cubic yards, and 2,500 cubic yards would equa1500 round trip truck trips. • FAR linlitations would reduce potential visual impacts of buildings on slopes. St��ff notes th��t r�dditionr�l ��ez�iezv for ine��e�ased grr�ding �and design t�ez�ieu� zvoilld �adc�ress t11is issile. • Pernutting larger second stories would allow for more varied desib zs. • Larger second stories on sloped lots would allow buildulgs to fit ulto the natural slope and reduce excessive grading. • Open fencing requirenlents would reduce the potential visual inlpacts associated with solid board fenculg on hig111y visible upslope portions of lots. 23 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 Cons • Setbacks from slopes could potentially make certain lots difficult to build on - Geologic/geotechnical ree�itiirenients zvoilld mr�ke it sr�fe �and grrzding limitr�tions zuould �addt�ess z�isitir�l inip�aets. • Additional review for increased gradulg would delay the review process for applicants. • Larger second stories could create greater visual inlpacts. Str�ff notes tliat c�esign rez�iew for Ic�rge seconc� stories (aboz�e 45 % seeoncl to first floor rc�tio) woulc� address this issue. Public corriments • 42% of flze workshop attendees felt fllat there should be setback standards fronl steep slopes. • 67% of the workshop attendees felt that there sllould be additional review for buildings built on slopes as opposed to flat pads. • 50% of the workshop attendees felt t11at there should be 1ligher review for grading beyond t11e existing quantity linlits. • 58% of the workshop attendees felt that there should not be additional FAR restrictions. • 50% of the workshop attendees felt that second floor area sllould be linlited to 45% or nlore wifll additional architectural review criteria required for second stories t11at are larger. This is the cr�se in tl�e ci�r��ent R1 ordinance, pa��tici�lc�rly if design reviez�� for lr�rger seconc� stories is prese��ved. • 50% of the worksllo� attendees felt that there should be open fencing requirements for lots near hillsides. Enz�ironnzentc�l Assessment On June 16, 2011, fl1e Environnlental Review Conlnuttee recommended that a negative declaration fronl fl1e Califorilia Environnlental Quality Act (CEQA) be adopted since none of the potential ordinance anlendnlent options would 11ave significant adverse environmental inlpacts. T11e Negative Declaration will be brought to the City Council for approval along with t11e ordinance anlendnlents. Next Steps T11e Plarululg Coinnussion coninlents and reconinlendations will be forwarded to City Council u1 August for consideration of potential orduzance amendnlents. Prepared by: George Schroeder, Assistant Planner Peviewed by: Approved by: /s/Gary Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava City Plaruler Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS Attadlnlent 1 Draft Pesolution Attachnlent 2 Planning Coninlission Subconmlittee report on process inlprovenlents Attachment 3 Limited R1 review questionnaire from the May 24, 2011 workshop Attachnlent 4 Tally of workshop attendee responses on the linuted R1 review handout Attachment 5 Conlnlents and questions from the limited P1 review workshop discussion on May 24, 2011 24 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review June 28, 2011 Attachnlent 6 Proposed R1 ordinance text anlendments for readability and consistency Attachment 7 Pevised Two-Story Desi�z Prulciples for projects with second to first floor ratios greater th�� 45 % Attachnlent 8 Additional information on two-story design review, noticing, story poles, and R1- 20/ single-fanuly residential sloped lots Attadlnlent 9 Map of sloped single-fanuly residential lots Attachnlent 10 Existing General Plan policies related to developnlent on sloped lots Attachment 11 Men10 from Cotton, Shires, and Associates regarding geotecl2nical constraints of sloped single-family residential lots Attachment 12 Existing RHS fencing requirenlents �: � Pl�anning � PDPEPORT � pc 3IGA r��port� � 2011 �\�ICA-2011-03, EA-2011-0.5.aoc 25 Aitachment 1 MCA-2011-03 CITY OF CUPEPTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPEPTINO PECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPPOVE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 19.28, SINGLE-FAMILY PESIDENTIAL ZONES, TO IMPPOVE PEADABILITY AND CONSISTENCY, THE TWO-STOPY DESIGN PEVIEW PPOCESS, PUBLIC NOTICING PEQUIPEMENTS, STOPY POLE PEQUIPEMENTS, AND STANDAPDS FOP SLOPED SINGLE-FAMILY PESIDENITAL LOTS The Planning Conmlission reconlnlends approval of the proposed anlendnlents to the City of Cupertino Mwlicipal Code as shown below: 1. Peadability and consistency inlprovements. 2. Two-story design review process. 3. Public noticing requirements. 4. Story pole requirenlents. 5. Standards for sloped single-fanuly residential lots. PASSED AND APPROVED this 28th day of Jtuze 2011, at a Regular Meetulg of the Planning Conlnussioil of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONEP�S: NOES: COMMISSIONEP�S: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONEP�S: ABSENT: COMMISSIONEP�S: ATTEST: APPPOVED: Aarti Shrivastava Winnie Lee, Chair Director of Conlmunity Developnlent Planning Conlnussion 26 Attachment 2 � � ��' � ��.��f _ � �� °'� � � � �� I-� ''� �'lanning Commissior� Subcommi�tee Report vn Process Improvements �,.,��,��.�., �. the approval of the Planzking Cammission„ Plan.r�ing Cozzaznission C�air Winnie Lee and �ce Chair Marty Miller �ormed a subcommittee to meet with staff for the purpose nf identifying and recommending efficiency innprc�vements to the current permit approval process. The effnrt is nat yet complete. Howe��er, a request was made of the subcommittee to provide a report on efforts to date for the Fe�ruary 15� Cauncil hearin�;. This report is in response to that request. i . Ta date, the subcornmittee focused mostiy on rc;sidential permitting. Based on connm,ents from past residential applicax�ts this report propases ways in which the efficiency of Cupertino's permit approval process can be substantially improved. These improvernents are intended to reduce processing time, staff costs, and project approval costs witbout reducing : important noticir�g alerts to neighbors. The City, the staff, and the applicant will all bcnefit. A more e�ficient and business friendly process wiIl help the City attract desirable businesses and needed de�eloprnent to Cupertino, This will ultimately irnprove the City's finances as desirable businesses are attracted to the City and zazore retail dollars are spent here. At the last Process Workshop, a participant tes�ified that a business owner, who ariginally planned to locat� in Cupertino, switched to Sunnyvale instead because aFthe difficulty in abtaining the necessazy perrnits from Cupertino. A more ef�'icient process will reduce staff time .�nd cost spent warking on issues that add little value ta the process or the end result. Finally, a znore efficient �rocess will reduce uncez�tainty and business risk leading to lower project costs and better rappnrt with the business community. Sonne proposed changes anly r�quire a rriodific.�tion to the current process. Others require a modification to an Ordinance, inciuding the Rl Ordinance as we11. While some may be concerned about revisiting the R1 Ordinarice, it has been opened �p successfully in a limited way twice in tk�e past 3 years. Recommendec� changes to the R1 and the BMR program wili have an innmediate positive itnpact. Please givE, it serious cansideration. A iisi of changes and additians recommended t�� date i�nclude the foIlowing: 1. Provide comprehe�esive dacumentatia�n of the entire process writ#en frmm the applicant's point of view, including e�ramples of filled in farms, detaile�i requirements, and expected deliveral�ies for�each step. The current process is not fully documentecL It is complex and daunting to first tinne applicants, requiring a great deal of persona.l interaction with the staff. The lack of : docurz�ez�tation on the camplete pracess res��l�s in lots of questions and sometimes inconsistent inCerpretation by members of the staff leading to furtk�er canfusion. The applicant must contend with requiarements frorn Public Works, Pla�ning and ' Building, In some cases these r�quirements appear #o overlap or conflict. For example, the Building Department reviews site imprcivetnent plans that were already approved as part of the �'inal Map approval, requiring atlditional sets of plans ta da so. Fehruary 14, 26i 1 Planning Cammissi��n Subcommittee Report Page l 27 _ _ _ _ 2. Aliow �urc paralfel processQng aexd reduce sequential p�ocessing where possible. There are many different tasks that znust b� caz�npleted by the applican� an the way to obta�ining a building permit. The cuz�ent prnaess requires many of these tasks to be cnr�apleted in sequence. This is true even wlien there are no interdependencies. For exazx�ple, architectucal approval is nat given until aft�r Final Map a�proval is achieved. Yet these two activities are nat, or should ncrt, b� interdependent and can be completed � separately. Allowing more parallel processing will reduce prncessing #ime. Staff approvals that can be delayed until latE.r in the pracess should be conditioned and � delayed. For exarr►ple, final appruval of landscaping plans cnuld be delayed and conditioned on the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. ELiminat� nnnecessary and redu�dant steps. � As an example, requirit�g an evaluation of ti�ees that are either inside a building �ootprint, or requested for removal by the Public Works Department because they interfere with � - required site improvements seems unnecessary. �. Elinainate ataff review of architecture. In most cases, homes in Cupertino are desi�;ned by licensed �rchitects. �n thase instances where they ar� not, ttaey could be reviewed by the City's architect, or a� independent architect chosen by tk�e applicant. Large and praminent project� should continue ta be reviewed by the City's architect. However, staff in general does nflt have architectural training, Consequent�y, staff comments tend to include personal preferences and biases. Some architectural mandates and design critexia lead tn conforimity and the pallet af the Czty becomes very duli as a result. Far example, limitations on the size of the second story led ta the proliFeration ofthe "weddin.g cake" design across the City. By comparison, Mountain View does not do architectural re�iew on any single famiiy homes. Yet, Cupertino's two story hornes cio not cxhibit an.y better architecture than Mountain View's. Tlte section of the R1 Ordinance permittin�; second stories with square footage greater t�an 45% ofthe �irst story is partzcularly anerous. �our sided architectural review is required and staff re�iews these hoznes at great length arid in great detail. The amoun.t of zelief that staff expects is especially challenging for srrialler lots where space and flexibility is limited. Mee�ing staff's exterior relief requireix�ents pften r�sults ir� poor interior functionality of the home itself. Yet, after considerable time and expense az� architectural details, privacy landscapi�g requirements essentially hide the sides and rear yard from neighborl�o�d view. Staff has also xequired that a tree be planted in the cR,nter of the frant yard to obscure the . architecture from the street. A better apprc�ach is needed. � , Febrvary 14, 2011 Planning Commission Subc4mmittee Report Page 2 28 ' 5. Elibninate requirements tha�t add ver�� lit�le in value in comparisan to tl�eir cost in tinne anc� dollars. Staff requires tl�at story poles outlining the ;;econd floor are placed in exactly �he location that tk�e walls and corners they represezat wi ll be built. Staff also requires that the poies de�ne corners and roof elements in great de:taiL These requirement� axe very expensive to implement. They require an engineering survey and a time cansuming cnnstruction process. �� The poles stay up for about b weeks and arE: then torn down and disposed o£ But, the level of detail that they represent is nearly i:m�aassible to visualize in practice. Because they only outline second story elements, the:y have the patential to give a misleading : � impression o#'the actual size of the hozxae. Also required are renderings that are muc�a rnore effective in giving residents ari appreciation of what will actually be built. Whiie renderings are very effective, story poles are very eostiy and add little value, T'hey should be elirninated. When new Ordinance ruies ar� recommended, a cost benefit analysis should be perfarmed and �ieir impact on existing rules should be evaluated before formal approval. 6. Staff requirements for la�dscaping stiould be reviewed by the Pla�ning Commissio� and City Coue�ciN and m�dified. Staffcurrently zequires ihat the entire parcel t�e iandscaped befare a Certi�icate of Occupancy is g,iven unless the applicant ca�i unequivacaily demonstrate that 25D0 square feet af landscaping will never be exceeded. As an alternative, staff will accept the pasting of ara expensive bond ta cover hype�thetical landscaping cnsts. Tkus requirem�nt cannot be found anywhere in the Landscap�� Water Efficiency Qrdinance. In �act, the j Landscape Water Efficiency C�ecklist statE:s that if no landscaping is being propased, then nathing m�ore need be done by the app{icant. In most case�, a buiider wiil landscape the i.ront yard for curb appeal, but not landscape _ the backyard. Even when the backyard is i;�dscaped, the landscaping is minimal and as inexpensive as pa�sible. Backyard landsca:pang is a loss leader far a builder because new horne buyers typiaally want to design ihe backyazd landscaping personally. Even if the builder puts landscaping it�, it is usually re�Flaced within a short period of time. Staff s landscape requirements are very expensive and are not an effective soluti�n to insuring adherence to the Landscape Water Efficiency �rdinance. 7, Eliminate unnecessary requirements for copies of architectural and engimeering � pl�ns. As an example, a separate and full set of plans are required far a minor exception. This is true even though the minor exception plan set is no different than the plan set required for the horx�e itself. If the new Permitting sofii�rare enables the suhmittaI of plans electronically, it will address this issue. Hawever, until that sofiware is implemented, uruiecessary paper generation requirements should be �liminated. Cebruary �4, 2011 1'lanning Commissian Subcommittee Report Page 3 29 8. Review and �adi�'y �ees and tt�e fee structure Fees should be based, as rnuch as possible, �n Planner time spent. For large projects that xeqraire more time than a bencl�ark project, additional fees should be charged an a time at�d materials basis to ensure cost recovery. Curre�ntly, Cupertino does not charge for Einne spent with potential applicants until they ; fill out an application and make an actual st�bmittal. The City should answ�r pxeliminary �, �uestions without charge. However, if an applicant wants staff ta review a preliminary site plan, or design, and give tr�eaningful feE�dbaek, Couneil could consider charging a madest fee for tl�at set vice. San Jose follows a similar process and offers several upfront , fee o tions for reliminary reviews. P P , Once Council approves changes to the cux permitting process, individual fees should � be reduced or incxeased as appropriate. Consider collecting z�apact fees at the issuance o�' a Certificat� of Occupancy, or Close of Escrow, instead of when the buiiding pez�rnit is issued. Buildi�gs do not have an impact : an the City until after t�ey are built. Con�equent�y, it doesn't cost the City an}rthing to delay the fee coilectinn until after construction is co�xaplete. However, in the current econoranic envirar�ment, obtaining construction loans is very c�allenging. Because izxxpact fees a�re a signi�icarit expense, delaying their callection until later in the project will reduce loaza requirements and inake obtainv�g a construction loan easier. 9. Review the BMR. program and reduce, eliminate, or offer an in lieu fee op�tion. The BMR program is not the most effective: way to provide affordable housing and has been subject to abuse. It is a very expensive program and the burden of that expense is completely borne by the land owner, builder, and buyers of tY�e homes on a particular site. � Yet it is a City wide benefit. In the cu�rent econ�rnic enviranment, costly BMR programs have stopped projects from mavi�ig fo:rward in Bay Ar�a eities. Mountain View has an aFfordable hausing prograin which perrnits the builder to pay an in lieu fee instead o£ building the units if the difference between the market sales price ar�d �ie affordable sales price is great�r than a t��reshold amount. Conszder evaluating this progrann for implementation ir� Cupertino. The Matrix Report and the Comrnuz�ifiy Warkshops were helpful in identifyirzg areas of opportunity to imprave the appIication permitting process. This report, as a supplez�nent to those effarts, has briefly outlined progress to date on identifyir►g additional oppartunities for proc�ss improvement. Thc c�ar�rent process is not well understaod and consequently leads to confitsian, tirne wasted, and less thazx optimal results. It is our recommendation that the Couneil aliow the subeammittee's review prac��ss ta eantinue to completion. Winnie Lee, Platuiing Commission Chair ' Marty Miller, Planning Commission Vice Chaiz , I I February 14, 201 I Planning Commission 5ubcommittee Repart Page 4 30 ' Aitachment 3 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 Two Story Design Review � _ �� =r � :. Ob�ective: Evaluate whetller the R1 Two-Story Design Review _ �� process should be streanilined. � � a �� ` �', �'� � � k� �_ _ , , i :. � �: re � . �� ar 1�1'E �" — 1. <_ 45% second to first story ratio: ��u■� :�o�� ""'°'� 1�°"u"' 4��:: �n� • Keep existing process - Two-Story Permit, City staff design �""""i �� IP' �� - review, and noticing �--��- - _ _ __ � __ ° � -- _ -- - _ �r�� Yes ❑ No ❑ • No design review, but keep the Two Permit and Two house with design review public noticing process Yes ❑ No ❑ • No design review (apply for building permit) � -. k` � � � , ..: °u Yes ❑ No ❑ � � �Ir� ��=- -= � � '�w ,'� . � :`'� ,� �,..� . ,..�. . , e � 2. > 45% second to first story ratio - � :.�� • Keep existing process- T�ro-Story Permit, City staff design .�"� ��'� � review, architectural consultant review, and noticulg ��,—_� ,�� ;. Yes ❑ No ❑ . � Two-story house without design review • Keep existing process but simplify design principles by illustrating examples of conunon architectural styles Yes ❑ No ❑ ' �" �" � �ol � � � �.�-1'� .___— • No design review, but keep Two-Story Permit and public �> �� : i 1 1� �k �_��" � � -�,■ noticing process _ �-� �, , i � Yes ❑ No ❑ �}� � l � i � :, � .� ; _ • No design review (apply for building permit) -= �.-- -_ � - _ _'� � ^ � -�� _ Yes ❑ No ❑ _ �` '� � � F� � �� ; � >45% 2nd to 1 st fl. ratio with design review Comments: 31 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 Noticing 4 � 1' �s J '4 �",� . �- Ob�ective: Evaluate noticing area and material for R1 projects. � '� m� � �� ,�� _ �'�� fi��.� '- .` �� 1. Noticing radius: � � �� ,�,'�'� • Keep existing radii of 300' (for 2-story and Exceptions) �� °°' ;�-,,, _ `��,�°'� �,� � ,. ., Yes ❑ No ❑ �� E Y � �� a� C: �.�, ,y�.: :.,,, -. , � ��, J � , � . _.. . r {� :�z �r q� • Ad'acent onlv and across the street �� ` � Yes ❑ No ❑ ? � �~ �, , � , ,� �� "`,�,��+"��' >� �. 5 r � � � � 4��J T� a:�a. . .�a��:��".r,�.. ��. .��afuv � . . f„ Notice board for two-story house 2. Noticing inaterial: • Keep existing process of mailing notices and 11" x 17" plan sets Yes ❑ No ❑ • Send notices and only site plan and elevations to adjacent property owners and across the street Yes ❑ No ❑ • Send notices onlv and llave onsite notice board Yes ❑ No ❑ • No mailed notice, only onsite notice board Yes ❑ No ❑ Comments: Story Poles � � ', ' Ob�ective: Evaluate whether story poles should be required. � �� `"�`: � � �� r� � 1. Keep the existing requirenlents to install story poles for all ,'� � �� two-story projects � �� N �� -� " ��1 - Yes ❑ No ❑ � � �� .` ,��,w�,,¢�.� M �� : � � � a�. ��• �,�� ,�. Y � r , �� a � ., 2. Remove the requirements ��`i`� �, �$ �` T y � � ��. a f�'�`� -�� I ' 1 _... . � Yes ❑ No ❑ � . "� . -_ - � � � _:� � -- --_ Story poles for new two home 3. Option of story poles or 3D photo simulation Yes ❑ No ❑ Comments: 32 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 R1-20/R1 Sloped Lots � . �.°'"� ,�� y ; ��` �� ^ � ` ,��'- � , Ob�ective: Evaluate whether tllere should be different standards �� '� « �� °�'`�� `�� :�� for R1-201ots and R1 slo ed lots. � �� ' � � �� p �� , - . � *� � 1. Should special regulations [19.28.050 (C) of the R1 Ordinance] `�` r`' � �• .,� #�� apply to all R1-zoned lots with slopes >_ 15% to <_ 30%? �� - �; � � '� �� .�.�� - �. ,. . • 389 affected lots — categorized as "Toe of Hill" and ,�� ._� "Embankment/Flood Plain' lots; 184 (47%) Toe of Hill, 205 � ; � •y�'- `�" -� � � " (53%) Embankment --�-�"`-� Yes ❑ No ❑ Embankment/Flood Plain Lot 2. Development near Steep Slopes- Should there be setback � � � P standards for development near slopes >_ 15%? �" �=�. �''�� - �_-_��., � � � Yes❑ No❑ ��'�"' - .,�� , g p l � � � B il in ff Fl P- h 1 il in ff h fl r ir -�� 3. u d g o at ad S ou d bu d g o t e at pad equ e �--,.- additional review? '� � � , � _. , _ _ . _ ,� ,�,�.v ...�._., Yes ❑ No ❑ ' � ��.. _ - � � 4. Grading- Currently, projects with grading quantities >2,500 �`' " Toe of Hill lot cubic yards require Plaiuling Commission review and a nlaximunl of 2,000 sq. ft. area is allowed to be graded for the �� °��= ��. ��.n � y :� �� buildulg pad. S1lould additional gradulg continue to require �:s �� k ro# �'�, �� ,�,,� higher review? ` � � ' . �` ' � � �. t � � ,. � ,� � ��.q ��4 �� ,��, � �� Yes ❑ No ❑ �� `'�� . �" _ � �� ' . � m .;.�v� ,, 5. FAR Restrictions- Should tllere be different FAR restrictions �' - . for building on the flat portion of the lot and off? � - � � .. i " . -_,,� Yes ❑ No ❑ � ' 6. Second Floor Area- Should 211�� Floor Area follow existing R1- View downslope of R1-2o lots 20 (unlimited) OR regular R1 (45% or more if additional architectural criteria is met)? � . Yes ❑ No ❑ � �' � � �� , � �6 � c .� � � £ ;� � � �'� 7. Fencing- Should there be open fencing requirenlents for lots �` ��'' ��- '�� ,� �� .� that abut RHS-zoned properties (similar to R1-20), i.e. toe of �• � -•� �'�� ;��,,� . ��, hill lots? �� ,.��. ��, � ' �� ,,��;_� � r �.�� r Yes ❑ No ❑ ;� _ � Comments: � View of R1-20 lots from valley floor 33 Attachment 4 Tally of May 24, 2011 worlcshop attendee responses on the limited R1 review handout Two Stor Peview 1. <_ 45% second to first story ratio: • Keep existing process - Two-Story Permit, City staff design review, and noticitlg 8 (57%) Yes 6 (43%) No • No design review, Uut keep the Two-Story Pernut and public noticing process 4 (29%) Yes 10 (71%) No • No desi�z review (apply for Uuilduzg pernut) 3 (21%) Yes 11 (79%) No 2. > 45% second to first story ratio - • Keep existulg process- Two-Story Pernut, City staff design review, arcllitectural consultant review, and noticing 8 (57%) Yes 6 (43%) No • Keep existulg process Uut sinlplify desib principles by illustrating exanlples of conlnlon architectural styles 5 (36%) Yes 9 (64%) No • No design review, but keep Two-Story Permit and public noticing process 3 (21%) Yes 11 (79%) No • No desi�z review (apply for builduzg pernut) 3 (21%) Yes 11 (79%) No Conrnients: • I believe if a project is satisfyulg the guideliiles, tllen the staff can approve without aily further review • There should not be any design regulations except for setbacks. We should bring more different designs into the City instead. All residential 11on1es look similar. Each house should look unique. • Design review process needed. • Please leave everything the way it is. The process works very well now and doesn't need to be changed. Neigllbors wifll snlall lots are at risk if the R1 Ordinance for two-story design review process is changed. Small lot neighborlloods are at risk if story poles are eliniinated. Small lots are at risk if neighborllood noticing is elimuzated. • No option is perfect, all need to nlodify. Need review, but need to sinlplify. • Please keep the existulg rules. • Keep the existing standards and review. • Use conimon sense when reviewulg architectural style. Noticuz� �one questiorulaire was not filled out for $Zis section 1. Noticing radius: • Keep existing radii of 300' (for 2-story and Exceptions) 11 (85%) Yes 2 (15%) No • Adjacent only and across the street 2 (15%) Yes 11 (85%) No 34 2. Noticing material: • Keep existuzg process of mailulg notices and 11" x 17" plan sets 8 (62%) Yes 5 (38%) No • Send notices and only site plan and elevations to adjacent property owners and across the street 4 (31%) Yes 9 (69%) No • Send notices only and have onsite notice board 3 (23%) Yes 10 (77%) No • No mailed notice, only onsite notice board 1 (8%) Yes 12 (92%) No Comnlents: • Larger radius than 300 feet would be good. • Use the website for all details. • Keep the existing noticing procedures. • Existing process wastes paper and plans sllould be available online. Stor *two questionnaires were not filled out for this section L Keep the existing requiremeilts to install story poles for all two-story projects 5 (42%) Yes 7 (58%) No 2. Penlove the requirenlents 6 (50%) Yes 6 (50%) No 3. Option of story poles or 3D photo sinlulation 4 (33%) Yes 8 (66%) No Conzments: • Must have a 3D photosimulation and wi$1 a street elevation between neigllbor • Maybe add the 3D photosimulation to story poles for window placenlent, etc. • Please leave story poles alone. They work well now. • It would be great to add the 3D photosimulation along with the story poles. • Use technology to its fullest- 3D photosimulation • Story poles do not properly uzdicate or describe the true situation and style of the project. Also cost of installation is expensive. R1-20/R1 Sloped Lots *two questionnaires were not filled out for this section 1. Should special regulations [19.28.050 (C) of the R1 Ordinance] apply to all R1-zoned lots wiflz slopes >_ 15% to <_ 30%? 5(42%) Yes 5(42%) No 2(16%) No Response 2. Development near Steep Slopes- Should fllere be setback standards for development near slopes >_ 15%? 5(42%) Yes 4(33%) No 3(25%) No Response 3. Building off F'lat Pad- Should Uuilding off the flat pad require additional review? 35 8 (67%) Yes 4 (33%) No 4. Grading- Currently, projects with grading quantities >2,500 cubic yards require Planning Commission review and a nlaxinlum of 2,000 sq. ft. area is allowed to be graded for the building pad. Should additional gradulg continue to require higher review? 5(42%) Yes 6(50%) No 1(8%) No Response 5. FAR Restrictions- Should there be different FAR restrictions for building on the flat portion of the lot and off? 4(33%) Yes 7(58%) No 1(8%) No Response 6. Second Floor Area- Should 211i Floor Area follow existuzg P1-20 (unlimited) OR regular R1 (45% or more if additional architectural criteria is met)? 5(42%) Unlimited 6(50%) Limited 1(8%) No Response 7. Fencing- Should tllere be open fencing requirenlents for lots that abut RHS-zoned properties (sinular to R1- 20), i.e. toe of hill lots? 6(50%) Yes 5(42%) No 1(8%) No Response Comments: • Don't change anything. • Please keep t11u1gs t11e way they are. We have gone over these issues nlany times. Let's keep what we 11ave. • Do not change the rules that people have spent so nluch tinle on before. Do not re-ulvent the wheel. 36 Attachment 5 Comments and Questions from Limited R1 Review Workshop Discussion on May 24, 2011 General Conrntents • P1 rules don't apply to all lots • Leave the existulg R1 Ordinance the way it is • Upon annexation, residents were pronused flzat Cupertino would have codes to prevent larger homes • Cupertino �nTebsite a good resource and should have nlore resources and plan sets available to the public • R1 should not be relaxed • Don't build honles fl�at adversely inlpact street trees Qitiestions • Whose voices carry weight? Residents? Architects? Two-Stor,�gn Review Conrnients • Cupertino needs to inlprove upon 2-story design review to make it less conlplex; currently it is difficult to read. The process/regulations should be like Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Woodside. Qitiestions • Whose aesthetics are we designing to? • Aesthetics- who is the judge? What is the process for challen�ing those decisions? Noticuz� Comments • Existing process of send plan sets and notices works well • Noticing radius should be greater than 300 feet • 2 weeks does ilot seem like a loilg enougll notice period Storv Poles Comments • Honleowners who erect story poles end up damaging roofs regardless w11et11er t11ey build or not • Story poles needed on hillside lots • Story poles are onerous. They look too boxy, the wind blows thenl down, and they dori t work in inost cases. Feel that 3D perspectives are n1uc11 better. • Story poles have been a benefit to neighbors. They work well in sn1a11 neighborhoods and provide good visual estimation of what a house will look like. Story poles let �eople know exactly what they are getting. • Story poles and 3D photosinls should l�e required, with a nlininlum of story poles • Should renlove story poles — waste of nloney and tinle and do not tell the story • Story poles are a b eat visual cue to a new project, lets neighbors lalow what house will look like Slo�ed Single-Fanlilv Residential Lots Questions • How does slope percentage translate to slope degree? • Is there a City database on t11e slope of lots? 37 Aitachment 6 CHAPTER 1y.2�: SIIVGLE-FAIVIILY RESIDEIVTIAL (R1) ZONES 19.28.010 Purposes. 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. 19.28.030 Pernuts Pequired. 19.28.040 Zoning Districts Established. 19.28.050 Developnlent Regulations (Site). 19.28.060 Development Regulations (Building). 19.28.070 Eicher (R1-e) Developnlent Regulations 19.28.080 Developnlent Regulations-(R1-a). 1928.090 Two Story Desi�z Guideli�zes 19.28.100 Landscape Requirements. 19.28.110 Pernutted Yard Encroachments. 1928.120 Minor Residential Permits. 1928.130 T�nTo-Story Pesidential Pern2it. 19.28.140 Exceptions. 19.28.150 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 1��.�#�.4� � �B �'��r��. R-1 single-fanuly residence districts are ultended to create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to: A. Enllance the identity of residential neighborhoods; 38 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance B. Ensure provision of 1ig11t, air and a reasonable level of privacy to uldividual residential parcels; C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures witllin residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the predonunantly low-intensity setting in tlle community. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, §1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 1�.2��3€�'�O:�I��c:��r�li�sr t��al:��o��s. No building, structure or land shall be used, and no builcling or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R-1 single-fanuly residence district other than u1 conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, §1(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A(part), 1992) 1��.��a��B �'�� aaad ��v��c��tis��a��1 [�s�s. TaUle 19.28.030 sets forth t11e Pernlitted and Conditional uses uz the Suzgle-Fanlily Pesidential District. Uses Permitted Conditional A. Single-fanuly use; A. Issued by the Director of Coinnlunity Develo ment: B. A second dwelling unit confornling 1. Temporary uses, subject to to the provisions, standards and regulations established by Cha�ter 19.124; procedures described in Chax�ter 19.82, except for those secoild dwelling wlits requirulg a conditional use permit; C. Accessory facilities and uses 2. Large-fanuly day care home, which customarily ulcidental to pernlitted uses otherwise does not meet the criteria for a and otherwise conforming with the pernlitted use. The conditional use pernut provisions of Cha�ter 19.80 of fl�is title; shall be processed as provided Uy Section 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health 39 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Uses Permitted Conditional aild Safet Code; D. Hon1e occupations in accordance 3. Buildings or structures which with the provisions of Clla�ter 19.92; incorporate solar design featl.ires that require variations fronl setbacks upon a determination by the Director that such design feature or features will not result u1 privacy inlpacts, shadowing, intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrotuzding area; E. Horticulture, gardenulg, and growing 4. Second dwellulg tuzits which require of food �roducts. a conditional use pernut pursuant to Cha �ter 19.54• F. Residential care facility that is 5. Hon1e occupations requiring a licensed by the appropriate State, County conditional use permit pursuant to agency or departnlent with six or less Cha�ter 19.92 of this title. residents, not ulcludulg the provider, provider fanuly or staff; G. Snlall-fanul da care 11ome; B. Issued b the Plannina Conlnussion: H. The keeping of a maximum of four 1. Two-story structures in an area adult household pets, provided that no designated for a one-story linutation nlore th�1 two adult dogs or cats may be pursuant to Section 1928.060 G(6) of this kept on the site; chapter, provided that the Plarululg Conlnussion determuzes t11at the structure or structures will not result in privacy unpacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse inlpacts to fl1e surroundinQ area; I. Utility facilities essential to provision 2. Group care activities with greater of utility services to t11e neighborhood but t11an six persons; excluding business offices, construction or stora e ards, nlaultenance facilities, or 40 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Uses Permitted Conditional corporation ards; J. Large-fanuly day care honles, which 3. Residential care facilities that fall into nleet the parking criteria contauled in the following categories: Cha��ter 19.100 and which are at least three hundred feet fronl aily other large- a. Facility that is not required to obtain a fanuly day care honle. The Director of license by the State, County agency or Conlnlunity Developtnent or his/her deparhnent and 11as six or less residents, desib zee shall adniuzistratively approve not includuzg the providers, provider large day care homes to ensure family or staff; conlpliance with the parking and proxinlity requirements; l�. Facility that has flze appropriate State, County agency or departnleilt license aild seven or greater residents, not ulcludulg t11e provider fanuly or staff, is a nlulinlunl distance of five hundred feet from t11e property boundary of another residential care facility; c. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or departnlent and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider fanuly or staff, is a minimum distance of five htuzdred feet fronl the property boundary of another resideiltial care facility; K. Congregate residence with ten or less 4. Congregate residence with eleven or residents; nlore residents, which is a nuninlunl 41 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Uses Permitted Conditional L. Transitional housu�g and supportive distance of one thousand feet fronl flze housing. boundary of another congregate residence and has a n�ininlum of seventy-five square feet of usable rear ard area per occupant. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, §1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1688, §3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, E�1. A(part), 1992) 1�.��.(➢�lCb �' R��aaq�°��. Table 19.28.040 sets forth the discretionary planning permits required for development in the R1 zone. Type of Project Discretionary permit Approval authority required prior to building permit application One-story project that does not require exception or variance from t11e requirements None Admin. of t11is ordinance One-story project with building area that encroaches no nlore than 10 feet ulto the Minor Residential Pernut Admin. re uired rear ard setback One-story project with an extension of no nlore $Zan 15 feet along one existing side ard nonconformina buildula wall line One-story project with a gable end of a roof enclosing �1 attic space projecting outside the buildin� envelo�e with a wall hei ht of 17 feet,l inch to 20 feet New or expailded second story deck or balcoily with views into neighborulg residential side or rear ards Any active or passive solar structure that requires variation from the setback or 1leight restrictions of this chapter, provided that provided that no such structure shall infrinQe upon solar easements or ad�oininQ propert owners Two-stor addition or new two-stor honle Pesidential Design Peview Adnluz. Two-stor addition, new two-stor home, and/ or second stor deck in the R1-a zone (Two-Story Pernlit) DRC 42 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Type of Project Discretionary permit Approval authority required prior to building permit application Two-stor pro�ect in an P1 zonuzQ district with an "i' suffix Use Pernlit PC One or two-story project in the R1-20 zone located off the flat pad exceeding slopes of Architectural and Site 10% and producin floor area exceedinQ 4,500 of total house size Approval One or two-story project in the R1-20 zone wllere proposed grading exceeds 2,000 square feet for the building pad area (excludulg driveways) or the cut plus fill of the site exceeds 2,500 cubic ards Two-story project requesting an exception from the second story wall height Exception Admin. re�ulation One or two-story project requesting an exception fronl sections 19.28.060,19.28.070, Exception DRC and/ or 19.28.120 Oi1e or two-stor pro�ect requestinQ a variance from section 19.28.130 Variance PC Development on Slopes > 30% (area areater than 500 square feet) Hillside Exception PC Encroachment of a porch post no more than two (2) feet into the front setback in an Director's Minor Admin. P1-a zone Modification Eilcroachnlent of a porch platform and roof overllang no nlore fllan five (5) feet into t11e front setback in an R1-a zone 1s�.�f�.4��8 ��a�r�� a.��a�� k;��a��g��c�, Table 19.28.050 sets forth t11e zoning districts established. Zonin Desi nation Zonin Definition R1-X Sin�le Fanul Residential District- Minimum lot area corresponds to the number (nlultiplied b 1,000 square feet) P1-Xi Suzgle Fanuly Pesidential District Pestricted to One Story (not to exceed 18 feet high)- [nuninlunl lot area corres onds to fl1e nunlber (multi lied b 1,000 s uare feet) recedul� the 'i s nlbol] R1-Xe Single Family Residential Eichler District [mininlum lot area corresponds to the number (multiplied by 1,000 square feet) precedul� the 'e' s nlbol] R1-a Sin�le Famil Residential District with Senu-Rural Characteristics-10,000 s uare foot niulimunllot area 43 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance 1��.��.�C��B ��v�d�p�au� �a� ��<��_�a�� (Sa�€��. Table 19.28.060 sets forth t11e site developnlent regulations in the Suzgle-Fanuly Pesidential District. R1-5 R1-6, 7.5, 8,10, R1-20 R1-Xe R1-a etc. A. Minimunl 5,000 the number 20,000 the nunlber x1,000 10,000 net lot area (in x1,000 square feet) B. Muzinlunl 50 60 75 lot widtll(in feet, at the front setback line) C. Maxinlum site �radinQ 1. Total (in - 2,500 cubic yards maximum - cubic yards, (Projects that exceed this need cut plus fill)�- � additional approval per section 19.28.040) 2. Building - 2,000 square feet (Projects that - pad area, exceed fllis need additional approval excluding per section 19.28.040) driveways (in square feet) D. Fencing See C1lapter 16.28 (Fence 1. Solid board- 5,000 square foot site See C1lapter 16.28 (Fence Ordinance) Ordinance) area (excluding principal buildulg) 2. Open fencing- (conlposed of nlaterials which result in a mininlunl of 75 % visual transparency) wlrestricted, except that such fencing over 3 feet u1 heiQht n1a not be coilstructed 44 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, 7.5, 8,10, R1-20 R1-Xe R1-a etc. wifllin the front ard setback E. Petaining - Retaining walls in excess of 5 feet - wall screening shall be screened with landscape materials or faced with decorative nlaterials such as split-faced block, river rock, or sinlilar nlaterials subject to t11e approval of the Director of Conununity Development F. Trees - 1. No specinlen size trees nlay be - renloved without a pernut as provided for uz the Protected Tree Ordulance, Chapter 14.18 of tl�is code. Native trees sllould be integrated into the site design to the greatest extent possible. 2. U� to two protected trees wifll a dianleter less than 18 inches nlay be renloved to acconlnlodate a buildulg pad subject to approval of the Director of Conununity Developnlent. 3. Renloval of protected trees exceedulg 18 inches or renloval of more than two protected trees require approval of a tree renloval pernlit by the Planning Conunissioil in accordance with the Protected Tree Ordinance. 45 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, 7.5, 8,10, R1-20 R1-Xe R1-a etc. G. Linlited to 500 square feet. Developinent greater t11an 500 square feet requires a Hillside Exception per section 19.28.030 Developnlent on slopes >_ 30% H. See C1lapter 14.15, Landscape Ordulance Landscaping plans are Landscaping required for all additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of buildulg forms from the street and adjacent properties. Generally, the landscaping may include sllrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines on fences. � Lots, which contaul less area than required by its zoning designation, but not less than 5,000 square feet, nlay nevertheless be used as buildu�g sites, provided that all other applicable requirenlents of this title are fulfilled. � The 2,500 cubic yards includes grading for t11e building pad, yard areas, driveway, and all other areas requiring grading, but does not include basements. T11e graded area is linuted to t11e building pad area to the greatest extent possible. Grading quantities for multiple driveways are divided equally among the participating lots, e.g. two lots sharing a driveway will divide the driveway grading quantity in half. The divided share will be charged against the gradulg quantity allowed for that lot development. � All cut and fill areas shall be rounded to follow the natural contours and planted with landscaping that nleets the followuzg requirenlents: i. A licensed landscape architect shall review gradulg plans and, u1 consultation wifll the applicant and City Eilgineer, submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to screen cut and fill slopes. 46 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance ii. A licensed landscape architect shall prepare a tree planting �lan for the site whicll will screen grading areas, and residential structures, to t11e greatest possible extent, as well as to reintroduce trees on barren slopes which were denuded by prior agricultural activities. iii. Landscape improvenlents s11a11 meet the requirements as established u1$Ze Landscape Ordinance, Cha�ter 14.15 of this code. iv. Landscape improvenlents s11all l�e installed prior to final occupancy unless such ulstallation is impracticable, in which case, the applicant sllall post a bond, cash, or otller security to ensure installation within an 18-month period from occupancy. All such landscape areas shall be properly maultained. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 2011, 2007; Ord. 2000, 2007; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635, § 1(part), 1993; Ord. 1601, E�1. A(part), 1992) 19.28.070 Development Regulations (��i➢r3i��), Table 19.28.070 sets fortll the building developinent regulations in the Single-Fanlily Residential District. R1-5 R1-6, R1-7.5, 8,10, etc. R1-20 A. Maxinlunl lot 1. 45 % of the net lot area. coverage 2. An additional5% is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches, and other sinlilar features not enclosed on b� walls on at least tllree (3) sides B. Maximum floor area 45% of flze net lot area 1. 45% of the net lot area for develo�ment proposed ratio on the existing flat pad portion, defined as pad areas equal to or less than 10% slope, of any lot. 2. Buildings or additions off the flat pad and produculg floor area exceeding 4,500 square feet of total house size require additional review per section 19.28.030 3. Additions within an existing building envelope are pernutted provided t11at the total FAP of the existinQ buildul and additioil does not exceed 47 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, R1-7.5, 8,10, etc. R1-20 45%. C. Maximum floor area 1. 45% of $Ze existulg or proposed first floor area, or None established, provided total FAR does not ratio, 2�� to 1sr floor 750 square feet, whichever is greater. exceed 45%. 2. The Director of Conlnituzity Developnlent nlay b ant approval to the second floor to first floor ratio greater t11an 45 % provided that fl1e following design principles are n1et: a. An identifiable architectural style sllall be provided; b. Design features, proportions and details shall be consistent with the architectural style selected; c. Visual relief deenled to be appropriate by the Director of Conlmunity Developnlent shall be provided; d. Materials sllall be of hig11 quality; e. Ensure appropriate building nlass and scale; f. Desib z with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure; and g. The desi�l shall reflect syninletry, proportion and balance. h. T11e °City of Cupertino Two Story Design Prulciples" are attached hereto as Appendix A and ulcorporated herein by this reference. D. Interior areas 1. Shall be double-counted as floor area; (nleasured fronl the 2. If fl1e house is a two-story 1louse, this area will cowlt as second story floor area; and floor to the top of roof 3. If fl1e house is a one-story house, this area will count as first floor area. rafters) with heigllts > 16 feet 48 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, R1-7.5, 8,10, etc. R1-20 E. Miniinunl first floor setbacks 1. Front ard a. Mi�zinlunl 20 feet setUack b. Side entering 15 feet. No nlore than two (2) 15 foot setbacks shall occur side by side. garage with curved driveway c. Three-car garage For projects with three-car garages oriented to t11e public rigllt of way, the wall plane of t11e third space sllall be setback a mininlunl of two (2) feet fronl the wall plane of t11e other two (2) spaces. 2. Side yard - For lots that have more flzan two side yards, the setback shall be consistent for all side yards between the front property line and rear ro ert line a. Interior lot 5 feet 15 feet conll�uled (no side yard setback shall be less t11an 5 feet) 3. Corner lot a. Interior Side 5 feet b. Street Side 12 feet 4. Rear vard a. 20 feet. b. May be reduced to 10 feet, with a Minor Residential Perinit, subject to section 19.28.130, if, after the reduction, the useable rear yard is not less t11an 20 times the lot widfll as nleasured from the front setback line. F. Muzinlunl second floor setbacks 1. Front ard 25 feet 2. Side ard a. Interior Lot 25 feet conlbuled (no side ard setback s11a11 be less than 10 feet) 3. Corner lot 25 feet combined side ard setback (no side yard setback shall be less than 10 feet) a.Interior Side 10 feet but not less than 20 feet frotn t11e rear propert line of an ad�acent sin�le fatlul dwellin� 49 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, R1-7.5, 8,10, etc. R1-20 b.Street Side 12 feet 4. Flag lot 20 feet fronl any property line 5. Rear vard 25 feet 6. Setback surcharge a. 10 feet b. Must be added in whole or any combination to the second floor front and/ or side yard setback requirenlents. c. Does not appl to honles wifl� second floor to first floor ratios Qreater than 45%. I. Minimum second stor deck setbacks. See section 19.28.040 for ermits re uired. 1. Side ard 15 feet 2. Rear ard 20 feet G. Basements 1. Nunlber, size, and Shall be the niulinlunl required by tlle Califonlia Building Code for egress, light, and veiltilation, except volume of t11at in the case of a single-story 1louse with a basement, one 1ig11twe11 nlay be up to 10 feet wide and 10 li�ht�vells feet lon�. 2. Mininlunl setback for li�htwell retaulul� wall a. Side ard 5 feet b. Rear ard 10 feet 3. LiQhtwell railin s Maximunl heiQht of 3 feet. The fence shall be located immediatel ad�aceilt to the liQhtwell 4. Lightwell Liglltwells that are visible fronl a public street sllall be screened by landscaping. screenin 5. Root barrier The perinleter of the basenlent and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated and/ or reinforced with the nleasures most effective root barrier measures as determined b the Director of Coninluilit Develo ment. H. Maxinlunl hei�ht 1. Builduzgs 28 feet 2. Zonu1� Districts Limited to one stor (not to exceed 18 feet) 50 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, R1-7.5, 8,10, etc. R1-20 wi$Z "i' suffix * 3. First floor buildulg a. The nlaxinlunl exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and sulgle-story envelope sections of two-story structures must fit into the building envelo�e defined by: i. Defuled by a 10 foot high vertical luze from natural grade nleasured at the property line; and ii. A 25 degree roof line allgle projected ulward at fl1e 10 foot 11igh lule referenced above; b. Notwithstanding the building envelope, a gable end of a roof enclosulg an attic space nlay have a nlaxu11un1 wall heigllt of 17 feet to the peak of t11e roof as measured from natural grade, or up to 20 feet with a Minor Residential Pernut. 4. Second story a. 50% of the total peruneter length of the second story walls s11a11 not have exposed wall heights greater exposed wall t11an six (6) feet; heigllts b. Shall have a mininlunl two (2) foot hig11 overlap of the adjoining first story roof agaulst fl1e second story wall; and c. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a n�limunl of four (4) feet frotn the first story exterior wall plaile. d. This regulation does not apply to honles wit11 second floor to first floor ratios greater than 45%. e. The Director of Conlnlunity Development may approve an exception to this regulatioil based on the findin�s i�z section 19.28.140. 5. Entry feature 14 feet from natural grade to top of plate hei�ht I. Solar Design The setback and height restrictions provided in t11is chapter nlay be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infrulge upon solar easenlents or adjoining property owners. Variation from $Ze setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed onl u on issuance of a Minor Residential Pernut sub�ect to section 19.28.130 51 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance *- Pertains to all buildings in a designated area as prescribed by flze City Council by affixing the designation "i ' to the zoning district sytnbol. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A(part), 1992) ��`>�.��tg �� 7.�e� [�� 1��R ��„;me1:��Q�,�� R1-e single-fanuly residence "Eichler districts" protect a consistent architectural fornl through the establishment of district site development regulations. Nothing in these regulations is ultended to preclude a harnlonious two-story honle or second story addition. Table 19.28.080 sets forth the building developinent regulations in flze R1-e district. R1-Xe A. Maximunl lot coverage 1. 45% of the net lot area. 2. An additional 5% is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches, and otller siinilar features not enclosed b walls on at least three (3) sides B. Maximum floor area ratio 45% of the net lot area C. Maxinlunl floor area ratio, 2�� to 1st 1. 45% of the existing or proposed first floor area, or 750 square feet, w11ic11ever is greater. floor 2. The Director of Conlmunity Development nlay grant approval to the second floor to first floor ratio greater than 45% provided t11at the following design principles are n1et: a. An identifiable architectural style shall be provided; b. Design features, proportions and details shall be consistent with flze architectural style selected; c. Visual relief deemed to be appropriate by the Director of Comnlwlity Development shall be provided; d. Materials shall be of high quality; e. Ensure appropriate building nlass and scale; f. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure; and �. The desiQn shall reflect s nmletr , proportion and balance. 52 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-Xe h. The °City of Cupertino Two Story Design Principles" are attached hereto as an Appendix and incorporated hereul by this reference. D. Interior areas with 1leights > 16 feet 1. Measured from fl1e floor to the top of the roof rafters, and shall be double-counted as floor area; 2. If flze house is a two-story house, fllis area will count as second story floor area; and 3. If the house is a one-stor house, this area will count as first floor area. E. Minimunl setbacks First floor Second floor 1. Front ard a. Mulinlunl setback 20 feet 25 feet b. Side entering garage with 15 feet. No more than two (2) 15 foot - curved drivewa setbacks shall occur side b side. c. T11ree-car Garage For projects with tllree-car garages oriented - to the public right of way, the wall plane of the third space sllall be setback a mininlunl of two (2) feet fronl the wall plane of the other two (2) spaces. 2. Side ard a. Interior Lot 15 feet combined (no side yard setback shall 25 feet conlbuled (no side yard setback sllall be less flzan 5 feet) be less than 10 feet) b. Corner lot - 25 feet conlbined side ard setback i. Street Side 12 feet 12 feet ii. Interior Side 5 feet 10 feet and must not Ue less than 20 feet from t11e rear property line of an adjacent single fanul dwellin c. FIaQ lot - 20 feet 3. Rear ard a. 20 feet. 25 feet 53 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-Xe b.May be reduced to 10 feet, With a Minor Residential Pernut, subject to section 19.28.120, if, after the reduction, the useable rear yard is not less than 20 tinles the lot widfll as nleasured fronl the front setback line. 4. Surcharge setback - a. 10 feet b. Setback distance added u1 whole or any conlbulation to the second floor front aild/or side yard setback requirenlents. c. This regulation does not apply for 1lomes second floor to first floor ratios greater than 45%. 5. Second Stor Decks - See section 1928.030 for ernuts re uired. a. Side ard - 15 feet b. Rear ard - 20 feet F. Basenlents (su� est cllanaes as in table above) 1. Nunlber, size, and volume of The mmlber, size, and volunle of lightwells and basenlent windows and doors shall be the lightwells nuninlunl required Uy the California Building Code for egress, light, and ventilation, except that u1 the case of a single-story house witll a basement, one lightwell may be up to 10 feet wide and 10 feet long. 2. Mininluin setback for liahtwell retainin� walls a. Side ard 5 feet b. Rear ard 10 feet 3. LiQhtwell railulas 3 feet and shall be located inullediatel ad�acent to the li�htwell 4. LiQhtwell laildscapin Li�htwells that are visible fronl a public street shall be screened b landscapin . 5. Lightwell retaining wall root The perinleter of the basement and all lightwell retaining walls s11a11 be treated and/ or barrier nleasures reinforced with the inost effective root barrier nleasures as detern�ined by the Director of Comnlunit Developnlent. 54 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-Xe G. Maxin1un111eiQ11t (suQ est chan es as in Table above) 1. Total Uuildin� 11eiQht 28 feet 2. First floor building envelope a. The nlaxinlunl exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into the building envelope defined by: i. A 10 foot high vertical line from natl.iral grade nleasured at the property lu1e; and ii. A 25 degree roof line angle projected inward at the 10 foot high line referenced above; b. Notwithstanding the building envelope, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space nlay have a maxinlum wall height of 17 feet to t11e peak of fl1e roof as nleasured fronl natural grade, or up to 20 feet with a Minor Residential Permit. 3. Second story e�osed wall a. 50% of the total perinleter length of the second story walls shall not have ex�osed wall heights heights greater than six (6) feet; b. S11a11 have a miilinlunl two (2) foot hig11 overlap of fl1e adjoining first story roof against the second story wall; and c. The overlap s11a11 be structural and s11a11 be offset a minimuin of four (4) feet from the first story exterior wall plane. d. This regulation does not apply for homes with second floor to first floor ratios greater than 45%. e. T11e Director of Coninlunity Developnlent may approve an exception to this regulation l�ased on the findin s in section 19.25.140. 4. Entr feature hei ht See Two Stor Desi z Guidelines, Section 19.28.090 H. Solar Design The setback and height restrictions provided in this cllapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no suc11 structure sllall ulfritlge u on solar easenlents or ad�oinin� ro ert owners. I. Buildiil� desi z requirenlents 1. Entr features facin� fl1e street InteQrated with the rooflule of fl1e 1louse 55 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-Xe 2. Maximunl roof slope 3:12 (rise over rtuz) 3. Wood siduzg on walls facing a Shall incorporate vertical grooves, up to 6 inclles apart public street (not ulcludulg fl1e �araQe door) 4. Buildin� desi z The buildinQ desiQn shall incorporate strai�ht architectural lines, rather than curved lines 5. First floor elevation No nlore t11an 12 inclles above the existulQ arade 6. Exterior walls adjacent to side S11all not exceed 9 feet in height, nleasured from the top of the floor to the top of the wall ards plate (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, §1 (part), 2000) 1�.7�3.4��IJ D�v�l�e�an�e��qt Y��az9ati�a�y� R1-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural setting in neighborhoods with large lots. Table 19.28.090 sets forth the building development regulations in the R1-a district. R1-al A. Maxinlunl lot coverage 1. 45% of the net lot area. 2. An additional5% is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches, �1d other sinular features not enclosed on b walls on at least three (3) sides B. Maximunl total floor area ratio (ulcludulg all 45% of fl1e net lot area structures and floors on t11e lot) C. Maximum floor area ratio, 2�� to 1sr floor� 1. 40% of the existing or proposed first floor area, except as follows: a. A second floor nlay be at least 750 square feet in area b. In no case shall a second floor be nlore than 1,000 square feet in area D. Interior areas with 1leights > 16 feet 1. Measured fronl fl1e floor to the top of the roof rafters, and shall be double- counted as floor area; 2. If the house is a two-story 1louse, this area will count as second story floor area; and 56 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-al 3. If the house is a one-stor 1louse, this area will count as first floor area. E. Minimunl setbacks (nleasured fronl propert line) First floor Second floor 1. Front yard a. Mininlum setback 30 feet 30 feet b. Side entering garage with curved 15 feet. No nlore fllan two (2) 15 foot - drivewa setbacks shall occur side b side. c. T11ree-Car Garage For projects with fllree-car garages oriented to the public right of way, t11e wall plane of t11e tllird space s11all be setback a inulinlunl of two (2) feet from t11e wall plane of the otller two (2) spaces. 2. Side Yard a. Interior lot 10 feet both sides 35 feet coinbuled (no side yard setback shall be less t11an 15 feet) b. Corner lot 25 feet combined side ard setback i. Street side 12 feet 12 feet ii. Interior side 5 feet 10 feet and nlust not be less than 20 feet fronl the rear property line of an ad�acent sinale fanul dwellinQ c.F1aQ lot - 20 feet from an propert line 3. Pear yard 20 feet 40 feet F. Second stor desi�n reQulations 1. 211� to 1St floor wall lane The second stor shall not cantilever over a first stor wall lane 2. Front-facing wall plane(s) The front-facing wall plane(s) of the second story tnust be offset a nuninlunl of three (3) feet from the first story wall plane(s). T11e intent of this regulation is to avoid a two stor wall plane on the front elevation. G. Front Yard Paving 1. No nlore than 50% of the front yard setback area may be covered with a conlbination of impervious or senli-pervious surfaces. 57 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-al 2. No nlore than 40% of the front yard setback area may be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or asphalt. H. Basenlents 1. Nunlber, size, and volume of lightwells The mmlber, size, and volunle of lightwells and basenlent windows and doors shall be the minimum required by the California Buildulg Code for egress, light, and ventilation, except that in fl1e case of a single-story house with a basement, one li�htwell tna be up to 10 feet wide and 10 feet lon . 2. Mininluin setbacks for liQhtwell retainin walls a. Side Yard 5 feet b.Rear ard 10 feet 3. LiQhtwell railulas 3 feet and shall be located imnlediatel � ad�acent to t11e 1i�11twell 4. LiQhtwell landscapin LiQhtwells that are visible from a public street shall be screeiled b landscapinQ. 5. Lightwell retaining wall root barrier The perimeter of t11e basenlent and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated nleasures and/ or reinforced with the nlost effective root l�arrier measures as deternzined by t11e Director of Conlinunit Developnlent. I. Maxinlum hei ht (measured from natural ade, not includiil� fireplace chinine s, antennae, or other appurteilances) 1. Total buildul� heiQllt 28 feet 2. First floor buildulg envelope a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and suzgle-story sections of two-story structures nlust fit into fl1e building envelope defined by: i. A 12 foot 11ig11 vertical line fronl natural grade and located 10 feet fronl property lines; and ii. A 25 degree roof line angle projected inward at t11e 12 foot high line referenced above 3. Second story e�osed wall heights a. 50% of t11e total perimeter length of the second story walls shall not have e�osed wall heights greater thail six (6) feet; b. Shall have a nuninlum two (2) foot hig11 overlap of the adjoining first story roof aQainst the second stor wall; and 58 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-al c. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a niininlunl of four (4) feet from the first story exterior wall plane. d. The Director of Conlmwlity Developnlent nlay approve an exception to fllis reQulation based on the findin s in section 19.28.140. 4. Entr feature hei ht See Two Stor DesiQn Guidelines, Section 1928.090. J. Second story deck nlinimunl setbacks (nleasured fronl property lule and nlay only be located on the front and rear of t11e house) See section 19.28.030 for pernuts required. 1. Side ard 15 feet 2. Rear ard 20 feet K. Solar Design The setl�ack and height restrictions provided in this cllapter nlay be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided t11at no such structure shall infrinQe upon solar easements or ad�oululQ propert owners. �Variation from the R1 and R1-a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the Cu�ertino Munici�al Code in the R1-a district. Notwitllstanduzg the above, a request for reasonable acconlnlodation nlay be nlade by any person with a disability, when the strict application of the provisions uz this section, act as a barrier to fair housing opportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50. (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 1��,2�3�1t�(� `�"�� S�c��y ��a€;�� iicl�linaec Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent with fl1e adopted sulgle-fanuly residential guidelines. The Director of Coninituzity Development shall review the project and shall deternline $Zat the itenls u1 Table 19.28100 below are met prior to design approval: R1-5 R1-6, 7.5, 8,10, etc.; R1-20 R1-Xel R1-a A. Neighborhood T11e mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably conlpatible with the predomulant neighborhood pattern. New Compatibility construction should not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattenl in ternls of building and forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights Proportionalit B. Hiaher volunle T11e desian should use vaulted ceilin s rather than hiah exterior walls to achieve hialler volunle interior spaces 59 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, 7.5, 8,10, etc.; R1-20 R1-Xel R1-a interior spaces C. Curb cut There should not be a three-car wide drivewa curb cut D. Garage width No nlore than 50% of t11e front elevation of a 1louse sllould consist 1. Maximunl of 25 feet wide on front elevation of garage area 2. Additional garage spaces should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a detaclled accessor structure at the rear of t11e propert E. Exposed Long, unarticulated, exposed secoild story walls sllould be avoided since it can increase the appareilt nlass of fl1e second second story story walls F. Side setback The current pattenl of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintauled and garage orientation pattern G. Window, door, When possible, doors, windows and architectural elenlents should l�e aligned wit11 one another vertically and horizontally and arcllitectural and syi7unetrical in number, size and placenlent. elenlent aliQrunent H. Porches (A porcll differs fronl an entry elenlent, which 11as a proportioilately greater 11eig11t than its width) 1. Front Porches are encouraged a. Traditional, open porches are encouraged porches b. When viewed fronl the street, a porch should appear proportionately b eater u1 width than in height 2. Posts - Structural supports must be designed suc11 that t11e appearance is not obtrusive or massive 3. Colunins The use of large colunuzs or pillars is discouraged 4. Eave height The eave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical sin�le-stor elenlents in the neiQhborhood 60 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, 7.5, 8,10, etc.; R1-20 R1-Xel R1-a 5. Detailing Porch elenlents should 11ave detailing tllat einphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elenlents I. Garage setback Living area should be closer to t11e street, wllile garages should l�e set back nlore. to livinQ area J. Second story All second story roofs should have at least a one-foot overhang roof overhanQ K. Second story L Should be fixed and obscured to a 1leight of six (6) windows on t11e feet above t11e second floor; side elevations 2. Should have pernlanent exterior louvers to a height of six (6) feet above the second floor; or 3. Should 11ave sill heights of five (5) feet or greater to nuti ate intrusion into a neiQhbor's privac L. Second story 1. Should have buildulg wall offsets at least every 24 wall heights feet, wifll a nlininlum four (4) foot depth and 10 foot greater than six width. (6) feet from fuzish floor 2. The offsets should comprise the full heigllt of the wall plane. M. Entry feature 14 feet fronl natural grade to plate. hei�ht 1 Pefer to the Eichler Design Handbook- Fairgrove Neighborhood for two-story honles uz fl�e P1-Xe zone � The R1-a guidelines shall be used in conjunction wit11 the City's Sulgle Fanlily Residential Design Guidelines. In cases where there may be conflict between the two sets of guidelines, t11is Section sllall take precedence. Nonconfornlance wit11 t11e guidelines shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant sllows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. 61 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance 1��a��.1�.�8 L�Il��c<�}�e ��a�a.��•��A��t�s, To nlitigate privacy inlpacts ��d the visual nlass and bulk of new two-story honles and additions, tree and/ or shruU plantulg is required. T11e intent of this section is to provide substantial screening within three years of planting. A. Applicability. These requirements shall apply to new two-story homes, second-story decks, two-story additions, nlodifications to the existing second-story decks and/ or new wuldows on existing two-story honles that increase privacy inlpacts on neiglll�oring residents. 1. These requirenlents shall not apply to: a. Skylights b. Windows with sills more than 5 feet above the finished second floor c. Obscured, non-openable wuldows d. Wuzdows with pernlanent exterior louvers to a height of 6 feet above the second floor; e. Non-operable windows with obscure glass to a 11eig11t of 6 feet above the second floor; f. Wuldows with a sill heigllt of 5 feet nliniinunl above the finished second floor; and g. W11en waivers have been obtained by all affected property owners B. Plantulg Plan. Proposals for a new two-story homes, secoild-story decks, two-story additions, modifications to the existing second- story decks, and/or new wuldows on existing two-story 1lomes shall be acconlpanied by a plantuzg plan whicll identifies fl1e locatioil, species and canopy dianleter of existing and proposed trees or shrubs to nleet the requirenlents in Table 19.28.110 below. C. Plantin Requirements- Table 19.28.110 R1-5,R1-6, 7.5, 8,10, etc.; R1-a R1-Xe; R1-20 1. Front yard tree a. The tree shall be 24 inch-box or lar er, wiflz a nlinimunl hei ht of six (6) feet. b. In front of new second stories u1 the front yard Placed to where views fron12�� story wuldows across the street are setback area. �artiall miti ated. 2. Privacy a. New trees �t1d/ or shrubs are required on the applicant's property in an area bounded by a thirty-degree angle on each Planting i side window jamb. b. T11e Planning Division shall nlaultain a list of allowed privacy plantulg trees and sllrubs. T11e list includes allowed plant species, nlitlimunl size of trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and planting distance between trees. 62 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5,R1-6, 7.5, 8,10, etc.; R1-a R1-Xe; R1-20 c. T11e trees and/or shrubs shall l�e planted prior to issuance of a final occupanc pernlit. d. Mulinlum 1leight - See City list. d. Mulimun111eig11t - 12 feet. e. Minimuin setback of trees fronl property line -�/� of the spread noted on the City list. 3. Waivers a. New trees or shrubs are not required to replace existing front or privacy trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified Arborist or Licensed Landscape Architect verifies that the existing trees/sllrubs 11ave the cllaracteristics of privacy planting species, subject to approval by the Director or Conununity Developnlent. b. Affected property owner(s) inay choose to allow privacy planting on their own property. In such cases, the applicant must plant the privacy screening prior to issuance of a buildulg pernut. c. The privacy nlitigation measures may be modified in any way with a signed waiver statemeilt from the affected pro�erty owner. Modifications can ulclude chan�es to the nunlber of sllrubs or trees, their species or location. 4. Covenant T11e property owner shall record a covenant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office that requires t11e retention of all privacy plantulg, or use of existulg vegetation as privacy planting, prior to receivulg a fu1a1 building ulspection from the Buildul� Division. This reQulation does not a � �lv to situations described in subsection (C)(3)(b) of this section. 5. Maintenailce Tl1e required plants shall be nlaintained. Landscape plailting nlaulteilance includes irrigatioil, fertilization aild prwlulg as necessar to ield a rowth rate e�ected for a particular species. 6. Replacenlent Where required planting is renloved or dies it nlust be replaced withul thirty days with privacy tree(s) of similar size as flze tree(s) beula replaced, wlless it is deternlined to be infeasible b the Director of Conlnlunity Development. �In addition to the privacy planting requirements, t11e followulg is required for all side and rear yard-facing second story wuldows in the R1-Xe zone: A, Cover windows wiflz exterior louvers to a 11eig11t of 6 feet above fl1e second floor; or B. Obscure glass to a heigllt of 6 feet above the second floor; or C. Have a wuldow sill height of 5 feet n�limum above the finished second floor (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (�art), 2005) 63 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance ��.'��.�.�(} ['�a°Ha�a�t��lY��•�� Eaac:��c�a�a��a��o Table 19.28.120 sets forth the pernlitted yard encroachrnents in the Single-Fanlily Residential district. Permitted Yard Encroachments A. Extension of a Legal 1. Where a building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at $Ze time Non-conformulg Wall of construction, encroaches u�on preseilt required yards and setbacks, one encroaching side yard Plane for structures setback may be extended aloilg its existing building lines if the addition receives a Minor Residential not located witlluz a Pernut and confortns to the following: pronluzent ridgeluze site line a. The extension or addition may not further encroach ulto any required setback and the height of the existing non-confornung wall and the extended wall may not be ulcreased. b. The nlaxinlunl length of the extension is 15 feet.l c. The extension of any wall plane of a first-story addition is not permitted to be within three (3) feet of any property line. d. Onl oile suc11 extensioil is pernlitted for the life of suc11 buildin . 2. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachnlent by any building, which is the result of the granting of a variance or exception, either before or after such property become part of the City. 3. This section does not a �1 to attached accessor structures suc11 as attaclled car orts.� B. Architectural Features a. May extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet. b. No arcllitectural feature, or combination thereof, whetller a portion of a principal or accessory structure, ma extend closer than three feet to an ro ertv line. C. Porch post in flze R1-a Posts for porches are allowed to encroach two (2) feet ulto the required front setback� See section zone 1928.040 for pernlit requirements. D. Low, open fencing for Allowed to encroacll two (2) feet into fl1e required front setback area. orches in the R1-a zone E. Porch platfornl and May encroach five (5) feet into the required front setback� See section 19.28.040 for pernlit requirements. roof overhan� F. Accessor Structures As allowed b C1lapter 19.80, Accessor Structures 64 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance (including attached patio covers) � Does not apply it1 the R1-a zone � Does not apply to non-Rl-a properties (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, E�. A(part), 1992) 1��.��.13�8 l�li��a�� €�°��le�ae.A�l �'�R°��x��. Projects fllat require a Minor Residential Pernlit shall be reviewed u1 accordance with fllis section. The purpose of t11is process is to provide affected ileighbors with an opportwlity to conlnlent on new developnlent fllat could have significant inlpacts on their property or the neighborllood as a whole. Table 19.28.130 sets forth the requirenlents for Minor Residential Pernlits in t11e Single-Fanuly Residential district. Minor Residential Permits A. Written notice and plan set 1. Upon receipt of a conlplete application, a notice shall be sent by first class n1ai1 to all affected owners of record of real property (as shown in tlle last tax assessinent toll) 2. The notice s11a11 invite public conlnlent by a determined action date and shall include a copy of the developnlent plans, 11 ulches by 17 inches u1 size. B. MailinQ radius Ad�acent to t11e sub�ect propert , includin properties across a public or private street C. Public coninlent eriod Two weeks D. Decision/ findings 1. The Director of Coninlunity Developnlent shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny fl�e application. T11e pernut can be approved only upon nlakulg all of the following fuldings: a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title. b. The grantulg of the pernlit will not result u1 a condition that is detrimental or uljurious to property or inlprovenlents in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. c. The proposed project is harnlonious u1 scale and desib with the general neighborhood. 65 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Minor Residential Permits d. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably nutigated. E. Notice of action T11e City Council, Planning Commission, applicant and any menlber of t11e public that comnlented on t11e pro �ect shall be notified of the action b first class nlail or electronic n1ai1 F. Appeal Period 1. Two weeks G. Appeal Autllorit Plannina Coninlission H. Expiration 1. Unless a building pernlit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Minor Residential Pernlit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer tinle period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval 2. In the event fllat t11e buildulg pernut expires for any reason, the Minor Residential Permit shall beconle null and void. I. Extension The Director of Conlmunity Developnlent nlay grant a one-year extension without a public notice if an ap�lication for a Minor Modification to the Minor Residential Permit is filed before the e�iration date and substantive �ustification for fl�e extension is rovided J. Concurrent Applications At the discretion of the Director of Conunwlity Developnlent a Minor Residential Pernlit can be processed concurrentl with other discretionar applications (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.140 Two Resi�d�►1��a�1 1'ermit. Two-story additions or two-story new honles require a Two-Story Residential Pernut uz accordance with this section. Two-story projects with a floor area ratio under 35% shall require a Level I Two-Story Residential Pernut, wllile a two-story project wit11 a floor area ratio over 35% sllall require a Level II Two-Story Residential Pernlit. TaUle 19.28.140 sets forth the requirenlents for Two-Story Pesidential Pernuts in the Suzgle-Fanuly Pesidential district. 66 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Two-Story Permit with total FAR <35% Two-Story Permit with total FAR > Two-Story Permit in the R1-a (Level I) 35% (Level II) zone A. Written notice and 1. Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all affected owners of record of plan set real property (as shown in t11e last tax assessnlent toll) 2. The notice shall invite public conunent by a determuled action date and shall inchide a copy of the developmeilt lans, 11 inches b 17 inches in size. B. Mailing radius Adjacent to the subject property, Within 300 feet of fl1e subject property ulcluding properties across a public or private street C. Posted notice 1. The applicant shall install a public notice u1 the front yard of the subject site that is clearly visible from the public street. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, at least two (2) feet tall and three (3) feet wide firn�ly attached to a five (5) foot tall post. The notice shall renlain in place until an action has been taken on the application aild the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the followuzg: a. The exact address of t11e property, if known, or t11e location of the property, if t11e address is not lalown. b. A brief description of the proposed project, t11e content of which sllall be at t11e sole discretion of the City; c. City contact infornlation for public inquiries; d. A deadline for the subnlission of public comments, wllich shall be at least fourteen days after the date the notice is posted; A black and white orthograpllic rendering of the front of the house (for Level I projects) or color perspective rendering (for Level II and R1-a projects), at least 11 inclles by 17 ulches in size. The City sllall approve the illustration or renderinQ prior to postin�. D. Stor poles Pequired E. Public coinnlent Two weeks period E. Decision/findings 1. After the advertised deadline for �ublic comments, the Director of 1. The Design Review Conlnlunit Developnlent shall approve, conditionall approve, or den t11e Conlnuttee n1a approve a 67 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Two-Story Permit with total FAR <35% Two-Story Permit with total FAR > Two-Story Permit in the R1-a (Level I) 35% (Level II) zone application. The pernut can be approved only upon nlakulg all of t11e following design review application for findings: two-story developinent only upon making all of the findings a. The project is consistent wifll the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable below: specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. a. The project is consistent wifll b. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or the Cupertino General Plan uzjurious to property or improvenlents uz the vicuzity, and will not be and Title 19 of the Cupertulo detrinlental to fl�e public healfl�, safety or welfare. Mw�icipal Code c. The proposed project is harnlonious in scale and design wifll the general b. The granting of this pernlit neigllborllood. will not result u1 detrimental or injurious conditions to the d. Adverse visual inlpacts on adjoululg properties have been reasonably property or inlprovements in nutigated. the vicinity, or to the public 1lealth, safety, or welfare c. The project is generally conlpatible with the establislled pattern of building forms, buildulg materials, and designs of homes in the neighborhood d. The project is generally conlpatible wit11 the City's single-family residential design guidelines and the guidelines in this cllapter and any inconsistencies have 68 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Two-Story Permit with total FAR <35% Two-Story Permit with total FAR > Two-Story Permit in the R1-a (Level I) 35% (Level II) zone been fowld to not result u1 inlpacts on neighbors e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed fronl adjouzuzg �roperties have been nutigated to t11e nlaxinlunl extent possible F. Notice of Action The City Cotuzcil, Plarululg Commission, applicant and any nlenlber of the public that conunented on the project shall be notified of the action b first class mail or electronic mail G. Appeal Period 1. Two weeks 2. An interested art n1a a eal fl1e action ursuant to C11a ter 19.136 H. A � �eal Authorit Plannin� Coninlission I. Expiration 1. Uilless a buildulg pernlit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control nunlber issued) wifllul one year of the Two-Story Permit approval, said approval shall beconle null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by t11e conditions of approval. 2. In the event that flze buildin� permit expires for an reason, fl1e Two-Story Permit shall become null and void. J. Extension The Director of Conlnlunity Development nlay grant a one-year extension, wifllout a public notice, if an application for a Minor Modification to the Two-Story Pernut is filed before tlle expiration date and substantive justification for the extensioil is provided. K. Concurrent At the discretion of fl�e Director of Coninlw�ity Development, a Two-Story Pernlit can be processed concurrently A � lications with other discretionar a � lications. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 69 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance 1s�.��.�_S�B �:��:e��ir��m A. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and ultent of this chapter result frotn t11e strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to section 19.28.070, 19.28.080 and 19.28.110 may be b anted as provided in this section. Table 1928.150 sets forfll the requirenlents for Exceptions in t11e Single-Family Residential district. Design Review Committee Exceptionsl Director of Community Development Exceptionsl A. Written notice and plan set 1. Upon receipt of a conlplete application, the 1. Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice Conununity Developnlent Departnlent shall set shall l�e sent by first class nlail to all affected a tinle and place for a public hearing before the owners of record of real property (as shown in the Design Review Coninlittee and send a notice by last tax assessment toll) first class n1ai1 to all owners of record of real �roperty (as shown in the last tax assessment 2. The notice shall invite public comnlent by a toll) deternuned action date and shall include a copy of the development plails, 11 inclles by 17 inches u1 2. Properties fllat are adjacent to the subject site, size. including those across a public or private street, shall receive an 11 inch by 17 inch copy of the plan set with the public notice. B. Mailina radius 300 feet C. Public comnlent period - Two weeks D. Decision/findings 1. The Design Review Committee may grant 1. The Director of Commwlity Development may exceptions from the prescriptive design grant exceptions fronl the prescriptive design regulations described in Section 19.28.070, regulation descriUed in Section 19.28.070 H(4) except 19.28.070 H(4) and Section 19.28.090 upon nlakuzg all of the followuzg fuzduzgs: upon makuzg all of the follo�nJuzg fuzduzgs: a. The project fulfills the intent of the visible a. T11e literal enforceinent of t11is chapter will second-story wall height regulation in that the result in restrictions ulconsistent with the nunlber of two-story wall planes and the spirit and intent of this chapter. anlount of visible second story wall area is reduced to the maxinlum exteilt possible. b. The proposed developnlent will not be 70 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Design Review Committee Exceptionsl Director of Community Development Exceptionsl uljurious to property or improvements in b. The exception to be granted is one t11at will the area, nor be detrimental to $Ze public require the least nlodification of the prescribed safety, health and welfare. design regulation and the minimunl variance that will acconlplish the purpose. c. Tl1e exception to be b anted is one that will require t11e least nlodification of the c. The proposed exception will not result in prescribed design regulation and the significant visual inlpact as viewed fronl nuninlunl variance that will accomplisll t11e abutting properties. purpose. d. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual inlpact as viewed from abutting properties. E. Notice of action The City Council, Planning Commission, applicant and any nlember of t11e public that conlmented on fl1e pro �ect shall be notified of the action by first class mail or electronic n1ai1 F. Appeal Period 1. Two weeks 2. An interested part n1a appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136 G. Appeal Autllorit Plannin� Commission H. Expiration 1. Unless a building pernlit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control nunlUer issued) within one year of the Exception approval, said approval s11a11 beconle null and void unless a longer tinle period was specifically prescribed by fl1e conditions of approval 2. In the event flzat fl1e buildulg pernut expires for any reason, the Exception s11a11 beconle null and void. I. Extension The Director of Conlnlunity Developnlent nlay grant a one-year extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Exceptioil is filed before the expiration date and substantive �ustification for the extensioil is provided J. Concurrent Applications At the discretion of the Director of Commwlity Developnlent, an Exception can be processed concurrentl with other discretionar applications 71 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance � Notwithstanding the requiremeilts of this section, a request for reasonable acconinlodation nlay be made by any person with a disability, when fl�e strict application of the provisions in this chapter, act as a barrier to fair housuzg opportw�ities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50. (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 1 [��4€�fl��a��t��A�� 6�g� tl�� '1�aa��t� [�AZ•�Q�t��, In R1 zoiles, fl1e Director of Conununity Developnleilt shall be enlpowered to make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions of this chapter consistent with t11e legislative intent thereof. Persons agb ieved by an interpretation of t11e cllapter by t11e Director of Comnlunity Developinent nlay petition the Planning Conunission in writing for review of fl1e interpretation. 72 Aitachment 7 TWO STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES APPENDIXA Introduction '- �"�,„� � � � �' � < -M�,� �, �-`' � ,� -�- ��`�� :" Cupertinds neighborhoods have developed over a period of ,' "� � ,,, ,��- � � ' ` .'� � decades with varying architectural sryles. Homeowners and build- ��'` ��" r. =� � !„ ers are allowed design flexibiliry if their design conforms to the �"` '�- = Y� __-�� following design principles. Two story homes with a second story �� ; �� - �� to first floor ratio greater than 45% are allowed when they offset '- �� ' � �� ' �� •� -_'�"� '� _ �� i� LII� � � the buildin massin with desi ns that encom ass hi her uali �'" �� `� g g g p g g ry �� : architectural features and materials. � � � �� I 1 1 � � �� '� Design Principles ° I� *�-� � � � � � �� ; lhese design principles help integrate new homes and additions �— , °'� � �� . � �,� �� to existing homes with existing neighborhoods by providing a � ,�'�"�� " � � �� framewark far the review and approval process. Where possible, '"� �� "� �� ,�k[ additional details and examples have been provided. Conditions -�' - —� � not covered by these examples will be evaluated on a case-by-cases basis. 1. Provide an identifiable architectural style. Attractive Distinguishing Architectural Features homes are designed by using elements from one con- lhere are a wide range of architectural sryles in Cupertino. sistent theme. It is best to work with your designer to However, there are a few that have been most preferred in recent identify and carry out one style around the entire house. years. Annotated illustrations outlining some of the distinguish- 2. Design features, proportions and details to be consistent ing features for five of the most common sryles are included on with architectural style. the following pages: 3. Provide facade articulation. The following techniques '�'ts and Crafts offer ways to mitigate the bulk of larger homes in smaller • Mediterranean scale neighborhoods and the impact of two-story tall . Spanish Eclectic walls on adjacent neighbors and the streetscape. • Second floor setbacks • Italian Villa • Horizontal and vertical wall plane changes • French Country • Pop outs • Bay windows • Chimneys • Wide overhangs with projecting brackets • Juliet balconies Resources • Belly bands 1he following resources may be useful to homeowners, builders, • Window boxes and pot shelves and design professionals in understanding the special qualities of • Landscaped trellises and lattices specific house sryles. • Projecring window trim • A Field Guide to American Homes • Materials and colar changes Virginia & Lee McAlester • Inset balconies Alfred A. Knopf 2000 • Applied decararive features • 1he Abrams Guide to American House Sryles • Recessed garage doars Wilkin Margan • Recessed windows Harry N. Abrams, Inc 2004 • Window trim • Tall trees to break up views of long walls • House Sryles in America James C. Massey 4. Use high quality materials. Penquin Studio 1996 5. Ensure massing and scale appropriate to the architectural • Celebrating the American Home style. Joanne Kellar Bouknight 6. Design with architectural integrity of forms, materials The Taunton Press 2005 and details on all sides of the structure. • The Distinctive Home, A Vision of Timeless Design 7. Provide sytnmetry, proportions and balance consistent Jeremiah Eck with the architectural style. The Taunton Press 2005 73 � Af�TS AfVD CRAFTS STYLE APPENI�I�A Distinguishing Features � �� ,F r, .. - Arts and Crafts Sryle homes are characterized by �� - .� �'� � � gently pitched broad roof gables with wide eave ��- � �`� -�� IIV ��II ,;� -�� ;. _ ,--, , _ �,�� a� � � �8` � � overhangs. 1he visual impact of second floar spaces �- '� = "' �� _' � � , -_ :- � �� ull Ihi � �� is often minimized by incarpararing the living �° �� ' _ � -.-� _ -�i. ��ti��; space into the roof form, and urilizing gable ar shed � �_ ��`�'� �� -�� • ,��> ` �� ,. ; dormers for light and interior volume. Generously � . � ��.�� _ �� ul�i�.. --_ . sized entry parches with distinctive columns and � _ __ column bases are common, as is the abundance of - � �_ � wood details. • �� ' �� .e� � =i 1. Generous and slightly elevated entry porch � � I � � � � "�� "� �� .,, A, � F I! ` � _ 2. Large tapered ar square wood columns � � � � � � � �`�� . e , � � � — - �'_' � .� ,�, 3. Stone, brick, shingle, or wood paneled column ; �� -'�" �" �—= � �, R"� � �� '�� base � � 1 � �.,;�'?�. � � �.�'�b �Y . � ,;, � � 4. Wood parch railing � �� '�` _ ��, 5. Gabled roof ends 6. Expressed wood beam 7. Decarative wood brackets :, �r;; ;: �, �� 8. Wide wood window frames with divided light -� � " �.... Q � pan� � : � v_ � � � � -- ; � � - ; 9. Exposed rafter tails � :;�� : � T+�� - �'� � � ` � ;'� " �`' j _ � �,� � � , M3 �"Y � A - � �� PI �� fqi 10. Decararive Arts and Craft carriage light �� 11. Gable and shed dormers � f �� _ � �;__ I � , `� �� " � �` �_ r �- ,� � ,..�. -_- �� .. 12. Shingle and/ar wood siding occasionally with a �� • � s' � { li�, .� „ small amount of stucco '�, �' '� �� . � � ' � , ,,� ' ._ * 13. Composition or simulated wood shake roof ��'� �� . � . � �� ,. , �� a�:,� , b �` �.� ��. shingles �� , �� uie,iR� � �,�_ � —� � :� 14. Interestin able end window, atric vent, and/ � �� g g � ,. ��b " � �� s>, '�:�"�.��`��' � �'°�=- or wood details :`.� '`��"`� �� :�� -- ` �` � � `° .�-. w• �N�`�. _ �-� ,...,..�.:. 15. Bay windows with base trim and brackets 16. Ancillary structures with matching forms, materials, and details 2 74 MEDITERRANEAN STYLE APPENDIXA Distinguishing Features Mediterranean Sryle homes are characterized by low-pitched hip roofs, rypically covered in tile. � ��- Roof overhangs are generally wide, and often are :'��' � �� ;�' .rr _— .: t _�� _— — , - ,�� t > accentuated by decararive brackets. Windows are � Er ''�-- � .. . 1...> �,�. --'� . y � Q � rypically deep set from the exterior wall surface, and '° � � � �� _ '" i � � , .� : upper story windows are smaller and less elabarate �<� -,�, �;��' � �" ° E � , > �.� � than ground floor windows. Selected windows and � �, O = �� doars often have arched head shapes, and entries are "��a �� ,' f ��'��,� ` accentuated by deep recesses and flanking columns '� p., ' � l�� ` �� +`x "� F � �"� '' � _ � , ' '��,�'" ��*' ,� .. attached to the wall, but are generally subdued. '� �'�" ��"'` �'�` + � � � ' � ' ` � ' � � Facades are often s metrical. �� y ` � �� ` � � �� r��F� '', �` - - - � �� ` �i 1 � .. r '� �T�� .� ; r 1. Low pitched roof with heavy textured tiles ;;� �� ,�, �� _ , � � ,,�¢ �. �; �� y; � � i ��: � r� 2. Wide roof overhangs for sun shading, often u'%� ��e � � � � , + _ �' } �` � ; `��.� f � with decarative brackets �d' �' },� � � '�„�� `� � � ,`=" � � "- ,,,; ?' � � '� z� ;`,� ' y '�, ,:,, . �`,:3�'S,�� € � � 3. Stucco or stone walls � � ��'� '`� � � � . . . 4. Deep set windows and entries, sometimes with arched heads and/or windows accentuated with � 7 *-- � surroundin trim ,� � k`?J � •ly �'� g =`� - . � , i � , �.� �; '� � � ; 5. Decorative metal carriage lights and railings ��_ �" ,:� � '�'.� �' �� - � f �s ,� y g., Y`'�, � r � % �. 6. Often symmetrical massing and window layout q , ;« ---- � '- �,�.;�"� �r,n �''"' � � v ..�; 3 r � ��F�""��','� -2z 7. Upper floor windows smaller and less elabarate � � - � „ �!�� ; �� 1. �" �' � �� . �# � �� ,.� . . � � �� "" �,,, s y y,� ��,; 8. Supplemental sun shading at selected windows � � �..�� ; ; � 9. Distinctive chimney shapes and caps � � � � . _ ' `�`� �`= � `' - .�„�'' 10. Small balconies with decarative railings and � '�� '�� ' = � �' �� brackets � - . � � � � � ` �� n 11. Decorative columns and details _ _ � � � � j� � ; ` d 12. Decorative shutters � � � � -� � �� ,f.;'' :. Q . �� l'� ��■: �� ■ �■■ r � ! �:�,e � �;�:�� ` i� ■ i ■ , �':� �,, � � ,:,; ■ i !!!_� �� - {� -- — - —� : �. _ -� ,� �-�', , Il�ll� ..� ,:� . _ -- , ._------�.__.� .� __ � � �: -- � �s� .�.�:� � �� }�� . --- ,�m , � �� Y:� , ; ;, _� � � �� 75 3 SPANISH ECLECTIC STYLE APPENI�IXA Distinguishing Features Spanish Eclectic Sryle homes are characterized by � � low-pitched gable and hip roofs, rypically covered in w � � �� • �, . �r red tiles. Roof overhangs may be wide with decara- �� tive brackets or minimal with curved molding at � the wall/roof juncture. Windows are rypically deep � � ��----�-� set from the exterior wall surface, and usually have '�� _ ,�v""� ��: „� . �. � �, ��I I '� �.� � '�.� projecting molding at their heads and sills. Selected . � � �� `��i�� = � ,, � ,. �:� � � O� � .: windows and doars often have arched head shapes, �� ' - : - � �� and entries are accentuated by deep recesses and �� r�� '�' �� heavy wood doars. Facades are generally informal � � � �'� �t� -?� � �� ,: �� <� -� and as mmetrical in their massin . �'�- � Q � �� ` Y g _ _ _ ,�, '� `� �� " i , , _ 1. Low pitched roofs with heavy textured red � �> � i��; . _ . riles - overhangs may be large with decararive � brackets ar very small with curved moulding at the wall/roof juncture 2. Stucco walls � � ,. � ' �, � a. g . � . 3. Recessed entry doar - often with arched head �` �� • ' . x,� � ,m,�_. 4. Deep set windows, sometimes with arched ' a„ �� '� � �� - � � �'� �� heads �' � �� " � e , � � � � f�'� ��f _ , ,�� 'r'' P � �� ; � i� 5. Informal and asymmetrical building forms � � . : �� , �' ' ' ,� � �F ��'�� - ��■ � �� 6. Distinctive upper level balconies with metal or .�.��'�' �� " � '� �; �;�� >. � lO � F � � ,� � � wood details � _ �� ^ �- a ° ._� �, r � � � �;..�x� � �,,��+a `Y �,� "��?� A�". 7. Wood window shutters ti � �� - � -,} «..�{ � . . �`,y .- � �� 8. Projecting window head and sill trim „,�� ' � x � �� '�" � � �.� ,; 4 , 9. Decarative tile and metal details Y� " ��+��' �'�, �%,,�� :: � , � ��` � ; �� ,: 10. Distinctive chimney shapes and caps � e � �� ; �r`��, � �,� � � _ � � 11. Second floor overhangs with wood beam and �� - � �' � : � �� z ,__ � r` t�;� bracket supparts ��- 12. Casement windows with divided lights 4 76 ITALIAN VILLA STYLE APPENDIXA Distinguishing Features ... = Italian Villa Sryle homes are characterized in the � � � ��: . z �. Bay Area a wide variery of forms and details drawn � � _ � �. � �� r ,� � � � �'�. � � from a variery of common Italian sryles. lhey are � � � �„ � � ;, � �r� ��'�� x �✓�+` � 4�.. . \ f K ^' frequently formal in their facade design, and often � ti- �� " ��, �� , �� --` symmetrical with accentuated windows and entries. ,�� '�'` � ' `- _ _, � -� _i ��.� � '' � jy�t � �='�� j � `,,"� � f ' ; Typically, they are uniformly two-staries in height "�'�t �'��': �_ ___ ��'ti ^�' �' - �. � � ' - .. �:` yd '. with low pitched hipped roofs. ; � �� ' � - - �._ � _,,,�s`"'' :, � f ; , AS• ,� Q �-��...�. z � s. 1. Low pitched hip roof �•`{ �� c��, � s � � i�: !�' '- , ,i , �4.v �i�s ' :s�� , � ','� h ..,ti.�ir` 2. Wide roof eaves, often with formal supparring '� � �. .�.; '� �' � � brackets '�:� , �, O �'"?' a �� '�s .:� � T � T , , � � 3. Symmetrical ar asymmetrical front facade win- � l �' �� = �',� � `�� .�, + = ' �4� � « r�.� - ,„ : • . . r dow patterns well-arganized around a project � t�''�:� _��.��`'kk� �E�' � W _, � � +' � �� ing formal entry with Italianate columns -� a �r �, � � � � - � '"� � � � • ��. �� w, �.w� :f�� : .�� :;,�:, .. '". :; �� .� c��.l_.;� 4. Tall first floor windows ; �'„�,� ��,� � « �"' _ t �' w ` +� , ;,-." ::••� �..t �• �z: ��c �� , , ` ii'�'. x .'r�r�� -,`- ' 5. Deep set windows in grouped patterns ?�+� � �� t^�„ass�� _ �': �, i'$:�.� � ,. �. = r.c . s;. --.>..,. ' �':� ►r.:.�. ,:..�. . � . � . �, 6. Arched window heads and/ar accentuated trim �-�.� ;,, ,, above the windows 7. Projecting or recessed entries with Italianate columns and/or trim 8. Projecting window heads, jambs and sills 9. Bold cast stone balustrades � �,, t t' , 10. Articulated belt and trim courses � �' �, ��; ?'- yy�� _��;A.. ._�, � , 4 T � I �'� T�� • � � _�. �� t 1 � ..�,�,• "'�.a*, �r ` . , "�C � �� ,'� t t � . � � -- �, a , p r � � ,� �;. •� �°' �r� z ' - � ' � 3 ��, a .- �� .. f -, . � � ' � �'i`' f�' '�r , �^. ,'ti� _ _ . � :'� 'r � J r i a� �°'�'�"' 'y ' � � '� '�'' ` �' Y � 3 ` � °�a � �� ,,-' I � , } � � d�! •�`� , i.' , ^ Y L :�� . Y�� ' , �. Y: , I I � , ..if� � `� �� :_ 1 �'� a S : . � . . -:� �.:�� .:"�..� �—�� , 77 5 FRENCH COUNTRY STYLE APPENDI�A Distinguishing Features "' � �y� �" � French Country Sryle homes are characterized by � �� a � �,� � -��-d��' � �_�� steeply pitched roofs with eaves commonly flared �� s t�r �,�� \_, � �- \ � \ �_, � • a w r - �� \ ��. upward at roof-wall junctions. lhey may be sym- �� '� �` � '�a `�� . �.q-. _ metrical in form and facade arganization, but are ��', ,� ;'� , �, _; mare rypically asymmetrical. Some variations include ��,��,, " -�� a round tower with a hi h, conical roof. Individual � �� g ��R �,�� r� j�^'u;,,. �� . homes exhibit a wide variery in form and detailing, ��",� ,��'�' � �'� �`�` ', _� 9�i �� but are united b y the stron g roof form. Roofs are �� l� � i i '� Q P V �t.�_� y��'+� '' commonly covered with slate, tile ar other rough-tex- n'��, I�f�l9� �`'-', "` � �x .�'� • ��III �I � tured materials. Roof dormers are common. Entries ' �'a��;; �� r , �� t�� , . _ w •, are often deep-set from the home's front wall. �"� <�''"a � �� 1_:•'r�� r' c �� ■��■ �� ; ' , , i:i � `-°F�V'" ",�„ �, � y J � � .:� � 1. Gable and hip roof forms with medium to steep ��°� ,� �� l "�, �� ,=�� . .:,A ��,F,•, �., �IIII ' pitch ,`�o �,;�� '� 4 + � � �-;w � i #. � � � 2. Closed eaves �� - � �-�� .�� 3. Stucco, stone, ar brick walls "�, II �,�.�� . �.:� ' ° 4. Recessed entry vesribule with decararive mould- e� •= r�. � �,� _ -� ��`�` _ ing ar projecting gable - � � ^°'��"�_ 5. Articulated entry details 6. Casement windows with divided lights - often recessed 7. Second floar overhangs with wood beam and � - -- decorative supports ; � � �` � L _ _ � �� -` 8. Planter boxes, shutters, and other decarative = — "� details � s� � � 1�� ! � I _ �r 9. Disrincrive chimney shapes and caps � � , 10. Gabled dormers �� '°� �' • � 11. Bay windows with metal roofs �,— -� �� ;� ,;;:;, � � � x _ � �■■a �I� � �I■■u ['�1 �1�� ii �� R�N l� � �� ' � �� ° � �Y�iil �r _ _ � ., . — � _ � k ; ' � r�-- 4 s �h. � `�+� ��i�� .R r � , r ��,;., r)j.r� v � t �u , • ` � , � � ;' � N A 2 ~6 �� I¢��° 4 •_ � � . ' " � t =' '� . ,�y . .. � � rF . „�•:'.. .. :... ... . . 6 78 Aitachment 8 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 Additional Information on Two Story Design Review B acicground: • Prior to 1999, the City did not require design review for two-story projects. • In Septenlber 1999, fl1e City Council approved amendnlents to the R1 Ordulance for prescriptive regulations related to two-story wall heights and entry feature heights. • In April 2000, the City Council approved anlendnlents to t11e R1 Ordinance to shift two-story design review to fl1e Desi�1 Peview Conlnuttee (DPC) for homes with total floor area ratios > 35% FAP. • In February 2001, the City Council approved ameildnleilts to the R1 Ordulance to include two-story design guidelines. Two-story proposals not generally consistent were deferred to t11e DRC. • In May 2005, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance to ulclude additional two-story design guidelines for regular R1 and R1-a zones and defer design review to City staff for all two-story projects (except in the R1-a zone which are reviewed by the DRC) not requesting exceptions. • In Apri12009, the City Council approved anlendnlents to the R1 Ordulance to allow City staff to consider second to first floor ratios greater t11an 45% provided t11at certain design principles are n1et. Detailed examples of the desib principles were included as an appendix to t11e ordulance. Existing Two-Sto ,i T Design Review Process: • Residential Design Review (Two-Story Pernut) plani�ing approval by City staff o Second to first floor ratio >45% projects require review by City's architectural advisor • Two-story projects uz P1-a zone require approval fronl the DPC Existin Desi n Guidelines rinci les: 'Znd t0 Z st floor <_ 45%: 21ta to 1�t floor >45°/o Second stories in R1-a Architectural Style -- Provide an identifiable -- architectural st le Consistency with Style Desib 1 features, -- proportions, and details -- shall be consistent with the architectural st le Architectural Integrity Desib 1 wit11 architectural -- uztegrity on all sides of -- the structure Visual Relief Visual relief deemed to -- be appropriate by the -- Cit shall be provided Exterior Materials -- Hiah qualitv nlaterials -- Symmetry, Proportion, Shall reflect synlnletry, and Balance -- proportion, and balance -- Mass and Bullc/Scale The nlass and bulk, and Ensure appropriate nlass The nlass and bulk, and scale of the design should and scale scale of the design should be reasonabl conlpatible be reasonabl conlpatible 1 79 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 211a to 1yt floor <_ 45%: 21ta to 1�t floor >45°/o Second stories in R1-a with the predonunailt with the predonlulailt neigllborllood pattern in neigllborllood pattern in ternls of building fornls, ternls of building fornls, roof pitches, eave heights, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry ridge heights, and entry feature hei�hts feature hei�hts Entry Feature Height Entry features should not -- be higller than 14' fronl natural grade to top of plate Porches Porches are encouraQed Interior Space Volume The desimz shall use vaulted ceiluzas rather th�� hiQh exterior walls Curb Cut There shall not be a 3-car wide driveway curb cut Garage Width on Front No nlore than 50% of the front elevation sllould • Max. width of 2-car Elevation consist of garage area garage is 25' • Additional garage spaces should be provided through flze use of a tandenl or rear detaclled �ara�e Garage Setback to Living area should be closer to the street while garages should be setback more Livin Area Side Setback and Garage The current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood Orientation Pattern should be maultained. Second Story Walls Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls All second story wall should be avoided heights >6', as nleasured fronl the 21�� story fulished floor, should have building wall offsets at least every 24', with a nuninnml4' depth and 10' width Second-story windows Wuzdows on the side should be fixed and: • Obscured to a height of 6' aUove the 211i� fl. -- • S1lould 11ave perinanent exterior louvers to a 1leight of 6' above the 2�� fl. Or should have sill hei hts of >_ 5 Window, door, Doors, windows and architectural elenlents should be aligned wit11 one anotller architectural alignmenf verticall and horizontall and s ninletrical in nunlber, size, and placenlent. Roof Eave Overhang All second stor roofs should have at least a one-foot overhan� Additional Information on Noticing Bacicground for Two-Story and R1 ExcepHon Projects: 80 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 • Prior to 1999, the City did not have noticing procedures for two-story and P1 exception projects. • In Septenlber 1999, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance to require written noticing to property owners adjacent to and across the street fronl two-story and P1 exception projects. • In February 2001, the City Council approved anlendnlents to the R1 Ordinance to require written noticing to owners within 300 feet of two-story and R1 exception projects. • In May 2005, the City Council approved anlendnlents to the P1 Ordinance to require notice boards uz front of the property and 11"x17" plans to be nlailed to affected property owners for all two-story projects. In addition, separate noticulg radius and notice board requirenlents were created for two-story projects with <35% FAR (Level I) and projects with >35% FAR (Level II). Existin Re uirements for R1 Pro'ects: Two-Story Two-Story Minor R1 Exception Projects with Projects with Residential Projects Total FAR <35% Total FAR > 35% Projects (Level I) (Level II) Mailed Notice and 11" x 17" Yes Yes Yes Yes, but plans plan set only sent to property owners adjacent to and across the street from the pro �ect Mailing radius To property To property To property To property owners adjacent to owners within owners adjacent owners within and across t11e 300' of the project to and across the 300' of the street from the street from the project pro �ect pro �ect 2'x3'x5'weatherproof notice Exact address of Exact address of board content t11e property, t11e property, description of t11e description of the project, City project, City contact contact information for infornlation for public inquiries, public inquiries, --- deadline for deadline for subnlission of subnlission of public conunents, public comments, and an 11" x 17" and an 11" x 17" blacic and white color perspective orthographic rendering of the rendering of fl�e front of the front of the house. house. Two Week Conlnlent Period Yes Yes Yes No Two Week Appeal Period Yes Yes Yes Yes 81 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 Additional Information on Story Poles Background: • In May 2005, fl1e City Council approved anlendnlents to the R1 Ordinance to require story poles for all two-story projects. Existing Requirements: • Story poles are required for all two-story projects (the City also requires a black & white or color perspective on the notice board). 0 2 foot high plastic snow fenculg is required where the roof ineets the wall and along roof ridges. o Required to be uz place when through 2-week public coninlent period and fllrough 2-week appeal period. o Required to ulstalled by a licensed contractor and certified by a contractor, architect, or enb 1eer. • Other cities that require story poles- Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills Additional Information on R1-20/R1 Sloped Lots "'q 'i -10 =. Background: R�- �`,, , : -� • Prior to 1993, the Cit � had linuted �olicies and �uideluzes ,' �� J�`�`� 5 �- b � � � �,. � regulating properties located u1 the hillside area. �� '� �, �� A1-43��'� Fi'�.2Q � �� o T�r�e�c G �, _ .._a �� i � • The General Plan of 1993 incorporated more extensive ��;--=--_�i °� � ti - --� � J developnlent standards ultended to nlininuze negative ___ 1', ; , � F '� ° � � � u:5i +� 1 zxysa �' i - impacts on hillside resources. I�1 fllat sanle year, the �� ; ' a�� s ' ' i W Residential Hillside (RHS) Zoning District was revised with �uo; 'x'�' � '=�39', 119M1 a set of conlprellensive 1lillside developnlent regulations. � 1_2� �, �` q�R� - �p `'` xi�s� • In Septenlber 1999, t11e City Council ap�roved anlendments R�I - 1(� R�s � to the R1 Ordinance applying hillside standards to buildulgs �.4p c proposed on portions of P1 lots with slopes of 30% or _,.��'°� c��,�.�� `� greater. Existing R1-20 lots shown in shaded area • In February 2005, the City Council approved anlendments to the R1 Ordinance applyulg hillside standards to R1 lots with an average slope of 15 % of greater. • In May 2007, the City Council approved anlendnlents to fl1e R1 Ordulance applying hillside standards to R11ots located west of t11e 10% hillside slope line as defined in the General Plan, in addition to lots wit11 an average slope of 15 % or greater. • In October 2007, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordulance to only apply select 1lillside standards to R1 lots in a specific geograpllic area at the toe of the Cupertino hillside (R1-20). 82 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 Existing Standards for sloped lots zoned R1-20: R1-20 standards Grading Lunited to 2,000 s.f. pad area, 2,500 cubic yards, cut plus fill. Additional grading requires Planning Coninlission (PC) approval. • All cut and fill areas are required to be rounded to follow natural contours and planted with landscaping that nleets RHS requirements. • A licensed landscape architect is required to submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and screen out cut ��d fill slo es. F'loor area ratio Linlited to 45% of the flat pad portion, buildings located off flat pad require PC a �roval 211�� Floor Area Unlimited provided total FAP is not exceeded 2��a F1oor and Balcony No separate process Review Process Retaining walls >5' required to be screened or faced wifl� decorative materials Fencing Open fencing wzlitluted, provided not 1ligher than 3' in front yard; solid board fencing linuted to a 5,000 s.f. site area (excluduz� house). Protected Tree Removal Up to 2 protected trees allowed to be reinoved for t11e building pad. Additional removals require PC approval Other Standards in the Other developnlent standards in P1 apply except for FAP restrictions and 211�� Floor R1 Ordinance Area 83 , , \ , _ _ : _ .. �, _„ �, _ , ; .. ..� .. .... .... - � � 4 . \ . � �i � '.,�w.. ..u.'w � . `• .. ... . -__� iN(F�GSLPPaFn'- frNDE^IACR . .is�Pu�� . ♦ E: � .. . . .., Nh J � . �.�F� � � � Ey�. aii- NTV . ::: . � .... S �� . "r� (s ti � � . . � .. . .. . . � 6 , ,.. S 1N r + W .' .. _..�. . R . � � Wl:e . . � i� N I !� -... � a w � � � 9 � < _ � � � �.�.�x " ,, � ,�, _ ` �'" . i �9 ' � ° d cr ' � '� . �,. .s.. ' ,,. ._ _ Y . . a , > . ,. .. ' �n . - ' . ' " � . � w 1 � a � , �. _ r R � � vnLLEV C;NE_N � x •. -0 a ; ' � . . �'• . ._.'' �. � z uM;�� .. ` . . ... . .. - . . .. . t / . n Gi ` � 1 . . ty � � !,v ``n �} � . ` � • . � � .nvi ,a _ � . .. ,.. ,: .� --� _\.:_:. � 'X . i N � . .� . \ i r . .. . � •LJ S . . � . . � C � " f05� ��i \ '? r S 2 ' .. . . ° . � �. �i n _ •�. . °�-...�M(c[1iNYQt_ . .W � �� "{ �T �L ,.p � M:.1�IACT �. . ... � � �. 9 t � � MLLAI?0 �N � . � i . . .,_ _ .._ . ... .. .�. ' . OH . CREE^IlC Ck arc4 ^� _ � - .. � z . . :Y - . M-c �`+¢� S . . . . _ . GREEY�EAG � ... . . ` DC aU� V F IUGN.LE A`+E, Attachment 9 �. " � '" �'��BS . " . .. `.p ` . .... .... W . '�� \EK.. _ _ oae� z S �NEEN4A pk 41nHWw � . � . .�... . ,-.' .'3•05 fW)f U � .� , . . i .'. � � .... n..H � p{,NBPR . . . ... � ��g : ' �.. �. � % M�tFkU - � x aHENUL ^ �i� ��.� � � i Y -. .'^.i'S a .. .,` �� 4 i � E � n � .. � � r9 F .. - ?' S u W �. � . °.'. . , :�:0.5 104t � ; . �' (: A`M y � � G � _ in r '� � � N� _E THEE . . - �� i _ � U . i '�Q ? � ro � �' �P)Bi 1 Oa0 . �� S ;LW:�):A 9k �� OEXTCN6N . . � a FAP.aO . ... � z � ��J 2 r "i. " Z �} ��i; :�..: ' �' . !�� . A � ..� � G " w '� ' . . ., ' t0]BO � . 't . . _.,:._ ^ . W1. c _�` . . . . .. . '� . ,�( � . _ . .. . . � MZF dHCGx DN � ¢ . . � i . � OYt � . ' � . . . _ m � ' - � s ', �0�'0 '.� . . FiI,MFr�NO . .DR . . WrvfCRC .. . .. � � � � .. �� . . . i� S � ' �O . � J B '0)i5 � � . . . � .. ��'- . ,a. m+o ioao � � . ' . . ... . ,;,�ivci rn - �W - .. . � . - 5 . �' . �. i z �. ,�,. .:>c� imeo .� .. # � 2 . '� i073 .✓• ia39G ' ... "Yi �C'2 4 � } Y 1 ,= ,;, -��.., .: .. ° w..�,..� : ..- . 3 . . � . . . � , PEa.. E,N J i0ID0 -.:: �. ' �r � z� •a_er .. �o•s.� OZV: � ` 5 - :.MGEII�iATE OH � i t Fl.Z.ir+PW ON � ¢ H � . '�� , .Y N _. . � � Z �-o �ax50 r : 9 �ON �., � l.'tK?4iEYSEN � . 2 iO310 f � �'-` � _' 'nppp . , � "`�� '- � " ... _ _ o]i � A'•'i .��:Ji 1ia�i� .. -vwh � � . � �pri _ I.�JNK)CR iF<.<rv��N .. `� .. l Ft.NE:i � 2� �_� - . 0310 � � 'liBO . � 1g9..:�5C'. !', ' i S y_. --�iC�AJN 2 - t . y C . r �� xE ..L.> � O�B � i0 90 oy �.]t8 'M1 •�w . � 21WL _� p- 'a� T Y Y S � �P�MRW�AVtJYAUIi 0�% � � .., . - . .., a�e �mea . �oa� . � .. '� g � w a , g . a ,m+ � ��' ' ' ..i . - a�. � � ..-.-... . . .. . w+' - . . � rwv=��n . .. •+��'s,� �. .. _ A��,+ESJq � .� »irn�� . .. . � Ot - ' � . � ��•'M FYk::".1 � .. . . . * . _ ryG,t'�:IE ? 'Y . �'S : ., i� .. . � _ . � . . � Q � 4 �_ �, ... _ o�. .� ' a ,.' � . . . ; . _ . . . . . ' � W�. . . . .._ Z S � P' � �' ^ . . _ _ . ,. . ;n r J WNEPT:iIV �1 _ . .,.J . . � . _ . . . ..3 . .. _ . 0 3.^.'� � ^;a '.BiI _ ,2 "v� 5 . z m � na, 4v .. � a � . . . J y - . . . w n.,, . rav � � . c x � _ - . a�• - . . . � � .�. , F y , � w _ - w.�e�-.::}acvw�� _ ..3 ` �-� -��-�� ... �. v �n �, _ a - z�. � i . .� ; . � - _ :� � , ... � . _ ' � . .. „ . : � ' m= .. _ .. � �. . n . c ue-r+,v,K.w.. . _ -�ae _. . � a � - � y � _:.a.,-;. s ... �, , . � x . . - :.. .. ,. .. . z z .' i - . n ' _. . _ .. . .. . _ ... .. . .. . . .. t y � .. .. ' ' �'.f S. " - :� toa� ..-2� ..� . ... . . . . �^ � • ._ - .:. ,� a'E`/EN� R �1V0� � .. . . ��y£• ¢` y �. � +.... ' .. SiEVENSCREeK6U`O nTE`�EN�CREEKOUIC� � . . .. . L� . - .�`�' � � . _. . . 3CEJEN....RE=RdIIC �-, u .. . . . � .. ..... .... .... ......... ... ..... . .. ....... .. � - r " �.+E.=Y5�,::r.� ' . i . .� � ' S , Z � � . ..... _ . . . . . .. .. � . �: !JLVfR ,aK � ' " . .. � , .. . . ,_..� �:.: _. - .. �i �mn _ .. �.... Y � Q . � - n .TIT� � ev�G`.rtei9� - : : __ "'_' tWl1 . . . . . � 3 . .� w.,r. mx ,t � . �mn w6+ : - . - i ' a � R3. .. i � � � - . � . - . . t �' Y i+:'t!:' . �. � ' r • i I r. T ' , �mT .'.�.A JAi.?r1VE . . ,_, . � � - . . . . . � - ,-S Ot � . . a _ . . Z . . . _ � a . � _. .. . . Ot ' . . � . . . . . n x� av, ' t , . nt o�iqa� iorm . C � w i � a �LR�a�ao.ESC Z .G � . . . . Y J Z Q Io11f � � V� ` �mv ... _ Y� � E ' . � '. . . . . . � $GG��L,O . .. ... . . . . ..`� � . . . . S - S 2 . ' Ot . ' i ' N . . . . . . .�H . . Y ��,�, . . . .<- �h :..` G � J ; . : � - � .. . . . �o � � �m s. � : - r � � - oi �, � . . ¢ w + . �: Y . . . a � . . .. _�? : x . . '� > %U ;'��IA. � aVE � ? =. .. ... ... .. ._ . _ � . . ' � J a ' . . . . . . � . . . ,_ ... • .• . . . .. . . _ � woC+u - + � > :. _. i_c3arv(:Na�.E �i.9�..v.WE . �. ' - -: �.. Y:�� . � . .. � f . 2 � � :t .. :�� : w . . ' _ . . �s F �i1Nh:3i: ']H . . � ��N.� � Y . 6 . G� C � y' >. �E .. � Y � � -:- � .. v, - � .�r��fr.. . . . . . p� �VPa��K �H�'_' �JV � i+:E - �� f ' _ . . . . . . ... �@» � � '.mm @�� . . � l;L%VE.WE a > < . � ' " W:AfI"LY :rt'n.� �-;� ��.. ' , ' ��L �s::m� � , u _ . . . . . %t .•• . � . . ' , NOONI.UCS aVC ,aU ✓x � � . . L!.+n�Ye��. . .. .K�." �� . � m61 3.a:�� '- : _ . t0 . W . G . .. . . . .. . _ . ..._. . • � � - uCRT�' . � � . !-. _ . _ �mn " i � - �. �� .. - �mm . .� . z . _ . � ncv - . ' � � : m � � . M . _ _ . . _ � . �i,.r ., z u . .. . . ' .-� �:'�wsN00avE . . . �.. ' SMEL�" ' � ..._ . OR .. � . ��KSSPVC_� . � � . � ^ �i. � � _ y _ �. � , X.u..' � . 'j . . .. . ; j �,wN CEfJiER lN . - aF ., . a : � � Z � p ' 'mA tmn . L . _ , b .' � .. r � t � s ..�..,.��-.., " � � IPA ,,,,�'. IOJQ! .. � .. , . . i:, G.:� _ -- p � � - - _ � i _ _ _ � ._ . ..i. . _i�.N"N ,Y � . S .n�e� - � _• �_ _. r � � .. 85 k ,�. LL �. p «. _ - ....-..:.. uu -�' � � _ . ., �.�,.:��T� < : 3 .. . .. _ . . � .. �:PME.SE. ._ . .. �as, � � - . .. . < � � � �'. .. � . � d. '�. ` � . . : � a n Q ,, .. - �wm � . 4 � �' - - - . . . . . _ �. �an� �� ,a.s . ..,.,._,�,_ w ,s� _ - � r ?n ia.., .. �an � vui;runr. cr � `'r- .. . . . �. an �.��p� !a8� �ca] , .a95 � _HERvI � � . . � : : -,� .'.�. �as. , n.�s - � vnUCiCnou. _ � � Y . �, - . � � � . . . . . .. . � .. . . . �m: � .. .� ' ..�:..,�rvio w� �__auvc .. . . �-�• � . . Aa� �v!cn oK - ... '� -._- w:ii�.�anNO . .. Q - ,.. _ �.aa .. . " ", " � . .. . �' �yLAP1 RC : .. . . Nc�LciLAN tt0 � _ . . _ . . � . � � . . . . . .. � . . . . . 1 � � . '< � �oxo aeriN �n��a C�R . _ .. . . . ' � E � GL�:C�+ADO a�C � Sui^uuN ' �u _ _ . � . z `�rv . . � ' _ ' � . . � . . . . . i. .,.. �. .., - �"- . . x z ' ' 1 bw �. .. � : : -: . ":e . , . .. . � ." � g � F Ll'! A'. E � AJ .. � . .. . G Z � � > w .. . .' . .j ..y . _ BLv$$OM11.k ' .0 I tOElf . .. - ' . . _ .. . . = 2 mt . � .9 . . ' � � 1fL 6, � . . .". � ._ x . . . : �' . 4 lil .1 � .. HG9l� � ¢ . " • V ' '.i.r: �- :' Ltn ._� � . . - RORh �M1L'..\ (:If: - , .. . Z _ _ i _�i ct � . .�.:a,v " - . - i - � � - � . ' � ' :nn �; - _ w ��S ` - _ � � m�� - x ,� . ous � � _ . ae;s , . ,.oms.. -x+[sicr` . pN . . . . . . � - - �.. i - - - o.o a�� . . _ ' � _ vu,� F .. .. . oer • € _ � . x-�e� . . a. '� A ._ :..� _ - 1MC� .. � > A.. � � i0]_ .. . �.0'00 . . �'r G � . � ' �. . . `� - ��i� .. ,. v - .fPLL� .. , , „-'Jt�� ,a1 LL . `J+NV�Mryr:T . ¢ p � !� .� �CTS '0'u MYPNNI]P:k�'�K . !t)�� _ � � 0] ��'�i - , . f fIVAl4( , IOBOS �0)•1 , � � - ' p ... . . - . . . .. �.IUB3 ��0)9� . � C .y[.�L'ir)AK�H �i ' � � '.15I1 ", �(bd 'J � � i m / � '� .. . ...95 . '. . . . . CH y � �. . :� f Sn u= ��` .. ., 3 � G� . t: � �it.i . , � i' 9 .. ,_ . . ^ _ . .. �:. , . ... E4�. � . . �T, n - ]n w - /� , ^m ........ r, ::' 1 > . . , Ce _ _ M . � °u1AVK�h .. . . . . ��. . _ V . _ y .. .. . - EFP _ �� . 2 < - 7 -... '- _ � ' C _ � - `' �. - � � . r .. .. . "' rPA . � . � .� . .. .. . ... _ ..� imm N � - � :c.s... , ae � - � � x � - Y y a� . � .. _ - � -- -- . _ . k �_, a _ , s n ,.. ' .. �3l.CKE!i ::n - � � .. . _. � ._ �E � E..: �r ... �55� 'OBBO _ .... .. . . . .. . ) r � � � J �� .�.�_: . �. z . . . . . . - ..� - - -' Q c.',1VaH� � 'N4V Mk'J{iA¢A w - Y .. IISY1 _ � g . . .. . . . ' . � .. �, ��ilS u ♦i_ � . _ ... . . . . . .. .. . . _�.� _ . 3 CJLUM9U3 . . nyE . . . - .. . ' _ . ^ _U�UN&!S _ aVG � . � � i ' � . .� � .. � � Q . .. . � . , .., >.. n . . , � t ., ' , , . - y W ..... . � �;ASTL"cTUh _� , ' _ ., � .- t " i . ... . '�vt' ' :. Y '�. S . ,"., Z � o .^'. /al �N/E . .. { 2 - I I .: �`^ �1:� S ; , � ttl:t � . � _ - � � , � . - Y� , ` "' . 1) ' � W W ... � .�� ':(:LL:NGSWOf(iNST� ,� 0.�.NiSWNE�1 .� R . .. . . - _ _ n . . . .:i �;. ... � �1 a � � �£ ; � ...�.....- ......'�'� . . �� ._wx�...d,.,._. .._.-.. ._..-. . �. �? G �i:oi ° 9 �me � �tID� . . - TCit12Tt�`cON -.. 31 •�ivo „ y ' ,... 318b ty. . . . �y - 113� i1Y51 t3G� . " .. .. _ = &Y Y '.1101 .� .. "wc 3 .. . � . . T " e $ nazs ` '�� ry $ 't?. F'O�KESi(Mf. OH " X O' _; � 3 ; a � $ . � , -r��' a" �t' ; � � ` �: � Y _ - �m: - _., � . � . �. .. _ • . BCIKfNP„ - .. ,T4�n.i n . . . � = c n.'Cf �Jw��.. '� ' �'.�:�t .. .. u � 1� � - wNOeHUr�ooH r � z -' - � - . � - ' � ;% � . . .. _ . .. _ ., -- - . . . . � � �. °-' . .. . - . _.,,.�. ., - � - �>i.�_ c, �xu _i. i�� .. �a � " ' � P n .�i�, .. . _ .:.-: . '" .:. . '.: � . _ . yepiN6(��Y OH � � � ^ .. . .. . . } - ltAA'!BC"N JH . . .. . .. . . K .. ,, � OH ; ' � ' y � � y � NpINB��W';;H NPINBJW'JR � 1 ,. ,... •n5i�r,. f�� . i � `:� � UNCMEAdO�v:.. J � .. . . . . . �.�i...t, .F. �rE.•...!c;�;RhAY x C _ � }iPM1GC JLuSa..A� - .F. K. _ Y r ..�.`ii!`-'� - _ N.ttt:.'_i«wJ.t u - L J .• y S (4i Aitachment 10 Existing General Plan Policies related to Development on Slo�ed Lots Policy2-48: Hillside Developr�ieirt Staridards Establish building and developnlent standards for the hillsides that ensure hillside protection. Strategies: 1. Ordulance Regulations and Developnlent Approvals. Apply ordinance regulations and develo�ment approvals t11at linut developnlent on ridgelines, hazardous geological areas and steep slopes. Control colors and tnaterials, and nlininuze the illunlination of outdoor lightulg. Reduce visible building nlass through such nleans as stepping structures down $Ze hillside, following the natural contours, and lu7uting the 1leight and nlass of the wall plane faculg the valley floor. Policy 2-52: Rural Iniproveriient Standards i�i Hillside Areas Require rural improveinent standards in hillside areas to preserve t11e rural character of the 1lillsides. Strategies: 1. Mass Grading in New Construction. Follow natural land contour and avoid mass grading in new construction, especially in flood hazard or hillside areas. Grading large, flat areas shall be avoided. 2. Retaining Significant Trees. Retain significant specimen trees, especially when they grow in groves or clusters, and integrate them ulto the developed site. The Montebello foothills at the soutll and west boundaries of the valley floor are a scenic backdrop to the City, adding to its sense of scale and variety of color. It's inlpossible to guarantee an unobstructed view of $Ze hills from any vantage point, but people should be able to see the foothills froin public gatherulg places. Polic� 5-10: La�idscapirrg Near Natural Vegetatio�i Enlphasize drought tolerant and pest resistant native and non-invasive, nonnative, drougllt tolerant plants and ground covers when landscaping properties near natural vegetation, particularly for control of erosion fronl disturbance to the natural terrain. Polic� 5-11: Nc�turnl Arec� Protectiori Preserve and enhance the existing natural vegetation, landscape features and open space when new developnlent is proposed. Strategy Native Plants. Encourage drought tolerant native and drought tolerant, nonulvasive, non-native plants and trees, and nunimize lawn area u1 the hillsides. Polic� 5-12: Hillside Property Fericirig Confule fencing on 1lillside property to the area around a building, rather than around an entire site, to allow for nugration of wild aninlals. Polic� 5-19: Natural Water Bodies c�rad Drainage S�sterris Require that site design respect t11e natural topography and drainages to flze extent practicable to reduce the anlount of grading necessary and limit disturbance to natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused by development including roads, higllways, and bridges. 85 Polic� 5-20: Reductiori of Impervious Sisrfaces Mininuze storm water flow and erosion iinpacts resulting froin developinent. Strategies 1. Change City codes to include a fornlula regulating how inuch paved surface is allowable on each lot. T11is would include driveways and patios installed at the time of building or remodeling. 2. Encourage the use of non-inlpervious nlaterials for walkways and driveways. If used in a City or quasi-public area, mobility and access for handicapped should always take precedent. 3. Minimize impervious surface areas, minimizing directly-connected impervious surfaces, nlaximizing onsite infiltration and using on-site retaining facilities. 4. Encourage volwlteer organizations to help restore and clean the creek beds. Policy 5-21: Pollutio�z a�id Flow Iyripacts Prior to nlaking land use decisions, estinlate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting fronl projected future development to avoid surface and groundwater quality iinpacts. Strateg� Best Managenlent Practices. Require incorporation of structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to nutigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and flows. Polici� 5-22: Conipact Developntent Awa� frorri Serisitive Areas Where such measures do not conflict with o$Zer mwlicipal purposes or goals, encourage, via zoning ordinances, compact development located away from creeks, wetlands, and other sensitive areas. Policy 5-23: Coriforrrinrice witli Wc�terslied-Based Plaririi�ig arid Zoning Encourage developtnent projects to follow waterslled-based planning and zoning by exat1�1u1g the project uz fl�e context of the entire watershed area. 86 Attachment 11 �QTTO�, �HIRES AND .t��S�CIATES, II�IC. CONSULTING Et�1GINEEI�S f1 iVD GEQLOGI �� TQ: Ge�rge Se��raeder, City of Cup�ertillo I�T�ONt� Ted �ayre, Cotton, �1lires and Associafes, Ii�c. t , f� f __ �r �, r. SUT3]�E�CT: City Q!uestions Reg�u�ii�ig Geot�chalical Cons��`aints DAT�: Jui�e 2, 2011 Q 1: Are t�lere diflereilt geo�ogiclgeoteclinical eoticer�ls for Toe of I-Ti11 I.�ots ��ersus L Lots? Reply: Genei�al�}° �nlbank��ent Lots 1��e i�el�ti��e�y le��el f��oni l�uilclin� ai•e�s «�itt� ��er•Y Stce13 ��nd higll slopes to«��rd tl�e back ��ortions of the ��roperty. �ur geatcef�ulical coz�cern is ]i�l�itec3 t� pi•oposecl si�niticant const��l�ctaon �rcross the steep �ac[< slc�pes� t�ncl pr��ased �:�nstructioii ��ithir� app��oximately 25 feet af tlie tQp of tlle stee� slopes. In contrast, tlle `I'ae oT Hill Lots ge��ei•ally I�ave a greater• ��ercentage of mo�te��afely steep tc� stee�3 slol�es (greater tli�.n 15 �erceilt). Our geateclulic�tl ccancern for these lots ii�clucles l�rapos�d gradii�g or significai�t co�istr�lctioi� on slo��es g��e�te�' tl��ti 20 percei�t. �i� additiozi, ��•�posed const�•�lctioz� s��o��lc� ac�dz•ess at�y nlappe�[ Geolc�gic H�lza�•c� Zones. Q2: T'Y•o�a� a geolc�gic/geotecl�nical standpoint, sl7ould th��•e be diife�•ei�t F�R restrietioi�s for l�uilding on tl�e flat partion of the lat aild �off? Reply: Fo►• il�t partir�i�s €�f lots �«��y i'i�oii� ste�p slopes, we do ilot ht�ve ��eotec�ln�c�l i•easoi� to restrict FAR as Ioi1g as i�esulti�l� ine��ea�es in ti��ateY• �•uiYO�f ai•e proper��r cc,�ltf��llecC. Foi� `�ery steep ��ortic�ns c�f lats (over a0 perceiit), ti��e agr•ee il�at geotecluiical risiss a�•e le�z�e�•ed [�y lii��itin� tfie alla4�ed sc�«are foot�x�e r�f cicvelol�inent/�i•aclin� disturb��nce. For moc�er�tcly steep slolae ��•�as ii� the i•ange of 10 to 30 pec•c�9it, t�iei•e a�•e ��el�ti�,�ely st�i�ci�1•ci beotechiiical desi�i� nleast�Y•e� to �chieve project aiiri slope Stal�ilit}�. t�s loiYg as design ineasures ar� based on ai� �dec�uatc geotecl�lical illvesti�aiio�� a►id ��eer revie�hreci, then ti�e do �YO� ha��e gcoteclulical i�easo�ls to re�irici PAR o�2 slapes less th�n af�proximate[y 3�} �aerc�ent. We natc tl�at tllere are �ote�ltiaf aestl�etic reaso�ls to lin�it gradi�►g oi� naoderately steep slopes. hlorEhern Ca[iEornia [7ffice Central California �ffice 330 �jil��.ge La�ie b-11i lloytcs�vn Roaci Los C;atos, C�Z 95[)30-7218 5an Andreas, CA 952=49 �)6�0 (�Ob) 354-�5€2 • Fax (�6b} 35�-1852 (ZO)} 73G-�42�2 + Pax (209) 736-1212 www.coE�on�l�ires.cont Q3: 5lu�i�lei therc be setb�el� stanc�ards loa• devGlc�ptnent near slc�pes? Reply: ��'e s�i�gest eonsicieratic��1 0l an a�proximate 25-foot setl�acic for clevelopme�it r��i• 3Q°/Q or gre�iez• slopes exceeding 10 feet in lieigl�t. Developnle��t r��itl�it� th� setbacic (if �ilo�ved) shc��ld be su�po�•ted l�y a gec�t�ch�lieal investigat�on addressi�lg slo��e stabilit�� a�1d �e peer revie��ec�. Q�: Shoulc3 curreilt gradii�g allo«�ai�ces of 2,50(} c��bic yards and 2,O�J0 sqtl��e Feet far the bu�lclii�g pac� area be reev�liitrtcct? Re�aly: '`��e do nat l�av�; �eotecl�nical oi�jectio�ls to tl�cse exi�tin�; bi•acling jimits �oz• R1-20 I lots. �'o�� smaller lots, ��otefrti�l reductio�� of g��adin� allo«Tances seems to be lar�;cly an �esthetic issue (if alierations of slopes �re�ter th�i� 70°,/o are limited to sma�l ai•e�s ar closely ev�ltil�ted b�� rec�uireci geotec�ulical investi�;atio��). QS: Sl�olllcl there l�e stricter grading restrictioits an actual slapes? Re�ly: Coi�str��ctio�� on slo��es greatei• than 3U% is restrieteci to sm�ll nr�as anci tliis is consistetlt �vitli geotecl�nical coiiccrns. ro�• slope �retis it� tlie range of 1 Q to 3Q perce�lt, tlz�re are �•�lati��;ly stai�xdat•cl g€:atechilicai desig�i i��easui�es to acl�ieve siope st�bilit}�. Har�rever, �i•oposeci sigk�iiicai�t grac�ing oi slo}�es exceedi�lg 20 l�ei•cent s1�oLild bc l�aseci an �dequa�e geotecl»Yic�l investig��tion tl�at is ��eei� revic�veci. Q6: 4�P11at are tlle critical coi��ponents to acic�ress i�1 the �eologic ai�d geokecl��iczl re�3orts? Re�ly: Sectian 19.��.100 c�f the City RHS 4rciinance pro�,/ides minim�l �utdaiice i•egt�rdiz�� prepar�tioil oT tecl�niGal reports. One of th� best set af guicielines «=e have idcntified to ci�.te is p�stect on the City of Cal�t�asas �vel�si�e ei�titled "Nlanual for the I're�ara�ic�zi af Uealogic and Geotech�lic�l Re�orts", 11�I�i•ch 2010 (53 pgs). T��e City of San L�iego also h�s a go�d sct o�' guic�c:litles that is av�ilable on tlieir ��ebsite. �7: I3o elisting I�1-?� lots �I�ve clifferent geatechtlic�l characteristics th�t� otl�er Rl lots with 15 to 30 �erc�nt slapes? IZe��1�F: From a�ec�teclinical perspecti��e, cieli��eated I�.1-20 lots llave essenti�ily siiililar slo�e canstraints to atl�er RI lats d��ith 15 to 3� �ercent Slopes. �l�ile vc�lumes of alla��v�cl �racling ��i;�it be sealecl cto��i� tQ better fit smaller Rl iats, we do iiot lia�re �c;otechnic�l reasoils to tt•eat tlzes� t�i�a lr�t types ciifferently. Q8� flre t�lere c�tllea� geolo�;iclgeot�cl�i7ical cc,ncerns fQr lots witl� 15 tc� 30 l�crcent slol�es th�t slioul�l �e reg��lated`? gg �OTTON, �HIR�S AND �SSOCIATES, INC. I�.eply; B��eci c�n eurrent C'ity Gcohazai•cl 1VIa�s, �ve elo not h�z�le a geotccl�nical i�asis to reeal��il�enc� aciditic�nal 1��11side re�ulatior�. If' t11e Ci#�� Izaci a ii��p prepa�•ec[ cle�ineati�ig tlie dist�•il��gtio�� of e�istii�� lai�dslicies iil t�le hill are�s, fhe�� e ��oulci recoi�line�lcl adtlrtiac�al �est�•icti�ns associatcd �vith are�s ofinapped laneisli�les. Grolui�l tl�at l��s failed in the ��st l�y lai7dslidin� ]�as a�►'eater �ote�ltial tc� f�il iri t�lc ii�ttn�e b�r l�ncislidin�;. gg �OTT�N, �HIit�.� AI'{TD �4.SS�CIATES, INC. Aitachment 12 Existing RHS Fence Requireinents 19.40.080 Fencing. All provisions of this section nlay be deviated from upon an exception granted by fl1e Plannulg Comnussion in accordance with Section 19.40.140 All fences u1 an RHS zoning district shall be governed by the followulg regulations: A. Solid board fencing shall: 1. Not be limited on lots of less than tllirty tllousand square feet net area; 2. Be linuted to a five fllousand square foot area (excluding the prulcipal building) for lots exceeding tllirty thousand square feet in net lot area. B. Open fencing (coinposed of materials whicll result in a minimuin of seventy-five percent visual transparency) shall be wlrestricted except that such fencing over three feet in height nlay not be constructed within the front yard setback. (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) 90