The URL can be used to link to this page

33. Single Family Residential Zones (R-1) *A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3308 www.cupertino.org CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: August 2, 2011 Subject Municipal Code Amendment regarding Single- Family Residential Zones (R -1) Recommended Action 1. Adopt a Negative Declaration (EA- 2011 -05) per the California Environmental Quality Act 2. Conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 11 -2079 (Attachment A) amending Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Description Application: MCA - 2011 -03, EA- 2011 -05 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Application Summary: Amendment to Chapter 19.28, R1 Zones, to improve readability and consistency and to evaluate the requirements for sloped single- family residential lots, the two - story design review process, public noticing & story poles. This City Council staff report is intended as an executive summary of the July 12, 2011 Planning Commission hearing. For a detailed discussion and contextual information on the potential ordinance amendments, please refer to the July 12, 2011 Planning Commission staff report and attachments. BACKGROUND On February 15, 2011, when reviewing the City's Development Permit Process Review project, the City Council initiated a limited review of the Single - Family Residential (R1) Ordinance related to the two -story design review process, public noticing, and story poles based on comments provided by the Planning Commission subcommittee on February 14, 2011 (Attachment B). On April 6, 2010, the Council had approved the review of standards of lots sloped between 15% and 30% in the Single - Family Residential zone as part of the FY 2010 -11 work program. Since both projects required a review of the Single- Family Residential zone, the two projects have been combined. On May 17, 2011, citywide postcards were mailed out to all property owners in the City as well as builders and architects announcing the project and the community workshop. On May 24, 2011, fifteen residents and developers /architects, as well as all five Planning Commissioners and staff members attended the workshop. The workshop provided the attendees information on the key topics being reviewed and the opportunities to discuss ordinance options in order to streamline the development process. Workshop attendees were also asked to fill out a questionnaire (Attachment C) on the potential ordinance amendment options and provide comments. See Attachment D for a tally of the attendee responses and comments and Attachment E for a summary of comments and questions from the workshop discussion. On June 16, 2011, the Environmental Review Committee recommended that a negative declaration from CEQA be adopted since none of the potential ordinance amendment options would have significant adverse environmental impacts (see Attachment F for the Initial Study and Negative Declaration). On July 12, 2011, the Planning Commission evaluated the key topics being reviewed and the various Ordinance options. The key Planning Commission discussion points and recommendations are outlined in the following sections of the staff report (see Attachment G for the staff report, Attachment H for the draft minutes, and Attachment I for the resolution). Seven (7) members of the public, consisting of four (4) residents and three (3) architects, provided oral testimony at the hearing. Their comments are summarized in Attachment J. Written public comments received during the review process are included in Attachment K. DISCUSSION On July 12, 2011, the Planning Commission were provided options to review based on staff experience and previous comments received from workshops for each of the four topics under consideration: design review, public noticing, story poles and development standards for sloped single- family residential lots. The Commission discussed each topic and then voted on the ordinance options (see Attachment I for the resolution). Please refer to the July 12, 2011 Planning Commission staff report for the in -depth discussions on the options considered for each of the key topics (Attachment G). Staff has revised the R1 Ordinance to reflect all of the Planning Commission's recommendations (see Attachment A). I. Improve Readability and Consistency In order to improve consistency between past ordinance revisions and improve readability of the existing ordinance, staff has revised the ordinance (Attachment A) to implement the use of tables to reduce repetition and optimize readability. Planning Commission Discussion and Recommendation The Commission agreed that the ordinance should be enhanced visually and be organized in a way that is easier to read and understand. Further, the ordinance should be updated so that the rules are clear and consistent throughout. • The Commission voted 5 -0 in favor of the proposed readability and consistency changes. H. Two -Story Design Review Currently, all two -story projects require planning applications and are reviewed at staff level for conformance with the Single- Family Residential Ordinance development standards and the two- story design guidelines through a two -story planning permit (see Attachment L for the existing Single- Family Residential Ordinance). Architectural review is provided by a consultant architect as needed. In the interest of further streamlining the process, the Planning Commission considered the following ordinance options: • A modified design review threshold (only requiring design review for projects with second floor over 45% of first floor and /or second story windows with less than 15 foot side setback); • Removing design review for all two -story projects; and • Keeping the existing design review process. Planning Commission Discussion and Recommendation Planning Commission comments are summarized as follows: • Staff is not qualified to perform design review (staff would like to note that architectural review is currently provided by a qualified consultant architect). • It is up to the property owners to select their own architectural styles, not the City. • The property owner and his or her designated licensed architect should be responsible to uphold the design integrity and community expectations of the R1 ordinance — not staff. • It is desirable to make it easier for property owners to develop their properties. • Current second story process is onerous and creates hardship on property owners. • Current second story design review process forces people to build single -story only. • There have been complaints that the process is subjective and inconsistent. • Staff should still perform review on general conformance of basic prescriptive development standards. One Commissioner disagreed with the removal of the second story design review and felt that the existing process has been serving its purpose. Further, the commissioner felt that eliminating design review would allow large two -story homes on smaller lots resulting in adjacent neighbor impacts. • The Planning Commission recommended the removal of the design review process for all two -story homes with a 4 -1 vote (Commission Brophy voting no). Design Principles and Design Guidelines Based on the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommends the following proposed changes to the design principles /guidelines: • The "City of Cupertino Two -Story Design Principles" provided as appendix in the existing ordinance (and referenced in existing section 19.28.060 B2a; see Attachment L) have been simplified in the draft ordinance per recommendation of the Planning Commission (see Attachment N). Staff proposes that these be adopted separately by resolution and included as an appendix to the ordinance. These will act as guidance for applicants, architects and designers to consider incorporating in their design. The resolution will be brought for Council consideration at the second reading of the R1 ordinance. • Staff also proposes to move those portions of Section 19.28.060 C.1 - Design Guidelines that are not prescriptive to the "City of Cupertino Two Story Design Principles." These include items (a), (b), (e), (f), (g) and (h) relating to mass and bulk, use of vaulted ceilings rather than high walls, articulation of second story walls, pattern of side setbacks and garage orientation, alignment of doors, windows and architectural features and encouraging porches. The remaining prescriptive guidelines do not require discretion and are included in the draft ordinance and will apply to all homes. Additional Options for Council Consideration Given the Planning Commission recommendation to remove design review for all two -story homes, staff is requesting guidance from the Council regarding the following additional issues: A. 45% Second to First Story Restriction Currently, second floors are limited to 45% of the first story (or 750 square feet, whichever is greater) unless certain design principles are met. Based on the Planning Commission recommendation, the design principles specific to homes with 45% second story or greater have been removed in the draft ordinance and moved to the "City of Cupertino Two Story Design Principles" appendix. This will require that homes with a second story greater than 45% of the first story apply for an exception. The Council has the following options to consider: 1. Amend the ordinance to remove the restriction for second to first floor ratios. This will allow homes with second stories that are 100% or more of the first story without an exception. 2. Increase the percentage of allowed second to first floor ratios to greater than the currently allowed 45% or 750 square feet. Homes with second stories above the allowed limit will have to apply for an exception. 3. Keep the existing standard for second stories at 45% of the first story or 750 square feet, whichever is greater. This will require homes second stories above the allowed limit to apply for an exception. B. Second Story Exposed Wall Heights and Setback Surcharge Currently, second story exposed wall heights higher than six (6) feet are limited to 50% of the total perimeter length of the second story walls. In addition, a 10 -foot setback surcharge is required to be added in whole or in any combination to the normally required second story setbacks. However, homes with a second to first floor ratio greater than 45% are not required to meet these provided they go through a stricter design review process. In accordance with the Planning Commission recommendation to remove the design review process, the Council has the following options to consider: 1. Keep the existing regulations for second story wall heights and setback surcharge. This will require projects unable to meet these regulations to apply for an exception. 2. Increase the percentage of second story walls that can have exposed wall heights above six (6) feet in order to have more design flexibility. 3. Remove both existing regulations. This will allow second stories that are 100% or more of the first story without being subject to the second story wall or setback surcharge requirements. III. Public Noticing The Commission considered the following public noticing radius options: • Requiring only adjacent and across the street notification; • Requiring a 300 -foot noticing radius for projects with greater than 45% second floor to first floor ratio and /or projects with second story windows closer than 15 feet from the property line; and • Keeping the existing noticing radius requirements. The Commission considered the following public noticing material options: • Sending only site plan and elevations to affected neighbors and requiring a site sign; • Not requiring sending plan sets but requiring a site sign; and • Keeping the existing requirements of sending out full plan sets and requiring site signs. Planning Commission Discussion and Recommendation The Planning Commission generally expressed that it is important to notice adjacent neighbors and neighbors across the street that will be potentially impacted by a proposed project. The Commission also agreed the current requirement for site signs is adequate and providing neighbors only the project site plan and elevations would be sufficient. One commissioner requested that project plan sets be made available online for neighbor review. • The Commission recommended with a 5 -0 vote that only the adjacent and across the street neighbors receive official notification for single - family residential planning projects. • The Commission recommended with a 4 -1 vote (Commissioner Sun voting no) that only project site plans and elevations be included with the public notices. IV. Story Poles Story poles are currently required for all two -story projects. They are required to be in place for the two -week public comment period and the two -week appeal period. Generally, staff has received comments from the public that the story poles do not accurately depict the design of the home. However, some people indicated otherwise and mentioned that it helped announce a project in the neighborhood. In addition to story poles, the current process also requires applicants to provide site signs with appropriate project facts and building elevations /perspectives along the project frontage facing the public street. The Planning Commission considered the following story pole options: • Removing the story pole requirements; • Requiring a three dimensional photo simulation or color perspective on the site sign; or • Keeping the existing story pole requirements. Planning Commission Discussion and Recommendation The Commission generally agreed that story poles are onerous to applicants and cause safety concerns. They mentioned that they do not do a good job of conveying the proposed project and is costly. Oftentimes they cause more confusion and misunderstanding. The Commission felt that an appropriate color perspective or three- dimensional drawing of the proposed building would be more effective and beneficial to the neighbors. • The Commission recommended with a 5 -0 vote to remove the requirement for story poles for two -story projects and require either a color perspective or a three - dimensional photographic simulation on the site sign. V. Standards for Sloped Single - Family Lots The requirements for lots with slopes of 15% or greater has been discussed and amended several times. See Attachment M for details on the existing requirements. The proposed ordinance applies to all single - family (R1) residential lots with restrictions imposed on certain slope characteristics that exist now or are created in the future and has been noticed accordingly. The Planning Commission considered ordinance options pertaining to the following sloped lot topics: 1. Thresholds that trigger additional requirements for sloped lots 2. Grading provisions 3. Total floor area ratio and second story requirements 4. Fencing requirements 5. Tree removal and retaining wall requirements The Commission was also given the option of keeping the existing requirements and thresholds. For the detailed list of options, please refer to the July 12, 2011 Commission staff report (Attachment G). Planning Commission Discussion and Recommendation The Commission generally supported updating the sloped lot requirements and applying them to all single - family properties with development on building pads with actual slopes of to 20% or greater. Two commissioners stated that the current sloped lot requirements are sufficient and that the current ordinance should not be changed. The following is a summary of the Commission's recommendations relating to standards for sloped lots: • Require the following sloped lot standards for development on all single - family residential (R1) lots (3 -2 straw vote- Brophy & Sun voting no): A. Require the standards below (B -H) for development on building pads /graded area actual slopes equal to or greater than 20 %. B. Continue to require Planning Commission review if site grading quantities exceed 2,500 cubic yards (cut and fill) and /or 2,000 square feet for the flat yard area (excluding driveways). C. The maximum floor area of all structures on a lot is 45 % -- same as other R1 lots. However, homes with a total floor area ratio greater than 35% shall require a planning approval by the Director of Community Development. D. Second floor to first floor ratio requirements should follow the existing regulations for single - family residential lots. E. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall follow the existing Minor Residential Permit process for single - family residential lots. F. Fencing shall follow the requirements in the City Fence Ordinance. However, fences that are widely visible to public view and create impacts on the visual character of an area (for example, blocks public views to the hills or an open space preserve), shall have fencing requirements similar to the RHS Ordinance. G. The protected tree removal allowance should be removed. Tree removals should be subject to the City Protected Tree Ordinance. H. Retain but relocate the current requirements for retaining wall screening to elsewhere in the Cupertino Municipal Code. VI. Additional Clarifying Changes Since the July 12, 2011 Planning Commission hearing, staff has identified the following additional revisions to the ordinance in order to clarify rules and improve consistency: • Applicability of privacy plantings (19.28.070A- existing ordinance): Clarified that windows with permanent exterior louvers and non - operable windows with obscured glass shall be exempt from the privacy planting requirements if they have a sill height of five (5) feet (instead of 6) above the finished second floor. This is to make the ordinance consistent with other privacy protection exemptions, notably where windows with sill heights five (5) feet above the finished floor are not subject to the privacy planting requirements. • Developments in Corner Triangle: Add language to clarify that no portion of a building on a corner lot shall be located within a corner triangle (as defined in Section 19.08.030). • Maximum Height: Adding a clarification that the maximum allowed height for single family residential homes is two stories (in addition to the 28 foot height requirement). The two -story height was always intended for the R1 zone but not clarified. VIZ Clarification about the R1 -e and R1 -a Zoning Districts It should be noted that the current design review process and requirements for projects in the Rt- e (Eichler) and R1 -a zoning districts will remain unchanged. The ordinance amendments recommended by the Planning Commission are intended apply to regularly -zoned R1 lots. NEXT STEPS Based on Council direction, staff will prepare a revised ordinance for the second reading for the August 16, 2011 Council meeting. Prepared by: George Schroeder, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner, Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director, and City Attorney's Office Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: Attachment A: Ordinance No. 11 -2079 Attachment B: Planning Commission Subcommittee report on process improvements Attachment C: Limited R1 review questionnaire from the May 24, 2011 workshop Attachment D: Tally of workshop attendee responses on the limited R1 review handout Attachment E: Comments and questions from the limited R1 review workshop discussion on May 24, 2011 Attachment F: Initial Study and Negative Declaration, EA- 2011 -05 Attachment G: July 12, 2011 Planning Commission staff report Attachment H: Draft Minutes of July 12, 2011 Planning Commission hearing Attachment I: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6647 Attachment J Public testimony received at the July 12, 2011 Planning Commission hearing Attachment K: Written public comments received during the review process Attachment L: Existing Single- Family Residential Ordinance, Chapter 19.28 Attachment M: Existing sloped single- family residential regulations Attachment N: Revised "City of Cupertino Two -Story Design Principles" ATTACHMENT A DRAFT SINGLE - FAMILY RESDENTIAL (R1) ORDINANCE JULY 28, 2011 BLACK AND STRIKEOUT - Language has been consolidated into table (e.g. This language has been consolidated.) RED AND STRIKEOUT - Language has been deleted (e.g. This language has been deleted.) RED AND UNDERLINE - Language has been added (e.g. This language has been added) BLUE AND STRIKEOUT OR UNDERLINE - Language has been deleted or added per City Attorney recommendation (e.g. This lan LAN_ beer d cictcd p Cit tt recommendation OR This language has been added per City Attorney recommendation.) Text box Text boxes in the margins indicate why changes have been proposed Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19.28, SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES, TO IMPROVE READIBILITY AND CONSISTENCY AND MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE TWO -STORY DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS, PUBLIC NOTICING REQUIREMENTS, STORY POLE REQUIREMENTS, AND STANDARDS FOR SLOPED SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Statement of Purpose. This ordinance amendment improves readability and consistency with other City ordinances. The ordinance amendment also clarifies language related to the two -story design review process, amends public noticing requirements for discretionary review projects, removes story pole requirements for two -story projects, and applies site development standards to all sloped single - family residential lots. Section 2. Code Amendment. Chapter 19.28, entitled "Single- Family Residential Zones," of the Cupertino Municipal Code, is amended to read as shown in Attachment 1. Section 3. Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsection, sentence clause, phrases or portions be declared valid or unconstitutional. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937. Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text. Section 6. CEQA. A Negative Declaration has been adopted per CEQA since none of the ordinance amendments would have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Section 7. Continuity. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as amendments of the earlier provisions. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 2nd day of August 2011 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on this 16th day of August 2011 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CHAPTER 19.28: SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1) ZONES 19.28.010 Purposes. 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. 19.28.030 Permitted and Conditional Uses. 19.28.040 Permits Required. 19.28.050 Zoning Districts Established. 19.28.060 Development Regulations (Site). 19.28.070 Development Regulations (Building). 19.28.080 Eicher (R1 -e) Development Regulations 19.28.090 Development Regulations- (R1 -a). 19.28.100 Single- Family Residential Design Guidelines 19.28.110 Landscape Requirements. 19.28.120 Permitted Yard Encroachments. 19.28.130 Minor Residential Permits. 19.28.140 Two -Story Residential Permit. 19.28.150 Exceptions. 19.28.160 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.010 Purposes. R -1 single - family residence districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to: A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods; B. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels; C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the predominantly low- intensity setting in the 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) 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R -1 single - family residence district other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. 19.28.030 Permitted and Conditional Uses. A. The following uses are permitted in the R -1 single - family residence district: ......... 1. Single- family use; 2. A second dwelling unit conforming to the provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapter 19.84, except for those second dwelling units requiring a conditional use permit; 3. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title; 4. Home occupations in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.92; 5. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products. 6. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency or department with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff; 7. Small- family day care home; 8, The keeping of a maximum of four adult household pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs or cats may be kept on the site; 9. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards; 10 Large- family day care homes, which meet the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and which are at least three hundred feet from any other large - family day care home. The Director of Community Development or his /her designee shall administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and proximity requirements; 1L Congregate residence with ten or less residents; 12. Transitional housing and supportive housing. ao B. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the R -1 single - family residence district, N subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: 1. Issued by the Director of Community Development: C a. Temporary uses, subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.124; b. Large- family day care home, which otherwise does not meet the criteria for a y permitted use. The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by Sectioi cn 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code; . r. ... R1lilrlinnc o r structures ielalcla.in so lar d that require U11�11L�J „1 JLl U. LU1�J ..r1u.1L uL., l solar �1L features LJ LUL 1�.�U11L v iraria'fi nnc from se tback s 1l nnn..a l nlnrm ina +inn la-ir. 1-1,n Director 1-1, a+ c„n1'1 !'loci n -n. (, V (411UC1V1LJ 11Vlll setbacks UVVY1 (4 ..tt L. ] 11L LJ LY1t LJ 11t,t I JI L11LLL JUL.11 .tGJ1 feature e r.r features i.i,il1 not result in privacy im slaar1nrArinn intrusive noise or G) iL., LiLUrI, VY 1'I; LiLUiL,J V411i Y'iVL 1'\,J1;11L 11 i'p13V Ui;V'lYliLUC impacts, shadowing, Yi itiY UJYV CILVYJL, "llY `, other adverse impacts to the surrounding J area ; d. Second dwelling units which require a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84; e. Home occupations requiring a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title. 2. Issued by the Planning Commission: a. Two -story structures in an area designated for a one -story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28 070 (J)(2) of this chapter, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the structure or structures will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; b. Group care activities with greater than six persons; c. Residential care facilities that fall into the following categories: i. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has six or less residents, not including the providers, provider family or staff; ii. Facility that has the appropriate State, County agency or department license and seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; iii. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; d. Congregate residence with 11 or more residents, which is a minimum distance of one thousand feet from the boundary of another congregate residence and has a minimum of seventy -five square feet of usable rear yard area per occupant. !Gird 2056. (part), 2010• flyd 2039 (part), 2009• flyd 1954 ( 2005• flyd 1 Qi fl .' 1 (part), \ J r .t . Lv.rv, \Y urc,, LviJ, v 1 u .-- LVJ - \Y ui c,, -LVV v i u . L JJ (part), LvvJ, v x t . ivvv, L \Y ui i/ 2000. 6lyd 1 Q3 I (part), 1 000. 6lyd 1 t QQ P 3 (part), 1 995. 6lyd 1 ti57 (part), 1 00i1 • 6lyd 1 tint _E-h LC JtJ, i tUCr / ' \Y Citt )j '1lii� " rc Jc) c) t, C,, t7J�:), c rci rc J), \y urC, j "1JJ"Y,' J i Cl. 11V1, L A (part), 1992) Readability, Consistency 19.,2.8.,040. Permits Required. Table 19.28.040 sets forth the discretionary planning permits required for development in the Single- Family Residential district. Type of Project Discretionary permit Approval authority required prior to building permit application One -story project that does not require exception or variance from the requirements None Admin. of this ordinance One - story project with building area that encroaches no more than 10 feet into the Minor Residential Permit Admin. required rear yard setback One -story project with an extension of no more than 15 feet along one existing side yard nonconforming building wall line u v One - story project with a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space projectin outside the building envelope with a wall height of 17 feet, 1 inch to 20 feet New or expanded second story deck or balcony with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards Any active or passive solar structure that requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter, provided that provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property Owners Two story addition or new two-story home Two-Story Permit Admin. Two -story addition new two -story home, and /or second story deck in the R1 -a zone DRC Two -story project in an R1 zoning district with an " i" suffix Use Permit PC One or two -story project on a sloped single- family residential lot with development Minor Residential Permit Admin. on building pads /graded areas with actual slopes equal to or greater than 20% and with total floor area ratio of all structures on the lot greater than 35% One or two -story project on a sloped single- family residential lot with development Architectural and Site PC on building pads /graded areas with actual slopes equal to or greater than 20% and Approval ut st where the proposed flat yard area (excluding driveways) exceeds 2,000 square feet 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. regulation Type of Project Discretionary permit Approval authority required prior to building permit application One or two- story project requesting anexception from sections 19.28,070 Exception DRC [Development Regulations (Building)1, 19.28.080 [Eichler R1 -e Development Regulations], and /or 19.28.110 [Landscape Requirements] One or two- story project in the R1 -a zone requesting variation from the requirements Variance PC of this chapter Development (area greater than 500 square feet) on Slopes > 30% Hillside Exception PC Encroachment of a porch post no more than two (2) feet into the front setback in an Director's Minor Admin. R1 -a zone Modification Encroachment of a porch platform and roof overhang no more than five (5) feet into the front setback in an R1 -a zone 19.28.050, Zoning Districts Established, Readability Table 19 050 sets forth the zoning districts established Zoning Designation Zoning Definition R1 -X Single Family Residential District- Minimum lot area corresponds to the number (X) (multiplied by 1,000 square feet) R1 -Xi Single Family Residential District Restricted to One Story (not to exceed 18 feet high)- [minimum lot area corresponds to the number (X) (multiplied by 1,000 square feet) preceding the 'i symbol} R1 -6e Single Family Residential Eichler District (6 000 minimum lot area) R1 a Single Family Residential District with Semi Rural Characteristics 10 000 square foot minimum lot area) 19.28.060 Development Regulations (Site). A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. 1. Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the R 1 zoning symbol. Examples arc as follows: Nuffibef Minimum Lot Arm SYRibel in Square Fcct R - 1 - 5 5 999 R - 1 - 6 5 999 R1- 75 77500 P4- 10 140 I4 20 20,000 2. Lots, which contain less area than required by subsection A(1) of this section, but not less than five thousand square feet, may neverthelef bc used as building sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this title arc fulfilled. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width is sixty feet measured at the front yard setback line, except in the R1 5 district where thc minimum lot width is fifty feet. C,-Development-on-Properties-with-Hillside-Characteristics, 7 7 /� 77 77 7 //�� /� r� 7 r 1 B c 1 1 r nn nrnnnr n lnra11Tl rn114 nY i intla Vida I1ri1Tn c anil 117(14 if Santa LTnrnc' a n!1 Tnrr ce flriv V r. 11U11U111�J V1V�:7C/l i.0 VYti lit V�.lC.t ill,l7 L,t LC,t UtYV t(ILAALi.0 JVtA ltl ilt Lt1tiUU V1J LU LtYvc t JVTA UYT\.T VY I,Ji VI JUYTLU ti.tl,JU ULLU t\,t1UtL e Ylttn raz f.... T I r U .. UL l IU ...11r.i- v of- Terra-(sea- map- and 20—th la...a.t.z . l L9U .aZ. + west Vl 1T.11N 11 T.11N Ll11 VT. NllVl 11V111. 1 Vl L11lUy LNl I�. ,U�.�. 111N {l A/�.1V IY, LiV1l�.0 1.1 LV 11lNl 1lN V�. Nil N V�.1 NL�. U1V {l �. �.l�1 lAN1 lV Vl L1�.N 1�.1 ll lNll fifteen nnr am 1lnv in ?rrnrdan 147111h 1 t fnll cite rinv standards a. Sitc Grading. ll 1 1 ll 1UP.. 11 � )L1LL1L UIL UL VL.1VUI.UIL'lU,\J1 UUILL YV YLILUR, 1V11VVY 11L� JYLL UL V L,YVl)11LL1L JLU1tUU1 UJ 1 1 i. All site grading is limited to a cumulative total of two thousand five hundred cubic yards, cut plus fill. Thc two thousand five hundred cubic yards includes grading for building pad, yard arms, driveway and all other arms requiring grading, but does not include basements. The graded area is limited to the building pad area to the greatest extent poible. Crading quantities for multiple driveways arc divided equally among thc participating lots, e.g., two lots sharing a driveway will divide thc driveway grading quantity in half. Thc divided share will bc charged against thc grading quantity allowed for that lot development. A maximum of two thousand square feet of flat yard arm, excluding driveways, may be graded. ii. All cut and fill arms arc rounded to follow the natural contours and planted with landscaping which meets the requirements in t Section 19.29.050C. a n t C ai T 1nT 7 7 7 7 an n 7 7 o 1 iriUU 7 r i 1 1U 1lnoncn 1 lan lcnano arnlll nn cl,all VA Trail i L nlan e nd )C11lln T1 +l1 11na11 nd 11 I 1h T rAr 11 Ay), 0 lY" tY..C. 1LJC;U "Yl'AtYUJL,U'L7\; "Ut'L,Y LY'Li:i�C "'i71tUY'Y °1'l: Y'Y'l;W'Y "' 61 UU T Yf1 Y' JY U Y LL-1 U a Pt ' Cti Y YL N1 Y ,T'IYL'IYU ° 'V'Y l ° "UU L a LULU " + Ui'l: 'l..Y'L'V "'liTi'btYa.x.i' J' °U 0 n1a11.. — " 1 z" a lt.. czaal ..Lx 1zan 1'JJ ..a.Ta..zl.....k n J rr.�a na1.. ...U U k . .. pun aa1 ...fall...cl 1 LV V1GVG1lL Jv11 G1 VJ1v11 LI11 Ll JL 1\G1l VLLL L1lU 1111 JIV iv. If the flat yard arm (excluding driveways) exceeds 2,000 square feet or the cut plus fill of the site exceeds 2,500 cubic yards, the applicant is required to obtain a Site and Architectural approval from the Planning Commision. 11 Filnnr Arm L; 11VVY 111L.0 . The mavim11m.flnnr area 1'a +in c. fnr +nrfic7n nnrrnn+ of +hn.nn+ ln+ area fnr /1nIrnlnnninn+ nrnnncnrl r n +hn nvic +inrr fiat Hall nnr +inn. 1. 11 R, n lunnnu11L 17001 U1cu 111001111 V1 LV 1101, VL1ccnL Vl me 11011VI 111GU 1 V1 LAX, VLlVVllR,n V L IVVJ0.1I V V1111LL Ln1J1111511111 VUU 0010011, /10fin011_ac 11111 11^110C 0111111 10 /11' 10cc +1100 10 c 14 111x7 101 1 1 1 1 ULI11LLU" (AO' 1/TAU UIL0LJ LLjUU111/ V1 "ILJJ 1111A11 ti 70 110171, 0)1 UITy 100. linrmall aa....A... ..(a..l.S..R JJ 1 0111LU111 11 0.71 L IAThnrn 4 10)virnum )11[107)111[ lnucn cirz0 an11 R_= nn+ nt a r e a r 1 1 "'001'11;1'0'1'1 ° " "1' 1111 /1'111'111'111' Ut 11010.1(01;' )1L0. 111'111 15 ° °' 1'10;1' 1 10/1 ( 01'0.11. 1 ! r�/ � / � 11 0)1 uL 11 0)11 1101 1)1(11111ALLed1ng 0)1 . W1011)1vuL1l11511vv1 11AL� 1, VUU % +n +a1 hn11sn ci 711 0011111rn annrn1711 frnm +hn Plannina l'nmmiccinn n annnrrlanon TAri +h f lain+ 0010124 of +hn ('tmnr +inn n li minina1 Lt./ 1U1110111J0. JILL, 1LL1l11L 111/1/1 V111(1110111111111 11111111115 \.V11LL1L1JJ101L 111 L1LLV11TU1LLL 001111 \..1LUl/LLl 1 011 L1111 1.111/11111101V1U1L1L1 UU1 f ►, r/1110 n 1 11 11 1 11.100[11 CO) 111; ddt t11111).00111 1 'XI existing building 1111011101 all permitted provided ided that tlh1 -total 111 of the existing. building. ddlt1Vn nee nn+ 0000001 4 F% UV1J'Y [VC V 1LLV1:U" "10700 ... P1 X/X/ 1 .... 1 Y. AA ... ara .1'l c1' A. A. a . i# ..... £ wv. i. ... a L 1 ... h) l.... v . i. Ly .. xaxzxzaxaz as . nea�c. .. ch.all . ..1 /X.L .nnc.i. 1 L Ix.za...ncx iirr 111Lal +�... +h.0. 111 L. 0110)1111 1 10)0)1 1.11 1,11 U1LU T LUILOJIL 1111. JLLUILU 1111111 U11U A/UILOJILJ 11.011100 Ll1V0.LLI) 11111111 1/1. LUILL)1ULLILL 0 0 1111 1111. 110] .111L11LL111J 11111111. Residential T�i11c 1e 70010 r Tlic +rir+ /('lain +nr 10 401 The arnnl111+ o f cernnrl flnnr are is n n + 1imi+nr nrnvir +h +n +a %l nnr arm dnnc 11111 Hillside 1010111 L!1)111,1 \ .111I/LLl 17.10) 1111 "111110J111(L 0) 1 111101 TU 11VV1 1111,11 10 110)0 111 1 1 11LU' V10101ULU U1L 1VL111 11011J 110+0Vr0n/1 1110111(0147Oil f1(0(01' )1'0) 1')11(0 1 1 0'0)1 (1il(1.0.04 1110.:' 1(1111 0.141111111 111(1 "11 "0(1111 d. Retaining Wall Screening Retainin 1471111/ in excess of five fee+ (/hall he screened 0171 +h landscape materials n1' farnl 107 l 1+11 decorative . 11LLU11111L 001(11(0 111 excess 01 110 0. 11101 (01LU11 00. JL10.1111U 0 0 1111 111111/111 L 11LULL111(1(0 .or 1ULLU 001 ti 111LV11( ma +nrialc curh ac 111nr1/ river rnrl/ n1' cimi1)r m) +nrialc culainr + +n +11n 111,1r/11711 of +11n Tlirnr +n1' of n011111111111+17 111(114.11111(0 (01C;1i'1J° (01111' 110011'11 10/1110 /'1'101:1'1'VV'A' 0)1'(71' 11111141 ' 1111411;1'1111 (0' JULY)1VI;'tV 111'10' 171110) '0U't'0)1"'U'i1;'1!11i:0;LV1' 01`1:.'0/11111 i111110.Y 111 YTalrpmmnt 1 1.._ 1narrl _f irinrr ic._lirni +e 1._+n.a fills_ +hnllcanr1._cn11are_tnn +_1/i +(/._area levcly 1101_ +he nrincinal 11011... 1. 001114 11011111111111115 10 111111LLL1 111 11 11 0 11 1110111111111 J9UU1L 10)0)1 1111 1(1L \LAL1UL111 LILL 171111110111 11111111115/. ii (lnen fenrinrr Icmmnncerl of materials 107111011 recal in a minimum nt Cex7en+I7_flllI nerr111+ 117X11)1 1rancnarLnr171 ch)11 he 1111 r1c +0X+1/1 11. VVLli 1Ll ll,ll \LV11LVVJU L V1111ULL111(1J 0)0111L111LL/11111111 ( 10 1111111111111 V1 s.,1 111 11YL VLLL 11ll 0 1JUU1" L11 V1LJUILILLV/ 11111 11 11111111LJL11011111 nvrn11+ +1111 curh fnnri (017111' +111'1111 f/1/11 111 11010011+ man 1101110 0(0111/ +1'11 01/111 0411 +11111 +11n 17)1'11 en-1-111r1. 1 «0001 1( 24 Inar+1 10021 1' 1%04.1171111111 JUUUL 111111111'5 00 11 1 ' 1111\;1'11X;L' 1Y1 1'1111511L'1I 1U'V "1 LUC' L 110111JU'U Lit 40 111' 1111'11'11'1'1 V1LY' V' UlU' J1; LV11111 \;'tV'1U;'`tV:YI,'111111'1j /'1'111)) f Trnn nrn +n1'+inn...1 in +n . +107n nrn +nr +011 +rune 1071 +11..1 n +n1' lncc 1-lain 1 Q 1nrhnc 111117 hn 1^mm017n/1 +n.. arrnm :nnrla+n 11111ll/11nrr nail 1. 1 111 1 1011111011. 017 10 100 0 17101111111111 11111 00 1111 11 1111(111111111 111JJ 1111111 10 1111111/ 11L1( V VL 1111111 0 111 10 11LL01111110UU111 U 01(11111115 1)1111 cllhiLr ++n annrn.17)1 Of+he Tlir0r+nr nf (nmmunih7 levelnnmen+ Rmmnval nrn+Lr +ell -franc evicen/linrr 1 Q nrhec n1' remn17)1 of morn JUV)1111 LV UL/VIVPU1Vl LILL' 1/1111101 VY \. /lllIIlluIl0 0./0. YL1V01111111. "1011110 01.11 0)1 ,101(111111 11'LLJ L/0LLLU1115 10111111TLL1 V1' 71,1110VU101 11101(1 +ha + 1111 . 1 /1 n1'+ 111... +rn / rn111.1.1tnc..a O)l..n....a.. + xmn ...0 X1111 7.. L I LL Pl. 1 lnrx ..('.nmml l.anrrx.. a... +1 ,1 TreLx // 1111111 100 V 0101111111 11(1(1(0 1L01U11LJ UV 010 VIA 01 U 11(1(1 111110 V1.41 01111111 VV ULL 1 11111111115 \.01111111(0(01011111 ULLVILIIULLL 001111 ULL 111.1. 1 1 J 1)111111141 ELL. 2. No structure or improvements shall occur on slopes of thirty percent or grcter unlcss an exception is granted in accordance with Section 19.40.140, unlcss no morc than five hundred squarc fcct of development, including grading and structures, occurs on an are with a slope of thirty percent or grcter. Tl An 1001101 +inn far 111111 1101 nnrmi +c 17101 an 1 arrnn +nl1 1117 +110 r011111111111117 r011111111111117 1 n01111+1110111 if/101/ 110101 111 /1 nnrmi+ L/. 111L U 11LL(L1V1L 101 0111111111 L111ULJ 111LU LLLLU LLLL(1 LLU 0 1110. 1;V11U1LU1LIIV L /LVLIO 111LIII L/0. 111L111L1L1 klILLL1 1J111LIL 11111 L111UI 1111m0L1 1IJULU/ V1( Vl JLUV1L L\JL V0L1 2, LA 111117 y 1 / 10111111 00 1 11 1 1 Upp1 prVLLXJ11 UIIL V 1 d 11T U11LLs 111 L11 11 at U iU1 11m11 0 Table 19.28.060 sets forth the rules and regulations for site development in the Single- Family Residential District. R1 -5 R1 -6, 7,5, 8, 10, 20 R1 -6e R1 -a A. Minimum 5,000 the number x1,000 10,000 net lot area (in square feet) B. Minimum 50 60 75 lot width (in feet, at the front setback line) C. See Chapter 14,15, Landscape Ordinance Landscaping plans are Landscaping required for all additions or new homes. The ,0 purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms from the street and adjacent properties. Generally, the landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines on fences. D. Development proposed on building pads /graded area with slopes equal to or greater than 20% 1. Total site 2,500 cubic yards maximum. Projects that exceed the maximum quantity shall require Architectural and Site Approval by the grading Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.134, Architectural and Site Review. (cut plus fill) 2,3 2. Total flat 2,000 square feet maximum. Projects that exceed the maximum quantity shall require Architectural and Site Approval by the R1 -5 1 R1 -6, 7,5, 8, 10, 20 R1 -6e 1 R1 -a yard Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.134, Architectural and Site Review, grading area (excluding driveways 3. Fencing a. See Chapter 16 28, Fence Ordinance b. If the Director of Community Development determines that a proposed fence is widely visible to public view and has the potential to create impacts on the visual character of an area (for example blocks public views from the valley floor to the hills or an open space reserve), then the proposed fence shall follow the fencing requirements in section 19.40.080 of the RHS Ordinance. 4, Retaining See Chapter 16.08, Excavations, Grading, and Retaining Walls wall screening E. Limited to 500 square feet. Development greater than 500 square feet shall be subject to a Hillside Exception by the Planning Development Commission in accordance with section 19.40.140 of the RHS Ordinance. (structures, improvement .......... ............................... s, or grading) on actual slopes ? 30% 1 Lots, which contain less area than required by its zoning designation, but not less than 5,000 square feet, may nevertheless be used as building sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this title are fulfilled. 2 The 2,500 cubic yards includes grading for the building pad, yard areas, driveway, and all other areas requiring grading, but does not include basements. The graded area is limited to the 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 grading quantity allowed for that lot development. ,h4 3 All cut and fill areas shall be rounded to follow the natural contours and planted with landscaping that meets the following 0 requirements: i. A landscape plan hall be prepared that addresses measures to prevent soil erosion and to screen cut and f>ll slopes ii. A licensed landscape architect shall prepare a tree planting plan for the site which will screen grading areas, and residential structures, to the greatest possible extent, as well as to reintroduce trees on barren slopes which were denuded by prior agricultural activities. Landscape improvements shall meet the requirements as established in the Landscape Ordinance, Chapter 14.15 of this code. iv. Landscape improvements shall be installed prior to final occupancy unless such installation is impracticable, in which case, the applicant shall post a bond, cash, or other security to ensure installation within an 18 -month period from occupancy. All such landscape areas shall be properly maintained. Ifvr..l...... Q .....1.xaar. +.l....'). 1 10.. r... Or.. d...... 1 .. 1. 1......2 1fl 7 1^A.... 2. 11 1Q....22 111 1. 7! ...(1.rrr1......1.5�r�I......( year +l....'). 11..;;!...(1.v.1^1......1.. 5.( ....I ar +1....2.11.1.. �1.r.. 1^1..... ..... . ( ar. +.1....)110.1..r...Ord 1 wUJ, 1ru1 L/, � VV✓, IU. 20.11 21,17.! wvl, viw �VVV, wvl, v1w live, 111Ui L/, wvv, L/iU. 1VVV, 1ru1 L/, LVV1, v1w 1VVV, 1ru1 L/, LVV1, v1w 1860 P (pail), '?000; Ord. (part), 1000 Ord. 1(25 f11 (part), 19'93 Orel 1,601, Pvh A (part), 1QQ2) 1 VVV, � 1.. / , LIIVV, VlU� 1 ` L)Ul L IJJJ, VIU "1VJV, S' L / , "1JJ✓, Ord. Ex h. L1 VU1 L 1JJL 19..28.070 Development Regulations (Building). A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage is forty five percent of the net lot arm. An additional five percent of lot coverage is eel allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches and other similar features not substantially enclosed by exterior walls. B. Floor Arm Ratio. The objective of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to set U LL outside (maximum) limit for square footage. The FAR shall be LULU 11( LVnj LL1V1L wiU UhL 1LL1Ue1Ltlal UQV LI V pmL1LL JLa1LUa1UJ LULU gU1UL1U %.) In LI VI UILL , 111 U L L LII1 l 1ni1 l g VVIL ULLI L m(J) and 11111 s +he. i compatible, Tvvi +h... +he surrounding Q) JLUIL VI LILL project IJ L. J11LVLALIL,IL, YVILLL LLLL, JU11VLl1LLL11LC 1LL151LL,VIILJ J t. 1. The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a lot is forty five percent. 2. The maximum floor area of a second story is forty five percent of the existing or proposed first story floor arm, or seven hundred mn +. fifty square feet, whichever is greater. / n The Director of 1 nmm i +Ty Development nrnn+ approval +n n second floor first floor i nnr ratio greater -than AFB /_ provided that CL. II L V11U W1 7 ncian nrin ' J1 °'t.; J11'LIIIUIIIL�''U VU\J IILU b IW U . U Y1JVu1'Cl'Y'U'Sr;i;C71tU t1CIC 11),I'YY1iYl'1 f1' tULR!' °' "'Y)/U f Jt Cl V1Ul;l.C' +he fnllnTArinnr ri Clnlnc Ire 1 UIL V VYlll5 V1 LL1V1LJ U IVI1 UL.J1 111L HILL. An identifiable architectural chyle shall he nr(TZil1el1� 1' 11LI " YU'L1t U I1UL1i; "U1 \;1IILLL;LUIU1'JLV1L LiILL4II 1JL y vJVIUL:U[, ti. P1nci rYT.fnlhlrnc nrnnnr +inns an l An +ails s11111 hn rnnc +nn +TAT1 +11 . +1111 arrhi +n1^ +111 chyle snlnr +n. U 11. LLJICIL ILL/WILL)/ V1V 7 + VV1L1V1LJ LULU LLLLLIIIJ JILLA11 L LVILJIJLLILL YVILIL LILL LI1L JLV JLILLLLLI, IL Ilicltal. relief deemed o be appropriate 10y +h1 Director o f Community Development shall be provided; 111. 7. Y ,r IJCIUI I LIILi UG be U L/ Itt L)IILLUJI'71 UIIIIIIUILlLV IIL VLIC717IIILIIL�J11LAYl IJL 1 TI JVIULU 1.T.r .I ?. a t e rialc..sh. a ll. b of..h high quality; 111l J JJ 11 1 1V. 1r1ULL11(41) shall be of 1L1 v Ensure appropriate building ma and scaler V LI WLIIL'LaV V1V V11u LL LI Lti11W1Lt mass and "Jl.Ll1L v i I Dell- IAAy+ l i h l arnhi tect aral in +v ne ap sillns. t h e s +r11/�+11rn; 1n/l. V'1. 'LLJ1' 11 "VV1 UY'L1IILLLLUI'U1' 111'LL I1L'V' vll. ° 111 " LIR. YL1U%LUIL ` .LI11U Ta1.i.. . Th . allrcfl. ns + sTZmm nrnnnr +i. nnan r. l.hal.anrrl V11.ry -�11LL ULJI JILUII 1LIILLL JV IIUIILL1 VIV ) J1L1V1L UIIU Vltilltil LLl . 7 77 77 7 The Ill i +Ty 1^f 1 Veer +inn TTAJyn Story I leclnn I�rinclnlecll are a+ +ache/) here +n ac an k nnen/li and incorporated herein 1 i r this ......... r ..Y °PY'i: " " "C:�YY'y...'C%I'..\. UYJC:'1'LYY'YC%....I'..Y'Y'U JLC31.'Y....Y3'C:'i71 . IT.° 1.. I' ITY' LIf/. IC;. i7 U[ 1L TY 'L'LUi;PY'I:C,I' °IILI'Y:LCT'UJ" U1Y'..Y..Y''Y' IliI IUI Y1" Y- IY' IU[... YY' IY; L' YI" LYtJIU L' I: C, I'° 11'l:I'C:IY'Y...It1.'V....LTY reference J 1 J 1 11 1 J reference. Ll LLCM 3. Interior arms with heights above sixteen feet, mmsured from the floor to the top of the roof rafters, have the may, and bulk of a two story house and arc counted as floor arm. a. If the house is a two story house, this area will count as second story floor arm; otherwise, the area will count as first floor arm. C Dcsign Guidelines. 1. Any new two story housc, or second -story addition to an existing housc, shall bc generally consistent with thc adopted single family residential guidelines. .The Director of Community Dcvelopmcnt shall revie v the project and shall determine Lhatthe y following i em s...a...r. a.. me t. pri U design approval: a. Thc mass and bulk of thc design is resonably compatible with thc predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not G be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eve heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights; b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; c. There shall not be a three car wide driveway curb cut. d. No more than fifty percent of the front elevation of a house should consist of garage arm. c. Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls should be avoided since it can increase the apparent may, of the second story, f. The current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained. g. When posuible, doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned with one another vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and placement. h. Porches are encouraged. i, Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more. j. All second story roofs should have at least a one foot overhang. D. Setback First Story, 1, Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the setback is a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two such fifteen foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side Yard. The combination of the two side yard setbacks shall be fifteen feet, except that no side yard setback may be ley' than five feet. a. For a corner lot, thc minimum sidc yard setback on thc street sidc of thc lot is twelve feet. Thc other sidc yard setback shall bc no less than five feet. b. For interior lots in the R1 5 district, the side yard setbacks are five feet on both sides. c. For lots that have more than two side yards, the setback shall be consistent for all side yards between the front property line and thc rear property line. 3. Rear Yard. Thc minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. a. With a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, the rear setback may be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, thc usable rear yard is not less than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line. 1, Garage. The front face of a garage in an R1 district shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from a street property line. a. For projects with three car garages oriented to the public right of way, the wall plane of the third space shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane of the other two spaces. E. Setback Second Story. 1. Front and Rear Yards. Thc minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty five feet. 2. Sidc Yard. Thc combination of thc sidc setbacks shall bc twenty five fcct, except that no second story sidc setback may bc less than ten eCr a. In the case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is twenty feet from any property line. b. In thc case of a comer lot, a minimum of twelve fcct from a street sidc property line and twenty fcct from any rear property line of a single family dwelling. 3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front and side yard setback requirements specified in this section. �.....T Ia is.. x atiora ...r1.�a�as...aa�a#...a f ... #...fl i.r gar.... rati�a .. F. Basements. N. 11110 IL 4ULJ not apply 1V1 IY llll JLLU1LN floor to first 11VV1 ratio greater ��.1 LILNll 1V,V. 1 1 J V 1. The number, size and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egresu, light and ventilation, except that in the case of a single story house with a basement, one lightwcll may be up to ten feet wide and up to ten feet long. 2. No part of a lightwcll retaining wall may be located within a required setback arm, except as follows: a. The minimum side setback for a lightwcll retaining wall is five feet; b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwcll retaining wall is ten feet. 3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping. 1. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwcll. 2. The perimeter of the basement and all lightwcll retaining walls shall be treated and / or reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the Director of Community Development. GrI 1. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an R1 zone shall not exceed twenty eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or other appurtenances. 2. Building Envelope (One Story). a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single story structures and single story sections of two story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: i. A ten foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line; ii. A twenty five degree roof line angle projected inward at the ten foot high line referenced in subsection C(2)(a)(1) of this section. b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in subsection C(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to twenty feet with a Minor Residential Permit. 3. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights grctcr than six fcct, and shall have a minimum two foot high overlap of thc adjoining first story roof against thc sccond story wall. The overlap shall bc structural and shall bc offset a minimum of four fcct from thc first story exterior wall plane. T1in TlirnrFnr n fl in iini1 r ilrninlnmmnn - n 7 ?nnrnxin?n nvrnni-ir t �n l is rn 11W-inn blend nn. -bn fi linr in Cnr�inn 10 0Q 1111 u; t' ltC' J1LLl, W1J11.: V1tLJTLU[ 11UL' Y" Y3 1" t, n/ p 11L. 4Lt "ttlUV "l%'iYtV'V\ °'Ult "C /Cii LYVIt" LtrLIY ti1' tCt 'Yi1UUt11i'1UUi1C;iY'Ylt °'i1L lltiUtY' 1\J1Y "17 .L1'J.1 ' 1V D. J 1 J 1 1 1 V L. b. This regulation does not apply for homes with sccond floor to first floor ratio grctcr than 45 %. 1, Entry Feturc Height. The maximum entry feature height is fourteen feet measured from natural grade to the plate. 2. Arms Restricted to One Story, The City Council may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by affixing an "i" designation to the R1 zoning district. H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of thc permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to addra privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similar uncncloscd features. 1. A second story deck or patio may encroach three feet into the front setback for the principal dwelling, 1. The minimum side yard setback is fifteen feet. 2. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. I, Solar Design, The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for pas/Jive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Any solar structure that requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Permit subject to Section 19.28.090. L�1.r..1......1.11 ..... (4.r.kl ( 1. r. ii ...... 1..0r7!I......in1AL1..... ..�1.r.......1..52 42.....lx��.x 1.....?1 1Q0 ..... Insr.. kl. .... ?.... (lrii ..... 1..Rcill ....1....ln (4 r. 1L1..... Alallfl .. nr1 ......1.52. 1... 1V1U LV ✓�, 1VlA1 LI, LVV /, Vitt. 1 /VZ, 1VU1 LI, Lvvv, V1U� 1VVV, 1VU1 LI, LUUvv 1, l/.1 U� 1UV✓, VU 11 LI, LUUU,vvv, V.1 U� 1V VUVV, J 1 11L/, Lvvv, V.1 U 1V ✓Z, Ir i4\ 1000. 11 (1rr1 152(152 Inor4l 1 000. 11 (lrrl 1700 1 100Q. (1rr1 1 Inlr +l 100Q. (lrr1 Innr + (lrr 1 1 1 10; Inns +1 1001. (lrrl l cr1 LI, r J.) Vt u. 1VVV 1i 1))l, Vitt. 17)J 0 11 Ali VII . " 11 , U. 1/ II kfJUflI, 17JV, \Jlu " "1V✓/, Tula', 1)7V, 111 u� 1VJV, 1(JU1LI, 1. V JO, W 1 G2(1 111 1002. (lrr1 11(11 P-iv A In .1r +1 100')1 11 1 11 ,.�'3'u1.LI /..Y..J. /..U.x.. ..... rutr1, LAIr�..jY...1F. x.L.i. /..j.. Table 19.28.070 sets forth the rules and regulations for principal building development in the Single- Family Residential District. R1 - 5 1 R1 - 6, R1 8, 10, 20 etc. A. Maximum lot 1. 45% of the net lot area. coverage 2. An additional 5% is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches, and other similar features not enclosed on by walls on at least three (3) sides B. Maximum floor area 1. 45% of the net lot area u R1 -5 1 R1 -6, R1-7.5, 8, 10, 20 etc. ratio a. on building pads arh ctul ss to or greater than 20 %and producing Development a tota floor area ratio /graded greater han eas 35% wit shall a a require lope a Minor equal Residentia Permit in accordance with Section 19.28.130, Minor Residential Permits. C. Maximum floor area 45% of the existing or proposed first floor area, or 750 square feet, whichever is greater. ratio, 2nd to 1St floor D. Interior areas 1. Shall be double - counted as floor area; (measured from the a. If the house is a two -story house, this area will count as second story floor area; and floor to the top of roof b. If the house is a one -story house, this area will count as first floor area. rafters) with heights > 16 feet E. Minimum first floor setbacks 1. Front yard a. Minimum 20 feet setback b. Side entering 15 feet. No more than two (2) 15 foot setbacks shall occur side by side. garage with curved driveway c. Three -car For projects with three -car garages oriented to the public right of way, the wall plane of the third space garage shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet from the wall plane of the other two (2) spaces. 2. Side yard - For lots that have more than two side yards, the setback shall be consistent for all side yards between the front property line and rear property line a. Interior lot 5 feet on both sides 15 feet combined (no side yard setback shall be less than 5 feet) b. Corner lot i, Interior Side 5 feet ii Street Side 12 feet R1 -5 1 R1 -6, R1-7.5, 8, 10, 20 etc. 3. Rear yard a. 20 feet. b. May be reduced to 10 feet, with a Minor Residential Permit, subject to section 19 28.130, if, after the reduction, the useable rear yard is not less than 20 times the lot width as measured from the front setback line. F. Minimum second floor setbacks 1. Front yard 25 feet 2. Side yard a.Interior Lot 25 feet combined (no side yard setback shall be less than 10 feet) b. Corner lot 25 feet combined side yard setback (no side yard setback shall be less than 10 feet) i, Interior Side 10 feet but not less than 20 feet from the rear property line of an adjacent single family dwelling ii Street Side 12 feet c. Flag lot 20 feet from any property line 3. Rear yard 25 feet 1 Setback surcharge a. 10 feet b. Must be added in whole or any combination to the second floor front and /or side yard setback requirements. G. Minimum setbacks for second story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similarly unenclosed features. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit in accordance with section 19 28.040, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of this permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. 1, Front yard 20 feet (may encroach up to 3 feet into the front setback) 2. Side yard 15 feet 3. Rear yard 20 feet H. Corner triangle No portion of a structure shall be located within a corner triangle (as defined by Section 19.08.030 C, Definitions) . . . . . h Basements 1. Number, size, and Shall be the minimum required by the California Building Code for egress, light, and ventilation, except U R1 -5 1 R1 -6, R1-7.5, 8, 10, 20 etc. volume of that in the case of a single -story house with a basement, one lightwell may be up to 10 feet wide and 10 lightwells feet long. 2. Minimum setback for lightwell retaining wall a. Side yard 5 feet b. Rear yard 10 feet 3. Lightwell railings Maximum height of 3 feet. The fence shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwell 4, Lightwell Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping. screening 5. Root barrier The perimeter of the basement and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated and /or reinforced with the measures most effective root barrier measures as determined by the Director of Community Development. J. Maximum height (measured from natural grade, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae, or other appurtenances) , 1. Total principal 28 feet, no more than two stories building height 2. Zoning Districts Limited to one story(not to exceed 18 feet) with "i" suffix 1 3. First floor a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single -story structures and single -story building sections of two -story structures must fit into the building envelope defined by: envelope i A 10 foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line; and 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 may have a maximum wall height of 17 feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to 20 feet with a Minor Residential Permit, per section 19.28.040. 4. Second story a. 50% of the total perimeter length of the second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater exposed wall than six (6) feet; heights b. Shall have a minimum two (2) foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall; and R1 -5 1 R1 -6, R1-7.5, 8, 10, 20 etc. c. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four (4) feet from the first story exterior wall plane. d. The Director of Community Development may approve an exception to this regulation based on the findings in section 19.28.140. 5. Entry feature 14 feet from natural grade to top of plate height K. Solar Design The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Permit subject to section 19.28.130 1 Pertains to all buildings in a designated area as prescribed by the City Council by affixing the designation "i" to the zoning district symbol. inr,l Imo twar +1... nn°.._NJ. 11154... lraar +l.....1110� nr� 11�6Q..._lraar +1._71]01 (lyd...1 Q62..._lY��r +1 _ Innn. (lyd....1 960 R.1... 111114l.....911011 nrri 10.4 1V1U. LVJI, lUUl L/ WV}, a.l1U. 1AJ 11/UILl, GVVV, V1U. IOW/ 1UUIL /, LVV1, V1U. 1VVU, 117U1L /, LVVV, VIU. UAW/ Ll, L 1 1tlULl./VV). ll1U. ( 1V✓T pa r +l 1000. Ord; 1 Q0Q {Fait); 1 000. 11 (lrr1 1799 R 1 100Q. Ord; (part), 100Q. (1rd (part), 1 QQ2; Ord; 1 6 (part); 1 QQ2. Ord; t lLtY' L '1`lll�'Cl't'q[ "'t'UVLY' Y��'1ll "J', VY'r.1. 1r J.r 1�'..i J ? .'Vt'U. YY. i7�'.. C �: ILit' L��' Y3JY1,' VtLrt;`. tl' YJI'' r ' YL1YY , "t'77J,'Vl'Ll; "1V:YJ�' i 3`l'J�'VtU 16211 ;pan), 1993 Ord 1601 tLVVt . A (part), 1 9921 iv ✓V, 1t lU1L�, Ill ✓ Ord. 1VV1, Ln1c i1 1t 1u1L / � 111c 19.28.080 Eichler (R1 -e) Development Regulations v R1-e single - family residence "Eichler districts" protect a consistent architectural form through the establishment t of district site development regulations. Yn'the` event of °a' conflict' betv,teen'C tiler °regulations in this chapter and this section, this Jedion shall prevail. Nothing in these regulations is intended to preclude a harmonious two -story home or second story addition. A. Setback First Story, 1. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet. B. Building Design Requirements. 1. Entry features facing the street are integrated with the roof line of the house. 2. The maximum roof slope is three to twelve (rise over run). 3. Wood or other siding material located on walls facing a public street (not including the garage door) shall incorporate vertical grooves, up to six inches apart. 4. The building design shall incorporate straight architectural lines, rather than curved lines. 5. Section 19.28.060 C(41 is considered a guideline in the R1 e district. 6. The first floor shall be no more than twelve inches above the existing grade. 7. Exterior walls located adjacent to side yards shall not exceed nine feet in height mcasured from thc top of thc floor to thc top of thc wall plate. C. Privacy Protection Requirements. 1. Side and Rcar Yard Facing Second Floor Windows. In addition to other privacy protection requirements in Section 19.28.070 the following is required for all second story windows: a. Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor; or b. Obscure glasu to a height of six feet above the second floor; or c. Have a window sill height of five feet minimum above the second floor. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, §1 (part), 2000) Table 19.28.080 sets forth the rules and regulations for building development in the R1 -e district, R1 -e A. Maximum lot coverage 1. 45% of the net lot area. 2. An additional 5% is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches, and other similar features not enclosed by walls on at least three (3) sides B. Maximum floor area ratio 1. 45% of the net lot area a. Development on building pads /graded areas with actual slopes equal to or greater than . u 20% and producing a total floor area ratio greater than 35% shall be subject to Architectural and Site Approvalbv the Director of Community Development, The review process, public noticing, and findings shall be consistent with Section 19 Minor G Residential Permits. C. Maximum floor area ratio, 2 45% of the existing or proposed first floor area, or 750 square feet, whichever is greater. to 1St floor D. Interior areas (measured from 1. Shall be double - counted as floor area; the floor to the top of roof rafters) with heights > 16 feet 2. If the house is a two -story house, this area will count as second story floor area; and 3. If the house is a one -story house, this area will count as first floor area. E. Minimum setbacks R1 -e First floor Second floor 1. Front yard a. Minimum setback 20 feet 25 feet b. Side entering garage with 15 feet. No more than two (2) 15 foot setbacks - curved driveway shall occur side by side. c. Three -car Garage For projects with three -car garages oriented to - the public right of way, the wall plane of the third space shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet from the wall plane of the other two (2) spaces. 2. Side yard a. Interior Lot 15 feet combined (no side yard setback shall be 25 feet combined (no side yard setback shall less than 5 feet) be less than 10 feet) b. Corner lot - 25 feet combined side yard setback i. Interior Side 5 feet 10 feet and must not be less than 20 feet from the rear property line of an adjacent single family dwelling ii. Street Side 12 feet 12 feet c. Flag lot - 20 feet 3. Rear yard a. 20 feet. 25 feet b. May be reduced to 10 feet, With a Minor Residential Permit, subject to section 19.28.120, if, after the reduction, the useable rear yard is not less than 20 times the lot width as measured from the front setback line. 4. Surcharge setback - a. 10 feet b. Setback distance added in whole or any combination to the second floor front and /or side yard setback requirements. R1 -e F. Minimum setbacks for second story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similarly unenclosed features. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit in accordance with section 19.28.040, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of this permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. a. Front yard - 20 feet (may encroach up to 3 feet into the front setback) b. Side yard - 15 feet c. Rear yard - 20 feet v G. Corner triangle No portion of a structure shall be located within a corner triangle (as defined by Section o 19.08.030 C, Definitions) cn H. Basements G 1. Number, size, and volume The number, size, and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors shall be the V of lightwells minimum required by the California Building Code for egress, light, and ventilation, except that in the case of a single -story house with a basement, one lightwell may be up to 10 feet wide and 10 feet long. 2. Minimum setback for lightwell retaining walls a. Side yard 5 feet b. Rear yard 10 feet 3. Lightwell railings 3 feet and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwell 4, Lightwell landscaping Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping. 5. Lightwell retaining wall The perimeter of the basement and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated and/or root barrier measures reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures as determined by the Director of Community Development. I. Maximum height (measured from natural grade, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae, or other appurtenances) 1. Total principal building 28 feet, no more than two stories height y 2. First floor building a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single -story structures and single- g envelope story sections of two -story structures must fit into the building envelope defined by: i, A 10 foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line; and ii, A 25 degree roof line angle projected inward at the 10 foot high line referenced above; R1 -e b. Notwithstanding the building envelope, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of 17 feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to 20 feet with a Minor Residential Permit, per section 19,28 040. 3. Second story exposed wall a. 50% of the total perimeter length of the second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights heights greater than six (6) feet; b. Shall have a minimum two (2) foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall; and c. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four (4) feet from the first story exterior wall plane. d. The Director of Community Development may approve an exception to this regulation based on the findings in section 19.28.140. 1 Entry feature height See Single- Family Residential Design Guidelines, Section 19.28.100 ,h4 J. Solar Design The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon c solar easements or adjoining property owners. Variation from the setback or height restrictions G of this chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Permit subject to section 19.28.130 K. Building design requirements 1. Entry features facing the Integrated with the roofline of the house street 2. Maximum roof slope 3:12 (rise over run) 3. Wood siding on walls Shall incorporate vertical grooves, up to 6 inches apart facing a public street (not including the garage door) 1 Building design The building design shall incorporate straight architectural lines, rather than curved lines 5. First floor elevation No more than 12 inches above the existing grade 6. Exterior walls adjacent to Shall not exceed 9 feet in height, measured from the top of the floor to the top of the wall plate R1 -e side yards I(lr l �(12Q Ir�or +1 1(1(1Q. (lr,l 1 OFA 1(1(1F. (lr,l 1 SW2 NJ 1 Q0 g1 I!1!1l11 'c 1U; LOUtri klrUxtl7 rxrvl 'u C ' vx,'x' Atli'ezxry - LOOCri Vi ii, "vuv / WIT/'L ervxi ' rrrtx ; 'xtnry / °rkfuJ ) 19.28.090 Development Regulations- (R1 -a). R1 -a districts are intended to reinforce the semi -rural setting in neighborhoods with large lots. ReguIat ons found in the other . ti s . t i chapter. shall .apply a op roxanr.ti es ..�z o e ..1?. —a. . . . n t n -conflict a n fli ..b between th u l .atnra�...xaxthis. .chapter U1 1113J l.1IUVGG1 J1I Ill GIV Vl W V1U VGl [11.J LU1LG�l 1.1 lA. 111 [1LG 1. V .4LG U1 GI W1 L1lll.[ U. VV .other. t.l.11 Vli Lt1 1 . U1lA[1V1IJ IIl U I1J l.1IUVll.1 IAl IVL 1 1 1 1 1 V 1 +laic cor +inn +laic coy--inn chaff nrcanil fA tx'11J'Ji:i;L'xrYY'1�' 1r t111J`JlX11:1 Yi'i'J1YUlY °x 'VIM; ^' Fit; u/ A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The minimum lot size is ten thousand square feet. g B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width is seventy five feet measured at the front yard setback line. C Second Story Arm. A second floor shall be no more than forty percent of the first floor, except as follows: 1. A second floor may be at lest seven hundred square feet in arm. 2. In no case shall a second floor be more than one thousand one hundred square feet in arm. D. Setback First Story, 1, Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Sidc Yard. Thc minimum side yard setback is ten feet. 3. Rcr Yard. The minimum rcr yard setback is twenty feet. E. Setback Second Story, 1, Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard. The combined side yard setbacks shall be thirty five feet, with a minimum of fifteen feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is forty feet. 1. The setback surcharge in Section 19.28.060 E(3) does not apply in this district. F. Sccond story Regulations. 1. Second story decks shall conform to the second story building setbacks, and may be located on the front and rear only. 2. The second story shall not cantilever over a first story wall plane. 3. The front facing wall planc(s) of the second story must be offset a minimum of three feet from the first story wall planc(s). Thc intent of this regulation is to avoid a two story wall plane on the front elevation, C. Front Yard Paving, No more than fifty percent of the front yard setback arm maybe covered with a combination of impervious or semi pervious surfaces. No more than forty percent of the front yard setback area may be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or asphalt. H. Heights. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single story structures and single story sections of two story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: 1. A twelve foot high vertical line measured from natural grade and located ten feet from property lines; 2. A twenty five degree roof line angle projected inward at thc twelve foot high line referenced in subsection H(2)(1) of thiJ section, I, Variation from the R1 and R1 a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.121 of the Cupertino Municipal Code in the R1 a district. Notwithstanding the above, a request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability, when thc strict application of thc provisions in this scction, act as a barrier to fair housing opportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50. J. Design Review, All two story development shall require discretionary review based on Section 19.28.100, except that the Design, Review Committee shall approve or deny the project at a public hearing based on the findings in subsection N(1) of this section, K. Design Guidelines. The guidelines in this section shall be used in conjunction with the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines, In caUes where th may b conflict between he two sets of gaidelines, his Section shall t Yiecedence a� Nonconformance with the guidelines shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there arc no adverse impacts :..." :::•:.:'.. 1. Second story windows. Windows on the side elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of six feet above the second floor, should have permanent exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor or should have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor's privacy. 2. All second story wall heights greater than six feet, as measured from the second story finished floor, should have building wall offsets at least every twenty four feet, with a minimum four foot depth and ten foot width. The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane. 3. Section 19.28.060 Cal is considered a guideline in the R1 a district. 1, Garages. The maximum width of a garage on the front elevation should be twenty five feet, which will accommodate a two car garage. Additional garage spaces should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a detached accts ory structure at thc rear of the property. L. Permitted Yard Encroachments. 1. Whcrc a principal building legally constructed according to cxisting yard and setback regulations at thc time of construction encroaches, upon present required yards, one encroaching side yard setback may bc extended along its cxisting building line. a. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback and the height of the existing non conforming wall and the extended wall may not be increased. b. In no case shall any wall plane of a first story addition bc placed closer than three feet to any property line. c. This scction does not apply to attached accessory structures such as attached carports. d. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment 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. 1. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. 2. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches are encouraged in this zone. When viewed from the street, a porch should appear proportionately grctcr in width than in height. A porch differs from an entry clement, which has a proportionately grctcr height than its width. Use of this yard encroachment provision shall require thc approval of thc Director of Community Development. a. Posts. Vertical structural supports, such as posts, for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback. Structural supports must be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or masuive. b. Columns. Thc use of large columns or pillars is discouraged. c. Fencing. Low, open fencing for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback arm. d. Eave Height. The eve height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the eve height of typical single story c. Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements. f. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback. M. Landscaping, 1. Landscaping plans are required for all additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms from the street and adjacent properties. Specific measures are not prescribed. Generally, the landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines on fences. 2. Landscaping plans for two story development shall include specific mitigations for impacts from may,, bulk and privacy intrusion as required in Section 19.28.070 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that: a. Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback from the property line equivalent to one quarter of the spread noted on the City list, b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of twelve feet at the time of planting. c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views from second story windows acro% the street to neighboring homes arc partially mitigated. d. The Director may waive the front yard tree band on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing conflict with existing mature trees. N. Dcsign Review Findings. 1, Findings. The Design Review Committee may approve a design review application for two story development only upon making all of the findings below: a. Thc project is consistent with thc Cupertino Cencral Plan and Title 19 of thc Cupertino Municipal Code. b. Thc granting of this permit will not result in detrimental or injurious conditions to property or improvements in thc vicinity, or to the public health, safety or welfare. c. The project is generally compatible with the established pattern of building forms, building materials and designs of homes in thc Reighber-hoeil, d. The project is consistent with the City's single family residential design guidelines and the guidelines in this chapter and any inconsistencies have been found to not result in impacts on neighbors. c. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from adjoining properties have bccn mitigated to the maximum extent (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) Table 19.28.090 sets forth the rules and regulations for building development in the R1 -a district. R1 -a A. Maximum lot coverage 1. 45% of the net lot area. 2. An additional 5% is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches, and other similar features not enclosed on by walls on at least three (3) sides B. Maximum total floor area ratio (including 45% of the net lot area all structures and floors on the lot) C. Maximum floor area ratio, 2nd to 1St floor 1. 40% of the existing or proposed first floor area, except as follows: a. A second floor may be at least 750 square feet in area b. In no case shall a second floor be more than 1,000 square feet in area D. Interior areas (measured from the floor to 1. Shall be double - counted as floor area; the top of roof rafters) with heights > 16 feet 2. If the house is a two -story house, this area will count as second story floor area; and 3. If the house is a one -story house, this area will count as first floor area. E. Minimum setbacks (measured from property line) First floor Second floor 1. Front yard a. Minimum setback 30 feet 30 feet b. Side entering garage with curved 15 feet. No more than two (2) 15 foot - driveway setbacks shall occur side by side. c. Three -Car Garage For projects with three -car garages - oriented to the public right of way, the wall plane of the third space shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet from R1 -a the wall plane of the other two (2) spaces. 2. Side Yard a. Interior lot 10 feet both sides 35 feet combined (no side yard setback shall be less than 15 feet) b. Corner lot 25 feet combined side yard setback i, Interior side 5 feet 10 feet and must not be less than 20 feet from the rear property line of an adjacent single family dwelling ii Street side 12 feet 12 feet c. Flag lot - 20 feet from any property line 3. Rear yard 20 feet 40 feet F. Second story design regulations 1. 2nd to 1St floor wall plane The second story shall not cantilever over a first story wall plane 2. Front - facing wall plane(s) The front - facing wall plane(s) of the second story must be offset a minimum of three (3) feet from the first story wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid a two story wall plane on the front elevation. G. Front Yard Paving 1, No more than 50% of the front yard setback area may be covered with a combination of impervious or semi - pervious surfaces. 2. No more than 40% of the front yard setback area may be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or asphalt. ,04 H. Corner triangle No portion of a structure shall be located within a corner triangle (as defined by 0 Section 19 08 030 C, Definitions) h Basements 1. Number, size, and volume of lightwells The number, size, and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required by the California Building Code for egress, light, and ventilation, except that in the case of a single -story house with a basement, one lightwell may be up to 10 feet wide and 10 feet long. 2. Minimum setbacks for lightwell retaining walls a. Side Yard 5 feet R1 -a b. Rear yard 10 feet 3. Lightwell railings 3 feet and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwell 4, Lightwell landscaping Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping. 5. Lightwell retaining wall root barrier The perimeter of the basement and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated measures and /or reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures as determined by the Director of Community Development. J. Maximum height (measured from natural grade, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae, or other appurtenances) 1. Total principal building height 28 feet, no more than two stories 2. First floor building envelope a. The maximum 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: y i, A 12 foot high vertical line from natural grade and located 10 feet from property N lines; and ii. A 25 degree roof line angle projected inward at the 12 foot high line referenced above 3. Second story exposed wall heights a. 50% of the total perimeter length of the second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six (6) feet; b. Shall have a minimum two (2) foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall; and c. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four (4) feet from the first story exterior wall plane. 1 Entry feature height See Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines, Section 19.28.100. K. Minimum setbacks for second story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similarly unenclosed features. Second story decks may only be located on the front and rear of the house. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit in accordance with section 19,28,040, in order to protect the ,#' privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of this permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address 4 privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. 0 0 0 .N R1 -a 1. Front of house a. Minimum setback to front property 30 feet line b. Minimum setback to side property 35 feet combined (no side yard setback shall be less than 15 feet) line 2. Rear of house 15 feet a. Minimum setback to rear property line 40 feet b. Minimum setback to side property line 35 feet combined (no side yard setback shall be less than 15 feet) L. Solar Design The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Permit subject to section 19.28.130 'Variation from the R1 and R1 -a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code in the R1 -a district. Notwithstanding the above, a request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability, when the strict application of the provisions in 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) 19 28100. Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines 0 Any new two- story- single - family residential house, or second story addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent with the adopted single - family residential guidelines. The "City of Cupertino Single- Family Residential Design Principles" are attached hereto as an Appendix to provide illustration and recommended design guidance for all homes Table 19.28.100sets forth the adopted single- family residential guidelines. R1 -5, R1 -6, 7,5, 8, 10, 20, etc. R1 -6e I R1 -a A. Neighborhood - The mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible compatibility with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction and R1 -5, R1 -6, 73, 8, 10, 20, etc. R1 -6e 1 R1 -a proportionality should not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights B. Higher - The design should use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior volume interior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces spaces C. Curb cut There should not be a three -car wide driveway curb cut D. Garage width No more than 50% of the front elevation of a house should consist 1. Maximum of 25 feet wide on front of garage area elevation 2. Additional garage spaces should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a detached accessory structure at the rear of the property E. Exposed - Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls should be avoided second story since it can increase the apparent mass of the second story walls F. Side setback - The current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the and garage neighborhood should be maintained orientation pattern G. Window, - When possible, doors, windows and architectural elements should door, and be aligned with one another vertically and horizontally and architectural symmetrical in number, size and placement. element alignment H. Porches (A porch differs from an entry element, which has a proportionately greater height than its width) 1. Front - a. Traditional, open porches are encouraged porches b. When viewed from the street, a porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in height 2. Posts - Structural supports must be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive R1 -5, R1 -6, 7,5, 8, 10, 20, etc. 1 R1 -6e R1 -a 3. Columns The use of large columns or pillars is discouraged 1 Eave height The eave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single -story elements in the neighborhood 5. Detailing Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements I. Garage setback Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more. to living area L. Second story All second story roofs should have at least a one -foot overhang roof overhang M. Second story - 1. Should be fixed and obscured to a height of six (6) windows on the feet above the second floor; side elevations 2. Should have permanent exterior louvers to a height of six (6) feet above the second floor; or 3. Should have sill heights of five (5) feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor's privacy N. Second story - 1. Should have building wall offsets at least every 24 wall heights feet, with a minimum four (4) foot depth and 10 foot greater than six width. (6) feet from finish floor 2. The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane. 0. Entry feature - 14 feet from natural grade to plate. height 'Refer to the Eichler Design Handbook- Fairgrove Neighborhood for two -story homes in the R1 -Xe zone 2 The R1 -a guidelines shall be used in conjunction with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines. Nonconformance with the guidelines shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. 19,28,110 Landscape Requirements. To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and bulk of new two -story homes and additions, tree and /or shrub planting is required. The 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, modifications to the existing second -story decks and /or new windows on existing two-story homes that increase privacy impacts on neighboring residents. 1. These requirements shall not apply to: a. Skylights b. Windows with sills more than 5 feet above the finished second floor c. Obscured, non - openable windows C d. Windows with permanent exterior louvers to a height of 5 feet above the second floor; e. Non - operable windows with obscure glass to a height of 5 feet above the second floor; f. Windows with a sill height of 5 feet minimum above the finished second floor; and g. When waivers have been obtained by all affected property owners B. Planting Plan. Proposals for a new two -story homes, second -story decks, two -story additions, modifications to the existing second - story decks, and /or new windows on existing two -story homes shall be accompanied by a planting plan which identifies the location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees or shrubs to meet the requirements in Table 19.28.110 below. 1. New trees or shrubs arc required on the applicant's property to screen views from second story windows. The area where planting is required is bounded by a thirty degree angle on cash side window jamb. The trees or shrubs shall be planted prior to ifuance of a final occupancy permit. a. New tree or shrubs arc not required to replace existing trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified Arborist or Licenses Landscape Architect verifies that the existing trees /shrubs have the characteristics of privacy planting species, subject to approval by b. Affected property owner(s) may choose to allow privacy planting on their own property. In such cases, the applicant must plant thc privacy screening prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Waiver, Thcsc privacy mitigation mcsures may bc modified in any way with a signed waiver statement from thc affected property owner. Modifications can include changes to the number of shrubs or trees, their species or location. C Front Yard Tree Planting. Applicants for new two story homes and two story additions must plant a tree in front of new second stories in thc front yard setback arm. Thc tree shall bc 24 inch box or larger, with a minimum height of six feet. Thc Director of Community Development can waive this front yard tree if there is a conflict with existing mature tree canopies on site or in thc public right of way. D. Species List. The Planning Division shall maintain a list of allowed privacy planting trees and shrubs. The list includes allowed plant species, minimum size of trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and planting distance between trees. E. Covenant. The property owner shall record a covenant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office that requires the retention of all privacy planting, or use of existing vegetation as privacy planting, prior to receiving a final building inspection from the Building Division. This regulation does not apply to situations described in subsection B(1)(b) of this section, F. Maintenance. The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a growth rate expected for a particular species. C. Replacement. Where required planting is removed or dies it must be replaced within thirty days with privacy tree(s) of similar Size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it is determined to be infeasible by the Director of Community Development. C Planting Requirements Table 19 28.110 R1 5,R1 - 6, 73, 8, 10, 20, etc., and R1 - 6e R1 - a 1. Front yard a. The tree shall be 24 inch -box or larger, with a minimum height of six (6) feet. tree b. In front of new second stories in the front yard Placed to where views from 2nd story windows across the street are setback area. partially mitigated. 2. Privacy a. New trees and /or shrubs are required on the applicant's property in an area bounded by a thirty- degree angle on each Planting 1 side window jamb. b. The Planning Division shall maintain a list of allowed privacy planting trees and shrubs. The list includes allowed plant species, minimum size of trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and planting distance between trees. c. The trees and /or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit. d. Minimum height - See City list. d. Minimum height -12 feet. R1- 5,R1 -6, 73, 8, 10, 20, etc., and R1 -6e R1 -a e. Minimum setback of trees from 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/ shrubs have the characteristics of privacy planting species, subject to approval by the Director or Community Development. b. Affected property owner(s) may choose to allow privacy planting on their own property. In such cases, the applicant must plant the privacy screening prior to issuance of a building permit. c. The privacy mitigation measures may be modified in any way with a signed waiver statement from the affected property owner. Modifications can include changes to the number of shrubs or trees, their species or location. 4. Covenant The property owner shall record a covenant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office that requires the retention of all privacy planting, or use of existing vegetation as privacy planting, prior to receiving a final building inspection from the Building Division. This regulation does not apply to situations described in subsection (C)(3)(b) of this section. 5. Maintenance The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a growth rate expected for a particular species. 6. Replacement Where required planting is removed or dies it must be replaced within thirty days with privacy tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it is determined to be infeasible by the Director of Community Development. 'In addition to the privacy planting requirements, the following is required for all side and rear yard - facing second story windows in the R1 -Xe zone: A, Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height of 5 feet above the second floor; or v B. Obscure glass to a height of 5 feet above the second floor; or C. Have a window sill height of 5 feet minimum above the finished second floor ' cn 0 (r11 �n2Q I „�r +l 1MQ. nr,1 1 QFA I „vr +■ 1MFI ( J kviu. LV✓l, 1l/U1 L/� LVVI, VILA, 1./,11, `VU19, LVVV/ 19.28.120 Permitted Yard Encroachments. A. Where a building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction, encroaches upon present required yards and setbacks, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing building lines if the addition receives a Minor Residential Pcrmit and conforms to thc following: 1. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback and the height of the existing non conforming wall and the extended wall may not be increased. 2. The maximum length of thc extension is fifteen feet. 3. The extension of any wall plane of a first story addition is not permitted to be within three feet of any property line. 1. Only one such extension is permitted for the life of such building. 5. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment 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. B. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. Table 19.28.120 sets forth the rules and regulations for permitted yard encroachments in the Single - Family Residential district. Permitted Yard Encroachments A. Extension of a Legal 1. Where a building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time Non - conforming Wall of construction, encroaches upon present required yards and setbacks, one encroaching side yard Plane for structures setback may be extended along its existing building lines if the addition receives a Minor Residential not located within a Permit and conforms to the following: prominent ridgeline site line a. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback and the height of the existing non - conforming wall and the extended wall may not be increased. b. The maximum length of the extension is 15 feet.' 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. Only one such extension is permitted for the life of such building. 2 , This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment 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 apply to attached accessory structures such as attached carports. B. Architectural Features a. May extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet. b. No architectural feature, or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or accessory structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. C. Porch post in the R1 -a Posts for porches are allowed to encroach two (2) feet into the required front setback See section zone 19.28.040 for permit requirements. D. Low, open fencing for Allowed to encroach two (2) feet into the required front setback area. porches in the R1 -a zone E. Porch platform and May encroach five (5) feet into the required front setback See section 19.28.040 for permit requirements. roof overhang F. Accessory Structures As allowed by Chapter 19.80, Accessory Structures (including attached patio covers) 'Does not apply in the R1 -a zone 2 Does not apply to non -R1 -a properties Ordl 2039 ( a 2009 Ord 1954.. ( 5 grill 1 S�S2(.t ..Inar) 2f1O1- r O�1..1 68 1p 200 Or�1....1 R(11 §1..l a A) _2000 gr�l 1 A2 .. �Vl u� LV ✓/, 1 VUl l LVV /, v.u� .L1V 1 ` V U.L L VVV, Vlu. 1OOV� " y , LUJ1,'. U. .LVVV, `1 u.L L�, LVV.L, Vlu� "7VVV,. - x- ' .LI Lvvu, Vlu. Lv✓1 nar+ 1.. 1Q. 99. 1 L) xr1.. 1Rf 1R.. an.arka...1.99Q.. 1 \rui L/, 1111, v.Lu..Lvvv, \rui L/, 1111, v.Lu..Lv.Lv, \rui L/, iii✓, viw .Lvv.L, .LJn.Li, 11 1rui L/, iii_/ 19.28.130 Minor Residential Permits. Projects that require a Minor Residential Permit shall be reviewed in accordance with this section. The purpose of this process is to provide affected neighbors with an opportunity to comment on new development that could have significant impacts on their property or the neighborhood as a whole. A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first clay, mail to all owners of record of rl property (as shown in thc last tax assessment toll) that arc adjacent to thc subject property, including properties across a public or private street. Thc notice shall invite public comment by a determined action date and shall include a copy of thc development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. B. Decision, After the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director of Community Development shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny thc application. Thc permit can be approved only upon making all of thc following findings: 1. Thc project is consistent with thc Cupertino Cencral Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and thc purposes of this title. 2. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not bc detrimental to thc public hclth, safety or welfare. 1. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with thc general neighborhood. 2. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. C Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning Commisuion, applicant and any member of the public that commented on the project shall bc notified of thc action by first class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may appcl thc action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that thc Planning Commisuion will make the final action on the appeal, D. Expiration of a Minor Residential Permit. Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number isuued) within one year of the Minor Residential Permit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for any reason, thc Minor Residential Permit shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may grant a one year extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Minor Residential Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. E. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development a Minor Residential Permit can be procesued concurrently with other discretionary applications. Tabl 19.28.130 sets forth the rul and regulations for Minor Residential Permits in the Single- Family Residential district. Minor Residential Permits A. Written notice and plan set 1. Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all affected owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) 2. The notice shall invite public comment by a determined action date and shall include a copy of the site and elevation development plans, 11 inches by 17 inches in size. B. Mailing radius Abutttn the subaect (1ncludm properties to the left, right, and directly opposite the sub 0 property and properties located across a street, way, highway, or alley, and shall include owners of property whose only contiguity to the s ubject property is a single point) C. Public comment period Two weeks D. Decision/findings 1, The Director of Community Development shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The permit can be approved only upon making all of the following findings: Minor Residential Permits a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title. b. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. c. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. d. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. E. Notice of action The City Council, Planning Commission, applicant and any member of the public that commented on the project shall be notified of the action by first class mail or electronic mail F. Appeal Period Two weeks G. Appeal Authority Planning Commission H. Expiration 1. Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Minor Residential Permit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval 2. In the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the Minor Residential Permit shall become null and void. I. Extension The Director of Community Development may grant a one -year extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Minor Residential Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided J. Concurrent Applications At the discretion of the Director of Community Development a Minor Residential Permit can be processed concurrently with other discretionary applications (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.140 Two -Story Residential Permit. Two -story additions or two- story new homes es require a Two-Story Residential Permit in accordance with this section. Two-story 777 P 77 e 77e projects- TATi1l �] tl a i' 1in 1lnlln1 2h OL ch 11 rnnllirn 7 T eVe T TTATn St R 1 e rmi TATl1i e �] 1TAT s nr TATi + 11 �] floor r lVILLLJ YYILILU11\/Vl UIL,U1UL1V U1LUL1 JJ /U J1LL111ILt UIIL(LL\ VL,11 1VVV JLV1y 1 \W 1l L111ui, VY1L111,U LYY JLJiV '1J .L VYlllt(411VV1 ar U V Lr.25 %..1<.1Lall r� a.. 5 eve :1 UJL .. ll nr y R es id L1LL 1a1.T ermiL... J 1 N1�.N 1Ll L1V V V�.1 JV /V U11N111�.N 1A 11 �. N L�. V�.111 1IYV VLV1 y 1.�.U1 Vl�.1lL1N11 �.11111L� 1 c A. Notice of Application (Level I), Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first clay; mail to all owners of G record of real property (as shown in the last tax ay,ey,ment toll) that are adjacent to the subject property, including properties acroy, a public or private street. The notice shall invite public comment by a determined action date and shall include a copy of thc development plans, eleven inchcs by seventeen inchcs in size. 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public notice in 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 feet tall and three feet wide firmly attached to a five foot tall post. The notice shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain thc following: a. The exact addrey, of the property, if known, or the location of the property, if the addrey, is not known. b. A brief description of the proposed project, the content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City; c. City contact information for public inquiries; d. A 77 de 7 dline for thc submission of public comments, which ?7 77 /Th7 shall bc at least fourteen days a all a thc date thc noticc is postcd; 77fter 77/� e 0 nl�lrl! an d TAT11it t orh r r nt e th. f rnnt nt th br iicn ]1 T nlnninn iodine ay cnnrnnt inrllnc in si I e l ihT7 G; 11 U1w 1C Uliu VY7L1Ll. V1ULV�1UL/1L1V I tUl:l11i Vl LLU 11V1iL�Vi Uli, liL/LLJI., UL iLUJi \.1L V'G1L llLi,1lC:J' L/V JL. VG1 iLi.i.1l 11LC,1ll,J llC J1Ll„ 111C:'l.1L y' 11 J J ;hall approve the illu;trat on.or rendering pr.or LU posting B. Notice of Application (Level I1; Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall bc sent by first clay, mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax ay,ey,ment toll) tha t arewithin three hundred feet of thesubject property e notice G shall invite public comment by a determined action date and shall include a copy of the development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public notice consistent with subsection A(1) of this section, except that a colored perspective 1/�nrn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I�nlnc \•1i7 rendering shall be required r insted rT o � f a black and white orthographic rendering, V 1 \•1nrn r r lnc am irnll Ynr �]nn I TATn_ \�nrn T�ncillnn �i�]I I�nrm i� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rnnll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VL V1y 1 V VL V1y 11 V N 1 �. 1�.L11A 11 �. V11V1 LLLIy 1IYV VLV1y 1.�.U1Vl�.1lL1N11 �.11111L D. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director of Community Development shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The permit can be approved only upon making all of the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title, 2. Thc granting of thc permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Thc proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with thc general neighborhood. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining propertics have bccn resonably mitigated. E. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning Commi %ion, applicant and any member of the public that commented on the project shall be notified of the action by first clan mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the Planning Commission will make the final action on the appeal, F. Expiration of a Two Story Permit. Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one ycr of the Two Story Permit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for any reson, the Two Story Pcrmit shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may grant a one ycr extension, without a public notice, if an application for a Minor Modification to thc Two Story Pcrmit is filed before thc expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. C. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, a Two Story Permit can be procey,ed concurrently with other discretionary applications. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) Table 19.28.140 sets forth the rules and regulations for Two - Story Residential Permits in the Single- Family Residential district. Two -Story Permit in R1- 5,R1 -6, 7,5, 8, 10, 20, etc., and R1 -Xe Two -Story Permit in the R1 -a zone A. Written notice 1. Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all affected owners of record of and plan set real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) 2. The notice shall invite public comment by a determined action date and shall include a copy of the site and ;.4 elevation development plans, 11 inches by 17 inches in size. B. Mailing radius Abutting the subject property (including properties to the left, right, and directly opposite the subject property and properties located across a street, way highway, or alley, and shall include owners of property whose only contiguity to the subject property is a single point) C. Posted notice 1. The applicant shall install a public notice in 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 firmly attached to a five (5) foot tall post. The notice shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the following: a. The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property, if the address is not known. Two -Story Permit in R1- 5,R1 -6, 73, 8, 10, 20, etc., and R1 -Xe Two -Story Permit in the R1 -a zone b. A brief description of the proposed project, the content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City; c. City contact information for public inquiries; d. A deadline for the submission of public comments, which shall be at least fourteen days after the date the notice is posted; e. At least one of the following visual representations of the proposed project, at least 11 inches by 17 inches in size: proposed _ i. Color perspective rendering Three- dimensional (3D) photographic simulation f. The City shall approve the rendering or 3D photographic simulation prior to posting. D. Public comment Two weeks period E. Decision/findings 1. After the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director of 1. The Design Review Community Development shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the Committee may approve a application. The permit can be approved only upon making all of the following design review application for findings: two -story development only upon making all of the findings a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable below: specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. a. The project is consistent with b. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or the Cupertino General Plan injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be and Title 19 of the Cupertino detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Municipal Code c. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general b. The granting of this permit neighborhood. will not result in detrimental or injurious conditions to the d. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably property or improvements in Two -Story Permit in R1- 5,R1 -6, 73, 8, 10, 20, etc., and R1 -Xe Two -Story Permit in the R1 -a zone mitigated. the vicinity, or to the public health, safety, or welfare c. The project is generally compatible with the established pattern of building forms, building materials, and designs of homes in the neighborhood d. The project is generally compatible with the City's single - family residential design guidelines and the guidelines in this chapter and any inconsistencies have been found to not result in impacts on neighbors e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from adjoining properties have been mitigated to the maximum extent possible F. Notice of Action The City Council, Planning Commission, applicant and any member of the public that commented on the project shall be notified of the action by first class mail or electronic mail G. Appeal Period 1. Two weeks 2. Any interested party may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136 H. Appeal Authority Planning Commission Two -Story Permit in R1- 5,R1 -6, 73, 8, 10, 20, etc., and R1 -Xe Two -Story Permit in the R1 -a zone I, Expiration 1. Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Two -Story Permit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval. 2. In the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the Two -Story Permit shall become null and void. J. Extension The Director of Community Development may grant a one -year extension, without a public notice, if an application for a Minor Modification to the Two -Story Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. K. Concurrent At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, a Two -Story Permit can be processed concurrently Applications with other discretionary applications. In, 1 no Inno. n,,,1 1 OF4 1nfF1 u kFtlit p "VriA ; " 2Crii kfuitr LANNI/ 19.28.150 Exceptions. A. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from the strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to section 19,28,070, 19 28 and 19.28420 may be granted as provided in this section. 1. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Community Development Department shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the Design Review Committee and send a notice by first cla% mail to all owners of record of real a.4 property (as shown in thc last tax acment toll) that arc within three hundred feet of thc subject property. Properties that arc adjacent to the subject site, including those across a public or private street, shall receive a reduced scale copy of the plan set with thc G public notice. 2. Decision, After closing the public hearing, the decision maker shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application based on the findings in this section. Any interested party can appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 19.136. 3. Expiration of an Exception. Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number isued) within one year of the Exception approval, said approval shall become null and void unley, a longer time period was specifically prescribed by thc conditions of approval. In thc event that thc building permit expires for any reason, thc Exception shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may grant a one year extension, without a public notice, if an application for a Minor Modification to the Exception is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is 4. Findings for Approval. a. Issued by thc Director of Community Development, Thc Director of Community Development may grant cxccptions from the prescriptive dcsign regulation described in Section 19.28.060 COI upon making all of thc following findings: i, The project fulfills the intent of the visible second story wall height regulation in that the number of two story wall planes and thc amount of visible second story wall area is reduced to the maximum extent polible, Thc exception to be granted is one that will require thc least modification of thc prescribed dcsign regulation and thc minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose, The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties, b. Is ucd by the Design Rcvicw Committee, The Design Rcvicw Committee may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulations described in Section 19.28.060 CO1 except 19.28.060 C(J and Section 19.28.130 upon making all of the following i, The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter, The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the arm, nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare, iii. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose, iv. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties, B. Notwithstanding the above, a request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability, when the strict application of the provisions in this chapter, 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) Table 19,28,150 sets forth the rules and regulations for Exceptions in the Single- Family Residential district. Design Review Committee Exceptions Director of Community Development Exceptions A. Written notice and plan set 1. Upon receipt of a complete application, the 1. Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice Community Development Department shall set shall be sent by first class mail to all affected a time and place for a public hearing before the owners of record of real property (as shown in the Design Review Committee and send a notice by last tax assessment toll) first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment 2. The notice shall invite public comment by a toll) determined action date and shall include a copy of the development plans, 11 inches by 17 inches in Design Review Committee Exceptions Director of Community Development Exceptions 2. Properties abutting the subject property size. (including properties to the left, right and directly opposite the subject property and properties located across a street, way, highway, or alley, and shall include owners of property whose only contiguity to the subject property is ;.' a single point) shall receive an 11 inch by 17 inch copy of the site and elevation development plans with the public notice. B. Mailing radius Abutting the subject property (including properties to the left, right, and directly opposite the subject property and properties located across a street, way, highway, or alley, and shall include owners of property whose only contiguity . to the subject property is a single point) C. Public comment period - Two weeks D. Decision/findings 1, The Design Review Committee may grant 1. The Director of Community Development may exceptions from the prescriptive design grant exceptions from the prescriptive exposed regulations described in Section 19.28.070, second story wall height regulation described in except 19.28.070 H(4) and Section 19.28.090 Sections 19 (I)(4) and 19.28.080 H)(3) upon upon making all of the following findings: making all of the following findings: a. The literal enforcement of this chapter will a. The project fulfills the intent of the visible result in restrictions inconsistent with the second -story wall height regulation in that the G spirit and intent of this chapter, number of two -story wall planes and the amount of visible second story wall area is b. The proposed development will not be reduced to the maximum extent possible. injurious to property or improvements in the area, nor be detrimental to the public b. The exception to be granted is one that will safety, health and welfare. require the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance c. The exception to be granted is one that will that will accomplish the purpose. require the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and the c. The proposed exception will not result in Design Review Committee Exceptions Director of Community Development Exceptions minimum variance that will accomplish the significant visual impact as viewed from purpose. abutting properties. d. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. E. Notice of action The City Council, Planning Commission, applicant and any member of the public that commented on the project shall be notified of the action by first class mail or electronic mail F. Appeal Period 1. Two weeks 2. Any interested party may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136 G. Appeal Authority Planning Commission H. Expiration 1. Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Exception approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval 2. In the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the Exception shall become null and void. I, Extension The Director of Community Development may grant a one -year extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Exception is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided J. Concurrent Applications At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, an Exception can be processed concurrently with other discretionary applications 'Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, a request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability, when the strict application of the provisions in this chapter, act as a barrier to fair housing opportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50. (Ord. 2056, ( 03 (part), Ord. ,,.20 .(part), .05) 1 viu� w vv, (part), 2010; w Ord. w ✓i, 1r ui y , wvi, viu� iivz, w vv� 19.28.160 Interpretation by the Planning Director. In R1 zones, the Director of Community Development shall be empowered to make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions of this chapter consistent with the legislative intent thereof. Persons aggrieved by an interpretation of the chapter by the Director of Community Development may petition the Planning Commission in writing for review of the interpretation. ATTACHMENT B V EXHIBI-T 4 , 9 Planning Commission Subcommittee Report on Process Improvements �.,,�,.' the approval of the Planning Commission, Planning Commission Chair Winnie Lee and ice Chair Marty Miller formed a subcommittee to meet with staff for the purpose of identifying and recommending efficiency improvements to the current permit approval process. The effort is not yet complete. However, a request was made of the subcommittee to provide a report on efforts to date for the February 15 Council hearing. This report is in response to that request. To date, the subcommittee focused mostly on residential permitting. Based on comments from past residential applicants this report proposes ways in which the efficiency of Cupertino's permit approval process can be substantially improved. These improvements are intended to reduce processing time, staff costs, and project approval costs without reducing important noticing alerts to neighbors. The City, the staff, and the applicant will all benefit. A more efficient and business friendly process will help the City attract desirable businesses and needed development to Cupertino. This will ultimately improve the City's finances as desirable businesses are attracted to the City and more retail dollars are spent here. At the last Process Workshop, a participant testified that a business owner, who originally planned to locate in Cupertino, switched to Sunnyvale instead because of the difficulty in obtaining the necessary permits from Cupertino. A more efficient process will reduce staff time and cost spent working on issues that add little value to the process or the end result. Finally, a more efficient process will reduce uncertainty and business risk leading to lower project costs and better rapport with the business community. Some proposed changes only require a modification to the current process. Others require a modification to an Ordinance, including the RI Ordinance as well. While some may be concerned about revisiting the R1 Ordinance, it has been opened up successfully in a limited way twice in the past 3 years. Recommended changes to the RI and the BMR program will have an immediate positive impact. Please give it serious consideration. A list of changes and additions recommended to date include the following: 1. Provide comprehensive documentation of the entire process written from the applicant's point of view, including examples of filled in forms, detailed requirements, and expected deliverables for step. The current process is not fully documented. It is complex and daunting to first time applicants, requiring a great deal of personal interaction with the staff. The lack of documentation on the complete process results in lots of questions and sometimes inconsistent interpretation by members of the staff leading to further confusion. The applicant must contend with requirements from Public Works, Planning and Building. In some cases these requirements appear to overlap or conflict. For example, the Building Department reviews site improvement plans that were already approved as part of the Final Map approval, requiring additional sets of plans to do so. February 14, 2011 Planning Commission Subcommittee Report Page 1 2. Allow more parallel processing and reduce sequential processing where possible. There are many different tasks that must be completed by the applicant on the way to obtaining a building permit. The current process requires many of these tasks to be completed in sequence. This is true even when there are no interdependencies. For example, architectural approval is not given until after Final Map approval is achieved. Yet these two activities are not, or should not, be interdependent and can be completed separately. Allowing more parallel processing will reduce processing time. Staff approvals that can be delayed until later in the process should be conditioned and delayed. For example, final approval of landscaping plans could be delayed and conditioned on the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. Eliminate Unnecessary and redundant steps. As an example, requiring an evaluation of trees that are either inside a building footprint, or requested for removal by the Public Works Department because they interfere with required site improvements seems unnecessary. 4. Eliminate staff review of architecture. In most cases, homes in Cupertino are designed by licensed architects. In those instances where they are not, they could be reviewed by the City's architect, or an independent architect chosen by the applicant. Large and prominent projects should continue to be reviewed by the City's architect. However, staff in general does not have architectural training. Consequently, staff comments tend to include personal preferences and biases. Some architectural mandates and design criteria lead to conformity and the pallet of the City becomes very dull as a result. For example, limitations on the size of the second story led to the proliferation of the "wedding cake" design across the City. By comparison, Mountain View does not do architectural review on any single family homes. Yet, Cupertino's two story homes do not exhibit any better architecture than Mountain View's. The section of the RI Ordinance permitting second stories with square footage greater than 45% of the first story is particularly onerous. Four sided architectural review is required and staff reviews these homes at great length and in great detail. The amount of relief that staff expects is especially challenging for smaller lots where space and flexibility is limited. Meeting staff's exterior relief requirements often results in poor interior functionality of the home itself. Yet, after considerable time and expense on architectural details, privacy landscaping requirements essentially hide the sides and rear yard from neighborhood view. Staff has also required that a tree be planted in the center of the front yard to obscure the architecture from the street. A better approach is needed. February 14, 2011 Planning Commission Subcommittee Report Page 2 5. Eliminate requirements that add very little in value in comparison to their cost in time and dollars. Staff requires that story poles outlining the ;second floor are placed in exactly the location that the walls and corners they represent will be built. Staff also requires that the poles define corners and roof elements in great detail. These requirements are very expensive to implement. They require an engineering survey and a time consuming construction process. The poles stay up for about 6 weeks and are then tom down and disposed of. But, the level of detail that they represent is nearly impossible to visualize in practice. Because they only outline second story elements, they have the potential to give a misleading impression of the actual size of the home. Also required are renderings that are much more effective in giving residents an appreciation of what will actually be built. While renderings are very effective, story poles are very costly and add little value. They should be eliminated. When new Ordinance rules are recommended, a cost benefit analysis should be performed and their impact on existing rules should be evaluated before formal approval. 6. Staff requirements for landscaping should be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council and modified. Staff currently requires that the entire parcel be landscaped before a Certificate of Occupancy is given unless the applicant can unequivocally demonstrate that 2500 square feet of landscaping will never be exceeded. As an alternative, staff will accept the posting of an expensive bond to cover hypothetical landscaping costs. This requirement cannot be found anywhere in the Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance. In fact, the Landscape Water Efficiency Checklist states that if no landscaping is being proposed, then nothing more need be done by the applicant. In most cases, a builder will landscape the front yard for curb appeal, but not landscape the backyard. Even when the backyard is Landscaped, the landscaping is minimal and as inexpensive as possible. Backyard landscaping is a loss leader for a builder because new home buyers typically want to design the backyard landscaping personally. Even if the builder puts landscaping in, it is usually replaced within a short period of time. Staff's landscape requirements are very expensive and are not an effective solution to insuring adherence to the Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance. 7. Eliminate unnecessary requirements for copies of architectural and engineering plans. As an example, a separate and full set of plans are required for a minor exception. This is true even though the minor exception plan set is no different than the plan set required for the home itself. If the new Permitting software enables the submittal of plans electronically, it will address this issue. However, until that software is implemented, unnecessary paper generation requirements should be eliminated. February 14, 2011 Planning Commission Subcommittee Report Page 3 8. Review and modify fees and the fee structure Fees should be based, as much as possible, on Planner time spent. For large projects that require more time than a benchmark project, additional fees should be charged on a time and materials basis to ensure cost recovery. Currently, Cupertino does not charge for time spent with potential applicants until they fill out an application and make an actual submittal. The City should answer preliminary questions without charge. However, if an applicant wants staff to review a preliminary site plan, or design, and give meaningful feedback, Council could consider charging a modest fee for that service. San Jose follows a similar process and offers several upfront fee options for preliminary reviews. Once Council approves changes to the current permitting process, individual fees should be reduced or increased as appropriate. Consider collecting impact fees at the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, or Close of Escrow, instead of when the building permit is issued. Buildings do not have an impact on the City until after they are built. Consequently, it doesn't cost the City anything to delay the fee collection until after construction is complete. However, in the current economic environment, obtaining construction loans is very challenging. Because impact fees are a significant expense, delaying their collection until later in the project will reduce loan requirements and make obtaining a construction loan easier. 9. Review the BMR program and reduce, eliminate, or offer an in lieu fee option. 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 the homes on a particular site. Yet it is a City wide benefit. In the current economic environment, costly BMR programs have stopped projects from moving forward in Bay Area cities. Mountain View has an affordable housing program which permits the builder to pay an in lieu fee instead of building the units if the difference between the market sales price and the affordable sales price is greater than a threshold amount. Consider evaluating this program for implementation in Cupertino. The Matrix Report and the Community Workshops were helpful in identifying areas of opportunity to improve the application permitting process. This report, as a supplement to those efforts, has briefly outlined progress to date on identifying additional opportunities for process improvement. The current process is not well understood and consequently leads to confusion, time wasted, and less than optimal results. It is our recommendation that the Council allow the subcommittee's review process to continue to completion. Winnie Lee, Planning Commission Chair Marty Miller, Planning Commission Vice Chair February 14, 2011 Planning Commission Subcommittee Report Page 4 ATTACHMENT C City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 2011 Two Story Design Review • Objective: Evaluate whether the R1 Two -Story Design Review - -_ - process should be streamlined. 1. <_ 45% second to first story ratio: • Keep existing process - Two -Story Permit, City staff design review, and noticing Yes ❑ No ❑ • No design review, but keep the Two -Story Permit and Two -story house with design review public noticing process Yes ❑ No El • No design review (apply for building permit) Yes ❑ No ❑ 2. > 45% second to first story ratio - • Keep existing process- Two -Story Permit, City staff design review, architectural consultant review, and noticing Yes ❑ No ❑ Two -story house without design review • Keep existing process but simplify design principles by illustrating examples of common architectural styles Yes ❑ No ❑ • No design review, but keep Two -Story Permit and public noticing process . Yes ❑ No ❑ • No design review (apply for building permit) Yes ❑ No ❑ >45% 2nd to 1st fl. ratio with design review Comments: City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 2011 Noticing Objective: Evaluate noticing area and material for R1 projects. 1. Noticing radius: • Keep existing radii of 300' (for 2 -story and Exceptions) Yes ❑ No ❑ • Adjacent only and across the street Yes ❑ No ❑ Notice board for two -story house 2. Noticing material: • 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 only and have onsite notice board Yes ❑ No ❑ • No mailed notice, only onsite notice board Yes ❑ No ❑ Comments: Story Poles Objective: Evaluate whether story poles should be required. 1. Keep the existing requirements to install story poles for all two -story projects Yes ❑ No ❑ 2. Remove the requirements Yes ❑ No ❑ Story poles for new two -story home 3. Option of story poles or 3D photo simulation Yes ❑ No ❑ Comments: City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 2011 R1 -20 /R1 Sloped Lots Objective: Evaluate whether there should be different standards "' - for R1 -20 lots and R1 sloped lots. 1. Should special regulations [19.28.050 (C) of the R1 Ordinance] 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 (53 %) Embankment Yes ❑ No ❑ Embankment /Flood Plain Lot 2. Development near Steep Slopes- Should there be setback standards for development near slopes >_ 15 %? Yes ❑ No ❑ 3. Building off Flat Pad Should building off the flat pad require additional review? Yes ❑ No ❑ 4. Grading Currently, projects with grading quantities >2,500 Toe of Hill lot cubic yards require Planning Commission review and a maximum of 2,000 sq. ft. area is allowed to be graded for the building pad. Should additional grading continue to require higher review? Yes ❑ No El 5. FAR Restrictions Should there be different FAR restrictions for building on the flat portion of the lot and off? Yes ❑ No ❑ 6. Second Floor Area Should 2nd Floor Area follow existing R1- View downslope of R1 -20 lots 20 (unlimited) OR regular R1 (45% or more if additional architectural criteria is met)? Yes ❑ No ❑ 7. Fencing Should there be open fencing requirements for lots that abut RHS -zoned properties (similar to R1 -20), i.e. toe of hill lots? Yes ❑ No ❑ soulk Comments: View of R1 -20 lots from valley floor ATTACHMENT D Tally of May 24, 2011 workshop attendee responses on the limited R1 review handout Two Story Design Review 1. <_ 45% second to first story ratio: • Keep existing process - Two -Story Permit, City staff design review, and noticing 8 (57 %) Yes 6 (43 %) No • No design review, but keep the Two - Story Permit and public noticing process 4 (29 %) Yes 10 (71 %) No • No design review (apply for building permit) 3 (21 %) Yes 11 (79 %) No 2. > 45% second to first story ratio - • Keep existing process- Two -Story Permit, City staff design review, architectural consultant review, and noticing 8 (57 %) Yes 6 (43 %) No • Keep existing process but simplify design principles by illustrating examples of common 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 design review (apply for building permit) 3 (21 %) Yes 11 (79 %) No Comments: • I believe if a project is satisfying the guidelines, then the staff can approve without any further review • There should not be any design regulations except for setbacks. We should bring more different designs into the City instead. All residential homes 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. Neighbors with small lots are at risk if the R1 Ordinance for two -story design review process is changed. Small lot neighborhoods are at risk if story poles are eliminated. Small lots are at risk if neighborhood noticing is eliminated. • No option is perfect, all need to modify. Need review, but need to simplify. • Please keep the existing rules. • Keep the existing standards and review. • Use common sense when reviewing architectural style. Noticing *one questionnaire was not filled out for this 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 2. Noticing material: • Keep existing process of mailing 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 Comments: • 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 should be available online. Story Poles *two questionnaires were not filled out for this section 1. Keep the existing requirements to install story poles for all two -story projects 5 (42 %) Yes 7 (58 %) No 2. Remove the requirements 6 (50 %) Yes 6 (50 %) No 3. Option of story poles or 3D photo simulation 4 (33 %) Yes 8 (66 %) No Comments: • Must have a 3D photosimulation and with a street elevation between neighbor • Maybe add the 3D photosimulation to story poles for window placement, 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 indicate 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 with slopes >_ 15% to 30 %? 5 (42 %) Yes 5 (42 %) No 2 (16 %) No Response 2. Development near Steep Slopes Should there be setback standards for development near slopes >_ 15 %? p. 2 5 (42 %) Yes 4 (33 %) No 3 (25 %) No Response 3. Building off Flat Pad Should building off the flat pad require additional review? 8 (67 %) Yes 4 (33 %) No 4. Grading Currently, projects with grading quantities >2,500 cubic yards require Planning Commission review and a maximum of 2,000 sq. ft. area is allowed to be graded for the building pad. Should additional grading 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 2nd Floor Area follow existing R1 -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 there be open fencing requirements for lots that abut RHS -zoned properties (similar 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 things the way they are. We have gone over these issues many times. Let's keep what we have. • Do not change the rules that people have spent so much time on before. Do not re- invent the wheel. P. 3 ATTACHMENT E Comments and Questions from Limited R1 Review Workshop Discussion on May 24, 2011 General Comments • R1 rules don't apply to all lots • Leave the existing R1 Ordinance the way it is • Upon annexation, residents were promised that Cupertino would have codes to prevent larger homes • Cupertino website a good resource and should have more resources and plan sets available to the public • R1 should not be relaxed • Don't build homes that adversely impact street trees Questions • Whose voices carry weight? Residents? Architects? Two -Story Design Review Comments • Cupertino needs to improve upon 2 -story design review to make it less complex; currently it is difficult to read. The process /regulations should be like Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Woodside. Questions • Whose aesthetics are we designing to? • Aesthetics- who is the judge? What is the process for challenging those decisions? Noticing Comments • Existing process of send plan sets and notices works well • Noticing radius should be greater than 300 feet • 2 weeks does not seem like a long enough notice period Story Poles Comments • Homeowners who erect story poles end up damaging roofs regardless whether they build or not • Story poles needed on hillside lots • Story poles are onerous. They look too boxy, the wind blows them down, and they don't work in most cases. Feel that 3D perspectives are much better. • Story poles have been a benefit to neighbors. They work well in small neighborhoods and provide good visual estimation of what a house will look like. Story poles let people know exactly what they are getting. • Story poles and 3D photosims should be required, with a minimum of story poles • Should remove story poles —waste of money and time and do not tell the story • Story poles are a great visual cue to a new project, lets neighbors know what house will look like Sloped Single - Family Residential Lots Questions • How does slope percentage translate to slope degree? • Is there a City database on the slope of lots? ATTACHMENT F CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE June 16, 2011 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on June 16, 2011. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: MCA - 2011 -03 (EA- 2011 -05) Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Changes and Updates to the City of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.28, R1 -Zones to improve readability and consistency and to evaluate the requirements for Sloped Single Family Residential lots, the 2 -story design review process, public noticing and story poles FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and is determined to be insignificant. /s /Gary Chao Gary Chao City Planner g/erc /REC EA- 2011 -05 \ /% �' City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 �1" 94, (408) 777 -3308 FAX (408) 777 -3333 C U P E RT I N O Community Development Department INITIAL STUDY - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST Staff Use Only EA File No. EA- 2011 -05 Case File No.MCA- 2011 -03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project Title: 2011 R1 Ordinance Amendment (MCA- 2011 -03) Project Location: Citywide Project Description: Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28, Single Family Residential Zones, to improve readability and consistency and to evaluate the requirements for sloped single family residential lots, the 2 -story design review process, public noticing and story poles. Environmental Setting: Standard single- family subdivisions on the valley floor; single- family residential properties at the toe of the Cupertino foothills; and single- family residential on embankments and /or within the Stevens Creek floodplain PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) — N/A Building Coverage — N/A Exist. Building — N/A Proposed Bldg. — N/A Zone — All R1 -zoned properties G.P. Designation — Low Density Residential Assessor's Parcel No. - N/A If Residential, Units /Gross Acre - N/A Total# Rental /Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) ❑ Monta Vista Design Guidelines ❑ S. De Anza Conceptual ❑ N. De Anza Conceptual ❑ S. Sara -Sunny Conceptual ❑ Heart of the City Special Plan ❑ Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES El NO ❑ A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 1. Land Use Element 36. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 2. Public Safety Element 37. FEMA Flood Maps /SCVWD Flood Maps 3. Housing Element 38. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 4. Transportation Element 39. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 5. Environmental Resources 40. County Heritage Resources Inventory 6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 41. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak 7. Land Use Map Site 8. Noise Element Amendment 42. CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances 9. City Ridgeline Policy Site 10. Constraint Maps 43. Santa Clara County Environmental Health B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS OTHER SOURCES 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 45. Field Reconnaissance 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History 46. Experience w /project of similar Center, 1976) scope /characteristics 14. Geological Report (site specific) 47. ABAG Projection Series 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 16. Zoning Map 17. Zoning Code /Specific Plan Documents 18. City Noise Ordinance C. CITY AGENCIES Site 19. Community Development Dept. List 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department 22. Cupertino Water Utility OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 25. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 26. County Parks and Recreation Department 27. Cupertino Sanitary District 28. Fremont Union High School District 29. Cupertino Union School District 30. Pacific Gas and Electric 31. Santa Clara County Fire Department 32. County Sheriff 33. CALTRANS 34. County Transportation Agency 35. Santa Clara Valley Water District INSTRUCTIONS A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical ") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each page. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. ✓Project Plan Set of Legislative Document ✓Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: c c b■ Co CE' CZ CZ V t C t V 3 V ISSUES: 1 — . 2 H ca o ca [and Supporting Information Sources] o : � E 'C n ' o : E z I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ Q ❑ scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ Q ❑ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ Q ❑ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] Items A, B & C: Sloped Single Family Residential Lot Standards No significant impacts to the general aesthetics of the Cupertino foothills and the surrounding neighborhood are expected if the residential hillside protection regulations (Section 19.28.050 C of the R1 Ordinance) for the sloped lots were amended or removed. Most of the residential sloped properties are already developed and /or have been zoned to allow for development. In addition, these lots generally do not significantly contribute to the overall protection of the Cupertino foothills. Most homes on the residential sloped properties are already built on existing flat pads at the toe -of -slope in existing established neighborhoods that are not highly visible from the general valley floor of the City. The existing development standards that govern building setbacks, height, floor area and coverage will still be applicable. There would be more environmentally sensitive development if the existing residential hillside protection regulations (Section 19.28.050 C) were applied to all residential sloped lots, resulting in a positive impact on the environment. If discretionary review requirements were removed, there is the potential for increased building activity. However, the housing density, bulk, and building area intensity area will not be increased with the potential ordinance amendments. Two -Story Design Review The potential options being considered in the ordinance amendment are the following: <_ second to first story ratio: A. Keep the existing process of requiring a two -story planning permit, City staff design review, and noticing Potential Environmental Impacts: Keeping the existing requirements would not have a significant impact to the visual character or quality of the site and its visual surroundings. Staff will continue to work with applicants in the planning phase to ensure architectural and neighborhood compatibility of new two story homes and additions. The two -story planning permit and noticing will continue to allow the public to comment on any aesthetic issues that may be impacted. Public input may lead to positive aesthetic changes to the project. B. Removing City staff design review, but keeping the two -story planning permit and public noticing process Potential Environmental Impacts: Removing City staff design review but keeping the existing two -story planning permit and public noticing process would not have a significant impact to the visual character or quality of the site and its visual surroundings. City staff would not have as much discretionary authority to require changes to the design, however, the design will still have to comply with zoning requirements and be generally consistent with the two -story design guidelines. In addition, the public will have the opportunity to comment on the aesthetics of the project. Public input may lead to positive aesthetic changes to the project. C. Removing City staff design review and apply directly for a building permit Removing City staff design review and allowing applicants to apply directly for a building permit would not have a significant impact to the visual character or quality of the site and its visual surroundings. There would not be discretionary design review or public input, however the intent and building principles of the Residential Ordinance will still be applied to residential projects. Also, the current residential development regulations are still applicable and will continue to ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in mass and scale of structures within residential neighborhoods by regulating building setbacks /envelope, height, size and privacy protection measures. The City's single- family residential design guidelines are not proposed for removal. > 45% second to first story ratio: A. Keep the existing process of requiring a two -story planning permit, City staff design review, architectural consultant review, and noticing Potential Environmental Impacts: Keeping the existing requirements would not have a significant impact to the visual character or quality of the site and its visual surroundings. Staff will continue to work with applicants in the planning phase to ensure architectural and neighborhood compatibility of new two story homes and additions. The City's architectural consultant will add an additional layer of review for conformance to the two -story design principles. The two - story planning permit and noticing will continue to allow the public to comment on any aesthetic issues that may be impacted. B. Keep the existing process of requiring a two -story planning permit, City staff design review, architectural consultant review, and noticing, but simplify design principles by illustrating examples of common architectural styles. Potential Environmental Impacts: Keeping the existing requirements but simplifying design principles would not have a significant impact to the visual character or quality of the site and its visual surroundings. The intent of the simplified design principles is to provide developers and homeowners with a useful reference to meet the design criteria required for second to first floor ratios greater than 45 %. This will help allow home designs to be more aesthetically pleasing. C. Removing City staff design review, but keeping the two -story planning permit and public noticing process D. Removing City staff design review and apply directly for a building permit Potential Environmental Impacts: See above in the <_ second to first story ratio section. Public Noticing The potential options being considered in the ordinance amendment are the following: Noticing Radius A. Keep existing radii of 300 feet (for 2 -story permits and exceptions) Potential Environmental Impacts: Keeping the existing radii would not have a significant impact to the visual character or quality of the site and its visual surroundings. B. Notify adjacent property owners only and across the street. Potential Environmental Impacts: Notifying the adjacent property owners only and across the street would not have a significant impact to the visual character or quality of the site and its visual surroundings. Property owners not adjacent to the site would still be notified by a notice board with the project information. Noticing Material A. Keep existing process of mailing notices and 11" x 17" plan sets Potential Environmental Impacts: Keeping the existing process would not have a significant impact to the visual character or quality of the site and its visual surroundings. B. Send notices and only site plan and elevations to adjacent property owners and across the street Potential Environmental Impacts: Sending notices and only site plan and elevations to adjacent property owners and across the street would not have a significant impact to the visual character or quality of the site and its visual surroundings. Adjacent property owners will be able to comment on the aesthetics of the project based on the exterior aspects of the plans illustrated through the site plan and elevations. Property owners not adjacent to the site would still be notified by a site sign with the project information. C. Send notices only and have onsite notice board Potential Environmental Impacts: Sending notices only and having an onsite notice boards would not have a significant impact to the visual character or quality of the site and its visual surroundings. Mailed notices will at the minimum notify the affected property owner of the project and list the City contact for more information. Plan sets may be viewable online. The notice board would provide adjacent property owners and passersby with pertinent project information and a visualization of the completed house. Story Poles The potential options being considered in the ordinance amendment are the following: A. Keep the existing requirements to install story poles for all two -story projects Potential Environmental Impacts: Keeping the existing requirements would not have a significant impact to the visual character or quality of the site and its visual surroundings. There may be temporary noise impacts due to construction of story poles. Story poles are temporarily installed onsite for a period of at least four weeks and are intended to give the public a sense of the height and mass of a proposed project. B. Remove the requirements Potential Environmental Impacts: Removing the story pole requirements would not have a significant impact to the visual character or quality of the site and its visual surroundings. Story poles are required in several cities across the Bay Area and are not required by state law. If the story pole requirements were removed, the public would still have access to project visual aids, such as 3D photosimulations and /or color perspectives. C. Give developers the option of installing story poles or placing 3D photo simulations of the house with a picture of the existing lot and surrounding properties. Potential Environmental Impacts: Either option would not have a significant impact to the visual character or quality of the site and its visual surroundings. Both options serve an effective purpose of informing the public of what the project would look like when complete. >+ c c o C ca O +' cz - +� +� WI V -c V t .2 cis t V Sao 1— o W EE 2E —0 N zE O 0— N _ +' LO ( E � ISSUES: a cn cn ° cn [and Supporting Information Sources] II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ Q agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ Q environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? [5,7,39] Items A -C: The proposed amendments will not result in a significant impact on the City's or Region's agricultural resources. c o — C � � _c ' - Al 0 AI o.� a �o ai. z — ISSUES: a cn � cn o -i cn [and Supporting Information Sources] III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ❑ Q increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ Q pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q substantial number of people? [4,37,44] f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? g) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Items A -G: The proposed ordinance amendments will not result in a significant impact on the City's or region's air quality. Tz �� o - � C -�� L - __ cz c AV0 o °r N vi E z ISSUES: a ° i — - a c J cn — [and Supporting Information Sources] IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: 0 0 0 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or ,. regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] c >„, C � � 2 c �L .0 _� cc ' AI 0 O ISSUES: o . 0 J a� E [and Supporting Information Sources] a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ❑ ❑ Q riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ Q federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement ❑ ❑ ❑ of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] Items A -F: The proposed ordinance amendments will not result in significant impacts to the City's or region's biological resources. c `is o� CZ cz� ° i_ Ot� t c AI 0: � i ° N i = N i = › 0 Q € : N •. Q 3 Z Q ISSUES: o . a' a� - , J 0) — : - [and Supporting Information Sources] a ° __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in ❑ ❑ ❑ Q the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Q paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] Items A -D: The proposed ordinance amendments will not result in significant impacts to the City's or region's cultural resources. c cz� o� �cz� °m H°t•L= 1- °c cz •4co ° a N 'E� °'� , N • 0 - z0- o� a im - Q) 1 =: - - ISSUES: : acn J J(q [and Supporting Information Sources] ° VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk , of loss, injury, or death involving: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ Q ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ❑ ❑ Q ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ c Tz t' .2 H c_ t ++ L V ccz c( c ' AI 0 O ISSUES: o. a J a J a� [and Supporting Information Sources] a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: [2,5,10,44] iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ Q ❑ liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] ❑ ❑ Q ❑ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ❑ ❑ Q ❑ loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ Q ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined ❑ ❑ ❑ in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] 0 0 0 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] Items A1-A4, B and C: Any potential amendments to the residential hillside regulations will not alter any of the required geological investigations by the General Plan. Many of the existing residential properties are currently located in geologic hazard zones identified by the City's General Plan. Development in these zones require geologic and /or geotechnical reports from qualified professionals with peer review by the City's Consulting Geologist to address issues not limited to fault investigation, potential for ground rupture, slope stability, potential for liquefaction and inundation, and recommendations for grading, drainage, and foundation design. The majority of the existing residential properties have development on existing flat pads. In the event if more than 500 square feet of development occurs on slopes of 30% or greater, then an exception approval through the Planning Commission is required. The potential grading, drainage, geological, and environmental impacts and associated mitigated measures will be assessed at the time of review. C: 0: c — C cz C c c 0 ...7,: cz c , c ,.., : .., : cz ,r4,, r, _c !,v,, .— AI: = o c..) : c..) , , ... ,_ ... ...., , F 0 _ .4= ..,_ co cz gi 17 E a 1 z o ci c c z : w C E 2 g, — ,.,,C E E ,,,, -.-, &_: 0 — o: w -- : — ISSUES: o %--- w -- — in w : _1 iT c : [and Supporting Information Sources] • : VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: ! : a) Be located on expansive soil, as defined 0 0 0 0 in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] 0 0 , 0 : RI b) Have soils incapable of adequately : supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [32,40,42,43,44] 0 0 0 RI d) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] 0 0 ! 0 : RI e) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] 0 0 : 0 : 0 f) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] 0 0 ! 0 : RI g) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] : : : [and Supporting Information Sources] —: : VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS : h) For a project within the vicinity of a private : airstrip, would the project result in a safety :: : hazard for people residing or working in the : :: " 0 Impair implementation of or physically : interfere with an adopted emergency : . : response plan or emergency evacuation : : : j) Expose people or structures to a significant : risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland : . : fires, including where wildlands are adjacent : : to urbanized areas or where residences are : . : intermixed with wildlands?[1,2,44] . Items A-J: The proposed ordinance amendments will not result in significant hazards and hazardous material impacts. [and Supporting Information Sources] —: : VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : : : a) Violate any water quality standards or :: waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] : : C . 0 c — C C 0 17) cz 4—• cz _c .- cis 1— c- " cz 0 c z AI 0 — — 0) z o- w E E &_ o w2— — ISSUES: o9— — Y) — in iT [and Supporting Information Sources] — VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: 0 0 0 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42] O 0 0 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? [14, 20,36] O 0 0 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site [20,36,38] O 0 0 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] O 0 0 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [20,36,37] O 0 0 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] O 0 0 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect c ± C O € O cz N i= N i= € N • i= Z ISSUES: o.a' J a' J E [and Supporting Information Sources] a � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: flood flows? [2,38] 0 Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ Q risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [2,36,38] Items A -J: The proposed ordinance amendments will not result in significant impacts hydrology and water quality. c ts �c it°L moo° cz — o O `� • c O `� � to � Q N 0_ z 0_ o CD �� +' o a N i a ISSUES: a cn — i c.) c5 [and Supporting Information Sources] 3 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ community? [7,12,22,41] 0 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] Item A and B: The proposed ordinance amendments will not physically divide an established community, and are consistent with the City's General Plan. [and Supporting Information Sources] — i : X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the : a) Result in the loss of availability of a known : : mineral resource that would be of value to : : the region and the residents of the state? : : : b) Result in the loss of availability of a : : locally-important mineral resource recovery : : : site delineated on a local general plan, : : specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] : : : Item A and B: The p ordinance amendments will not result in a significant impact from the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. [and Supporting Information Sources] — c : :. XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: : : a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, : noise levels in excess of standards : : established in the local general plan or noise : : : ordinance, or applicable standards of other : b) Exposure of persons to or generation of c) A substantial permanent increase in . ambient noise levels in the project vicinity : : : above levels existing without the project? : : : c i_ )-c " F- occ cc ' vs 0 O N i= i= 0 . N i= Q z cz ISSUES: o.a' J a J a� [and Supporting Information Sources] a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ Q use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18,44] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] Item D: There will be temporary noise impacts from any type of construction, however, these will be limited by the City's noise and construction hours limitations. Items A -C, F: The proposed ordinance amendments will not result in other significant noise impacts. c ca c 0 +, co.. ;�ca H Q o Q cn • a� Q z CD 0)E a aNi E ISSUES: a in - in o c5 [and Supporting Information Sources] 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ ❑ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] olzi b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] Items A -C: The proposed ordinance amendments will not induce substantial population growth. The proposed ordinance amendments will not increase or alter the density and /or subdivision potential for any of these lots. Most of the residential sloped lots are located in established neighborhoods and have reached full development potential eliminating any concerns for any further increase in density or units. � _c cis rE °° CZ 4 C o o W E N'E3co � E zo- ISSUES: a in — in o [and Supporting Information Sources] � = =3 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? [19,32,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Police protection? [33,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Schools? [29,30,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other public facilities? [19,20,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ Item A: The proposed ordinance amendments will not result in substantial impacts to public services. c Tz V H V t +�+ i t V c 333 - o CZ o 2E � 2 ;.; to �E z ISSUES: a in — in _1 cn [and Supporting Information Sources] c • ° + CZ cc$ + +• c, i_ Ot� 1- ° m ;,, c (Z °€ � i ° N ' N 'i= Q N ' Q z Q ISSUES: o.a' J a' J a�E [and Supporting Information Sources] a ° __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Does the project include recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ Q facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the , environment? [5,44] Item A and B: The proposed ordinance amendments will not result in substantial impacts to public services. c cz� o� ca V H V t ++ i t V� 33 •4 H, ° cz a '�' E 3 a'Q N • E 0 zo- ISSUES: a in -1 E c.) [and Supporting Information Sources] ° 3 XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ ❑ ❑ Q substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q a level of service standard established by the , county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q including either an increase in traffic levels or ,. a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4, ?] [and Supporting Information Sources] — i : IZ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a : : design feature (e.g., sharp curves or : dangerous intersections) or incompatible : : : e) Result in inadequate emergency access? : : f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? : g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or : : : programs supporting alternative : : transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle : Items A-G: The proposed ordinance amendments will not result in substantial impacts to transportation and traffic. There would not be substantial increases in traffic counts or patterns since the occupancy type will not be changing. [and Supporting Information Sources] — i : Would the project: : : a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional : : : Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] : : b) Require or result in the construction of : : new water or wastewater treatment facilities : : : or expansion of existing facilities, the : : construction of which could cause significant : : : environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] : : c 0 ++ ++ +� F ±' C O€ F 0 ISSUES: o . a' a , J a� E [and Supporting Information Sources] a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [ ?] o g) Comply with federal, state, and local Q statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [ ?] Items A -G: The proposed ordinance amendments will not result in substantial impacts to utilities and wastewater systems. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by City Staff) . � O o O c � � 0 � �4 7g 0 aiE .4=2_ �� N z 0- o 2 — a w 0) +'o � 0) - ISSUES: a Y) cn 0 _J cn [and Supporting Information Sources] 0 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ Q ❑ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental ❑ ❑ ❑ Q effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ ❑ ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology / Water Land Use / Planning Materials Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service ❑ Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Staff Evaluator Date ERC Chairperson Date ATTACHMENT G OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 N r . (408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 • planning @cupertino.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 Agenda Date: July 12, 2011 Application: MCA - 2011 -03, EA- 2011 -05 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: Citywide APPLICATION SUMMARY: Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28, Single Family Residential Zones, for a limited review of the requirements for sloped single - family residential lots, the two -story design review process, public noticing and story poles. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Recommend to the City Council, amendments to Chapter 19.28, Single - Family Residential Zones related to: • Two -story design review process • Public noticing requirements • Story pole requirements • Standards for lots with slopes Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take straw votes for each of these items before combining them into a final recommendation for the Council. The Planning Commission postponed this item from its June 28, 2011 meeting to allow staff additional time to revise the staff report to clarify some recent questions and discrepancies. The following revised staff report is intended to replace the report dated June 28, 2011. BACKGROUND On February 15, 2011, when reviewing the City's Development Permit Process Review project, the City Council initiated a limited review of the Single Family Residential (R1) Ordinance related to the two - story design review process, public noticing, and story poles based on comments provided by the Planning Commission subcommittee on February 14, 2011 (Attachment 2). On April 6, 2010, the Council had approved the review of standards of lots sloped between 15% and 30% in the Single- Family Residential (R1) zone as part of the FY 2010 -11 work program. Since both projects required a review of the Single - Family Residential (R1) zone, the two projects have been combined. MCA - 2011 -03, EA- 2011 -05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 Community Workshop A citywide community workshop was held to get comments from residents, builders and architects. On May 17, 2011, citywide notices were mailed out to property owners, builders and architects to announce the community workshop on May 24, 2011. Fifteen residents and developers /architects, as well as all five Planning Commissioners attended the workshop. The workshop provided the attendees information on the key topics being reviewed and the opportunity to discuss ordinance options in order to streamline the development process. Workshop attendees were also asked to fill out a questionnaire (Attachment 3) on the potential ordinance amendment options and provide comments. See Attachment 4 for a tally of the attendee responses and comments and Attachment 5 for a summary of comments and questions from the workshop discussion. DISCUSSION Improving Readability, Consistency, and Effectiveness In order to improve consistency between past ordinance revisions and improve readability of the existing ordinance, staff has revised the ordinance (Attachment 6) to: • Implement the use of tables to reduce repetition and optimize readability. The Sign Ordinance is an example of where this was done. • The existing Two -Story Design Principles, which are an appendix to the ordinance, have been revised to make them more user - friendly (see Attachment 7). Staff would like to note that the reformatted version does not include any amendments to the ordinance. It merely reformats it into a more user - friendly document. The final draft with all of the amendments will be presented to the City Council for consideration. Single- Family Ordinance History The Single - Family Residential Ordinance was enacted in 1971 and has undergone a number of changes in recent years. Here are some key points related to the ordinance amendments being discussed in this report (for greater detail regarding the ordinance amendments, see Attachment 8): • Beginning in 1999, the City initiated a two -story design review process and noticing procedures for single- family residential planning projects. • Also beginning in 1999, the City applied Residential Hillside (RHS) standards to single - family residential lots with slopes 30% or greater. • In 2007, the City revised the ordinance to only apply select hillside standards to 18 sloped single - family residential lots in a specific geographical area. • Since 2005, story poles have been required for all two -story projects. Options for Ordinance Amendments Based on experience with the single- family residential review process, analysis, public comments received during the public workshop as well as previous comments at the Development Permit Process workshops, staff has put together options for each of the four issues under consideration. Each section includes a brief discussion of the options; advantages and disadvantages of each; public comments received; and other pertinent policy implications. It should be noted that keeping the current ordinance is provided as an option in all the discussions. As noted earlier, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take straw votes on each section prior to making a final recommendation to the City Council. Comparison with Neighboring Communities Staff also looked at similar processes in six neighboring communities. These communities include Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Los Gatos, Palo Alto and San Jose. These communities were chosen because they all have a mix of commercial and residential zones as opposed to communities MCA - 2011 -03, EA- 2011 -05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 whose only focus is residential development. Each section below also has a discussion of how other communities approach the review process. City Two -Story Noticing Noticing Story Poles Maximum Total Design Radius Materials FAR Review San Jose No -- -- -- 45 %, up to 65% with planning approval Santa Clara No -- -- -- 45% Sunnyvale Yes 200 feet Mailed notice, -- 45% or 3,600 site sign square feet, whichever is more restrictive; or more with public hearing Palo Alto Yes Adjacent Mailed notice, -- 45% site sign Los 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 conformance to the Single - Family Residential Ordinance development standards and two -story guidelines through a two -story planning permit. Each project is also assessed to ensure a reasonable level of visual compatibility with the neighborhood. Projects with second to first floor ratios of 45% or less have less restrictive requirements while projects with second to first floor ratios greater than 45% require compliance with more stringent two -story design principles as well as the City Architectural Consultant review. All two -story projects require neighbor notification with a two -week public comment period. There is a two -week appeal period after the Community Development Director's decision is made. Design Review Discussion Based on experience with single - family residential design review, the two issues that appear to be of greatest concern to neighbors are visual impacts related to larger second stories and privacy impacts of second story windows and balconies. Experience with the design review process shows that neighbors are most concerned when homes are proposed with larger second stories (above 45% second to first story ratio) than with those that propose smaller second stories. Second story windows that are proposed close to neighboring homes also typically generate comments from neighbors. When second story windows have larger side setbacks (15 feet and greater), there is more space to plant privacy planting and address privacy issues. A review of neighboring communities shows that about half of them do not require design review of two -story homes, while the other half do. MCA - 2011 -03, EA- 2011 -05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 Most of the public comments received at the workshops appeared to be mixed with a larger percentage of the public favoring the current process. However, if the Commission wishes to focus on issues that typically appear to be of most concern to the public, the following recommendations and options could be considered. Options for Design Review: 1. Require design review only for: a. Homes with second stories larger than 45% of the first story; and /or homes that propose second story windows with less than a 15 -foot setback from the property line (windows with sill heights of greater than five feet from the finished second floor; obscured, non - openable windows; windows with permanent, exterior louvers up to five feet above the finished floor; and /or skylights would not be required to go through a review). All other two -story projects would not be required to submit a planning application or notify the neighbors. They could apply directly for a building permit but would be reviewed at this stage to ensure that they complied with the design standards and guidelines in the ordinance. 2. Remove review process entirely - under this option, there would be no design review or public notification and applicants would directly apply for a building permit. 3. Keep existing design review requirements for all two -story permits. Note: Under the current ordinance, Minor Residential Permits are required for: • Second story decks with views into the side and /or rear yards of neighboring properties. • Extensions of non - conforming one -story building wall lines; one -story additions encroaching no more than 10 feet into the rear setback. • One -story projects with a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space projecting outside the building envelope with a wall height of 17 feet, 1 inch to 20 feet. • Passive or active solar structures that require variation from the setback or height restrictions. If Options 1or 2 were to be adopted, then minor one -story projects would have more stringent review than a two -story project with second to first story ratios less than or equal to 45%. While staff is not suggesting amending this, we thought this was an issue the Planning Commission might want to consider. Pros of Design Review • Ensures that a project is architecturally consistent. • Ensures that the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. • Opportunity for public notification, comments, and appeals. Cons of Design Review • Prolongs the approval process for applicants. • Additional time means more cost to the applicants. • Occasionally issues brought up by a neighbor for one project may not be the same as a neighbor for another project. Some applicants feel that this is not consistent for each project. • Does not allow a large variety in design - staff believes that with the ordinance now allowing larger second stories there is ample room for varied designs. Public Comments from the workshop • 57% of attendees felt the existing process should remain. • 71 % of workshop attendees opposed eliminating design review but keeping public noticing. • 79% of workshop attendees opposed removing design review altogether. MCA - 2011 -03, EA- 2011 -05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 • Mixed comments related to how the existing process is too complex with minimal public benefit and how the existing process works well and should not be changed. Other considerations While overall, the planning review time and process are shortened by eliminating the design review and the two -story planning application, staff will still be required to work with the applicants at the building permit stage to ensure full project compliance with the development standards and two -story design guidelines prescribed by the Single - Family Residential Ordinance. Consequently, building permit plan check time and cost for two -story homes will likely increase by about 35 %. This will still result in a net reduction in cost for two -story homes that do not have to submit a planning application. II. Public Noticing Noticing Radius Every single- family residential planning permit currently requires public noticing. Two -Story Permits for homes over 35% total floor area ratio (FAR) and /or Exception projects require 300 -foot noticing. Two -Story Permits for homes under 35% total FAR and /or Minor Residential Permit projects require adjacent and across the street noticing. An estimate of the typical number of property owners that are notified within 300 feet of a project are as follows: • Projects in R1 -5 and R1 -6 zone (5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots) - 50 -65 property owners. • Projects in R1 -7.5 zone (7,500 square foot lots) - 45 -50 property owners. • Projects in R1 -10 zone (10,000 square foot lots) - 40 -45 property owners. • Projects in R1 -20 zone (20,000 square foot lots) - 30 property owners. Typically, five to eight property owners are notified in adjacent /across the street noticing. Noticing Materials Mailed notices are sent for every project. Eleven by 17 -inch plan sets are sent for all Two -Story Permit and Minor Residential Permit projects. For Exception projects, plan sets are sent to adjacent property owners only. Notice boards or site signs, which contain the pertinent project information as well as a color perspective or black and white elevation, are required for all Two -Story Permit projects and remain onsite during the two -week notice period and two -week appeal period. Noticing Discussion Currently, there appears to be an inconsistency with thresholds for design review and noticing. While design review is required for all two -story homes, there is a higher threshold for homes with larger two stories (over 45% of second story to first story ratio). However, the noticing requirements are for projects with a total FAR of over 35 %. Total FAR appears to be less of a concern than the size of the second story and privacy issues. For example, there is currently no planning permit review for large one -story homes (up to 45% FAR) and we don't typically get complaints about such homes. In order to address which projects should get additional noticing (i.e. focusing on primary community concern of larger two stories), it would be more appropriate to relate noticing requirements to issues that appear to be of greatest concern to the public, i.e. larger second stories and windows on the second story, as discussed in the previous section. Regarding the radius of noticing, a typical planning application requires mailing notices and plan sets to about 40 -65 neighbors. Staff typically only gets comments from people who are directly adjacent to the project or those who live across the street from a project. The current process already requires site signs with a color perspective or black and white elevation of the project to be posted at the site. In comparing requirements for other cities, two out of the three cities that have design review only MCA - 2011 -03, EA- 2011 -05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 require noticing of adjacent neighbors and those who live across the street. In addition, none of the reviewed cities mail plan sets. Public comments at the workshop were mostly in favor of keeping the existing process. However, if the Planning Commission wishes to focus noticing on neighbors who typically express concerns, reduced noticing could be considered since the site sign would continue to inform all neighbors who could possibly be affected by the project. Noticing Options 1. Radius - a. Require only adjacent and across the street noticing for all projects. b. Require 300 -foot noticing for projects with greater than 45% second story to first story ratio and /or projects that propose second story windows closer than 15 feet from the property line. All other projects requiring review will have adjacent and across the street noticing. c. Keep existing radius requirements. 2. Plan sets - a. Send site plan and elevations to adjacent and across the street neighbors and require a site sign. b. No plan sets sent and only require a site sign. c. Keep plan set mailing requirements. It should be noted that for projects where the planning process is eliminated entirely, there will be no notification requirements. Pros of noticing • Neighbors get to review, comment, and have relevant concerns addressed on a project. Cons of noticing • Cost and time associated with the notification process (notification costs are typically between $100 and $150). • Some applicants have expressed concerns of having plan sets sent to 60 neighbors since they can now see the entire layout of the interior of their home. • Most questions to staff are from people who cannot read architectural plans and need additional help. • Notifying and sending plan sets to 40 -65 neighbors is not necessary since most comments come from those who are adjacent and live across the street. • There may be more efficient ways of notifying the neighborhood (i.e. site sign and project information). • Applicants note that the process is not consistent from one project to the other since neighbor complaints vary. Public comments from the workshop • 85% of workshop attendees felt that that keeping the 300 -foot noticing radius was appropriate. • 85% of attendees disagreed with changing all noticing requirements to only adjacent and across the street. • 62% of workshop attendees felt that the existing process was appropriate. • 69% of workshop attendees disagreed with only notifying adjacent neighbors. • 77% disagreed with only having a site sign and mailed notices only. • Some felt that the noticing radius should be increased. MCA - 2011 -03, EA- 2011 -05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 III. Story Poles Story poles are currently required for all two -story projects, even for minor additions. They are required to be in place for the two -week public comment period and two -week appeal period. They are required to be installed by a licensed contractor and certified by a contractor, architect, or engineer to ensure accuracy. Story Pole Discussion The installation of story poles generally ranges from $1,500 - $4,000 depending on the complexity of the project and surveying requirements. Most applicants have commented that story pole requirements are costly and damage roofs of existing homes (if the applicant later decides not to build). While story poles do announce a project, comments received by staff indicate that they do not provide an accurate reflection of the architecture of the proposed homes. In fact, when staff receives comments from the public, they tend to be complaints that the story poles do not accurately depict the future design of a home. A majority of the public felt that story pole requirements were not necessary. However, some did indicate that it helped announce a project in the neighborhood. The site sign requirement does that as well. A review of other jurisdictions showed that only one out of the three cities that require design review of second -story homes require story poles. A color perspective on the site sign would provide a more accurate depiction of the design of a home. If the Planning Commission wishes to focus on requirements that best depict the design of a home, it may wish to consider removing the story pole requirements and requiring a color perspective or a three - dimensional photo simulation on the site sign instead. Story Pole Options 1. Remove the requirement for story poles and: a. Require a color perspective on the site sign; or b. Require a three - dimensional photo simulation on the site sign. 2. Keep existing story pole and site sign requirements. Pros of story poles • Would announce the project and provide neighbors with a sense of the siting and maximum height of the project. Cons of story poles • Does not give an accurate depiction of what the house will look like. • Creates safety concerns to neighboring properties or people on -site during inclement weather and applicants have to bear the burden of the additional costs to reinstall them. • Additional cost to applicants without a commensurate benefit. • Installation materials may be wasted after they are removed from the site. • If the project is not a full rebuild, the installation of story poles may damage existing roofs and structures creating more cost to repair. Public comments • 58% of workshop attendees did not want to keep the existing requirements. • 66% of attendees did not want to give an option of story poles or three - dimensional photo - simulation. • Some felt that the three - dimensional photo - simulations provide a better visual resource than story poles. • Mixed comments related to those who felt they were valuable to the existing neighborhood while MCA - 2011 -03, EA- 2011 -05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 others felt that they did not properly serve their purpose. IV. Standards for Sloped Single - Family Lots The requirements for lots with slopes of 15% or greater has been discussed and amended several times. See Attachment 8 for additional details on these requirements. The current requirements for sloped lots were approved in 2007. Eighteen sloped single- family residential lots generally located south of Linda Vista Drive, south and west of Santa Teresa and Terrace Drive, west of Terra Bella Drive, and north of Lindy Lane, have additional requirements ranging from grading limitations to special fencing requirements. These lots were selected mainly because they were perceived to be larger lots with hillside characteristics. It should be noted that the ordinance currently addresses development on slopes of over 30% by requiring additional review through a Hillside Exception; similar to what is required for lots in the Residential Hillside (RHS) zone, Chapter 19.40. As part of this project, the Council wanted to review whether additional requirements should apply to all single- family residential lots with slopes of between 15% and 29% (the 18 lots mentioned above would be included). No single family residential parcels or areas are being considered for rezoning. The proposed additional requirements would apply to all single family residential lots with restrictions imposed on certain slope characteristics that exist now or are created in the future. Analysis In the previous staff report, staff had approximated 389 single family residential lots (see map on Attachment 9) in the City with slopes of 15% or greater with the City's Geographical Information System (GIS) digital elevation model. It should be noted that this number was for illustrative purposes only and was not intended to be a specific count as there is likely to be more sloped residential lots throughout the City. The City's Consulting Geologist provided an analysis of sloped parcels to categorize the lots, and assess which geologic/ geotechnical and physical characteristics were of concern. Based on this analysis, the sloped lots can be characterized into two types— toe -of -hill lots and embankment /flood plain lots. Generally, toe -of -hill lots slope up towards the hillside at the rear of their property while embankment lots slope down towards a creek or other feature to the rear of their property. There are essentially two major concerns related to development on sloped single - family residential lots — structural safety and visual/ aesthetics. Structural safety is addressed for all projects by the Planning, Building, and Public Works Departments during building permit plan review and inspections. Soils/ geotechnical reports are required for all hillside development in the building plan review phase. In addition, geologic and /or geotechnical reports with peer review are required for development within geohazard zones. The ordinance and subsequent planning process helps to address visual, aesthetic, and grading impacts - all of which are noted in our General Plan Policies 2 -48, 2 -52, 5 -10 through 5 -12, and 5- 19 through 5 -23 (Attachment 10). In order to determine which regulations would be appropriate to address these issues, staff looked at the following items: 1. At what point does slope become a concern? 2. Are any other geological characteristics a concern? 3. Which regulations should be applied to sloped lots in order to reduce visual, aesthetic and environmental impacts? MCA - 2011 -03, EA- 2011 -05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 The following discussion highlights the analysis and recommendations related to the above issues. Slopes and Setback Standards The City's Consulting Geologist notes that slope may start to become an issue when homes are built on average slopes of 20% or greater (see Attachment 11). However, the Geologist also notes that building on existing flat pads (as long as the geologic/ geotechnical issues are addressed) is not a concern even if the average slope of the lot is 20% or greater. Regarding setbacks, the Geologist felt that it would be best to keep a 25 -foot setback from slopes of 20% and greater. He noted however, that for some lots, it would make building difficult and that geological and /or geotechnical review would be able to take care of structural issues. He did note that any visual /aesthetic concerns could be addressed by requiring additional review for excessive grading. Grading Under the current ordinance, grading for the 18 sloped single- family residential lots is limited to 2,500 cubic yards. Grading above 2,500 cubic yards requires Planning Commission review and is consistent with the Residential Hillside (RHS) ordinance. The intent is to avoid excessive grading as well as the resulting visual impacts of homes on lots with natural slopes. Based on a discussion with the City Geologist and staff engineers in the Public Works and Building Departments, staff notes that the 2,500 cubic yard limit is adequate for most single- family homes. A large truck can carry up to 10 cubic yards; therefore, 2,500 cubic yards would equal 250 truckloads of dirt. Staff believes that any additional grading should require additional review to limit grading and visual impacts. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Second Story Requirements The current ordinance allows the sloped single- family residential lots to be build up to 45% total FAR on the flat portion of the lot. However, homes larger than 4,500 square feet and located off the flat pad require Planning Commission review. Based on staff analysis, the majority of the lots with average slopes of 20 % -30% in the City range from a size of 5,000 to 75,000 square feet. The option of applying a single house size limitation will not be appropriate to address visual impacts on lots of such varying sizes. A more appropriate criterion to address visual impacts would be the FAR, which would vary based on the size of the lot. Based on this, staff recommends additional Planning Commission review for homes with over 35% FAR. While a house size on larger lots is quite large, staff notes that there are only two lots over an acre, most of which have been already recently developed. Also, the screening and setback opportunities offered by the larger lot would likely be adequate to address visual or privacy issues. The second story and balcony requirements for the 18 sloped single - family residential lots are currently consistent with the Residential Hillside zone, which does not have a specified review process for second stories and balconies. The RHS Ordinance does not limit the size of second stories, and at the time of the 2007 ordinance amendments for the 18 sloped single - family lots, second stories in the other R1 -zoned properties were limited to 45% second story to first story ratio. The current Single- Family Residential Ordinance does not have that limitation any more, provided that there is additional review and the design criteria are being met. As noted above, the special requirements referring to RHS zones have only applied to the 18 specified sloped single- family residential lots and not to other sloped single- family residential lots. Staff therefore believes that the Single -- Family Residential Ordinance requirements would be adequate and should apply to all sloped lots with slopes of 20% or greater. Currently any developments over 500 square feet located on sloped lots over 30% would require an MCA - 2011 -03, EA- 2011 -05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 exception approval from the City. Fencing Requirements Fencing requirements for the 18 sloped single - family residential lots are similar to those in the RHS zone. The requirements have a limitation on the amount of yard area that can be fenced with solid board fencing and also encourages open fencing in order to preserve views to the hillsides. Many of the sloped lots in the City are smaller and do not share the same characteristics as the hillside properties that are currently under these regulations. Therefore, staff recommends that only fences that are widely visible to public view and create impacts on the visual character of an area (for example, blocks public views to the western hills or an open space preserve) be required to maintain the special fencing requirements. This is consistent with General Plan Policy 2 -53. All other sloped lots would have fencing requirements similar to lots in the Single - Family Residential zone (no restrictions on fence material). Based on the discussion above, staff is recommending consideration of the following options. Staff additionally notes that the recommendations are generally in keeping with the majority opinions of the public at the workshop. Options for Sloped Single- Family Residential Lots 1. Slopes - Require additional review for homes built on lots with average slopes of between 20% and 29 %. Buildings on existing pads with slopes lower than 20% should not require additional review. As mentioned previously in the report, any developments over 500 square feet located on lots with slopes of 30% or greater would need to comply with the additional review and an exception approval from the City. 2. Grading - Continue to require Planning Commission review for projects that propose grading of over 2,500 cubic yards. 3. FAR and Second Story requirements - Keep the same as for other Single - Family Residential lots. However, homes with an FAR of greater than 35% would require Planning Commission review. Staff believes that additional review for increased grading and FAR will address issues related to visual and environmental impacts. 4. Fencing requirements - Same as for other Single - Family Residential lots. However, fences that are widely visible to public view and create impacts on the visual character of an area (for example, blocks public views to the western hills or an open space preserve) be would have fencing requirements similar to that in the RHS zone Section 19.40.080A.2. & B. (limited solid board fencing, unlimited open fencing- see Attachment 12). 5. Tree removal and retaining wall requirements - Remove current requirements for the allowance of certain protected tree removals and retaining wall screening. Staff believes that the tree removal requirements should be the same for all Single- Family Residential lots. The Protected Tree Ordinance (Chapter 14.18) currently protects species of a certain diameter such as Oaks, Deodar Cedars, and Bay Laurels; and trees that were required to be protected as part of an earlier approval. Also, staff believes that all retaining walls (regardless of the district they are built in) should be screened with landscaping to reduce visual impacts. Staff will review placing this requirement elsewhere in the zoning ordinance to apply to all retaining walls. 6. After further review, the paragraph regarding building /roof forms and colors is not included for consideration at this time. 7. Keep existing requirements in either of the above categories. Pros • Grading restrictions would allow additional review in order to reduce visual and aesthetic impacts. • Would allow the public and Planning Commission to ensure that excess grading is done properly MCA - 2011 -03, EA- 2011 -05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 from a visual and environmental standpoint. As noted earlier, a large truck can carry up to 10 cubic yards, and 2,500 cubic yards would equal 250 truckloads of dirt. • FAR limitations would reduce potential visual impacts of buildings on slopes. Staff notes that additional review for increased grading and design review would address this issue. • Permitting larger second stories would allow for more varied designs. • Larger second stories on sloped lots would allow buildings to fit into the natural slope and reduce excessive grading. • Open fencing requirements would reduce the potential visual impacts associated with solid board fencing on highly visible upslope portions of lots. Cons • Setbacks from slopes could potentially make certain lots difficult to build on - Geologic /geotechnical requirements would make it safe and grading limitations would address visual impacts. • Additional review for increased grading would delay the review process for applicants. • Larger second stories could create greater visual impacts. Staff notes that design review for large second stories (above 45% second to first floor ratio) would address this issue. Public comments • 42% of the workshop attendees felt that there should be setback standards from steep slopes. • 67% of the workshop attendees felt that there should be additional review for buildings built on slopes as opposed to flat pads. • 50% of the workshop attendees felt that there should be higher review for grading beyond the existing quantity limits. • 58% of the workshop attendees felt that there should not be additional FAR restrictions. • 50% of the workshop attendees felt that second floor area should be limited to 45% or more with additional architectural review criteria required for second stories that are larger. This is the case in the current R1 ordinance, particularly if design review for larger second stories is preserved. • 50% of the workshop attendees felt that there should be open fencing requirements for lots near hillsides. Environmental Assessment On June 16, 2011, the Environmental Review Committee recommended that a negative declaration from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) be adopted since none of the potential ordinance amendment options would have significant adverse environmental impacts. The Negative Declaration will be brought to the City Council for approval along with the ordinance amendments. Next Steps The Planning Commission comments and recommendations will be forwarded to City Council in August for consideration of potential ordinance amendments. Prepared by: George Schroeder, Assistant Planner Prepared by: Gary Chao, City Planner Reviewed by: Approved by: /s /Gary Chao /s /Aarti Shrivastava Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava City Planner Community Development Director MCA - 2011 -03, EA- 2011 -05 Limited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Draft Resolution Attachment 2 Planning Commission Subcommittee report on process improvements Attachment 3 Limited R1 review questionnaire from the May 24, 2011 workshop Attachment 4 Tally of workshop attendee responses on the limited R1 review handout Attachment 5 Comments and questions from the limited R1 review workshop discussion on May 24, 2011 Attachment 6 Proposed R1 ordinance text amendments for readability and consistency Attachment 7 Revised Two -Story Design Principles for projects with second to first floor ratios greater than 45 % Attachment 8 Additional information on two -story design review, noticing, story poles, and R1- 20/ single - family residential sloped lots Attachment 9 Map of sloped single- family residential lots Attachment 10 Existing General Plan policies related to development on sloped lots Attachment 11 Memo from Cotton, Shires, and Associates regarding geotechnical constraints of sloped single- family residential lots Attachment 12 Existing RHS fencing requirements Attachment 13 Existing R1 Ordinance G:\ Planning \ PDREPORT \ pc MCA reports \ 2011 \ v 5 MCA - 2011 -03 EA- 2011 -05 7 -12 -2011. doc ATTACHMENT H CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. July 12, 2011 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of July 12, 2011 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chairperson Winnie Lee. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Winnie Lee Vice Chairperson: Marty Miller Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Clinton Brownley Commissioner: Don Sun Staff present: City Planner: Gary Chao • APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Minutes of June 28, 2011 Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Vice Chair Miller, and carried 5 -0 -0 to approve the June 28, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS /REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 2. MCA - 2011 -03, EA- 2011 -05 Limited review of the Single Family Residential (R1) City of Cupertino Zone; Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28, Citywide location for a limited review of the requirements for sloped single - family lots, the two -story design review process, public noticing and story poles. Postponed from the June 28, 2011 Planning Commission meeting; tentative City Council date: August 2, 2011 George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the background of the application; In April 2010 the City Council included the review of the slope lot standards on their work program; and in February 2011 the Council initiated a limited review of the ordinance of the story poles, two story design and the public noticing, along with the slope lot standards. In May a community workshop was held to discuss what is being considered for the ordinance. Staff has clarified the applicability of the Cupertino Planning Commission 2 July 12, 2011 amendments regarding the single family sloped lots; fixed inconsistencies in the draft reformatted ordinance and removed the option to apply additional RHS for a sloped lot development standards to the sloped lots. • He reviewed the history of the single family ordinance enacted in 1971 which has undergone many changes in recent years; in 1999 the two story design review process was initiated as well as standards for sloped lots over 30 %; in 2005 the city codified story poles for all two story projects; and in 2007 the city adopted additional standards for several sloped lots near the Lindy Lane area. • He reviewed the comparison with six similar communities, as outlined in the staff report. Staff looked at some other cities in the area with a mix of commercial and residential properties similar to Cupertino. Half of the cities require design review as a discretionary approval and half not to have noticing requirements; only one jurisdiction requires story poles and generally floor area ratio is around 45 %; some cities have varying standards based on the lot size such as Los Gatos and Mountain View. • For the existing two story design review, staff does a preliminary review for conformance to the RI ordinance and the design guidelines. For second stories that are greater than 45% of the first floor, there are more stringent reviews, there are several design principles that have to be met in order for the project to be approved. In addition, the city's architectural consultant reviews it for conformance with that, making sure that it is identifiable architectural style. It is then sent out for neighbor review and a two week comment period; followed by the approval and appeal period, which is 14 day /2 week period. Based on comment from the public and staff's experience with dealing with two story projects in the past, most people are concerned with the size of the second story floor area and also the proximity of second story windows to the property line. • He reviewed the comments from the workshop, and the options for design review as outlined on Page 9 of the staff report. He noted that all projects would still have to comply with development standards and two story design guidelines in the ordinance, regardless of what option is considered. The public noticing requirements and options were also reviewed, as well as story poles and standards for sloped single - family lots as outlined in the staff report. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission address each issue /topic with its options and take straw votes on each of the following items for final recommendation to the City Council, including design review, public noticing, story poles and standards for sloped lots. • Staff answered Commissioners' questions. Vice Chair Miller: • Suggested that the larger the second story, the less ground you are disturbing in a sensitive area such as a sloped area; the more restrictions you put on the second story, the less likely someone is going to build it. He said if the objective is to limit the amount of disturbance in an environmentally sensitive area, he would not want to discourage second stories in that way Gary Chao: • In response to a question if singling out the 15 lots could be a case of spot zoning, he said he did not have a comment; it has gone through a public process with the City Attorney and City Council and it would be a question for the City Attorney who is not present at the meeting. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Lynn Faust, Cupertino resident: • Said she sent an email expressing her concerns. Relative to the May 24 meeting held, there were only 15 people present. She suggested that the next meeting on the issue be held in mid - Fall so that more people would be able to attend and provide input; as during the summer months residents and their families have more conflicts and are unable to attend the meetings. (Staff said most of the 15 attendees at the May meeting were residents.) Cupertino Planning Commission 3 July 12, 2011 • Relative to site signs, and story poles, she said that generally site signs are at the street edge of the property so people going by can see them. However, the development at issue is on the back side of 120 acres and the majority of the homes would not see a sign on the street, it is a two lane road frequented by cyclists and big trucks. She stated that story poles would be seen from a wider variety of areas; and requested that the city retain story poles so that people on all sides of a property being developed would have that view. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said it was the 16 year of fighting against over - development. The fight is what drove the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood out of the county, with over - aggressive building; lots are 5,000 square feet, some under. Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates tried valiantly for three years to get out of the county, Rancho Rinconada was annexed to Cupertino in 2000. Street trees were cut down, there were homes that were too big for the lot, and residents were promised certain promises when they came into Cupertino. • Said it was important to remember that the current Rl ordinance is there because of past history; everything in it was fought hard in the City Council in years past to get story poles, neighborhood noticing, two story design review, and Cupertino has been fighting the slope battle for years. She said for the first time in many years, there is peace in the neighborhood; the current Rl ordinance is working; the story poles are working and story poles are needed all three ways around, you can see where balconies are, how tall it is; if the builder can't keep his story poles up, he shouldn't be building. Leave it as is, and make sure not to remove story poles in the neighborhood hillsides. Jim Yee, VTBS Architects: • Said that relative to the city's design review process, he was concerned about design; most communities are looking for more traditional design in new developments. Traditional architecture is generally more vertical, and doesn't have the wedding cake look; the examples shown in the R1 guidelines are more vertical and higher than the .45 first to second floor ratios. • One of the things that would be more helpful is a more efficient streamlined process to go through the design review; there is not a lot of support for getting rid of that; but there are ways to make it more streamlined. Some speakers support the story poles, but from a professional standpoint, they don't depict the real character of the house; it is part of the scale of the home and the actual details make the home what it is; you look at some of the traditional architecture; they tend to be more boxy and vertical, and that is not seen in a story pole. The 3D digital simulation provides more sense of what the house is going to look like; it is really through perspective or more of a 3DM digital simulation; nowadays relative to some of the questions raised about perspectives vs. 3D; most perspectives in the past were hand done; presently they are derived off wire frames, CAD files projected 3D and they sketch on top of that, while 3D simulation is done digitally; and are accurate. Those are the main differences. David Schie, resident: • Asked what Lindy Lane was given an exception for; and whether it should be the entire slope or part of the slope. He said they live on Ricardo by the reservoir; and every year there are huge floods that come down the hill, it has changed despite all the theoretical things they did for the water; it has changed how the water flows. There are 120 acres of landfill by Stevens Creek and they are concerned about the water and the environment; does adopting the measures which extend the allowance that was given to that other area somehow make it easy for the developers to develop that 120 acres next to Stevens Creek. • The 120 acres is in the City of Cupertino, purchased for a school a number of years ago and they did not get the zoning for it. There is a huge canyon coming down off the mountain, but then it goes flat. They want to go from 5 acre residential to much smaller lots, and there is likely going to be a push for a zoning change and to get a lot of measures through to allow them to do that and make it economical. Said they were concerned about the environment; Cupertino Planning Commission 4 July 12, 2011 there are many slope issues on that lot and also water stability. They are concerned about what might happen if some of these measures and that other area allowed easier building of areas that perhaps shouldn't be built, and it may have an impact on their ability to change that zoning. The area is RHS. Gary Chao: • Noted that the area is already under the city's residential hillside standard; Lindy Lane received some standards from the RHS to address the development on hillside, but the area referenced is already located in RHS which is the city's hillside rule which has the full protection of development measures that would be considered for sloped lots; none of the discussion would change the density or zoning for the area. Vice Chair Miller: • Said that it is the most restrictive zoning in the city that they come under; and it is highly unlikely that it would change. Frank Sun, resident: • Relative to the sloped lots, said he would support a coherent ordinance to apply to the entire city. • Relative to the two story building design, he said his neighborhood went through a lot of building and he did not benefit from the story poles. He felt the color 3D pictures provided more information, as well as talking with the neighbors and the architect. • Said he supported removal of the story poles, and avoiding lengthy and costly review; the money would be better spend on the design of the building and giving more freedom to the architect, making the building and city more interesting. He supported less review, less restrictions on the second story. With a larger second story, there would be a smaller footprint for the whole building, consuming less land and providing more opportunity to mitigate any privacy concerns and more space for planting trees. The size and location of the windows can be regulated which has an impact on the neighbors. Gary Chao: • Relative to the two story rule, he clarified that when the Lindy Lane rule came to be, the R1 ordinance had a limitation on maximum second floor to ground floor ratio; at the time it was 45 %, anything over 45% required an exception. Since then, that has been opened up. Technically the two story policy is that there is no cap on second floor, second to ground floor ratio. He said he agreed that if people want to reduce the footprint and build a larger second floor, and if the design is consistent with that type of style, now under the current ordinance, it can be done. He said if they want to do it, to make sure the design is done the way the architect mentioned, since there are certain styles that lend itself to a more boxy look and that rule has to be consistent throughout. Chi- I Lang, resident: • Said he felt that the ordinance for sloped lots should apply to the entire city. Susan Chen, local architect and resident: • Relative to the two story review process, there are presently three phases; the planner, the consultant architect review and the neighborhood review; which is time consuming, costly and not without conflict between the three processes. She suggested consolidating the three phases together; requiring the planner and local architect to meet at the Planning counter face to face to have an initial review. The planner reviews the regulations, architect reviews the style and the neighborhood reviews the privacy issues, which will shorten the timeframe and save money. She suggested that the architect meet at the planning counter with the city Cupertino Planning Commission 5 July 12, 2011 consultant/architect; sometimes his suggestions are different from the planner's; there is no one style in Cupertino. • Suggested eliminating story poles; they are dangerous, costly and don't carry details about the house design; don't answer questions neighbors may have about balconies, windows, and their impact on neighbors. Suggested a better solution to show the neighbors what happened about the design; encourage better communication between designer, architect, owner and with the neighbors. Currently there are many issues with the plan review process; hopefully the meetings can change that. George Novitsky, Associate Designer for Susan Chen: • Said he had encountered many problems with story poles when working on projects in Los Gatos. One of the concerns from neighbors and the review process through the planning related to the house design and how it will appear. He said it does not capture the actual building and how it appears to the neighborhood, and adding renderings or front elevations to the process of letting the community know what kind of architectural projects could be put up in the original place of the existing house would actually improve the neighborhood response and the process of the planning review. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Staff requested that straw votes be taken on each item for an accurate tally to forward one recommendation of changes to the Council to be applied to the Rl ordinance. TWO STORY DESIGN REVIEW: Com. Brophy: • Said he felt there were a number of aspects in their planning review process for homes that are unduly complicated and provide relatively little value. However, they should be viewed in the context of the fact that as Jennifer Griffin said the basic problem is they allow too much house for a given sized lot. He said shortly after he joined the Planning Commission they unanimously voted to recommend to Council that they consider reducing the maximum FAR on R1 lots and the Council unanimously decided against it. This time around they have given the Commission a limited single - family residential review so they have to make any decisions in the context of what the ordinance is in terms of density and buildout. He said he felt the benefits of the design review process are not worth it, but given the limits and the large size of homes allowed in the Rl zone, he preferred keeping the existing design review requirements. Vice Chair Miller: • Said his opinion differed slightly; the current design review is in some cases overly restrictive, particularly for homes over 45 %. For 44% there is one review and for 45% or 45.1% you have to provide a known architectural style; the Director of Community Development can arbitrarily decide there is or is not enough architectural relief, you are required to provide four sided architecture. Said that on small lots, they require great architecture or extra effort in terms of four sided architecture and then ask that the applicant put up dense landscape screening around three of those sides so that nobody ever sees it, and he was doubtful of how that serves a good purpose. • Presently the review is done by both staff and a city architect and his concern is that staff in general does not have architectural training but yet they are making judgments on architectural features of the home. He suggested that staff confine their comments to making sure that the specs of the house meet the ordinance and the design guidelines and not render opinions on which types of relief or architectural features are preferred or not preferred and that be left to an architect. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 July 12, 2011 • He said he was not necessarily opposed to architectural review but felt that flexibility should allow the applicant to choose his own architect for the review rather than staff do it. There have been some remarks from people that some planners differ on what is acceptable and not acceptable. He said he had concerns with the way the process is carried out; an architectural consultant who manages some 15 or 20 cities and does architectural review for a very large number of cities, doesn't spent a lot of time doing architecture. • Said he would rather have the applicant hire an architect who is qualified to do the architectural review; but if he doesn't hire an architect then for some of the larger second stories, they require that there is architectural review but it be done by an architect of the applicant's choosing. • Said in his research he found that Mountain View doesn't require any architectural review at all, and even Cupertino's Director of Community Development who once worked there said in her opinion the home designs in Cupertino are not any better than the ones in Mountain View where they don't do any architectural review of second stories. • There is considerable evidence to suggest that architectural review is either not warranted or we should allow further flexibility by either substantially increasing the threshold as Jim Yee suggested and /or allowing that the architectural review be done by an architect of the applicant's choosing so that there is more flexibility and that under all circumstances the staff review of architecture should be eliminated and staff's comments because they are not architecturally qualified should be limited to making sure that the home meets all the requirements of the ordinance and the ordinance of the guidelines. Com. Brownley: • Have been discussing rights or responsibilities of home owners allowing them to have maximum design discretion within the ordinance and guidelines to build the home of their dreams in the city and things related more to this process and that are relevant to all residents of Cupertino having to do with reducing the length and cost of the approval process. There are others such as visual compatibility of the home with the neighborhood; and have heard many objectives from colleagues and from residents to use to evaluate the alternatives being discussed; and based on what is in the staff report and comments from city residents, tend to agree with some of the alternative proposals that Vice Chair Miller was making on ways to shorten, simplify and streamline the design process. • Said he was in favor of modifying significantly the design review process to make it more simple and streamlined, or discussing using it for the larger homes with windows and balconies that are closer to property where privacy concerns may become more relevant. Com. Sun: • Relative to the Planning Commission members, they listen to the public and also respect each individual; they build their house to maintain their individual architectural style; and try to save the city's budget and money to give more freedom to the architecture, and then go through the public hearing and other notification procedures to get feedback about the community. • Said he concurred with Vice Chair Miller's preference. Chair Lee: • The wedding cake style is more prevalent the last few years, it is disturbing to know that some people are building out their first floor maximum to 45% FAR for the wedding cake look for adequate second floor space. As said by Com. Brophy, it is not intended for the Council to limit FAR, it is not popular and not something that should be done, but there could be incentives to provide for if a homeowner wanted to build a FAR at 35 %. • Perhaps they could have less stringent requirements for the second floor since they are keeping the FAR at 35 %; the second floor to first floor ratio could be increased, the threshold presently with the second to first floor ratio is 45% and then it triggers more stringent requirements and design review and offset, etc. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 July 12, 2011 • Said she agreed with Vice Chair Miller and relative to the trigger for the trigger for the second or first floor ratio, felt it should be increased to about two - thirds. • Flexibility is important, picking their own architect for the design review and then having more stringent requirements if the owner wants to build a 45 %; building a second floor to first floor ratio of over 2/3 for all Rls; it could be more stringent with the review so that it does not appear so boxy. Com. Brophy: • Said that having your own architect do design review for your project, is similar to asking your own attorney to judge the validity of your case. It is highly unlikely that a hired architect will switch to a design review hat and say that he finds something unsatisfactory; so at that point you might as well just eliminate the design review process. Vice Chair Miller: • The same can be said for staff; if staff hires an architect he does what the staff wants. Com. Brophy: • Said the idea is he is supposed to be an independent; you are saying that for the most part staff doesn't have architectural training so they hire a third party independent person. It is more like hiring an arbitrator, it is not like hiring your own attorney to tell you whether you are right or wrong. Vice Chair Miller: • Just because staff doesn't have architectural training, doesn't stop them from having architectural opinions. Com. Brophy: • Said he did not understand why they would have design review. Vice Chair Miller: • Said he was not in favor of design review; however, as a compromise suggested more flexibility in who does the review. • Said he supported eliminating it entirely as he was not sure that it added anything to the process. Presently there is no architectural review for anything under 45% on a second story and there have been no issues with that. As suggested by a speaker, what they are asking for is more traditional architecture where the styles are more vertical; yet in Cupertino they are limited. Even the current process is so onerous for second stories that most people try to avoid them at all costs because of the time, cost, money and rework that goes into having to get the review done by multiple levels of people and everybody has different opinions. Architecture is an art, not a science; and because it is an art, it causes great differences among people's feelings about beauty being in the eye of the beholder and so is architecture. • He said he was concerned about the architectural review; as two architects looking at the same building can differ in opinion; one will say it is not very good and the other will say it is a masterpiece. Where is the value ?? Com. Brophy: • Concurred, but said that as long as they have large homes on small lots there was no way around it, and if people wish to avoid the process by building one story homes that do not visually infringe upon their neighbors, that is one way to avoid the review process. Vice Chair Miller: • Said that was true, but they had multiple mechanisms to address the issues of privacy and houses being too close, and one is by the setback rules and the second story setbacks are more Cupertino Planning Commission 8 July 12, 2011 stringent than the first story setbacks, specifically for that purpose. The major issues that people are concerned with relate to either the closeness of two buildings and the closeness of the second stories and/or if you are in a one story house and you are living next to someone who is building a two story house, you are concerned with privacy and the potential of sufficient access to light; that is what the setbacks are intended to address. There is also part of the ordinance which still has building envelopes in it; if you are talking about one story houses, you can't have them too big because you are limited by a building envelope as an overall restriction. They are trying to get it at multiple levels and said he was not sure they are all necessary. Com. Brownley: • Said he wanted to make sure they were still talking about things that are being reviewed by staff; it is in the ordinance, in the guidelines, and they will be reviewing it through the planning and building permit processes, looking at it through the entire process. Vice Chair Miller: • Said the only thing being discussed is trying to provide either more flexibility to the most subjective part of the ordinance; there is nothing subjective about the ordinance that says you have to have specific setbacks, there is an entire set of architectural relief guidelines and you get to chose among that set; but on the other hand it is not appropriate for staff to say "This is the one I want you to use on this building ". He said he wanted to eliminate that, since it causes the hardships. • Relative to Chair Lee's suggestion, if architectural review is eliminated that is fine; if there is an argument in favor of some, he recommended that they provide either flexibility in the architect who gets chosen and /or raise the percentage as Chair Lee suggested. As a straw vote, he said he voted for eliminating the architectural review. Com. Sun: • Concurred with Vice Chair Miller. Com. Brophy: • Voted for No. 3 to keep the existing design review requirements. Chair Lee: • In favor of removing the review process as well. Com. Brownley: • Voted for No. 2 Summary: 4 -1 vote PUBLIC NOTICING: Noticing Radius: • Currently it is keeping the existing requirements which is 300 feet for the larger two stories over 35% total; and the exception projects, and adjacent noticing for smaller two story projects under 35% FAR as well as minor residential projects which includes second story balconies and most first story projects encroached into the setback. Vice Chair Miller: • Said in the past, most of the issues related to people being surprised by what is happening on a piece of property and those issues disappeared when more noticing was done. However, it is understandable that the people most concerned are the people who are adjacent to, or are Cupertino Planning Commission 9 July 12, 2011 visually impacted by the property; it seems sensible to limit the noticing to the people directly impacted by what is going on at the property. Said he supported mailing out the plans; however just the site plan and elevations as there is no reason for the neighbors to be reviewing where the internal rooms are located or the design of bathrooms, etc. They need to know where the windows are located relative to their house to address privacy issues and need to understand the site plan to understand the proximity of the structure to their homes, but design and location of rooms is the homeowner's decision. • Said it was important to provide noticing, and he had no objections with the noticing; however, he questioned the need to provide notice beyond the realm of where people are really interested, which is about a block or two away. Do those residents really care what is going on; what they cannot see, or touch? Noticing is a good thing because it lets people know what is going on and when people are not surprised, they are more receptive; problems arise when the people are surprised. He added that any house adjacent to the property should be included in the noticing; everybody within the vicinity of where that structure is going to be and any property that is touching the property, needs to be noticed. • Relative to noticing materials he supported Option 2A and also felt that it was a good idea to have the materials available online so that people could find further information if desired. Com. Sun: • For public noticing, the two issues are noticing radius and noticing materials. He said relative to the noticing radius, he supported what other adjacent cities were doing by sending notices to people 400 feet from proposed project instead of 300 feet. Relative to what kind of materials to send out, he said he supported sending the notice only and have the plans available in city hall and /or on the internet for interested parties to access. It would save money for the people involved and be a more efficient process. • Supports 2B and lA for noticing radius.... noticing radius supports lA Com. Brophy: • Said relative to radius, he supported Option A, notifying adjacent and across the street projects; for plan sets, supported Option A and the site plans and elevations to adjacent and across the street neighbors, and require site sign. Com. Brownley: • For noticing radius, there is a distinction between people who are adjacent and across the street, vs. people who are further away; it is important to notice people who are nearby. Said he supported having materials available online when people can access them; he concurred that neighbors do not have the right to comment on the inside of the house and do not need that information, and some people have commented that they have difficulty in reading and understanding some documents; in reality they do not have the need to have access to those documents. • Said he supported noticing radius 1A, adjacent noticing and across the street, but for the site plans, it doesn't include all the additional design materials, just the site plan. Chair Lee: • Said she felt it was important to notice adjacent and across the street neighbors with site plan STORY POLES: Com. Sun: • Said he preferred the visual renderings and 3D simulations over the story poles, because the 3D design depicted the design of the building and how it would look and whether a neighbor would be impacted or not. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 July 12, 2011 Com. Brownley: • Said he agreed with Com. Sun; the goal is to reduce the length and cost of the review process, and they are trying to show what the upcoming project is going to look like, and found that the new color renderings and 3D simulations provide a more valuable depiction of the proposed home. Some residents have also reported damage to homes in putting up story poles. The city is trying to signal what the upcoming project is going to look like. He said if the 3D simulation provides more reality or actuality, he would favor that more than color. Com. Brophy: • Said he supported the removal of the story poles; and to leave it up to the applicant to provide whichever one he wanted. Vice Chair Miller: • Said it was acceptable for the applicant to decide which option to provide; and he noted that even in the color perspective renderings you can also get the adjacent house as well in the same rendering. Said in the 3D simulation, the house could only be seen on one side, there would have to be two simulations to see the adjacent houses on both sides; that would tend to be the case where the rendering is with a perspective as well, but both of them can provide a view of what at least one side neighbor, the house on one side and the street look like. He said he supported removing the story poles and as Com. Brophy suggested, allowing the applicant to chose either 3D, photo simulation or color perspective. Chair Lee: • Supported removing story poles and have the applicant on the sign provide the site plan and elevations. SLOPED LOTS: Chair Lee: • Items of discussion to include the grading, the fencing, the FAR and second story, tree removal and retaining walls, and any additional slope standards. Com. Brophy: • Said at the beginning of the discussion he asked what the problem was that they were attempting to solve and after listening to the discussion, he still did not understand how additional lots need to be covered under the hillside zoning ordinance. He recalled that a few months ago he spoke with a former Planning Commissioner from the 90s when the hillside zoning ordinance was enacted and she shared that when it was enacted they were told that they estimated that 15 to 20 lots would be affected by it. Instead it has grown and to now add it to hundreds of additional lots beyond those in RHS and the 18 lots, the R120 lots over by Lindy Lane, it seems they are trying to insert a solution for which there is no problem. He recommended they remain with the existing requirements until there is some evidence that there is a problem that needs solving. Vice Chair Miller: • Said the issue is that 15 lots are treated differently than the others in the same category; is that fair and should they try to fix that because there is a feeling that it is inherently unfair. He said he felt it could be considered spot zoning. There is a category of lots where there is 286 or 386 or similar number and these 15 lots have been singled out of that category for special treatment. He said he felt it was inherently unfair and felt that staff's recommendations are trying to address that as well as clarify some of the other aspects of the ordinance with their recommendations. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 July 12, 2011 Com. Brophy: • Said if they felt the 15 lots were treated unfairly, the solution is to deal with it directly rather than asking if they can find more lots to insert into that situation. Vice Chair Miller: • Asked staff for clarification; said he felt they were doing away with the uniqueness of the 15 lots in their recommendations. Gary Chao: • Said the consideration was prompted by City Council, and the intent was to consider whether the rules should apply to the other lots with similar characteristics; or should they be eliminated which could be a possible consideration. • Relative to Com. Brophy's point, if for some reason after further assessment that these rules don't make sense to the Commission, on any of the sloped lots, or RI single family lots, in general slope or no slope, and if it is felt the most equitable way of dealing with the dominance is to have everybody go back to the baseline standard RI rules, that could possibly be the recommendation as well. Com. Sun: • To overcome the inherent unfairness to treat some area as other, option 1 -5, a yes vote could solve the inherent problem. Gary Chao: • Said that is assuming there is an equity issue; he was uncertain if staff is onboard with that on concept; there are many areas in RI that has its overlays, such as RI -i zones, where neighborhoods get together and want to have their limitation on single story only; that in itself has a different layer of requirement that other RI lots don't have but it is a zoning layer within itself; it is not a different zone or the Eichler zone for example in the RI subset where it defends a certain characteristic. • The original intent was that the Lindy Lane hill for which the RI -20 lots sit on has a unique characteristic given its backdrop in the hillside context; therefore the sensitivity was there and the Council decided to apply the special consideration to them. They are now saying that there may be other lots that may have similar characteristics that weren't included in that prior exercise, and for whatever reason was decided to exclude it at the time. Staff is looking at it from a purely more technical aspect as opposed to equitable consideration. Vice Chair Miller: • Regarding Eichler and the R1 -i, those were initiated by residents; in the case of the 15 lots, those were forced upon them by City Council ruling, and looking at the affect of this ruling; the intent was to limit the intensity of development on the hillsides, but intensified it because all the people on the hillside who could subdivide, suddenly subdivided and where there were 7 or 10 lots, had doubled or tripled up to 15 lots. Instead of having one house, there are two or three houses with far more development intensity on that hillside. He said he felt the intent might have been there but the ruling failed to meet the intent; in fact it went the opposite. Staff's recommendations seem reasonable but to Com. Brophy's point, the alternative would be to recommend a reversal of singling out these. Com. Brophy: • Said they have a limited review which is not in their power tonight anymore than they can change the FAR recommendation. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 July 12, 2011 Vice Chair Miller: • Said the recommendation is relative to what to do with the sloped lots. Com. Brophy: • These are a particular list of sloped lots; I wasn't here when the Lindy Lane issue came up; but if we want to reverse that decision, we need to have a public hearing on that issue. Presently we are asked to extend the ruling beyond RHS and R1 -20 lots and my feeling is we haven't heard any evidence that says there is any public benefit to increasing it; there may be a public benefit to reducing the lots that are covered by it, but we haven't advertised for that and haven't heard testimony on the subject. Vice Chair Miller: • Said he may not be reading it the same way; for example, the first one, slopes require 30 %, there it is providing a rule that is extended generally to all lots of that class in the city; from that standpoint, we may be extending this rule. Com. Brophy: • Said he was stating they should not; and he was voting for No. 7. Vice Chair Miller: • On the other hand, there are some requirements that say go back to the way it is treated with other RI lots; there are changes being made to this and we could say just do an overall change and let these lots go back to RI and everything else is RHS the way it was before. Com. Brophy: • Said it is a limited review, and if they were going to discuss that, it needs to be advertised to hold a public hearing. He said they are discussing what is on the agenda, and he votes for no change. Vice Chair Miller: • Said staff mentioned that they could recommend going back to the way it was. Gary Chao: • Said that both Commissioners were saying the same thing to a certain extent, and he preferred that the Commissioners go down the list and literally make their positions known; and if there are additional comments and outside of the scope, whether it is intensifying or making it more relaxed outside of the Council's parameters, staff will convey it to the Council and if they find in those considerations given the testimony they will hear it from the citizens, they can open it for broader assessment, potentially deleting everything. • Com. Brophy is correct in stating that they would have to initiate that by advertising it and that would be a completely different conversation if neighbors know that potentially they are talking about complete elimination; but it is within the scope of the conversation; and by voting on the issues and voicing why you are voting a certain way, staff can forward it to the Council. • If Com. Brophy states he does not see the need for any change, he is done; everything else would be No. Com. Brophy: • Said he supported requiring Commission review for grading over 2500 yards, in effect that is part of No. 7; there is no change; likely will abstain on all and vote yes on No. 7. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 July 12, 2011 Com. Sun: • Said he concurred. Vice Chair Miller: • No. 1: Recommended that the additional review is triggered on lots where the slope on the pad is within that range as opposed to the average slope of the lot, because you could have a large flat pad and then a very steep slope behind it and not have any problems whatsoever building on the flat pad. • No. 2: The grading is a good thing; 2,500 cubic yards should be the limit. • No. 3: Over 35% would generate a review; questioned why the recommendation for the Planning Commission instead of just the staff. • Fencing requirements: Appropriate to have open fencing where there is a lot of visual impact. • Tree removal: agree. • No. 6: Appropriate Com. Brownley: • Slopes: Said he agreed with slopes, changing it from average slopes to the defined area where the home is being built, which is more accurate. • Grading: Agree that some of the things they are attempting are related to environmental damage to the surrounding area and visual aesthetics; restricting grading to a certain level meets those objectives. • FAR: Agree with moving the FAR on second story to staff review. • Fencing: For similar reasons of environmental, aesthetics and visual aspects of the community, encourage open fencing. • Tree removal and retaining walls: Agree. Chair Lee: • Slopes: Should have no additional slope standards if building on a flat pad even though the average is 20 to 30. • Grading: 2,500 cubic yards is sufficient; anything over that should require Planning Commission review; don't want to be moving more than that much dirt. • FAR: With the FAR in second story, in a sloped area, if homes are over 35% FAR, it should go to staff, 35% or under 35% that would be good; also at a 35% FAR that is a large FAR for the sloped area already. Second story should not be limited because we want to prevent moving a lot of dirt in sloped areas. Should encourage or make it easier for sloped homes to have a second floor. • Fencing: Widely visible sloped lots should have some special fencing requirements but also remain the same as for other R1 lots; should screen retaining walls and remove the current allowance for tree removal on sloped lots. Coms. Sun and Brophy: • Keep as is. Vice Chair Miller: • There is some clean up to do; staff pointed one out and that is that exceptions become more restrictive than the basic review, for minor residential. When has staff not reviewed an exception to allow proximity to 10 feet in the rear yard; has there ever been a case where staff did not approve that. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 July 12, 2011 Gary Chao: • They are not exceptions, but are called minor residential applications. The rule is clear and everybody coming in has complied with the regulations; no requests have been denied in the past. Vice Chair Miller: • Why single it out then; if they come in with the calculations, put it through as part of the approval. Gary Chao: • Concurred, and said that they would have to decide if the only reason that it would have merit in remaining as staff level is the neighbor notification; and also the side yard extension and rear yard encroachment. He said there was no right or wrong; if they say take that out and make it just building permits as well, there would not be any notification to any adjacent neighbors, because staff is the lowest form of any approval that would trigger notification. Vice Chair Miller: • Said he was suggesting it only for the rear yard because it has never been approved; however, decks seem to engender lots of discussion and opposition; keep that in. • Recommended that they continue to have critical review of decks and perhaps think about eliminating the others. • With the change in not doing design review, there is probably some inconsistencies in the ordinance that would need to go back and clean up. Gary Chao: • Part of the function between now for staff to the City Council once we get your recommendation is to actually make sure that the ordinance is amended, will be presented per your recommendation and that it would internally be consistent; staff will go through and make sure there is no conflicting policy. Vice Chair Miller: • Now that we have eliminated the design review for over 45% does it make sense to eliminate some of the other restrictive requirements like four sided review and essentially we have in here visual relief deemed to be appropriate by the Director of Community Development; that becomes inconsistent as well. Gary Chao: • Said it was referring to the process currently where it triggers the principals over 45 %. They would have to make some adjustments because it doesn't make sense to say no design review, but then design review. It could be either guidelines for consideration that are good to have, because the Planning Commission is not against the designs in general and there should be some consistent policy or guidance for folks to try to achieve, whether they do in their own way is fine. It should be kept as reference; staff will make the necessary changes to that document to reflect the recommendation. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Vice Chair Miller, and unanimously carried 5 -0 -0 to forward the straw votes to City Council for each of the items under MCA - 2011-03 and approve EA- 2011 -05. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None Cupertino Planning Commission 15 July 12, 2011 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: Meeting cancelled. HOUSING COMMISSION: Meeting scheduled for July 14, 2011. MAYOR'S MONTHLY MEETING: No meeting. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: No meeting. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Written report submitted. Brief discussion about November meeting schedule because of election day. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for July 26, 2011 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary ATTACHMENT I MCA - 2011 -03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6647 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT STAFF FORWARD THE RESULTS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION STRAW VOTES TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 19.28, SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES, TO IMPROVE READABILITY AND CONSISTENCY, THE TWO -STORY DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS, PUBLIC NOTICING REQUIREMENTS, STORY POLE REQUIREMENTS, AND STANDARDS FOR SLOPED SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENITAL LOTS The Planning Commission straw vote recommendations to the City Council regarding the amendments to the Single - Family Residential Ordinance (Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code) are as follows: 1. Readability and consistency improvements [5 -0 straw vote]. 2. Two -Story Design Review- Remove the two -story design review process [4 -1 straw vote] . 3. Public Noticing Radius- Require only adjacent and across the street noticing for all planning projects [5 -0 straw vote]. 4. Public Noticing Materials- Require only site plan and elevations to be mailed with public notice [4 -1 straw vote]. 5. Story Poles- Remove the requirement for story poles for two -story projects and: A. Require a color perspective on the site sign; or B. Require a 3D photographic simulation on the site sign [5 -0 straw vote] 6. Sloped Single - Family Residential Lots. Require additional sloped lot standards (A -H below) for development on citywide sloped single- family residential lots [3 -2 straw vote] : A. Require the standards below (B -H) for development on building pad /graded area with actual slopes equal to or greater than 20 %. B. Continue to require Planning Commission review if site grading quantities exceed 2,500 cubic yards (cut and fill) and /or 2,000 square feet for the flat yard area (excluding driveways) [existing section 19.28.050 (C)(1)(a)(iv)]. C. The maximum floor area of all structures on a lot is 45 %. However, homes with a total floor area ratio greater than 35% shall require a planning approval by the Director of Community Development. Resolution No. 6647 MCA - 2011 -03 July 12, 2011 Page 2 D. Second floor area should follow the existing regulations for non - sloped single - family residential lots [section 19.28.060 (B)(2)]. E. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit. F. Fencing shall follow the requirements in the City Fence Ordinance. However, fences that are widely visible to public view and create impacts on the visual character of an area (for example, blocks public views to the hills or an open space preserve), shall have fencing requirements similar to the RHS Ordinance. G. Remove the current requirements for the allowance of certain protected tree removals [existing section 19.28.050 (C)(1)(f)]. Tree removals shall be subject to the City Protected Tree Ordinance. H. Relocate the current requirements for retaining wall screening [existing section 19.28.050 (C)(1)(d)] to elsewhere in the Cupertino Municipal Code. PASSED AND APPROVED this 12th day of July 2011, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Lee, Vice Chair Miller, Brophy, Sun, Brownley NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: Gary Chao Winnie Lee, Chair City Planner Planning Commission ATTACHMENT J Public Testimony Received at July 12, 2011 Planning Commission Hearing Resident • Concerned people were unable to attend meetings during the Summer season • Story poles can be seen from a larger area than notice boards and should be retained Resident • Cupertino's two -story regulations made annexation into Cupertino desirable • Fought hard for story poles, two -story design review, neighbor noticing • Current R1 working, leave existing ordinance alone • Many examples of how story poles were effective • Do not remove story poles in hillside areas Architect • 45% 2nd to 1st floor regulations hampers traditional design resulting in "wedding cake" look • Higher 2nd to 1st floor ratios can result in attractive homes • Supportive of streamlining two -story design review • Story poles do not depict character of house- details make the home • Perspectives or 3D simulations more helpful, accurate Resident • Supportive of applying sloped lot standards citywide • Should be talking about building pad • Should not limit 2nd to 1st floor FAR on sloped lots since it encourages larger building footprints, thereby creating visual and environmental impacts • Color perspectives and 3D photosimulations would be effective • Story poles should be removed • Less money should be spent on design review so that more money will be available to make nicer looking homes Resident • Sloped lot regulations should apply citywide Architect • The current design review process consisting of the planner review, consulting architect review, and neighbor review- time and money intensive • Suggest planner review the regulations, architect review the design, and neighbors review privacy • Consulting architect should be available at counter • Consulting architect and planners often have varying design opinions • There is no consistent neighborhood style in Cupertino • Should eliminate Minor Residential Permit fee for joint Minor Residential /Two -Story Permit applications • Site plan, elevations, and notice board sufficient; story poles not needed and not useful • Applicants should talk to neighbors before official noticing Architect • Ran into problems with story poles. Do not capture actual building. • Renderings /front elevations would be more effective and improve neighborhood response • ATTACHMENT K George Schroeder From: Lisa Warren [la- warren @att.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:12 AM To: Lisa Warren; George Schroeder; Aarti Shrivastava Cc: hmartymiller @yahoo.com; pauldbrophy @yahoo.com; winnieleedds @yahoo.com; clintonbrownley @ yahoo.com; book.sun @gmail.com Subject: Limited Review of SFR (R1) Zones - June 28 Agenda Item Planning Commissioners, I wish that I had been able to spend more time processing all info related to the June 28 Agenda Item 2. I attended the May 24 workshop and left that gathering a bit frustrated. In an attempt to not be too wordy with my thoughts from that experience, and now from the staff report on the subject, I will communicate my thoughts with 'lists'. • Observations made at workshop and comments related to 'questionnaire' and reported results • Questionnaire was 'confusing' to many. Discussion came regarding what was being asked and how to interpret the multiple 'yes' /'no' statements - many not asked in question form. Facilitators agreed that it was not clear and could have been written better - they asked participants to do their best in filling it out. ( multiple choice or 'pick best' would have been a much clearer method ) • As a result of the odd questioning format, the tally of responses and summary of conclusion is 'off, • Disappointed at low turn -out • Participants wondered what 'weight' was attached to responses and feedback from residents vs. architects /builders, including 'consultant' • Not clear if 'streamline' is similar to 'fast- track' • Improving consistensy and readability is a good goal • Many wondering why we are 'doing this again' when so much energy has been spent to get to a place where residents helped to define effective guidelines and communication methods • In regard to existing ordinance items, majority consencus is that most should remain unchanged (at a minimum) • • None of the questionnaire items related to existing process allowed for an 'increase' in requirements - thus implying that the only option is to keep the same or lessen requirements. Thank goodness there was a comment section. • Questionnaire comments, and discussion comments help to clarify the 'fuzzyness' of the 'yes /no' responses an allow for unguided responses Key Statements made by Planning Director, City Councilmen leading up to this point : • Goals are to try to simplify the permit process, make use of technology, and improve communication • Overwhelming response from public input is that level of public engagement should NOT be reduced • R1 Stakeholders are quite different from others in the permit process • The term 'simplify' is prefered over 'streamline' as the later implies that something is being taken out - don't want that • The process must ensure that public stays informed • • Site signs, or notice boards, are a great tool - people that drive through a neighborhood can see what is coming • Diologue should always be encouraged Some of my thoughts : • While some say they want to 'make it easier for applicant', should this happen at the risk of limiting disclosure to residents • There have been hours and hours spent discussing ways to improve communication and implement design guidelines - it has taken so long to get here, why take backward steps? • Story poles allow for MORE residents to 'see what is coming' - they are a universal visual cue that something is coming - an eye catcher. • Should be very careful which cities are used for comparison, and why • The cost associated with story poles is insignificant in proportion to purchase prices and price per square foot to build. • While story poles can't show all details, they do give at least some idea of mass and three dimensional space. A rendering can't show that, especially if it is limited to a single object and not shown in proportion to its real life surroundings. Both story poles and either drawings or 3D photo simulation are needed in tandem for the best overall representation 1 • Years ago, Wally Dean (Mayor at the time) became frustrated at the development that he and his co- coucilmen were allowing. He had regrets that they looked at artist renderings of projects, listened to architect's /builder's promises and believed that the final result would match - -- but often they didn't. He put together a slide show to illustrate what had 'gotten through' and turned out to be 'the bad and the ugly' instead of the 'good'. He referred to this as learning the hard way. F admired him for being honest, taking responsibility and initiating some positive change. More often than not, good things don't come easy. Thank you for your time and consideration, Lisa Warren 25 year Cupertino resident witness to many changes • • 2 George Schroeder Subject: FW: Limited Review of SFR (R1) Zones - June 28 Agenda Item From: Thaler, Catherine [mailto: Catherine .Thaler @marcusmillichap.coml Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 8:48 AM To: Lisa Warren; George Schroeder; Aarti Shrivastava; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: hmartymiller(cyahoo.com; pa uldbrophy(Thyahoo.com; winnieleedds @yahoo.com; clintonbrownley(ayahoo.com; book.sun(a7gmail.com Subject: RE: Limited Review of SFR (R1) Zones - June 28 Agenda Item Planning Commissioners; While I was unable to attend the study session I would like to second some of Lisa's concerns. I also believe that it is important to not equate "streamlining processes" with changing requirements. One is operational and the other functional. For most residents the only interaction with the planning department is passive, maybe getting a letter about nearby construction or seeing new construction in the neighborhood. I believe there is a fundamental belief that the city departments and commissions are doing their jobs in regulating new construction with current guidelines, especially after we fought hard to get into Cupertino for those very reasons. I do not believe there is a concern that the guidelines are inappropriate. It may be that the processes need to be examined for possible changes within the guidelines so that new construction is not unduly burdened. Sincerely, Catherine Thaler 10116 Stern Ave. • 1 George Schroeder From: Nadeane @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:43 PM To: George Schroeder Subject: Single Family Residential (R1) Ordinance... Mr. Schroeder, 'Section 19.28.060 Item I regarding Solar Design. Has a policy regarding the design of solar panel installation been considered? In the case of a neighbor whose house is behind ours and at a lower lot grade from ours... The installation is a series of panels tilted approximately 30% facing south in such a manner that what is visible from our yard and all rear facing rooms in our house is of all the hardware supporting this installation. Had we received notice about the style being permitted by the city, we would certainly have challenged it. Flat panel installation of the photo - voltaic style we choose would not have been the eyesore this neighbor's installation is. This Residential Ordinance (R1) needs to address the aesthetic of solar panel installations /design. Is there any corrective recourse we may pursue in this matter? My original question, shortly after installation, to the planning department was answered only with a check on whether it had been permitted (it had). Even though time has passed, is there a way to have this installation changed? Respectfully, Nadeane Diede Esquire Place, Cupertino George Schroeder From: Traci Caton on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:32 AM To: Clinton Brownley; Marty Miller (hmartymiller @yahoo.com); Paul Brophy; Winnie Lee (winnieleedds @yahoo.com); xiaoguang sun Cc: George Schroeder; Gary Chao; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: FW: 7/12 Mtg. - Against Proposed Change to Single- family Residential Ordinance - Keep Existing Good Neighbor Policy Importance: High From: Palmer, Barbara Finailto:Barbara.Palmer @ gcinc.coml Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 8:41 AM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. • Cc: Palmer, Barbara; Lyn Faust Subject: 7/12 Mtg. - Against Proposed Change to Single- family Residential Ordinance - Keep Existing Good Neighbor Policy Importance: High Dear Chairperson, Winnie Lee and Fellow Commissioners, Per the Cupertino Courier, there is a meeting of the Cupertino Planning Commission this coming Tues. July 12, where you will be considering deleting some zoning requirements which I believe protect neighbors adjacent to proposed new construction. These items include: story poles (the orange taping that illustrates height, etc. of new construction), public noticing, two story design review and sloped single - family residential lots. I would like the current safe guards left in place, good neighbor policy, so that we (Rancho Deep Cliff & other people affected) will receive proper noticing and will be able to view story poles showing how elevations will impact PH Wand perhaps beyond. Thank you for your consideration, Barbara and Ruth Palmer 11023 Canyon Vista Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Barbara Palmer Executive Assistant to Jigisha Desai, V. P. & Treasurer Granite Construction, Inc. 585 West Beach Street Watsonville, CA 95076 PH. 831.728.7561 FX. 831.768.4055 E Mail: Barbara.Palmer(5. gcinc.com 1 Gary Chao From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 4:00 PM To: Gary Chao Cc: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Subject: Building Protections for Annexed Neighborhoods Hi Gary. I hope that all of the current building codes in R1 will be left untouched and unchanged. Neighborhoods that annexed into the city in 2000 were promised building protections by Cupertino so that the overly aggressive building on small lots under the County jurisdiction (before 2000) would stop. The R1 ordinance tin Cupertino that small lot neighborhoods such as Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates experienced at annexation in 2000 and after has stemmed the tide in overly aggressive building and has begun producing homes of great elegance and beauty that sit beautifully on the small lots and allow the neighbors to enjoy their neighborhood. The street trees are not any more endangered and the new two story homes suit the lots they are built upon. For the first time in many years the homes in Rancho Rinconada are very lovely and the neighbors are very proud of what is being built and how the new homes blend so well into the neighborhood. The current R1 Ordinance with story poles, design review of new two story homes and neighborhood noticing of new two story homes works wonderfully in Rancho Rinconada. The new homes and two story homes are some of the most beautiful in Cupertino. Throwing down the R1 Ordinance would be a step back to the County days and would break the promises made to the neighborhoods, such as Rancho Rinconada, at annexation. Cupertino offered sanctuary and I see no reason to go back to a time when there were no laws for building. Rancho Rinconada is precious as is every neighborhood. It is at greater risk because of its small lots which have been victims in the past to aggressive building and cutting down of street trees. The current R1 laws in Cupertino were developed for a reason and exist for a reason and to turn our backs on that history and stike down the R1 Ordinance would be one of the greatest erros Cupertino has made. Please keep the current R1 and honor the promises made to neighborhoods at annexation. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin 1 George Schroeder Subject: FW: Planning Commission Behavior From: grenna5000(@yahoo.com fmailto:grenna5000C}vahoo.com1 Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:05 AM To: Gary Chao Cc: grenna5000Cu7yahoo.com Subject: Planning Commission Behavior Hi Gary. The meeting tonight with the Planning Commission was so disappointing. I think it is safe to say the most of the Planning Commission is very pro - builder. There are a lot of problems with their decisions and I think they very much favor developers for some reason. They do not seem to respect anything about the R1 Ordinance as a document that we as residents worked hard on over the years. So why is it so necessary to make it easy for developers to build big square boxes again? We had big square boxes and that resulted in R1 being adopted. I really wonder about the motivations of most of the current Planning Commissioners. Thanks, Jennifer 1 George Schroeder Subject: FW: Minor Residential Permits for Backyards Ten feet from Back Property Line From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com [mailto:grenna5000 @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 8:38 AM To: Gary Chao Cc: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Subject: Minor Residential Permits for Backyards Ten feet from Back Property Line Hi Gary. There were many things that came up last night in the Planning Commission meeting that I have questions about and want to find out more information about. Marty Miller started talking about minor residential permits at one point last night. He seemed to be talking first about home builders who want to build their house or developers who want to build their spec house ten feet from the back property line. They have to currently ask for a minor residential permits or variance. The total size of the back yard has to satisfy a certain mathematical calculation to allow them to be granted this permit. M. Miller seemed to want to try to eliminate the need for a builder to have to get this permit or that seemed to be the road he was going down. I have some questions about what his intent was or what he was doing. I am very familiar with the Minor Residential Permit. The parctice of trying to build a new home ten feet from the back property line seems to have happened in Cupertino for the first time on Wunderlich Drive in about 2003. There was a new house that was being built and we noticed that the back of the house was closer to the back property line than all the the other houses. Wunderlich backs up to my street of Calvert. I asked the city about this and it appears that the builder (who may have been Susan Chen) was trying to build a house on a 5,000 or 5,450 square foot lot where part of the house was ten feet from the back property line. The result of this was that the city began requiring the builder to apply for a Minor Residential Permit and the back yard area has to meet a certain size calculation. It appears that the 5,000 square foot lots just barely meet these requirements. On my street of Calvert we have three new one story homes that all have the backs of the houses ten feet from the back property line. These homes are on 5,000 and 5,450 square foot lots. In fact one of these new houses on Calvert with the house ten feet from the back property line backs up agains the house mentioned above on Wunderlich where its house from 2003 has the back of its house ten feet from the back property line. So to my knowledge this is the first time in Cupertino that we have had two new houses back to back where the backs of the two houses are only separated by 20 feet in total. (Dangerous in fire situations). 1 The builder of the three new homes on Calvert had to apply for a Minor Residential Permit to have the three new homes be built ten feet from the back property line. The neighbors were notificed with plansets as normal with the current RI and the scope of the project. There have been some questions as whether a barely 5,000 square foot lot meets the requirements to have the back of the house ten feet from the back property line. There is also an interesting new home on Tilson Avenue (one house over from Tantau Avenue) that appears to have the back of the home ten feet from the back property line. The lot is a Loree Estates lot and it about 1/4 acre. It is a one story home under construction {it did not seem to require story poles because it is one story) but it appears to fill up the entire lot. Looking at it more closely one realizes that the left side of the house is ten feet from the back property line. To the left isde of that house is an empty corer lot on Tantau and Tilson where the home has recently been removed. I am assuming that whoever is building the house on Tilson where the left side of the house is ten feet from the back property line on a 1/4 acre lot asked for a Minor Residential Permit to allow the home to be built ten feet from the back property line. There was no neighbor on the left to complain about the new house being ten feet from the back property line. In this case with the big lots, an existing neighbor might well have complained and the Permit may not have been granted. I was going to ask the City about the odd new house on Tilson with the back ten feet from the property line because we were discussing the issue of having the house ten feet from the back property line and then last night Marty brought it up in the Planning Commission meeting. I don't know what he was trying to do. The builder who applied for three Minor Residential Permits on the three new houses on Calvert is Susan Chen. I know many neighbors complained about the new houses trying to be ten feet from the back property line at the times the plans came out. One concern was the potential of fire danger from having the new house on Calvert be ten feet from the back property line against a home on Wunderlich that already had its back of its house ten feet from the back fence. There is also a new home on the north side of Williams Road in San Jose {near Saratoga Avenue) where there was an old home and tank house taken down and I notice that the new two story under constuction there has part of the house ten feet from the back property line. This home is up against Williams Road. The homes built on the old farmhouse lot appear to be conventional R1 equivalent homes in San Jose. (traditional R1 residential homes). That is the first time I have seen a new two story home with the back of the house ten feet from the back property line anywhere. I hope this does not happen in Cupertino! Do you know why Mr. Miller was talking about the Minor Residential Permit for houses that are ten feet from the back property line and why he said they are always approved? What did this have to do with the current RI Ordinance we were discussing last night? It seemed to be more of something to do with the Matrix Report or the Development Permit Process which has not been concluded by the city yet. I am concerned because I did not know people were trying to eliminate the Mino Residential Permit. Thank you very much. 2 i • Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin • • • • 3 George Schroeder From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 8:54 AM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: Gary Chao; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Request to Postpone R1 Ordinance Dear Planning Department: The Planning Commission made a lot of voting decisions on Tuesday, July 12. Many of the decisions are hard to understand and follow. Many of these decisons may or will have drastic consequences if they are implemented in the city. The public, who are the ones affected by these decisions, have not had time to digest, investigate, understand, follow, read and fathom what these changes could mean to the infastucture of the city. I have a great number of questions about what happened on Tuesday night. Not all the discussions by the Planning Commissioners seemed to be about the RI Ordinance. I think there was too much in the RI Documents for the Planning Commission to stay on topic and try to work through. I know the potential damage that these rulings could do to small lot neighborhoods in currently unfathomable. The small lot neighborhoods have been assured of certain protections and these rulings break promises made at annexation. I am very nervous about some of the hillside rulings. Deer need to have open fencing to run through in hillside areas, not solid fences. In fact, I am confused about what type of zoning and changes to the zoning is happening in the hillside areas. I think the Rl Ordinance was supposed to go to the City Council on August 2. I would think the RI Ordinance should be postponed until the public has a chance to study and interpret what was going on. I feel uncomfortable that a lot of information was gone through so quickly. Basically, the Building Code and the R1 Ordinance as we know it was changed in one instant. I think everyone needs more time to figure out what these rulings mean. There is no need to rush into making or implementing decisions that could so profoundly alter the way things are done or run in Cupertino. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin Small Lot Neighborhood i George Schroeder From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 2:43 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: Gary Chao; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; grenna5000 @yahoo.com Subject: R1 Ordinance and Annexed Neighborhoods of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates July 26, 2011 Dear Planning Department: The Planning Commission recently made some recommendations to change the R1 Ordinance. There needs to be studies made of how these changes will affect each neighborhood in Cupertino. Every neighborhood has its own issues. The changes to the Rl Ordinance will affect the neighborhoods of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates. Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates are unique in Cupertino because they have only been in Cupertino for a short time (eleven years) and were previously in the Santa Clara County. Also, these neighborhoods have many small lots, and small lots will be greatly affected by the broad changes in R1 that the Planning Commission is recommending. There is a great difference in house building on small lots versus large lots. This needs to be taken into account before any changes are made to R1. Larger lots in other neighborhoods or in the hillside areas may be able to handle the proposed changes to R1 better. When the neighborhoods of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates annexed into Cupertino in 2000, there were certain promises made to the neighborhood by the City of Cupertino to discourage the overly aggressive house building that the neighborhood had experienced under the County of Santa Clara jurisdiction. Indeed, these promises were made to the other annexed neighborhoods of Garden Gate and parts of Monte Vista when they annexed in the following years of 2001 and 2003. Before any changes are made to the R1 Ordinance, there needs to be a study of how these changes affect the neighborhoods of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates. These neighborhoods have their own history and unique set of circumstances and expectations. And these need to be addressed. The annexation of Rancho Rinconda and Loree Estates in 2000 pushed Cupertino over the population of 50,000 inhabitants. Cupertino was eligible for additional funding because of this. I do hope that there can be a successful resolution for the proposed changes to the R1 Ordinance for the Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates neighborhoods. Thank you very much. 1 Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates Neighborhood Small lot neighborhood 2 George Schroeder From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 7:23 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: Gary Chao; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; la- warren @att.net; grenna5000 @yahoo.com Subject: Postponement of R1 Ordinance Dear Planning Department: It has been brought to my attention that the R1 Ordinance is being brought to the City Council on August 2, not August 16 as we had been informed. I am asking officially that the Rl Ordinance be postponed from the August 2 City Council meeting and either be heard on August 16 as we had been informed or that the Ordinance be postponed indefinately. There are a number of unanswered questions about the proposed changes to this ordinance and its impact upon the city and the neighborhoods. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin • Rancho Rinconada/Loree Neighborhood • 1 George Schroeder From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 11:57 PM To: City Clerk; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Kris Wang Cc: Gary Chao; City of Cupertino Planning Dept; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; book.sun @gmail.com; pauldbrophy @yahoo.com; clintonbrownley @ yahoo.com; hmartymiller @yahoo.com; winnieleedds @yahoo.com; la- warren @att.net; grenna5000 @ yahoo.com Subject: Please Postpone R1 From August 2 City Council Meeting July 28, 2011 Dear City Council: The R1 Ordinance appears on the August 2, City Council Agenda. It was the understanding of the community that the City had postponed the item until the August 16 City Council meeting. There are members of the public who are on vacation and will not be able to attend the August 2 meeting. They had been planning on attending the August 16 City Council meeting. Also, there are many unanswered questions about the impact of any changes to R1 and how these changes will affect the neighborhoods with small lots and the annexed neighbohoods who were promised protections against aggressive building at annexation. Please postpone the R1 Ordinance from the August 2 City Council meeting to a later date, possibly August 16 as the public had previously been told. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin i George Schroeder From: Ms Yemmy [hilliesalo @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 9:41 AM To: grenna5000 @yahoo.com; City Clerk; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Kris Wang Cc: Gary Chao; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; book.sun @gmail.com; pauldbrophy @yahoo.com; hmartymiller@yahoo.com; clintonbrownley @yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com; la- warren @att.net Subject: Re: Oral Communications Issues Dear Council Members, I am writing to support those grievances brought up by Jennifer Griffen. I have lived in Rancho Rinconada for 17 years. Barry Chang was our realtor. During that time, we have seen the Rancho Rinconada architecture bounce all over the place. We finally got some relief and now we want to fix something that is not broken. It seems Rancho Rinconada continues to be treated as the ugly step sister of the rest of cupertino. It's unfortunate. It would have been nice to have the current architecture reflect the original architecture to bring some continuity to the neighborhood instead of these "Flintstone" boxes. That remains to be the main criticism of Rancho with regards to purchasing homes in the area, there is no consistent neighborhood feel. We are so lucky to have Jennifer in our neighborhood and her vigilance. Be assured that the issues Jennifer addresses reflects the thoughts of many citizens in Rancho Rinconada. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Miriam Salo From: 'grenna5000Ca�yahoo.com" <grenna5000(c�yahoo.com> To: citvclerk(a?cupertino.org; gwonq omahonev a(�cupertino.orq; msantoro cnr cupertino.org; bchanq(c_cupertino.orq; kwanga.cubertino.orq Cc: garyc(c�cupertino.orq; planning c h i cupertino.orq; georgesna,cupertino.orq; piuq a(cupertino.org; aartis(a,cupertino.orq; book.sun(a�gmail.com; pauldbroohy(a,yahoo.com; hmartymiller(a�yahoo.com; clintonbrownley @yahoo.com; winnieleedds(a7yahoo.com; la- warren©att.net; grenna5000(a vahoo.com Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 9:03 AM Subject: Oral Communications Issues July 29, 2011 • Dear City Council: There has been no Planning Commission meeting and no City Council meeting since the July 12 meeting when the Planning Commissiom voted to make some very radical changes in the R1 Ordinance. The next City Council meeting on July 19 was cancelled as was the next Planning Commission meeting on July 26. There has been no chance for the public to speak during Oral Communications about these unpopular R1 changes or, frankly, on any other matter either. The next Oral Communications will be on August 2 at the City Council meeting, but now that the R1 Ordinance has been put on the August 2 agenda for a vote by the City Council the public will not be able to speak at Oral Communications on the R1 topic. No one has been able to speak during Oral Communications about their reactions to the Planning Commission's decisions on the R1 Ordinance. There have been no public meetings and now the R1 Ordinance is being rushed to be heard on August 2 at the 1 City Council meeting? What is the hurry? Is there something to hide? Is there some danger in the public being able to make comments duing Oral Communications? don't think it is a very good idea to limit the public's input on topics by not holding Oral Communications in a timely manner and then rushing a controversial topic to a vote by the City Council with no forum for Oral Communications in the interim. Please postpone the R1 Ordiance to the August 16 City Council or later so that the public will be able to use the Oral Communications forum to voice their opinions about what has transpired in recent city meetings. Also, the community was told that the R1 Ordinance was going to be heard on August 16 by the City Council so people had made arrangements to attend or contact the City Council, the City and the Planning Commission at that time. It is surprise that the R1 Ordinance was put back on the City Council Agenda for August 2. It also means no one from the public has has a chance to speak during Oral Communications on the R1 topic and will now will not be able to if the R1 Ordinance stays on the August 2 agenda. Also, I do not understand the rush to hear R1 at the August 2 City Council meeting? The public is still confused about what was being discussed at the July 12 Planning Commission meeting on R1. It appears that some of the discussion was about the Matrix Report or Development Permit Process which is not supposed to be involved in R1 and is a separate topic. Also, if the city is to have no design review or architectural review of new homes in the city, that may mean staff jobs will be cut. I don't want city staff to lose their jobs and I don't want to have a city with no deisgn review. Such is the controvery around the current R1 changes. Please postpone the R1 Ordinance from the August 2 City Council meeting to a later date so that the public will have a chance to speak at an Oral Communications before the City Council votes on the changes to R1. Thank you. Sincererly, Jennifer Griffin 2 George Schroeder Subject: FW: Oral Communications Issues From: Lisa Warren Jmailto:la- warren@att.netl Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 10:25 AM To: Ms Yemmy; grenna5000Cayahoo.com; City Clerk; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Kris Wang Cc: Gary Chao; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; book.sun{cgmail.com; pa uldbroohy(@yahoo.com; hmartymillerftahoo.com; clintonbrownley(a7yahoo.com; win nieleedds©yahoo.com Subject: Re: Oral Communications Issues To All in this communication loop, I agree that smaller lot neighborhoods in the city (majority in Rancho Rinconada) would be greatly effected by any 'back peddling' with the R1 Ordinances. I strongly believe that ALL residential neighborhoods would suffer from the proposed changes to the ordinance. It is a city wide issue. I, personally, own and live in a property that is considered a large lot (9375 sf) and believe that the current R1 Ordinance should remain unchanged (it took so long to get here l), or be changed in a direction opposite than what is being proposed. The current ordinances evolved from 'back in the day' when square, boxy monster houses (Pink Palaces) where the norm, and were unchallenged. This evolution was fought for, and supported, by many residents ( voters ). Based on recent information gathering by the city (and 'word on the street'), I don't see where relaxing the current requirements /guidelines for R1 is supported by the majority of people who live and own property in Cupertino. I see the Planning Commission recommendations for R1 as being contrary to public wishes, and to information supplied by City Staff. This is both disappointing and frustrating at a minimum. The process and time frame of this 'limited review' has been muddled. I will forward a previous email of mine to City Council members as it was originally addressed to Planning Commissioners, but has relevant information contained in it. I hope that time is taken to review it. I don't feel that my voice has been heard up to this point. I know that I am also expressing the thoughts of other residents. Thank you. Lisa Warren 1 ATTACHMENT L 19.28.010 CHAPTER 19.28: SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1) ZONES Section 19.28.010 Purposes. 19.28.030 Permitted Uses. 19.28.020 Applicability of regulations. The following uses are permitted in the R -1 19.28.030 Permitted uses. single- family residence district: 19.28.040 Conditional uses. A. Single - family use; 19.28.050 Development regulations (site). B. A second dwelling unit conforming to the 19.28.060 Development regulations (building). provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapter 19.28.070 Landscape requirements. 19.82, except for those second dwelling units requiring a 19.28.080 Permitted yard encroachments. conditional use permit; 19.28.090 Minor residential permit. C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily 19.28.100 Two -story residential permit. incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming with 19.28.110 Exceptions. the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title; 19.28.120 Development regulations - Eichler D. Home occupations in accordance with the (R1 -e). provisions of Chapter 19.92; 19.28.130 Development regulations- (R1 -a). E. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food 19.28.140 Interpretation by the Planning products. Director. F. Residential care facility that is Licensed by the appropriate State, County agency or department with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or 19.28.010 Purposes. staff; R -1 single- family residence districts are intended to G. Small - family day care home; create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached H. The keeping of a maximum of four adult dwellings in order to: household pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods; or cats may be kept on the site; B. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable I. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility level of privacy to individual residential parcels; services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices, C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or of structures within residential neighborhoods; corporation yards; D. Reinforce the predominantly low- intensity setting J. Large - family day care homes, which meet the in the community. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and which are (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), at least three hundred feet from any other large - family day 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), care home. The Director of Community Development or 1992) his /her designee shall administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. proximity requirements; No building, structure or land shall be used, and no K. Congregate residence with ten or less residents. building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. altered or enlarged in an R -1 single- family residence district 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1688, other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1601, Exh. and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 2039, A (part), 1992) (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 2009 S -20 29 19.28.040 Cupertino - Zoning 30 19.28.040 Conditional Uses. 4. Congregate residence with eleven or more The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the residents, which is a minimum distance of one thousand feet R -1 single - family residence district, subject to the issuance from the boundary of another congregate residence and has of a conditional use permit: a minimum of seventy-five square feet of usable rear yard A. Issued by the Director of Community area per occupant. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, Development: (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1. Temporary uses, subject to regulations established 1999; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; by Chapter 19.124; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 2. Large - family day care home, which otherwise 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) does not meet the criteria for a permitted use. The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by 19.28.050 Development Regulations (Site). Section 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health and A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. Safety Code; 1. Lot area shall correspond to the number 3. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the R -1 design features that require variations from setbacks upon a zoning symbol. Examples are as follows: determination by the Director that such design feature or features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, Zoning Symbol Number Minimum Lot Area in intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrounding Square Feet area; 4. Second dwelling units which require a conditional R1 5 5,000 use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84; R1 6 6,000 5. Home occupations requiring a conditional use R1 7.5 7,500 permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title. Rl 10 10,000 B. Issued by the Planning Commission: 1. Two -story structures in an area designated for a Rl 20 20,000 one -story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6) of this chapter, provided that the Planning Commission 2. Lots, which contain less area than required by determines that the structure or structures will not result in subsection A(1) of this section, but not less than five privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or thousand square feet, may nevertheless be used as building other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this 2. Group care activities with greater than six title are fulfilled. persons; B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width is sixty feet 3. Residential care facilities that fall into the measured at the front -yard setback line, except in the R1 -5 following categories: district where the minimum lot width is fifty feet. a. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by C. Development on Properties with Hillside the State, County agency or department and has six or less Characteristics. residents, not including the providers, provider family or 1. Buildings proposed on properties generally staff; located south of Linda Vista Drive, south and west of Santa b. Facility that has the appropriate State, County Teresa and Terrace Drive, west of Terra Bella Drive and agency or department license and seven or greater residents, north of Lindy Lane (see map below) zoned R1 -20 that have not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum an average slope equal to or greater than fifteen percent are distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of developed in accordance with the following site development another residential care facility; standards: c. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; 2009 S -20 31 Single - Family Residential (R1) Zones 19.28.050 t , uP„� °R -+ - _ , ,IL ; 4,500 square feet of total house size, require approval from ' % �" 2 1 i I i _ F 1 i, the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.134 " °A �. v % T- ,. i of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 1 , ' ; j : 4 iii. Additions within an existing building envelope are r" ' P permitted provided that the total FAR of the existing ' fi t ; , : ; building and addition does not exceed 45 % . IN .F' c. Second Floor Area and Balcony. The second 7 floor and balcony review process shall be consistent with the � . -- \ requirements from the Residential Hillside Zoning District (Chapter 19.40). The amount of second floor area is not 1-1 ' 41� '"N limited provided the total floor area does not exceed the .7,144 '0, D T I i allowed floor area ratio. RH n t fi RHSIoo d. Retaining Wall Screening. Retaining walls in - w. ,.... excess of five feet shall be screened with landscape materials or faced with decorative materials such as split -faced block, a. Site Grading. river rock or similar materials subject to the approval of the i. All site grading is limited to a cumulative total of Director of Community Development. two thousand five hundred cubic yards, cut plus fill. The e. Fencing. two thousand five hundred cubic yards includes grading for i. Solid board fencing is limited to a five thousand building pad, yard areas, driveway and all other areas square foot site area (excluding the principal building). requiring grading, but does not include basements. The ii. Open fencing (composed of materials which result graded area is limited to the building pad area to the greatest in a minimum of seventy-five percent visual transparency) extent possible. Grading quantities for multiple driveways shall be unrestricted except that such fencing over three feet are divided equally among the participating lots, e.g., two in height may not be constructed within the front yard lots sharing a driveway will divide the driveway grading setback. (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) quantity in half. The divided share will be charged against f. Tree Protection. Up to two protected trees with a the grading quantity allowed for that lot development. A diameter less than 18 inches may be removed to maximum of two thousand square feet of flat yard area, accommodate a building pad subject to approval of the excluding driveways, may be graded. Director of Community Development. Removal of protected ii. All cut and fill areas are rounded to follow the trees exceeding 18 inches or removal of more than two natural contours and planted with landscaping which meets protected trees requires approval of a tree removal permit by the requirements in Section 19.40.050G. the Planning Commission in accordance with the Tree iii. A licensed landscape architect shall review Ordinance. grading plans and, in consultation with the applicant and the 2. No structure or improvements shall occur on City Engineer, submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to slopes of thirty percent or greater unless an exception is screen out and fill slopes. granted in accordance with Section 19.40.140, unless no iv. If the flat yard area (excluding driveways) more than five hundred square feet of development, exceeds 2,000 square feet or the cut plus fill of the site including grading and structures, occurs on an area with a exceeds 2,500 cubic yards, the applicant is required to slope of thirty percent or greater. obtain a Site and Architectural approval from the Planning D. An application for building permits filed and Commission. accepted by the Community Development Department (fees b. Floor Area. paid and permit number issued) on or before October 2, i. The maximum floor area ratio is forty-five 2007 may proceed with application processing under percent of the net lot area for development proposed on the ordinances in effect at that time. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; existing flat pad portion, defined as pad areas equal to or Ord. 2011, 2007; Ord. 2000, 2007; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; less than 10% slope, of any lot. Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. Formula: A = 0.45 B: where A = maximum 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635, allowable house size and B = net lot area. § 1 (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) ii. Buildings or additions located off of the flat pad exceeding slopes of 10% and producing floor area exceeding 2009 S -20 19.28.060 Cupertino - Zoning 32 19.28.060 Development Regulations (Building). a. The mass and bulk of the design is reasonably A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage is compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New forty-five percent of the net lot area. An additional five construction shall not be disproportionately larger than, or percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs, out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of patios, porches and other similar features not substantially building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, enclosed by exterior walls. and entry feature heights; B. Floor Area Ratio. The objective of the floor area b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for square high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the c. There shall not be a three -car wide driveway curb residential development standards and guidelines in this cut. ordinance in determining whether the mass and scale of the d. No more than fifty percent of the front elevation project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. of a house should consist of garage area. 1. The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on e. Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls a lot is forty-five percent. should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of 2. The maximum floor area of a second story is the second story. forty-five percent of the existing or proposed first story floor f. The current pattern of side setback and garage area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained. greater. g. When possible, doors, windows and architectural a. The Director of Community Development may elements should be aligned with one another vertically and grant approval to a second floor to first floor ratio greater horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and than 45 % provided that the following design principles are placement. met: h. Porches are encouraged. i. An identifiable architectural style shall be i. Living area should be closer to the street, while provided; garages should be set back more. ii. Design features, proportions and details shall be j. All second story roofs should have at least a consistent with the architectural style selected; one -foot overhang. iii. Visual relief deemed to be appropriate by the D. Setback -First Story. Director of Community Development shall be provided; 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is iv. Materials shall be of high quality; twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the v. Ensure appropriate building mass and scale; setback is a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no vi. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of more than two such fifteen -foot setbacks occurring side by the structure; and side. vii. The design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and 2. Side Yard. The combination of the two side yard balance. setbacks shall be fifteen feet, except that no side yard The "City of Cupertino Two Story Design Principles" setback may be less than five feet. are attached hereto as an Appendix and incorporated herein a. For a corner lot, the minimum side -yard setback by this reference. on the street side of the lot is twelve feet. The other side 3. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, yard setback shall be no less than five feet. measured from the floor to the top of the roof - rafters, have b. For interior lots in the R1 -5 district, the side yard the mass and bulk of a two -story house and are counted as setbacks are five feet on both sides. floor area. c. For lots that have more than two side yards, the a. If the house is a two -story house, this area will setback shall be consistent for all side yards between the count as second story floor area; otherwise, the area will front property line and the rear property line. count as first floor area. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is C. Design Guidelines. twenty feet. 1. Any new two -story house, or second -story a. With a Minor Residential Permit, subject to addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent Section 19.28.090, the rear setback may be reduced to ten with the adopted single - family residential guidelines. The feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less Director of Community Development shall review the than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front project and shall determine that the following items are met setback line. prior to design approval: 2009 S -20 33 Single - Family Residential (R1) Zones 19.28.060 4. Garage. The front face of a garage in an RI a. The maximum exterior wall height and building district shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from a height on single -story structures and single -story sections of street property line. two -story structures must fit into a building envelope defined a. For projects with three -car garages oriented to by: the public right -of -way, the wall plane of the third space i. A ten -foot high vertical line from natural grade shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane measured at the property line; of the other two spaces. ii. A twenty -five- degree roof line angle projected E. Setback- Second Story. inward at the ten -foot high line referenced in subsection 1. Front and Rear Yards. The minimum front and G(2)(a)(1) of this section. rear setbacks are twenty -five feet. b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in 2. Side Yard. The combination of the side setbacks subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof shall be twenty five feet, except that no second -story side enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of setback may be less than ten feet. seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from a. In the case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is natural grade, or up to twenty feet with a Minor Residential twenty feet from any property line. Permit. b. •In the case of a corner lot, a minimum of twelve 3. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the feet from a street side property line and twenty feet from total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have any rear property line of a single - family dwelling. exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a 3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet minimum two -foot high overlap of the adjoining first story shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front roof against the second story wall. The overlap shall be and side -yard setback requirements specified in this section. structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from a. This regulation does not apply for homes with the first story exterior wall plane. second floor to first floor ratio greater than 45 %. a. The Director of Community Development may F. Basements. approve an exception to this regulation based on the findings 1. The number, size and volume of lightwells and in Section 19.28.110 D. basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required b. This regulation does not apply for homes with by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and second floor to first floor ratio greater than 45 %. ventilation, except that in the case of a single -story house 4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry with a basement, one lightwell may be up to ten feet wide feature height is fourteen feet measured from natural grade and up to ten feet long. to the plate. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be 5. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council located within a required setback area, except as follows: may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) retaining wall is five feet; by affixing an "i" designation to the R1 zoning district. b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second retaining wall is ten feet. story decks with views into neighboring residential side or 3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject shall be screened by landscaping. to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of 4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than adjoining properties. The goal of the permit requirement is three feet in height and shall be located immediately not to require complete visual protection but to address adjacent to the lightwell. privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing 5. The perimeter of the basement and all lightwell the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section retaining walls shall be treated and /or reinforced with the applies to second -story decks, patios, balconies, or any other most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the similar unenclosed features. Director of Community Development. 1. A second -story deck or patio may encroach three G. Height. feet into the front setback for the principal dwelling. 1. Maximum Building Height. The height of any 2. The minimum side -yard setback is fifteen feet. principal dwelling in an Rl zone shall not exceed 3. The minimum rear -yard setback is twenty feet. twenty-eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions antennae or other appurtenances. provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure 2. Building Envelope (One Story). utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no 2009 S -20 19.28.060 Cupertino - Zoning 34 such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or changes to the number of shrubs or trees, their species or adjoining property owners. Any solar structure that requires location. variation from the setback or height restrictions of this C. Front -Yard Tree Planting. Applicants for new chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor two -story homes and two -story additions must plant a tree in Residential Permit subject to Section 19.28.090. (Ord. 2039, front of new second stories in the front yard setback area. (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), The tree shall be 24 inch -box or larger, with a minimum 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; height of six feet. The Director of Community Development Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 can waive this front -yard tree if there is a conflict with § 1, 1998; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; existing mature tree canopies on -site or in the public Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. right -of -way. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) D. Species List. The Planning Division shall maintain a list of allowed privacy planting trees and shrubs. 19.28.070 Landscape Requirements. The list includes allowed plant species, minimum size of To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and bulk of new two -story homes and additions, tree and /or planting distance between trees. shrub planting is required. The intent of this section is to E. Covenant. The property owner shall record a provide substantial screening within three years of the covenant with the Santa Clara County Recorders Office that planting. requires the retention of all privacy planting, or use of A. Applicability. This requirement shall apply to new existing vegetation as privacy planting, prior to receiving a two -story homes, second -story decks, two -story additions, final building inspection from the Building Division. This or modifications to the existing second -story decks or regulation does not apply to situations described in existing windows on existing two -story homes that increase subsection B(1)(b) of this section. privacy impacts on neighboring residents. Skylights, F. Maintenance. The required plants shall be windows with sills more than five feet above the finished maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes second floor, windows with permanent, exterior louvers up irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a to six feet above the finished second floor, and obscured, growth rate expected for a particular species. non- openable windows are not required to provide privacy G. Replacement. Where required planting is removed protection planning. or dies it must be replaced within thirty days with privacy B. Privacy Planting Plan. Proposals for a new tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it two -story house or a second story addition shall be is determined to be infeasible by the Director of Community accompanied by a privacy planting plan which identifies the Development. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), location, species and canopy diameter of existing and 2005) proposed trees or shrubs. 1. New trees or shrubs are required on the 19.28.080 Permitted Yard Encroachments. applicant's property to screen views from second -story A. Where a building legally constructed according to windows. The area where planting is required is bounded by existing yard and setback regulations at the time of a thirty- degree angle on each side window jamb. The trees construction, encroaches upon present required yards and or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final setbacks, one encroaching side yard setback may be occupancy permit. extended along its existing building lines if the addition a. New tree or shrubs are not required to replace receives a Minor Residential Permit and conforms to the existing trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified following: Arborist or Licenses Landscape Architect verifies that the 1. The extension or addition may not further existing trees /shrubs have the characteristics of privacy encroach into any required setback and the height of the planting species, subject to approval by the Director or existing non - conforming wall and the extended wall may not Community Development. be increased. b. Affected property owner(s) may choose to allow 2. The maximum length of the extension is fifteen privacy planting on their own property. In such cases, the feet. applicant must plant the privacy screening prior to issuance 3. The extension of any wall plane of a first -story of a building permit. addition is not permitted to be within three feet of any 2. Waiver. These privacy mitigation measures may property line. be modified in any way with a signed waiver statement from 4. Only one such extension is permitted for the life the affected property owner. Modifications can include of such building. 2009 S -20 35 Single - Fancily Residential (R1) Zones 19.28.080 5. This section applies to the first story only and Planning Commission will make the final action on the shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an appeal. encroachment by any building, which is the result of the D. Expiration of a Minor Residential Permit. Unless granting of a variance or exception, either before or after a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid such property become part of the City. and control number issued) within one year of the Minor B. Architectural features (not including patio covers) Residential Permit approval, said approval shall become null may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding and void unless a longer time period was specifically three feet, provided that no architectural feature or prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or the building permit expires for any reason, the Minor auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any Residential Permit shall become null and void. The Director property line. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), of Community Development may grant a one -year extension 2005; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; without a public notice if an application for a Minor Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. Modification to the Minor Residential Permit is filed before 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, the expiration date and substantive justification for the Exh. A (part), 1992) extension is provided. E. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the 19.28.090 Minor Residential Permits. Director of Community Development a Minor Residential Projects that require a Minor Residential Permit shall Permit can be processed concurrently with other be reviewed in accordance with this section. The purpose of discretionary applications. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. this process is to provide affected neighbors with an 1954, (part), 2005) opportunity to comment on new development that could have significant impacts on their property or the neighborhood as 19.28.100 Two - Story Residential Permit. a whole. Two -story additions or two -story new homes require a A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete Two -Story Residential Permit in accordance with this application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all section. Two -story projects with a floor area ratio under owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax 35 % shall require a Level I Two -Story Residential Permit, assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subject property, while a two -story project with a floor area ratio over 35% including properties across a public or private street. The shall require a Level II Two -Story Residential Permit. notice shall invite public comment by a determined action A. Notice of Application (Level I). Upon receipt of date and shall include a copy of the development plans, a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in B. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public the last tax assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subject comments, the Director of Community Development shall property, including properties across a public or private approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The street. The notice shall invite public comment by a permit can be approved only upon making all of the determined action date and shall include a copy of the following findings: development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino size. General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public ordinances and the purposes of this title. notice in the front yard of the subject site that is clearly 2. The granting of the permit will not result in a visible from the public street. The notice shall be a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall and three feet wide improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to firmly attached to a five -foot tall post. The notice shall the public health, safety or welfare. remain in place until an action has been taken on the 3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall design with the general neighborhood. contain the following: 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties a. The exact address of the property, if known, or have been reasonably mitigated. the location of the property, if the address is not known. C. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning b. A brief description of the proposed project, the Commission, applicant and any member of the public that content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City; commented on the project shall be notified of the action by c. City contact information for public inquiries; first class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the 2009 S -20 19.25.100 Cupertino - Zoning 36 d. A deadline for the submission of public Permit shall become null and void. The Director of comments, which shall be at least fourteen days after the Community Development may grant a one -year extension, date the notice is posted; without a public notice, if an application for a Minor e. A black and white orthographic rendering of the Modification to the Two -Story Permit is filed before the front of the house, at least eleven inches by seventeen inches expiration date and substantive justification for the extension in size. The City shall approve the illustration or rendering is provided. prior to posting. G. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the B. Notice of Application (Level II). Upon receipt of Director of Community Development, a Two -Story Permit a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class can be processed concurrently with other discretionary mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in applications. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), the last tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred 2005) feet of the subject property. The notice shall invite public comment by a determined action date and shall include a 19.25.110 Exceptions. copy of the development plans, eleven inches by seventeen Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent inches in size. of this chapter result from the strict application of the 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public provisions hereof, exceptions to section 19.28.060, notice consistent with subsection A(1) of this section, except 19.28.070 and 19.28.120 may be granted as provided in this that a colored perspective rendering shall be required instead section. of a black and white orthographic rendering. A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete C. Story Poles. Story poles are required for any application, the Community Development Department shall Two -Story Residential Permit. set a time and place for a public hearing before the Design D. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public Review Committee and send a notice by first class mail to comments, the Director of Community Development shall all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the permit can be approved only upon making all of the subject property. Properties that are adjacent to the subject following fmdings: site, including those across a public or private street, shall 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino receive a reduced scale copy of the plan set with the public General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning notice. ordinance and the purposes of this title. B. Decision. After closing the public hearing, the 2. The granting of the permit will not result in a decision -maker shall approve, conditionally approve, or condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or deny the application based on the findings in this section. improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to Any interested party can appeal the decision pursuant to the public health, safety or welfare. Chapter 19.136. 3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and C. Expiration of an Exception. Unless a building design with the general neighborhood. permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties control number issued) within one year of the Exception have been reasonably mitigated. approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a E. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning longer time period was specifically prescribed by the Commission, applicant and any member of the public that conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit commented on the project shall be notified of the action by expires for any reason, the Exception shall become null and first class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may void. The Director of Community Development may grant appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the a one -year extension, without a public notice, if an Planning Commission will make the final action on the application for a Minor Modification to the Exception is appeal. filed before the expiration date and substantive justification F. Expiration of a Two -Story Permit. Unless a for the extension is provided. building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid D. Findings for Approval. and control number issued) within one year of the 1. Issued by the Director of Community Two -Story Permit approval, said approval shall become null Development. The Director of Community Development and void unless a longer time period was specifically may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulation prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that described in Section 19.28.060 G(4) upon making all of the the building permit expires for any reason, the Two -Story following fmdings: 2009 S -20 37 Single - Family Residential (R1) Zones 19.28.110 a. The project fulfills the intent of the visible 5. Section 19.28.060 G(4) is considered a guideline second -story wall height regulation in that the number of in the R1 -e district. two -story wall planes and the amount of visible second story 6. The first floor shall be no more than twelve wall area is reduced to the maximum extent possible. inches above the existing grade. b. The exception to be granted is one that will 7. Exterior walls located adjacent to side yards shall require the least modification of the prescribed design not exceed nine feet in height measured from the top of the regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish floor to the top of the wall plate. the purpose. C. Privacy Protection Requirements. c. The proposed exception will not result in 1. Side and Rear Yard Facing Second Floor significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. Windows. In addition to other privacy protection 2. Issued by the Design Review Committee. The requirements in Section 19.28.070, the following is required Design Review Committee may grant exceptions from the for all second story windows: prescriptive design regulations described in Section a. Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height 19.28.060, except 19.28.060 G(4) and Section 19.28.130 of six feet above the second floor; or upon making all of the following findings: b. Obscure glass to a height of six feet above the a. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result second floor; or in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this c. Have a window sill height of five feet minimum chapter. above the second floor. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. b. The proposed development will not be injurious 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 to property or improvements in the area, nor be detrimental (part), 2000) to the public safety, health and welfare. c. The exception to be granted is one that will 19.28.130 Development Regulations— (R1 -a). require the least modification of the prescribed design R1 -a districts are intended to reinforce the semi -rural regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish setting in neighborhoods with large lots. Regulations found the purpose. in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties d. The proposed exception will not result in zoned R1 -a. In the event of a conflict between other significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) prevail. A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The minimum lot 19.28.120 Development Regulations — Eichler size is ten thousand square feet. (Rl -e). B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width is R1 -e single - family residence "Eichler districts" protect seventy-five feet measured at the front -yard setback line. a consistent architectural form through the establishment of C. Second Story Area. A second floor shall be no district site development regulations. Regulations found in more than forty percent of the first floor, except as follows: the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties 1. A second floor may be at least seven hundred zoned R1 -e. In the event of a conflict between other square feet in area. regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall 2. In no case shall a second floor be more than one prevail. Nothing in these regulations is intended to preclude thousand one hundred square feet in area. a harmonious two -story home or second story addition. D. Setback - First Story. A. Setback -First Story. 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is 1. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet. thirty feet. B. Building Design Requirements. 2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is ten 1. Entry features facing the street are integrated with feet. the roof line of the house. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is 2. The maximum roof slope is three -to- twelve (rise twenty feet. over run). E. Setback - Second Story. 3. Wood or other siding material located on walls 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is facing a public street (not including the garage door) shall thirty feet. incorporate vertical grooves, up to six inches apart. 2. Side Yard. The combined side yard setbacks shall 4. The building design shall incorporate straight be thirty-five feet, with a minimum of fifteen feet. architectural lines, rather than curved lines. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is forty feet. 2009 S -20 19.28.130 Cupertino - Zoning 38 4. The setback surcharge in Section 19.28.060 E(3) The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane. does not apply in this district. 3. Section 19.28.060 G(4) is considered a guideline F. Second -story Regulations. in the R1 -a district. 1. Second story decks shall conform to the 4. Garages. The maximum width of a garage on the second -story building setbacks, and may be located on the front elevation should be twenty -five feet, which will front and rear only. accommodate a two -car garage. Additional garage spaces 2. The second -story shall not cantilever over a should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a first -story wall plane. detached accessory structure at the rear of the property. 3. The front - facing wall plane(s) of the second -story L. Permitted Yard Encroachments. must be offset a minimum of three feet from the first -story 1. Where a principal building legally constructed wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid a according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time two -story wall plane on the front elevation. of construction encroaches, upon present required yards, one G. Front Yard Paving. No more than fifty percent of encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its the front yard setback area may be covered with a existing building line. combination of impervious or semi - pervious surfaces. No a. The extension or addition may not further more than forty percent of the front yard setback area may encroach into any required setback and the height of the be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or existing non - conforming wall and the extended wall may not asphalt. be increased. H. Heights. The maximum exterior wall height and b. In no case shall any wall plane of a first -story building height on single -story structures and single -story addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line. sections of two -story structures must fit into a building c. This section does not apply to attached accessory envelope defined by: structures such as attached carports. 1. A twelve -foot high vertical line measured from d. This section applies to the first story only and natural grade and located ten feet from property lines; shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an 2. A twenty-five degree roof line angle projected encroachment by any building, which is the result of the inward at the twelve -foot high line referenced in subsection granting of a variance or exception, either before or after H(2)(1) of this section. such property become part of the City. I. Variation from the R1 and R1 -a regulations shall 2. Architectural features (not including patio covers) require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding Cupertino Municipal Code in the R1 -a district. three feet, provided that no architectural feature or J. Design Review. All two -story development shall combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or require discretionary review based on Section 19.28.100, auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any except that the Design Review Committee shall approve or property line. deny the project at a public hearing based on the findings in 3. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches are subsection N(1) of this section. encouraged in this zone. When viewed from the street, a K. Design Guidelines. The guidelines in this section porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in shall be used in conjunction with the City's Single Family height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a Residential Design Guidelines. In cases where there may be proportionately greater height than its width. Use of this conflict between the two sets of guidelines, this Section shall yard encroachment provision shall require the approval of take precedence. Nonconformance with the guidelines shall the Director of Community Development. be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that a. Posts. Vertical structural supports, such as posts, there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the 1. Second -story windows. Windows on the side required front setback. Structural supports must be designed elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of six such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive. feet above the second floor, should have permanent exterior b. Columns. The use of large columns or pillars is louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor or discouraged. should have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate c. Fencing. Low, open fencing for porches are intrusion into a neighbor's privacy. allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback 2. All second story wall heights greater than six area. feet, as measured from the second story finished floor, d. Eave Height. The eave height for a front porch should have building wall offsets at least every twenty-four should not be significantly taller than the eave height of feet, with a minimum four -foot depth and ten -foot width. typical single -story elements in the neighborhood. 2009 S -20 39 Single- Family Residential (R1) Zones 19.28.130 e. Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing 19.28.140 Interpretation by the Planning that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence Director. elements. In R1 zones, the Director of Community Development f. The porch platform and roof overhang may shall be empowered to make reasonable interpretations of the encroach five feet into the required front setback. regulations and provisions of this chapter consistent with the M. Landscaping. legislative intent thereof. Persons aggrieved by an 1. Landscaping plans are required for all additions interpretation of the chapter by the Director of Community or new homes. The purpose of the Landscaping is to beautify Development may petition the Planning Commission in the property and to achieve partial screening of building writing for review of the interpretation. (Ord. 2039, (part), forms from the street and adjacent properties. Specific 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; measures are not prescribed. Generally, the landscaping Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) on fences. 2. Landscaping plans for two -story development shall include specific mitigations for impacts from mass, bulk and privacy intrusion as required in Section 19.28.070 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that: a. Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback from the property line equivalent to one - quarter of the spread noted on the City list. b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of twelve feet at the time of planting. c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views from second -story windows across the street to neighboring homes are partially mitigated. d. The Director may waive the front yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing conflict with existing mature trees. N. Design Review Findings. 1. Findings. The Design Review Committee may approve a design review application for two -story development only upon making all of the findings below: a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. b. The granting of this permit will not result in detrimental or injurious conditions to property or improvements in the vicinity, or to the public health, safety or welfare. c. The project is generally compatible with the established pattern of building forms, building materials and designs of homes in the neighborhood. d. The project is consistent with the City's single - family residential design guidelines and the guidelines in this chapter and any inconsistencies have been found to not result in impacts on neighbors. e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from adjoining properties have been mitigated to the maximum extent possible. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 2009 S -20 40 Cupertino - Zoning [Next page is page 43] APPENDIX CITY OF CUPERTINO Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES CMIPMMini I 0 I 11 INTRODUCTION Cupertino's neighborhoods have developed over a period of decades with varying architectural styles. Recent zoning regulations that were intended to soften the mass and bulk of two story homes force prescribed setbacks and offsets resulting in the construction of a similar, "wedding cake" style of home in the City. Now, homeowners and builders are allowed greater design • Simple Form • Architectural Detail flexibility if their design conforms to the following design • Grouped windows • Recessed Garage principles. Two story homes with a second story to first floor ratio greater than 45% are allowed when they offset the building massing with designs that encompass higher quality architectural features and materials. DESIGN PRINCIPLES These design principles help integrate new homes and ad- ditions to existing homes with existing neighborhoods by providing a framework for the review and approval process. Where possible, additional details and examples have been provided. Conditions not covered by these examples will be •Simple Form •Materials variety • Grouped windows • Symmetrical windows evaluated on a case -by -cases basis. 1. PROVIDE AN IDENTIFIABLE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE Attractive homes are designed by using elements from one consistent theme. It is best to work with your designer to identify and carry out one style around the entire house. The following pictures illustrate traditional and medittera- nean homes with success in identifying a single style. Ad- :a ditional resources for information on home styles are listed • Strong first floor form • Authentic details in the side bar On page 3. • Materials variety • Recessed Garage I_ I I p'ttft3 • Prominent entry • First floor roof eave • Varied roof forms • Well defined entry • Varied roof heights • Symmetrical windows • Architectural details • One -story form Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 PAGE 1 CHAPTER 19.28 - APPENDIX A CITY OF CUPERTINO Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES • Prominent porch • Recessed garage • Simple forms • Prominent porch • Simple roof forms • Organized windows • Varied front wall planes • Wood siding • Prominent porch • Simple roof forms • Authentic details • Second story balcony • Simple building forms • Wood siding • Organized windows • Architectural detail 4 mow - ' . . _. • Simple building forms • Large porch • Simple building form • Full width porch • Recessed garage • Organized windows • Simple roof form • Organized windows • Prominent Entry • Front facade depth • Architectural detail • Wide roof overhangs • Material variation • Varied height and bulk • Recessed garage • Prominent entry Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 PAGE 2 CHAPTER 19.28 - APPENDIX A CITY OF CUPERTINO Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES 2.4 Windows Size and Pattern 2. DESIGN FEATURES. PROPORTIONS AND DETAILS TO Each architectural style has a typical pattern of BE CONSISTENT WITH ARCHITECTURAL STYLE windows that should be carried out throughout your design. For assistance in understanding architectural styles and • Window size and proportion should be appropri- details, refer to the sources in the side bar on the right ate to the proposed architectural style. and on page 6. • Window styles should be consistent. 2.1 Architectural Details • Use grouped windows in combinations of two or Each architectural style has developed with its own more where they are typical of the architectural style. unique details that add human scale and visual interest. Their use will ensure a consistency of scale and design authenticity. • Use decorative elements and details that are typical of the architectural style selected. E.g. use Spanish Style details on a Spanish Style home and not a Ranch �. Style home . • Select wall siding, trim and roofing materials that are suitable to the architectural style selected. • Visually definitive window trim is highly desirable for both wood siding and stucco structures. Grouped windows • • Use of natural trim materials for projecting trim Relate and align the location of windows on around windows and doors is desirable. If simulated second floors to those on the first floor, if possible. material is used, material that can be painted or cov- Placement should not appear haphazard. ered with a smooth stucco finish should be used. 2.2 Porches and Entries ARCHITECTURAL STYLE Porches and entry features should be proportional and These principles are not intended to establish or dictate a appropriate to architectural style: specific style. While a wide range of architectural styles is • Select columns that are traditional to the architec- acceptable, there is an expectation that any specific style tural style of the house. Take care in selecting columns selected will be carried out with an integrity of forms and with an appropriate width to height ratio for the style. details that are cons w that style. • Except for a very few styles, the columns should The following resources may be useful to homeowners, have appropriate caps and bases with proportions typi- builders, and design professionals in understanding the cal of the style. special qualities of specific house styles. • Provide a well proportioned beam between the • A Field Guide to American Homes column caps and the roof. Size and detail the beam so Virginia & Lee McAlester that it looks like a convincing structural member. Alfred A. Knopf 2000 • Railings should be constructed of materials suitable • The Abrams Guide to American House Styles to the architectural style. Homes with predominantly Wilkin Morgan stucco and stone exteriors may have metal or precast Harry N. Abrams, Inc 2004 stone railings otherwise railings should be constructed of wood. Provide both top and bottom rails with the •' House Styles in America bottom rail raised above the porch floor level for wood James C. Massey and metal railings. Penguin Studio 1996 • Celebrating the American Home Note: All porches should be functional with a mini - Joanne Kellar Bouknight mum depth of 6 feet. The Taunton Press 2005 2.3 Balconies • The Distinctive Home, A Vision of Timeless' Design', • Large second floor decks should be supported on Jeremiah Eck appropriately sized and proportional columns. The Taunton Press 2005 • Balcony railings should be designed as discussed for porch railings. PAGE 3 Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 CHAPTER 19.28 - APPENDIX A CITY OF CUPERTINO Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES 2.5 Detail Materials Installation Guides • Openings in walls should be constructed as if they were constructed of the traditional material for the style. For example, provide substantial wall space above arches in stucco and stone walls. Traditionally, wall space above the arch was necessary to structurally span the opening. • Treat synthetic stone as one would design with real stone (e.g., normal coursing for load- bearing walls _ with significant returns at windows and corners to avoid a pasted -on look). • Openings in walls faced with stone, real or syn- thetic, should have defined lintels or headers above the opening except in Mission or Spanish styles. Lintels or headers may be stone, brick or wood as suits the style of the house. • Make materials and color changes at inside corners rather than outside corners to avoid a pasted on look. Rea ORM ... 3. FACADE ARTICULATION , 3.1 Visual Relief Techniques The following techniques offer ways to mitigate the bulk of larger homes in smaller scale neighborhoods and the impact of two -story tall walls on adjacent neighbors and the streetscape. =.. • Second floor setbacks • Horizontal and vertical wall plane changes • Pop outs • Bay windows • Chimneys • Wide overhangs with projecting brackets • Juliet balconies • Belly bands • Window boxes and pot shelves • Landscaped trellises and lattices • Projecting window trim • Materials and color changes • Inset balconies • Applied decorative features • Recessed garage doors • Recessed windows 0 .. • Window trim • Tall trees to break up views of long walls Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 PAGE 4 CHAPTER 19.28 — APPENDIX A CITY OF CUPERTINO Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES a .s PU ;„ ..i.1 ,m I I_ 0 elm . '..,,: _. . Wi n.. - s ... '= � . a .; ate ? r ; ., o . .�. t -- ! II } .c °s r affiawn1 1 :_ $r ,,, '' : x! 8 1 I +n _ 1 . � '{ 'rr , Mw J �i"ydanv vQ tTy '�1t `rM! /IF lom-41011101 - r k * v. x..i k'4 ., _ r 4 m; 11a . - -..i...... - PAGE 5 Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 CHAPTER 19.28 - APPENDIX A CITY OF CUPERTINO Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES 3.2 Defined Entry Feature element to the ground or with supporting brackets at Entry features should be definitive and appropriate the base for first floor windows. For second floor bay both in terms of scale and design to the style of the windows, supporting corbels or brackets are encour- house. aged. Sloped roofs should be used and covered with a • Covered porches are strongly encouraged. material that matches the roof material or with metal. Especially in neighborhoods with a predominance • Avoid using wall of one -story homes, a porch with a roof at the first materials between floor will help to integrate the new taller house into the individual its surroundings. windows of the bay I 3.3 Simple Forms window unless the window is large. Traditional architectural styles usually have rela- Generally bay tively simple floor plans and roof forms (See ex- amples on pages 4 and 5). windows look bests when the windows:� • Develop plans and elevations together. are close together • Complex floor plans require complicated build- and separated by u ing masses and roof forms which significantly wood jambs that k increase the cost of construction. match wood sills ° 3.4 Bay windows and heads as shown in the example. Bay windows help add context and articulation to the house, however the following should be consid- ered when designing bay windows: • Avoid very large bay windows that compete with 4. DESIGN WITH ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY ON the entry as the focal point of the house. ALL SIDES OF THE HOUSE • Bay windows should be designed with a base • Attention to detail and architectural consistency shall be maintained on all elevations of the house. TRADITIONAL DETAILS • Avoid "false front" architecture with attractive Architectural details will be expected to street facades and stripped down facades facing neigh- follow traditional 'standards. Three refer- bors on the second floor. ence' resources that can help are the fol- lowing: • Traditional Construction Patterns: De- 5. USE HIGH QUALITY MATERIALS sign & Detail Rules of Thumb Traditional materials, such as wood and stone, are de- Stephen A. Mouzon sirable, and strongly encouraged. If synthetic material McGraw -Hill' 2004 is used, it must closely resemble authentic materials. • Get Your House Right:;, Architectural' Elements to Use and Avoid Marianne Cusato, Ben Pentreath, Rich- 6. SUSTAINABILITY and Sammons and Leon Krier Sterling Publishing 2008 The City of Cupertino is committed to sustainable planning that integrates and balances environmental • Architectural Graphic Standards for decisions with economic considerations and recog- Residential Construction: The >.Archi - nizes the symbiotic relationship between the natural tect's and Builder's Guide to Design environment, the community and the economy. This Planning and Construction Details commitment to environmental stewardship, social (Ramsey /Sleeper Architectural Graphic responsibility and economic vitality of our community Standards Series) can be realized in all design projects, from single fam- The American Institute' of Architects' ily residences to large commercial properties, through John Wiley & Sons 2003 green building measures. Green building is defined as an integrated framework of design, construction, operations and demolition practices that encompasses the environmental, eco- Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 PAGE 6 CHAPTER 19.28 - APPENDIX A CITY OF CUPERTINO Two STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES nomic, and social impacts of buildings. Green building practices recognize the interdependence of the natural and built environments and seek to minimize the use of energy, water, and other natural resources and pro- vide a healthy, productive indoor environment. 6.1 Green Building Principles New construction or additions to your home provides a wonderful opportunity to incorporate green building components. Green components can be healthier for you and the environment and save you money over time. Section 5, Environmental Resources /Sustainability, of The City of Cupertino's General Plan presents essen- tial components of a green building design and plan- ning process. These elements create a framework for evaluating green building measures applicable to the construction of two story residential design principles including but not limited to: • Site planning • Energy efficiency • Material efficiency • Water conservation PAGE 7 Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 Document referred to in Chapter 19.28.070D Landscape Mitigation Measures PRIVACY SCREENING MATERIALS I. NON - DECIDUOUS TREES Planting Distance- Height Spread Maximum A. Cedrus Deodara — Deodara Cedar to 80' 40' @ ground 20' B. Melaleuca Linarifolia — Flaxleaf Paperbak 30' 12 -15' 6' C. Pinus Helipensis — Aleppo Pine 40 -60' 20 -25' 10' D. Eucalyptus Polyanthemos— Silverdollar 20 -60' 10 -15' 5' E. Cinnamomom Camphora— Camphor 50' 50' 20' F. Arbutus Marina 40' 35' 15' G. Magnolia Grandiflora — Southern 80' 40' 20' Magnolia The minimum tree size shall be 24" box minimum and a minimum of 8' high planted height. See Page 2 of Appendix A for minimum planting distance from City street trees for planting in the front yard setback. II. NON - DECIDUOUS SHRUBS A. Pittosporum Eugenoides 40' 20' 5' B. Pittosporum Tenuifolium 40' 20' 5' C. Pittosporum Crassifolium 25' 15 -20' 8' D. Pittosporum Undulatum — Victorian Box 15 -40' 15 -40' 8' E. Cupressus Sempervirens — Italian Cypress 60' 3 -6' 5' F. Podocarpus Gracilior — Fern Pine 60' 20' 10' G. Privet Ligustrum — Glossy Privet 35 -40' 20' 10' H. Laurus Nobilis — Grecian Laurel 15 -40' 20' 10' I. Rhus Lancia — African Sumac 25' 20' 10' The minimum shrub size shall be 15- gallon minimum and a minimum of 6' high planted height. See Page 2 of Appendix A for minimum planting distance from City street trees for planting in the front yard setback. Notes: The Community Development Department may use other species than those listed above subject to approval. Applicant shall be required to submit adequate documentation in order for approval of other planting materials. Documentation shall include a letter from an Internationally Certified Arborist or Landscape Architect stating that the materials proposed will meet or exceed height, spread criteria and growth rate of listed materials and that they are suitable for planting on the applicant's property. The goal is to provide a partial screening after three years' growth following planting. The purpose of this list is to give the minimum planting distance between the required street tree/ shrub planting in front yard setbacks and the City street tree. PLANTING DISTANCE - CITY STREET TREE SPREAD MINIMUM A. St. Mary Magnolia* 20' 10' B. Crape Myrtle 20' 10' C. Privot 20' 10' D. California Buckeye 20' 10' E. Birch 20' 10' F. Holly Oak 20' 10' G. Aristocrat Flowering Pear* 30' 15' H. Flowering Plum* 30' 15' I. Mayten 30' 15' J. Melaleuca 30' 15' K. Eastern Redbud* 30' 15' L. Brisbane Box* 40' 20' M. Liquid Amber 40' 20' N. Carob 40' 20' O. Geigera 40' 20' P. Rhus Lancia 40' 20' Q. Lirodendron 40' 20' R. Chinese Pistacio* 50' 25' S. Ginko* 50' 25' T. Chinese Hackberry* 50' 25' U. Elm 50' 25' V. Sycamore 50' 25' W. Mulberry 50' 25' X. Silk Tree 50' 25' Y. Raywood Ash 50' 25' Z. Medesto Ash 50' 25' AA. Shammel Ash 50' 25' BB. Camphor 60' 30' CC. Zelkova 60' 30' *Denotes tree currently on street tree list. Other trees previously on list and may currently exist as a street tree. (Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999) Document referred to in Chapter 19.28.070B (2) Release of Privacy Protection Measures Single - Family Residential Ordinance Ordinance 19.28 (Single - Family) requires that after September 21, 1998, all new two -story additions or homes be required to complete privacy protection measures. Staff may grant a modification or deletion to this requirement if the adjacent affected property owners sign a release agreeing to modify or delete the requirement. Date Property Location Address I agree to waive or modify the privacy protection measures required of the Single - Family Residential Ordinance as follows: Property Owner: Address: Phone: Signature: (Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999) Privacy Protection Planting Affidavit Purpose: To assure the decision - makers and neighbors that the privacy protection planting has been installed according to the planting plan. Validation. An Internationally Certified Arborist or Licensed Landscape Architect shall certify the design and accuracy of the privacy protection planting. A reduced eleven by seventeen copy of the approved planting plan shall be attached. Submittal of this form shall be required prior to final inspection of the residence. Planting Certification: I certify that the privacy protection planting and irrigation is installed at: address and it is consistent in design, height and location with the landscape planting and irrigation plans drawn by: dated (attached). Name Title Professional License # Date (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999) ATTACHMENT M Existing Sloped Single - Family Residential Regulations Existing requirements in Section 19.28.050 (C)(1) Standards Grading • All site grading is limited to a cumulative total of two thousand five hundred cubic yards, cut plus fill. The two thousand five hundred cubic yards includes grading for building pad, yard areas, driveway and all other areas requiring grading, but does not include basements. The graded area is limited to the 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 grading quantity allowed for that lot development. A maximum of two thousand square feet of flat yard area, excluding driveways, may be graded. • All cut and fill areas are rounded to follow the natural contours and planted with landscaping which meets the requirements in Section 19.40.050G. • A licensed landscape architect shall review grading plans and, in consultation with the applicant and the City Engineer, submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to screen out and fill slopes. • If the flat yard area (excluding driveways) exceeds 2,000 square feet or the cut plus fill of the site exceeds 2,500 cubic yards, the applicant is required to obtain a Site and Architectural approval from the Planning Commission. Floor area ratio • The maximum floor area ratio is forty -five percent of the net lot area for development proposed on the existing flat pad portion, defined as pad areas equal to or less than 10% slope, of any lot. Formula: A = 0.45 B: where A = maximum allowable house size and B = net lot area. • Buildings or additions located off of the flat pad exceeding slopes of 10% and producing floor area exceeding 4,500 square feet of total house size, require approval from the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.134 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. • Additions within an existing building envelope are permitted provided that the total FAR of the existing building and addition does not exceed 45 %. 2nd Floor Area The amount of second floor area is not limited provided the total floor area does not exceed the allowed floor area ratio. 2nd Floor and Balcony The second floor and balcony review process shall be consistent with the Review Process requirements from the Residential Hillside Zoning District ( Chapter 19.40). Retaining walls Retaining walls in excess of five feet shall be screened with landscape materials or faced with decorative materials such as split -faced block, river rock or similar materials subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. Fencing • Solid board fencing is limited to a five thousand square foot site area (excluding the principal building). • Open fencing (composed of materials which result in a minimum of seventy -five percent visual transparency) shall be unrestricted except that such fencing over three feet in height may not be constructed within the front yard setback. (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) Protected Tree • Up to two protected trees with a diameter less than 18 inches may be removed Removal to accommodate a building pad subject to approval of the Director of Community Development. • Removal of protected trees exceeding 18 inches or removal of more than two protected trees requires approval of a tree removal permit by the Planning Commission in accordance with the Tree Ordinance. Other Standards in the Other development standards in R1 apply except for FAR restrictions and 2nd Floor R1 Ordinance Area ATTACHMENT N Introduction Cupertino's neighborhoods have developed over a period of�� . decades with varying architectural styles. Homeowners and build- ers are allowed design flexibility if their design conforms to the design principles. Two stor homes with a second story g g story i following to first floor ratio greater than 45% are allowed when they offset __ the building massing with designs that encompass higher quality architectural features and materials. a .: Design Principles j 1 These design principles help integrate new homes and additions to existing homes with existing neighborhoods by providing a • °� framework for the review and approval process. Where possible, , " kk ., 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 - There are a wide range of architectural styles 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 styles are included on with architectural style. the following pages: 3. Provide facade articulation. The following techniques •Arts 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 The 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 styles. • Projecting window trim • A Field Guide to American Homes • Materials and color changes Virginia & Lee McAlester • Inset balconies Alfred A. Knopf 2000 • Applied decorative features • The Abrams Guide to American House Styles • Recessed garage doors Wilkin Morgan • Recessed windows Harry N. Abrams, Inc 2004 • Window trim • Tall trees to break up views of long walls •House Styles in America James C. Massey 4. Use high quality materials. Penguin 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 symmetry, proportions and balance consistent Jeremiah Eck with the architectural style. The Taunton Press 2005 1 Distinguishing Features ru` Arts and Crafts Style homes are characterized by gently pitched broad roof gables with wide eave 1 4 r...._ overhangs. The visual impact of second floor spaces a CI Tr 5 is often minimized by incorporating the living space into the roof form, and utilizing gable or shed 1 dormers for light and interior volume. Generously l �e sized entry porches with distinctive columns and column bases are common, as is the abundance of ' 'd' wood details. 1 ... .. 1. Generous and slightly elevated entry porch 2. Large tapered or square wood columns 3. Stone, brick, shingle, or wood paneled column _ base —_ " 4. Wood porch railing- 5. Gabled roof ends 6. Expressed wood beam 7. Decorative wood brackets 8. Wide wood window frames with divided light panes 9. Exposed rafter tails i 1 10. Decorative Arts and Craft carriage light 1 .. ` 10 11. Gable and shed dormers 12. Shingle and /or wood siding occasionally with a small amount of stucco 72 8 1 13. Composition or simulated wood shake roof W shingles 14. Interesting gable end window, attic vent, and/ or wood details 15. Bay windows with base trim and brackets 16. Ancillary structures with matching forms, materials, and details 2 D/ i v IMAM Si . . .iv i ¢ i ai i7 Distinguishing Features Mediterranean Style homes are characterized by low- pitched hip roofs, typically covered in tile. 9 Roof overhangs are generally wide, and often are accentuated by decorative brackets. Windows are typically deep set from the exterior wall surface, and upper story windows are smaller and less elaborate than ground floor windows. Selected windows and . doors often have arched head shapes, and entries are accentuated by deep recesses and flanking columns attached to the wall, but are generally subdued. Facades are often symmetrical. 1. Low pitched roof with heavy textured tiles 2. Wide roof overhangs for sun shading, often with decorative brackets 3. Stucco or stone walls 4. Deep set windows and entries, sometimes with arched heads and /or windows accentuated with surrounding trim 5. Decorative metal carriage lights and railings 6. Often symmetrical massing and window layout 7. Upper floor windows smaller and less elaborate 8. Supplemental sun shading at selected windows 9. Distinctive chimney shapes and caps 10. Small balconies with decorative railings and l� 5 brackets 12 11. Decorative columns and details 12. Decorative shutters 4 3 3 NVANINti 1 ii:ii ... : IYL A I'VE i' 1XA Distinguishing Features Spanish Eclectic Style homes are characterized by low- pitched gable and hip roofs, typically covered in red tiles. Roof overhangs may be wide with decora- tive brackets or minimal with curved molding at the wall /roof juncture. Windows are typically deep set from the exterior wall surface, and usually have projecting molding at their heads and sills. Selected windows and doors often have arched head shapes, and entries are accentuated by deep recesses and 4 heavy wood doors. Facades are generally informal -!f and asymmetrical in their massing. 1. Low pitched roofs with heavy textured red tiles - overhangs may be large with decorative brackets or very small with curved moulding at the wall /roof juncture 2. Stucco walls 3. Recessed entry door - often with arched head 4. Deep set windows, sometimes with arched heads 5. Informal and asymmetrical building forms 6. Distinctive upper level balconies with metal or 1 1 1 wood details 7. Wood window shutters 8. Projecting window head and sill trim 9. Decorative tile and metal details 10. Distinctive chimney shapes and caps 11. Second floor overhangs with wood beam and bracket supports 12. Casement windows with divided lights 4 ITAIIAN ...MN i iK 1111NIMX : . Distinguishing Features Italian Villa Style homes are characterized in the Bay Area a wide variety of forms and details drawn from a variety of common Italian styles. They are frequently formal in their facade design, and often symmetrical with accentuated windows and entries. Typically, they are uniformly two- stories in height with low pitched hipped roofs. 5 1. Low pitched hip roof 2. Wide roof eaves, often with formal supporting brackets 3. Symmetrical or asymmetrical front facade win- dow patterns well - organized around a project- ing formal entry with Italianate columns 4. Tall first floor windows 5. Deep set windows in grouped patterns 6. Arched window heads and /or 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 1 10. Articulated belt and trim courses 1 7 4 9 3 5 nt IN i7: "f i.. A t'iix iIXA Distinguishing Features French Country Style homes are characterized by steeply pitched roofs with eaves commonly flared upward at roof -wall junctions. They may be sym- 1 metrical in form and facade organization, but are more typically asymmetrical. Some variations include - a round tower with a high, conical roof. Individual homes exhibit a wide variety in form and detailing, but are united by the strong roof form. Roofs are commonly covered with slate, tile or other rough-tex- 7 tured materials. Roof dormers are common. Entries are often deep -set from the home's front wall. 1. Gable and hip roof forms with medium to steep 4 pitch 2. Closed eaves 3. Stucco, stone, or brick walls 4. Recessed entry vestibule with decorative mould- E _ ing or projecting gable 5. Articulated entry details 6. Casement windows with divided lights - often recessed 7. Second floor overhangs with wood beam and decorative supports 1 8. Planter boxes, shutters, and other decorative details 9. Distinctive chimney shapes and caps 10. Gabled dormers 11. Bay windows with metal roofs 1 1 E 4 6 6 CC -2 - - il CHAPTER 19.28: SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1) ZONES 19.28.010 Purposes. 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. 19.28.030 Permitted and Conditional Uses. 19.28.040 Permits Required. 19.28.050 Zoning Districts Established. 19.28.060 Development Regulations (Site). 19.28.070 Development Regulations (Build mg). 19.28.080 Eicher (R1 -e) Development Regulations 19.28.090 Development Regulations— (R1 -a). 19.28.100 Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines 19.28.110 Landscape Requirements. 19.28.120 Permitted Yard Encroachments. 19.28.130 Minor Residential Permits. 19.28.140 Two -Story Residential Permit. 19.28.150 Exceptions. 19.28.160 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.010 Purposes. R -1 single - family residence districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to: A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods; B. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels; C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the predominantly low - intensity setting in the 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) a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text. Section 6. CEQA. A Negative Declaration has been adopted per CEQA since none of the ordinance amendments would have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Section 7. Continuity. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as amendments of the earlier provisions. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 2nd day of August 2011 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on this 16th day of August 2011 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19.28, SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES, TO IMPROVE READIBILITY AND CONSISTENCY AND MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE TWO -STORY DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS, PUBLIC NOTICING REQUIREMENTS, STORY POLE REQUIREMENTS, AND STANDARDS FOR SLOPED SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Statement of Purpose. This ordinance amendment improves readability and consistency with other City ordinances. The ordinance amendment also clarifies language related to the two -story design review process, amends public noticing requirements for discretionary review projects, removes story pole requirements for two -story projects, and applies site development standards to all sloped single-fa mily residential lots. Section 2. Code Amendment. Chapter 19.28, entitled "Single- Family Residential Zones," of the Cupertino Municipal Code, is amended to read as shown in Attachment 1. Section 3. Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsection, sentence clause, phrases or portions be declared valid or unconstitutional. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937. Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, • DRAFT SINGLE - FAMILY RESDENTIAL (R1) ORDINANCE Items of clarification since staff report production: • Revised Table 19.28.040 to reorganize the column layout and group "One or two -story project on a sloped single - family residential lot with development on building pads /graded areas with actual slopes equal to or greater than 20% and with total floor area ratio of all structures on the lot greater than 35 %" with the other types of projects that require Minor Residential Permits. • Revised Section 19.28.060 (D)(3)(b) to include the following underlined in red near the end of the sentence: "....shall follow the fencing requirements in Sections 19.40.080(A)(2) (with the exception of "...for lots exceeding 30,000 square feet in net lot area ") through 19.40.080 (B) of the RHS Ordinance. • Revised Section 19.28.070 (D), 19.28.080 (D) and 19.28.090 (D) to clarify verbiage to state: "1. Floor area shall be double - counted as follows: a. For one -story homes, the floor area shall be double - counted as first floor area. b. For two -story homes, the floor area shall be counted once each for first floor and second floor area" • In accordance with Planning Commission recommendation, removed references to restricting flat yard area grading to 2,000 square feet in the following sections: o 19.28.040 (B) (6) o 19.28.060 (D) BLACK AND STRIKEOUT - Language has been consolidated into table (e.g. This language has been consolidated.) RED AND STRIKEOUT - Language has been deleted (e.g. This language has been deleted.) RED AND UNDERLINE - Language has been added (e.g. This language has been added) BLUE AND STRIKEOUT OR UNDERLINE - Language has been deleted or added per City Attorney recommendation (e.g. T1 ?.:.r.;�� c'�u_ 1 c:� d',: ?ctc.'. per City _A:ter .c; n_LcIi,I:'cr,da icn. OR hds been a dtd , ,Ther City ttoInev recommendation.) Text box Text boxes in the margins indicate why changes have been proposed Highlights- Indicate changes that were made since the staff report production • 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R -1 single - family residence district other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. 19.28.030 Permitted and Conditional Uses. A. The following uses are permitted in the R -1 single - family residence district: 1. Single - family use; 2. A second dwelling unit conforming to the provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapter 19.84, except for those second dwelling units requiring a conditional use permit; 3. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title; 4. Home occupations in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.92; 5. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products. 6. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency or department with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff; 7. Small - family day care home; 8. The keeping of a maximum of four adult household pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs or cats may be kept on the site; 9. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards; 10. Large - family day care homes, which meet the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and which are at least three hundred feet from any other large - family day care home. The Director of Community Development or his /her designee shall administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and proximity requirements; 11. Congregate residence with ten or less residents; 12. Transitional housing and supportive housing. 00 B. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the R -1 single - family residence district, cl Ch subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: 1. Issued by the Director of Community Development: a. Temporary uses, subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.124; b. Large - family day care home, which otherwise does not meet the criteria for a permitted use. The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by Sectioi 15.97.46(3) of the State of California F[ealth and Safety Code; •� C. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar design features that require c variations from setbacks upon a determination by the Director that such design cn feature or features will not result in p ' - - - , . - ;, • - - - other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; d. Second dwelling units which require a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84; e. Home occupations requiring a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title. 2. Issued by the Planning Commission: a. Two -story structures in an area designated for a one -story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.070 (T)(2) of this chapter, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the structure or structures will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; b. Group care activities with greater than six persons; c. Residential care facilities that fall into the following categories: i. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has six or less residents, not including the providers, provider family or staff; ii. Facility that has the appropriate State, County agency or department license and seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; iii. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; d. Congregate residence with 11 or more residents, which is a minimum distance of one thousand feet from the boundary of another congregate residence and has a minimum of seventy -five square feet of usable rear yard area per occupant. (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1951, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1831, (part), 1999; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1991; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) . I ••, ' r ✓ r . J — -7- r. �- - J r y .� v - Y r h c ✓ :J .+... U J r - h, r • •u '� •• .y U U r 7 r r _ r r . h h Jl L r — r r J r — J; U r r 1 h .:L r .� r r. r' :�. en r c U y J _ > - Co U 1. _ U X " r+ U N •— t N y • J U U J - r U r U U r h 1 Z J r • -r S U U r r r r U r - r r r f J = :i -' r r ' '� . — - (. 7. r — r • te .- y, J r- J 'y h .. C` J - U r _- 1 r r r U U L r ' j ,. V _ .t. i J l L 1 '� . J U • .. -7 ..., r ✓ - - 7 l U C..) v - r _ r J I. ^ `r • CD U _ — - r L - — •••• r y r r i f. r U w J = U J J ▪ ..■ .1..+ L U r.-...., _ .- i = - L = S U J J L r .a.. -- U V r j j '-' 1.- r y l -, J. r r O C ,-- G t �. _ . r L v =', r � � r� .r X_ • r r _ 7 -- T ▪ r. r. ✓ r; r r 5 — i • H U .: i T r_, U r" i; z.,, J J. a., - s S ^_e. "J rd 7-1 • . � . .! r r 'J .. r - - ' -j r ...... ¶-. . �" j Y, ' J . r � r LC L. rr-. 4.•• ;� r , U r. r r • r - • " 7: ..fir. ▪ -r. rj f T r • U U 17 1 U • 2 -, V _ . U i v = "J, G - �+ T r ^ v I •., I J � r . • V - r � r 0 ''" r r r 7,i _U r 7. r r -- 'f. J L 'J. r J. r C .✓•. C 7 Q C r— :- ;- :- :- r r J r r ▪ 5 i i — E . 4 C c - - : I r d 1 H 41 u =I H L a 11 "ts a1 ar w C" -, — J Q.) c ar b4 0 - NI Z ,0 s N— I o Cn NI r a, TO H ;m4 ,,,, • - o - = 1 3 x O Q ,,, z r E'.'' W A s., cc < as U! Q W w . U _ l � r - I 0 7 ry U ft CJ C r ^ J C ev J 1 r O U O �I y ti r, y .. J Y I z ›"-% G 4-, V _ 0 •--:, .-' . r 1 r o • r - te r , 1 Lri TJ J - i� v , n '� U J r' J .._ I = r . 1 X r, r... •... r lam" X `� r I - a. . • r r r U :I c , r "I c = v y -� r n JI ', -� I • J Y h f r, r r y, r ^ H ^ C r- > _ J ,_ U . ._ _ O r 7.J7; E i U u i C X J i-, 0 I - r T G J 1 r r V • r • - r - -) _ J r r C , . - • ' \ f . V r r o � i r CJi : r, r �- ' u C r r r 1 � r—. C C J u � ..) F�1 r C � L. C V ' r r .. ▪ r �. �.� r i C • tl r r . _ ^ I L r r ',>1, 770 0 r • r r I .. y ■ rJ L �. J . �.. . ^ , J... V r' J _' "' c G - G • V V C c., 1-.1 r J r ' J � ., I ^ U • Q J ^y 1 L J ^ � r ^ r J r l i I r r r7-, ' v r . .i. i i CL) F U •.._ . l J r r r r _ r y U CG U U 0 CI > • • 1 E ,= • - _ I en Qr x U E •• ✓• 2 GJ 2 C T ' p �i u p U U F G p�. [ i fi � = e a t . • ;. IN f _ c . .. • L j' • I► 0".1.. G r• CI) MI �: '" p o 5 . . • • •- 1- - I I r o i o = = — .o 3-I G a .• CI) (DO a) o p .- m a ' . a, X N N A .. ro CU o o • • G + , u et r. X X � -i V + , —. v 0 r n C H H ri • • r A ▪ Qr et � r4 1-.4 • Da}1 Dd Aaua}sisuo, 5 +; • • • M1 • : ' • U • • U . w • I, Ir • U • u o • . el • • • „ . • Q" ° . 4 G) - / •, Ir • • •• o • • • • . ,• •. • • •r r d rt Ir Ir • • • o . '. • ' u Ir • • • I, Ir , • • 0 I• 14 11 • • 1 • • • . • 1 • •. • • • O I, • o •• V • • • ., • • . . r • . . \ . • / • ; • c] • • o • o . u , • W • • • •. • . • 11 14 • O - 4 4 o • ' ••• • • • r . • r1 .4 • • • • • • u 11 . u • , Ir • • I N r u o ID 0 • / r II 4 1r 4 I• ' • • r • • 4 A 11 V •• ,•_ I► • 14 . •, • , • (, • I► • • . 4 • 4 0-1 . Ir • • I► • • 1 U II • .I 0 • l J ' • I► ' O 0 1/ 11 • r . 41 0 U • • Ir Ir O . . Cd Ir • ► 1 • 11 Ir • O • II • ., Ir 11 • r'S I• I Ir • • 0 O • U ID � I ' 1r . • Ir ' • • [T� • V • 11 ► • • f. 1 T • ' • • • • , I• • 0 • It 11 6 1 Ir • C.A I • 11 • • • • U 1 1 1 r II ,„ a a . /1 •• • • • N .1• • . __... 'pall Dd PaluP1n0 10 .... . • • . 1 , • , • • . . • . • ., • • . • . . a :...) P • • r•••• . • . • . .., • t.-4 • . ....., . . • . .. 0 • ',...: I • • ., ...„ . • y, • 0 1 ■ , -.. . . • C.Z r.' . . Mr 1 • 1 MO h .--• • . .7., • 0 • • )...• .I . . • . • . . . 1 " c7., • • - 0 • C.) D • . . • . 1 .* • it , 4 .)....1 , • D ., . • ' C.) . , a • II . . I .. . . • • r . • . Ill .. • . : . a 1 ., .• , • ,. 1 V'. . . . 11 C...) • . . . • . • 1 1 : . ' 0 , . . , 1 . . • • • II • 1 . • • . 1 Ill 11 • , 1 * 11 ,- . , . D • • ..., , . • • II MI . - . • C 1 .• r ' • . • • • II . . . . . . r . I, • o . • . . • • 0 • • • 1 * . I • • • . . • . . • • . . 0 • . I II . • . . D . . . . . . . IP • • . . 1 II • . . • ' . . I r • r P - . II r • IP . . . • • • . lir " , . • . . . . . . . • . , . . • a , • , • • • . • . 11 . a . • . . , • , . . • ' • . II . . . 1 . 1 , • , . • . . . - • . ) . ,. • e . . . . 1 . 4 . • 11 , • • • . • • • • e • . i 6d r • : a • • • = ; • • • . • • 0 • ,. • , • .' • • 11 • • . • . . ' • . . • • . . • • 111 , • . , . . , , • • . 0 • • 0 • 0 • . .0 1 • . • • D 11 • I 0 , 0 • • . ... • .., - . . • • , . 1 . 1 . • • , m , .. J • . • D • .. • et r • . I . 1 • # r . . • - • • II • • • , . • • .- • • • 0 • •• ... • , • • Mb ' 1 D • • II. IP . i 1 - 1 • • 1 • . MB • , , • • Mb : 11 • • • • .. • , • ., • • • 0 . . ID . • . go a • . 111 JD . ,- I ' • . . • • . • • ■••I . • 0 1 1 • . . 1 ' • ' • •• IP OM 1 • r ' . • . , .• 6 • . . • 4 ' . ' ' 7, . .' • 11 . 0 r 1 . • 1 .. :Z .' . ' -■ ' ' ' . ' . . 11, • II • " 0 . r J r.0 • • . • o . S4 I r. . • r1 II r • . 11 . s ' . 4....) • . . . I ,.., : • 0 " .. r• • ' . .' .—.1 • • C,....+ . IL : -1.., • ■ ' ...../ .....: *-r- : -r: •-, / ...• • r" 1 c■ I If •....,13. -•••.: UCi9L'DiJ JPjJ 'Ja�I ,d 'Dal Dd • • cn 5 ., - 0 .5 o o. ct as E a.) ra,, n s s-, 0 aJ +� CD a1 6 (1..) O Q, O O " . w .. .., 0 E L. -0 a1 En Q + CO ✓ • v 5. O O v Cn O c" . aJ + .+ aJ u 6. "O Is 8 V g O � N. r- � • O, O 1-4 0 Q .. v w0 ca U E 4 3 I' u 7-:.. v iti • J • ti co . N a) a) C >~ r r - .--4 .i U) cd .O v rd T i u G C ,-- + C - • ..y °J cdm v O 0) v > C s-. u u 4 .7 3 > al U U a.+ cC W V. o a u u ^ d 7 ' . �? . O � L 7. N G \ R, o O G .) r u O 0 0 'G u u N O u r s C C X C.) CO aJ r.. .... (t O N Lf'' .0 '0 • `-- � D d Z i .., EL i . � U r+. y b U C u u cr, in O U C Cr. C e O C L. In 7 t-i O O U N P-1 cC N aJ - ' v v r., • .. +ay .. Q - aJ e� `� • C, • 6J r t) O S-, el Q g g., w PO 0 w 4 U 0.7 1 4 Ni I S3ualsisuoD u u u b4 c o o cQ P-4 y v 0 P . O �-' > a v g. c) 7:5 v o ra J r J O U w a) 'CS r- i p c a..+ ,U 79, O bA a ,z U U cn s J U , r y U m v ' ++ f+ 7ti 0'1 >>^ '�' ct 0 3 -64 J 3 U •• ^ �.• '� C O a) ) u •4 c u p - 0 • cn b0 = 4 75 C./ c e M + a a.) ° 2 `� J a) U AGO �� (� � .5 Z bp r r ct Q 4. [A CO b al (n J w a) n U 6, U� m v ;-4 '� v. bA 0 F 0 O . n cr, ^ C...1 cn �., i- C Z . +.J Cif 4O c , C + s-i , ^' r 7. O (-ter O cC Q. O � �] 1�. ct c i C , O al o 0 bA u 2 br) m • cn • --� V. 4. CLI r U v o °' a _ o T °� a J i U r � J- r " U › cd U E ? O i aJ U v O CJ 0 a) -p . v -., O • • r $-f x >. c u. 't3 a i+ r E i '-f aJ +, N '- r U ; ' �, U Q' a) 0 s•. t3 r U' rn -, r r rr v U sU. ' U p 6. r aJ 06 C J y c X 1.4 i~ ,. 5 't3 a .� n cn c' `; a � v bA � a� a� v� cu G U ..‘, p (n U i 3 y . U 0) 0) 0 A . • u o a) r '� = cu { N CIA 0 Fri V aJ Cd i.. c.)1 CI) .y CO N i-1 wJ n'> >-1 aJ C : 0 MI fslAu. v:Om • SIIIIgEpra1 .;)al Dd .3 al Dd Cd U 9, • • U • . . • • • • •r • •. . Q O . ., v o • • ue , s. i •' • E Q" • 0 • • 1 .. • • ^', U , . . • ■, .. .► O ' • ct ► •► •� • 0 . ni 4 t • V • ; • " • • • • o L o • . • • • " ... : r. i ce •., 11 • ° : . • r1 • •r . p r • 4 V 0 . • • • o CO u • • • o • • n • C . • 0 u r +" , u • • 11 ' � - • 7..a V .- o 4) u • • • O •• 0 u • • o • ' • o r I) V) y, O 11 E • • - , • • • • • r 73 r • CO V O 11 • • ' " ' • r • • 0 •-- 0 •' II .► • o • .• • 11 u u • t3 t +� a • • .► �.1 .. .. ca . , .. • , 0 MI • r • , • • • • •r 1► , • 6 • • • o o , • u • , • II n n V (C Cl ) . o o• u • 11 • Q, •. - 0 , O O • u • • a .. f 0 • • • II • r u .. • • r, M1 �, J • i 1 r N u 4 1 11 11 • 4 • GP 0 • .•.. • • 4 • 0 • • 4 4 • 0 • • 1 • 0 • II I . . • :. 4 • 0 • • • . : • 0 • •• • , 0 • • • • • . • 4 • . • 0 0 IV • GP 0 • . 0 IV . .... 4 0 • •P • • • • 0 • 4 7 • • 0 44 4 0 .... • 4 • • 44 • • 0 . • % . • 0 0 0 . • • GP • • . 0 • • • 0 • • 4 0 • 0 0 0 • • • • .... • . • • • 40 0 •• • • • • . • 4P • • IP • • 0 ' • II • • 0 GP 0 7 • 0 • 0 • . 0 • 4 . 0 • 0 • • • • 4 4 • • 0 7 • , .. • 0 0 GP 0 • • • 10 .. • 40 0 • 0 . • . • 0 4 . . 0 4) • • • 4 • • • • • 0 • 0 a 0 4, • • • 0 • 1. 1 • • ■ • • • • it • • • • • - 0 . • 0 . . 0 • • • • . 0 4, • 0 4 4P 0 44 • ... . 1 • • 0 , • • 0 GP • • . 4 • • • • • • . 4 4 0 • • II. I • • • • 40 • • • • GP • • . 0 • • • • • • • 4 • 44 • a • • • ..... . • • • 0 • 0 0 4 0 • 0 • • • . • • 4, 0 ...... 4 GP • • • 4 • 0 • i 0 • • f s 0 • • a: 4 . 0 • • . • 0 IP . • • . • . • 0 • . • • : • . • 4 4 • . • 4 • 4P • • • ID •.. • • V II 4) • • • sr • 0 . 0 • • • . 0 ... • • • . 4 . ■ • • • • • II 4 . 0 0 • 111 0 • • 0 s 0 • 0 4) ■ • 4 . 4 0 0 • 0 • 0 . di • • • . • 0 4 . 0 • . • • • IV • 4 • • . 0 • • • • *Is \ • 4 0 • • 0 IP • * • • •• l• 0 • .• • • • • 0 • • . • • ii• • •0 • . • • • • 0 .. . • • 1 4 • . • • . II • 4 • • • • . . 0 . • ■ • 11 • • • • • 0 • , • • • • 4 . • • • 1 0 44 • • • 4P 0 . • I • • IV • • • • . • • • or . • 4) so . • 4) . G. .. 4 . • • GP . • 40 • • to • % • 4, ID .• • 4 • • , 0 • 0 . 0 • 4 4 . • . • .... 0 • • 4 4 • 0 • • • 4 . 40 0 4 0 • . . 44 • .. .. 0 44 i 0 ' • 0 • . • II • • • • • II • • n • 4 Iv • • 4 0 • • • . • 40 : . • • • • 4 • . • • 4. . IV • . 0 • • • • • • • • s • • • . 1 • ' • • • • 41 0 4 . • GP • • • 0 • 6 • • • s • • II • 4 • • • • • •• er • . . . • 0 • 0 10 • 0 • • • 4 . . 0 • 44 • • 44 0 • 0 . . • • • . • • • • • 4 • 4 • • 4 1 4 4) . • 4 u • • 4 • • 4 . 0 0 . 4 ' 4 • 4) • 4) •• • 4 .... 0 • • • 4. 0 • . • • • 0 0 40 • . • • • • • 0 • 0 4 4 0 ... GP • • • • • • • • . 4 • . 1 • •• " 0 •.• 4 0 • • • • . IL • • • . 0 11 . • • 0 • • . " 0 • • • • • • 0 4 .1 • 411p 4 0 • . • al 40 .• . . 0 • • .• 11 0 • • 4 • • . . , 0 • • • 41 • 4 • 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 4 ' ••• • II • % . . 4 . I • • • I/ 4) 0 . GP 1 • . 0 . • • .. • • 0 0 - • • • . II 44 • . . • 4 ••• -- 0 • . 0 0 0 . • • • i • 4 0 . 0 0 • II • • 0 " 41 GP • 0 • 44 • ° • . It 0 0 • • s • 0 • 0 • • • • • • • • • 0 . " • -.: • • • • • • • GP • : • •• 0 •• . 41 • • • • • • • 111/ . * . a II D II " 0 . 0 0 • ID 0 4 . . 0 4P • i • 0 • a • • • • 0 • • 0 • • • . • 0 • . • * • • • • • 0 . • • . • • . 1 1 . . . . . • 0 0 . 4 • * a 0 0 0 IL 0 . 0 . 4 11 0 • • 4m ' • • 0 4 1 • * . • ; ■ '•• . ,.. • . . .1. .. 0 • 0 0 4 • 0 • • • a• • 0 • 4 • II 0 • • : • 0 • • II • - --- 1 ' . = .° • . dl . ° ° ." . • • .` . � � �° ^ � • ' . ° 4 • • . ,, ° ,. � 4 ` ' • • � • ° " . = . . ... . 4 . . , . .. 4 � 14 .^ , . . . *46 . • 8 ° 4 . ` � = 4P . � ° ° • .. .° ° ° ° .° , ° s. ° ^ ° • . ° . ., ' • . • • . • ^ ° • �� • • . . 4 , GP °� ^ .,.° °��~ • , . . • . 0 • • • . , ° . �." • ° . . � • 4 • ^ • . . p �� . • . ° • . � . . � � � .° • 0 � :" ° ' . • �° ° 4 ." • • 4 � ^ . . 8 . � 4 ° • ° • • ° • ° • •4 ^ ° � , , . .°" • ° • , • � ° ° = � ., • � ° � • � ~ • • 4P ." • . • ' , . = �� • . � . � = � • • ° ' �� . . • �.^ °, -° . . • ° " . ." � • 46 ` . ° ^ • ^ 14 . ° . • � � . • = ^ • ° . ° • ' ,, � . ° . � . . , . ° • ^ 44 • . . � • • . � ■ ° ■ . ^ • ° ° �" � • • � � • • • • . . • • .. � ^° • ° . � • . .• . ■ • 0 . . ; • ," ° . • • ." ^ . • • � ° . � ." , • . = �` • ° ° � • ° : ° • • ° ." ° 4 . • �, • • • ^ ; .• . ^ ° • • �, It ^° , • ° • . ° ° . ° • ^ • ~ • • � . ° . ID • ° • . • � . �/ • ° 44 • . . , . ° , . 4 °. ° �° ° , • ° � .` ^ �" ° • � ° ° • .. ° . PI � � . . . . � . . • � ° ° �/ ° �" • ^ • . ° • 8 • • ~ • ." • ° . ° . ° ^ • • • • • ° I. • " • , . ° , • , , � • ,m^ . ` • i• , ° • ° . • • • • , . , . �� . . • . ° � ," • � � • � • .� • �� ^ � � . � 0 • • ; ° • . . � . ° � = • � ." ^ ° • " � . ^. °^ � ~. = .^ 4 . . . . . . : ^ . 4 = 1 • � • • � ° ° • • ° • � �° • . " ^ • � • �, . / • � • ° ° ." ." • = � • �. . • � � . . . • � • • • . • • � , • ^ • , � .. • • . � . : • . • ° ^ • • 4 • � . ° ." � • ° • ° �^ • �, ° � | • ° ° ° � • 1 • • • 4 . , ■ .,� ° ,. ° �. • ; . ^. ...., • � , . �. , • . .° ° " ^ . • ^ .. . " .. 11 . 0 ; . ° ; ° . •6 • . • 4 � • , ° � ° • . 4 ^ ° . . . • , • 8 "^ � ° • ^ 0 • mm — ° ° ° ` • � � ° `• | • . ° • ' . `, • °^ ' = ^ • ° • • . . , ^ • ." • . • . : • • . • . • ." ." � •. • .� • . " ^ . • � . , ^ : ,° ' 4 ^' . °, . • � • ., • , °; • | ° • • •• ^ • • ' ; � ` . . ^" 44 : • • • ° , �� . . = ,^ ^ �" • .^ • 4 0 � ° • ° • 44 • .° � `^ ,. 111 . , 4 . .. 0°° • ° �� . ° • 4 . • �; • ° . � �, . . ° ° • • .° • . 4 ^ III . • • 4 . • ^ • • 4 � • ." ^ • � 0 . " . • • ." 44 . ° ` ° • . � � ° � � • ° ^�. • . ," °. .°� . . • . ° . • ° 4 ^° ' ° • ` ' / • m* = •• ^ . • ' • • / ° � • ° . ." , ° • � . . . • 1 •• . � . .• . ^ . ° • " .. . • � • • " •• . ° • I: � • • �" ^ . ° • .^ • • . • ` � ° • �" ." . • .` � ° • ', .,� °. ` ° °,� °� '. . . = ° • ; • ^ . . • ; • 8 • , . ° ° 4 � � � ; • . . • • • : ^ ." • ° . • �° • 40 , � ` � • • • � ," • • = • • ^ • � . � � � • . � ^ . 4 `� ' ^ ° ; �° : ° r • .• �" • � ° •• ° �� . . �. � • ^ � ."�` ° � � . � .. � ° .. � ." , • • . � . . 4. � . ° ' ^ , , ^ . ' ^ . ^" � . � . , = ^ �° ; � . • 4 � . . mu e • .^ . • • • • , ^ 0 . ° • . �" ^ � � . ° = ° • . .." ' ... ° ^ , . ^ • 10 . . . • H c� � ~ " - [ ' • = • • ^ ' ` ° • 11 r II ^ � .} ' ~, • • , � r h ' � � . � ." • �� 1; ' : '0 T a1 0 O d N � 4 . o , a1 • tG U t i r ' = L+ d Ca it 4 y • . - r ° . �► 41, ► r../. — m O d O i • • • • o .. t : y ,, O .. _ • O • 44 • o J r y .) r O C :�.• RS • • • o • . , ' v r .+ G yn\ .► I • . cn r L W .V ■ • • . . • • • • . •► • _ r f) O s 0) 0 0 o U y — S-+ ,it r V y r r cd U • o u • • N Q ° • o o • � 7 ' . y co O t6 • ' • 4) a PI U N ( 4 , (d p • tQ O • • . O y •� • GP ► 44 ° _ w J N u) O • o o • ♦ I J • O 0 ( ' r ^ • w 0 0 • 0 • . • p • • (.. O c0 G O 4 • G G f • o t 4 o .� _ G — U G G p Z.. cri o • G o Q U r U ':' o o • • u • .► G .N O fir, , r. N !A O t.r) 4 y ( '' r N . r r' r cd d V •T ' K 0) • • o . • ; o �• O O 0) U- O a) s+ O • • u o • '� r w J n r w O W • 0 I. r • 4 G to If � • 41 U o ♦ I " o • •► '► 41.• . a 'r ..1.-+ , d • • o 1 ► i O O 0 0 ' o o• ^ 'J O C.) r• O d • •r • o •• .. , N c a n •• • I/ y e d cC ea uO edp nt • • • • /1 0 .. U O • •� • •r .. •• o • • 0 -r- d U • • • • • • I � v • o • •r O • « / \ \ 0 / \ 0 / . �ƒ 0 k ) \ u ƒ © f / O O ® § / q o ƒ r § ° E § n / C) \ CO ƒ 4 ` 0 M � % % & \ ° e / / ii - § \ '§ --co ' u c..2, q > / • 0 ƒ { 2 § & & G u q csi - ƒ / cn .. -2 $ 0 c4 § \ t ri § 0 - C rat id 4 5 0 b? q q / ° / j O § e 4 § • R • 4 4, & 2 \ � 0 / 3 0 \ 0 4!•3 ° ' 0 % - 0 w = '2 / 0 % a c 2 % % m ± % q a _ a a ° G 2 § W c g N % 0 D m m e e & -= w $ 0 e w u Z + ° o m ? ■ id 2 2 c c 4 ° § ■ � § + q ' � . k . - u ° % § m § > / E CZ § 0 $ ? .4 § , co u "0 & ■ 2 • ,..• _ u 8 � : I ft al £ § ® •"" / § � ® 9 /� 2 ° 0 2 /' § 0 z\ _ , ed f 3 w E§ u o R § o . ci u R m _ + U . Q o ' 2 - 2 cn 3 u c u ° o '— § , Q CU o« / • 2ƒ d d ' 0. R Q J(JUa}sisuo, b a) 0 ¢. v U V a) v d CrJ Tai up 3 R v 0 a CU ;.., •.. aJ p r y � Q' C 75 c bt a) ,a. en it " 0 Ch , r �- 2 ' 0 ai w+ d - 6.0 o - - 0 w 0 4 r-. _0 � O • Q•• 4 0 4a' O "r. V Z al CU cr) U 'C3 O O V b4 v b4 rJ V 0 w y, .- • _a) et ,- O � r � O O v u ' y U v '0 a 7:5 4-1" H (0, y h V .. •r, co ci .,.. y , m b4 O ct C V ,Z ) v LtD V . y ++ U P21 E v ' O , � 'ti 0 P O tcl ..a' tLS a ' M ', ..r O C — , (t al N 1.. 3. O .. +� V 4 ¢ 1.4 O , ,0 0 �, O eb CCS eb �-•� 3 ,- x o ..- t 0 •., ea e� G v p +, u O L , Z ., .,. > , p ' � e) v �. p N- CZ n V 0 .� y m 0 � , O E" O w 0 • .. .,., i• Q E. S•r N dam' O • y ,� r, O v .-, U . J N .r v . D5 ,V (c$ V 4 b4 O w. cn C3 vi .. F. .2 V co m II - . N C) OJ aJ 4) a) 4J , ..1-•• 'S . F.. . � -a v ^ CLI v' ti G ^ �- Q ,.= + CU t e• w w w w w w � O d ,,=.1•;-1 '' 0 cn 36 r 4-4 w w w c cb .-, ..., b4 V w X ..0 LC) t O N O If) C S. N O 0 O O C :.j 4 4J , � ,... g N N r, N N ctt C • C14 � t N + N Z C w ; - + O � .. b4 co - 0 — 0 -0 v Gl V ++ di y es es 0 p w Gn 3.4 .. m + O N ai d cis '� ' a 0 O � . , a , 'O v M •/ . o rt 'CI 73 1: O p — E . � cl) rl O y y v y x E p 1-1 O es ea y • y y d v 00 � , � , ' v a d ;. � �" , m �• O v a. w s ue , ,.0 4 •E . � .� 3 RS N tC V M e1+ O O y ed U v -, o, e N M e--i N M 4 C7 I a z ° - �. O .O +' c +, V x '3 . O �° 0 o V ,.. m > O V O '0 8) as b D V cn p u A v ��, cn ` a. +� '+ 0 O r. rn p • o v cb ^0 � a ' 3 0l ccl (] u b A w O �+ O ,-4 V 4 O m '3 ,, v CU C J ) G a, O o O • U C w O ;-+ 0 • eV 4 0 Q • a ‘-rd 0 O X v c a a O C� c m O 0 0 3Q o a, o ", C CD CD • aJ bA r + p 3 '1 o ›, .. a, d a) +' O O R' N fil b 3 tl�w O a) + E p 2 0 O of O r CO 0 .0 6i a' .� V) . ms ,, w cd :H (tit V CJ aJ t ++ ,_, 1 0 .--.1 Lam~ ms .4- ++ �i CO r O 0 "C v 0. 0 p u O Q f� V bA cz 0 � � 0 �1J • Ti Q" 4 } � ctf O MI O O O U a O O ' "' ��- �O CU Q+ 0 y o o 30 > a • C o i • w 0 o N " O X .. 0 0 c Q be 4-4 cz S� ++ V r' �7 Ln co U� 78 H c8 5 di g H5o� • ca '� .E ,ate .-3 ( -0 „—■ cn ed v bp - CV e ra i. t~ bA : ' " O G C ' L3 a) w G a E 2' N w y CO� f4 ft cj to 5' rl t'.V M 4 kirssaaauun a-• ;-4 • . •• 0 u • 0 m • co •, a- • a) , . a) .: IV E r1 .r, • • m .• .. •E II • •• ~- v) V o II II o t 1-4 N i. 1► • . . V O . D O `.' p '.L'" ID ;, O O r ' co p • O 0 /► b0 , � .4-.• 0 • • V � � �. . •• gt 4 . v • v co O .1 cn . • • • 0 • C 4 b.0� . ' • \ 0 1�'7 • • . • 0 ��• U 4J 0 )C O • • • ^ ft E I) 4y '•••' • • 0 Cdr/) •-4 R -i • , • • • • 1► .D V •'► • (t 0 , 1► ' • • CV 0 O • , V • __ •. • n •. O v U V r • • • 00 O fig/ (�1 O ■ 1 . • •► ' I F�11 \•/' ter!! • 1-i Q O O ' , - �-' a ', o • • • u 7 • 4-4 21 ID V a r • • • • 1 • , i- y�+ CI, - -`i O i •- i 1 •, J • r r • • • • 1 a • • • ' ' , .44 CD �, u • •-• �' it 5 • . CID • : 1' ': • • ° ► co al O • 414 A , it 1 0 • IP g III r0 O C-'' ` v F :Y- • • • O • • •• • ' 1 . ,► 4 II w • F a •► ' • • • • • • • tap a) • g ++ 0 o •. • • • • • 1 • • •. • u 0 1 . O ■ by D. 0 •r • .w+ '� M + �1 .V v y • ■1 • 1 0 �► „ I. • •► •• • • Ir Imo. • • • •► • • • • v • ./ i ! • •u „ 0 0 0 • • 'Dal Dd o v y `, U O r N W J H G i-1 cn ,r 71, G 4 cr � "O ,_ ^ J x eC G . r. WO ,..4 O G v O m t 1 CO 'I. G J C..) i f U W 0 r r r %.1-4."-' w cI J, 1 Q 0. fC V ccS U w a) O s, y _ w G J .1 .1 .-+ CA' —Z", L G r . V `rM z s O C 4 6 W J J :.i h 1. J • O 0 11 P'• CA L = Y•+ r G . r- 0 C ■ T C.15 M s 3 �� 0 us co O -0 1 r :G 0 +. w a • J O J C; ; 1v " ' m 0 11 r �. C � a) s-i ;O O rs C 0 a) h 1 � 4; O O w 0 a) (3. o i b.0 '—' 11 ' G U J r i v 0 6' N .\ • ^ O . a i r Ti G r ? 0 aJ w Q II . ' 11 i-1 2 i -i G i 'J, U • •••, Cn O .� R b.0 I1 U O✓ U J ' � c- C v (LS a) O 2 "' _ U v G r C) t O .G t.. it O +' . .• (2 ,1-4 4_, 1 O O 0 C O • . h 1 c m o 0 O Fi, fs. 0 w 0) 0) 0 1- ' " °' � ¢ o ff o w . l . l � cn w: •. a s - L • 117 - o In 4 0 4 • • g ,—i N U 1-4 "1 1—a • N ri Et w ++ c • o N O � •+-' o U 0 0 w dJ 11 y *' y w +� 61) ti Itt • II r f0.0 1••4 >' O N 1 10 y rd 0 • r , �+ bA ✓� CZ J y 0J 1.• /� to 4) et bA rd �. ` D CI el 01 G �) V v Ofd v rd nt 0 0 o ■ C .+ w w y 0) 4 y 0 V • N E X w ° C W V _, a J w /r II H d CA U A W • bualsvuo o °' E o — 4-4 �� K" 5 v a C6 05 OS co 5 v w t •.. - .4 4 ■■,, O to cn .t3 CV 4 u co -0 aui : en d — o G U 4x eve u • • .• r v o 3 • Q '' 1, .v .� V) bA y , u ee l .4 v CI) CO a; a) Pt N o ca �+ I u in u N in O � w N ("•4 1-4 N , � r. eC O u ,—( .- a '� cn to o O a G c° ..5. ›' o ', O 1..4 r, u ed s-+ u '8 v e� a O �. ?A -(9 3 ca W O O '7 o 4, O u v 0 O O 4 p. p. cd O cti CO 0 o o Cg m ^d O p 0 u ^ C !,$)!: �+ v N O O ea 11, CZ ni VS fa) Ch 0 . 01) p / G ' 0 v T3 ti w N 0 O G 0 A c'7,1 • n .5 ` � d d N O • I. i, - V.' > eC w w 0 O r p d v v � m p V C Jy kJ d 0 1 ' u u ' › a-+ p y +. , u cr u W d y . bA rd (11? ►�+ U W g d; 0 .) O 0 - ri W m ea G e � � N Is O X 0 'd 0 O +� O 0 cn RS - d c RS g f J • v u e) u cat U) +, . 1-, ' � s �� Q) a) 14 , v O - or 'd 5 ca o) a+ 4.0 'd s. 'd id .5 '7') �—+ ' G 0 4 'd y O 0-,c1) - ..--1 O C b 0 G a) x 'd E Q+ 0 .5 bO aY O O v a ti v O ,� s� � bA ,4, v v: O b 1-, O w s, cd O 0, a) a) ci- 0', c) a) ,-. a 4, f s, el 4� 0 a) o v '� p O ct vi b0 O ' � .-- ca. up O U �, ��, z 'd sue- cd 5 , O~ • p r cd °) °) ~ a) 0 -r a v) bO R v " g d o v 4 b0 cd •—' ,�-, 0 - C . y E •0 w v 0 a) 'd cd c s•4 o) a m b0 C) O O H O �' w r C) v +" O b0 v., O a U O� • w as m :: O c , O a) s '0 a; C) 4 _, 0 O s, s-, v -0 aJ a) .0 bl 0 > 4 04-, -, X ° 5. - 0 b 0 Q , - ' �, a ) s ue ., 44 a c a a • • - (� cd s ' i Q O m ++ bb.0 r ..� 0 0 b0 DC �- � ; O O 'd cn • X O lib G M ij N ~ ai — 0 u O N 0 ' O - y ... ,-, cd a) s-, s.. ,- ) 0) v) <4 4 cd o cy G DC, �+ = a.) 0 � ) 4-) '+i 0 . 0 v � ., y O Q" O cd 4) C 4. 5 _ O 4, O a) �: RS 4, f-' p .'; ., Z > i ce , is) s g 4_ =, H H. O ff ~, O � cn i-1 H F, U E N RS c 4 O cd bO O CU E v bet 71:11 O 0 g o ci a) v en V . � a) d G 0 0 P,.0 Q. a .. i '� • s ue , a •, 0 ; • . ▪ V j el 'C '� . r. m s., ,_al . y Z s.. t RI rst .rs O s c 0) 0) 0 ›, s. 0) 0) ) 0) x " ' 0 'CS v) z co v� 0 a , i n a� to o +, , 0 E w a, V .CV to C ett et a, v " 1 V C..) W r-; O C ' 1 t`r) d I ui i i e 4 d d M C7 x ADualsisuo, dzrssaaauun s `a, -0 0 ^� v c , 0 a) b aJ Q. ci) 5 �, +, 0 t + ,_ 0 � �, w 15 CO w 1 O O O � O .. cC 2 cn O > cn 6.0 " " ¢ " r- a) O ,- 0 U O '`� U aJ F+ 0 • clz a, +, �. CD D = 2, , 0 s;-, 0 vi O � Q U u te a) O v N 0) C s '� • ,_,, a„ Q-, r v bA ciz: 41) E ,• S1. • O cli X +., p 4 - a 0 a c) vs Cd cn G b b>r w 3 + v) Q O �+ Q . 0 0 m 0 p r s, +� O O v o y o •. Q R. a) 4 O a) .) p O N Q r-+ p o O O p . O N (11-4 + o O a) 0 a 5 6 a v . `n rd O p cd O u m b.0 • E O v U . b 4 A O 7 • , -0 0 O - • 71 - c w J� .� • - p (71 O - 45) v En c v 4 4E1 a, j..4 o 3-4 b1 ' m CO ti � o u x 0_4 v °+�' oc v o bC ct U a p n u •71 O Cn H m O cpn m CC) H Z C'] , U . , O O •,.. 0 G 04 d bA >~ 11 g Ti„ b4 d " ' V ° ,3 V O p ..• bA ,7E,, - • r • � o O O *' • 01 ) 0 a) w . � al O eC C �. "� . > 4 C ° PQ , -i c N M 4 u•i 1 N a • , -- . ` 0 ^ • • 4 , • • � � • �" . � = • / � ~� � . • . : ° • • ' ` ` . • • m^ • • . ^ . ° ° ° ° . ^°. • . ° . • .. •• • • � • ^ / = ° ° 4 '•••• . ° . ° 1 .... ° • ■ . 1 . , " lb . ° = � � ^ .. � ^ � ° � ^ .` . • 0 ^ - .. .^ ° °~ ~ � . • = . • ° • ,` • • • .• . 4 • GP . � = ^ • . . =� . ° ` . . • � • . • • ° . ° . � .. .~ . . . °° /° . . � 6 • �° . � • � ^ . • . ^ � ; � ° 4, , • � • � • ° � ~ ° • ; • ° • 4 • ° . • • °� • ° ~ . • � °., " .� . • ° • . ° . ■ . ` 6 ° • � ° • • . 4 • • . ° 4 ^ ° • • ;.° ° . • � ° . � • = • . � • ^. ° ° • 6 ° • • • 4 ° ^ 4 , . �� • • ; / � • ," . . ^ • ^ � ^. ^ . �� ° 44 �^ • • = °/ °° °� . s: . = • • . ° ° • ° • • • 0 , , . 0 : �° • • . • = • � ° �. • . ^ ^ ^ . ,, ° • • . 4 • • ° = 44 � � ■ � . , =. ° • • � . ° •/ • ,^ ° . ° • � ." ° . • • . • , ° • , .. • . •• ~ . ^ • � ^ . ` • / � . • . • � �. • ° • ^ � • • . • ° , ° • � 0 • �° .^ • • ° ° • ° • .� • . , 4 40 ^ .° ^ 14 . . . • 4 • `� 4 � . . � . • . " ^ • ° ^ 4 • . ^ . ° • ° 4 • . . . ° �° • ° • • � ." 4 . • 14 ^ � ^ ° � . ^ , ^ ^' = • . • ` ° • � ° . . . . ~ � .• . • :^ 4 • • . . • 4 . ^ °° , . . � � • � ^ . ^ ° • • � • r • • • • ~ . . • . ^ 11 . .. �. . . . . . ,�� ,� . °°;°.= �~•° �..�^ . °°° / • / ^° °_. ^ , ° • . ° 0. ° ° � � ; ° � � 4 `� ^^ ° ° = ^ . • `^. °�^ • • 4 . ' .4 � � 6 1 . 4 ° . . ^- � . . . °.^ ° . 0 • • . ° . • ° . • ^ ." ° . . � • • ^= • • 0 • , • � ° ^ ^ • ° • • ° • ° ° • � . . . ^ ° . . � • . ; • . • • ~ ° °~ • ^ . • ° • ," � ° ° � • =. � 0 ; ~� • • .^.^ ^^ ^^° � ° , \ ', °� , ° ° ° . �... . � , • • ^. ~° • .. ^ ° ° • ° " • 4 " , � • � �^.° ^ ^^ 4. ^�� . � . °.° . = • . ° ` • � ° ° • ° . " ` . " ° • • • 1,1 .1 . , .= ° �= • • ° ■ • . • ° • ° ° • • ° • ^ . • • = • . • • ° � ° . ° °° • . °. °. . ^ ~ � � � ��= . .^ • ° ; .� ,, �°°° 4 ° ^;�~' • • : =; ' =� :° ' • • ^ °' ° �" 6 . • . . � . • . . . ^ . � . , ° ° •• � ° � • " " ^ . � � ° • . • ^ .� ' � � � � • �". • ^ . ..• . : • .� • � 4 . ^ • • 4 ° • • • ,. ^ ° . ~ � ^ m^ � � • ' / � • � • � ^ 4 • ' • ^ � ^ ^ � � ^=` • � ^ .° ° ," • • ° , ° • � � ° � • • `� • • • .� ° • • ^ ^ ^ � 6 4 ° ••• � • • � • .• • • ' . . . . ' °;• ° . '/ � ` ° ^ • • ^ ° • • ° ° • • • ." • ^ : • • � • . ^ . . . ^ . ^ • . ° . � . 0 . • • = ° ° . � • • , 0 • • ° � ° ° • ^ , ° ; • .. � . � � ° °° ^ � ° . . • • • ° , 4 ° • • • • � . , � �° lo .°° . . ^ • °° ° `. .. • . , .. � ^ 6 , , • , ." , , • ` " „, ' ° ° • • . • • • . . ° ° • • ° • ° • .. .: . � .�° °° .. • . • • °/ . • � • . � • . � � • ■ � • • • • ' � ^ • • mu , . , • ' ' 11 � • � ' � ' ' ' , ' � ' • ' � ^ ^ / . . � ' • ' i., ' ' • ' ° ^ ° • • ° " • . ^ 4 � • " • , • . , � • 15 ." . . • • . • . , ." • . . • 0 . • �° • ~ ^ 0 .. • • . • • • � ^ • • � • . • Ilk • � ^ � , • . . .• ~ • • 0 ; • • • °° .^ • . ^.°. . . • . . " ° . ° . . ° • = • . • � � ^ • • • •� . . • • . . • ' • , 0 ° • ° ° • • � ` ° ," � ° = . ° • . • ° ." • . . ' ^ • ^° " 44 4 mu ^ � � • • ` 44 ° ^ • • ^ • • ° • ' � • � � � � • � ° : ° ^ . ° • °. . . � • ' • . • : .� , " 4 • • . � � • , � ^ • • ^ • ` • . . ° � 4 •• . ° . � • . • . • ., . • . ° � . • • ° . • ..� ^ ` . • • ^ ~ � • `" • ° • . ° 0 • ^ 4 • � . ° • , • � ° . ,. . . 0 � • ." • • ° • � , ." . ° • � . • ° ° • 4 . ^ . ° � ^^ • • . ° � . . .° . �° • • ° • • • � • .~ 0 ° . , • ° • • • — . , `° • . . ° • . ° = . °. • ^° � ^ • � = . 14 �° • • . ." � • • • 0 . . ° . ° ° • . . ° r 1 ° ° 0 ^ • ^ . � 0 • ` � ' ^ mu • .' � • .' • 0 ° . . • • • 0 � . . • • , . � • ° . " ^ 4 ^ . • • ~ ° � • ° `�. ° � °° � • �. °^°° . ., ^ • • ' ° ° • • , ." • ° , ° • • • • ° ° : • • ° . ; .° � ./ 0 • • % . • ° . • • • ° ° • • • . • : • 7 , ° � ,� � = � � • � � • � . : • • ° � .^ • � ~ • 0 • . ° , • • • • " . • = .• ° ° . • , • •, � � ° � • . . •• ° . � ~ 4 • ° ° = ^ • • • • • ° 0 .. • . ID ^ • . ° . • • 0 • °• • • • ^ . 14 . 4» ° � ° • ~ � ° - . � ° • ° • • ° , • ^ � ° • • . • • � • • . ° : � . °. . . • ° � . ^ • �° • • � • ; • . • ^ � " ~ • . °. ^° . . ~ , ^ ^ � • , • ° • • . • • . 11 • • • • • • . ~ .� ° 40 ^ . • � • . . • • . .. : ° • °° • ` ° �= • �° • • ." � . • . • ° . . . . ° , • • • • • ° • • = • • . • �°."° . • ° 4) � . . • I, .. ". ° `. � . , . ° ° 4 • . 4 • • . • � � o � � ° • .� �� • � . • • � • � • • ° 4 � • . . � ° ° ^ .. • ^ . = • ° ° ° • �° ° • ^ � • ., • • = . ° • ^ • ° ° • ° • ` . • ° • • • . , • .° • • ° ° I • 0 • • ° � . • • ^ . ° ° . � • ' • ° • � • � • • = � — . 14 . , ° • • �. � ° , • • ° • • • . . • ° ° . . . , • ° .. °.,.°°° , . ° � " ° � . ' � • �` . .° • . � . � ." ," � . ..^ � • • • • "^ ^.^ ` , . ^ �.. — • '� • ° . 44 • • � . " • ° • • ° 0 .. . ° � 0 . ^ • •� • ° �." • • a ^ ° ° • • • • , • 0 . • lb • . • � ^ • ° ^° ^ , , • • . • • °� ^ • • ° . . ° �° • `~ � � • • � • ° � . ^ . " . . ^ . • • � 0 • � � . • ." • • . . ^ � . • ° . • ^ . = • ° �" • ^ • • • 0 .. � . , �° ° . ° • ° • ° ` • • ° • . � �° ° . • • � • • . � ° • � ; ° • . •• . = ° • • � ^ • • • � • � ° : •� ° . ° ° • 40 • . • ° ." ." ." • = = • • • • � . • ° • • • � • . � - • .".• ' • ° . 1. � ° • • ° • � • . ° ^ ' . • ; . ' • . " . . • .. : . • 0 • . • ° •� •� . . • ° • • . ; : . ' • �° .^ ° • • ^ • • • ' • ° : • . ^ • • ° ° • .� . � ° • • ` ° ° �, , • ." • � . ^ • • , � • ^ ` . • • ° ^ • • . °° • ° ^° • • . • " • . ,.. ° ,. . ° ■ • ° ° ° • . 4 ^ ^° • ` • ° • .^" • .^ • am 44 • � • . � • � • ° • � �, � � � ," ^ • � • ` • '"°`� • °°°' • • ' m • • � • °• • • • . ^� . , � , . • • • �` ° ° " . 0 � . • ° 0 ° `^ • • °• / •• , • . • ° ° . • . ° . • • ^ � • ° , • , " ^ : :- = � . . 0 , . • 6" • • , • • � .. • • mu ° ° • / . ° • � • ^ ." • , ^ ' � � ° • ^ • ° ° , • . .. 0 ° � • 4 . , ° . = ° ° � " ^ ^ . ° . " . ' . . . � • • • � � � ° • ° . � It • . • II a 5 0 • ... t • • . . -1 • I •4 • • • ' • ID • • • 1., • 4 1 • • 16 • 4 • • 114 ill . • • • 4 • • .. • • • 0 • 0 I) 11 • • • 0 • .. 14 1 • • 0 . • • • • . • I 0 • 6 . 4 11 0 • • . 8 • 11 o. 11 . .1 •• • 4 0 4) • • • . 0 : 5 • II • . 0 • • 0 4 4 • .• • • • • • ... • II • 5 • . . • oo • • • 0 • a • • 0 0 • 4 • IP • • - ID • • 11 • • • • 0 • • 4 0 11 0 • 4 • • 0 414 • . • • • • " • 0 • • • 6 • • 0 4 • 4 • • • 0 ID • . • 0 a 6 0 • ii 0 • . • • • • 0 • ' 1 I 0 • IP • • a • • • 0 • I .... 0 0 • • • 1 ..) • . 41 • • 0 • • • • • 5 • . -. . • • • • 8 0 ... • : • lb • . • • • I 4 •. "sr, ... 0 ..' • • 4 . 1 0 '1-• 4 • • - 0 --, • 0 • 7. IP • • 0 0 . • 4 • ... 0 • 0 • • • 7 O . • IP ' • .• 11 • 1 ID a • 0 • • ° ,—. 0 • • • 0 4 . • 0 ... • • 0 .4 4 • . 0 • • 0 . 1) 4 • • 0 • 1 . 0 • 7 . .*. 0 • • • • • J. • i ,, . • 0 0 • 0 • • • • • • • ID • • • . 0 0 • I • IP • • • . 0 • . • 4 • • . 11 • . • , 0 . II 0 • IP • 41 4 • ' : • • • . . .• t • 11 , 0 • . • III ..:..., 0 . .1. 0 4 •-' 1 • : . . . • • IP 41 - ill. . • I 4 . : 6 • b 4 0 • • • 0 • IP • .4 111' II . • • . 0 • • ...• • • • • 4 • - • 0 • • • 0 • AP C-) - . • •• 11 4) 0 • 0 • 1 0 MD > • • I. . 0 • 0 1 IP • • • C.., II • • • i ,. 0 • • 4 . • .5 I '7 • . .• • .. 0 11 1 • II • • 41 . , ■.. I, • 4 . . D • 4 • 1 • 8 • • • . • -• 0 • • 0 40 • • • 0 • ., • • ,-- 0 •-C 0 0 • • •.' '.• • • • • a . : . 0 • 1= 0 • • • 0 • 4 11 . • 0 • ,... • • 4 ,, • II • I • 4 4 0 • . 4 • • • 4 • • IP • II • 4 • •-- 1 • • • • 0 • : . • 4 • • C; II ,,, • • 0 0 : lb • 1 ... • 41 4 •P 0 ID 0 0 • • • : • '..1: 5 4 • • ,- . 1. e 1 • • • r- • . • ID : 4 46 • • I 16 • • ....• ..-. • .... • 0 4 • 111 • .1.-■ • 0 • • II • • sr • 0 0 • • IP ., 4 . • rr ' •• 0 • . • it I 0 law 1 4 • • •8 • •• • 7.• ID • • • • • 4 4 • 1 • 0 • II 0 : . 4 • ° • 11 • ... : • IP 0 . 40 •• • 0 0 • - a • • 0 4 , • s• .7 0 • OSP , • • 0 • • • : • • • 0 • • • • • . 0 • 0 r - — e.) . r • • 0 0 • 0 4 0 IP .. .... 0 • 8 • • • • • • • •• IP • • • P • . 0 • C. 0 I 0 1 • • • • 0 • ° . ' II • • II • . 1 . . 1 . l 0 • 41 . : • .. . 0 , I . C.) • 11 0 • • l • • IP ' . • • . • •• " 0 IP • • 4 ,- • . lb IP • • • .-- • • • II • • J. lb • • 111 • e • • • • • 5 • • a. .. • • ° ' • I 410 • : 4, • ... • . . • • II • • 0 • 4 ,. • * • 11 • • 4 1 . . • .... •1•■, • • 110 .- . 11 • 1 44 " • • • • : 0 41 C • IP • 11 • lb • . . I • • • • • • . 04 • 544 • • • . • II • • • . • • ' • 4 • • • 11 • II • 11 . • • • 0 . • , ' 11 • . . 0 • 1 0 ' • . . • 4 • • g., • 0 a : •: 4: .: • •• • • • • • • • 6 ' • • , •• II . • = • 4 0 • C., 4 • 4 • II 0 i 0 r ID • . • 4 0 • ID - • : . . a • III 0 • 0 ... lb ■ 0 O 0 I/ . • • , • • • • 6 , • • 11 ... •••• : 0 IP • CA • . • . 4 • • • • I • II • • •1 •• I al• a • 0 ' • al . • • 6 ga • r-, 0 • • • • . 0 • . e ID • • • I • 4 • OD • C.) ' • • • IP • • • • • • D • 0 ,--• 4 • • MI • • 0 • f . . • . 0 . • lb ., , ,..-. . . . 111 , .,., c.n . • • - • ID . ■ II • • lb • . • E-- • 10 4 • • • ,... 0 4 • 1 0 °: o en ° u CU a. 0 e • N 0 v O co '- "O to a) aS . v a. a, -,... LA' m `� c r0 'd •a › Cu '—' O ---.. o , u • u O v O o 0_, co a 0 0 "t: r m 0 0. a Cu CU a. a. Q. X o O 0 O v 0 iu .4-.0..) -; 'tY u u u u v ° 0.) 01) va 0 �� co �aa r °a .' 4 3 . = uu •+. 4; °-, 4 a ' a. e� o c c) m c N° O C.) • ° ° 0' 0 0 tn Cfp "� D te a, E s-i • r, ., m i' Si O 0 p O (n s o , .O '5 4 O C. O O w a1 - . 'C3 O O. O r -0 b Cu 0, a Ou �; ` � O ,0 a. ,.4 co O a. co v u ea m v O 0 O .3 2.2 w •0 • u 1 + O •p n to o < , ° 0 V° a v o r, ¢ � ° a �, ice: eC v , °: w ,.D Q" v � a 3 ct e etS aJ �i ' n ,-: • w mm C w 0 3 a m ' . Q ° ,n 0 0 0 w 0 ° 0 0. tea, 1 n E 0 e -i y O .. p * � + w u O p E � M 'G 1 v L V O 'y a ^ ect i 0 w X ti on bA as O i � ` .li as v et a. a te . O as fl b4 y a. O O O a 1 . y y 4: bt a _ O v a. ,•• +' b4 es v 0 w w . � y .� U p *' p i G 4J y, VS O .- w v w '� O Z rd ( .� a. v E E 0�1 O+ � , y e • •O v Oi E E O O a. O O 'c$ . >0 >.. a; C 0-, p w tSY ea a. rd 0 w .,.. • ++ cu d as74U A w ££ualsisuoD Al iQrpPall - 'b p + O � bA • ., U U • bC 0 EO m cd - m aJ _ cn �; 3 bA c a) u CU V1 U ' � ~ cn -4-a vi = p 4 + 9 .., a) 46 m O O ff ± v y ++ • Y •� O s-1 RI �" • C J MI ca ct CLl CJ c0 C) � 4 i-, aJ O m m ' U p p r1 •'" �... et7 -- 3 U a) as U cc; ccs y C bA U cd r1 • o a . 5 O U p a) m v m O E .,� w p u s 0 4 M " 3 \ p o v as o U ,s� • v 4 bA O "" v, cC + • c O U U O� G ° 5 O C w O CZ -1 O Vil f _ 7 c� s, s w C s c U .4•-• -I-, + -I + +++ M C, F i ' O +� 4_,c0 O O "CS w U O U O a) cn r; U CO «Y cn cn U . ° C e, O w N a1 4) O p 5 Z 0 r~ i 41 , '—+ �" 4) `+" (1) J a) Q O 4" cq N-i r-+ N H H �+• co r - i U N .', L. Cf H m cY m 1-7 H cd N et OQ ,-- • -- ,, e4 w C, O 4 1 = v' . 5 ,4 cn C C O b Cli ,.., v 0 4 OA O - 4 — al 74 tIc -• ra O '- O . u ft �y � y � W d Z .a 0 - c: a co 0 b b A b v O :. g ° u c si w o C r z • ed �a�a as V r-+ CA G7y L. r-1 N M 4 e-i PO 61.; L 0—; • ' 1mgi prai pui uoneDiJia1iD 0 �, x V) S0. a) O '� A. En • z O g O p IA bp +' ++ 4 - ) '-. bA w O G 6.0 y w 0 C 0 O - g �� p � to .�+ O O • o O O ,_, V ++ Q + cC v O �' is; ct^, bA U N v r it 61 O V r v O vi O O _ J O 'd 0 x ° bA " O CU Ch Q O z O O x .-1 -o .-�, rn v v v O � r O bA _ ¢ a1 p i. d' ' 0 N Q u ets r J ct • 492. ate+ r 4 J X J y •.r y J J X b o ••+-i i1. , yam., q 1 V GC fl d E y g r Z ∎. Q-1 , 'fi r O al • • di - O � O O cu i-'i 5 V T,, T X +� b.0 � . , > C) F Gi^ -ai O CV ft :+ O by , r- v O LS O "" - U O v G G • e3 H O 0 t Q. j ..� E ' v) v En = ~ ma c. :.., l i }) ,0 • /-1 . r. •) X b61:) O G ^ v , _, C Li u, C 1-r; cr, cd (�•� ti r-1 .. cd V ,.o ct • w (/) .w v O et p • - 1, C% i. y bA L e i O. 1� C! bA O MS v .w C C O G d 4 1 to 0 . -. "� 6 x 1 2 ' 2 01 'G y O O c4 Gy ;r, c) •• — J. a) d +. ' " .� eC a., b e _ v 0 'C X v x v b4 O u 1-0 O n v O v•O O 7.: P 0 g 7 0 a "CY a E E en 0 " ,2 O 0 � I =I y W c n G L cV cr.; 4 '� 9 > w r1 .O • • 5 E. Q. O~ UOi }L')iJU 1J o O 4 O p 3 r O 20 u ■ Cu u vi p cn U cn �, �, . w �, v En r- 0 0 "C3 4 0 J.) -0 u .O O •" c� a:: i-, Eli cC Q . 1 , u O ,� T _ ' a) . b0 4 Q a) _ '" ° 3 cc ca., . m a) -0 X cn o ,a w 5 O N a) c, v �' ,- N -1 N Q o + � p aJ 0) +, ,-, >, O b0 cn N O cd �O a) 4., O b.0 (Ts cd co 0 u ;c1 b0 a . ° ° — a) O Z cis , • r a • p O U ' � s ct - d Q . O 4, � , ' u aJ m S1 u + � 0 r. ,... 4:' b0 b0 Ou u co o m _,-5, y ° - v u 0 v) w > co co u a) co Q 2 V. " v z 62, Z > O CL) cn o c � v 'd u u co 60 O A, c7 N al w cC '� 6 N .a -0 1 -1; 'G ai p o • r-1 (1) tri o i1, r : u RI a) c p Z 0 u • co � 5 T g H z 4- p, r- n U •- ai w , � O cn ;•-, a N � v v . „ O v v b0 O~ el z� o x� �uc) crS cn cn O ^d ,. > b +, )-. b a, u ra S:1. cn 0 •.. s° ' d �0.. O z cu 5 b c 4 u u `� 'C3 • bA cn u o u ¢" E, m m 4 ;= r p :=4 c u a) +rte cn E V bc- 4, ra 78 4-, ¢ ° '" a , . � Vi i, '. Q ., w bA t. +, O U C) t CO 4 m - ir bA cn u "O r5 •^. O O v �, ° °Qy .g a, m v a, p a, + .+ 4 ° ` 4 't e. <° v ��. rd t ' 0 O H O Q r ' aJ N 0•.1 u a; G c zi a Q, c ra H H' m• 8 P-, 4 �..,... — s�.o 79, 3 a -( •U ea . + y Cl, aJ p Q u •� 1/40 S u u bA al .� g i-] ' H g .. fl cn t — O 0 0 a 0 a. rts ea 4 3 ' Z a, V., a o ar N t, co Le ea n a, Q) 0 f i c a ; * co w v ti o 4 u r. 0 "`.4 fa. m 6.0 60 t' ca Q y v Z a v bA O O 'C O z a, z v v e cn O O O t v �+ `� O O O et ar + , T1 v ea �. + C W G. O � ea K" Oi n '5, bA O y '-" a.,, v G U W Q w D W O i (n"0 a) ra 04 qp 'f 14 N e'n do t.c) O G W m 4.; e O A. C7 -0 fa : 7st Z � 2 N y O v r 4 •4-•, +' O w gy `� I. > ° '0 ct O i-{ O m Ti w ° CZ - 0 0 d a) v -0 w 4 O a) 0 0 X ) O o•� � - cn • o C +' cn U i o 0 v . bA� 0 0 p -0 u � 0 5 a , . � . 5 b � �d rcl ° a " 0 O s ue . tea) • C �. m O 'r .�. i1. N (' bb • > > 0 5 _ 0 x tc u -0 �" O p p O ° c 0 3 S. + c � p `1 -x a c ' m c cn . ccn 72, E-. .5 °. '� cn ps ea -+ w N O c+7 5 r i w 3 N 3 cn CU cl) ca 'd y, 0 a) c) 0 -� 4 E y, o 4. aJ r - O O r. ' cn bA O b0 • O �, �5 g c ° Q. CZ 4 En e) G '0 m • ^" Z ° -0 n v r� ■ ccn a) 1 1 > .0 cn ° +�+ ea 0 •ea o , 5 ', y v,' - 1 w Y, a Q. i O Q) 0 2 x v y cn o v cn 0) o E u• • ° 0 x a cn o b ~ - Cr Q cn � 1 '0 g 0 Q cn ` ' fi n O CO 0 O 0 0, a) X CV b by a o r H • ed O' .� O a) by TS ed O c O, . .., m x. �' .a, v . a' O O + + cd o ris .'..1 G 0 0 U 0 v v 4 . d .O W 4 • r .7 2 • m Z 3 by w 0 4 A Dua1sisuoD IP 3 • O V) a) O • .. ,. • •r • O CO 0 0 • V :• O 0 .► • 0 U 0 0 o • U w DD " • 0 • • e_ o y Q) 1-4 , ' 0 • ' ' O O '� - . ° ° •• 0 • • y, U 0 0 0 ', • o ti 0 • •r .. • • • •r CZ Cli , • • •• o 5 ,• 0 0 tii to •r 4 0) ' -0 a) u .5 o -° . • ; • 1-+ U t� • ......... ---�� c ,-0 . • •► • • 0 .• • 0 "CS 0 + cn C/ › U U . •r •. : . •„ . • 0 • a-. -I.+ U i , O O T., U � + ° Q" n '• 0 • O 0 0 O 11 . ., ° • 0 0 O.) O • • vS 0 "0 • � 0 • IP 1111 II O 0 tS tf v- - •--• co • 0 0 0 O 0 4 U 1-4 U • . •. •• ,. r1 - 0 +, f1, 0 . • O w • .4 a) 0 0 • " . . . ' . ' •, '. • • U � U U O °' , : 0 0 • 11 • a > bA M o o , • o • 0 CZ —' U � ° U 00 'CZ 0 cn U • . • , • • 0 rd o 0 ,� + + ' • o • • 0 U S O -- r U U U O U o • u • o • • • • • al 11 0 • • O °' 2 H 4.;t4 ? ,C) O U 0 • ' 0 •r : • • • .. • U m Pi 0 V • ' . . 0 �• 114 41, 1 • M m .--, • 16 0 11 •r • a) v - r . E V -0 +' 0) 4 u • .n cn b.0 N 0 9 rl .. • o o V � Q" V V O o vi • .► U' bp a) 0 + cn u • : .a., ,.0 to a) • z ,, ,s_-', - o •� V �r 4 V up • 0 p r 5 [-+ t + n Q w • • • ' , • • �1 ( te n V) 5 •~ V u u Z V V a) v) y 73 CZ 0-1 • '• 0 N O - -0 Cli 0 , a - � V O Li) co 3 +, 1 • ,► , • • . o ,_, t 04) ' (~n U 5 U cis v) p bC p m 9 a) a) 0 � . ' ' t, 6 Q) 0 , 0 • ¢, b!D • .4 •--i v 6 4-' *-° • •• RI a) u '4 � cC O O �' 41' p . 0 ^ v • o . " • • j P. Q. fr"y'� O V a� �•� b p � 0) . . u mo w.. • •r a •• . a' ' C 5 rt+ - • • �► •• V • ,- • • ^•' p -� •-" x - -, . , • _ c.) O a, 3 a • •• 0 • 0 cis w o U + c� ■i • •. • (C V 0 Q. • -. ,- -. ' p • .r 4 , x 0 ;-+ o o a, • o • •, 0 0 � p 0 0) 0 rcs o o • • .r x V 6 ;- 6V-i aJ + E , � u) cd 0 •. '• • • •• r °J o o 0 0) 6 co 2 ' ' G, N di V rn m N � -p ca., y� V co • • •r �• • 6 ,• O 0 • -. cn . • • r n V O (is O u) E a) w , 71 S� 0) ,r CL) a) ,-, H U) Z H a) H X .- a) < m • • u • • i • br • • • • • r • • • ' • I • •, r_ . V IP el I. ^ •,-" i • V 60 a i . ■ 1 • / • U • .�• O co • � el +r 14 C4 E Cf3 . ADUalsisuo ' • ci, • • • �. ti �, 0 v w ca . • ° .5_ 0.) m '' 0 0 p •. - d .:4 r P -+ c .. • 0 0 0 V � , .. • O ' 55 ,+-. • • • CS. V U u o • '� s' '� O U U U bp „ 0 u CO ^O C^ 0 f � rr ' 4 • .r o Q) {-.4 Q) Ct ,- ¢ S " • o • • 0 '� ° a • . • •� v, ' � ° �U 0, o CO O • 0 s.+ • 0 o ° ; , • o ' vi o u ' , ' • ti U) j 0 ��, V� o ' • • • ' , u o • bJ�� II } �.{ fn V V 0) 'V •r .r • .r • I t 4 IP cd • • 0 U .- cn U by tS,I +T. U .• o N c Q 0 '� ' . • • ° ;► • • 4-4 0 r m .-4 V• Z, 0 �( o .. • • , d `C . ' � (d - • V 0 �' � (d • 'r • F .4-• 4. O ja c�d w 0 O O U .' ' „ ' • ■ u ��oa O • u.., U cd b.0 � U O ,r CO cd 160 ... ' ' • ` • .r • CO C t V p U . � i '� If l+ • o • • • ai +' m cd +U v ' • 6. • L'' U 1-, by • .. . • sD 1:4' 0 tf)A � i V V + cd G • • • •r ° ' • o • • [�—+ 3 'sue-, Fes' C Q o , • • O H Q"� o N U O x N • . IP Il te tt PA CO ei • 5 as CrN r u els MI I-. : r i s � w 0 O " ' ' - w a y w •i 0 . .r ' [n 'b ^ a) x V O bA 0 a) $.., •I•. ._, cn U "" 4 �. S-1 . • s bn td ciS +' tC U :.) V • Q) " '" V a) cn • x U > U .p O U • - ++ • c 0 U 0) 0 c0 V Q "' 0 e-- 0) ,— a) cu cn 71 • w w , . i CO ' l� VS' o U v Z cn a.. i U • 11 a, › m c) v a fa . - bA '- a) 4 +, - ; bC t y� • • w y O CZ .'" 4- w U 0 92 O m , , O 0 ›, by cd - -0 +. �, u . G ' C3 ~ w o dJ U U V O O • 8r, CS' +. .. v ;-+ CJ • .r « - U a O ' 0 O . . ,.0 _ ' '-' X m b 0 p c'5 o E CI) cC O �' a) .. 0 3 ° O a o o 5 o +.. 0-1 O V O ›, . fi r . c › O I U ca U �. ✓ p o bA + 4 , J v w a) V a. 0 b U v w v cb 6 X • .a- c� cn , CU ' cz V .. • Z r< O 0 0 w • a) v x. aJ v cn O ' � U w O ' d .5 a) V CO . o h 0 0 .. 9 U • cn 0 E • � O U O 0 cb w " O 0 • F >. O H '>-<' H H OH [- Z p • " U y O m R-' Li U ' d N co as .0 m �' o ' E aJ cn eZ 0 4 , ^ u ed y r-4 ' S� g N r O b4 3 a) !"., ... —. '� 7.. , a . cC aJ ... eC 40 U 7 VI • .• f W cs 4,0 t) •. - . 0 w g .p '+. Fr P. r i i a ... v •• c6 O 5 O a) a) a) 01.( p , . c� 'd cn O y.• v ,..,CL) o co • a) Q v ar O t , � u 3 '• .r . a + p ed y O d 1.4 O .� W Z �' . 0 SI, Ch Q • p • O H d Pai U N A 0. 4- O 0 E • • .. • •••+ 0 II 1r I. • ~ 0 .� • •. „ • • • U •I $.1 ^ 0 .• .. • • 1 ••” :' O 0 0 .. 0 • 0 4 • 0 GC v . II • / ° . • Q) , 4.,.., S1, 0 • • ' 1 0 • O O 0 0 • Ir • 0 •; O �, V 0 0 0 1► 0 0 CXD N O WJ • 0 ' ; CD ID • O� '� • o •► o ° • • r-1 N • 0 r • • 0 • 0 . 0 • 1 . ' • • 1 0 , • 0 0 • CZ 0 0 •gy I. , .r+ • • . • II , II • •• ✓ ... U .� II 1 9 0 ✓ .r V .-" • . 1r •• •r 1. • U") 0 • • 0 • 0 0 C.) •,ti p U 0 •r 0 • , u • • • 0 cb • 0 • ct5 0 c u v 1. CU I► a II • � • :, 9 .- , 'p p „ .r .1 • 0 u ° • 0 o 0 • O. , • • • 0 1 • , 11 • • • , • Cr 0 ~ 0 0 • CU u) T1 „ , GJ 0 • • • a-+ • O ,. • ` ' ID • . 0 • • • • • • 0 • ; , •• .. Ir •+.-, '+. o • , • lb 4J • c - 1 .-" 0 0 • u ' • ✓ ..Q 1 ~•1 I.-4 • • , • • • • • • • 0 • • L , 0 0 0 0 • • • • 0 •; • , lb 9 • I1 43 v 0 ' , ' ' u u 0 0 . . 0 • . IL • N " ° • , lb 0 0 •r ' • '• • I • • • e 1 ." 0 1 • • . 0 • 0 0 ` • • O • y '- t) ,� „ 0 0 0 • 0 I► 0 • 1, , o • V RS 0 rte/ 3-r CO . bA • u • o E to O .1••• it .—• ' .. V v V 0 • , • �. . • 1 . 0 ' • .. • • ' • 'r • by Cn bp C! S1" ¢, G F.. ++ • • V .1-• .. • • • • III 1I 0 ;-0 p p 4.�' ft • • • • • 0 •I• , • O r y O O o • . V) a) J e "' • a..' `-O F..., _ , ■ 'gal Dd cii , ..4-, 4 p bA Q . $-, • O ::.1 "- p cri • • Q Z) 7 - 0 O~ a) • II a •+ O .+ +� O o U 0 N O • ›•-• 40 w CZ i � " vi O O CU U " • ' U n 'G_ '0 bD CZ O t� O • ,. .r O U + 0 ■ y +• a; • . • 'G c b r O bA U p ± (71 IP . ► , • 1 CI. cn CU al U • a) J U b.0 � . .. i CU • • . • CI: c L� y , r Q ' + � ' b ' ,� al • • • U r — O -•• O '/ cn +� cn 7 I O �/ c a) cc) :7U • • ' y � � + C • J U I .a. , -' a a CZ p. cn • • .. /1 r 3 . O .5 r s .� CU O • • +' t Ei a) n -. • 1. • • • 0-4 0+ � f � •� ' - �' o "" 0 CZ c� ++ a U • 11 • • ,r • . • •1• 7 y O • � � , i. U O • fn Q . ,.�.� O • 0 a /1 0 i tt ‘-1-+ ..� ,•-•-I r G U Q -+ V O n•I V f G y 4 Ct o c U i U U S 3 cn a U C O U 0 • u • Fr O o o 0 � �` � // 0 O ` 'i ` _ y U • "' • ' O t•+ 0 c••i s k i CO • 11 • ' • ' • u �+ O :-+ v O ▪ C) c .) I CO ,, a) v a) -0 • '• T , 0 0 H �� _ c _ c 13 H H i H H ii, , r O N . J <- r r H r- c0 ci 0 -0 0 U Ti • • J •• • . • • C) • ID 11 • 11 •r • u • • • • • • r DI+ • • o i+ a) • • • ■ • ft 0 C ■• L.1 • • • •1 J 04 LI) '' 11 •,.i • si u •. Wit",• bA O u a) : r • v CA iJ ,N r■ • u 11 •. H' f y • L • • • kN /1 . • i •1 • Q CO U A 'D a at Dd z 0 ^• o a) ° • .. 0.4 EJ CU En rl o 0 , v Q. v .. �� • 0 0 O ' .- Q) ° ',j_, " 411 �� • • Ti • . . • .► al 11 v .r ' 4 ° o . � ' o e o o • ° • •► co v v • • ;r •r O • fib 0 Q. �" }' Q. v rd a) Z r , r • Z m iz u o.) 0.) a.) 0 s-I 0 ,. I) or ' U 1-1 O ct 0 U T3 a ,r •-1 a) o o o •r 0 ° v•. Q O • U O . � '. v U 4.+ • ° ' 0 • �, . E " ...0 . • CU Z CZ$ OIL CU ea En 0 '•••-• E 5 0 :O O , (1) ..., s v, . 4 • v U x U as a) _o J u v Jr �, •r v o U '" 5� ,-g •) ^� m . o /�, 3 ct 0 .► 1Fy 0 ' • . '.. Lr) rct .. • •-• • O O • N 5+' lo • • . rtg it .� ' „ •, ' al 1 • U 0 4.'5, Q (.1:$ • II o •. • U rd Lo Lo O r. , .., o H H ' ' • • , • 0 co 0 CU CD NV Q o Cr) c o •. .• Z O, W W C j 1,-, U - i •. •r • . .Dal Da .� • � ., .... . . = . . • �° � • ^ °° ° � °� • • ° • .. ~ • .` 4 . .. • , • � • • • • 4., . ° • 4 = .° ° � ° ° 0 • • . .. 0 `. ° , �° • 0 • • 0 • ° , . • •~ • • .^ ° � ° �." ° 1 ^ • • , ~ .. ° • ID 3. ° • • � 0 • � '^ ° • • • ° " . . • • ° . 4 � • " . ^ ° • � • `� . . .. • . , ° ; ••• � GP �� • . ^�: = .3 ° , • ^... .3 . .` . ^ .. . • ° .� . . • 0 • - . 4 1 • • . 11 ° • , .° ^ • • • � • ., ^ , ` • • � • • • .° • • • ° ° ° ,. ° • . • °. ^ . � � • ^, .° ° • .. ~ . • ° ° • • = ` , . . • °"° ° . ^. ° ~° � • • • . • � ,.. ° .° • • .^ • ° • • • ^" • . 0 � • ° . 0 • ° • � 0 • mu � �� ° 0 .. � `� • ° • • • ° • • ^ . . • � ° • ° . ° . • • '' • ° ." ° . ° � �° . . ` • • . ^. • ` 11 . • ° = ... .;, ° . ; . � .. . ° � • .. , • . • .° .^ ° • ; � � ° ° � .. , II � � 4D ° •° •" • ` • • .^ • ." ° 0 ° . � �. ° • • . • • • ° • • ° • . ° • • . ." ° ° ." 1. � • ^ ° � • . . ^ � • ° ° • .` • • 0 ^ • ' • ° � • 0 • � D. • .� . ^°. ° • • • . • ° ° • � mu .44 ` 0 • � ° lb " • ° ° ° • • • • � • • ^ • ^ ^ • • 0°. . °° . ° ^. .� . � . • • ,` ' • . �" . . • . �" • . . ° . . • � • • � • I °° . 0 ° . , • °. . • • �^ ° ., ° � • • � � ° . . ^ . ` ' , ^ � • • ° .^ • ` 3 ° 21 ° • ° . ,^ � . • ° • ^ ^ • � ° • . .' • • • • • • . • lb ° . • . .' . • 1 ., . 0 0 , ° 0 ^ '� ` � ^ 0 ° � ° • • • • • ^ • mu . • °. • 11 .^ � , ••• � , • � . — ° • • • • ° ^ ° ~ ^ , ... • ." • ` � . , 0 4 � • • • , , ° °. . ` , . � • .;°. = ° • � • • � ■ . �� ° • . ° ° • • • • • ^ . . • .. . 3 • 3 ' • ` ° ` ° • . • • ° , � ; • ° °�° • • , °�:. . ` � � .' = • ^ ° • ° . ^ • � • , � ^ ^ . ° ` mu • • ` . ° , ° ^" ° , ^ • 4,3 . . �. • . .° . "^.. • .� . ■ . .°.�° S. ° , • . • ^° ° • � ° • • � ^ ° . • °° • • . ° . ,` 44 ° • " . ° °. . � � 0 ... . �` � � , ^ � ° • ° ,' ^ ° • ° �o � • � • ° • ° � • ` : • � ^ • =" �.� • • • .° • . • • 114 � • ° 3 • 0 . • . • ° ." .3 � ° ° ^ • �� . 4 °. • ^ . ,. • � • � ° � ^ • : • ^ ^ ^ ° mu • � • • \ �° • � . r • .� . �� , � , • .° ./ • • , • ° � ° ° ° . ° • � • • • ° • � • , ` ° . • • ° � °~ . . ~ ° ° ` ' � ' � • � � • • " . � � • � ' ^ ° • � . °~ — ° • � • • • ° • ` 0 ° . ^ • , • � � . ^ ° • . ° • . . 0 • • ,^ ° ° � r • • ° , , ^ • ° • • • ^ . ; • • � � ° � ° � � . ° • • � � , . ° � . • ° ° ," • ° ° •' • • • � °°°°". ` • • `^ � .. �, • ' ° • = ,. . � .° 41. ° ° = ^ ' ° � ^ � • • • '{ ' ` ^ � ' . • .3 . . °� ° • ° • . . . 1 ^ • • ^ ` " � • 3 '^ ` ° � ° | ^ ° � ° 3 ° ° • • • 11e ° ^ . °^ • , � � ° . . 3 : .. ° 1 • . 0 • • • • • • • 11 ° 0 ° . • • , ` ° : . ^ ." ^ • . 0 . . . ° • • 0 • 0 • � ° ` : . ' ° • 3 � ` ^ ` = � 3 • 3 • ° • . ^ , ° . . � ° � � ^ al � � � � . ° • 0 ° ° • � ° • . ° � � . . • . .� ° ° • • . • " ° ° • . . •• � � � ` ° ° • . , ' .� .". ~ . „ o ^ . . ° = ° °° � � . ^ • ^^ � • • ^ • •• .� . � -. . .. ° . • • • � • . = ° , • � 3 • ° • . ° . • �. ^ • " • . . ° � . . � ° ° � • • • .. ^^ ^ ° • • • ° ° ' 11 • • °� . • • • 0 • • • • �. ^ ^ ° • . � �^ ° • " .4.' . . .� • ` ` • . • • � • • ,| ~ ° • • • ^ . • ` ° • 4 • . . � � � � .• ., ° 11 ° • ° ° • � ° ° 11 ^ ^ , . • • .4 . � . , ■ '° ' • • .3 ^' '^ ` • • • • �� . � • • • 1 ' 1 ' ' ` ° � ° • � ' � ID ` �� • � ' � � "..1 .- • ' ° c..) mu / �� . • 'Da.' Dd •Da/ Dd w U U a) a) 'G a) 'O • .' _C p U Si C v O O + rz O V (C •- 4 r G O - , a 'O� '� C� U c ,-,-, 0 w aJ cg fa., . s r ' L3 'ai J >' ' Si u U ° ¢ y u p U 0 U a) t c ) z•. C (ts s � i w c le, O (t LS — ti p z. .-r a) J. ' y •• a _, +- 7/ , — H p (7/ r U v p a ) O aJ r N 2 n C .-,, "" U 2 U G J. y — ( '� U 4 .5 U • '-x • o a-+ a) cd c: u c a; ; 1,-: n u ^1 c n T- J u p + .p C 'd a✓ • 'C3 J +� CL, u) a) r a " '' a) a) Cr 7-. a . t a G " p .•1 r • a.. U r a- ++ O s w`4• ra 0. m r r J � . t - T O N O w - ;J 4 U ' n r >. �, O 4-. O O V 3 C g 4' r' — r O U w V ++ : a) O a .� . `_ C — w -• O U N • r t O O m ›, , - I C j •- b 0 r 0 4) u u r o 0) a p 2 a✓ h w w Q �+ U 2 u O x 0) v r� - J o o v ,.. U u 0 ,r c • � . f1. r C i 0 .:_-7, 2I� 3 0H a) o 111 0 o r r-+ E v 0. c r r 2 , 4) cu " '" 0 c u 7 N „ ~'� O � r G u r te , CO ct r E _ ji c: .- U O (' a r ) U cct �; ct cn O r C 0. r E _ O m ca O --e r _ V 4 V R. cS3 - _• i y :J aJ u '� V ' u _ C C U U _ d G CJ �, r .. _ V cd u) r r _ _O U - i O a ) i L U . a) i (C . �]. .. ti o C r a) c\i u <C.. 1 m w rd c , f v 'C1 u O N :! cis G .7" 1 u 0 a) • u CO els 45 O aa)j Fa N m bA 'ti c.) _ a) 0 r ;' f-4 ed cn 71 a p • ro as CU O — 0) 0 tt 4 _u 0 cu a) E o v U a ° co a, a 2 a) ° g v G v v Q , U H • '' b D 0 • CI) • ~ 0. ^ 0 v v Q, P. C c n o 4 4 0 4 i. 3.4 x CU 4 0 m 0 - O G H E ° ° H -4-. ca H 5. O i1. +, 4 Hu 4 H u E• N o U ' 4 .0 8 u -d O o t).0 o Q . o °' cu 4. . ca w 1:5 O ¢. � 0 bA ra S O ° w O • y u ��. O ca 6 t •.. • -' � �. b.° v ¢ • O Q, a) a) u• sO.., m 0 o � m o y o Q." ca p N '" - � 3 o o� � 6 a� �.= o . a a, o cn bo Lri - 0 v • ca tz-, v n o 0 v: ;..1 O r-, ca v y 'Z7 E ea 7 5, U L a, � � 3 Q" a v a °� o E as a)> u 0 O a) E - rn v4 bn P; cES v �' P" ° o -,-0 ' y o -' v +' g iri Q " bA a o O v 6.0 cn H 3 i i H H v H ou E4 - H e l U (Z 4 rs co .. 0 . - cs u G -ci m o - E 'i3 E w o u o 0 c v �1ww 0 s-, ea as o .-, 5 cd • O O tL G R ' V v 4 > b �� ' X o > al r 4, a) ct-0 0 �, O 0 cd ¢• -O w „.. y am ., . cn '� .- ' '-+ +, 0 CL, • 5 Z o v o v E• to ; O v 4; �' 0 + a) _o v G n O V) cn v v cn P, ° 0 to 2 p a) c n '0 by as . 0 .., •� .0 +, V V ~O +� cu Cj O ° G cC m a y rn O . o 7. a H X - m 0 4.., H _� as °; as v = as cu ,. o o 0 0W , o U ri ° ua ° a) Q , g as co 0 z+ `~ CZ ° ¢ ' � O '- bD ' Q N S], , 0 Q . w O c n u v P, O Q' , 0 Li) V o , -' al t CI) "CS .0 Z +, O cx O O q/ O . w O � bc v tv ;-4 v Z U a° E z o� v 1 0 .., cC • br) .fl V o w, o O u CU R cn w U Q z a to P. t' U° v +) U as O �p O o U 'd v O O ° H CO (CI H- 4- 0 T1 0 . 0 -g w L-, y O �+ 0 u d v ea v ra ., a. a, .� z W W U W L x .4 i-, rYc * Dal Dd •r • • • ,... 0 .. • • o 4 .r • , • . • , • 1 - • : • " • • 1 CO . •r • • • 111 ID • • O o u ' •r • u • fn . ' . • • . • • . • • • . u u o •+. • u J • • 4 • 0 o n o u „ .. 0 •r • • • '. , • , • •' o • .. .. u + ' 4 1111 ,r 4P • • . •1 „ .r „ • 0 • u • u u o • • .. • : 4 u 4 o , - . ;, . • • • .' , O • U • : •• O •• 0 •• •• • • , . . .. CZ . () •• • • +• U •r • o •' ID • o o • Er) cn • , • p • U '. • • • • • o • .r • „ . . • , •••, a1 , . 4 „ • •• . r • • .► • • •• ,► , O ,_,..• � ,_,..• . o ' o •• . • O u ID • .r '� a •' • • Cr) • s, •. • , ; 0.1 i1, 14 • o • „ • • " •► CJ • ' . ° • I •• • • • n +, 7:i • , . • , „ • u C 0) a •r : • •r '• • • ., n ' o • • •. „ • • ', ° u " . 4 • _a. • ' • .: •. • • .. .• o 0 • • 11 • w ': •. • • • • ' - : • • - .r • O >, . • . • .. a, • • ,1 • • .. •► . G • •. 0 • .r 0 O r- • ' • •• • 1 11 • • • •. ,' : • n • ' L,.• 0 •• • . •r • .r • •4 • C ' ..11 a • • .. • ■ C ,• u 0 '' a •► - I 1 •• .. •' Y r • .\ •r O N • .. • • • , •• • •. • • .r • lb g ( ma y ' , _ • .. • •, • ° 11 : • • • • , •r II1 •► u •• .� •• •• r 0 o u • u 11 U Cr) O .. 1 .. • u • u • o X U ++ u • •• • „ • • „ •• • 0 ID 1 • • 0 „a • • o ° •, 0 v CO O J p •O 0 d O C J r 1 X e, U 3 0 �+ " C$ N. r - W O w U G r te ' u m • ` . > ed Q " ' -6 et t6 • 0 0 \ (:: ' a ' 4 tn CI' (1) " ..6., •° 1, • r 0 V CO O V Y r • 0 L..+ '2 e r U U ,.- \ cf) i r .. " • • --. 4.{ U i 7i E U :J r m • ' � • '.O p s c O dd O U J y 0 • • • 4 „ •l d p as U] U ...1 G r •• M� 3 d N -0 +J g) s Q 4 O , , i U r r J G U U I • • r y ; ., r ,-- L'••• ' r t.i., :SI \ • • ry U (1) Ti - G ~' r r G h 1, J J „ G " O U 0 r U f U r . 1 ..--1 ' + � + a ,..d v) G V .'7 r V r i � � J p cd CO bJJ Ti � ' r 3 r • "" - J _ • . ;Li . N U ^ G U r U r y O � CI) al „ o s X cd Q+ �+ + 0 t G . ..- U V r O r ” " r C W y n fd y am { 1 y t > G O Y U • • .. 0 ■ J .. y+1 y N i f G v ^ y U tp • I, X i-• C O y Cd 30 r y y r • . • = h �� cd s G G J+ J O s-, + C , -r cr.' L U J p O O a r G C1) v 'G C. I. v ' Q •.. m r r G -r p o o • .1 G •., U � Q•+ • 5 5, al .y )- i G '.- r G Q, . > r r. i I • • i+ � U 1, • G _ I J O '. • • • O U CI U d Q .4_, • v, 1, 11 1, • • , . C.) J • • , ' ' r • • , ` J \ ''... • • i •O • 44 • 11 i~ • ; . , •' .P • 1, • y IY to • '• , 't I, •, r 5 • 1 11 J'' ' o • mi ' • G.. i � p 1, • It, U U • • ° r U GP u • 1 0 .. el 0 • ' u ' • - '• s U • 1' L • d Saua}s!suoD Cn 0 0 a) a) 0 ), 14 E p a) a) 0 cu ft O ' C) 'LS 0 C) Cu 5 › C b w , p,, O 3 (J «i Q,+ X ' LS O p m ` O clu +' r , ? vi X O '� Z1'+ vi a1 ca . ^, v -e, .� 0 U O ^ p rd T p O a Q.) o) O U ,- I `� CU E O m ^ 4 w , 4 5 , O 0 v ' p o 0 0 � O 0 N + + L � 0 O O � 0 S 1. cu 110 C15 0 *" Q., . U �' u a) U ¢, . O 0 i' s.. +. -O v 4 � '-' Lti b 0 4 Q v a O W X✓ ti) o 5 O b.° 3 P, . O U m N 0) 4 - C, 4 ,x N u) .r, it r . . H ;-. " d + . F m c� 5 U N cti (i ,0 ,.+ F, Q ,,-1 b.0 s C % � -6 C! •a � cn >, O O a1 vi 4— O u v 0 00 5 ice, " 0 p.. y , 4 Q cn ", o m y cn C m . b. 06 cV '� cc$ 3 E cu CU "p '''' 0) '1 •. O O � 4 g .0) . CI) F" 0 0 m j U cn ". v ., ' ", a) bA - b , .0 0, .94 5 d X O Q, W 5 3 8 0 0 a � , - -0 a ;-.1 5 _ u ° v ca o ' o a c • ." 4 4� o o v 0 o v ° (, •• a) v Q'� 6,0 ' � N °� o U a) .0 - V) o u ( j V cc/ a) CO r. ctt 4' • y H a) b y v O H ,-, n . . +J v� [� s, O, L1, H m ca aJ F, Q� P 3 � 1 . cn 1 . E s..1 0 •0 0 :u o .4 0 0 d o C.) a) 01 i-I Q z Q < W ;4 d u, o 4. p, c 4 u cb 0) ' O ..O v cz 0) E O O 0 c O +, • o O. o 0 ; v ,--■ „ � y O a4 vi � 4 X v ^' v ts as 0 O v 9, o O +' 0 0) 0) v - d a+ +' 5 7 X u O V t 0 , 5> w x v w 5° a E" o 0 O 0) 0J _0 b 4; U u, 0 . 0 . 0) G p c, 0) cn 0) ; -0 ›, s-' V) rd 0 •- 5 o .� a �. d ,-, I' ° O 0 ° • O '•O wO ' „ 0 r1 O En 0) bA - al 0 ) 'd v ° �, . v Et c0 '" O . .. p o a. cn G ry E O cn O ›, cd c3 p P"' • O v) w c O �-; � 0 O 0) c a + -' • a O C a) J . O x 0) bt) p t3 aJ p t c� N bA v o v ..a ) +, •0 0) 9, i : 1 L ,- 0 n C/) ,-0 0 0 0, Q w O �. S z' 0 U w ' 4 , cn • cd Q `+ `n s O .9 2 O a, 5A - ° - ..0 p 0 y - 0) p O v s v i; v v • g •' • O p v V ' m cu c„ cr) a) .. Q p at a) Ti, ° a a U a) 0 c o o a) u u `.1 • 0 to ' V c3 i p .., 0) 4-, 44 V - u b. - ;I,' Q Q, -0 a Q, p o V f , u 03` ra o Q �' ', L, c 0 0 F p � � , v N •� O .. +� 0) Z Z u) 4 II a7 0 O • 0 -4 TS U r+ 1--1 a+ Q w U cc. EXHIBIT 8/2/2011 City Council Limited Review of the Single- Family Residential Ordinance MCA - 2011 -03 August 2, 2011 Background on the Limited Review • April 2010: City Council work program includes review of sloped lot standards • February 2011: The Council initiated a limited review of the ordinance with the sloped lot standards • May 2011: A community workshop was held • June 2011: The ERC recommended a neg dec • July 2011: The PC recommended several ordinance amendments to the Council Limited Review Items • Two -Story Design Review process • Public noticing requirements • Story pole requirements for two-story projects • Development standards for sloped lots Staff has reformatted the ordinance and revised the two-story design principles to improve readability, consistency, and effectiveness 1 8/2/2011 Readability and Consistency Planning Commission Recommendation • Visually enhance the ordinance by implementing the use of tables • Organize it in a way that is easier to read and understand • Update the ordinance so that the rules are clear and consistent throughout • 5 -0 vote Two -Story Design Review Planning Commission Recommendation: • Remove the current design review process for all two -story homes • 4 -1 vote (Brophy no) Other Council Considerations ➢ 45% Second Floor Rule ➢ Second Story Exposed Wall and Setback Surcharge Rules 2 8/2/2011 45% Second Floor Rule Council Options: 1. Remove the rule - could allow 100% or more 2 to 1 floor ratio 2. Increase the percentage allowed 3. Keep the existing rule - homes with second stories above the limit will require an exception Second Story Exposed Wall Heights and Setback Surcharge Council Options: 1. Keep existing regulations 2. Increase the percentage of second story walls that can have exposed heights >6' /decrease setback surcharge 3. Remove both regulations • Public Noticing _ Planning Commission Recommendation: - Noticing Radius • Only adjacent and across the street neighbors — receive official notification of planning project • 5 -0 vote Noticing Material • Only project site plans and elevations be included with the official notices _ • 4 -1 vote (Sun no) 3 8/2/2011 Story Poles Planning Commission Recommendation: Remove the requirement for story poles for two -story projects and require either of the below on the site sign: • Color perspective • 3D photographic simulation • 5 -0 vote Single - Family Residential Sloped Lots Planning Commission Recommendation: Require sloped lot standards for development on all single - family residential (R1) lots 1. Require the additional standards for development on building pads/ graded areas on actual slopes equal to or greater than 20 %. 2. Continue to require PC review if site grading quantities exceed maximum allowable 3. The maximum floor area ratio is 45% • However, homes with a total FAR greater than 35% shall require a planning approval by the Director of Community Development Single - Family Residential Sloped Lots PC Recommendation Cont. 4. Second floor to first floor ratio should follow existing R1 regulations 5. All new or expanded second story decks shall go through the Minor Residential Permit process 6. Fencing shall follow the requirements in the Fence Ordinance. Highly visible fences shall be subject to RHS fencing requirements 7. Remove protected tree removal allowance 8. Relocate current retaining wall screening requirements 4 8/2/2011 Items of Clarification Since Staff Report Production • Reorganized "Permits Required" table • Clarified the specific RHS fencing requirements that apply on sloped lots with highly visible fences • Clarified language on high interior floor area rule • In accordance with PC recommendation, removed references to restricting flat yard area grading to 2,000 square feet Environmental Assesment On June 16, 2011, the ERC recommended a negative declaration from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) On July 12, 2011, the PC recommended approval of the negative declaration Recommendation _ Staff recommends that the CC take the _ following action: • Adopt a negative declaration (EA- 2011 -05) • Conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 11- — 2079 amending Chapter 19.28 of the CMC 5 cc g - -1/ (-+e-w, - 33 Karen B. Guerin From: xihua sun [xihuasun @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 3:07 PM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: R1 Review E)(E-IIBIT Gilbert, The limited R1 review is on your agenda for August 2nd. My neighbors were quite satisfied with the meticulous process. We support the Staff and Planning Commission's recommendations. The simplified and more streamlined review process for the design of 2 story buildings makes a lot more sense. We are very supportive of the lifting of the second story limitation, which would allow for better styling and curtail the building expenses. We have sloped lots and we can live with the modified restrictions. We would be equally happy to simply remove the restrictions. We have issues with the grading limitation, which is one size fit all. It has absolutely no effect on small lots and may be too restrictive for very large lots. It would be better to be progressive, such as 2500 cubic yards per 10,000 square lot or a smaller number if you so choose, such as 2000 cubic yards per 10,000 square lot. As such, the particular restrictions would have some regulatory effect, and be more fair. Thanks for your consideration, Frank Sun 1 a g - 2 — r'l Karen B. Guerin # 3 3 From: xihua sun [xihuasun @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 9:09 PM To: Kris Wang; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong Subject: R1 Review I heard the rumor that the agenda of R1 Review will be postponed. This review process has been a long, . meticulous, and arduous one. People have prepared for it and scheduled around it. The sudden change of date is not fair since most of us would not be able to attend the next meeting. Should you accommodate people who suddenly became interested in the issue, and at the same time punish the people who have been doing what they're supposed to do and prepared for it? Frank Sun 1 e_c:- 8 -z - ( - I - e Yv'N - 33 Karen B. Guerin From: xihua sun [xihuasun @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 11:51 PM To: Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang Subject: Standard for sloped lots There are some errors in the staff report. 1. 2000 square feet grading limitation was NOT recommended by any of the commissioners, but appeared in the "planning commission recommendations" section in the staff report. 2. Commissioners favored keeping the current standards for the 2nd story, ie. there is no limitations for the sloped lots, since the intention is to reduce the building footprint and building size, the total Far is going to be 35% instead of 45% Far. Greater than 35% Far would trigger a review. However, the staff report stated that the standard for second story ratios would be the current regular R1 standard 45% of the first story instead of the sloped R1 standard, no limitations. During the last meeting, commissioners were denied the option of simply removing the current standard for sloped lots due to requirements of public notices and public hearing. Isn't that what you have been doing for the last few months? Frank Sun 1 ec 8 - 2 - / Karen B. Guerin 3 From: Tim Coad [timcoad @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:34 AM To: Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Kris Wang; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang Subject: Not in favor of proposed removal of R1 development rules Hello Council members, just a quick note to let you know I am not in favor stripping away the safeguard's the people of Cupertino fought to put: in to the R1 development codes, such as storyboards and neighbor notifications. These things were put in place for a reason. People were building huge ridiculous homes that did not fit into the neighborhood, with no upper story set backs, close to property lines and such. This was a very big deal. I can't believe the planing commission would so casually work to throw them out without regard to public input. If and when you have a hearing on this, please give the citizens of Cupertino ample time to prepare comments for the Council. Thank You Tim Coad 10292 Judy Ave E)(11-IIBIT Cupertino 1 IT (-1-e pi 33 Kimberly Smith From: Ms Yemmy [hilliesalo @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 9:41 AM To: grenna5000 @yahoo.com; City Clerk; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Kris Wang Cc: Gary Chao; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; book.sun @gmail.com; pauldbrophy @yahoo.com; hmartymiller @yahoo.com; clintonbrownley @yahoo.com; winnieleedds @yahoo.com; la- warren @att.net Subject: Re: Oral Communications Issues Dear Council Members, I am writing to support those grievances brought up by Jennifer Griffen. I have lived in Rancho Rinconada for 17 years. Barry Chang was our realtor. During that time, we have seen the Rancho Rinconada architecture bounce all over the place. We finally got some relief and now we want to fix something that is not broken. It seems Rancho Rinconada continues to be treated as the ugly step sister of the rest of cupertino. It's unfortunate. It would have been nice to have the current architecture reflect the original architecture to bring some continuity to the neighborhood instead of these "Flintstone" boxes. That remains to be the main criticism of Rancho with regards to purchasing homes in the area, there is no consistent neighborhood feel. We are so lucky to have Jennifer in our neighborhood and her vigilance. Be assured that the issues Jennifer addresses reflects the thoughts of many citizens in Rancho Rinconada. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Miriam Salo From: "orenna5000avahoo.com" <grenna5000avahoo.com> To: cityclerk aacupertino.orq; gwonqacupertino.orq; omahonevacupertino.orq; msantoroacupertino.oro; bchanqacupertino.orq; kwangacupertino.org Cc: garyc(a)cupertino.orq; planning aacupertino.orq; georges(d ?cupertino.org; piugCa),cupertino.orq; aartisna.cupertino.orq; book.sun a(�,gmail.com; pauldbrophvavahoo.com; hmartvmiller a(�,vahoo.com; clintonbrownleyayahoo.com; winnieleeddsavahoo.com; la- warren(a)_att.net; grenna5000(a)yahoo.com Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 9:03 AM Subject: Oral Communications Issues July 29, 2011 Dear City Council: There has been no Planning Commission meeting and no City Council meeting since the July 12 meeting when the Planning Commissiom voted to make some very radical changes in the R1 Ordinance. The next City Council meeting on July 19 was cancelled as was the next Planning Commission meeting on July 26. There has been no chance for the public to speak during Oral Communications about these unpopular R1 changes or, frankly, on any other matter either. The next Oral Communications will be on August 2 at the City Council meeting, but now that the R1 Ordinance has been put on the August 2 agenda for a vote by the City Council the public will not be able to speak at Oral Communications on the R1 topic. No one has been able to speak during Oral Communications about their reactions to the Planning Commission's decisions on the R1 Ordinance. There have been no public meetings and now the R1 Ordinance is being rushed to be heard on August 2 at the City Council meeting? What is the hurry? Is there something to hide? Is there some danger in the public being able to make comments duing Oral Communications? • I don't think it is a very good idea to limit the public's input on topics by not holding Oral Communications in a timely manner and then rushing a controversial topic to a vote by the City Council with no forum for Oral Communications in the interim. Please postpone the R1 Ordiance to the August 16 City Council or later so that the public will be able to use the Oral Communications forum to voice their opinions about what has transpired in recent city meetings. Also, the community was told that the R1 Ordinance was going to be heard on August 16 by the City Council so people had made arrangements to attend or contact the City Council, the City and the Planning Commission at that time. It is surprise that the R1 Ordinance was put back on the City Council Agenda for August 2. It also means no one from the public has has a chance to speak during Oral Communications on the R1 topic and will now will not be able to if the R1 Ordinance stays on the August 2 agenda. Also, I do not understand the rush to hear R1 at the August 2 City Council meeting? The public is still confused about what was being discussed at the July 12 Planning Commission meeting on R1. It appears that some of the discussion was about the Matrix Report or Development Permit Process which is not supposed to be involved in R1 and is a separate topic. Also, if the city is to have no design review or architectural review of new homes in the city, that may mean staff jobs will be cut. I don't want city staff to lose their jobs and I don't want to have a city with no deisgn review. Such is the controvery around the current R1 changes. Please postpone the R1 Ordinance from the August 2 City Council meeting to a later date so that the public will have a chance to speak at an Oral Communications before the City Council votes on the changes to R1. Thank you. Sincererly, Jennifer Griffin 2 )(1.1 1BIT CC_ - ,1-t( Kirsten Squarcia From: Lisa Warren [Ia- warren @att.net] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 10:25 AM To: Ms Yemmy; grenna5000 @yahoo.com; City Clerk; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Kris Wang Cc: Gary Chao; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; book.sun @gmail.com; pauldbrophy @yahoo.com; hmartymiller @yahoo.com; clintonbrownley @ yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Oral Communications Issues To All in this communication loop, I agree that smaller lot neighborhoods in the city (majority in Rancho Rinconada) would be greatly effected by any 'back peddling' with the R1 Ordinances. I strongly believe that ALL residential neighborhoods would suffer from the proposed changes to the ordinance. It is a city wide issue. I, personally, own and live in a property that is considered a large lot (9375 sf) and believe that the current R1 Ordinance should remain unchanged (it took so long to get here !), or be changed in a direction opposite than what is being proposed. The current ordinances evolved from 'back in the day' when square, boxy monster houses (Pink Palaces) where the norm, and were unchallenged. This evolution was fought for, and supported, by many residents ( voters ). Based on recent information gathering by the city (and 'word on the street'), I don't see where relaxing the current requirements /guidelines for R1 is supported by the majority of people who live and own property in Cupertino. I see the Planning Commission recommendations for R1 as being contrary to public wishes, and to information supplied by City Staff. This is both disappointing and frustrating at a minimum. The process and time frame of this 'limited review' has been muddled. I will forward a previous email of mine to City Council members as it was originally addressed to Planning Commissioners, but has relevant information contained in it. I hope that time is taken to review it. I don't feel that my voice has been heard up to this point. I know that I am also expressing the thoughts of other residents. Thank you. Lisa Warren From: Ms Yemmy <hilliesalo @yahoo.com> To: "grenna5000 @yahoo.com" <grenna5000 @yahoo.com >; "cityclerk @cupertino.org" <cityclerk @cupertino.org >; "gwong @cupertino.org" <gwong @cupertino.org >; "omahoney @cupertino.org" <omahoney @cupertino.org >; "msantoro @cupertino.org" <msantoro @cupertino.org >; "b:hang @cupertino.org" <bchang @cupertino.org >; 1 "kwang @cupertino.org" < kwang @cupertino.org> Cc: "garyc @cupertino.org" <garyc @cupertino.org >; "planning @cupertino.org" <planning @cupertino.org >; "georges @cupertino.org" <georges @cupertino.org >; "piug @cupertino.org" <piug @cupertino.org >; "aartis @cupertino.org" <aartis @cupertino.org >; "book.sun @gmail.com" <book.sun @gmail.com >; "pauldbrophy @yahoo.com" <pauldbrophy @yahoo.com >; "hmartymiller @yahoo.com" <hmartymiller @yahoo.com >; "clintonbrownley @ yahoo.com" < clintonbrownley@yahoo.com>; "winnieleedds @yahoo.com" <winnieleedds @ yahoo.com>; "Ia- warren @att.net" <Ia- warren @att.net> Sent: Fri, July 29, 2011 9:40:45 AM Subject: Re: Oral Communications Issues Dear Council Members, am writing to support those grievances brought up by Jennifer Griffen. I have lived in Rancho Rinconada for 17 years. Barry Chang was our realtor. During that time, we have seen the Rancho Rinconada architecture bounce all over the place. We finally got some relief and now we want to fix something that is not broken. It seems Rancho Rinconada continues to be treated as the ugly step sister of the rest of cupertino. It's unfortunate. It would have been nice to have the current architecture reflect the original architecture to bring some continuity to the neighborhood instead of these "Flintstone" boxes. That remains to be the main criticism of Rancho with regards to purchasing homes in the area, there is no consistent neighborhood feel. We are so lucky to have Jennifer in our neighborhood and her vigilance. Be assured that the issues Jennifer addresses reflects the thoughts of many citizens in Rancho Rinconada. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Miriam Salo From: "grenna5000 @yahoo.com" <grenna5000 @yahoo.com> To: cityclerk @cupertino.org; gwong @cupertino.org; omahoney @cupertino.org; msantoro @cupertino.org; bchang @cupertino.org; kwang @cupertino.org Cc: garyc @cupertino.org; planning @cupertino.org; georges @cupertino.org; piug @cupertino.org; aartis @cupertino.org; book.sun @gmail.com; pauldbrophy @yahoo.com; hmartymiller @yahoo.com; clintonbrownley @ yahoo.com; winnieleedds @yahoo.com; la- warren @att.net; grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 9:03 AM Subject: Oral Communications Issues July 29, 2011 Dear City Council: There has been no Planning Commission meeting and no City Council meeting since the July 12 meeting when the Planning Commissiom voted to make some very radical changes in the R1 Ordinance. The next City Council meeting on July 19 was cancelled as was the next Planning Commission meeting on July 26. There has been no chance for the public to speak during Oral Communications about these unpopular R1 changes or, frankly, on any other matter either. The next Oral Communications will be on August 2 at the City Council meeting, but now that the R1 Ordinance has been put on the August 2 agenda for a vote by the City Council the public will not be able to speak at Oral Communications on the R1 topic. No one has been able to speak during Oral Communications about their reactions to the Planning Commission's decisions on the R1 Ordinance. There have been no public meetings and now the R1 Ordinance is being rushed to be heard on August 2 at the City Council meeting? What is the hurry? Is there something to hide? Is there some danger in the public being able to make comments duing Oral Communications? don't think it is a very good idea to limit the public's input on topics by not holding Oral Communications in a timely 2 manner and then rushing a controversial topic to a vote by the City Council with no forum for Oral Communications in the interim. Please postpone the R1 Ordiance to the August 16 City Council or later so that the public will be able to use the Oral Communications forum to voice their opinions about what has transpired in recent city meetings. Also, the community was told that the R1 Ordinance was going to be heard on August 16 by the City Council so people had made arrangements to attend or contact the City Council the City and the Planning Commission at that time. It is surprise that the R1 Ordinance was put back on the City Council Agenda for August 2. It also means no one from the public has has a chance to speak during Oral Communications on the R1 topic and will now will not be able to if the R1 Ordinance stays on the August 2 agenda. Also, I do not understand the rush to hear R1 at the August 2 City Council meeting? The public is still confused about what was being discussed at the July 12 Planning Commission meeting on R1. It appears that some of the discussion was about the Matrix Report or Development Permit Process which is not supposed to be involved in R1 and is a separate topic. Also, if the city is to have no design review or architectural review of new homes in the city, that may mean staff jobs will be cut. I don't want city staff to lose their jobs and I don't want to have a city with no deisgn review. Such is the controvery around the current R1 changes. Please postpone the R1 Ordinance from the August 2 City Council meeting to a later date so that the public will have a chance to speak at an Oral Communications before the City Council votes on the changes to R1. Thank you. Sincererly, Jennifer Griffin 3 - - — 11 I-fi - W33 Karen B. Guerin From: Lisa Warren [Ia- warren @att.net] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 10:36 AM To: City Council Subject: Fw: Limited Review of SFR (R1) Zones - June 28 Agenda Item City Council members, This is an email that I sent to Planning Commissioners on June 28. Please take the time to review it. Thank you. Lisa Warren Forwarded Message - - -- From: Lisa Warren <la- warren @att.net> To: Lisa Warren <la- warren @att.net >; george s <ceoraes @cubertino.orq >; aarti s <aartis @cupertino.orq> Cc: hmartymiller @yahoo.com; pauldbrophy @yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com; clintonbrownley @yahoo.com; book.sun @gmail.com Sent: Tue, June 28, 2011 2:11:37 AM Subject: Limited Review of SFR (R1) Zones - June 28 Agenda Item Planning Commissioners, I wish that I had been able to spend more time processing all info related to the June 28 Agenda Item 2. I attended the May 24 workshop and left that gathering a bit frustrated. In an attempt to not be too wordy with my thoughts from that experience, and now from the staff report on the subject, I will communicate my thoughts with 'lists'. Observations made at workshop and comments related to 'questionnaire' and reported results : • Questionnaire was 'confusing' to many. Discussion came regarding what was being asked and how to interpret the multiple 'yes' /'no' statements - many not asked in question form. Facilitators agreed that it was not clear and could have been written better - they asked participants to do their best in filling it out. ( multiple choice or 'pick best' would have been a much clearer method ) • As a result of the odd questioning format, the tally of responses and summary of conclusion is 'off'. • Disappointed at low turn -out • Participants wondered what 'weight' was attached to responses and feedback from residents vs. architects /builders, including 'consultant' • Not clear if 'streamline' is similar to 'fast-track' • Improving consistency and readability is a good goal • Many wondering why we are 'doing this again' when so much energy has been spent to get to a place where residents helped to define effective guidelines and communication methods • In regard to existing ordinance items, majority consensus is that most should remain unchanged (at a minimum) • None of the questionnaire items related to existing process allowed for an 'increase' in requirements - thus implying that the only option is to keep the same or lessen requirements. Thank goodness there was a comment section. • Questionnaire comments, and discussion comments help to clarify the 'fuzzyness' of the 'yes /no' responses an allow for unguided responses Key Statements made by Planning Director. City Councilmen leading up to this point : • Goals are to try to simplify the permit process, make use of technology, and improve communication • Overwhelming response from public input is that level of public engagement should NOT be reduced • R1 Stakeholders are quite different from others in the permit process 1 • The term 'simplify' is prefered over 'streamline' as the later implies that something is being taken out - don't want that • The process must ensure that public stays informed • Site signs, or notice boards, are a great tool - people that drive through a neighborhood can see what is coming • Diologue should always be encouraged Some of my thoughts : • While some say they want to 'make it easier for applicant', should this happen at the risk of limiting disclosure to residents ? • There have been hours and hours spent discussing ways to improve communication and implement design guidelines - it has taken so long to get here, why take backward steps? • Story poles allow for MORE residents to 'see what is comino' - they are a universal visual cue that something is coming - an eye catcher. • Should be very careful which cities are used for comparison, and why • The cost associated with story poles is insignificant in proportion to purchase prices and price per square foot to build. • While story poles can't show all details, they do give at least some idea of mass and three dimensional space. A rendering can't show that, especially if it is limited to a single object and not shown in proportion to it's real life surroundings. Both story poles and either drawings or 3D photo simulation are needed in tandem for the best overall representation Years ago, Wally Dean (Mayor at the time) became frustrated at the development that he and his co- coucilmen were allowing. He had regrets that they looked at artist renderings of projects, listened to architect's /builder's promises and believed that the final result would match - -- but often they didn't. He put together a slide show to illustrate what had 'gotten through' and turned out to be the bad and the ugly' instead of the 'good'. He referred to this as learning the hard way. I admired him for being honest, taking responsibility and initiating some positive change. More often than not, good things don't come easy. Thank you for your time and consideration, Lisa Warren 25 year Cupertino resident witness to many changes • 2 C 2 l4tm X 33 Karen B. Guerin From: Lisa Warren [Ia- warren @att.net] Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 9:42 AM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Fw: RE: Oral Communications Issues Councilman Mahoney, I want to quickly correct an error in an email sent to you by Jennifer Griffin. See below. I DID NOT alert everyone in Rancho /Loree. I would have, but unfortunately do NOT have a way to do that. I have communicated only with Jennifer and one other Rancho resident. I was hoping that one of them had email addresses for others in the area, and would pass things on....I am concerned that there are large numbers of residents who are unaware of PC proposed changes and the process that R1 is currently going through. There was an article in the Courier, but I don't know how many readers the publication has or whether it has sparked interest /concern in people who may actually take action. IF SO... the article mentioned that CC would hear the issue on August 16. So if it happens next week, they could miss their opportunity to have a say. Thank you. Lisa Warren From: cirenna50000yahoo.com jmailto:grenna5000C)yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 12:13 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Cc: c]renna5000(ayahoo.com Subject: RE: Oral Communications Issues Hi Orrin. The city staff said that R1 would be going to the City Council on August 16, not August 2. This was said several weeks ago. It was a complete surprise that it wound up on the City Agenda yesterday for the City Council on August 2. There was no communication that it was going on the 2. Lisa Warren found out yesterday afternoon that it was on the agenda for the 2nd and alerted everyone in Rancho /Loree. Why was it changed again and no one was told about it? People were planning for August 16 foi several weeks now. 1 Also, But, now if we go back into what we had in the County days, people are really going to be unhappy. Why fix what is working well now. Thank you. 2 CC 8 -2 —(� I X33 Kirsten Squarcia From: Lisa Warren [Ia- warren @att.net] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 3:36 PM To: grenna5000 @yahoo.com; City Clerk; City Council Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gary Chao; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; Planning Dept. Subject: ADD ON _ The R1 Ordinance and Small Lot Neighborhoods Also I understand that there is a group of residents from the Rancho Deep Cliff neighborhood who have expressed opposition to any of the proposed changes to R1, and would like the ordinances to remain as they currently are. I know of individuals and groups who are residents in other neighborhoods that feel this same way. You may not be hearing directly from all of the people who would like things to stay as they are, but many have said it before ! That is, in large part, the reason that the current ordinances were researched and adopted. Again... does this possible dismanteling of the existing R1 ordinances really serve the (large) majority of Cupertino residents ? I feel strongly that it does not. Lisa Warren From: "grenna5000 @yahoo.com <grenna5000 @yahoo.com> To: cityclerk @cupertino.org; citycouncil @cupertino.org Cc: planning @cupertino.org; garyc @cupertino.org; georges @cupertino.org; piug @cupertino.org; aartis @cupertino.org; planninglist @cupertino.org Sent: Mon, August 1, 2011 3:12:09 PM Subject: The R1 Ordinance and Small Lot Neighborhoods August 1, 2010 Dear City Council Members: When Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates annexed into Cupertino in 2000, certain promises were made to the neighborhoods by the city of Cupertino. These were that there would be better protections against the aggressive style of building that the neighborhoods had experienced in the County, that the street trees would be protected and that there would be more street sweeping. When Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates annexed into Cupertino, Cypertino's population was increased over the 50,000 mark and the city became eligible for special funding from an outside source (state or federal) because Cupertino had now increased in size to a "large" city. The current R1 Ordinance has been very successful in dealing with the aggressive house building issues of old and has been producing some of the finest and most beautiful homes in Cupertino. Rancho Rinconada has very small lots and the R1 Ordinance with its story pole requirements, design review of new two story homes and neighbor noticing has been working beautifully to produce high quality homes that fit the lots, protect the street trees, provide privacy for neighbors 1 and home onwers, are a joy to look at and sell for high prices. The neighborhood has retained its rural, green atmosphere and is a lovely place to take a stroll or push a baby buggy in the evening. The current proposed changes to the RI Ordinance to eliminate story poles, eliminate design review of two story construction and reduce or eliminate neighbor noticing of new construction breaks promises made to the Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates neighborhoods at annexation to potect them from aggressive building and over - building of the small lots. Implementing these changes would go back to the days of the County building and put the two neighborhoods at great risk. The small lots would be overbuilt and the new homes would invade neighbors' privacy. Ultimately, the street trees may be lost also as there would be no room on the lots for the trees. There is a great deal of support for the current RI Ordinance by the neighborhood residents who do not want to see R1 reduced or changed. Many want the RI strengthened. No one wants to go back to the way it was in the County days. That is why R1 has evolved to the way it is today. Every part of it is there for a reason. Every part has a history. To start tearing the R1 ordinance apart is to weaken the whole thing. Implementing these proposed changes to R1 means breaking promises to the annexed neighborhoods and puts the small lot neighborhoods at risk. One size does not fit all and these changes do not fit the Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates Neighborhoods. Therefore, it is very important that certain protections be implemented by the city to protect small lot neighborhoods and Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates if the city changes the Rl Ordinance. These protections could be: 1. Leave R1 intact in certain neighborhoods. RI would be left intact in Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates. 2. The Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates Neighborhoods could have their own special zoning, R1 -r, to protect the small lot size and rural nature of the neighborhoods. It is not unusual to have different zoning in different neighborhoods. Many of the residents of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates like the R1 Ordinance as it is now. It is working. Everyone has a say and and a "see' ( the story poles show the whole story) (a story pole is worth a thousand words or diagrams). They do not want R1 changed. R1 is keeping the promises made to the neighbohoods at annexation by the city of Cupertino. If R1 is changed to eliminate story poles, eliminate design review of two story homes, and reduce neighborhood noticing, promises made by the City to protect Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates would be broken. The rural nature of the neighborhoods would be threatened and the small lot neighborhoods would be at risk for over- building again. If the City changes R1, then the two suggestions given above to leave RI intact in certain neighborhoods such as Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates and to also have special neighborhood zoning, such as Rl -r in Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates, provide good solutions for dealing with the harmful impact changing R1 would have on the neighborhoods. The two solutions also keep the promises the City made to Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates at annexation. It is my hope that the City Council will see fit to leave RI intact. It is working well and producing fine homes. If the R1 is changed, please implement the two solutions listed above to protect the Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates neighborhoods. Leave R1 intact in Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates and give Rancho 2 Rinconada and Loree Estates a speical zoning of R1 -r to hep protect the neighborhoods and keep the promises the city made to the neighbohoods at annextion. Thank you very much for your attention to this important. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin Rancho Rincaonada and Loree Estates Neighborhoods Small Lot Neighborhood 3 EXHIBIT I e1 ' Kimberly Smith From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 9:03 AM To: City Clerk; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Kris Wang Cc: Gary Chao; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; book.sun @gmail.corn; pauldbrophy @yahoo.com; hmartymiller @yahoo.com; clintonbrownley @yahoo.com; winnieleedds @yahoo.com; la- warren @att.net; grenna5000 @yahoo.com Subject: Oral Communications Issues July 29, 2011 Dear City Council: There has been no Planning Commission meeting and no City Council meeting since the July 12 meeting when the Planning Commissiom voted to make some very radical changes in the R1 Ordinance. The next City Council meeting on July 19 was cancelled as was the next Planning Commission meeting on July 26. There has been no chance for the public to speak during Oral Communications about these unpopular R1 changes or, frankly, on any other matter either. The next Oral Communications will be on August 2 at the City Council meeting, but now that the R1 Ordinance has been put on the August 2 agenda for a vote by the City Council the public will not be able to speak at Oral Communications on the R1 topic. No one has been able to speak during Oral Communications about their reactions to the Planning Commission's decisions on the R1 Ordinance. There have been no public meetings and now the R1 Ordinance is being rushed to be heard on August 2 at the City Council meeting? What is the hurry? Is there something to hide? Is there some danger in the public being able to make comments duing Oral Communications? I don't think it is a very good idea to limit the public's input on topics by not holding Oral Communications in a timely manner and then rushing a controversial topic to a vote by the City Council with no forum for Oral Communications in the interim. Please postpone the R1 Ordiance to the August 16 City Council or later so that the public will be able to use the Oral Communications forum to voice their opinions about what has transpired in recent city meetings. Also, the community was told that the R1 Ordinance was going to be heard on August 16 by the City Council so people had made arrangements to attend or contact the City Council, the City and the Planning Commission at that time. It is surprise that the R1 Ordinance was put back on the City Council Agenda for August 2. It also means no one from the public has has a chance to speak during Oral Communications on the R1 topic and will now will not be able to if the R1 Ordinance stays on the August 2 agenda. Also, I do not understand the rush to hear R1 at the August 2 City Council meeting? The public is still confused about what was being discussed at the July 12 Planning Commission meeting on R1. It appears that some of the discussion was about the Matrix Report or Development Permit Process which is not supposed to be involved in R1 and is a separate topic. Also, if the city is to have no design review or architectural review of new homes in the city, that may mean staff jobs will be cut. I don't want city staff to lose their jobs and I don't want ':o have a city with no deisgn review. Such is the controvery around the current R1 changes. Please postpone the R1 Ordinance from the August 2 City Council meeting to a later date so that the public will have a chance to speak at an Oral Communications before the City Council votes on the changes to R1. Thank you. 1 Kimberly Smith From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 11:57 PM To: City Clerk; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Kris Wang Cc: G Chao; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti p Shrivastava; book.sun @gmail.com; pauldbrophy@yahoo.com; ahoo.com; clintonbrownley @ya oo.com; hmartymiller @yahoo.com; winnieleedds @yahoo.com; la- warren @att.net; grenna5000 @yahoo.com Subject: Please Postpone R1 From August 2 City Council Meeting July 28, 2011 Dear City Council: The R1 Ordinance appears on the August 2, City Council Agenda. It was the understanding of the community that the City had postponed the item until the August 16 City Council meeting. There are members of the public who are on vacation and will not be able to attend the August 2 meeting. They had been planning on attending the August 16 City Council meeting. Also, there are many unanswered questions about the impact of any changes to R1 and how these changes will affect the neighborhoods with small Tots and the annexed neighbohoods who were promised protections against aggressive building at annexation. Please postpone the R1 Ordinance from the August 2 City Council meeting to a later date, possibly August 16 as the public had previously been told. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin • 1 CC 8 - -U I-k S Kirsten Squarcia From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 3:28 PM To: City Clerk; City Council Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gary Chao; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; Planning Dept. Subject: R1 and Small Lot Neighborhoods August 1, 2011 Dear City Council Members: When Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates annexed into Cupertino in 2000, certain promises were made to the neighborhoods by the city of Cupertino. These were that there would be better protections against the aggressive style of building that the neighborhoods had experienced in the County, that the street trees would be protected and that there would be more street sweeping. When Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates annexed into Cupertino, Cypertino's population was increased over the 50,000 mark and the city became eligible for special fiznding from an outside source (state or federal) because Cupertino had now increased in size to a "large" city. The current R1 Ordinance has been very successful in dealing with the aggressive house building issues of old and has been producing some of the finest and most beautiful homes in Cupertino. Rancho Rinconada has very small lots and the R1 Ordinance with its story pole requirements, design review of new two story homes and neighbor noticing has been working beautifully to produce high quality homes that fit the lots, protect the street trees, provide privacy for neighbors and home onwers, are a joy to look at and sell for high prices. The neighborhood has retained its rural, green atmosphere and is a lovely place to take a stroll or push a baby buggy in the evening. The current proposed changes to the R1 Ordinance to eliminate story poles, eliminate design review of two story construction and reduce or eliminate neighbor noticing of new construction breaks promises made to the Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates neighborhoods at annexation to potect them from aggressive building and over - building of the small lots: Implementing these changes would go back to the days of the County building and put the two neighborhoods at great risk. The small lots would be overbuilt and the new homes would invade neighbors' privacy. Ultimately, the street trees may be lost also as there would be no room on the lots for the trees. There is a great deal of support for the current R1 Ordinance by the neighborhood residents who do not want to see R1 reduced or changed. Many want the RI strengthened. No one wants to go back to the way it was in the County days. That is why R1 has evolved to the way it is today. Every part of it is there for a reason. Every part has a history. To start tearing the R1 ordinance apart is to weaken the whole thing. Implementing these proposed changes to R1 means breaking promises to the annexed neighborhoods and puts the small lot neighborhoods at risk. One size does not fit all and these changes do not fit the Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates Neighborhoods. Therefore, it is very important that certain protections be implemented by the city to protect small lot neighborhoods and Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates if the city changes the Rl Ordinance. i These protections could be: 1. Leave R1 intact in certain neighborhoods. R1 would be left intact in Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates. 2. The Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates Neighborhoods could have their own special zoning, R1 -r, to protect the small lot size and rural nature of the neighborhoods. It is not unusual to have different zoning in different neighborhoods. Many of the residents of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates like the R1 Ordinance as it is now. It is working. Everyone has a say and and a "see" ( the story poles show the whole story) (a story pole is worth a thousand words or diagrams). They do not want R1 changed. RI is keeping the promises made to the neighbohoods at annexation by the city of Cupertino. If R1 is changed to eliminate story poles, eliminate design review of two story homes, and reduce neighborhood noticing, promises made by the City to protect Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates would be broken. The rural nature of the neighborhoods would be threatened and the small lot neighborhoods would be at risk for over- building again. If the City changes R1, then the two suggestions given above to leave R1 intact in certain neighborhoods such as Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates and to also have special neighborhood zoning, such as Rl -r in Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates, provide good solutions for dealing with the harmful impact changing R1 would have on the neighborhoods. The two solutions also keep the promises the City made to Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates at annexation. It is my hope that the City Council will see fit to leave R1 intact. It is working well and producing fine homes. If the R1 is changed, please implement the two solutions listed above to protect the Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates neighborhoods. Leave R1 intact in Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates and give Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates a speical zoning of RI -r to hep protect the neighborhoods and keep the promises the city made to the neighbohoods at annextion. Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates Neighborhoods Small Lot Neighborhood 2 Cc g -`Z-- H +x Kirsten Squarcia From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 9:05 AM To: City Clerk; City Council Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gary Chao; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; planninglist @cupertirio.og Subject: Story Poles in Hillside Areas August 2, 2011 Dear City Council: Story poles are very important in hillside areas when constuction is going to occur. Story poles allow everyone to see where a house is going to be located on a property. In hillside areas, very large homes can be seen for miles i: they are not properly screened. Story poles show where the new house will be located on the property and also show where there will be conflict with existing or protected trees on the property. Many trees need to be protected and it is not recommended to have houses built under the tree's canopy or in the area of the tree's dripline. It is very important to make sure story poles are retained for use in all of Cupertino and also in the hillside areas. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin 1 QC - - 2 - +mow,�3 Karen B. Guerin From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:43 PM To: cityclerk @cupertino.og; City Council Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gary Chao; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; Planning Dept. Subject: R1 Issues: Neighbor Noticing and City Website August 2, 2011 Dear City Council: It is a good idea to leave neighbor noticing of new two story construction intact and unchanged. It works very well now to produce homes of high quality in the neighborhoods such as Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates. Small lot neighborhoods have finite amounts of land and new two story houses that go onto the lots must be sited very carefully on the lot. This is to provide maximum privacy for neighbors as well as occupants of the new home. There also must be space for trees and other vegetation. These help to maintain the rural nature and green canopy ambiance of the neighborhoods. The current R1 Ordinance works well with neighbor noticing. Neighbors are given printed plansets and are able to see what type of two story home is going to be constructed. The proposed changes to R1 to reduce neighborhood and neighbor noticing call for not giving out plansets to neigbors. The neighbors will have to go on the city website to see the plans. It is very difficult to get information about plansets and other items off the city website. It is difficult to look at and print documents. It is impossible to download .pdf files. I know of one senior who does not have internet access and has to go to the library to go on the internet. I routinely have trouble looking at and trying to print documents off the city website. I think it is much more helpful for people to have plansets given to them as a courtesy by the city when a new two story is being built so that everyone has equal access to looking at douments. It may be easier with expensive computer equipment to look at things on -line, but many people do not have access to those devices. I have been through several building experiences in the recent years where we received plansets as part of neighborhood noticing. The experience with receiving the plansets was very helpful and successful in producing a home of high quality and addressed neighbors issues with privacy and tree concerns. The R1 Ordinance for neighbor noticing works very well now. Please do not change it. It works and is the result of many years of evolution to arrive at a fine system of neighbor notification we now have in Rl. It works is Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates. Please do not change neighbor notification and please make sure neighbors are given full plansets in paper as they are now. Thank you very much. Sincerely, 1 c_c —Z 1 1 Karen B. Guerin � 3 3 From: Stephen Sun [stephensun123456ayahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 9:28 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Kris Wang; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang Subject: R1 Review r.• City Council Members, EXHIBI I support the current R1 review process and agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Cupertino is in dire need of some better architectural styling and diversity. Hardworking citizens deserve the freedom of having their own dream house. Buildings should primarily be designed by owners and their architects, not by far - removed committees. We should use some common sense, and streamline the design and review process. Please make Cupertino more attractive and interesting architecturally. Thank you very much, Cte_hen Chun C L —2 -1t ( -I- e , Karen B. Guerin From: Chi -I Lang [Iangrpi @gmaii.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 9:01 AM EX Immi 13:171' To: Barry Chang Subject: 0802 city council meeting Dear City Council Members, R1 review is on the agenda for August 2nd city council meeting, and I like to bring this subject to your attention. I support the recommendation from Staff and Planning Commission's . The streamlined review process for the design of 2 story buildings is reasonable and will be beneficial to the residents. Additionally, the lifting of the second story limitation will allow a better styling and be more cost effective. Regarding the particular restrictions applied to sloped lots, I can comprehend the modified restrictions as long as it is not only applied to the sloped lots. However, I will be also happy to see if we can remove the restrictions. I was told a possibility of R1 Review could be rescheduled? I believe it is important to have effort to keep the original agenda and execute accordingly, unless there is an uncontrollable factor. Residents have interest in this subject should have made an effort to attend this meeting. Regards, Chi -I Lang 1