Loading...
Exhibit CC 08-16-2011 #25 Municipal Code 19.28 Single Family Residential Zones ATTACHMENT A CC 8/16/11 y" s� #25 CUPERTINO Ordinance No. 11-2079 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 amends 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 A. 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 provisio :ns 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 Eichler (R1 -e) Building Design Requirements. 19.28.090 Development Regulations- (R1 -a). 19.28.100 Permitted Yard Encroachments. 19.28.110 Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and Principles. 19.28.120 Landscape Requirements. 19.28.130 Exceptions. 19.28.140 Minor Residential Permits, Two -Story Permits, and Residential Design Review applications. 19.28.150 Findings. 19.28.160 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.010 Purposes. R1 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; and D. Reinforce the predominantly low - intensity setting in the community. 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. A. No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R1 single - family residential district other than 1 in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. B. Notwithstanding the requirements of this chapter, 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. 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. B. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the R -1 single - family residence district, 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 Section 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code; c. Second dwelling units which require a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84; d. Home occupations requiring a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title. 2 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. 3 g 2 � as cu o bA 4 $ v a : ., a) • •-, n . 4 o 3 °� °' g ° a o cu 3 0 00 , /, a = . � k 0 0 cu CP 0 b0 ¢+ a b ; . A c ca d " y v s �. 5 a) 3 m cr a a) y - 0 1 N, 0 O a) y G u x 4 a) u ca it C ++ +'�"J N o a b0 g s., u g. .4 r � \ID o c' -o tt o a) ° ° ,_, ca a) N ca ca a) — u i3 � .b ,-, 0 .. ,..N4 U sue, ,-ti �1r 0 'C O C7 O . O • 0 a, • Cr bA ° 0 C r -d v u i 3 to ..o 0 0 4 w 4 .a ccs 'o cr' ca u 5 °• g A RS N O 8 O vi � N .- 2O , ' •" m Q .O t•" c co •4 cn 0 cn bA b ° bN b a ; 'd cn "cl a) �' v o 3 cu 4 a, ca 0 'u `.. 8 0 • k u °• °� 4 'o a � ,� o o ss, ° a) ° o a, 7-.1 w v .o a)NaJg;, ;., _ b0 °t aa:�o • 0 a u m 0 0 o ° 0 0 0 a te CU › ,1 CL) 0 v c. CU • . , v o o a, , ,0 , ? o 0 � � a a J (n V k .) Z Ch < r., 0 "0 N s, ° • ., ° (Ii ,z--, N u 'S s � I� 0 " N c'7 c'7 4 vi W 2 E•- a E-+ e-i cNi a) - - - a .•N b .-.4 , 0 a d ed < <3.0�, a, v .°, o .� , r• " 0 � 0 rr CU w CU a-, k N 2 k > N • a)cs •ri ti) L.1 V 7 0 Z Q" O E .r a o0 a) e cm� 0\ Q Cn O N t "d . 0 O ,--1 —I O , CT N�, ° u s'~ 00 d d N s , v g . a; a) fa °i E � c 0 • E o . 3 (r) Gn i4 .et .� a s Z sl , U 4 ° 4 a w a� rc U fQ w a) e al N 0 , cn o o v " ° i- r� "5 r4 +, ca 0 p nn 0 * O .-, - ++ crs c � 1 > "" 'd E o 5 o o o E cn cu -4 0O � ° t "' 7z.' 0 i — •i L O 7:1 ) X x. y v N to .• a, vs P. '0 'd 4 ' ' •r ca o E. o . °' 'd.5 °° ff) cn w 0 0 a, ° R+ .O X V ^ " 0 ^ 0 ° ' C g w tt 3= g O P..1 to a, N y z3 G ,. ° v o ' E 4) •0 X ° 4i Ste" P o , o " N CD a) _g , ° OO o 04 c: a; 'E a P. 3 5 -0 .n ° u O b4 o 'd to cu o 'o bAa 'fib 0 O P. • 0 ¢ '.0 v v - a ° 4 3 A... - 0 ° c ... p ° a, ' •C 4 � E a, 4- a., A°°5 AIi .- Q r� w O :.0 r-i 0 � 2 - O c° O N G G G " b .(0 O • a) 'C 5 7 y '''' - 7 y ' - 7 y ' 0 '' i1 .� w a,g U a,U • 5 Cam h det Q a et N �Q" W 'g b A ., bA ° .., cn b c> N - ,s N in � °' ,c n u S o o 0 a, o ° .4 • 0 ° (./) ) +) bA c - 0 'd Q, 0 cu g O co p., oo v Ch �, U N 0 C> 0 6 a, a) a W 4'� —, 5 Ln0 �1 '" e-+ O + ' 0 r- be o g c X v C. Q..� ° e-1 --1 N g g g g et •.., a W x °� <UU a o • p rs, °' o CA . > m N a 10-0Z �' ° v u� 0 3 0. CU a p > ' O 0.'0., 'd ' O 0 W E ;••I v w a; g, s 4 O CU c z O b Q, 'd Cn O a) . x O O m U °; bA S~ Ii CU a co , g _ t ° • CA p -' Cg-1 b.0 'CS �, m E V �° U U CA o v Q a) a) g v a v w 'd u • Tel e © w ' d +� p �" "� 0 O m m -o . . N y v tv O '' c Cn co N, ar RI ,0 Q „ y O � , . .5 ti ,5 v eo . ar .d a) ¢+ a< :~ b cf) CU et 00 o o x ' , _, ° 0 v -d 4° O p. c. °i t mu o p., cu o v u Q . •a ! u" O - p � u "I" 0 . � 3 m g 0 U1p �m ' O �N w et i -al- +.. to c.l q ° op 63 5 ,, a) r bC ''d r' e., O Q, = } m 0 cn 'd w 0 co � N CL) CZ 0 O U p u " O � s, 0 cu Q o 0 co a o tt v o 6 el 0 • o Q c or o cu a, a a,n bo m a � °J � o • © ....S 'd a.. ' C — v ' bq Al N j y 2 4 a Q H oAw W A V a b a E-+ d et CC 3 i V Q r-i cv W . F 1 ii, .E .� a� u 3 a,E v U› a • v .� boo o 0o N o F t ea 0 • •.. o 0 O s), o cu cu '� 3-� a u oo .5 cu a) .� ° e., as - -x 4 a) '" l : 4 .v o t. 4, 2 ai � �, r" m a cu as cc 'd O cz z cC «S . ° w Cll CL) bt CU 4 � a •� N 'u" ., O U cu t 0 m U •E O 5 p E x O 'C �' cs 4 .4 1 - O s O., "� t 00 sl.+"- N o o., 0 0 0 ' © O -0 '5.. � a - UN 0 0 8 o Ott ,0 0 a'n u a ° o o � " i o 'd c 8' bA bA b U P vi c 4 o • Q " .$ a.) o ccl000 0 bA '0 3 a) V;) s, �� o ct tt - � ° 3 j o g g e nd as cu b �, G ^� • a F- ca O Q " v ¢" O� O O ' Q, O 0 s" •+ .1 p cn ,0 0 0 E N (1) 3 p c� b�A U 3 p O v e-1 � - , ++ W y w N F.o �' b.° *� .c; t V m � p pp `p -o $. cd a) U bA a) b _, 3 ,� y c, u a O o Q o 74 z cC a' Fj 4 " �+ m \ as 0 • CZ CU b ^� ^o p O °.) a) M Cl.' r' r" '� a 0 CZ a ) cn �,� ¢ , .fl ca y .fl ..c p m O U O ., cf.) m c- c� v cd c r" , v cn a, .4 Z w MS 4 , . A g 3 a) a) a+ d a) 4 e- i r i 1-4 It r" '> a � ) ^ = + bra + Q. ta, Cl. Q 0 a - CU 0 . � ° , , 4 ex X a, a, CZ v a a) c n o 0 ,.� EZ � 1 8 gy ^1 'vi b a) -,r ii '' c i. D N + ~ `'"' y v Z r. ca ' C Cr ' d :~ ti H 0 d v pi V- CJ w 0) 0) u 'g a) as cc; O c� O b o .-. .1 0 US e- N 0 0) u 0 00 0 cn 0 ea 5 eCS o = o O a 0 rn 0 o o 0 +j v - a) 0 - ci • b - A en cu N cn t�. 'C • 0 o , al 0 G al 0 u . •� •- -ti 0) a . 4. Gn � G O N E , � ++ el 00 C a) a) , a) w cu ;-, c. m • .. .-, ea et CZ C Z ++ }"' 0 L3 N. 0 O O O, O V ri O O w N • 3 � , O 0) % s � `" 0) r -+ CZ w "" a"' 1.1 ;4 N as O r w _ } a) a) , — 0 ea 0 o rs ,c, i ,c1 .O . 5 ' O Ln 0 u en en 0 3 rn a) o �� ,0 a). z 0a) Z �tt - C$ 0..4 r°w en i ' °.� 0 . a w �w rd a a) a) +, �� Q . os a a) �wo•� "1 v—i ca w rg © w ° cn LC) of y N a, p — y 0 a) C A O . � _ 0 C. w CU v O 4 w bA t 0 1 4 -- a) '0 7d u o ' -� 0 a te ) 3 al °J °' c °J c v o a, en b ; -0 • o 7y O . ea , .4-4 w >' ' , � °' > �, 0 ea y .t . ,tz ^ r te cv • ct >, 5 N • ae°, C + �+ w r-i .O u ev .� "�.+ .... v en { Re fl e'i 14 -`4 ° w w te a, u cis 'S -6 1:14 co x O a 0 v 3 x `n o `z p g O Ti U v y �� 0 5,0 gc a)o • a, t o .' v .b' o o o U molt v CZ o� `a v ° �� o a �; 06� gx � �; '� . to �� , y v 4, �� N `w u j N ,� p y g z - E 0 u;0 E ck) 0 E = bc' , "la' ti . ..„ 0 'eh' tio,5 vi p �- Cn 0) c. c!) v x "0 U G N CI., a) A. C ¢, •.. O f 1. t co v r, Q g r, Q y° b0, 0 a) Q.) 0 ca u ,s s ca g c W w W ' � 0 `w a, cr, el .'� 2O g O aJ cu a,o N o �, v a a a o (1) —' v °' au c, O N 'C = N td.) .• `C u U `n b� ;•4 Cl.) Cll CL) cv a, (f) U a, a, cn U a, a, a, q .5 ° a, a, p : ." v . E A u. P+ N N O � rr CNI N N M CU '10 N r�-I N Z U w $.4 Ln 7 O ,— blD CV H � 5 4 0 ch -8 'C .2 00 0 el' d .. O 0 s ue . y N ¢ bA '� w m co T1 s "C p Cn .' 'T .� CT `C 'C 'd �. p "" ed � 22 ^' • e� cn N cd M p rl N M V el r'1 N M 4 Lf) a o a) 0 4. o a , a N 4y U n o CU 4 0 oo co g °' ti ,5 cv 414 '0 0 o a, �' w L) o u a; o . cn co v v O O bA e t p ,o , 14 bq •0 �" O O y O to O w p cn O -+ a a) � b�A Z ,0 tn Si w bo cn v c-' o O w • cd O X 0 2 v� c -C a) 7 a) N O L1 - V g cn N '° ' = a i .-- O TS CU -o E cn 4 as O Q. o "cii co O v, a) v °1 o �o z0 • 4 a r 0 °' 0. C v p 3 u t 5 0. P E R' " 4 , -8 d vii o a) o o 0) 3 0 E x ms 0. N 0 E o •- Z a, O ft cu ct v t p"� bC. ar v a. • 1.0 70 >~ i a b 0 ° `"4 0) o CS a, �bn w E 'z . •• > . A .t c bA ,...1 O N .5 . Z . ti g s cZ a) ,.4 u o ° ,� x a) P, c t 0) a o 1 v a) O p O N = ` 41 i O ,, 'd 4 ° O" Fr ++ a) ^ 0 w v a) ct O 0 o. o 0 ° O x. 0 w o ,—°)• o m -6) , _ u u V te a) ,S " t3 v w a • 0) v 0 a) c In 4 in al cn O b o 0 0) th en en N *� "0 } b.0 ca c t � v bb a) 4; "0 0 'S 'O ) 'L! m E. 0 V 0 • U O 'S o= c-Z 4 Z � P � , oo o O Q ....- w • p V v p n PP., - v o • O cu 4 . - O N N c = N N N cu 0 7 ' X y ,C p, bA u .0 N g : cn 'S P. ..4; a) u P Cl) = ° U ez . a, x y U 0 c ' cn 4. o cn o CI) o 40 0 to C ell g i - ,.4 bA i ° t' ci i.4 a) O .5 y y — 0 ++ au p. p CU v ` � y ' 1 g = 2 0 p V;) Ca. "CI CS 44 E c a n eV O Q . � � (A -' 1 .--4 o a)-• O O O O ea 4 w u a) C') + V O v +' ° •+ . O 5 bC'C V `" 3 a, a • t O , •0" -- ' b o a) eC l,. "" rn b.0 CID • O b b ' A y 2 61 b 0 p, b C, '- '~ 5 a4 m ci) ✓ O .., • M cri --1 V ar • a) P .9 > i•I p ,8 b.3 w 6. Q.,) 4 O E -g. E o +� '+ 'C g a.) u a , t tc O a A •� oo 0 0 k 0 . 4., a, , em a) o ›, E 'Li 9 .6 t,, 'i P" O G g N E O w P $" aJ ' U Cn _ r , czt .O 3, aJ 74 cV C � U Q W 44 1-1 N— CC H d Pi CJ Q [LI • o 4 �. m E O o cri a) 0 N E •� . g g o ea o . t' ›, ° od Q , a; � 0 a 0) ) 0) .5 E u +, :~ N O g N > . cn O CT 0 0 Z � O Q" et r� O }. 'C a, o 4. �- bA bA o y °;- 5 O e ms. O N :.. Cfl + u O u S.14 O .p 2 C1.4 0 m Q. m o 0 u e a) a) VI .0 ct eb a) U .- 2 CU FT Qr N V) r-I N N en d+ In „ u Gil U N , g a) 0 aJ x '—' .. M. p N N O 5 a~ g O O 3 ca O " � u O O O O O O O O � m• 9 L. C", �+ "" v" w N. L N L� L� C� n n O g. a) O O O O O O O p C:0 p O O r, 1 �= O ho o asN N NNNN N x .E m g Cs Cr CT CT O\ CT aT CT O +. o U ^0 ,-c4 ,S Q' CO ca a) O Q )) q cu a 0 a a) ;_, CX G ++ p 5 O Cn Cn Cfl ci Cn Cn U) Cn �� 0 °o03E 5a 2, 2, 00000 1 , CU �, a) c a n w w O O CQ" s, e~ �, a) a) u v a) a) e 4 Cl.) w w a) a) O z a z. v • 4. N v cn ,.fl • bt g co - •: - • v � . ;l bA y +� L cn 5 - t ^r Q a C G g el, et 3 - D j, bA � b rr O R, g v to ' 0 ea , 'C L�r" b A ea ed Z a) a) ,—, "'64 i-1 44 -- L ea "0 s. • ,-, co — ;.4 © C t4.0 " C .471 � ed 2 L '� Q" w ft 4 4., ed fi g" `J O CU w", — .� g ^ bA "bA 0 " to "" " f u O p cuZ a ag � gH W u en f r-1 el W U r•+ cV ed ' a M e1+ to '2"' r•i c,i f ar 1-4 ti I m a o 4-; ^ v v +� › ,•r co to , o p O •d ; .'" ' � c) 't0 b cts 11) ° ° tea, 3 o 7+1 N o v , 21 a N .cl y r 2 ° N O O p "" "" m p cn U a+ v O .fl a a, .� O al cr) CO Ln cn o .o o bo ea .o � 5 b�ct CZ .- CI) ii ° 14 '5 bA -d = • - o ° a o ° o , s a o 2 � 64 ,g� cn • Q 5 a u. v o �bo al a) 4, o N = "d d N O O .� O = . c'd • N ++ a, U O s.• p - 'd O •d ez o v c cn 0 v s, bo ++ cg m , a, ed G, q O O w N cC '" ,SJ• 0 o O d g ed x �- + 4 . ) .4 'd -0 a +cn+ b.0 X cry 43. $, a, O a, a, O R, 4 N 0., Lf) 1 " 4 c� . a; p ., a, 9, *-0 te a , 0 . O s_, a, +S = N w g v 'S 0 5 Y 2 0 to . o° 8 c • ?, o g t>13 O O 0 S�, ,_ 11 tj g I a) t o ;' ▪ O • © m c�*n '�-,� 0 �o O z o bo E g - ea 4 f ., O, b,0 v a; O d O ' a, 'a , t1, 14 0 g es cC v CO p • � Z . g v] g. '" c h i :d o o CA R-, u o eh a, ▪ w °' s•, m v 0 t ' d - a O ., + O + r + C + W i i �" `+' +� , O et et el et a ; eeg O eg • y cn , O p ,o 4 4 > i �O 0 b0 3 CZ f-, C -d bo CD to v CO U " V 1-4 cn O " aJ ' m cz o o 5 o •a •5 y a 0 • v, O , " 8 g v eM > ct cc: D r i e ti N ert .Li C o N .Q p W 0 as ,..S �H ad g - o a N *' g x 0 a; 0 • CD a) O N u O Q, . I' O o v " C.) 1, a o C u • o n. • ea cu .0 U ry 0) fa PLo O '5 Qr O bb O 6C) CV CIS VI 0 O +' � O - 0 y g c g 0 CZ CCS a- v O w Q u O u 't3 '5 '—' GJ U CA u . �' cu a a, o y X 3 a o � ch i cn N u U u N "I0 0 • u 0 cn v b , . ea CU 0 Cr w CA II O O O c O a) cn u y ct 0 c� 'C .= .E co 4 • . 0 Lo U as tu u -6, Q" .r O Cr 0 'CS 0 a y x u y P +. v 0 3 o ,4 z o Q = ar ec ca w ri cn e-■ N m P''' w< w Q 0•5 N .5 ca en cr) at iw i N : b0 I G y y w ho ': g . a it ea ' .5 w 5 O e0 v D, O V O GJ • ,, ice+ � �i N C.4° t>r R t�, O v O i 'C O cC1 ;-g el) ,., �+ rn 0 N u ,, Q„ •.. e. .r .4 O v, 4 ++ cu u cu u CJ u 4. ea GJ O V ▪ g 0 0 0 0 i.4 0 0 0 v 5 a i6 › u R. N �7 III N R-c ;., g R a) p O cc L A w v.:, z Q N 19.28.110 Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and Principles. Any new single- family residential house or addition to an existing house shall be generally consistent with the adopted single- family residential guidelines in Sections 19.28.110 (A) and (B). A. Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines For all projects." 2 1. There should not be a three -car wide driveway curb cut. 2. No more than 50% of the front elevation of a house should consist of garage area. a. In the R1 -a zone, the maximum width of a garage on the front elevation should be 25 feet, which will accommodate a two -car garage. Additional garage spaces should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a detached accessory structure at the rear of the property. 3. Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more. 4. All roofs should have at least a one -foot overhang. 5. Porches are encouraged. a. In the R1 -a zone, the following porch design guidelines apply i. When viewed from the street, a porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a proportionately greater height than its width. ii. Structural supports should be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive. iii. The use of large columns or pillars is discouraged. iv. The eave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single -story elements in the neighborhood. v. Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements. 6. In R1 -6e and R1 -a zones, entry features should not be higher than 14 feet from natural grade to plate. B. Two -Story Design Guidelines. 2 1. The mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction 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. 2. The design should use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces. 3. Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of the second story. a. In the R1 -a zone, all second story wall heights greater than 6 feet, as measured from the second story finished floor, should have building wall offsets at least every 24 feet, with a minimum 4 foot depth and 10 foot width. The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane. 4. The current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained. 5. When possible, doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned with one another vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and placement. • 15 6. In the R1 -a zone, windows on the side elevations should a. Be fixed and obscured to a height of 5 feet above the second floor; b. Have permanent exterior louvers to a height of 5 feet above the second floor; or c. Have sill heights of 5 feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor's privacy. Two -story homes subject to design review per Section 19.28.040 (E) (except in R1 -a zones) shall meet the residential design review principles below in Section 19.28.110 (C). The City of Cupertino Two -Story Design Principles are attached hereto as Appendix A and are incorporated herein by this reference. C. Residential Design Review Principles. 1. An identifiable architectural style shall be provided; 2. Design features, proportions and details shall be consistent with the architectural style selected; 3. Visual relief deemed to be appropriate by the Director of Community Development shall be provided; 4. Materials shall be of high quality; 5. Ensure building mass and scale; 6. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure; and 7. The design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and balance. Notes: 1 Refer to the Eichler Design Handbook- Fairgrove Neighborhood for additional design guidelines in the R1 -6e zone. 2 Nonconformance with the design guidelines in the R1 -a zone shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. 19.28.120 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 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 16 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 Section 19.28.110 (C) below. C. Planting Requirements. 1. Front yard tree planting. a. The tree shall be 24 -inch box or larger, with a minimum height of 6 feet. b. The tree shall be planted in front of new second stories in the front yard setback area. i. In the R1 -a zone, the tree shall be placed to where views from second story windows across the street are partially mitigated. c. The Director of Community Development may waive the front yard tree based on a report from an internationally - certified arborist citing conflict with existing mature tree canopies onsite or in the public right -of -way. 2. Privacy planting. a. New trees and /or shrubs are required on the applicant's property in an area bounded by a 30- degree angle on each side window jamb. i. The following is required for all side and rear yard - facing second story windows in the R1 -6e zone: • Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height of 5 feet above the second floor; or • Obscure glass to a height of 5 feet above the second floor; or • Have a window sill height of 5 feet minimum above the finished second floor 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. i. In the R1 -a zone, the minimum height of privacy trees at the time of planting shall be 12 feet. ii. In the R1 -a zone, privacy planting shall have a minimum setback from the property line equivalent to one - quarter of the spread noted on the City list. c. The trees and/or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit. 3. Waivers. a. New trees and / 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. 17 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 19.28.130 Exceptions. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from the strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to sections 19.28.070, 19.28.080, and 19.28.110 may be granted by the Design Review Committee. The specific procedural requirements shall follow Section 19.28.140. 19.28.140 Minor Residential Permits, Two -Story Permits, and Residential Design Review applications. A. Procedural requirements. 1. Written notice, mailing radius, development plans, and public comment period. a. 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) 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). i. For Residential Design Review applications in the R1 -a zone and R1 Exceptions, 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. b. 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. For Minor Residential Permits, Two -Story Permits, and Residential Design Review applications not in the R1 -a zone, a public comment period of 14 calendar days shall commence when the written notice is sent by first class mail. 2. Posted notice. For Two -Story Permits and Residential Design Review applications, the applicant shall install a public notice in the front yard of the subject site that is clearly visible from the public street. a. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, at least 2 feet tall and 3 feet wide firmly attached to a 5 foot tall post. 18 b. The notice shall be placed at least 14 days prior to the decision /public hearing and shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the appeal period has passed. c. The sign shall contain the following: i. The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property, if the address is not known; ii. A brief description of the proposed project, the content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City; iii. City contact information for public inquiries; iv. A deadline for the submission of public comments; v. At least one of the following visual representations of the proposed project, at least 11 inches by 17 inches in size in black and white or color: • Perspective drawings; or • Three - dimensional (3D) photographic simulation d. The City shall approve the perspective drawing or 3D photographic simulation prior to posting. 3. Decision. a. For Minor Residential Permits, Two -Story Permits, and Residential Design Review applications not in the R1 -a zone, after the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director of Community Development shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application only upon making all of the respective findings in Section 19.28.150. b. For Residential Design Review applications in the R1 -a zone and R1 Exceptions, the Design Review Committee shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application only upon making all of the respective findings in Section 19.28.150. 4. 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. 5. Appeals. 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 for Minor Residential Permits, Two -Story Permits, and Residential Design Review applications not in the R1 -a zone. The appeal period shall expire 14 calendar days after the decision. 6. Expiration. a. Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the permit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the . conditions of approval. b. In the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the permit shall become null and void. 19 7. 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 permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. 8. Concurrent applications. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, applications can be processed concurrently with other discretionary applications. Note: 1 Perspective drawing is defined as a rendering of a three- dimensional view depicting the height, width, depth, and position of a proposed structure in relation to surrounding properties and structures when viewed from street level. 19.28.150 Findings. Sections 19.28.150 (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E) set forth the findings required for a Minor Residential Permit, Two -Story Permit, Residential Design Review, and R1 Exception approval. A. Minor Residential Permit Findings. 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the 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 be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. B. Two -Story Permit Findings. 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the 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 be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. C. Residential Design Review Findings. 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the 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 be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 20 3. The project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. 4. The project is consistent with the two -story design principles and generally consistent with the single - family residential design guidelines. 5. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. D. Residential Design Review Findings, R1 -a zone. 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 2. The granting of this permit will not result in detrimental or injurious conditions to the property or improvements in the vicinity, or to the public health, safety, or welfare. 3. The project is generally compatible with the established pattern of building forms, building materials, and designs of homes in the neighborhood. 4. 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. 5. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from adjoining properties have been mitigated to the maximum extent possible. E. R1 Exception Findings. 1. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. 2. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area, nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare. 3. 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. 4. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. 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. 21 CC.. Karen B. Guerin From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 9:28 PM To: City Clerk; City Council Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gary Chao; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Initial Comments on Neighbor Noticing for August 16 City Council Meeting Dear City Council: These are some initial comments on Neighbor Noticing for R1. I will send more comments after these. The City and the City Council are proposing changes for the RI Ordinance that would affect Neighbor Noticing for new two story homes. The current R1 Ordinance requires three hundred foot noticing and it works well now. Small lot neighborhoods have special issues with two story homes because the lots are so small. A new two story home can affect a house two houses away because there will be windows that can look into person's homes or there is balcony that can be seen across many neighbor's yards. That is why the 300 foot radius has worked so well. A new two story home can be seen across many neighbors' yards. Below are some wording changes: Attachment A of the Ordinance No. 11 -2079 (Which makes the City Council's changes to R1) should read in several sections to notice and send plansets to neighbors directly behind the lot where the two story is going to be constructed. These sections are in 19.28.130 Minor Residential Permits, Part A:Written Notice and Plan Set and Part B. Mailing Radius. Parts A and B should say that the plansets should be sent to the rear property owners also. This is also true for Section 19.28.140 Two Story Permit and Residential Design Review. Parts A. Written Notice and Planset and Part B. Mailing Radius. Parts A and B should say the plansets should be sent to the rear property owners also. This is also true for Section 19.28.150: Exceptions. Parts A. Written Notice and Part B. Mailing Radius. Parts A and B should say the plansets should be sent to the rear property owners also. The best course of action is to leave neighbor noticing alone and to not change anything. The current noticing in Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates works very well. To change it is to potentially degrade it. Any changes that are implemented should be studied very carefully. It is hoped that any changes will not degrade the high level of quality that the current neighbor noticing provides now. The best course of action for Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates is to leave the current Neighbor Noticing alone and not change anything. Thank you very much. Jennifer Griffin Small Lot Neighborhood Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates Neighborhoods 1 c C 1/10 I u Karen B. Guerin From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:15 PM To: City Clerk; George Schroeder; Gary Chao; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava Cc: City Council Subject: Initial Comments on Neighbor Noticiig for August 16 City Council Meeting Dear George, Gary and Cupertino Planning Department: These are some initial comments on Neighbor Noticing for R1. I will send more comments after these. The City and the City Council are proposing changes for the R1 Ordinance that would affect Neighbor Noticing for new two story homes. The current R1 Ordinance requires three hundred foot noticing and it works well now. Small lot neighborhoods have special issues with two story homes because the lots are so small. A new two story home can affect a house two houses away because there will be windows that can look into person's homes or there is balcony that can be seen across many neighbor's yards. That is why the 300 foot radius has worked so well. A new two story home can be seen across many neighbors' yards. Below are some wording changes: Attachment A of the Ordinance No. 11 -2079 (Which makes the City Council's changes to R1) should read in several sections to notice and send plansets to neighbors directly behind the lot where the two story is going to be constructed. These sections are in 19.28.130 Minor Residential Permits, Part A:Written Notice and Plan Set and Part B. Mailing Radius. Parts A and B should say that the plansets should be sent to the rear property owners also. This is also true for Section 19.28.140 Two Story Permit and Residential Design Review. Parts A. Written Notice and Planset and Part B. Mailing Radius. Parts A and B should say the plansets should be sent to the rear property owners also. This is also true for Section 19.28.150 : Exceptions. Parts A. Written Notice and Part B. Mailing Radius. Parts A and B should say the plansets should be sent to the rear property owners also. The best course of action is to leave neighbor noticing alone and to not change anything. The current noticing in Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates works very well. To change it is to potentially degrade it. Any changes that are implemented should be studied very carefully. It is hoped that any changes will not degrade the high level of quality that the current neighbor noticing provides now. The best course of action for Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates is to leave the current Neighbor Noticing alone and not change anything. Thank you very much. Jennifer Griffin Small Lot Neighborhood Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates Neighborhoods 1 Cc i1IL'I1/ Karen B. Guerin From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 1:58 PM To: City Clerk; City Council Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gary Chao; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Comments on Story Poles for August 16 City Council Meeting Dear City Council: These are some comments on the proposal by the City Council to remove story poles from the R1 Ordiannce for Cupertino and the neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates. The staff report stated that story poles became required by the C:ity of Cupertino in 2005. I believe that Cupertino was using story poles before this. It was near annexation time so the time was more likely 2002. The neighbohood of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates have become accustomed to having story poles be used for two story house construction. Changing the R1 Ordinance to not allow story poles, will cause discussion by the neighborhood and questions to be asked about how the City plans to replace story poles and what devices will be used to try to replicate the information stoy poles relay to the neighborhcod of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates. It must remembered and acknowledged that the neighborhood has become accustomed to certain building standards and there would be many questions if those standards were altered, relaxed or replaced. Certainly one of the most important questions that would be asked is what mechanism does the City seek to use to convey to the neighborhood the information the story poles conveyed very eloquently. I, myself, have been involved with many of my neighbors in the process of a new two story home being built near us, and everyone received the plansets and the notices of the new home. The story poles went up and everyone was able to see where parts of the house would be. The back of the house can look into my living room window. (Remember these are small lots). The story poles did the job beautifully. They were put up by a prominent builder and they stayed up and did not fall down. (There are commercial companies that specialize in putting up story poles of all kinds for all types of construction so the putting up of story poles is not just some haphazard slipshod affair, but is a real science). And story poles work very well in small lot neighborhoods and address the issues that have been historical issues for the annexed neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates. The home that resulted from the use of story poles which involved my neighbors and myself is a thing of beauty and quality that we are all proud of. I think it is one of the most exquisite homes that has been built in Cupertino. It protects its street tree, it provides privacy for its family and for the neighbors and increases the property values in the neighborhood. So if story poles can do that in Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates, then the City needs to come up with something that can do the same thing if the City intends to remove story poles from the R1 Ordinance. I am so impressed by story poles and the job that they do so eloquently, I would not hesitate to use them if I were building a two story home or second story on my home. care deeply about my neighbors and would want them to see what the resulting house would look like. Story poles in small lot neighborhoods help to promote the sense of community. The City and City Council is proposing replacing story poles with a "black and white three - dimensional photo simulation" or a "perspective rendering ". If the City and the City Council do this, then the "computer picture" needs to be of all four sides of the house and be given to the neighbors on all four sides of the new two story house. Remember, if you have a 5,000 square foot small lot, all four neighbors are going to be affected by the new home. Story poles show all four neighbors where the house is going and how close it will be to lot lines on all four sides. A two story house on a small lot affects all neighbors, not those just on each side, but those in front and in back and often on other lots as well. 1 Also, it is important that these "computer" pictures be produced by the City and not by the builder. The builder might misrepresent what the final house will look like and where important features are such as windows and chimneys. The story poles will always show where the house will be. It is a visual picture that everyone can see and experience. A picture may not show what the final house will look like. With story poles there no surprises. It is important that the City understand the issues that Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates have traditionally had, and that City and City Council try to not make changes in the building code that will adversely affect those issues. Utmost care must be taken so that, if the building code is altered, there are mitigations to ensure that the residents will not experience a degraded building code. There is a certain expectation by the neighborhood that the neighborhood will be protected in the style to which it has become accustomed. There was a lot of support from residents in the R1 workshops to even enhance the strength of the R1 Ordinance. It is important that the City and the City Council not degrade the R1 Ordinance in Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates after the neighborhood has become accustomed to twelve years of the City's protections. Maybe a planner liason needs to be apointed to make sure Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates do not suffer loss of building code protections during this transition. I do hope story poles will remain in the R1 Ordinance for Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin Small Lot Neighborhood Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates Neighborhoods 2 CC (blob( Karen B. Guerin From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 2:28 PM To: City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; George Schroeder; Gary Chao; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava Cc: City Council Subject: Some Comments on Story Poles for August 16 City Council Meeting Dear George, Gary and Cupertino Planning Department: These are some comments on the proposal by the City Council to remove story poles from the R1 Ordiannce for Cupertino and the neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates. The staff report stated that story poles became required by the City of Cupertino in 2005. I believe that Cupertino was using story poles before this. It was near annexation time so the time was more likely 2002. The neighbohood of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates have become accustomed to having story poles be used for two story house construction. Changing the RI Ordinance to not allow story poles, will cause discussion by the neighborhood and questions to be asked about how the City plans to replace story poles and what devices will be used to try to replicate the information stoy poles relay to the neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates. It must remembered and acknowledged that the neighborhood has become accustomed to certain building standards and there would be many questions if those standards were altered, relaxed or replaced. Certainly one of the most important questions that would be asked is what mechanism does the City seek to use to convey to the neighborhood the information the story poles conveyed very eloquently. I, myself, have been involved with many of my neighbors in the process of a new two story home being built near us, and everyone received the plansets and the notices of the new home. The story poles went up and everyone was able to see where parts of the house would be. The back of the house c an look into my living room window. (Remember these are small lots). The story poles did the job beautifully. They were put up by a prominent builder and they stayed up and did not fall down. (There are commercial companies that specialize in putting up story poles of all kinds for all types of construction so the putting up of story poles is not just some haphazard slipshod affair, but is a real science). And story poles work very well in small lot neighborhoods and address the issues that have been historical issues for the annexed neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates. The home that resulted from the use of story poles which involved my neighbors and myself is a thing of beauty and quality that we are all proud of. I think it is one of the most exquisite homes that has been built in Cupertino. It protects its street tree, it provides privacy for its family and for the neighbors and increases the property values in the neighborhood. So if story poles can do that in Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates, then the City needs to come up with something that can do the same thing if the City intends to remove story poles from the R1 Ordinance. I am so impressed by story poles and the job that they do so eloquently, I would not hesitate to use them if I were building a two story home or second story on my horse. I care deeply about my neighbors and would want them to see what the resulting house would look like. Story 1 poles in small lot neighborhoods help to promote the sense of community. The City and City Council is proposing replacing story poles with a "black and white three- dimensional photo simulation" or a "perspective rendering ". If the City and the City Council do this, then the "computer picture" needs to be of all four sides of the house and be given to the neighbors on all four sides of the new two story house. Remember, if you have a 5,000 square foot small lot, all four neighbors are going to be affected by the new home. Story poles show all four neighbors where the house is going and how close it will be to lot lines on all four sides. A two story house on a small lot affects all neighbors, not those just on each side, but those in front and in back and often on other lots as well. Also, it is important that these "computer" pictures be produced by the City and not by the builder. The builder might misrepresent what the final house will look like and where important features are such as windows and chimneys. The story poles will always show where the house will be. It is a visual picture that everyone can see and experience. A picture may not show what the final house will look like. With story poles there no surprises. It is important that the City understand the issues that Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates have traditionally had, and that City and City Council try to not make changes in the building code that will adversely affect those issues. Utmost care must be taken so that, if the building code is altered, there are mitigations to ensure that the residents will not experience a degraded building code. There is a certain expectation by the neighborhood that the neighborhood will be protected in the style to which it has become accustomed. There was a lot of support from residents in the R1 workshops to even enhance the strength of the R1 Ordinance. It is important that the City and the City Council not degrade the RI Ordinance in Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates after the neighborhood has become accustomed to twelve years of the City's protections. Maybe a planner liason needs to be apointed to make sure Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates do not suffer loss of building code protections during this transition. I do hope story poles will remain in the RI Ordinance for Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin Small Lot Neighborhood Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates Neighborhoods 2 CC Alin lip - 2S Karen B. Guerin From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:06 AM To: City Clerk; City Council Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gary Chao; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Promises Made by Cupertino to Annexed Rancho Rinconada /Loree Estates Dear City Council: A document from Measure W, which was the Measure that brought Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates into the City of Cupertino, states under "Advantages of Annexai:ion to Cupertino" : - -- Cupertino zoning standards and direct input into zoning issues such as house size and set backs - -- Representative, local government - -- More convenient access to government (close by with evening meetings boadcast live on local cable) - -- Opportunity to participate on local boards, committees Promises were made to Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates at annexation by the city of Cupertino to provide "Cupertino zoning standards and direct input into zoning issues such as house size and set backs ". It does not appear that these promises are being kept as there are changes being made to the City zoning standards and the input from the neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates has been ignored. Changes are being made to the zoning that will degrade the neighborhood and the residents have not had "direct input into zoning issues ". It is important that the city honor the promises it made to the neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates when they annexed into the City. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin Small lot neighborhood Rancho Rinconada/Loree Estates Neighborhood 1 cc /lit -11( �ZS Karen B. Guerin From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:29 AM T City Clerk; George Schroeder; Gary Chao; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: City Council Subject: Promises Made by Cupertino to Annexed Rancho Rinconada /Loree Estates Dear George, Gary and Planning Department: A document from Measure W, which was the Measure that brought Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates into the City of Cupertino, states under "Advantages of Annexation to Cupertino" : - -- Cupertino zoning standards and direct input into zoning issues such as house size and set backs - -- Representative, local government - -- More convenient access to government (close by with evening meetings boadcast live on local cable) - -- Opportunity to participate on local boards, committees Promises were made to Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates at annexation by the city of Cupertino to provide "Cupertino zoning standards and direct input into zoning issues such as house size and set backs ". It does not appear that these promises are being kept as there are changes being made to the City zoning standards and the input from the neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates has been ignored. Changes are being made to the zoning that will degrade the neighborhood and the residents have not had "direct input into zoning issues ". It is important that the city honor the promises it made to the neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates when they annexed into the City. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin Small Lot Neighborhood Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates Neighborhood 1 c Ali ht Karen B. Guerin From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 7:49 PM To: City Clerk; City Council Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gary Chao; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Comments on Design Review for August 16 City Council Meeting Dear City Council: Most of the Planning Commission decided to vote for no Design Review on the R1 Ordinance meeting on July 12. This was a pretty unusual approach to take, especially since there had been great support for keeping Design Rview at the previous Planning Commisison workshop on May 28. Where did the Planning Commission get their ideas on eliminating Design Review? Then, for the City Council to base their decisions for no Design Review on what the Planning Commission had come up with makes it look like neither the Planning Commission or the City Council was paying attention to the public. I think the best course for Two Story Design Review is to keep everything the way it is. We are forgetting why we have an R1 Ordinance. It is a document unique to Cupertino and it is part of Cupertino. Why did the Planning Commission want to get rid of Design Review when the workshops attendees wanted Design Review retained and in some cases strengthened? am uncomfortable with all the many things that are being changed all at one time. This does not seem like a "Limited" review of R1 anymore. What does the 66% FAR or Floor to Area Ratio mean in Design Review? Is the intent to change the current 45% FAR to 66% FAR? Let's please leave the Two Story Design Review alone. What we have in R1 works well and we are going off on tangents to try to change FAR to 66 %. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin Small Lot Neighborhood Rancho Rinconada/Loree Estates Neighborhood 1 C C ?// ,/1f Karen B. Guerin L From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:56 PM To: City Clerk; City Council Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gary Chao; George Schroeder; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Comments on Mailing Plan Sets and Design Review for Rancho /Loree Neighborhood for August 16 Dear City Council: It is important that full plansets of new proposed two story homes be given out to neighbors during public noticing of new two story building in Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates. The neigbor noticing should include the full three hundred foot noticing radius since the lots are so small. One new two story can impact adjacent lots for great distances. Neighbors two to three lots aways in all directions can be impacted because many Rancho homes have full floor to ceiling clerestory windows and new two story houses can have windows that look into neighbors' yards and windows. The plans sent to the neighbors during noticing should be full plansets. It is very difficult to download house plansets off of the city website. Most of the house plans should be printed on large scale plotters and most people don't ahve these in their homes. Full plans sets let neighbors know what will be happening on the new two story lot and also they will show where the garage will be and if the builder has noted the street tree in the building plans. In Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates it has been shown that the less surprises there are for the neighbors, the • less of a problem there will be in the long run. A new two story affects many neighbors and a successful two story home is one that the neighbors know about. There is :ao room for surprises. The lots are so small that the building of the new two story affects everyone around the new home. Letting neighbors know what is going on is an excellent way to make sure the new two story will fit in well to the neighborhood. It is important that Rancho Rinconda and Loree Estates new two story homes have design review so that the homes will fit into the neighborhood and that neighbors will know what is going to be built. Story poles have worked beautifully in Rancho Rinconada to produce homes of high quality that everyone is very proud of. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin Small Lot Neighborhood Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates Neighbohood 1 Cc >l'/ /1( Karen B. Guerin From: mattheakis@comcast.net Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 5:00 PM To: Barry Chang Cc: City Council Subject: Conflict of interest in voting for changes to Cupertino residential R1 ordinance Councilman Chang, I hope you abstained from the recent council vote to relax the residential zoning R1 ordinance. As a Cupertino council member and real estate agent that sells residential property in Cupertino, you have a clear conflict of interest in voting on this issue. Larger homes that do not require design review have the potential to sell at higher prices under this new ordinance, which will result in a higher sales commission for real estate agents such as yourself. I am surprised the council has not previously taken up this obvious conflict, and hope you are more careful next time such an issue comes up for a vote. Larry Mattheakis 20612 Sunrise Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 1 CL f )( Karen B. Guerin '‘ti 2,5 From: Keithddl527 @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:55 PM To: City Council Cc: City Clerk Subject: R1 Ordinance, second reading Dear City Council and Honorable Mayor: I have concerns about your propriety, the prior fulfillment of the public notice requirements and the over all legal due diligence not followed for your prior approval of some specific changes to the R1 ordinance, your new changes to this ordinance having a second reading tonight. When the City Council was taking about eliminating wall plane height and second story surcharge, this was done after the public input was closed. I believe these specific issues were not up for discussion when R1 was reopened many months ago, as many I am in contact with in our community also agree too. The public never discussed these specific issues in the two community workshops, nor did the Planning Commission discuss them in front of the public either, which is my best recall today of what had transpired. The City Council began discussing these two specific issues only after the closing of Public Comment on August 2nd, so none of your impacted constituents had a chance to say anything about those changes or then of your own comments as to why you had acted to change them; all of your actions and approvals were done after the closing of public comment. I believe wall plane height and second story surcharge have historic interest and real impacts to our fellow residents in the Rancho & Loree area of our city, going all the way back to 1997 era and to this neighborhoods annexation into our Cupertino city limits, as they desired to avoid monster homes being built by developers like Emily the Horrible who rampaged over residents in this neighborhood by building monstrosities not in keeping with the neighborhoods sense of proprieties and /or Cupertino building codes; protection which only annexation would provide to these new residents of our city. I hope you would reconsider and then remove these specific R1 changes in the hope of putting them out to a fair public hearing, done with proper prior city wide noticing, allowing for public comments on the issues, specifically from our newly annexed neighbors who will be clearly impacted, if this was lost n your own sequestered discussions. am reviewing the need to file a joint reconsideration against this new ordinance, regarding these specific items; eliminating wall plane height and second story surcharge, due to the perceived lack of due diligence done by the city council and the city attorney who should insure open transparency during the ordinance review process, by also perhaps avoiding any reneging of any annexation "understandings" perceived to still exist in the Rancho & Loree neighborhood, but this neighborhood was not allowed due process to discuss there very specific concerns ahead of time, as no due diligence was provided for the inclusion of these specific issues; eliminating wall plane height and second story surcharge, which only a well noticed public hearing can provide. will also join with several concerned residents to file a CA Records Request to find all the supporting documentation which the city can provide supporting its own position; clearly showing that prior public noticing and public comment was allowed prior to these two specific R1 ordinance changes were inacted. Thank you. Keith Murphy 10159 East Estates Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 408 - 252 -6503 1