19. Chapter 19.28 R1 Ordinance
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
ClTY Of
CUPERJINO
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No.!j
Agenda Date: April 3, 2007
SUBJECT
Consider a Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 19.28 Single-Family Residential
(Rl) Zones regarding buildings proposed on properties with an average slope equal to
or greater than fifteen percent, Application Nos. MCA-2006-01 and EA-2006-01 City of
Cupertino
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
1. Conduct first reading to delete the 15% threshold of residential hillside
standards overlay and revert to the Rl hillside standards prior to the 2005 Rl
Ordinance where only developments on slopes of 30% or greater will be
subjected to the hillside standards regardless of geographical locations.
Environmental Assessment:
Categorically Exempt
BACKGROUND
The following is a brief summary of the background:
. Prior to 1993, the City had limited policies and guidelines regulating properties
located in the hillside area.
. The General Plan of 1993 incorporated more extensive development standards
intended to minimize negative impacts on hillside resources. In that same year, the
Residential Hillside (RHS) Zoning District was revised with a set of comprehensive
hillside development regulations.
. On January 18, 2005, the City Council approved amendments to the Rl Ordinance
applying hillside standards to Rllots with an average slope of 15% or greater.
The Council voted unanimously to approve the amendments to the Rl hillside
development standards. The Council consensus at the time was that more hillside
/1-1
MCA-2006-0l
EA-2006-01
April 3, 2007
Page 2
protection measures are consistent with the Council's general plan policies and
goals. Please refer to the online video recordings from the November 16, 2004 public
hearing for a re-cap of the Council's sentiments on the issue at the following URL:
http://www.cupertino.org/ city government/city channel/webcasting archives 2
004/ index. asp
Specific relevant clip positions and speakers:
58:06 (R. Lowethal)
1:00:43 - 1:04:15 (P. Kwok)
1:11:05 -1:11:25 (R. Lowethal)
1:30:15 -1:30:42 (D. Sandoval)
1:37:26 - 1:37:50 (5. James)
1:38:30 -1:39:23 (P. Kwok)
1:40:25 -1:45:14 (Motion to approve 5-0)
. Due to the concerns expressed from the affected property owners, the Council
directed staff in January of 2006 as part of its work program to re-open the Rl
hillside standards for discussion and public input.
. The major issue affected by this discussion is house size. Under the Rl rules, an
applicant can build a house up to 45% of floor area ratio on slopes up to 30%. The
RHS development standards reduce the allowable house size as the slope increases.
For example, under the Rl rules, a 20,000 square foot lot with an average 15% slope
would allow a 9,000 square foot home. Under the RHS ordinance, the same lot
would only be permit a 4,714 square foot home.
Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff reports for the complete
background of the R1 hillside standards and detailed information on the
geographical and slope applicability of the 15% R1 threshold for hillside standards.
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission reviewed the Rl hillside standards and took public
testimony on January 23, 2007 and March 13,2007. The Planning Commission on a 3-1-
1 vote (Miller, Wong and Chien voted aye; Giefer voted no; Kaneda abstained) to
recommend the following:
. Revert the Rl hillside standards prior to the 2005 Rl Ordinance where only
developments on slopes of 30% or greater will be subjected to the hillside
standards regardless of geographical locations
The Planning Commission comments included:
( 1-2-
MCA-2006-01
EA-2006-01
Apri13,2007
Page 3
. The 15% Rl hillside standard should not be applied to the Stevens Creek
watercourse and floodplain area. However, the majority of the Commission felt
that the Rl hillside standards should be repealed due to the concerns expressed
by some of the residents with regards to infringement of their property rights,
the unfairness/confusion of the new Rl hillside standards and the potential
negative impacts on the value of the affected properties.
. One Commissioner felt that the hillside protection should be emphasized and
that the 15% Rl hillside standards overlay should be retained based on the fact
that the hillside properties with the same characteristics should be equally
treated with the same hillside protection standards. The same Commissioner
supports the idea of further curtailing the geographical applicability of the new
Rl hillside standards to not include properties located on the flatter valley floor
since the Council's intent was to protect hillside properties.
. One Commissioner elected to abstain from making a recommendation due to
lack of background information.
. Sentiments were expressed that more data is required in order to fully evaluate
further protecting some of the Rl hillside areas and that if the Council is serious
about preserving the hillside then it should consider rezoning the Rl hillside
properties to RHS instead of a 15% overlay.
Public Testimony
The comments expressed by the residences at the Planning Commission meetings are
summarized as follows:
Opponents of the new Rl hillside standards
. The applicability of both the RHS and Rl Ordinance on lots with average slope
over 15% is confusing, misleading and unfair.
. The 15% threshold of hillside standards is not an effective way of protecting the
hillside. Applying the limitations to the building pad would be more
appropriate.
. The new Rl hillside standards will lower property values of the affected
properties.
. The 15% hillside standards threshold was approved without public input and the
process did not have proper notifications to the residents in the area.
Appropriate. In addition, the Council had voted unanimously to take out the
15% rule on October 4, 2005 Council public hearing but was not able to due to a
noticing issue.
. Retaining walls are functionally needed. Building homes on hillsides are
beneficial in that the homes will help stabilize the hill from sliding therefore any
further restriction of home sites or intensities should be reverted.
Proponents of the new Rl hillside standards
I q--3
MCA-2006-01
EA-2006-01
April 3, 2007
Page 4
. Unprotected hillside properties with large homes will ruin views of the natural
hillside and negatively impact the property value of the adjacent homes.
. The 15 % threshold of hillside standards should be retained to protect the City's
hillsides.
. Protecting the hillsides is consistent with the City's General Plan Policies and the
Council's goals.
. Large retaining walls, large homes and intensive subdivisions have negatively
impacted the Lindy Lane area; without any hillside standards, the Rl Ordinance
will not be able to sufficiently protect the hillsides.
. The property rights of the adjacent property owners that are for preservation of
hillsides and that have been negatively affected by intensive or large
developments on hillsides should also be considered.
. The Rl hillside properties, in particular the Lindy Lane area, should have been
zoned Residential Hillside Standards.
Staff
Staff provides the following responses (in blue) to clarify some of the technical
comments and/ or questions raised at the Planning Commission hearings:
With the new Rl hillside standards, will property owners be allowed to rebuild existing non-
conforming homes iflost in a natural disaster?
Regardless of the zoning district, the City's non-conforming building ordinance allows
legal non-conforming homes in the event of naturally caused destruction to be rebuilt to
its original form and size. There are exceptions and the additional details of the non-
conforming ordinance are described in the Municipal Code Chapter 19.112.080 (Exhibit
B).
Why pockets of the Rl hillside properties north of Lindy Lane are zoned Rl and not
RHS?
The Lindy Lane area was annexed from the County of Santa Clara in the 1960s where
most of the property took on the prior Single-Family Residential (Rl) zoning
designation from the County jurisdiction. In 1993, the General Plan amendment
authorized staff to evaluate a rezoning process where the majority of the existing
Single-Family Residential (Rl) hillside properties in the area were rezoned to
Residential Hillside (RHS). The City initiated a rezoning process in 1995 (10-Z-95) to
rezone the Lindy Lane area to RHS in order to be consistent with the General Plan
Amendment of 1993. At the time, staff was only authorized to rezone properties with a
General Plan land use designation of very low intensity. Therefore, a pocket of the Rl
hillside properties (upslope and north of Lindy Lane) were left out of the rezoning
process. In addition, some of the existing Rl properties at the foothill along the south
side of the Lindy Lane kept their Rl zoning designation because it was determined that
their development potentials have been maximized (Le., foothill properties along the
south side of Lindy Lane).
Il'-L(
MCA-2006-0l
EA-2006-01
April 3, 2007
Page 5
On October 4,2005, the City Council considered a staff initiated proposal to rezone the
Rl hillside properties north of Lindy Lane to RHS. The Council elected not to rezone
these properties due to their concerns of the potential property values impacts to the
affected properties.
The statement that the Council's decision to implement new R1 hillside standards was
done without public input and appropriate public noticing.
As mentioned previously, the Council's decision to change the Rl hillside standards
was part of the 2005 Rl Ordinance Amendment, which was noticed City wide and all of
decisions were made at public hearings and televised to the entire City. Most of the
opponents of the 15 % threshold for the additional hillside standards attended the
Planning Commission meetings relating to the Rl Ordinance Amendment and were
informed that the Commission served only as advisory body to the City Council and
that the Council had the final decision.
The statement that the Council, on October 4,2005, desired to take out the its previously
approved 15% threshold for the RHS overlay for hillside Rl properties, but was unable
to due to lack of proper notification.
On October 4,2005, the City Council discussed its 2005 General Plan Amendment. Part
of the scope of General Plan changes was to consider revising the land use designation
of the Lindy Lane area from low intensity (1 to 5 D.U.j Ac.) to hillside slope density
formula. The Council did not consider or vote to change the land use designation for
the area during that meeting. The Council did vote to retain the low intensity land use
designation of the Lindy Lane area. This decision was separate from the Council's prior
decision of increasing the Rl hillside standards by adjusting the threshold from 30%
slope to an average 15% slope.
The video records of the Council's October 4, 2005 (Item #10) public meeting may be
downloaded at the following URL:
http://www.cupertino.org/ city government I city channel/webcasting archives 2005
I index.asp
Relevant discussion began at the 1:13:07 mark.
ENCLOSURES
Exhibit A: Model Ordinance
Exhibit B: Non-conforming Building Ordinance
Exhibit C: Planning Commission Staff Reports (March 13, 2007 & January 23, 2007)
With Attachments
Exhibit D: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 23, 2007, the minutes of
March 13,2007 will be available at the Council meeting
{q-)
MCA-2006-01
EA-2006-01
April 3, 2007
Page 6
Exhibit E: Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Email of Concern from Ron Berti received March 14,2007
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner
Approved by:
-.
~).
David W. Knapp {lv ...,
City Manager
,. 'j L
1-1I
Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through.
MODEL ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING CHAPTER 19.28.050, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES (R-l)
OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Chapter 19.28 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as
follows:
19.28.050 Development Regulations (Site).
A. Lot Area Zoning Designations.
1. Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one
thousand square feet) following the Rl zoning symbol. Examples
are as follows:
Minimum
Lot Area
Zoning in Square
Symbol Number Feet
Rl 5 5,000
Rl 6 6,000
Rl 7.5 7,500
Rl 10 10,000
Rl 20 20,000
2. Lots, which contain less area than required by subsection A(I) of this
section, but not less than five thousand square feet, may
nevertheless be used as building sites, provided that all other
applicable requirements of this title are fulfilled.
B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be sixty feet measured at the
front-yard setback line, except in the RI-5 district where the minimum lot
width is fifty feet.
[1-1
C. Development on Properties with Hillside Characteristics.
1. Buildings proposed on properties with an aTlerage slope equal to or
grcatcr than fifteen pcrccnt a portion of a lot with slopes of thirty
percent or greater shall be developed in accordance with the site
development and design standards specified in Sections 19.40.050
through 19.40.140 of the Residential Hillside ordinance, Chapter
19.40, or the Rl zoning ordinance, Chapter 19.28, whichever specific
regulation is more restrictive.
Buildings proposed on a portion of a lot with slopes of thirty percent
or greater shall be developed in accordance with the site
development and design standards specified in Sections 19.40.050
through 19.40.140 of the Residential Hillside ordinance, Chapter
19.40, or the R-l zoning ordinance, Chapter 19.28, whichever specific
regulation is more restrictive.
2. No structure or improvements shall occur on slopes of thirty percent
or greater unless an exception is granted in accordance with Section
19.40.140, unless no more than five hundred square feet of
development, including grading and structures, occurs on an area
with a slope of thirty percent or greater. (Ord. 1886, (part), 2001;
Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, S 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part),
1999; Ord. 1635, S 1 (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 192)
D. An application for building permits filed and accepted by the Community
Development DepC!-rtment (fees paid and permit number issued) on or
before March 1, 2005 may proceed with application processing under the
ordinances in effect at that time.
F: \ PDREPORT\Rlord\MCA-2006-01ccord.doc
I q-y
19.1U.010
CHAPI'ER 19.1U: NONCONFORMING USES AND NONCONFORMING FACILITIES
Section
19.112.010
19.112.020
19.112.030
19.112.040
19.112.050
19.112.060
19.112.070
19.112.080
19.112.090
19.112.100
19.112.110
19.112.120
General application.
Nonconforming uses-Expansion.
Nonconforming uses-Change.
Nonconforming uses-Maintenance
and repair of facility .
Nonconforming uses-Replacement
of facility.
Noncomplying facility-Enlargement.
Noncomplying facility-Maintenance
and repairs.
Noncomplying facilities-
Replacement.
Detennination of value.
Record of nonconforming uses and
noncomplying facilities.
Proceedings.
Appeal.
19.1U.010 General Application.
A. Nonconforming Uses.
1. Any nonconforming use, as defined in Section
19.08.030 of this title, may be continued indefinitely, but if
such use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of six
months or more, it shall thereafter conform to the
provisions of this title.
2. Any nonconforming use may be changed, altered,
or maintained only as provided in this chapter or all
otherwise provided by law.
B. Noncomplying Facilities.
1. Any noncomplying facility, as defmed in Section
19.08. 050 may be maintained indefinitely subject, however,
to the requirements of Title 16 relating to unsafe,
dilapidated and abandoned buildings, facilities containing
toxic materials, unreinforced masonry buildings, and other
provisions of that title which are intended to protect the
health and safety of the public. Notwithstanding the above,
a noncomplying facility may not be maintained as either a
public or private nuisance.
2. Any noncomplying facility may be enlarged,
maintained, or replaced only as provided in this chapter or
as otherwise provided bylaw. (Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part),
1992)
19.1U.020 Nonconforming Uses-Expansion.
A. A nonconforming use may not be expanded in
such a way as to increase the site area, or gross floor area
occupied by such use on a site, nor may a nonconforming
use increase the number of structures or the size or height
of any structure housing such use. A nonconforming use
which occupies a portion of a building may not be expanded
to include additional floor area. (Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part),
1992)
19.112.030 Nonconforming Uses-Change.
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this
section, a nonconforming use shall not be changed to any
use except to a conforming use.
B. A nonconforming use may be changed to any
other nonconforming use which would have been permitted
under the most recent zoning classification of the property
under which the existing nonconforming use was a
conforming use subject to the following limitations:
1. The change shall not increase the site area or
gross floor area occupied by the existing nonconforming use
nor increase number of structures or the size or height of
any structure housing such use;
2. Any period of temporary vacancy or
discontinuance associated with such change shall not exceed
six months;
3. Such change shall be permitted only if the
Director determines that the building, or portion thereof,
presently occupied by the nonconforming use is not readily
usable as a conforming use. In making this determination,
the Director may take into account the time factors
described in Section 19.112.010 AI;
4. Such change shall not create, cause, or
significantly increase adverse privacy, noise, parking,
traffic, or similar impacts with respect to other uses or
neighboring properties.
C. A nonconforming use which is changed to a
conforming use, shall not be reestablished, and any portion
of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which
changes from a nonconforming to a conforming use, shall
not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming
use. (Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
131
11---1
19.112.040
Cupertino - Zoning
132
19.112.040 Nonconforming Uses-Maintenance and
Repair of Facility.
Facilities occupied or used by a nonconforming use
shall be subject to the following provisions governing
maintenance and repairs:
A. Normal and routine maintenance of any structure
for the purpose of preserving its existing condition,
retarding or eliminating wear and tear or physical
depreciation or for the purpose of complying with the
requirements of law, shall be permitted;
B. Incidental alterations shall be permitted, provided
that the value of the alterations in anyone-year period do
not exceed ten percent of the value of the structure prior to
such alterations;
C. Alterations of the facility which exceed ten
percent of the value as described above shall only be
permitted to accommodate a conforming use, or when made
as a requirementoflaw. (Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.112.050 Nonconforming Uses-Replacement of
Facility .
A facility used wholly or partly by one or more
nonconforminguses, which is damaged or destroyed by any
except by intentional acts of the owner and/or tenant of the
property may be reconstructed for continued occupancy by
said nonconforming use or uses provided that:
A. The site area, the gross floor area, the number,
size or height of the facilities occupied by the
nonconforming use, or the intensity of activity, shall not
exceed that existing prior to reconstruction;
B. The reconstruction shall be subject to all
applicable laws, regulations, codes and procedures
otherwise governing construction on the site. (Ord. 1601,
Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.112.060 Noncomplying Facility-Enlargement.
Except as specifically permitted by other provisions of
this title, no enlargement, expansion or other addition or
improvement to a noncomplying facility shall be permitted
which increases the noncompliance. This section shall not
be construed to prohibit enlargement or improvement of a
facility, otherwise permitted by this title, which does not
affect the particular degree or manner in which the facility
fails to Comply with one or more provisions of this title.
(Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.112.070 Noncomplying Facility-Maintenance and
Repairs.
A. Normal and routine maintenance of a
noncomplying facility shall be permitted for the purpose of
preserving its existing conditions, retarding or eliminating
wear and tear or physical depreciation, or for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of law.
B. Incidental alterations to a noncomplying facility
shall be permitted, provided such alterations do not increase
the degree of noncompliance, or otherwise increase the
discrepancy between existing conditions and the
requirements of this title.
C. Structural alterations to a noncomplying facility
shall be permitted when necessary to comply with the
requirements of law. or to accommodate a conforming use
when such alterations do not increase the degree of
noncompliance, or otherwise increase the discrepancy
between existing conditions and the requirement of this title.
(Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.112.080 Noncomplying Facilities-Replacement.
A. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this
chapter, any facility which houses a conforming use in any
residential or agricultural zone in the City, which is
damaged or destroyed by any means other than the willful
action of the owner or tenant, may be replaced as it existed
prior to such damage or destruction even if the facility is
nonconforming with regard to minimum. lot area, lot
coverage, setbacks, parking or other prescriptive zoning
requirements.
B. Except as provided in Section 19.112.080A, a
noncomplying facility which is damaged or destroyed by
any means, may only be reconstructed as a complying
facility except under one, or more, of the following
circumstances:
1. When the damage or destruction of a
noncomplying facility affects only a portion of a facility,
which portion does not constitute or contribute to the
noncompliance, the portion may be repaired orrreconstructed to its previous configuration;
2. When the damage or destruction of a
noncomplying facility affects only a portion of such facility ,
which portion constituted or contributed to the
noncompliance, any replacement to such damage shall be
accomplished in such a manner as not to reinstill the
noncompliance caused by the damaged portion of the
facility, and otherwise in full compliance with law;
provided, however, that in the event that the cost to replace
that portion of the damaged facility to its previous
configuration does not exceed ten percent of the value of the
entire facility prior to the damage, then that portion may be
replaced or reconstructed to its previous condition;
3. When the damage or destruction of a
noncomplying facility is noncomplying solely by reason of .
failure to comply with regulations for floor area ratio and/or
site coverage, and such noncompliance does not exceed the
maximum. floor area ratio by more than a factor of ten
percent and the maximum. site coverage by more than ten
percent, and affects only a portion of the facility, then that
portion may be replaced or reconstructed to its previous
condition. (Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
( 1- (0
133
Nonconforming Uses and Nonconforming Facilities
19.112.090
19.112.090 Determination of Value.
Value, as used in this chapter with respect to value of
a facility, or to the value of improvements on a site, or to
the value of reconstruction or replacement, means the
current cost of construction, or the current cost of
replacement in kind of existing facilities or improvements,
excluding consideration of the value of land. Estimates or
determinations of such cost for purposes of this chapter shall
be made by or shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief
Building Official. (Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.112.100 Record of Nonconforming Uses and
Noncomplying Facilities.
The Director of Community Development shall
maintain a list of all nonconforming uses and all
noncomplying buildings of which he has knowledge which
exist within the City except those properties in a multifamily
residential zoning district. The list shall state the nature of
the nonconformity or noncompliance and date discovered by
the City. (Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.112.110 Proceedings.
A. Failure to comply with any of the requirements
of this chapter shall render an otherwise valid,
nonconforming use unlawful. Proceedings to determine the
status of such nonconforming use shall be held at the request
of the Director of Community Development, before the
Planning Commission under the same procedures as
described in Section 19.120.100 of this title.
B. The Planning Commission may declare a
nonconforming use unlawful if it finds that one or more of
the following grounds exist:
1. That the nonconforming use is being or has been
exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of the original
approval; or
2. That the nonconforming use is so exercised as to
be detrimental to the public health or safety, or to be a
nuisance; or
3. That a person has modified a nonconforming use
in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. (Ord.
1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.112.120 Appeal.
. AIl determinations and decisions of the Planning
Commission or the Director of Community Development
under this chapter are subject to appeal to the City Council
under the procedures described in Section 19.132 of this
title. (Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
{1--(l
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
MCA-2006-01
City of Cupertino
Various
City-wide
Agenda Date: March 13, 2007
Application Summary: Review of Chapter 19.28 Single-Family Residential (R1) Zones
regarding developments proposed on properties with an average slope of 15% or
greater.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Take public testimony; and
2. Provide direction on ordinance changes if necessary; and/ or
3. Provide recommendations to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
The attached staff report summarizes the background related to the R1 hillside
standards prior to the Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 2007.
On January 23, 2007, the Planning Commission discussed the R1 Hillside Standards and
requested the following information:
.:. Estimate how many properties are affected by the new R1 Hillside Standards
that are located along the Stevens Creek watercourse and floodplain areas.
.:. Provide data on how many properties are affected by the new R1 Hillside
Standards that are located in hillside areas west of the hillside transition line.
.:. Provide data on how many projects have been affected by the new R1 Hillside
Standards and provide brief analysis.
These items are addressed in the following sections of the staff report:
f 1-{ 3
MCA-2006-01
March 13, 2007
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Number of parcels affected by the R1 Hillside Standards
The Planning Department used a city wide topographical map to approximate the
location and number of properties that may be affected by the 15% R1 Hillside
Standards. It must be emphasized that this is a rough estimate because the map is not
precise. In order to provide the exact number of properties affected by the 15 % rule,
each property with any significant slope would have to be surveyed individually to
determine the average slope. Typically this is required of the individual property
owners when applying for planning or building approval to significantly alter or add to
their existing homes. The following data are approximated based on the city wide
topographical map:
Parcels affected located along the Steven Creek watercouse and floodplain Corridor:
177 parcels
The majority of the properties located in the Stevens Creek Corridor are located
adjacent to established neighborhoods in the flatter valley floor areas such as Monta
Vista or the Phar Lap neighborhoods. Many of these lots have reached their limit of
development potential and many others still have the potential to add square footage.
The sloped areas of these lots typically consists of the downslope area adjacent to the
Stevens Creek floodplain (see properties outlined in blue in the attached Diagram 1).
Staff surveyed 10 parcels located within the Steven Creek Corridor area and found that
the average floor area ratio of these lots is 31 % (45% is the maximum allowed under the
R1 or RHS Ordinances). Application of the RHS development standards limits the
square footage depending on the average slope. For instance, if a lot has an average
slope of 20% then the allowable FAR would be reduced to 38% instead of 45% allowed
on a flat parcel. If the parcel size is 10,000 square feet then the allowable building size
would be 3,800 square feet instead of 4,500 square feet permitted on a flat site. Since
adoption of the new ordinance, approximately 2 years ago, only a few parcels along the
Stevens Creek Floodplain that have been reviewed using the RHS standards with no or
nominal square footage reductions due to slope. Two recent examples are described
beginning on page 3 of this report.
If the Commission is concerned about the applicability of the 15% rule on properties
along the Stevens Creek flood plain, you can recommend they be excluded from the
new R1 Hillside Standards. If the Commission determines that sloped lots need the
greater review no matter where they are located, then you can recommend the
ordinance remain as currently worded.
11 ~l ~
MCA-2006-01
March 13, 2007
Page 3
Parcels affected that are located upslope of the hillside transition line in the Hillside
R1: 111 parcels
There are 111 parcels located in the Hillside R1 Area (see attached Diagram 2, parcels
outlined in purple). Of these parcels, approximately 92 are developed properties with
less than 20,000 square feet, located near the bottom of the foothills (see attached
Diagram 3, properties outlined in purple). Most of these properties are near their limit
of development potential. In addition, the majority of these homes are located on the
flatter portion of the lots near the public streets (see attached photo montage). The
Commission may choose to recommend to include or exclude these properties from the
new R1 Hillside Standards.
The remaining 19 properties are larger lots located up slope or west of the hillside
transition line (see Diagram 4, properties outlined in bright green) with greater
potential for adding building area. The majority of these properties are over 20,000
square feet in size and may posses the hillside characteristics in terms of steepness of
slope, parcel size or development potential as their nearby RHS neighbors but are not
protected by the same hillside development standards. The R1 hillside standards were
intended to treat these properties these properties the same as their RHS neighbors by
prevent over-sized and overly imposing homes and retaining walls from compromising
the look and feel of the hillsides.
Applicability of the new R1 Hillside Standards on recent Projects
No formal applications triggering the 15% R1 hillside standards have been submitted
for review or approval since the City Council approved amendments to the R1
Ordinance on January 18, 2005. However, two properties have submitted conceptual
plans to the City for review (21862 Lindy Lane and 10481 Scenic Drive). Both properties
are zoned R1-10 and have average slopes greater than 15% (17% and 25%, respectively)
thereby triggering the R1/RHS hillside development standards. The Lindy Lane project
is located near the foothill area west of the hillside transition line. The Scenic Drive
project is located in the Stevens Creek Corridor area.
21862 Lindy Lane
11-{ S--
MCA-2006-01
March 13, 2007
Page 4
10481 Scenic Blvd.
The following table summarizes the allowable building sizes (floor area ratio) of these
conceptual projects:
Lot Size
Existin house size
R1 Allowable house size
RHS Allowable house size
Pro osed house size
21862 Lindy Lane (25% avg.
slo e
10,010 s . ft.
2,713 s . ft.
4,504 s . ft.
3,452 s . ft.
3,415 s . ft.
10481 Scenic Drive (17%
av . slo e
12,975 s . ft.
2,062 s . ft.
5,838 s . ft.
4,132 s . ft.
3,293 s . ft.
Since both properties have average slopes greater than 15%, both the RHS and R1
development standards are applicable, whichever is more restrictive. Under the RHS
Ordinance, both properties are limited to smaller homes compared to the R1 allowance,
although neither applicant is requesting to exceed the RHS square footage limit. The
following is a summary of the setback requirements of the R1 and RHS Ordinances:
1'1---/&
MCA-2006-01
March 13, 2007
Page 5
Setback requirements of the R1 and RHS Ordinances
R1 Setbacks RHS Setbacks
Front: 20 feet (ground floor); 25 feet 20 feet (ground floor); 25 feet
(2nd floor) (2nd floor)
Side: 5 feet minimum combined 15 10 feet (ground floor); 15 feet
feet (ground floor); 10 feet (2nd floor)
minimum combined 25 feet +
10 feet surcharge (2nd floor)
Rear: 20 feet (ground floor); 25 feet 20 feet (ground floor); 25 feet
(2nd floor) (2nd floor)
Downhill Facing N/A At least 75% of the 2nd story
Offsets: downhill facing wall plane
shall be set back an average
of 7.5 ft. and in no case less
than 5 ft. The remaining 25%
may not extend pass the 1st
stOry wall plane.
*The more stringent requirements are in bold.
Both properties can satisfy the R1 setback requirements. However, both properties will
be required to make some adjustments to the front and side elevations due to the more
restrictive RHS 2nd floor side yard setback (15 feet) and the required down hill facing
elevation offsets. If the Commission decides to narrow the applicability of the R1
hillside standard to only the 19 R1 hillside properties upslope of the hillside transition
line as described previously in the staff report (Diagram 4), then properties such as
these examples will not be subjected to the RHS development standards.
Summary:
The bottom line is that application of the hillside development standards to the areas
described above reduces the allowable house size, corresponding to the average slope
of the affected parcel, and the amount of grading and resulting retaining walls will be
more closely scrutinized resulting in lower and less need for retaining walls than under
the R1 standards. If the R1 standards are applied the house size is allowed to go to 45 %
FAR requiring more significant retaining walls for the sloped areas of the parcel.
/1-(1
MCA-2006-01
March 13, 2007
Page 6
Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Recommend retaining the R1 hillside standards, as currently worded;
2. Recommend revising the R1 hillside standards by changing the triggering point
(higher or lower average slope), geographical applicability (including or not
including the lots along the Stevens Creek corridor or at the base of the foothills),
or setting a minimum lot size (such as 15,000 square feet) for applicability of the
hillside development standards; or
3. Revert to the R1 hillside standards that existed prior to the 2005 R1 Ordinance
Amendment where only developments on slopes of 30% or greater are subjected
to the hillside standards, regardless of geographical location.
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Gary Chao, Associate Planner
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
Enclosures: Diagrams 1, 2, 3, and 4
Photo-montage
January 23, 2007 Planning Commission staff report with attachments
G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ CC\2007\MCA-2006-01a.doc
11--{Y'
(~7
V
. ,
". ':-~~::~~
--
\
,
.........\
Diagram 1: Properties located near the Stevens Creek Corridor
{l-('j'
Diagram 2: Rl Hillside Properties (111) West of the Hillside Transition Line
/1'- 26
~1~~
,,<
-
\;
..........
<'~
i~~
...1i
'- -:;<~
Diagram 3: Rl Hillside Properties located at the bottom of the Hillside
Transition Line
11- 2--l
.---", .
'~'-~~~r;;/
ii, '.
':".--'
-.: \
-('l
:..~~
s:
i
Diagram 4: Target Rl Hillside Properties
( 1--21-
Photo Montage of Sample Properties Located in the Stevens Creek
Corridor and West of the Hillside Transition Line:
~s,,,'"
"
\._ t r, - , "
) '^.\ ""'''' ~ . . '
./. ".... .:::::.::- ...-- . .
If' -1 '\
. . 1 ' .
O.OlD.045 0
.....-..._.u....
G: IPlanningIPDREPORTICC\2007IMCA -2006-01 a exhibits 2.doe
( '1-- .2.-3
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
MCA-2006-01
City of Cupertino
Various
City-wide
Agenda Date: January 23, 2007
Application Summary: Review of Chapter 19.28 Single-Family Residential (R1) Zones
regarding developments proposed on properties with an average slope of 15% or
greater.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Take public testimony; and
2. Provide direction on ordinance changes if necessary; and/ or
3. Provide recommendations to the City CounciL
BACKGROUND
The following is a brief summary of the background:
. Prior to 1993, the City had limited policies and guidelines regulating properties
located in the hillside area.
. The General Plan of 1993 incorporated more extensive development standards
intended to minimize negative impacts on hillside resources. In that same year,
the Residential Hillside (RHS) Zoning District was revised with a set of
comprehensive hillside development regulations.
. On January 18, 2005, the City Council approved amendments to the R1
Ordinance applying hillside standards to R1lots with an average slope of 15 % or
greater.
Please refer to the attached R1 Ordinance Amendment Bulletin for the detail
background information.
DISCUSSION
The new R1 hillside standards raise three fundamental points, the difference between
R1 and RHS standards, slope applicability and geographical applicability. The
following is a brief discussion on each point.
R1 vs. RHS
The main difference between the R1 and RHS Ordinances is the permitted house size in
relationship to parcel size. The R1 Ordinance permits a maximum 45% Floor Area Ratio
11--21{
MCA-2006-01
January 23, 2007
Page 2
(FAR). The R1 FAR is not capped and increases as the size of the property increases
regardless of the slope of the property. The maximum home size under the RHS
Ordinance is a function of the property size and steepness capped at 6,500 square feet
maximum. Under the RHS Ordinance, the allowable home size decreases as the slope
of the lot increases.
Example: A maximum 9,000 sq. ft. home is allowed on a 20,000 sq. ft. lot under the R1
Ordinance. However, under the RHS ordinance, the same lot (assuming a 15% average
slope) will only permit a 4,714 sq. ft. home (the sq. ft. of the home may be further
limited depending on the steepness of the lot).
In addition, the RHS Ordinance places greater emphasis on appropriate home size,
proper site drainage, grading activities and design standards that are compatible to the
terrain. The RHS Ordinance provides additional development guidelines to minimize
any visual and/ or physical impacts to the hillside and to the adjoining neighboring
properties. Please refer to the attached RHS Ordinance summary table for a detailed list
of key sections of the RHS Ordinance that are applicable to R1 hillside properties.
Slope Applicability
Prior to the 2005 amendment, R1 development occurring on portions of a lot with
slopes 30% or greater is required to adhere to both the R1 and RHS Ordinance,
whichever is more restrictive. The City has been sensitive to hillside developments in
the recent years and the City Council as part of the 2005 R1 Ordinance Amendment
adjusted the threshold for applying RHS regulations to R1lots with an average slope of
15% or greater. The reason why 15% slope was suggested was because the General Plan
identifies that minimum slope problems increases to significant slope problems at 15%.
In addition at 15% or greater, slope
becomes a very significant factor in
development. Development of
level building sites requires
extensive cut and fill in this slope
category and the design of
individual houses to fit terrain
becomes important.
100 Ft.
15% Average Slope
~
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Retain the average 15% slope threshold; or
2. Adjust the threshold anywhere between an average slope range of 15% to 30%; or
3. Revert back to the original 30% threshold standard.
..--
[ (7 -- L~
MCA-2006-01
January 23, 2007
Page 3
EXAMPLES OF SLOPE
~ Approx.15% to 20% Slope
~
... Approx. 30% + Slope
.. ~'..:'~
....;.,j:
-~.,
Approx. 40%+ Slope
-.
/ 1) - 2&
MCA-2006-01
January 23, 2007
Page 4
Geographical Applicability
This issue basically boils down to where the hillside slope begins. In the past, the City
has used a 10% slope line to demarcate hillside properties from flatter valley floor
properties. This is evident of the hillside transition line or urban/hillside boundary
found on several General Plan maps (please refer to the General Plan Figure 2-B &
Figure 5-B).
The majority of the properties up slope or west of the hillside transition line are zoned
Residential Hillside (RHS) and is under the City's hillside development standards.
However, there is a hand full of properties that are upslope or west of the hillside
transition line that are currently zoned Rl. These properties may posses the same
hillside characteristics in terms of steepness/ slope, size or development potential but
are not protected by the same hillside development standards. From an equity
perspective, all of the residential hillside properties west of the hillside transition line
should be governed by the same hillside standards in order to protect the look and feel
of the hillsides.
Currently, the new 2005 R1 hillside standards are applicable to any R1lots with an
average slope of 15% or greater, regardless of their geographical location. This means
that smaller Rl sloping lots located in an existing established neighborhood on the
valley floor (east of the hillside transition line) will also be affected. The hillside
development standards on these lots will have limited effects since their development
potential have been maximized. The new R1 Ordinance is intent to affect development
intensities on hillside properties that are located west of the hillside transition line that
are currently zoned R1 but have slopes similar to other RHS properties.
Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Retain the geographical applicability of the current R1 hillside development
standards; or
2. Limit the geographical applicability of the hillside development standards to
only properties west of the hillside transition line (10% slope line); or
3. Revert to R1 hillside standards prior to the 2005 R1 Ordinance Amendment
where only developments on slopes of 30% or greater will be subjected to the
hillside standards regardless of geographical location.
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
Enclosures: Rl Ordinance Amendment Community Bulletin
RHS Ordinance Summary Table
General Plan Slope Description Slope Concerns (Appendix F)
Findings of the Environmental Review Committee
Rl Ordinance
RHS Ordinance
11--17
.....'
01
01
NI
r:tJ ..
1
~
III 1
=1
CI
III 1
"
,
'.
City of Cupertino Community Outreach Bulletin
1 I
H~LLSIDE PROPERTIES
-:'i3"~.tJo.
,l.(..'~" . > -,'ft
t~ ....... ,.~.
,,/~;; '.. · f:f
,:'~~\:~:, .~~:. ':c'
" . '-Jo. ~ t..,.~. 'IJ.,." '*' ,
.~~"":~',. :hf:.: .', ~. ~~
~ ~ :~,.~~ ~,~~;, - - , ,"':
r..~ _"~~~ _~'t~
oj '\.,. ""o"i--1,:
.':J
. :., l!,,:.; ,
- ~r5!:1'
,~:_,l,i~:,'~~: 1"
'" r ~."
---;"t.,; ,
~>~,dJ>~
;.
t-
,.
\.. :,:--,;',J
;:.. ','.. ',-. ._,
i ' t> ;;~?t:~
'.
"',,*
;.
The General Plan and City
Ordinances Online
The City's RHSIR1 Ordinances and the
General Plan may be downloaded or
viewed on the web at www.cupertino.orgl
planning
How is Slope Determined?
The slope or the gradient is commonly used
to describe the measurement of the steep-
ness, incline, or grade of a straight line. A
higher slope value indicates a steeper
incline. The slope can be defined in several
ways: As the relationship between the sides
of the triangle representing a vertical sec-
tion of a hill, or as the angle between the
terrain and the horizontal plane. For the
purpose of defining hillside properties in R1
Zoning Districts, the concept of steepness
of terrain will be defined and discussed as a
"percentage of slope..
"Percent of slope" is defined as a measure-
ment of steepness of slope which is the
ratio between vertical and horizontal dis-
tances expressed in percent. As illustrated
below, a 15% slope is one which rises
vertically 15 ft. in a 100 ft. horizontal diS-,
tance.
'~--- J:
~15Fl
100Ft.
Affected Properties
Properties that are currently located in a Single Family Residential (R1) Zoning
District with all of the following characteristics:
. Overall average slope of 15% or greater.
. Vacant or occupied properties.
~
Background
The Cupertino City Planning Commission will
be holding a public hearing on January 23,
2007 to discuss the applicability of a previ-
ously amended section (19.28.050C1) of the
Single Family Residential (R1) Zone relating
to development standards on properties with
an average slope equal or greater than fifteen
(15%) percent.
Prior to 1993, the City limited policies and
guidelines regulating properties located in the
hillside area. The General Plan of 1993 incor-
porated more extensive development stan-
dards intended to minimize negative impacts
on hillside resources. In that same year, the
Intent
Residential Hillside (RHS) Zoning District was
revised with a set of comprehensive hillside
development regulations. Currently the hill-
side properties (RHS Zones) and the valley
floor (R1 Zones) are divided by a 10% slope
line. However, there are numerous R1 Prop-
erties that are located on the hillsides and
possess hillside characteristics that warrant
the same hillside development standards from
the RHS Ordinance.
On January 18, 2005, the City Council ap-
proved amendments to the R1 Ordinance.
The council decided to increase the develop-
ment standards for the R 1 hillside properties.
The Cupertino General Plan promotes hillside protection. The General Plan Policies 2-48 to 2-
52 outline goals and standards for hillside developments. The City Council recognized the sen-
sitivity of constructing in the hillsides therefore adjusted the trigger point for increased regulation
for R1 hillside properties. The intent of the stricter R1 hillside standards is to ensure a balance
between residential developments and preservation of natural hillside settings.
Applicability
The new R1 Ordinance now requires all development on properties with an average slope equal
to or greater than 15% must meet both R1 and RHS regulations, whichever is more restrictive.
. The RHS Ordinance places greater emphasis on appropriate house size, proper site drainage,
..glClding.~ctivities and design standards that are compatible to the terrain. The main difference
kR~~~;~~,i1!],~~land R~~S>fd~Q:'~ce is theallowabJe .house size relative to ~he' parcel size.
t I?l~ ',;\I1,~XQ,IIS!il~ltJ1!p~o/l~~~;!or,!he key dlfferE:l~.~s 0 e.tw9 ordinances
,.;;""'i~
~,'"
11-lf
-Ill
e: cu
Q):;:<
E OJ
"a.
e: a
Q) ~
~ 0; "" 1
Q) :9 . ,
o III
e:::::
~~
:01
..... 1
01
..... 1
0:::1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
,
Page 2
~\
\-
~ -
Pit
IJA
--:-
...-.
, -:-,
,RHS
,
,
N
W+E
S
0.5
0.25
o
t
[1--2-1
-ul
c: CJj
<1>:;::l
E Ql
"00..
c: a
EOi
<Cm
<1>:g
g~
~:r;
:0 I
.... I
o I
..- I
0::: I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 3
-
I
0.5
/
.......
RHS
N
W+E
S
025
0.5 Miles
PR
I 9 -- 3D
,
+-.
c:
Q)
E
"
c:
Q)
E
<(
Q)
u
c:
co
c:
"E
o
City of Cupertino Community Outreach Bulletin
C~y of Cupert ino P lann Ing
Department
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
How is the Community Included in the
Planning Process?
The City is Committed to involving the commu-
nity in the planning process for the R1 Ordi-
nance Amendment on hillside properties by es-
tablishing a thorough and open process that pro-
vides numerous opportunities for community
input at the up coming Planning Commission
and City Council hearings. In addition, any resi-
dence may contact City staff with questions or
inputs. The inputs received from the public will
be forwarded to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration.
c::
Phone: 408.777.3247
Fax: 408.777.3333
E-mail: garyc@cupertino.org
Please contact, Gary Chao, Associate Planner
for questions or additional information @
408.777.3247 or garyc@cupertino.org.
Web Address:
www.cupertino.org/
planning
Who Should Care?
The owners, developers and/or neighbors of R1 zoned properties
with an average slope of 15% or greater.
The Planning Process
~ On December 22,2006, the City of Cupertino mailed notices
to residences located west of the Union Pacific railroad track
regarding the up coming Planning Commission meeting.
~ The Planning Commission met on January 23, 2007 and
continued the item.
~
I
l~
I
i
I~
!
The Planning Commission is meeting again on March 13,
2007.
l
There may be additional Planning Commission meetings
depending on the discussions and the recommendations of
the Planning Commission.
The City Council meeting will be determined at a later date.
(1,-3{
Total house
SIze
Downhill
facing
setbacks
Maximum
downhill
facing wall
height
Articulation
rules
RHS Ordinance Summ
RHS
Slope & Lot Size Adjustment
Criteria* (capped at 6,500 sq.
ft. .
At least 75 % of the 2nd story
downhill facing wall plane shall
be set back an average of 7.5 ft.
and in no case less than 5 ft.
The remaining 25 % may not
extend pass the 1st story wall
lane.
15 ft. maximum.
Table
R1
Maximum 45 % of the net lot
size (no cap).
N/A
N/A
The downhill elevation of the N / A
main structure shall have a min.
of 4 offset building ~~ .r.~~~~, " ..", _
elements. ..'. .
,,'" ,', " ': ~'- -~;':-cJ' : Wall planes 'exce~tllriifim'Etf~5F ;:i~:-'; :::::::r;;!:':':~",
...:.. _ - ---'~ '12'ft. ifi'hei~ht, 'whiciWV:er i$ :~O'-' ", - _, ~_:. ~.,..
. .~, ::':":'-"::::::':E.::c':;:: 'more restfictive;~mtISfEO-fitai.$~;':: .::~F~~;:P7:I'~~;:;;';" -
architectural elemeh1k'wfuch~'""~"
provide relief and break up
ex ansive wall lanes.
Site Grading All site grading shall be limited N / A
to a cumulative total of 2,500
cubic yards (cut + fill).
Colors
A maximum of 2,000 sq. ft. of
flat yard area may be graded
excludin drivewa s .
Exterior colors of all structures N / A
on the lot shall use natural earth
tone and! or vegetation colors
and shall not exceed a
reflectivity value of 60 on a flat
surface.
I f-J 2..
Lighting
RHS
No high intensity lights are
permitted for tennis courts, or
other recreational purposes.
Movement-activated security
lights, not to exceed 100 watts,
are permitted but must be
shielded to avoid all off-site
intrusion.
R1
N/A
Fencing
Solid board fencing shall be N / A
limited to 5,000 sq. ft. for lots
exceeding 30,000 sq. ft. in net lot
area.
o en fencin is encoura ed.
Landscaping A license landscape architect
/ soil erosion shall prepare a tree planting
plan and, in consultation with
the applicant and the City
Engineer, shall subni.it~plW1J9---=_-__
prevent soil ;erosion:and_to_~,-;;:~;,~
screen out and fillslo es._
- *Theactual house size may be-Ie~s~lliari6,509 sq:-f~.-d~R~n9ing on the lot size and
steepness of the property. Home.si.ze decre8$es when steepness of the lot
increases.
N/A
,...... .,
~r--'."' .... .-
. "- .. ~
(1~J]
GENERAL PLAN DESCRIPTION OF SLOPE CONCERNS
Appendix F
Percent of
Slope
Description of Slope;
Problems
O~5%
Relatively level land. Little. or no development problems due. to steepness of slope..
5-15%
Minimum slop':' problems increasing to si,gnificam slope problems at 15'\:), 15% is
chIC maximum grade, otten consider".d desirable un subdivision SHeers. _'\b(w,~
15(J{), roads must run diagonally to, rather than at right angles to contours in(.reas~
ing the. amount l1f cut and filL For example., the lower segment of San Juan Road
in the Cupertino foothills averages 20% in grade,
15-30<)f:J
Slope becomes a very significant factor in development at this steepness.
Development of level buildi.ng sites re.quires extensive cut and fill in this slope
caregory and the design of individual houses to fit terrain becomes important.
.3\.).50':-b Slol-X' is extremely c.ritical in this range. ."\llowable steepness of ClIt and rlU slopes
approach or coincide with natural slopes resulting in very large cuts and fills under
conventional development. In some casE'S, fm will not hold on these slopes unless
_special retaining devicE'S are used. Because of the grading problems associated
__ _ __ _ - \vit11. this category, individual homes should be placed on natural building sites
. :.: ---" ,- >::,:_~ ~ _,<.~~\:li~re they occur. Ol' buildings should be designed to fit the patticulaJ' _site. -
._.;_......__;.;....~.......:.......:... '-"""'-..f '~"..T'~ ~_....to:>,.~"-~..-.... . ...~__-.... - . __ _~ __ ~ -' '-........_.~ ~~..
"-~~-' -~ ~::- ..;SV=~{~+ -:._-=--=~i\.ln)osfanv de\'etopment can result in extreil'ie~dlsttirbai1c.es u-lthis slope category.
_" '.. ". -0'--:- ~-":' ," 0' '-";" ......-;:.,.~..'~r":';'::;.:.~nr... . " "':'_ .._ __'_'_~ ,__..;:.. ,.. _. . I
:.:.::.:;,_:,:~~:~;-,;:,",-~~~: -~~L;'EJ.EC1ifp;'t in the most stable native material s~at -retainln2 devices may be neede,J;---
. " t:'"-.-. C" t
...#';':.
(1--J1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMEND A TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
January 10, 2007
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
January 10, 2007.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
MCA-2006-0l (EA-2006-12)
City of Cupertino
Citywide
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28 Single Family Residential (R1) Zones
regarding buildings proposed on properties with an average slope equal to or greater
than fifteen percent . - - ,.: --. ~-' . ,;~,,-. . .
_" ..;':~ ,-.:'~.''::,:,,'~':'.:_._.;.';":':<'1-c:;'. "...-..'~
FINOINGS OF THE ENVIKONMENT AL REVIEW COMMITTEE
.. ."::",, ..~ ......::...,.,.!!... -- _..~ ......._-~..'_.~ '..
. .
. ._.._,,,,, .-'
~ _: ,:,.' ;~:-:~~'s..;~'" ':1L:<
. ~::;!0~,., ~.".:':-:.7'::~~~~~.;r:'.'~:~~:;,.:"~~3~~~':~'
'. '- -
a......,
"~-;-t~':-'~~.ironmental ;e~~~~:2~~i~~;;~~~~~~' the granting of a N~g~ti~.~,-~.o.,<-
Declaration finding that the project is consIstent with the General Plan and has no
signific environmental impacts.
./'
~
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
g/ercjREC EA-2006-12
/1-J:>
Check with the Public Wor...... Department
regarding potential street dedication prior to
designing a new home or an addition.
19.28.010
CHAPTER 19.28: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (Rl) ZONES
Section
19.28.010
19.28.020
19.28.030
19.28.040
19.28.050
19.28.060
19.28.070
19.28.080
19.28.090
19.28.100
19.28.110
19.28.120
Purposes.
Applicability of regulations.
Permitted uses.
Conditional uses.
Development regulations (site).
Development regulations (building).
Landscape requirements.
Permitted yard encroachments.
Minor residential permit.
Two-story residential permit.
Exceptions.
Development regulations-Eichler
(Rl-e).
Development regulations-(R I-a).
Interpretation by the Planning
Director.
19.28.130
19.28.140
.' 1 ~..:. .., .
19.28.0J(j' -.. Purposes.'
..-..' .-. _co: ':-""""R::l2P1g1'e;;family residence districts are intended to-
":"':'~r;:'",:;cte!~~~~~;:y]::~nd' enhance areas suitable for detached
'. . .~{:;d'f:~nliigs ii1 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. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868,
(part), 2001; Ord. 1860, ~ I (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-I single-family residence district
other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter
and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 1954,
(part), 2005; Ord. 1860, ~ I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part),
1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.030 Permitted Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in the R-I single-
family residence district:
2005 S-4
A. Single-family use;
B. A second dwelling unit conforming to the
provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapter
19.82, except for those second dwelling units requiring a
conditional use permit;
C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily
incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming with
the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title;
D. Home occupations in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 19.92;
E. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food
products for consumption by occupants of the site;
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
staff;
G. Small-family day care home;
. H. The keeping' of. a maximum <of. .fDur~ adult~
household pets, provided thai no more than two adult.dogs -.
- '-or cats may be kept on.the'site;-........ ,.' ..._.~.-".....-=---~,~",.""',?'<,.,'
,. 1. Utility fac~itiesessential tQ..proyj~~qn,;l?t~~l~~f~~','
services to the neighborhood Pl1t excluding busin,ess.offlees;'"
construction or storage yards, maintenance.' fitc~ities, or
corporation yards; ,
J. 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
hislher designee shall administratively approve large day
care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and
proximity requirements;
K. Congregate residence with ten or less residents.
(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, ~ 1 (part), 2000; Ord.
1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1688, ~ 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657,
(part), 1994; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.040 Conditional Uses.
The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the
R -1 single-family residence district, subject to the issuance
of a conditional use permit:
A. Issued by the Director of Community
Development:
1. Temporary uses, subject to regulations established
by Chapter 19.124;
29
( q r- ]~
19.28.040
Cupertino - Zonin~
30
2. 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;
3. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar
design features that require variations from setbacks upon a
determination by the Director that such design feature or
features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing,
intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrounding
area;
4. Second dwelling units which require a conditional
use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84;
5. Home occupations requiring a conditional use
permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title.
B. Issued by the Planning Commission:
1. Two-story structures in an. area designated for a
one-story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6) 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;
2. Group care activities with greater than six
persons;
3. Residential care facilities that fall into the
following categories: . . -,.
a. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by
the State, County agency or department,and-has siH)r,.less.
residents, not including the providers, provider family or
staff;
b. 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;
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;
4. Congregate re~idence with eleven 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. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, g 1
(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part),
1998; Ord. 1688, ~ 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994;
Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.050 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-l
zoning symbol. Examples are as follows:
2006 S-9 Repl.
Zoning Symbol Number Minimum Lot Area in (,
Square Feet
Rl 5 5,000
Rl 6 6,000
Rl 7.5 7,500
R1 10 10,000
Rl 20 20,000
2. Lots, which contain less area than required by
subsection A(l) of this section, but not less than five
thousand square feet, may nevertheless be used as building
sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this
title are fulfilled.
B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be sixty
feet measured at the front-yard setback line, except in the
RI-5 district where the minimum lot width is fifty feet.
C. Development on Properties with Hillside
Characteristics.
1. Buildings proposed on properties with an average
slope equal to or greater than fifteen percent shall be
developed in accordance with the site development and
. design standards ,spe~J~~d in Sections 19.40.050 through
19.40.)40 of the .J3.e~i~ential Hillside ordinance, Chapter
19.40, or. .theRl zon!ng9rdinance, Chapter 19.28,
. ~hi.cheyer- specific.regUlati~:iS,inore restrictive.
. .', . .._ J..." ..1)1 0 stfUctlp'e_",J~r,)IJ.1.Erf>:vemeI}ts .shall orcur on.
,.slopes...ofl~i~.p'e~~~J1!:)~f~f:.~r upless an exception is
grant~d in:accordancltc with Section 19.40.140, unless no
more than five' hundred square feet of development.
including grading and structures , occurs on an area with a
slope of thirty percent or greater.
D. An application for building permits flied and
accepted by the Community Development Department (fees
paid and permit number issued) on or before March I, 2005
may proceed with application processing under ordinances
in effect at that time. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886,
(part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860. g 1 (part).
2000; Ord. 1834, (part). 1999; Ord. 1635. ~ 1 (part), 1993;
Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.060 Development Regulations (Building).
A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall
be forty-five percent of the net lot area. An additional five
percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs,
patios, porches and other similar features not substantially
enclosed by exterior walls.
B. Floor Area Ratio. The objective of the floor area
ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for square
footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with. the
residential development standards and guidelines in this
ordinance in determining whether the mass and scale of the
project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
i1,-77
31
Sin.gle-Family Residential (Rl) Zones
19.28.060
1. The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a. For a corner lot, the minimum side-yard setback
a lot shall be forty-five percent. on the street side of the lot is twelve feet. The other side
2. The maximum floor area of a second story shall yard setback shall be no less than five feet.
be forty-five percent of the existing or proposed first story b. For interior lots in the R1-5 district, the side yard
floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is setbacks are five feet on both sides.
greater. c. For lots that have more than two side yards, the
3. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, setback shall be consistent for all side yards between the
measured from the floor to the top of the roof-rafters, have front property line and the rear property line.
the mass and bulk of a two-story house and shall be counted 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is
as floor area. twenty feet.
a. If the house is a two-story house, this area will a. With a Minor Residential Permit, subject to
count as second story floor area; otherwise, the area will Section 19.28.090, the rear setback may be reduced to ten
count as first floor area. feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less
C. Design Guidelines. than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front
1. Any new two-story house, or second-story setback line.
addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent 4. Garage. The front face of a garage in an Rl
with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The district shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from a
Director of Community Development shall review the street property line.
project and shall determine that the following items are met a. For projects with three-car garages oriented to the
prior to design approval: public right-of-way, the wall plane of the third space shall
a. The mass and bulk of the design shall be be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane of
reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood the other two spaces.
pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately ,E. Setback-Second Story.
larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern 1. Front and Rear Yards. The minimum front and
in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge rear setbacks are twenty-five feet.
heights, and entry feature heights; 2. Side Yard. The combination of the side setbacks
b., The design shall usevaulted ceilingHatherthim. ?,-~. shall be twenty five feet, except that no second--story side,
high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior Spaces; - . setback may be less than ten feet. .. ,.,-
'--c:' There shall not be athi;e-e.:.c-arwide driveway curb _ ' --'a, . In the case of a flag lot, the minimum -setback..is
"cut:' ,;.-.~-~; "::"~;;::-:::"s,:T.[;~:':lW:enty-feet from any property line.
d. No more than fifty percent of the front- elevation- .' b. In the case of a corner lot, a minimum of twelve
of a house should consist of garage area. feet from a street side property line and twenty feet from
e. Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls any rear property line of a single-family dwelling.
should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of 3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet
the second story. shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front
f. The current pattern of side setback and garage and side-yard setback requirements specified in this section.
orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained. F. Basements.
g. When possible, doors, windows and architectural 1. The number, size and volume of Iightwells and
elements should be aligned with one another vertically and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required
horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and
placement. ventilation, except that in the case of a single-story house
h. Porches are encouraged. with a basement, one lightwell may be up to ten feet wide
i. Living area should be closer to the street, while and up to ten feet long.
garages should be set back more. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be
j. All second story roofs should have at least a one- located within a required setback area, except as follows:
, foot overhang. a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell
D. Setback-First Story. retaining wall shall be five feet;
1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell
twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the retaining wall shall be ten feet.
setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there 3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street
are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring shall be screened by landscaping.
side by side. 4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than
2. Side Yard. The combination of the two side yard three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent
setbacks shall be fifteen feet, except that no side yard to the lightwell.
setback may be less than five feet.
2005 S-4
(1- -;5
19.28.060
Cupertino - Zoning
32
5. The perimeter of the basement and all lightwell
retaining walls shall be treated and/or reinforced with the
most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the
Director of Community Development.
G. Height.
1. Maximum Building Height. The height of any
principal dwelling in an Rl 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 defmed
by:
1. A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade
measured at the property line;
2. A twenty-five-degree roof line angle projected
inward at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection
G(2)(a)(1) of this section.
b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in
subsection G(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 jya!l Hej,g1l!S;. FillYE~rcent of the
total periinetet l~rigth.o.:ofS~~ob.ttstorY wa~rs"S1la11 not have,
exposed .wall heights greater than s~.fee~.L..~~!~l! ~ye .a
minimllffi _~Q_fOQt"hi~:.ovep.,~p,.oJ.~~,~~i.!llJ"iist story
roof against the,secorla 5t:ory:t;wa1liTheJoverla.p shall be
structural and'shall be offset a .rlHmmum of four feet from
the first story exterior wall plfu1e;' .
a. The Director of C6mmunity Development may
approve an exception to this regulation based on the fmdings
in Section 19.28.110 D.
4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry
feature height shall be fourteen feet.
5. Areas 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 Rl 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 the 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. This section
applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other
similar unenclosed features.
1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three
feet into the front setback for the principal dwelling.
2005 8-4
2. The minimum side-yard setback shall be fifteen
feet.
3. The minimum rear-yard setback shall be twenty
feet.
1. 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. 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.
(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord.
1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, ~ 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834,
(part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 S 1, 1998;
Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord.
1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601,
Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.070 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 the
planting.
A. Applicability, This requirement shall apply to new . .
two-story homes, second-:!>tQrf~d~cks, two-story. a,ddJtiOJ:is, :,: . '.' . .-. -
..or modifications to the existing second-story decks" or' ,..., ..",..
. 'existing wiiidow~9.~~EsAAiJWi:'ffitbry homeftliafiijcrease'''~-=-~,:.':''-: . .
privacy impacts'" on 'neighbor-fig residents. SkYligh1S;:~~'~~J::~""~
windows with sills more than five feet above the fmished :.:., :~., ";"",;c., , -
second floor, windows with permanent, exterior louvers up
to six feet above the fmished second floor, and obscured,
non-openable windows are not required to provide privacy
protection planning.
B. Privacy Planting Plan. Proposals for a new two-
story house or a second story addition shall be accompanied
by a privacy planting plan which identifies the location,
species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees
or shrubs.
1. New trees or shrubs shall be 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 each side window jamb. The trees
or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a fmal
occupancy permit.
a. New tree or shrubs are 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 the Director or
Community Development.
[f- J 7
33
Single-Family Residential (JR.!) Zones
19.28.070
3. The extension of any wall plane of a first-story
addition is not permitted to be within three feet of any
property line.
4. Dnly one such extension shall be 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. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Drd. 1886, (part),
2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Drd. 1860, g 1 (part), 2000;
Drd. 1834, (part), 1999; Drd. 1808, (part), 1999; Drd.
1618, (part), 1993; Drd. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
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.
2. Waiver. These 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.
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 the front yard setback area.
The tree shall be 24 inch-box or larger, with a minimum
height of six feet. The Director of Community Development
can waiver this front-yard tree if there is a conflict with
existing mature tree canopies on-site or in the public right-
of-way.
D. Species List. The Planning Division shall
maintain a list of allowed privacy planting trees and shrubs.
The list shall include allowed plant species, minimum size
of trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and 19.28.090 Minor Residential Permits.
planting distance between trees. Projects that require a Minor Residential Permit shall
E. Covenant. The property owner shall record a be reviewed in accordance with this section. The purpose of
covenant with the Santa Clara County Recorders Dffice that this process is to provide affected neighbors with an
requires the retention of all privacy planting, or use of opportunity to comment on new development tha:icdl.iid have
,existing vegetation as privacy planting, prio~ to receiving a significant impacts on their property or the neiglfb(l!:hood as
rmal btiilcifug tnspection from the Building Division. This a whole. ,.'..:"'-.,,,,- -~'\"- '~:'
regulation does not apply to situations described in A. Notice of Application. Upon receiptdf~ ciimpier.e tc.:.;j.__
'sUb~ec_tio!l B(1)(b) Of this section~'c~" '.="application, a notice shall-be sent by first class mail to alL -. "
'.,::".F/1'"'Mafutenance. The required plants shall be owners of record of real-property (as shown in~J:hQa~r~~2:::::.
maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subl~~t _pt6peI'ij~-":-':~:
irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a including properties across a public or private (str"eet. The
growth rate expected for a particular species. notice shall invite public comment by a deterrtuneifli'ttion '
G. Replacement. Where required planting is removed date and shall include a: copy of the development plans,
or dies it must be replaced within thirty days with privacy eleven inches by seventeen inches in size.
tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it B. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public
is determined to be infeasible by the Director of Community comments, the Director of Community Development shall
Development. (Drd. 1954, (part), 2005) 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
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.
19.28.080 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 Permit and conforms to the
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 the extension is fifteen
feet.
2005 S-4
( (r-l(()
19.28.090
Cupertino - Zoning
34
d. A deadline for the submission of. public
comments, which shall be at least fourteen days after the
date the notice is posted; .
e. A black and white orthographic rendering of the
front of the house, at least eleven inches by seventeen inches
in size. The City shall approve the illustration or rendering
prior to posting.
B. Notice of Application (Level !D. Upon receipt of
a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class
mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in
the last tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred
feet of the subject property. The notice 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(l) of this section, except
that a colored perspective rendering shall be required instead
of a black and white orthographic rendering.
C. Story Poles. Story poles are required for any
Two-Story Residential Permit.
D. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public
comments, the Director of Community Development shall
approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The
perm~\-.can b~ap,pr()~:~_.~~yupon making all of the
19.28.100 Two-Story :ResJd~.!ltial.p'~rmit. follo:y.r~dingS;.- ': .~'""::" ':";'. ''':0:''-''';'':
. Two-story additions or two-story new homes require cae 0" ~..:-- '.=}~_.:-;=the "'-projecfTs~:coi:iSistent with the Cupertino
Two-Story Residential :p-ermit in. -accordance with_~ Utis, . _~ Gt~rjLJ~l~, _ _any ....apl?l~c_~3-~~. ~pecific plans, zoning
section. Two-story projectS .with -a-,flo.Gr~ area ratio under .; :..Ofdm(m~_ ~9:!l1~~~J1P,.~: ~
35 % shall require a Level I Two-Story Residential Permit,' ..b-'--:7~._&tant.iI1g~:pf.~the.!~peffilit will not result in a
while a two-story project with a floor area ratio over 35 % condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or
shall require a Level II Two-Story Residential Permit. improvements in the.. vicinity, and will not be detrimental to
A. Notice of Application (Level I). Upon receipt of the public health, safety or welfare.
a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class 3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and
mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in design with the general neighborhood.
the last tax assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subject 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties
property, including properties across a public or private have been reasonably mitigated.
street. The. notice shall invite public comment by a E. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning
determined action date and shall include a copy of the Commission, applicant and any member of the public that
development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in commented on the project shall be notified of the action by
size. fIrst class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may
1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the
notice in the front yard of the subject site that is clearly Planning Commission will make the fInal action on the
visible from the public street. The notice shall be a appeal.
weatherproof sign, at leasnwo feet tall and three feet wide F. Expiration of a Two-Story Permit. Unless a
frrmly attached to a fIve-foot tall post. The notice shall building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid
remain in place until an action has been taken on the and control number issued) within one year of the Two-
application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall Story Permit approval, said approval shall become null and
contain the following: void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed
a. The exact address of the property, if mown, or by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building
the location of the property, if the address is not mown. permit expires for any reason, the Two-Story Permit shall
b. A brief description of the proposed project, the become null and void. The Director of Community
content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City; Development may grant a one-year extension, without a
c. City contact information for public inquiries;
C. 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. 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.
D. Expiration of a Minor Residential Permit. 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. In the event that
the building permit expires for any reason, the 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 processed concurrently with other
discretionary applications.(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005)
2005 SA
( 1 ---tt (
- o;:!'. ~"_...'~ '.-;
35
. Single-Family Residential (RJ.) Zon.es
119.28.100
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.
G. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the
Director of Community Development, a Two-Story Permit
can be processed concurrently with other discretionary
applications. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005)
c. The proposed exception will not result in
significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties.
2. Issued by the Design Review Committee. The
Design Review Committee may grant exceptions from the
prescriptive design regulations described in Section
19.28.060, except 19.28.060 G(4) and Section 19.28.130
upon making all of the following fmdings:
a. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result
in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this
chapter.
b. The proposed development will not be injurious
to property or improvements in the area, nor be detrimental
to the public safety, health and welfare.
c. 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.
d. The proposed exception will not result in
significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties.
(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005)
JL9.28.UO Exceptions.
Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent
of this chapter result from the strict application of the
provisions hereof, exceptions to section 19.28.060,
19.28.070 and 19.28.120 may be granted as provided in this
section.
A. 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 class mail to
all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last
tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the
subject property. Properties that are adjacent to the subject
site, including those across a public or private street, shall 19.28.120 Development Regulations-Eichler
receive a reduced scale copy of the plan set with the public (Rl-e).
notice.' R 1-e single-family residence "Eichler districts" protect
B. Decision. After closing the publfc nearmg;::w..e. . " a consistent architectural form through the establishment of
decision-maker shall approve, conditionally' approve/qL:,. '.~sti:i.f.t site development regulations. Regulatiow; fOUIJ9 in
deIiythe).pplication based on tbefmdings,inthi~~~c~q!"!, '~;,-.~:~:*.~.~<>.f:1.i~~ sections of this chapter shall apply ~Q~prQpetfl.es
Any interested party can appeal tlle"decision-priXsUarit to'...........zoned ..Rl~e. In the event of a conflict between"ollier'
j~ti.iP!~r-l~J36: . ... : "'u~""". ,.- .~,.,~ ..' ~ . -. .-=':', ~'~~...:re~lti1ions in this chapter and this section, this section shalt
. ..... C. "':EXpiration of an Excepaon:uru,ess:ll~QUtra1Pg~;~lf~:'Nothing in these regulations is intendedlo'precl1.Joe
permit is filed and accepted by the . <City . (feerpar~l!PJ1~"< . a: hirnlonious two-story home or second story addition,
control number issued) within one year of the" Ex,cepp.gD A. Setback-First Story.
approval, said approval shall become null and void wiIessi 1. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet.
longer time period was specifically prescribed by the B. Building Design Requirements.
conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit 1. Entry features facing the street shall be integrated
expires for any reason, the Exception shall become null and with the roof line of the house.
void. The Director of Community Development may grant 2. The maximum roof slope shall be three-to-twelve
a one-year extension, without a public notice, if an (rise over run).
application for a Minor Modification to the Exception is 3. Wood or other siding material located on walls
filed before the expiration date and substantive justification facing a public street (not including the garage door) shall
for the extension is provided. incorporate vertical grooves, up to six inches apart.
D. Findings for Approval. 4. The building design shall incorporate straight
1. Issued by the Director of Community architectural lines, rather than curved lines.
Development. The Director of Community Development 5. Section 19.20.060 G(4) shall be considered a
may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulation guideline in the R l-e district.
described in Section 19.28.060 G(4) upon making all of the 6. The first floor shall be no more than twelve
following findings: inches above the existing grade.
a. The project fulfills the intent of the visible 7. Exterior walls located adjacent to side yards shall
second-story wall height regulation in that the number of not exceed nine feet in height measured from the top of the
two-story wall planes and the amount of visible second story floor to the top of the wall plate.
wall area is reduced to the maximum extent possible. C. Privacy Protection Requirements.
b. The except to be granted is one that will require 1. Side and Rear Yard Facing Second Floor
the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and Windows. In addition to other privacy protection
the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. requirements in Section 19.28.070. the following is required
for all second story windows:
2005 S-4
{ 1 ~~ L
19.28.120
Cupertino - Zoning
36
a. Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height
of six feet above the second floor; or
b. Obscure glass 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. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord.
1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, ~ 1 (part), 2000)
X9.28.1l.30 Development Regulations-(Rl-a).
Rl-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural
setting in neighborhoods with large lots. Regulations found
in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties
zoned Rl-a. In the event of a conflict between other
regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall
prevail.
A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The minimum lot
size is ten thousand square feet.
B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be
seventy-five feet measured at the front-yard setback line.
C. Second Story Area. A second floor shall be no
more than forty percent of the first floor, except as follows:
1. A second floor may be at least seven hundred
square feet in area.
2. In no case shall a second floor be more than one
thousand one hundred square fe~ in area.
D. - Setba_~k--F.i!st:~tory;:~i '., '.. .
1; . Front. Y.afd~ The niinimum front ~yardsetback is
thirty feet.. .._._..: _ ' .. 'dO"_
2. ,._.SideX.a;~':gl~rn~~~T.P..:!!l,,~j~x_arg~~tback is ten
feet. . - '~',. -' :!,;:,,'},!'.j;":;-'
3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear 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.
4. The setback surcharge in Section 19.28.060 E(3)
does not apply in this district.
F. Second-story Regulations.
1. Second story decks shall confonn 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 plane(s) of the second-story
must be offset a minimum of three 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. No more than fifty percent of
the front yard setback area may be covered with a
combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. No
2005 8-4
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 defmed by:
a. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured from
natural grade and located ten feet from property lines;
b. A twenty-five degree roof line angle projected
inward at the twelve-foot high line referenced in subsection
H(2)(1) of this section.
I. Variation from the Rl and Rl-a regulations shall
require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19. 124 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code in the Rl-a district.
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 fmdings 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 cases where there may be
conflict between the two sets of guidelines, this Section shall
take precedence. Nonconformance with the guidelines shalL~ .-.' :";., .
be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that:.: . 'n .,', ,
there are no adverse'iinpacts fro~ the proposed pr.oject.:~:':' .~;.~: ,/"'~:'-::'~'"
1. Second-story windows. Windows on the side"- ...~_. .~., .~
elevations shou14 be fiXe.ctiii1f9Dscured to a-1ieightof.six~"~;',.' ,', -; .
feet above the second floor, should have permanent exter~--'-'-' ~
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 G(4) shall be considered a
guideline in the Rl-a district.
4. 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 accessory structure at the rear of the property.
L. Permitted Yard Encroachments.
1. Where a principal building legally constructed
according to existing yard and setback regulations at the
time of construction encroaches, upon present required
yards, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended
along its existing 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.
(q---LfJ
37
Single-Family Residential (R!) Zones
19.28.ll30
b. In no case shall any wall plane of a frrst-story 2. Landscaping plans for two-story development
addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line. shall include specific mitigations for impacts from mass,
c. This' section does not apply to attached accessory bulk and privacy intrusion as required in Section 19.28.070
structures such as attached carports. of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that:
d. This section applies to the first story only and a. Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback
shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an from the property line equivalent to one-quarter of the
encroachment by any building, which is the result of the spread noted on the City list.
granting of a variance or exception, either before or after b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of
such property become part of the City. twelve feet at the time of planting.
2. Architectural features (not ii1cluding patio covers) c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that
may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding views from second-story windows across the street to
three feet, provided that no architectural feature or neighboring homes are partially mitigated.
combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or d. The Director may waive the front yard tree based
auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing
property line. conflict with existing mature trees.
3. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches are N. Design Review Findings.
encouraged in this zone. When viewed from the street, a 1. Findings. The Design Review Committee may
porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in approve a design review application for two-story
height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a development only upon making all of the findings below:
proportionately greater height than its width. Use of this a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino
yard encroachment provision shall require the approval of General Plan and Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
the Director of Community Development. b. The granting of this permit will not result in
a. Posts. Vertical structural supports, such as posts, detrimental' or injurious conditions to property or
'Jor porches are allowed to encroach two feet ,into the improvements in the vicinity, or to the public h.ealtl1. safety
, 'requ~ed front setback. Structural supports must be designed or welfare. " ,.' "
. ,_,c, ,su.~p.Jhat 1:l:!~appearance is not obtrusive or massive. .. , , c. The project is . generally compatible-vdtb the.
. ,.c. :~'"c.:.;:;~t;:~:-~'~;,'i~~!~~~J..:. The use oflarge columns. o,r.pi1l~rS.:!b::>--~~~??lished pa~e~ Of~~~gJo~,buildin~(~tet~atsNiq,;''',
discouraged: ,. . designS ofhomesitfllie"neighborhood. ,--, "'_"_'-::.,;;~-~='-'W'"" .
..."- ~:::~.f::;::-~~in:g. Low, open fencing for 'Q..orcl1es ar~- .:.--' d. The project -is consistent with the City'.s singl~::...--=,
:";~.-~-~"'~.~,~~~9J"~p~~ch two feet into the required frorit~setback /_~famny residetJ.ti~1 de~i~@1_~lDes.and'!lie gui~:}~~tt~%~~., '
. ' c'._ . . ~el:!. chapter and any mconslsten~leshave been found,tonot resuli'
." .,.,' d. Eave Height. The eave height for a front porch in impacts on neighbors. . 0" . " .. . ~ .~.
should not be significantly taller than the eave height 'of e. Significant adverse viSual and privacy'jp:ipacts as
typical single-story elements in the neighborhood. viewed from adjoining properties have been mitigated to the
e. Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing maximum extent possible.
that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence (Drd. 1954, (part), 2005)
elements .
f. The porch platform and roof overhang may
encroach five feet into the required front setback.
M. Landscaping.
1. Landscaping plans shall be 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.
Jlnterpretation by the Planning
Director.
In Rl 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. (Ord. 1954, (part),
2005; Ord. 1860, S 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999;
Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.140
2005 S-4
( 1~ I-{
Landscape Mitigation Measures
PRIV ACY SCREENING MATERIALS
I. NON-DECIDUOUS TREES
A. Cedrus Deodara - Deodara Cedar
B. Melaleuca Linarifolia-Flaxleaf Paperbak
C. Pinus Helipensis - Aleppo Pine
D. Eucalyptus Polyanthemos - Silverdollar
E. Cinnamomom Camphora - Camphor
F. Arbutus Marina
G. Magnolia Grandiflora - Southern
Magnolia
Height
to 80'
3D'
40-60'
20-60'
50'
40'
80'
Spread
40' @ ground
12-15'
20-25'
10-15'
50'
35'
40'
Planting
Distance-
Maximum
20'
6'
10'
5'
20'
15'
20'
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
B. Pittosporum Tenuifolium
C. Pittosporum C:rassifoliu.IJ!
D. Pittosporum Undu1a:tum~Victoriari Box
E. Cupressus ?e.~pe~~~:.:l~ Cypr~s~" .
F. Podocarpus "Gr!i,c.ii!Q! -F~Pine" . -"' - '._
G. Privet Ugustrum - Glossy Privet
H. Laurus Nobilis-Grecian Laurel
1. Rhus Lancia - African Sumac
40'
40'
25',
15-40' '
60'
-~ 6Q;,-_~. ",
35-40'
15-40'
25'
20'
20'
15-20'
... -. .-------..-
,15-:4:0:::,~:,: ,
3-6'
2Q',o",. ,., .,_..... ,." "
f...............'7iIi
20"
20'
20'
5'
5'
8'
8'
5'
10'
10'
10'
10'
The minimum. shrub size shall be 1S-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.
( ( -4 ;-
CITY STREET TREE
SPREAD
PLANTING DISTANCE-
MINIMUM
A. St. Mary Magnolia*
B. Crape Myrtle
C. Privot
D. California Buckeye
E. Birch
F. Holly Oak
G. Aristocrat Flowering Pear*
H. Flowering Plum*
1. May ten
J. Melaleuca
K. Eastern Redbud*
L. Brisbane Box*
. M. Liquid Amber
N. Carob
O. Geigera
P. Rhus Lancia
Q. Lirodendron
R. Chinese Pistacio*
S. Ginko*
T. Chinese Hackberry*
V.Elm
V. Sycamore
.W. Mulberry
,<,'X.i S~, Tree
, 'Y.Raywood Ash
.""Z..Med.~to..Ash., .""" .," '-..'~' .~,.."...~,,,.. ", - .,,50~ -' ,'.'.'. ,L,..'__~
,.' ~.~.::=~l Ash." ':"'~'01t:~:f~i::;~~r'~~~~~~~'
ce. ZeIkova -- .,~ :?:.- ':~:'6d"'.
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
30'
30'
30'
30'
30'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
50'
50'
50'
50'
,50"
.,,=.__:5~
"_,_' .~ :~~~'j:.,; c~::.:~~~::~~t~'~~.X~h.1~'~:' _ _,
10'
10'
10'
10'
10'
10'
15'
15'
15'
15'
15' .
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
25'
25'
25'
25'
25'
25'
25'
25'
25'
25'
30'
30'
_' t '7" ~~
#_.-- .
. -..., "'-'~'" --
.........."'....
_~,..M...""".;"'~ ~,..
. . ." ~':".....~r!..,;- ~.j. r
" .
- - . -
*Denotes tree currently on street tree list Other trees previously on list and may currently exist as a street
tree. (Ord. 1860, S 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999)
{ 1--L( ~
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: . ...
_ _._' ~ ....-r-
Sig:n.ature: .. .
(O~:~;~~~~~ '~'~~~~i)~ 2000;Ord. 'i834; (part), 1999)
._------
.. ",
-- ......... --
..--..
.".... ~ "'~' .:~~:::.~.:
J.....-..:.;_t_~.:=;,_,~.,:._
", __,~..;....,.:..":r."~~;"7'4;."~~ -
. ;= _ l.,._~. ..._.~.;.' ,;~ <;,
..__-0"i1:;:,".. .
{ q -4 1
Privacy Protection Planting Mfidavit
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
..... '~. - '...,..:;,
Rrofessional License #
. ~ =- j .:~ '.'
. ';-"-. :;.;j"l~-:Date::.;:::;::.'~:'~ -,,,-,
.~ -:' ~
. . :.::~.;'~j=}f~:t~2:';"..'t'~..;,: . ~,;!",<...~ "
'. ,:_(Or~.J?~8, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, S 1- (part), 2000;'Grd.'i834, (part), 1999)-
.,..........., :_-'."';.~..;:.;..;.;.;.:.';;""":O';;'f.:".~-::..,.~.':.'-,..~::.'..~ ~_... - ..- -. .. :' :: "':
. .
If,"' ,,,.( "";.:"";'!_.:.; I....:....
..........i ..~.
. ,-.'
. ~.:;..:.~.;.~.:-:. ~: .~.....I.~ :F..':~, .~,
'.",," -:', -1"'. ",'
.' ~. ':.. .. .,,~~
:'. ?'~""'.j.
, ~
{ i r--l{ r
SectiO!1
19.40.010
19.40.020
19.40.030
19.40.040
19.40.050
19.40.060
19.40.070
19.40.080
19.40.090
19.40.100
19.40.110
19.40.120
19.40.130
.19.40.140
19.40.145
_c:-.:___-~~:.
1~.4@.@1<<JJ
CHAPI'ER 19.~: JRESIDENTIAL IDLLs:IDlE (R1ffiS) ZONlES*
l?UEpose.
Applicability of regulations.
Permitted uses.
Conditional uses.
Site development regulations.
Building coverage, setbacks and
height restrictions.
Design standards.
Fencing.
Permitted yard encroachment.
Geologic and soils report
procedures.
Private roads and driveways.
Solar design.
Interpretation of planning director.
Exceptions for development-of
certain indi~~d":lal hillside lotS,:.:,;~;
Applicability.
, ...~. .
19.40.010 Purpose. _
The purpose of the RHS zoning district is to regulate
development commensurate with communIty goals, as
described in the General Plan, to preserve the natural setting
in the hillsides. This chapter utilizes performance standards ,
and specific regulations to ensure that the utilization of land
for residential uses is balanced with the need to conserve
natural resources and protect life and property from natural
hazards. Specifically, this chapter is intended to accomplish
the following objectives:
A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods;
B. Ensure the provision of light and air to individual
residential parcels;
C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in
scale of structures within residential neighborhoods;
D. Maintain spatial relationship between structures
and within neighborhoods;
E. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting
of the community;
F. Maintain a balance between residential
development and preservation of the natural hillside setting;
19.40.020 Applicability of RegulstioDS.
No building or structure or land shall be used, and no
building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally
altered or enlarged in a residential hillside (RHS) zone,
otherwise than in conformance with the provisions of this
chapter and other applicable provisions of this title.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to
the contrary, structures which were legally constructed prior
to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section
shall be deemed legally conforming; provided, however,
that any structural alteration, enlargement or remodeling of
such existing structure shall either comply with the site
---developmem regulations (building, coverage, setbacks,
height restrictions and design standards) of this chapter or
,shall obtain an exception as provided in SectiQIl"J9!40.140.,"
Prior history~' Ord~'l6();1;:-"~-,,~-----,-,,--;,,:~.,,,,;";;"';;:":";:~":;:{Ord. 1725, (part), 1996; Ord. 1634, (part), 1993)
G. Promote compatibililry of colors and materi.als of
structures and the surrounding natural setting. (Ord. 1634.
(part). 1993)
19.40.030 Permitted Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in an RHS
zoning district:
A. Single-family dwelling units with not more than
one dwelling unit per lot;
B. A second dwelling unit which conforms to the
procedure, standards and requirements of Chapter 19.84 of
this code;
C. Home occupations which conform to the
procedure, standards and requirements of Chapter 19.92 of
this code;
D. Accessory buildings which conform to the
procedures. standards and requirements of Chapter 19.800f
this code;
E. Small-family day care home;
F. Residential care facility with six or less residents
not including the provider. provider family or staff. that has
a license from the appropriate State, County agency or,
department;
G. The keeping of animals as follows:
1. Household pets limited to one animal per three
thousand square feet of lot area except:
51
( i -~q
1~.~.@3@
CU]!leIl"WlO - ~JIDiJms
52
a. Adult dogs are limited to a maximum of two for
lots less thm one acre and four for lots greater than one
acre,
b. The number of geese, ducks, chickenS, rabbits
and other farm ll1l1imah: are not limited on a site greater than
one acre,
2. Small household pets.
3. Large animals, such as horses, cows, sheep, and
goats, limited as follows:
31. Two laJrge ~nim:<ls for the first folli.'Y thousandl
square feet of land area, except mules and donkeys which
require eighty thousand square feet for the first animal.
b. One additional large animal for each twenty
thousand square feet of land area,
c. One additional large animal if said animal is
raised for a 4H project, a project sponsored by recognized
agricultural organization or a school project,
4. The required lot area for a large animal shall not
be included in the required lot area for a household pet or
vice versa, except that a maximum of two household pets
may be kept with large animals,
5. All llnimlll~ must be kept and maintained in
accordance with other Cupertino or Santa Clara County
codes and ordinaDceS~
6. No ~nimlll& :~t and mllintllined in an RHS
zoning district maybe;r2iSed for cOmmercial purposes,
, '7. Crop. tree of" horticultural farniiJig-for personal
use. Produce grown on the site may be sold".ifthe business
activitY1s':-e61ldrlcted'in a manner ccinsiStentwith the home
occupation=ordirilinCer-'~-~f~~ ~ -"~ ,~ ,., ."
H. Large family' day"; care home which meets the
parking criteria containe~fiJfChapter 19.100, and which is
at least three hundred feet from any other large-family day
care home. The Director of Community Development or
hislher designee shall admini&tratively approve large day
care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and
proximity requirements;
1. Congregate residence with ten or less residents.
(Ord. 1658, (part), 1995; Ord. 1688, ~ 3 (part), 1995; Ord.
1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1634, (part), 1993)
19.40.040 Conditional Uses.
The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the
RHS zoning district subject to the issuance of a conditional
use permit:
A. Issued by the Director of Community
Development:
1. Temporary uses subject to regulations established
by Chapter 19.128 of this code,
2. Large-family day care home which otherwise
does not meet the criteria for a permitted use. Tbe
conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by
Section 1597.46(3) of the State of California Health and
Safety Code,
3. The keeping of any animal not otherwise
permitted in Section 19.40.0300,
4. Home occupations that require a conditiolIW use
permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this code,
5. Buildings or structureS which incorporate solar
design features that require variations from setbacks, upon
a determination by the Director that the design feature or
features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or
intensive noire. odo!!'. OJ!' other ooverse imp&c~ ro the
surrounding area.,
6. Second dwelling units which require a oonditioml
use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84 of this code,
7. Crop, tree or horticultural farming for
commercial purposes;
B. Issued by the Planning Commission:
1. Limited commercial recreation uses, such as
riding clubs and related stables and trails, golf courses.
swimming and picnic grounds,
2. Residential care 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 provider.
provider family or staff,
3. Residential care facility, that has the appropriate
State, County agency or department license and has sevl:~.,. ' '
or greater re,sidents, not including the provider, provider .,.,
family or staff, is a minimum distanee of five hundred.f~t.. - ~ '. i':',""~'; . -"
from the. property ooundaryof another residenti2l:''Care''--' '--. ~"~ :_"~
facility".- .- ,-,,",~.._,_.,-.-- ....
4. Residential care facility, that is not requit.ed..!O.,=,~,-=.~',':"..~:-
obtain a permit from the State, County ageDCy'.;oi,:,::-~~-,,-:'~:' ~-r~~~
department license and has seven or greater residenu;.not' ~-. ~- :>
including the provider, provider family or staff, is a'
minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property
boundary of another residential care facility and has a
minimum of seventy-five square feet of usable rear yard
area per occupant,
5. Congregate residence with eleven or more
residents, is a minimum 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. 1658, (part), 1995; Old. 1688,
~ 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1634,
(part), 1993)
19.40.050 Site Development Regulatiom.
The following guidelines are a compilation of policies
described in the General Plan and are intended to govern the
preparation of development plans in RHS zones. All
provisions of this section, except subsections A, B and C,
may be deviated from upon an exception granted by the
Planning Commission in accordance with Section
19.40.140.
A. Dwelling Unit Density.
1. The residential density for development within an
(1-JU
53
~~dlel1lltw lBiillsidle (RlBlS) ~l!ll(;$
lJ.~.~.@.@5@
RHS zoning district s!:Wl be determined by the General
Plan, based upon slope density standards descn'bed therein.
2. Upon recordation of a subdivision map or parcel
map in an lRHS zoning district, density credits derived from
application of a slope density fommla to a lot or group of
lots may not be transferred to property outside the
subdivision or parcel map boundary.
R. lot AI~.
1. The roinimlIDll fO~ arell'. for III specific property
shall correspond to the number following the RHS zoning
symbol (multiplied by one tho1.!.Sand square feet). Examples
are as follows:
Zoning Symb@l Number
RHS 20
RHS 40
~S 80
RHS 120
RHS 180
RHS 200
RHS 400
MiJrnimWllll Lot Area
In Square Feet
20,000
40,000
80,000
120,000
180,000
200,000
400,000
E. Lots Adjoining Public Open Spaces. For lots
adjacell1t to public open space preserves or parb, the
driveway and building shall be located in a manner to be set
as far 2S fe2Sible from the preserve or pa.rk amd designed in
a manner to minimi,..e impacts on the preserve or park.
..---- F. Site Grading.
I 1. All site grading shall be limited to a cumUlative
L.- total of two thousand five hundred cubic yards, cut plus fill.
The t\~1O thousand. five hundred cubic yards includes grading
ror building pad, yard areM, driveway and all oilier are~
requiring grading, but does not include basements. The
graded Mea shall be limited to the building pad Mea to the
greatest ex.tent possible. Grading quantities for multiple
driveways shall be 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 shall be rounded to follow the natural contours
and planted with landscaping which meets the requirements
in Section 19.40.0500.
2. A licensed landscape architect shall review
grading plans and, in. consultation with the applicant and the
City Engineer, shall submit a plan to prevent soil erosion
and to screen out and: fill slopes.
G. Landscaping. ._. . . ,> . ..~.~,~ .w..~,: _~.c
1. A licens~ ~~ds~ architect shall2repare a tree
plantin~ pl~ Jor the sj~" which will "screenl1]I!~~;"'-
and resIdential structureS, to the greatest possible"eXteD.t~ as
well as to reintroduce trees on barren slopes which were
denuded by prior agricultural activities.
2. Landscape improvement shall meet the
requirements as established in the Xeriscape Landscaping
Ordinance, Chapter 14.15 of this code.
3. Landscape improvements shall be installed prior
to occupancy unless such installation is impracticable, in
which case, the applicant shall post a bond, cash or other
security to insure installation within an eighteen-month
period from occupancy. All such landscape areas shall be
"properly maintained.
4. No specimen sized trees may be removed without
a permit as provided for in the Heritage and Specimen Tree
Ordinance, Chapter 14.18 of this code. Native trees should
be integrated into the site design to the greatest ex.tent
possible.
H. Watercourse Protection.
1. Any watercourse identified in Figure 6-J of the "
Cupertino General Plan and its existing riparian vegetation
must be shown on all development plans.
2. All new development, including structures,
grading and clearing, must be set back at least fifty feet on
lots which are less than one acre in size and one hundred
----.
t
---1
._ __n'~._ _ .__ ,_______ . -
""" ",,;: 7~ ~ For purposes of subdivision, the minimum lot
. :- 'c-..r........':.... ,.",.-,--",. -.,. -;..'. ..(..
area shall hethe average lot area computation fof~'zero -..
percent slope 'gradient as contained in ,Appendix E of " the
. ~oC~eniFP1an, unless clustered in accordance with Section
18.52.030 (Hillside Subdivisions). These lot sizes are
approximately twelve thousand square feet for the Foothill
Modified, twenty-one thousand square feet for the Foothill
1/2 acre modified and two hundred eighteen tbousandsquare
feet for the 5-20. The minimum lot size in a clustered
subdivision is ten thousand square feet. Lots which
potentially are subdividable will be assigned a lot size
number at the time of subdivision.
3. The minimum lot area for legally-created;
developed lots, which are not subdividable, shall reflect the
existing" lot size.
C. Lot Width Minimum. The minimum lot width in
an RHS zoning district is seventy feet, measured at the front"
setback line; provided, however, that there is no minimum
lot width for lots served by a private driveway and which do
not adjoin a public street.
D. Development on Substandard Lots. No stn.lCtUreS
or improvements proposed on existing, vacant legal lots in
the Foothill Modified and Foothill Modified Half Acre slope
density designations of the General Plan which are
substandard in size, shall occur unless an exception ~[.,
granted.
{q---s-t
1$1).4lO.@S$
CMpertmo - Z4J,~
54
feet on lots which are greater than one acre. The setback
shall be measured from the top of bank of the watercourses
or from existing riparian vegetation, whichever is greater.
The setback from riparian vegetation will be measured from
the drip line perimeter.
I. Development Near Prominent Ridgelines.
1. The development of new, independent structures
shall not disrupt a fifteen percent site line from a prominent
ridge as identified! m Appendix A. The fifteen percent site
line shall be measuroo from the top of ridge at the closest
point from the structure.
2. Additions to legally existing homes located within
the fifteen percent site line of a prominent ridgeline may not
further encroach into the site line, e.g., the addition may not
add height or bulk which may increase the disruption to the
fifteen percent ridgeline site line.
3. Should these requirements becQme impractical,
alternatives will be considered through the exception
process.
J. Development on Slopes of Thirty Percent or
Greater.
1. Site plans for all development proposals shall A = Maximum allowable house size
include topographical information at contour intervals not to prior to instituting the maximum
exceed ten feet and a horizontal map scale of one inch 6,500 square foot building size.
equals two hundred feet or larger. Areas where slopes . --".. B = ~Net lot area.
e"'ceed thirty perce...t.. shall '--"'l.dentified on the Sl'le _"..~:'._".,.-i~..'"-''C''''' "'.1'" ,"--.....",~~.,.,...".,-
^ JLA UiijO" ;~..:......:.:.-=..;:.~~":' A:'.,.~' "'''''~':!.:.'~J-",~(~'''''-a~''''''1'~
development plan>""'::'" .'- '.'" '0 -"ic:..-.:.;.::";d-::::"2.= ' LOts wifbinCiustered Subdivisions Containing
_ 2. No strueture or improvements shall occuron'.,i_J:GmmonOpenSpac.e....l.Dtswith!n.clusteredsubdivisionsln__.
slopes greater than thirty percent 'unless an exception is~.;~"Whi.eh...Iand4s :res~."~~?n open space, may count ~,,' :; -'C "C"~
granted or unless no more than five hundred square feet of -., :-.ll'proportionateamou-nfOf11he:-reserved private open space
development, including grading and strUCtures, occurs on -for calculatiD.g 'the allowable house size, except that no
an area with a slope greater than thirty percent. developable lot would be subject to greater than a forty-five-
K. Trail Linkages. percent floor area ratio prior to slope consideration. The
1. Among other items required to be identified on average slope of a lot within a clustered subdivision shall be
the site plan, the site plan shall identify trail linkages as calculated on the developable lot.
shown in the General Plan Trail Plan, on and adjacent to the 3. Slope Adjustment Criteria. For lots with an
site. average slope greater than ten percent, the allowable floor
2. If a trail linkage, as shown in the General Plan area, prior to instituting the maximum six thousand five
Trail Plan, is identified across a property being developed, hundred square foot allowable building size, shall be
no development shall take place within that area except if reduced by one and one-half percent for each percent of
approved through the exception process. slope over ten percent. For lots with an average slope over
L. Views and Privacy. It is not the responsibility of thirty percent the allowable floor area shall be reduced by
City Government to ensure the privacy protection of the a constant thirty percent.
building permit applicant or owners of surrounding
properties that may be affected by the structure under
construction. However, the Director of Community
Development may confer with the building permit applicant
to discuss alternate means of preventing privacy intrusion
and preserving views. (Ord. 1725. (part), 1996; Ord.1658,
(part), 1995; Ord. 1634, (part), 1993)
Building Coverage, Setbacks and Height
Restrictions.
All provisions of this section may be deviated from
19.40.~
upon an exception granted by the Planning Commission in
accordance with Section 19.40.140.
A. Floor Area.
l.a. For lots with less than ten thousmd square feet of
net lot area the maximum floor area rmio shall be forty-five
percent of the net lot area.
Formula: A = 0.45 B
A = Maximum allowable house size.
R = Net lot areal.
b. For lots with more than ten thousand square feet
of net lot area the maximum floor area shall be four
thousand five hundred square feet plus 59.59 square feet for
every one thousand square feet over ten thousand square
feet of net lot area. In all cases the maximum floor area
shall not exceed six thousand five hundred square feet
without an exception.
FormuiliP.:
A = ((B-l0,OOO)/1,OOO)(59.59)+ 4,500
Formula: C =
A=
A x (1-(1.5 x (D - 0.1)))
Maximum allowable house size
based on subsection 1 above
prior to instituting the maximum .
6,500 square foot building size.
Maximum allowable building for
lots with greater than 10 %
average slope.
Average percent slope of net lot
area.
C=
D=
( q r-)2-
55
Rem.iillel!ilWlA ~iille ~ Zol!ilesl
119!.~.~
19.40.070 Design Standards.
All provisionS af this section may be deviated from
c. upon an exceptian granted by the Planning Cammission in
.. '." accordance with Section 19.40.140.
': <.",., B. Setbacks-FirstFloot~ '-'-'--. .' - ... '. .:-~_: ~..\O"::;c:,,' A. Building and Roof Farms.
1. Front Yard. The minimum fioiii-yaiir~tbackiS'~~-~:" 1. Thebuilding shall fallow as closely as possible
twenty feet, except that if the grade exceedS twenty percent the primary natural contour of the lot. The main building
within the, first twenty feet from the street elevation, the mass shall be an the upslope side of the building and the
minimum front yard setback may be ten. feet. The driveway roof pitches shall trend downslope.
and garage must be designed to enable vehicles to park off- 2. Second story dormers are permitted within the
street. second story setbacks as long as they are minar in shape and
2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is size.
ten feet, provided that a minimum of fifteen feet shall be 3. The downhill elevation of the main. strUCture shall
provided on the street side of a comer lat. have a minimum of four offset building and roof elements.
3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback shall These requirements are intended to provide varied building
be twenty feet. . forms to produce shadaw patterns which reduce the impact
C. Setbacks-Second Floor. ofvisual mass.
1. Pront Yard. The minimum front yard setback 4. Wall planes exceeding one story or twenty feet in
shall be twenty-five feet. height, whichever is more restrictive. must contain
2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback shall architectural elements which provide relief and break up
be fifteen feet. expansive wall planes.
3. RearYard. Theminimumrearyardsetbacksha11 B. Colors. Exterior colars af all structures on the
be twenty-five feet. lot shall use natural earth tone and/or vegetatian colors
4. Downhill Elevation. The downhill elevation shall which complement the natural surroundings and shall not
be offset in the following manner: at least seventy-five exceed a reflectivity value of sixty on a flat surface.
percent of the second story downhill facing wall plane shall Natural earth-tone and vegetation colors include natural hues
be set back an average of seven and one-half feet and in no of brown, green and shades of gray.
case less than five feet from the first story downhill wall C. Outdoor Lighting. All outdoor lighting shall be
plane. The remaining twenty-five percent may not extend identified on the site development plm. No high-intensity
past the first story wall plane. lights are permitted for tennis courts or other recreational
10% or less
11%
12%
13%
14%
15%
16%
17%
18%
19%
20%
21%
22%
23%
24%
25%
26%
27%
28%
29%
30% or greater' ."
0%
1.5%
3%
4.5%
6%
7.5%
9%
10.5%
12%
13.5%
15%
16.5%
18%
19.5% ,
21%
22.5%
24%
. 25.5%
27%
.,28;5%
30%
5. Showd the downhill contours not be confined to
one elevation, then the downhill offset ~ be applicable to
the primary setback affected.
6. A second story offset may be measured from the
outside perimeter of the first-story roofed porches. The
roof of the porch must match, in pitch and style, the roof of
the main structure. The porch must also be at lelllSt five feet
in width and extend the length of the wall on which it is
I OC21tecl!.
D. Setback-Habitable Third Fl.oor. The m.iillmw:EiJ
setbacks for III habitable third floor shall be the same a.s
those for a second floor, except that the minimum side yard
setback shall be twenty feet.
. E. Height of PrincipallBuildings and StruCtures.
1. The maximum height of a principal building in allll
RHS zone shall be thirty feet (excluding chimneys,
antennae, or other appurtenances).
2. Heights exceeding twenty feet shall be subject to
the setback regulations prescribed in Section 19.40.06OD
andE.
3. The maximum wall height on the downhill
elevation shall be fifteen feet. (Ord. 1725, (part), 1996;
Ord. 1658, (part), 1995; Ord. 1634, (part), 1993)
An. snope
R~UiCtiOIm
{ 7-j]
19.40.07@
Cllllj[lemo ~ Zo~
56
purposes. Movement-activated security lights, not to exceed
one hundred watts. are permitted but lIlUSt be shielded to
avoid all off-site ~ion. All other lights must be directed
to meet the particular need. (Ord. 172S, (part), 1996; Ord.
1634, (part), 1993)
19.40.080 Fencing.
All provisions of this section may be deviated from
upon an ellcepfci.oDl granted by the Plaw.ing Commissi,oIl, in
accordance with Section 19.40.140.
All fences in an RHS zoning district shall be governed
by the following regulations:
A. Solid board fencing shall:
1. Not be limited on lots of less than thirty thousand
square feet net area;
2. Be limited to a five thousand square foot area
(excluding the principal building) for lots exceeding thirty
thousand square feet in net lot area.
B. Open fencing (composed of materials which
result in a minimum of seventy-five percent visual
transp~ency) shall be unrestricted except that such fencing
over three feet in height may not be constructed within the
front yard setb~~ (000: 1634, (Part), 1993)
19.40.090-_ _ ~'-Pertnittea: Yatd -FieroBChment.
.. ...,.,~.: >. . .,,~; r,l' ,~- ~""""r%':-"~"""'.;::-; -;~--. . ~'::-~_'~..:.",.:' ':~':",.'~,.,~:.;;.~",:;-
.~Pd~~1.'l~~~~~;t~~mrlfnr~:=i:::
.' '- aeeofdiiicewitli SectiOJF19:'4ti.1"4'O~'"'''v"",,>, -.
, ~' '~';A;:~g~!~~~\1idhigpatiocovers)
may exteDc! :nu.o' ~,~~~~ _yard a distance not exceeding
three feei:,< prov,ided, tl12t: 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.
B.' Additions to Existing Structures. Except for
structures located within the prominent ridgeline site line,
where a single- family dwelling legally constructed according
to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of
construction encroaches upon present required yards, one
encroaching side of the existing structure may be extended
along the existing building lines even when the existing first
floor setbacks do not meet the requirements of this chapter.
Only one such extension shall be permitted for the life of
such building. This applies to the first story only. This
section 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, either before or after such
building becomes part of the City. The extension or
addition may not further encroach into any required setback;
e.g., a single story may be extended along an existing five-
foot side yard setback even though the other side yard does
not equal ten feet. However, in no case shall any wall plane
of a first story addition be placed closer than three feet to
any property line. (Ord. 1634. (part), 1993)
19..00.100 Goologie Wllllli Soilii Report h~edW'es.
A. A geologicSll report prepared by a certified
engineering geologist and a soils report prepared by a
registered civil engineer qualified in soils mechanics by the
state shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building
permit for construction of any building or structure which:
1. Is located on property in an RHS zoning distclct .
which has been designated by the General Plan to be within
2\ geologicaJ. haZ2urd ~rel>; and
2. Where am. additiolDl, alteration Off' repair of an
existing building or struCture include alt least one of the
following:
2. The improvements mclude increasing the
occupancy capacity of the dwelling such as adding a
bedroom or secondary unit, or
b. The cost of the completed addition, alteration or
repairs will, during any period of twelve months, exceed
twenty-five percent of the value of the existing
'improvements as determined by the building official based
on current per foot value of the proposed structure to the
existing structure's value on a parcel of property. For the
purposes of this section, the value of existing improvements
shall be deemed to be the estimated cost to rebuild th~".
improvements in kind, which value shall be determined oy-'
the building offic~. ----.. --- --~_.- -
B. These ~rt$:sha1l be filed in conjunctio~Wid.ta. :~':;":';!'-::c~'cc ~
site "development plan and, in addition to tlfeteqUiiements':""~)~:";'~!"~ --
of Chapter 16,12 of-this"code" shall contain:_ "-. .~,,~OC,,'~~, _-,-,-,c",~..,
'1: ,'All pertmenttbta, interpretations ~devaruan~~~~?~tt1~::t;j~:,:)i,~:
based upon the most current professionally reco~d;.s9i1$;; ,':":~(;~'~~:.~7:~
and geologic data; , . ',:',:-' ,.~.,~ '-'<,.",','
2. The significance of the interpretations 'and ,. '.,
evaluations with respect to the actual development or
implementation of the intended laild use through
identification of any significant geologic problems. critically
expansive soils or other unstable soil conditions which if not
corrected may lead to structural damage or aggravation of
these geologic problems both on- and off-site;
3. Recommendations for corrective measures
deemed necessary to prevent or significantly mitigate
potential damages to the proposed project and adjacent
properties or to otherwise insure safe development of the
property;
4. Recommendations for additional investigations
that should be made to insure safe development of the
property;
S. Any other information deemed appropriate by the
City Engineer.
C. No building permit shall be issued for the
construction of any building or structure on property which
is subject to regulation under this section, unless the
building and site plans incorporate the above-described
corrective measures and unless the plans are approved by
the City Engineer. (Ord. 1634. (part), 1993)
(i ~j-~
S7
Resn@eI!1J'~ JBl.illsitdle ~ ~Im~
l~Al@,lll.lID
19.4!@.U@ PrivSlte Romtdls iMld Drlvewmym.
All provisions of this section may be deviated from
upon an ex.ception granted by the Planning Commission in
accordance with Section 19.40.140.
A. Pavement Width and Design. The pavement
width and design for a private road or common driveway
serving two to five lots and a single-lot driveway shall
comply with development standards contained in the Hillside
Sub4J!ivisi.on Ordinanre, Chaptef 1852 of this caae;.
B. Reciprocal Ingress/Egress. An applicant fOil 2i
building permit for a lot served by a private road or
common driveway sball record an appropriate deed
restriction guaranteeing reciprocal ingress/egress easement
to adjoining property owners who utilize the private road or
common driveway for the primary access to their lot(s).
C. Reciprocal Maintenance Agreement. The
applicant for a building permit for a lot served by a private
road or common driveway shall record an appropriate deed
restriction guaranteeing participation in a reciprocal
maintenance agreement with other lot owners utilizing the
private road or common driveway for primary access.
D. Gates. Gates may be used to control access to
private roads and driveways provided that the design of the
gate, including location, dimension and the locking devices,
c ~- . !I'~,.~p~roved by the Director of Co~ty DevelopJl1ent
- ,-..a:.fteCcoDSUltation with the Central Fire DiStrict;' (Ord.
'--~784, <Pirt), 1998;-0id. 1634, (part)~ 1993)'0 ---'.: _.-~
- ~~.~~ :::~,......".:.L"';:!:-.~;:
:-_~~7E~4ctfio-' 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 access or property rights of adjoining
property owners. Any solar structure which requires
variation from the setback or height restrictions of this
chapter may be permitted upon issuance of an ex.ception by
the Planning Commission. (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993)
19.40.130 Interpretation of plsanning Director.
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 this chapter by the Director of Community
Development may petition the Planning Commission in
writing for review of the interpretation. (Ord. 1634, (part),
1993)
19.40.140 Exception for Development of Certain
Individusl Hillside Lots.
A. With respect to II request for development of a
legally created individual hillside lot which does not meet
the development requirements contained in Sections
19.40.050D through M and 19.40.060 through 19.40.090
and 19.40.110 through 19.42.120 of this chapter, the
Planning Commission shall gr2i!lt an exception to allow
development if the subject property cannot be merged with
adjacent property purSl.Wlt to Government Code Sections
66451.10 - 66451.21 and if the commission, based upon
substantial evidence, makes all of the following findings:
1. The proposed development will not be injurious
to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental
to the publ.i.c health and: safety.
2. The propos~ developmen(( will not crea~ ('2
hazardous condition for pedestrian. Oll' vehicular traffic.
3. The proposed development has legal access to
public streets and public services are available to serve the
development.
4. The proposed development requires an exception
which involves the least modification of, or deviation from,
the development regulations prescrib..."'<i in this chapter
necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel.
5. All alternative locations for development on the
parcel have been considered and have been found to create
greater environmental impacts than the location of the
proposed development.
6. The proposed development does not consist of
structures on or near mown geological or environmental
hazards which have been determined by expert testimony to
be unsafe or haz2tdous to --structures or :~~ns:!residing
therein. - (See'6enerafPlan Policies 2-49.)';~~:5\cS~,~~~.
7. The proposed,developmentincludes ~g~
drainag~ pl~~bich"~-~e that erosi~?~~g
of the hillsides caused by necessary--construction..Jof roads,
housing sites, and iInprovements will be m;n;m;7,ed. (See
General Plan Policies 2-53,2-54 and 2'-57.) . .
8. The proposed development does not consist of
strUCtures which would disrupt the natural silhouette of
ridgelines as viewed from established vantage points on the
valley floor unless either:
a. The location of a structure on a ridgeline is
necessary to avoid greater negative environmental impacts;
or
b. The structure could not otherwise be physically
located on the parcel and the size of the structure is the
minimum which is necessary to allow for a reasonable use
of the parcel. (See General Plan Policies 2-46, 2-47 and
2-48.)
9. The proposed development consists of structures
incorporating designs, colors, materials, and outdoor
lighting which blend with the natural hillside environment
and which are designed in such a manner as to reduce the
effective visible mass, including building height, as much as
possible without creating other negative environmental
impacts. (See General Plan Policies 2-46, 2-50, 2-51 and
2-52.)
10. The proposed development is located on the
parcel as far as possible from public op..'"n space preserves
{ 1--)"S
19.M).1l.~
C1\llpertmo .. Zomng
or parks (if visible therefrom), riparian corridors, and
wildlife habitats unless such location will create other, more
negative environmental impacts. (See General Plan Policies
2-55, 5-14 and 5-28.)
11. The proposed development includes alandscape
plan which retains as many specimen trees as possible,
which utilizes drought-tolerant native plants and ground
covers consistent with nearby vegetation. and which
m.inimizes; i2wn a:reas. (See Gener.a] Plan. Policies 2-54.,
5-15 and 5-16.)
12. The proposed development confines solid fencing
to the areas near a structure rather than around the entire
site. (See General Plan Policy 5-17.)
13. The proposed development is otherwise consistent
with the City's General Plan and with the purposes of this
chapter as described in Section 19.40.010.
B. An application for exception must be submitted
on a form as prescribed by the Director of Community
Development. The application shall be accompanied by a
fee prescribed by City Council resolution, no part of which
shall be refundable, to the applicant. Upon receipt of an
application for an exception, the Director shall issue a
Notice-of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission
for an exception under this chapter in the same manner as
. . provlded~ ~ection 19 . 120.060 (relating to zoning changes).
.: .., ^~ri"pUJ;UcJl~g, andconsideratioD?f the app1ication'-': ,
._ . . .' ~.9>.2l~.!io~,~th . ~e mandatory fin~gs contained in _ ,"
.oc,",";-,~R~~ :al>ove, the Planning COTntfi,~~~~.o~:" ,~~a.~I' ..:.~'
;:L,:'~ apptov.e;,,:eonmtionally approve or deny the application for - .
'.an exception. The decision of the Planning Commission
may' be appealed to the City Council as provided in Section
19.136.060.
C. An exception which has not been used within two
years following the effective date thereof, shall become null
and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period shall
specifically be prescribed by the conditions of such permit
or variance. An exception permit shall be deemed to have
been "used" in the event of the erection of a structure or
structures when sufficient building activity has occurred and
continues to occur in a diligent manner.
D. In addition to any other remedies, the City
Attorney is authorized to commence and maintain a civil
action to enforce the provisions of this chapter or any
copditiODs attached to the granting of any permit or
exception granted under this chapter. (Ord. 1725, (part),
1996; Ord. 1634, (part), 1993)
19.40.145 Applicability.
This chapter shall apply to any permit filed after April
8. 1996, provided, however, that an exception previously
granted, and for which building permits are obtained two
years after the effective date of the ordinance codified in
this section, is exempt. (Ord. 1725, (part), 1996)
'"7 - - ::-:"""-':':' ~ -:~
-" -. . ,. ," .
-.' -..... - ~ ---,' .~......-...... -~ ~'.~...
S8
: - Z'..;-:-. ;~':';';':".~,.~.~'.":
. -'","-,"'" ..-..
~~'TJ~:7~"K::J;t~~~~~.~ ~1 "':";':~
'- '~""':'"~~::-:t;::7t~:~:: :,_' __.~JJ~~G:~ffJ7
- ,........ ~ :!:~.:..,. ,-" '.' ~.-''''
. -.~:.:..,1r-._'~.1..
( 1~S&
. APPENDIX A
PROMINENT RIDGELINES
ChRpler I ~HO of (he Cuperlino Municipal Code
Adopter by the City Council under Ordinance 163~, Oclnbcr II, 1993
( 1--j7
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
January 23,2007
.
'7
.;,'7
.;?r;r
e was no harm in waiting until the new Commissioner was .' ent. There might be
some iss that would benefit from more discussion and better sol /~s.
Said it woul e appropriate to identify the key issues that requi _~ore information to resolve.
Said staff wou need a minimum of 45 days before brin 'g the ordinance back for. final
discussion.
Chair Giefer:
Said that the application could be continued so that more information could be ga
final vote.
.
.
f,7'
;b-:s::;~:t tbe return date within a montb to se ~UbliC in an expeditious manner.
. The key point is in-lieu fees, d to ensure that .' e replacing the canopy. If we were to add
trees, what criteria could be u for protect . trees and what should those trees be. Bring
back language on how we woul fine ad ;g to the list, and if it is just those two trees that
the arborist is recommending then i at' 'afr s recommendation for adding them.
. Staff training I am not sure that we ow that, as long as City Council is comfortable on
how staff will be trained, that is not B, this package.
. Tree management policy - we agr ).' n the oving forward; tree policy the fees, it sounds like
we are all comfortable with the f! t:ructure er than the in-lieu fees.
{'I
. What about replacement size /. om. Wong ex ssed some interest to replace with practical
replacement size (likeness f!; keness).
. Rear yard tree removal -.:are split.
. Have the arborist write . I his thinking for us to rea
at a time and explain , 's what his thoughts are on that tr
. If it comes back as '. .7 of the in-lieu fee process that we ha a specific tree fund for the city,
if we partner wit non-profit to replace tree canopy within ou ity, if the City Attorney could
get more info . on on that.
/'
/
Motion: on by Com. Chien, second by Com. Miller, to continu plication
A-2006-02 to 30 days from January 23, 2007. (Vote: 3- ; Com. Wong No;
om. Saadati absent).
the report; specifically take one tree
ong:
id they had been working on the tree policy from September to January and H elt it was
that government should move forward and not be held back. Adding a new commis
provide a new mix and there would be enough feedback from the previous meetings.
Chair Giefer declared a short recess.
4. MCA-2006-01 (EA-2006-12)
City of Cupertino
Citywide Location
Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28 Single
Family Residential (Rl) Zones regarding buildings
proposed on properties with an average slope equal to
or greater than 15 percent. Planning Commission decision
final unless appealed. Tentative City Council Date:
February 20, 2007
Gary Chao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
. Provided a summary of the background of the application to review Chapter 19.28 Single-
( 1- Jr
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
January 23, 2007
Family Residential (Rl) Zones regarding developments proposed on properties with an
average slope of 15% or greater, as outlined in the staff report.
. In January 2005, the City Council approved amendments to the Rl Ordinance, and decided to
increase the development standards for the Rl hillside properties. Since then, the City has
received numerous concerns from residents stating that not enough public discussions were
held relative to the specific topic of the hillside standards. The City Council has directed that
discussions be opened up for public input to assess whether any modifications are needed.
. He discussed the difference between Rl and RHS standards, slope applicability and
geographical applicability. He clarified that the new hillside standards do not change the
density requirements or allowable density of the Rl zoning districts; it only affects the floor
area ratio (FAR), size of the homes and some additional development standards that apply to
the proposed homes.
. Illustrated examples of home sites located on 15% to 20% slope, 30%+ and 40%+.
. Relative to slope applicability the Planning Commission has three options to recommend to the
City Council: to retain the average 15% slope threshold; adjust the threshold anywhere
between an average slope range of 15% to 30%; or revert back to the original 30% threshold
standard. Staff is comfortable with the 15% rule as the General Plan identifies that minimum
slope problems increases to significant slope problems at 15%. In addition at 15% or greater,
slope becomes a very significant factor in development.
. Relative to geographical applicability, the Planning Commission has three options: to retain
the geographical applicability of the current Rl hillside development standards; or limit the
geographical applicability of the hillside development standards to only properties west of the
hillside transition line (10% slope line); or revert to Rl hillside standards prior to the 2005 Rl
Ordinance Amendment where only developments on slopes of 30% or greater will be subjected
to the hillside standards regardless of geographical location.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive public testimony and provide
direction on ordinance changes if necessary, and/or provide the staffs recommendations to the
City Council.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
John James, Lindy Lane:
. Illustrated a photo of Kennedy High School area showing the hills and trees and said if the
ordinance is reversed, the trees will be taken out and big houses will be built.
. Somehow the Cupertino Hills off of Lindy Lane, Terrabella and Terrace were zoned residential
Rl instead of hillside RHS; some landowners built huge houses in this area. In my opinion the
City Council saw what happened and imposed the 15% restriction to protect and preserve the
remaining Cupertino hillside.
. Requested that the Planning Commission keep the 15% restriction in place and continue to
protect and preserve the Cupertino hillside. What is different or has changed since last year to
bring this issue up again? I think I heard the answer, but nothing has changed as far as I know.
You are trying to protect the city and I hope you just keep doing it.
. The north Lindy Lane landowners" are trying to rezone the hillside to flat land building
requirements; don't let them do it.
Julia James, Lindy Lane:
. Reiterated what you did before, to keep it zoned at 15%. I don't know ifit is greed or not, but
all these people could sell their land and people could build a house that is big enough, 4200
square foot home is very extravagant; how much money do you need to make; I don't
understand it. If they want to build homes, maybe they should go out where they can buy some
flat land and build all the homes they want. Please keep it zoned at the 15% level.
17~j-7
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
January 23, 2007
Tim Maslya, Scenic Boulevard:
. Opposes application.
. Said he was in the process of submitting plans for a house addition of 1,000 square feet to his
1600 square foot home. His lot is 13,000 square feet, zoned R1-10. Due to this ordinance,
there may be some issues.
. I support the intent to protect, but due to this ordinance, I find myself in a situation where I
would be building maybe in conflict with this ordinance on flat land and not changing the
hillside, or endangering the look of the hillside at all.
. When I purchased the lot it was noted as R1-10, I looked up the ordinances and I figured this is
what I will be able to do to my property in the future. Now I may be in jeopardy of not being
able to do that. .
. He noted that because the setbacks are also different, and his lot is not very big, it would create
a big impact if he had to go with more restrictive setbacks.
. I am hoping there will be some compromise here; I just wanted to let you know my case
because there may be others in a similar situation.
Com. Chien:
. You mentioned one consequence if we were to keep this rule in place and that is setback; you
might lose 5 feet. What are the other consequences?
Mr. Maslya:
. In terms of the FAR and other issues that are more restrictive in the RHS ordinance, I would
not be impacted. It would be primarily the setback which with the limited area I do have,
would be a major impact.
Marie Lin, Cupertino resident:
. Opposes application.
. Building a healthy home, engineering correctly should increase the safety of the lot. The
soundly built house should act as additional retaining for the lot; it only increases safety,
especially for the lots around 15% or a little bigger than 15% slope; I think it is difficult to put
in the RHS ordinance and I am opposing it. It is healthy for the land when there is more
retaining and the soundly built house will serve the purpose as retaining.
Jim Black, Regnart Canyon Drive:
. I reside in the RHS designation and am opposed to the 15% slope. I just asked the question
because I just got the announcement two weeks ago about this meeting. What is the objective
of the 15% over 30%; is it safety, is it visual? If it is safety, the houses where I live at least are
all engineered, we have to have the foundations engineered" we have to have retaining walls,
we have to have all the slopes and I am sure if you considered 15%, I exceed that by a wide
margin. The RHS district doesn't apply specifically to me if! understand this correctly. But I
don't see the benefit in changing the existing 30% that is working, to 15% unless it is a visual
purpose. If it is visual, perhaps there are other means of achieving that objective rather than
restricting citizens in the city who already live in some conditions where the 15% would be
strictly a hardship as I explained to you for people who live in the R1 zones.
. My appeal to you would be to reverse the 15%, go with the 30%, the steepest slope I am aware
of other than the 15% in the Bay Area, but was in Contra Costa and it was 24% and the way
theirs worked, is if you could reach the flat spot if you had to go to more than 24% even with
the driveway or an approach, if you would get to the flat spot where you could develop a
house, then you could do it. You could not build on 24% or greater slope, but if I understand
this correctly, an average of 15% is pretty severe at least for anything in the hills.
{ f-&tJ
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
January 23, 2007
. I am asking you to repeal it.
Ron Berti, Cupertino resident:
. The summary of the problem was stated earlier this evening; there are lots with hillside
characteristics that are zoned Rl. The adoption of this ordinance was entirely routine and
legal, it has been in place for many years, and now that it has gotten some attention, there are
some people who don't like it.
. I believe it doesn't apply to very many properties, and I think we cannot count on the self
restraint of the owners of these properties, they will develop it out as much as you say they can.
It is entirely reasonable to limit this type of development from the obvious fact that it is a hill
and I believe what we are talking about is a 7-1/2% diminution of the footprint of the home
that is to go in and some other more stringent ordinances, but the bulk of it is the footprint, the
floor plan is restricted by 7-1/2%. I don't think that is onerous.
. There are 36 signatures from neighborhood residents, these are people with a direct view of
some of these very Rl properties.
. Asked that the ordinance remain as is.
. Opposes the amendment.
Shau Zhu, Lindy Lane:
. Asked that the Planning Commission consider removing the 15% slope ordinance overlay on
top of the Rl ordinance.
. The ordinance took effect without knowledge of affected property owners, and many of us
properties subject to Rl and hillside ordinance and many of the property owners without
knowing what it means to them. The public was not getting a chance to provide their input
before the change. The law should have clarity and fairness.
. In 2005, more than 2 dozen households signed a petition to remove the 15% ordinance; in
response the Planning Commission recommended removal and the City Council discussed the
issue and favored it. To date there are still no clear answers about what the impact was to the
residents.
. A new ordinance affects the property value profoundly. It gives tremendous confusion and
financial burdens on the hard working homeowners. Property owners paid for their property
and taxes accordingly so they should have every right for their property value and as citizens
living in the Rl zone, we should not be punished because we have some hill.
. If safety is the issue, let's deal with the safety. But if it is not, we should have equal rights to
preserve our property values. As people get old and the house gets old, when we are ready to
rebuild or remodel our house like the other person, we may find out they have to build a
smaller house. When the new owner comes to buy a house they don't know what they are
buying or what their option is. What do we do; we do the slope density analysis. How
expensive and how time consuming and the slope density survey is. I am sure a lot of us
already know that. The builder of the house, so the new law creates too much uncertainty.
. I strongly urge you to vote one more time to remove such an inappropriate ordinance to protect
the property rights.
Charlie Taysi, Lindy Lane:
. I urge you to keep the 15% rule and the reason is if you change the slope density, it means that
they have to put bigger homes, if you put big homes in the hills in the north side of the Lindy
Lane, you create a lot of concrete retaining walls to keep the hillside from coming down.
. The intention of the meeting is to keep the hillside of Cupertino beautiful; but if you start
changing this thing and start building and putting a lot of concrete, it is not going to look nice;
it will look ugly.
( q r& (
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
January 23,2007
Sherry Fang, Lindy Lane:
. Tonight we are holding this public hearing for an ordinance that was passed almost two years
ago. Procedurally it is like convicting a man first, and then have his trial later, which doesn't
seem very democratic.
. Please do the right thing by removing this ordinance; otherwise what message are we sending
to the public and what impact will this have on Cupertino's credibility.
. In addition to removing this ordinance, I urge you to clean up and streamline the existing
building codes so that we are not at the whim of our city Community Development Director
whenever a rule needs interpretation. With Cupertino's diverse population, we should be extra
sensitive to the appearance of favoritism, and whenever a rule is interpreted and applied
inconsistently, it appears staff is playing favoritism. As Mr. Santoro will demonstrate later,
this ordinance is not well thought out and will further muddle the existing building code.
. We just finished building a house and witnessed two other new houses next to ours. We have
noted interpretation discrepancies with regard to setbacks, balconies, drainage requirements,
grading and tree protection. We are subject to a nebulous rule called compatibility with the
neighborhood which gives way too much control the Community Development Director,
dictating the type of house we can build. We have also witnessed a huge difference in .
turnaround time in the manner in which subdivision applications from Mr. Moxley, Mr.
Knopp, and Dr. Sun were handled. We found the Rl building code vague and often required
interpretation and approval by staff, namely the Community Development Director. However,
the interpretations are inconsistently applied; hence it appears that staff plays favoritism.
. In conclusion, I think the city has made a mistake in allowing this poorly thought out ordinance
to stay on the books, do you give more respect to public figures who admit to their mistakes vs.
trying to hide them. It takes courage to do the right thing.
. I urge you to remove this ordinance immediately.
Com. Chien:
. Much of the argument I heard, is there was not a public process to have this heard. Would you
agree that tonight you are getting your day in court.
Ms. Fang:
. Agreed that the procedure seems backward.
Com. Chien:
. Asked Ms. Fang to address the issue of public interest for hillside protection.
Ms. Fang:
. Said one of the photos shown was her house taken from a top down view. If they were in the
valley floors, they could plant trees. She said that although she liked Oak trees, they have not
planted as many as they would like for tree protection, because when it is time to thin them out,
there is too much red tape to go through with the removal process.
. She said there are many other properties that don't have the same impact on appearances
because of their location.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. When the previous RHS ordinance hearings were held, there were very few people in the
audience, but it was a public hearing. There were not a lot of property owners here at the time
of the RHS hearings. It was a public process, it went through its due time and like all the other
changes to RI, it was enacted. Said she resented the fact that some people imply that it was
done secretively.
(1 -t 1-
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
January 23,2007
. Said the felt the 15% rule is good; if you are building a house on a piece of property that has a
great slope, it is a logical point to assume that the steeper the slope, the more ramifications and
standards there should be on the house.
. She said she supported the 15% rule and said there needs to be logical rules left out for
building on hillsides.
Lynn Faust, resident of Rancho Deep Cliff development:
. We are surrounded on three sides by wonderful hillsides; after 1978 we watched many projects
going on the ridgelines and in the hillsides surrounding us. I support the actions of the
Planning Commission and City Council over the years to put safeguards in place.
. I support the 2005 Rl hillside standards of the 15% slope. I believe the City Council made
their decision based on substantial information, and I hope you agree and will support retaining
that.
Mark Santoro, resident:
. In favor of amendment.
. Said that the property owners want things to remain as they were when they purchased their
property; the zoning was R 1, the city has tried twice to change the zoning and it has not
happened. This particular rule was not addressed by the Planning Commission and it came up
and not one member of the public spoke about the 15% rule. What does this 15% rule mean,
where does it come from and what is the effect on property owners?
. Referred to a section that staff discussed and stated that the average slope is equal to or greater
than 15% then two sets of regulations apply, whichever is more restrictive. Problems we see
with the 15% overlay; it was passed without any input from the public. When we heard about
it, we tried to get it removed and it has been delayed. We came in front of the Planning
Commission once who voted to remove it; we went in front of the City Council and we were
told they couldn't vote; we wasted lots of time doing this; we think it is a misguided rule;
several of us are in favor of protecting the hillsides, we just believe it is the wrong way to do it.
. It is unclear and unfair and could lead to unequal treatment and abuse which we think we have
seen several times already.
. It violates property owners' rights.
. In 1993 the city tried to rezone us; they approached us and tried it again 10 years later. Near
the end of 2004, the Planning Commission was hearing the Rl issue; this particular issue did
not come up, but Com. Giefer did comment on the lack public input on Rl changes. At the
time I did not have input because I didn't have disagreements because this particular item was
not discussed by the Planning Commission.
. In early 2005 the Rl ordinance was accepted by the City Council. In January some people
received postcards stating that they were going to rezone part of it, about 27 properties. The
next day 11 of us went to a meeting; staff informed us that they wanted to rezone us; when we
questioned him about it he said, it is much better than what you have now, now you are dual
zoned with two sets of requirements. We weren't aware of this and when we asked if anyone
was told about it, we were told there was nothing we could do about it; in fact, we had another
week to appeal it when we were told there was nothing we could do. The Rl ordinance
became effective with no public input. We spent a lot of time discussing issues with people
trying to get it heard; we finally submitted a petition signed by 27 property owners to stop the
rezoning and to remove the 15% overlay. The Planning Commission voted on this and voted
both not to remove this and to remove the 15% overlay. So we are here for a second time; the
first time you have already voted in favor of removing this; then it was sent to the City
Council; the City Council voted 5-0 against rezoning properties in question. The Council
strongly looked like they supported getting rid of the 15% overlay and when they were about to
vote on it, they were told by Steve Piasecki that it was not on the agenda, therefore they could
( 1-~ 3
Cupertino Planning Commission
29
January 23, 2007
not vote on it. We put a petition in; we waited many months to get in front of the City Council;
we went through the Planning Commission, followed all the rules and suddenly we are told
that the City Council cannot vote. It was right before an election so the City Council stuck
with that and decided not to vote. They instructed it to try to be settled by January 2006. Staff
went to do a study; it is complicated issue; we don't know if you want to ask the Planning staff
exactly all the houses that are impacted or exactly how they are impacted. We have an
individual here that wanted to do something; you can see how he was impacted.
. Once again we are back at the Planning Commission. There has been no study done; we don't
know the impact. Since the impact is not known, it should be removed.
. Second, it is confusing; it overlies two sets of rules. Why do we need two sets of rules. We
are zoned Rl, we should be bound by the Rl rules; somebody gets to decide which rules are
more restrictive.
. Who decides what the slope is; who decides what needs to be done; I would like to say that is
what zoning is about; we are zoned Rl, and we were zoned Rl and we want to be held by
those Rl requirements. I think this thing is just an overlay to say well if we cannot rezone you,
we are going to make you look like a hillside without rezoning you. It is effectively rezoning;
it is even worse than rezoning because we are now bound by two sets of requirements.
. It is unfair; it has been voted on; we are done that and we are worse off than if we were
hillside, which I think was the plan, was to get us to agree to be rezoned but we fought it.
. I think it is a misguided law; 15% slopes are small. Safe attractive homes can be built.
Realtors testify that it drops property values; architects and builders and civil engineers
. testified in front of this group and the city that homes can be safely built on slopes up to 30%.
. Stated that the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution stated that no person shall be deprived
of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use without just compensation.
Com. Chien:
. Relative to due process, he asked Mr. Santoro if he was satisfied that were given their time'
today.
Mark Santoro:
. Yes and no; I feel it is inappropriate to put the burden on us to remove something that was put
on inappropriately. I feel it should have been removed; and should be removed tonight and
then we should come back and discuss the issue. The people are burdened with a law that went
into place, there has been no relief granted, not even a grace period.
Com. Chien:
. One of your arguments is you said you purchased a property the way it is, therefore it should
be kept the way it is. By that argument, are you suggesting that those who purchased homes
after the law took effect should live with that as well.
Mark Santoro:
. Said if the buyer was aware of it when they purchased the property, the same rule should
apply.
Com. Miller:
. Asked Mr. Santoro to clarify his opinion relative to people who have built houses on properties
that they may not realize are past 15% and that they are now in a position they cannot remodel
or add on.
(1-& y
Cupertino Planning Commission
30
January 23,2007
Mark Santoro:
. Said he understood that if the house burned down, they would let him put the same footprint
back; however, the new set of rules would apply for a remodel.
. Said staff said they should prefer to be zoned hillside because being under two sets of
restrictions is more restricting than just being zoned hillside. He said he felt it was worse to be
bound by both than it would have been to have been bound hillside, but did not feel they
should be rezoned and that is already been addressed.
. We are not rezoned if the City Council believed that we should be bound by hillside
ordinances, then we should have been zoned hillside, which we weren't; and it has been
attempted twice and voted down.
Com. Wong:
. Asked Mr. Santoro to provide a copy of his Power Point presentation.
Frank Sun, resident:
. I think we should respect historical facts and should talk about Rl regulations and ordinance.
People purchase their property with certain expectations and they pay tax accordingly. When
you want to change it, it should be done with greater care. Look at the process. None of the
property owners affected were notified and the public did not have a chance to give input; the
Planning Commission did not have a chance to give input and the ordinance was put into place.
. There was a council meeting where they initially voted 5-0 for removal and were informed
they could not vote because it was not on the agenda. Many people feel the property owners'
rights were violated.
. Look at the impact of the ordinance; owners don't know what they have because the value is
greatly decided by the ordinance; if you don't know which ordinance applies to your property,
you don't know what you have.
. If the buyers and sellers don't know what you are buying and selling, and you have to go
through expensive. time consuming process to have a survey; and if you are planning to do
something you will have greater difficulty; you need to know the slope density; you need to
know which ordinance applies to you.
. Too much power is given to the Planning Department and too much power can lead to abuse.
Ron Berti, Lindy Place:
. Resides on Lindy Place on the South side of Lindy which is an RHS zone.
. Said the ordinance says it is a hill and should be treated like a hill; if there is a slope density
formula for RHS, it should apply to R1; it has a 7-1/2% impact on the size of the home that the
people can build. He said he did not feel that was inappropriate.
Barbara Black, Regnart Canyon Drive:
. Some of the people may be concerned more about the square footage and the size of the home,
rather than the slope; perhaps the 15% is too small as far as safety is concerned. The slope
seems to be more of a safety issue; what is the objective of the 15%; is it a safety issue or is it
limiting the size ofthe home?
. Said she was concerned about restriction. Sometimes when a city restricts people too much,
they are not giving them the appropriate liberties they have with their properties.
Chair Giefer:
. Suggested that they focus on questions for staff. There was a question from Jim Black and
reiterated by Barbara Black to some degree as well. It was "What is the purpose of the 15%
slope density for Rl versus the 30% that applies to hillside?" What is the key objective we are
trying to achieve here?
{a, -&5
Cupertino Planning Commission
31
January 23,2007
Gary Chao:
. As mentioned previously, the General Plan separates hillside properties from flat land
properties with a 10% average slope. Basically everything upslope of 10% according to the
General Plan are considered in the hillside area. The intent of the 15% when it was introduced
to the Council and the Planning Commission back in 2005 was to utilize that 10% demarcation
line and determine that if you have a slope that is higher, the hillside standards would kick in.
The Council could have stuck to that 10% but they decided to take a softer approach and
adopted a 15% average slope. That is how it came about. In terms of the significance of the
15% slope, if you refer to the General Plan appendix where it talks about slope density, there is
a chart that breaks down different slopes.
Chair Giefer:
. Suggested they focus on whatever information is needed to make a decision on this as
expeditiously as possible to serve the public who have been waiting for their day in court.
Com. Wong:
. Referred to Page 4-6 which is the map of the western foot hills of Monte Vista, and noted that
one staff suggestion was to implement a 15% west of the illustrated red line,. He asked how
many parcels would be affected.
Gary Chao:
. Said there were approximately 70 to 80 parcels upslope of the 10% slope line.
. Said that all residents west of the railroad were notified.
Com. Wong:
. Expressed concern about not having the exact numbers for the public hearing, and was uneasy
with the idea of telling people to spend a lot of money buying a piece of property zoned R1.
. Relative to the Scenic Circle neighborhood, he questioned how many parcels were involved.
Staff indicated the information was not available.
. He reiterated that it was affecting many people with the public hearing.
Com. Wong:
. This is one part of the puzzle and this is a second part of the puzzle. You probably wouldn't
have the answer to my third question which is that I am sure there are going to have some parts
of the city which does not have a 15% slope and I would take my neighborhood which is on
the other side of Higl.Iway 280 in North Cupertino, my parcel is flat but I assume that my
neighbors would have a 15% slope too. There might be other places in the city as well too. My
concern is that staff really has no number of how much this 15% overall is affecting. Is that
correct?
Gary Chao:
. Said the current policy is if you are in an R1 zoning district anywhere in the city with a 15%
slope or greater, it would affect you.
Com. Wong:
. If someone such as Tim Maslya applies, staff will make a case by case study to look at a
parcel, declare that the parcel looks like it is more than 15%, and the applicant will have to hire
a civil engineer to get a survey to see what the average is on their property.
( q --& ~
Cupertino Planning Commission
32
January 23,2007
Gary Chao:
. That is correct. He clarified that prior to this change any Rl hillside or Rl sloped lots would
have to go through that exercise anyways because of the 30% rule. How would one determine
if your lot is at 30%; we cannot determine that so usually when we go out to perform site visits
if a person has a Rl proposal it has some slope. Prior to this ordinance a 15% average a
property owner would still have to order a survey done on the property to determine the slope.
That was in the R1 ordinance prior to this.
Com. Wong:
. Said he was concerned that they did not have the actual numbers of parcels citywide for the
public hearing. He asked how many residents were affected in the Stevens Creek Corridor
area. He said he felt there was not enough information tonight to make a final decision.
Gary Chao:
. I understand what you are asking although it would be difficult for us to come up with a exact
number because we do not have everybody's topographical map of every property in the City
of Cupertino. What we use to generate these lines or these areas were based on citywide
topographical map which is not pre size; it is done as citywide. In order for staff to come back
with an exact number of properties that are affected by this rule would entail staff to know
everybody's average slope.
Com. Wong:
. Asked why the city couldn't hire somebody to determine particular areas in certain sections of
the city that they should look like. What is the real impact? I think that if you figure out what
the real impact is, more people will provide more feedback.
Gary Chao:
. We can use GIS and based on our limited topographical citywide map, estimate the scope of
impact. Again these lines were generated by that application. It will be a crude estimate, it will
give you a target area of location of properties in the city of Cupertino that may be affected
based on those numbers but that is not accurate down to the parcel specifics. There may be
some margin of error with that. There may be some properties identified that may be close to
that line that actually or not that close or maybe they are over the 15%.
Com. Wong:
. Asked for clarification on the history of rezoning Mr. Santoro's neighborhood to RHS.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said it went through rezoning in 1983. Through the General Plan review there was a
recommendation on the Land Use Map that was brought in that the land be hillside. There was
a lot of disagreement from property owners on that and it was not included in the hillside Land
Use element of the General Plan.
Gary Chao:
. Said the public hearing was to receive input from the public so that a recommendation could be
forwarded to City Council. You can make recommendations on specifics in terms of
modifications. You have heard a lot of people with different suggestions. It is in your purview
to make any sort of recommendations you see fit to the City Council.
(1-&7
Cupertino Planning Commission
33
January 23, 2007
Com. Wong:
. Relative to Mr. Santoro's property, he asked staff if the cement wall was required in order to
build the house.
Gary Chao:
. Relative to notification of the change, in 2005 when it was amended back as part of the Rl
ordinance, there was a citywide notification process. There were many issues discussed that
were amended.
. Said he was not aware of a commitment to study the affect on certain properties.
Com. Chien:
. Asked staff if they felt they should do a study, even ifit were not a scientific study, similar to
what was done with Rl. An ad hoc study was conducted of what is going on with each of the
applications that come in and fall under the ordinance.
Gary Chao:
. Said that staff could look at it based on this evening's suggestion. He said there were many
options, and they could look at what the Planning Commission wants.
Chair Giefer asked what the objective would be of such a study.
Com. Chien:
. Said he was interested in specifics, and there had been a lot of discussion this evening about
property rights, protecting hillsides, which are all valid arguments, and he would like to know
the specifics about what is happening to each application that is coming in ifthere are any.
. Asked staff if they felt the lawn in front of City Hall was at a 15% slope?
Gary Chao:
. There isa certain portion of it that is close to 15%, that is an accurate statement. It varies at
different places. I would say at the steepest slope it is about 15%, you have to look at it in the
fomlof almost like the geometry.
. Relative to Mr. Santoro's earlier comment about rebuilding, he clarified that if the home was
demolished by natural occurrence, and ifit was covered under the Rl prior to 2005, it would
be grandfathered in.
. There are guidelines in the Rl ordinance that provides safeguards for those things. If it is
caused by a natural occurrence you could still build back to the original foot print.
Com. Miller:
. A house has a useful life and at some point it is time to rebuild it. We see renewal going on all
over the city; in that particular instance if it was built 30 or 40 years ago and it was built to that
standard that was there for R 1; if you wanted to rebuild it you could not.
Gary Chao:
. Said that was correct.
Ciddy Wordell:
. That would be true for any number of changes that there have been in the zoning ordinance
through the years. We see that all the time as people come in with building permits.
(7 --{cd
Cupertino Planning Commission
34
January 23, 2007
Com. Miller:
. The next question relates to something Mr. Black raised. If you are on a slope that is perhaps
greater than 15 or 30% and there is a build-able pad on that slope, so that there is a significant
flat area do we make any exceptions with regard to that when there is a flat pad in a steeper
slope area?
Gary Chao:
. Currently the way the 15% average slope is written does not account for that. It used to be that
30%, if you do not touch any portion of the property that is 30% then you are okay, you do not
trigger that rule. This may be one of the points of discussion that you would like staff to
evaluate as part of the tweaking that you are directing us to do.
Chair Giefer:
. Said they have spent six months deliberating on the' Rl, with meetings held, sessions, and
soliciting as much public input as possible. The Rl issue is more than just the slope density
formula for a Rl overlay.
. She recalled staff person Peter Gilli saying that with an overlay it would affect approximately
17 hillside parcels. There have been a number of subdivisions so the parcels may have
changed ownership and it may be more property owners affected than it was at that time. She
said that new information included the Stevens Creek Corridor, which City Council added
because they wanted to protect the hillsides. The creekbed area was not part of the original
intention for the protection; it was always referred to as a hillside overlay not a creekside
overlay. She said she did not feel they should consider it because it was not part of the original
Council objective for the project. She suggested they not move any further on that item and
said she did not know how to change it so that if you are on creekbed with a 15% average slope
you do not need to meet this. She said she did not know what the language would need to be if
that would be added. She asked staff to come back with a response.
. I am trying to understand the language that would go in the ordinance. In my opinion, we are
not depriving the parcel owners that are in the hillside of their rights to subdivide. They can
still subdivide their parcels in accordance with R 1, what it does affect is the size of the home
they can put on the parcel. Just as we saw when we did the Rainbow subdivision a couple
weeks ago. It was hillside, we' had no objections to that, they were subjected to the hillside
formula, the home size that could go on the lot was determined. If we want to protect our
hillside which was really the objective of this then we do need to do something to limit the
building size in the hillside.
. Asked if there were any other Commissioners who feel the creekside should be excluded as .
part of the study area.
Com. Wong:
. Mr. Santoro said that ifthe hillside was to be rezoned it should be zoned RHS.
. Said he was not in favor of it.
Chair Giefer:
. I know he was not advocating it; it was just a new thought.
Com. Wong:
. If we are going to advocate that, we should have a public hearing to have it on the RHS. His
point was that we already had two public hearings to have it zoned RHS and it failed at City
Council. Now they are trying to do a suggestion by staff to do an overlay and it was successful
at City Council; that is why we are having another public hearing,
. a
[ ,_& 7
Cupertino Planning Commission
35
January 23,2007
Chair Giefer:
. The question I am trying to get feedback from the Commission on is at this point do we want
to give staff direction not to include the watershed to simplify matters so we can focus on any
issues that arise for hillside.
Com. Wong:
. If the parcel was zoned RHS they can still legally subdivide but they have to follow the RHS
requirements. Is that correct?
Chair Giefer:
. No; it is zoned Rl so if you subdivide you have to meet the Rl minimum standard which in
this area is the R120. Is that correct?
Gary Chao:
. Yes. It does not affect the density allowance for these properties. So we don't apply the RHS
slope density calculation for subdivision purposes to these properties. It is only design
guidelines and floor area ratio limitations based on slope. You can get the same number of lots
that you could have before this change.
Com. Wong:
. The only restriction would be floor area ratio and how it is being designed and built to be
consistent with the terrain.
Chair Giefer:
. If you are in the hillside and it is zoned RHS orRl, you still have to have a site survey; it does
not matter if it is RHS or Rl.
Com. Wong:
. Currently we have a 15% overlay right now and there is consensus that 15% overlay across the
City of Cupertino is not acceptable. I think that it is a little restrictive as Mr. and Ms. Black
pointed out. I think we need to look into it more.
. I agree with Chair Giefer that we should not include the creekside overlay which is mainly the
Stevens Creek Corridor; it should be exempted.
. It comes down to staffs recommendation that should we retain the geographical applicability
of the current Rl hillside development standards on the western line that was on the staff
report. I just do not have enough information tonight to make a decision because I want to find
out how many parcels we are talking about.
Gary Chao:
. You are touching upon two different issues. One is the slope applicability; so your thoughts on
how to deal with properties that have flat areas at the same time have sloping areas that the
property owner may not necessarily be building in, is more of a slope applicability question.
. Weare talking about geographical applicability where these properties should fall into hillside
standards and we understand that you don't want to include Stevens Creek Corridor. We were
actually suggesting that to even simplify it further in that just use that General Plan 10% or
hillside transition line. Every property that falls on that line or up slope of that line would be
subject to this ordinance. That is one option that you have.
. If you just preclude the Stevens Creek Corridor there are properties in between the hillside
foothill line and the creek beds that are in normal residential areas that may be potentially
triggered. You could just say that this rule would apply to properties that are on this line or
west of this line. In our opinion that is really the intent of the initiation of this discussion of the
('7 -71()
Cupertino Planning Commission
36
January 23, 2007
ordinance in the first place is to only address the handful of RI properties that are located in
the RHS area, in the regular densely populated RI subdivision tracts.
Com. Wong:
. Based on staff s clarification I am going to change my thinking. Yes, this corridor should be
exempt but then you are pitting one particular neighborhood on Monta Vista which is Stevens
Creek Corridor and pitting the folks that are closer to the RHS zoning and I do not see any
equitability here.
. My suggestion is that if the main concern is mainly from the Stevens Creek Corridor area west,
I would like to see staff do a study and to see how many parcels are affected with the 15%
slope greater. I would like to have that information available so I would feel comfortable when
we make the recommendation to City Council.
Chair Giefer:
. Would you split that by area? How many homes affected on the hillside on the 10% line and
how many homes affected in the watershed. I think that is more meaningful.
Com. Wong:
. That is fine.
Com Chien:
. It is logical to assume that intent is to protect the hillsides and therefore properties outside east
of the 10% demarcation line ought to be excluded. I don't like to assume anything, I think we
ought to keep that particular section there. I am not comfortable with overturning anything at
this point without more data. We have to look forward, the past is the past and now there is a
chance for all residents to comment on what they think about this Rl overlay.
. We need to have the study done, it does not have to be scientific but we need to get down to
the specifics. I have lobbied for close to four years to make RI more flexible for our property
owners and I know that we have to look at the specifics. Are we talking about safety, are we
talking aesthetics, are we talking about environmental factors? Without a study and without
some more data we just cannot go off and I cannot say I support anything one way or another. I
would like to see that happen.
Com. Miller:
. I also agree that we do not know what the ramifications are. If we follow the 10% line, perhaps
all those properties are already developed. I also do not feel . comfortable having some
properties being ruled by two sets of rules, both the RHS and the Rl. I think we have talked a
lot about that tonight. It should be one or the other. At some point, the City Council decided
that some of these hillside were to be RHS and some were to be RI, we do not know what the
reasoning was back then. But they did do that and it presents problems with the people who
have developed under one set of rules and as their houses reach the natural useful life they will
find that they can not redevelop to the same extent that they had in the past. That seems to
have some inherent unfairness to it. I am in agreement that we need more study. However, I
also think that the current rules with the RHS and Rl overlay is really unfair and while the
study is going on which we do not how long it will take it might be more appropriate to just
recommend that we roll it back to where it was until we have the detailed study. Then we can
say that these properties should be rezoned to RHS or they should stay the way they are.
{ i-If
Cupertino Planning Commission
37
January 23, 2007
Chair Giefer:
. I think we have summed up pretty well what the planning commission would like to know. At
the time I was advocating rezoning because having this hillside R 1 instead of RHS made no
sense to me.
. The primary objective of the City Council was for us to look at the hillside not the watershed
area so I would be comfortable with the 10% line. I think the next meeting should be to get all
our questions answered and see if at that point we can make a recommendation to Council.
Com. Wong:
. Said he was fine with that, but wants clarity on the study because he wants to see a more
broader study.
Chair Giefer:
. Said she was fine with the study; Com. Chien also wants more information on what the results
are, what applications have come in, and more history on the parcels that are affected. Because
of the complexity and the amount of detail that needs to be discovered by staff, six weeks
seems like a more appropriate time period to do so.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to continue Application
MCA-2006-01, EA-2006-12 to the second Planning Commission meeting
in March 2007, with a condition to have a study done by that date and staff
provide information requested by the Planning Commission. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com.
Saadati absent)
Chair Giefer summarized information for staff to provide:
. How many homes are affected by this, by location.
. How many homes in the hillside that are Rl overlayed and how many homes on the watershed
would be affected by the categories.
· What type of movement there has been on the parcels; what applications, what restrictions
might affect those parcels that are affected by the 15% overlay with regards to setback, density.
. The hillside, the Stevens Creek Corridor and citywide.
· The same geographic inventory; if there are other parts of the city that share the same 15%
applicability; do we have other hills that are 15% in the city that are not included..
. Of the areas that area affected, how many still have potential development possibilities.
.
~;;.";?;E,.,/;;iii,,,,,.:1:'~'';'''' ~
to report back on the issue of tree removal ,'<.Y> ack"berry Farm. There are some
es being removed in Blackbe -e>'after the Planning Commission gave
,rinmg Commission before they are removed.
"0 make room for buses and it is not related to the
NEW BUSINESS:
ental Review Committee:
Miller reported that the only
which
(,~/b
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
7~~~~~n:
;l,;.tf<
CITY OF
CUPEIQ"INO
Staff Use Only
EA File No.EA-2006-12
Case File No._M-2006-01
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Project Title: Amendment to the R1 Ordinance with reaards to development
standards for Hillside R1 Properties
Project Location: Properties West of the Union Pacific Railroads
Project Description: Previously amendment to Chapter 19.28 of the Sinale Family
Residential (R1) Zones reaardina buildinas proposed on properties with an
averaae slope of 15% or areater.
Environmental Setting:
Standard sinale-familv subdivisions, foothill/hillside properties
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Area (ac.) - _N/A~ Building Coverage - N/A Exist. Building - N/A s.f. Proposed
Bldg. - N/A s.f. Zone -R1 G.P. Designation - Residential Low 1-5 DU/Gr. Ac.
Assessor's Parcel No. -
It Residential, Units/Gross Acre -
Total# Rental/Own Bdrms
Total s.t.
Price
Unit Type #1
Unit Type #2
Unit Type #3
Unit Type #4
Unit Type #5
Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check)
o Monta Vista Design Guidelines
o
S. De Anza Conceptual
o
N. De Anza Conceptual
o
S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual
o
Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual
o
Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape
s.f. FAR - Max.
Parking Provided
If Non-Residential, Building Area -
Employees/Shift - _Parking Required
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area -
YES x
NO
o
{'i-/J
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
---------..---------i----~---. I
I >._ I c _ 0 r::::-
Ie' c c;; c
jijCU- CU CU 0 CU CllCU- -
I .- 0 0 .c 0 .c .- ... .c 0 0 0
ISSUES: I - It= ~ I- .- _ 1U 0 1-,- Cll o Cll
I S'c E III ~ 'i C) 0. III ~ C. zo.
[and Supporting Information Sources] III r:::: .-... III C E E
o .~- Q)C) ~o Q) .~- -
..J .- ~ 0
I1.tn tn r:::: ..Jtn
-
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: I
i
I
;
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 0 [R)
scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 [R)
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcrop pings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24.34,41,44]
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 0 0 [R)
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? [1.17,19,44]
d) Create a new source of substantial light or 0 0 0 [R)
glare. which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44]
;
111. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In
I determining whether impacts to agricultural
1 resources are significant environmental
i effects, lead agencies may refer to the
1 California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
i Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by
I the California Dept. of Conservation as an
I optional model to use in assessing impacts
i on agriculture and farmland. Would the
; project:
i a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 I 0 0 [R)
i i
i Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide I I
. Importance (Farmland), as shown on the I i
! i
i
. maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ; i
! !
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the i !
I I
California Resources Agency. to non- i
I
I
agricultural use? [5,7,39] I
i
I --- I
!
· b) Conflict with existing zoning for ! 0 0 0 i [R)
i
. . ;
. agncultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? [5,7,23]
-L-.-..--.--..----- .--....-
L-_l...-- i
i .
! 0 [R)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39]
o
o
I
I .
_ --...-.---------"------------- -..,
f 1- l{
-----,--
I >._
I - C
- - ns-
I .!l! CJ CJ
; c!E a
i .s C E
; 0 tn_
i a. en
ISSUES:
[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
the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44]
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44]
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
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
pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44]
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? [4,37,44]
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
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]
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
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
federally protected wetlands as defined by
---- -- ------------------- -- .------------ - - - - -
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I
- '-----------1----:
_ _ 01 _ ;
.C c:;:;1 Cc !
~ns ons nsns- -,
I-CJ.c::;:;"" .c:CJCJ CJ;
li:_nsoll-'-ns ons
l/) .- 'S; tn c.. l/):= c.. z c..
l/)c;:>:;:;5 l/)cE E;
Q) tn.- Q) tn _ _ I,
...I en ~ g ...I en
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
~ !
i
I
~
~
~
~
IKI
IKI
> ---
{ 1-- 1 5
_____u ------1 .;~1l~~~1r~~1lI-
i ISSUES: 1: ~ ~ ';;; ~ E ~ &.1 ';;; ~ [
;,: [and Supporting Information sources],_~+ ~ 6, E :g 6, ~ :E 0 III ~ E
, - ~- ~u ~-
! a. (I) (I) .: ~ (I)
I Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
I (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal I
! pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
I filling, hydrological interruption, or other
I means? [20,36,44]
I
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
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? [5,10,26,27]
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in 915064.5? [5,13,41]
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to 915064.5? [5,13,41]
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
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]
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
-
u
o ca
zc.
E '
o
o
[:&J
o
o
o
[:&J
o
o
o
[:&J
o
o
o
[:&J
o
o
o
[:&J
o
o
o
[:&J
o
0 0 0 [:&J
I I
I
I
I I
I i
I ! --
i
i i
i i
! ,
-----r------r--"-------.,
i 1 <
'! 0 I 0 I 0 ! [:&J
___ _____"--,.________._.__.1_..._......_..___..._.. ~___ _____1____.__..______],._____..,._____..__.__.. .
(L1-7 (p
_..__._._----.~._----~_.__._- --..----.- ._.._--..~-_.__._---.-_._._----- r-.-.-----~ 1------:
; c _ 0
>-- I c C :0:; C - I '
_ C ca;_1
S~~ ca ca 0 ca -
~ (,) ~.- ~ ~(,)(,) CJ
ISSUES: - .- I- .- _ 1;; 0 1-,- ca o ca
c:!:: III :!:: .- C) c. II) ~ c. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E III C ~.- ~ III C E E
o.~- Q)C) =:0 Q) .~-
...J .- ~ (,)
0. C/) I C/) C -'c/)
-l -
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]
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 1RI
[2,5,10,44]
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 1RI I
i
liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] I
iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] 0 0 0 1RI I
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 0 0 0 1RI
loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44]
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 0 1RI
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsiderice, liquefaction or collapse?
[2,5,10,39]
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined 0 0 0 1RI
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1997), creating substantial risks to life or
property? [2,5,10]
e) Have soils incapable of adequately 0 0 0 1RI
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]
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 [8]
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
, materials? [32,40,42,43,44]
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 [8]
the environment through reasonably I !
foreseeable upset and accident conditions I I
I
involving the release of hazardous materials ! I
i I
I
i
I
I
I
-..---.-------'------.-- ..
Into the environment? [32,40,42.43,44]
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0
__ ____.._________ ___~__."________ . __ _"_...._______...___.__.__~____L._..__m.~"
o
. _-----;._______.__---i
o
1RI
( 1- 77
: ISSUES:
: [and Supporting Information Sources]
! hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
I substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
I of an existing or proposed school?
I [2,29,30,40,44]
d) 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]
e) 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? [ ]
f) 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
project area? [ ]
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? [2,32,33,44]
h) 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]
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
-- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37]
i ------T-
I ;)~~u' ~),s~i
t: .- III .- .;: 0) c.
CI) t: E III t: ;;> .- ~
-0 0)_ CI) 0) ~ 0
a.. en ..J en :::iiE g
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
t:-
t:
nsns_
~(.)(.)
I- .- ns
III ~ C.
III t: E
CI) .21-
..J(J)
I
I
-1
o I
o
o
o
o
o
-
(.)
o ns
zc.
E
1RI
i
i
i
I
i
!
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
1RI
1RI
1RI
1RI
1RI
fi-l r
~__._~__._._.._.._. - .n __......_._.._..__~. ------------ --T- ____u_n_ , ---.-- ~_._-
! >-- 0 c-
i - c C1: c; C
I -co- CO CO 0 CO cora- -
, .!:! 0 0 .c 0 .c .- ~ .cOO 0
! ISSUES: I -.- ~ I- .- _ 1U 0 1-,- co o co
i C~ 1II ~ '[i 0) C. 1II ~ C. zc.
i [and Supporting Information Sources] I Q) C E 1II C .- ~ lIIcE E
cL!2l- Q) 0) :!:: 0 Q) .2>-
-J .- ~ 0 -
D..U) U) C -JU)
-
I b) Substantially deplete groundwater I 0 0 0 llil
i supplies or interfere substantially with
i groundwater recharge such that there would
i be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
I lowering of the local groundwater table level
I (e.g.. the production rate of pre-existing
I nearby wells would drop to a level
I which would not support existing land uses
I or planned uses for which permits have been
I granted)? [20,36,42]
e) Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 0 llil
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? [20,36,42]
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 0 0 llil
quality? [20,36,37]
g) Place housing within a 1 aD-year flood 0 0 0 llil
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
[2.38]
h) Place within a 1 aD-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 llil
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? [2,38]
I i) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 llil
! risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
I including flooding as a result of the failure of
I a levee or dam? [2,36,38]
_---4-
i j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami. or i 0 0 0 llil
I
I mudflow? [2,36,38] !
I
I IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would I
i the project: !
- ..-.--+--
i
! a) Physically divide an established ! 0 0 0 llil
, community? [7,12,22,41] i
- ---
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, i 0 0 0 [8]
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)
~dopt~_d_f(~r theRLJrJ?Q~~_Qt avoiqi n!lQ~____ __ --.-... - ,
~
(7- 71'
----.--.-..--..---- ._" ~-~ ~~---~..-.~----r----~- ------ -~--~~ .~- -~.
I 0
i >>- 1:1: 1::;:; 1:-
I -I: ca ca 0 ca I:
-ca- caca- -
I .~ (,) (,) J: (,) .__ J:(,)(') (,)
ISSUES: I -.- ~ I- .- ;; ~ 0 I- .- ca o ca
I::!:: III :!:: .~ C'l Q. III :!:: Q. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) I: E III I: .-- III I: E E
I o.~- Q) en ::: 0 Q) .~-
D.(/) ...J .- ~ (,) ...J(/)
I (/) I:
-
;
! mitigating an environmental effect? 1
;
I [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] I
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat I 0 0 0 [8]
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26]
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 [8]
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
[5,10]
b) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 [8]
locally-important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10]
i
I XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, 0 0 0 [8]
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? [8,18,44]
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 0 0 0 [8]
excessive ground borne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44]
c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 0 [8]
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
[8,18]
d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 0 0 [8]
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 0 0 0 [8]
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]
~ft~or a project wit~in the ~~cini!~~!_~~~~~~~te 0 0 0 [8]
..._-- ..- ~-- ..-....-.- -.---" - -~---
(q~()
i- -~-~-~-----------------~---------------~--------I --~ I --T~-- -- ---
C _ 0 I
I >.- c- I
- c c c:;: C I
! -ns- ns ns 0 ns nsn:s-' -
.~ (,) (,) .c (,) .c .- ~ .c (,) (,) ! (,)
: ISSUES: -.- ~ I- .- _ li 0 I- t;: ns I o ns
c:!:: III :!:: '3: Cl Q, 1Il'- Q, zQ,
i [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) c E III C .- ~ III C E E
(L2'- Q)Cl :=0 Q) .2'- -
..J .- :E (,)
c.rn rn C ..JU)
-
I airstrip, would the project expose people
i residing or working in the project area to
I excessive noise levels? [8.18]
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an D 0 0 [iK]
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]
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing D 0 0 [iK]
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3.16.44]
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, D 0 0 [iK]
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16.44]
i XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES !
! I
I a) Would the project result in substantial
! adverse physical impacts associated with the
I provision of new or physically altered
i governmental facilities, need for new or
! physically altered governmental facilities, the
i construction of which could cause significant
I
I environmental impacts, in order to maintain
I acceptable service ratios, response times or
I other performance objectives for any of the
I public services:
l Fire protection? [19.32.44] D 0 D [iK]
.....---------.-- -- -~
Police protection? [33,44] D 0 D [iK]
!
Schools? [29.30,44] D 0 D [iK]
>-----.---- - ------------------------- ~-~I-
Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] 0 D [iK]
I ! I
Other public facilities? [19,20.44] D 0 D I [iK]
I I
l
~:;~~;-~:;ro~----------- r---j---r--:--
_ a) Would the project increase the use of : D! 0 I 0 ! [iK]
1 existing neighborhood and regional parks or I I '
- other recreational facilities such that I I
substantial physical deterioration of the
I
. fa c~i!Y__VY2.lJJ(LO~CU ~_ or__~~_<=!~~~~i~!f?5:t?_~____________L________L_______________1. _
(q-t I
----.-.-.-----------------1--------- .------.--.-..-
I >-..... r::c r::~1 r::-
-r:: r::
-ca- ca ca 0 ca caca..... -
.!!! (,) (,) .r:: (,).r:: .- I.. .r:: (,) (,) (,)
ISSUES: I c~ ~ I-l;:.....rtio 1-'- ca o ca
I !II .- 'i C) c. !II ~ C. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) r:: E !II r:: .- I.. !II r:: E E
I (Lg>> - Q) C) :t:: 0 Q) C)_
..J .- :E (,) .-
D..tJ) tJ) r:: ..JtJ)
-
[5,17,19,21,26,27,44]
b) Does the project include recreational 0 0 0 [g]
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment? [5,44]
XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC .. !
i
Would the project: I
!
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is I
0 0 0 [g] I
i
substantial in relation to the existing traffic !
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., I
!
result in a substantial increase in either the i
i
number of vehicle trips, the volume to I
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at I
intersections)? [4,20,35,44]
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 0 0 0 [g] I
I
a level of service standard established by the I
I
county congestion management agency for I
i
designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] I
I
I
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 0 0 0 [g]
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? [4,?] i
I
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 0 0 0 [g]
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44]
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? I 0 0 0 [g]
[2,19,32,33,44] !
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 [g]
[1 ',44]
--
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 0 [g]
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? [4,34]
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 [g]
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44]
- - --...--.-,-.---.--.----. --.-----...--------...---.-.... ._~ OM .._-~-
(Q___!'2-
.-----------~._-_._~--_.-_._-_.~--~--------- i -..-.---....,-
I
I >-- c C c ~I c-
_c C
I -ns- ns ns 0 ns nsns- -
.~ 0 0 .c 0 .c'- 1-1 .coo 0
; ISSUES: -.- ~ I- .- _ 10 0 1-'- ns o ns
c~ lI) ~ 'j C> c.. lI) ~ c.. zc..
I [and Supporting Information Sources] G) C E lI) C .- l- ll) C E E
'0 .2'- G)C> ~o G) .2'-
D..tIJ ...Icn ~gl ...Iff)
i I
! b) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 [g]
i new water or wastewater treatment facilities
I or expansion of existing facilities, the
I construction of which could cause significant
i environmental effects? [36,22,28,36]
I c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 [g]
I new storm water drainage facilities or
I expansion of existing facilities, the
I construction of which could cause significant
I environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44]
I
I
e) Result in a determination by the 0 0 0 lRl
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 0 0 0 lRl
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
I g) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 0 0 [g]
I statutes and regulations related to solid
! waste?
I
~- -. ---. --
! CJ-t J
r-----
j
I
1
a) Does the project have the potential to D D D [8]
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 D D D [8]
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)?
I c) Does the project have environmental D D D [8]
I effects which will cause substantial adverse
I effects on human beings, either directly or
I indirectly?
L--____,________,___~_~__ -- __L-.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
(To be completed by City Staff)
PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT
I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding
accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references
when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I
hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause
delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold
harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of
such delay or discontinuance. ./ ~
Preparer's Signa~ ~ -
Print Preparer's Name~'( C!.ff-Ao
I ~ -t,{
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.
0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality
0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology ISoils
0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology I Water 0 Land Use I Planning
Materials Quality
0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population I Housing
0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 TransportationlTraffic
0 Utilities I Service 0 Mandatory Findings of
Systems Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that:
llil The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o 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.
o The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o 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.
o 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.
I" ~
Date
(/.~
Dati /
r <] -~S-
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NEGATIVE DECLARA nON
As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council
of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4,1974, January 17
1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7, 1980, the following described project was granted a
Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino on March
13,2007
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
MCA-2006-01 (EA-2006-12)
City of Cupertino
areas west of the railroad tracks
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28 Single Family Residential (R1) Zones
regarding buildings proposed on properties with an average slope equal to or greater
than fifteen percent
FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY
The City Council granted a Negative Declaration mitigating Visual, Sound and Lighting
Impacts. The mitigation measures are outlined in the attached City Council's conditions
of approval.
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK
This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City
Clerk of the City of Cupertino on
City Clerk
g/ercj11egEJi200612
I q -t~
-----Original Message----
From: ronberti@comcast.net rmailto:ronberti@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14,20073:55 PM
To: rlowenthal@cupertino.org
Subject: Whiner's Parade
Hello Richard
Last night the Planning Commission tried to address complaints that the process by which the city adopted
the 15% RHS overlay two years ago was inadequate. I found myself on the other side of the property rights
argument, a place I'm not used to being.
By the end of the meeting the Planning Commission decided 3-1 with one abstention that the 15% overlay
CITY WIDE was unncessary and arbitrary and should be rolled back to the prior 30% slope rule. The North
Side of Lindy Crowd was pleased. The South Siders,as you can imagine, were not. I'm sure this topic will
be forwarded to the City Council this spring, if only in the form of an appeal by the south siders.
When we had that late night meeting at the end of 2005 about whether
North Lindy should be zoned RHS, the southsiders lost, and the consolatory words we heard were "don't
worry, the fact that the hill is zoned R1 only applies to their ability to subdivide. The size of homes
permitted, setbacks, etc will be governed by RHS zoning anyway"
Well, now that won't be the case, will it? The city will treat the north side of Lindy, legally, exactly as if it
were flat land. I know I cannot count on any sense of self-restraint on the part of the various Moxleys, Suns
and Knopps (who have taken three homes and created lots,for 8 in their place, in the process somehow
mysteriously losing oaks that were specifically called out for protection) and so I now anticipate that, in the
absence of the City Council insisting that the entire furball be reopened, we will see half a dozen new
monster homes on north Lindy, built to the absolute edge of the law (meant to apply to flat land), benefiting
mostly folks who are, let's admit it, the benficiaries of a mistake made long ago and unwilling to deny
themselves a nickel in foregone profits.
It seems to me that the process has led the city into a legal cul-de-
sac, denying that the hill, zoned R1, ought to be treated like every other hillside in the city (including Lindy
Place). It's a highly circular argument: it's zoned R1, so we'll deny that it really is a hill. Are there NO
restrictions on development available to the city? Must we stand on a mistake and declare it cast in
concrete? It's like the northsiders won the lottery.
There were some reasonable arguments last night having to do with the applicability of average slope
density formula (for folks who have a more-or-Iess natural "pad" and then a steeper portion to their lot), and
for those who want to retain the ability to add to their homes during remodeling. I'm open to negotiating
reasonable adjustments, but reverting to a 30% overlay for new subdivisions effectively denies any hillside
protection to the north side of Lindy, specifically treating the hill as if it were flat land. At this point I'm
worried about the north side owners being given pretty much carte blanche. That's just not right. If the 15%
RHS overlay is denied, then it seems to me only fair to revisit the question of RHS zoning for the north of
Lindy Lane. Why is Lindy Place RHS but north Lindy Lane R1? They're opposite sides of the same canyon!
You have always struck me as a reasonable man, with a strong desire to do what's right for everyone. I
hope to continue discussing this with you (hopefully short of creating a gag reflex) until we all reach a final
resolution. In my mind what the Planning Commission did last night was untenable and dangerous not
only for Lindy Lane but for the entire city, it seems to me an abnegation of the responsibility inherent in the ,
job.
Evey element of city government in tis matter has declined to assert itself in any restrictions on development
on the north side and has sided with the maximum possible developmental density, in spite of a lot of high-
sounding rhetoric about wanting to protect the rural feel of the hillsides in city ordinances. I'm deeply
disappointed in city governance.
I look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.
Ron Berti
11406 Lindy Place
( 1-r'l
l.. .... . '''.' Pr. ~-.
! c~
. ' (;',>,.
Ju,i
I B i err
Ct L(131D7
:#= 19
2 Apr 07
rB)lecleawle~
lfl) APR - 2 2007 ~
City Council
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Ave
Cupertino, CA 94014
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
RE: Current Rl Ordinance dated 3/1/05
Atten: City Council Members
As long time residents of Cupertino's hillside community we encourage the
City of Cupertino to rescind section 19.28.050.C.l of the current Rl
Ordinance. We are against the current 15% overlay.
Please consider reverting to previous 30% slope parameters.
Best regards,
/11 r xf~
~[:7Z~
T. E. & Marion Schmidt
21945 Lindy Lane
Cupertino, CA. 94014
c-c-I Lf - -:s -61 ;tt l4
Presentation to the Cupertino
City Council to REMOVE the
15% RHS Overlay
4/3/07
History
Zoning
Why wasn't the little Knoll
between Lindy and Santa Teresa
rezoned?
· In the Early 60's, the Lindy Lane area
became part of Cupertino and was initially
zoned R 1
· It was much lower than the other hills
· It's geology more stable
· It was already divided into small lots
· In 1993 much of the area was rezoned RHS
Rezoning Again?
City Council votes NO rezoning
· In 2005 someone decided to rezone our
little knoll
· Oct 4 2005 - The city council again votes
5-0 NOT to rezone our knoll
· To ensure success they slipped in the 15%
overlay to make it sooo painful folks would
"want" to be rezoned
· Somehow in spite of our petition, and a vote
to remove the overlay by the Planning
commission the Council was not allowed to
vote on the 15% overlay
2 years later.. .
· As the burden was placed on the property
owners to remove the overlay, after 2 long
years and recommendations by the Planning
Commission not once but twice to
REMOVE the overlay, we are finally
back,..
What's Wrong with the 15%
RHS Overlay?
Rl Language
Who decides which is more
Restrictive?
· Section] 9.28.050 Section C.l of the Rl ordinance
states:
· "Buildings proposed on properties with an
average slope equal to or greater than fifteen
percent shall be developed in accordance with the
site development and design standards specified in
Sections 19.40.050 through 19.40.140 of the
Residential Hillside ordinance, Chapter 19.40, or
the Rl zoning ordinance, Chapter 19.28,
whichever specific regulation is more restrictive,"
· Staff. In fact, Staff doesn't just pick one set
of rules for your property. They get to
choose item by item from both sets of rules.
Confusing
Who is impacted?
· Its difficult enough to understand one set of
rules, how are home owners to know which
zoning rule will apply in their case.
· If the city doesn't even know exactly which
properties are effected how can the property
owner know?
· Does every R 1 property need to pay for a
survey before they could add a bath?
· If not, who decides what their slope is?
· That's what Zoning is for.
· Adding confusion to the system is not good
and it can lead to unfair and unequal
treatment.
15% Slope
Flat building Pad
Average Slope
Is over 15%
But pad is fIat!
-------
3' tall steps
3800sf
Road
....---
~--------
2' tall "retaining wall"
I'
"
No retaining walls needed!
Front setback from road isn't met under RHS overlay for many existing homes
Limited to 500sf by C.2
30% slope
True Story
Oppressive Overlay
· A proposed remodel with a new kitchen
· Plans almost approved when without
warning 15% overlay took effect
· New planner assigned with different
interpretation of rules
· After3 years, 4 sets of plans, geological
surveys, holes drilled, land survey, owner
ran out of money and gave up.
· Top floor setback
· Balconies Not OK
· No Storm drains
· Slope adjustment
· Different setbacks
· Different grading requirements
· Different drainage requirements
· Harsh rules add cost, and reduce property value
No Top floor setback
Balconies OK
Storm drains
No Slope Adjustment
300 - 400 Properties Impacted
NO
· Staff estimates about 300 properties are
effected, we think it's a lot more
· Almost all of them have been "fully
developed"
· Less than 19 are "up slope"
· 8 of those 19 are the result of lot splits as
owners raced to preserve their property
values
Is the 15% overlay preserving
the hillside?
Only 4 lots (1 %) don't have
Homes on them
Sizes are Already LIMITED
· All of these 4 lots are on the BACK side of
a knoll and can't be seen by residents on the
valley floor
· ALL of the new lots have had size
limitations placed upon them that are
MORE restrictive than the Rl rules
· Most of the 19 "up slope" lots are on the
back side of the knoll where they can't even
be seen by residents of the valley floor
The last 9 lots
What about Remodels?
· Some of the remaining 9 "up slope" lots
face the valley floor
· All have existing homes on them
· All have 30% slopes that will limit the size
of the house to 500sf on the slope by C.2
· Remodeled homes look nicer
· They are worth more money
· They can help stabilize the hill vs. the older
homes
· They could also be an opportunity to
improve the view by requiring them to plant
new trees and other landscaping
15% Overlay Prevents Remodels
Cupertino Decay
· Houses in these areas were built with the Rl
rules in mind
· It is very difficult to remodel them under the
RHS rules
· RHS rules were designed for 3-5 Acre lots,
NOT for the small lots in the effected areas
· Houses have a limited lifetime
· Under the 15% overlay some people will
not renew their homes causing the city to
degrade
· This means a less desirable street to live on,
and lower property values
What is this all about?
Conclusion: We feel the 15%
overlay does NOTHING to help
the hillsides, and has actually
hurt them
· This is NOT about safety in the hills - We have had
civil engineers, soils engineers, and builders state that safe
homes can be built on slopes. In fact they stated that the
hills are actually more stable with proper design.
· This IS about property owners rights, Owners that
are impacted are against the overlay.
· This IS about property values. We don't want
ours reduced,
Property Owners Rights
Real Examples of Lost Value
· The fifth amendment to the U.S.
constitution states:
· "No person shall be... deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just
compensation."
· Rl Zoned
properties listed
BEFORE overlay:
· RHS Zoned
properties in same
area:
· 1.6 Acre land good
views $2.5M
· 2.5 Acre land with
house $2.7M
· 1 Acre land good
views $1.4M
· 3.3 Acre land with
house $] .98M
What do we propose?
Section C.2 already covers Slope
Remove section 19.28.050.C.l
from the R 1 ordinance
· Section 19.28.050 Section C.2 of the Rl
ordinance already limits the house to 500sf
on a 30% slope
We want to retain our
property values
· Please don't take money out of our pockets.
· We are not asking for anything new. We
are only asking for what we paid for.
· Please put things back the way they were
when we purchased our Property
The Planning Commission
recommended removing the 15%
overlay not once, but twice.
Please vote to remove Section
19.28.050 Section C.l of the
RI0rdinance
Thank you for your time