.04 MCA-2006-01 R1 Ordinance/Hillside
~'
/.,->\19S~
"oj
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
CUPERTINO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
MCA-2006-01
City of Cupertino
Various
City-wide
Agenda Date: August 14, 2007
Application Summary: Report on the R1 Ordinance regarding neighborhood meetings
on the Residential Hillside overlay.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Take public testimony; and
2. Explore options to allow flexibility while preserving the hillsides
3. Provide recommendations to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
In January 2005 the City Conncll incorporated RHS development rules into the R1
ordinance revisions for properties upslope from the 10% line and with average slopes of
15% or greater. Following these actions residents in the affected areas stated .they were not
aware the Conncil might apply these hillside development standards to their properties.
Consequently, the Conncil directed that the staff revisit the process to provide ample
opportunity for input. Additionally, the Conncil asked the Lindy Lalle neighborhood to get
together to discuss options and try to reach consensus on an approaches to development in
the area. The additional notice and neighborhood discussions have occurred and some
progress seems to have
been made on condensing
the issues and arriving at
suggestions for approaches
that may achieve the overall
objectives of protecting the
hillsides while preserving
the property owners'
development options.
A more detailed discussion
of the backgronnd is
discussed on the attached
exhibit B.
3D Aerial
Map of the
Lindy Lane
R1 Hillside
Area from
Google
Earth
(illustrative
purposes
only not
intended to
be to scale)
4 - 1
MCA-2006-Ql
August 14, 2007
Page 2
Hillsides and Valley Floor Development Standards
The hillsides are special places and more sensitive to development because they
typically have steeper slopes, more sensitive geology, more wildlife, heavier vegetation
and trees, and contain larger lots they are more likely to be visible to the valley floor.
The City of Cupertino has a long standing policy of ensuring that hillside development
is sensitive to these special conditions as stated in the General Plan policy 2-48 and
supporting strategies which read as follows:
GOAL F HillSIDE PROTECTION
Policy 2-48: Hillside Development
Standards
Establish building and development
standards for the hillsides that ensure
ltillside protection.
Strategies:
1. Ordinance Reflulations and DeveloDment
ADDrovals. Apply ordinance regulations and
development approvals that limit development on
ridge lines , hazardous geological areas and steep
slopes. Control colors and materials, and minimize
the iUumination of outdoor lighting. Reduce visible
building mass through such means as stepPing
structures dowll the hillside, following the natural
contours, and limiting the height and mass of the waU
plane facing the valley jIoor.
2. Slof>e.densitv Formula. Apply a slope density
formula to very low intensity residential development
in the hillsides. Density shall be calculated based on the
foothiU modified, foothill modified 1/2acre and the 5.
20 acre slope density fonnulae. Actual lot sizes and
development areas wiU be detennined through zoning
ordinances, clustering and identifu:ation of significant
natural features and geological constraints.
4-2
MCA-2006-o1
August 14, 2007
Page 3
The hillside RHS ordinance contains development standards that are designed to
address these issues. The Ordinance is intended to control hillside development
impacts:
.:. Limit development on ridgelines
.:. Limit development on steep slopes
.:. Limit development on hazardous geological areas
.:. Control color and material
.:. Reduce visible building mass
.:. Contour development with the natural terrain
.:. Limit the height and mass of wall plane facing the valley floor
.:. Avoid mass grading .
.:. Retain significant trees
Upon reviewing the RI Ordinance amendments in 2005, the Council was concerned that
some areas in the hillside retained RI zoning and had none of the above hillside
protections. The R1 ordinance is designed for flatter valley floor lots with typically
, smaller lot sizes, in areas that are not as environmentally sensitive and have limited
development opportunities.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
Ordinance Options
If you imagine the R1 and RHS ordinance being placed on the opposite ends of a
spectrum (see diagram below) you can visualize the possible options for development
controls in the hillside areas. There are basically four ordinance options in the spectrum
from the previous RI to RHS that are available for the Planning Commission to
consider:
1. ~evert back to the RI hillside development standards pre-2005 RI.
2. Hybrid ordinance tailored to the RI hillside area.
3. Retain the current R1 hillside development standards (2005 Rl).
4. Rezone the R1 hillside areas to RHS.
The current 2005 R1/RHS hillside development standards trigger is probably between
the midpoint of the spectrum and full RHS (red dotted line) where lots with average
slopes 15% or greater will trigger RHS standards.
4-3
MCA-2006-Ql
August 14, 2007
Page 4
Valley Floor
Rural Hillside
/
/
/
Existing R1/1)~ (2005)
/
/
/
/
/
/
- 45% max. house size
- A1 development
standards
- 30% or greater average
slope triggers hillside
development standards
- R1 Density
- House size adjustment
based on slope
- 15% or greater average
. slope triggers Hillside
- Controls Density
- House size adjustment
based on slope
- Hillside development
Standards
Reverting back to the pre-2005 R1 Ordinance could allow large homes with none of the
hillsides protection measures. The following is an example illustrating the potential
allowable house size difference between the current Rl (2005) vs. pre-2005 R1:
2005 R1 (current) Pre-2005 Rl
Formula: Formula:
A. Maximum sq. ft. = 4,500 sq. ft. + 59.59 Maximum sq. ft. = 45% of the net lot size.
sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. over 10,000 sq.
ft. (net).
B. For lots with an average slope of 20% =
15% reduction from the maximum
allowable sq. ft.
4,500 + 59.59(10) = 5,096 sq. ft.
5,096 - 5,096 (.15) = 4,332 sq. ft. 20,000 (.45) = 9~OQO sq. ft~
4-4
MCA-2006-01
August 14, 2007
Page 5
Modified Foothill Standards
Staff believes that using some of the ideas that came out of the neighborhood process
the R1 ordinance hillside standards can be amended to provide greater flexibility for
property owners while preserving the intent of the sensitive hillside development.
Neighbors suggested that more flexibility could be offered if the hillside property
owners constrained new development and expansions to the flatter portions of the lot.
Using 10% as the trigger this would allow a property owner to build a home up to a
maximum of 45% FAR if they can stay on the flat portion and still meet all RHS
building setbacks and offsets.
The R1 ordinance could be reworded to encompass the following:
1. Exempt all properties located in the R1-10 zoning district. These homes are
typically located at the toe of slope, are largely built out with full.fencing and not
visible to valley floor properties. They simply don't seem to contribute to
preservation of the hillside environment. They could add on up to the R1
standards with R1 setbacks. Most lots are 10,000 square feet which would give a
maximum house size of 4,500 square feet.
2. Retain the requirement that all other new development on lots not zoned R1-
10 upslope from the 10% slope line on properties with an average slope of 15%
must adhere to all of the RHS development criteria, exception of house size, but
including all other criteria including locating off of a prominent ridgeline and an
exception process if building on slopes in excess of 30%.
3. Give the option of proposing a new home or home addition that does not
require a p'ublic hearing if either of the following are met:
· Complies with the house size requirements of the RHS ordinance. Note from
exhibit C that many of the properties in the hillside area would still have
ample building addition potential. In this case they could propose building
on a slope and the flatter portions of their lot.
· All of the building area is located on an existing pad with a slope of less than
10% and the proposed building area does not exceed 45% FAR. The setback
and offset requirements will likely reduce the maximum building size 10-25%
so it is unlikely flat pad development will result in maximizing the FAR but it
provides added flexibility.
4. If the property owner cannot meet the above criteria then they can propose a
house size that exceeds the limits of the RHS ordinance or proposes building
area that is located off of the flat pad up to a maximum of 45% FAR, provided
they submit for architectural and site approval through an advertised public
hearing before the Planning Commission. The theory is that a well designed
home can be built that is sensitive to the hillside environment but that the
< applicant would have to show why they should be allowed to build the larger
home through the public hearing process.
4-5
MCA-2006-0l
August 14, 2007
Page 6
5. Eliminate the requirement to comply with ~e Rl setback requirements if they
are more restrictive. This is confusing and treats the area differently than other
hillside properties.
6. Change the zone of the Al properties to Rl with lot size minimums equal to
their existing lot size. With this change they will come under the same
requirements.
7. Public hearing if more than two specimen trees removed. Some residents
suggested that a pubic hearing also be required for applications that propose to
remove more than two specimen trees. This is very restrictive and goes beyond
the existing tree ordinance but should be discussed to determine if it has merit.
. 8. Landscape screening for retaining walls. Some residents want a landscape
screening requirement for retaining walls exceeding a specified height. This is
currently not required in the RHS ordinance cut could be considered for this area
if desired. If it works well then perhaps the RHS shoul~ be amended to
incorp<;>rate a similar requirement.
9. Retaining all other provisions of the RHS ordinance ensures that the hillside
development standards apply even if the house size exceeds the FAR provisions.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission should evaluate this option and any other variations that
implement the General Policy of preserving the hillside sides.
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Gary Chao, Senior Planner ~ /I
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
Enclosure:
Exhibit A: Existing Rl Hillside Ordinance
Exhibit B: Background Discussion .
Exhibit C: House Size Comparison (Rl vs. RHS)
4-6
Exhibit A
EXISTING ORDINANCE
19.28.050 Development Regulations (Site).
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 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 ~ore
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, Qccurs on an area with a slope of thirty
percent or greater. (Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord.
1860,9 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635,9 1 (part), 1993;
Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 192)
D. An application for building permits filed and ac~epted by the Community
Development Department (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.
4-7
Exhibit B
. BACKGROUND
The following is a brief chronological summary of prior eyents leading up to the current
date: . .
Prior to 1993
The City had .limited policies and guidelines regulating properties located in the hillside
area.
General Plan of1993
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.
January 18, 2005 (R1 Ordi1umce of2005)
The City Council approved amendments to the Rl Ordinance applying hillside standards to
Rllots with an average slope of 15% of 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 protection measures are consistent with the Council's
general plan policies' and goals. f'lease 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 (between the 58:06 to 1:46 video clip position):
http://www.cupertino.org/city govenlIDent/city chaImel/webcastiIl~ archives 2004/in
dex.asp
January 2006
Several affected property owners expressed concerns that the new Rl hillside standards
were approved without enough public notice and input opportunit:ies. Consequently, the
Council directed staff as part of its work program to re-open the Rl hillside standards for
discussion and public input.
Januaru 23, 2007 and March 13, 2007
Under the direction from the Council, the Planning Commission reviewed the Rl hillside
standards and took public testimony. The Planning Commission voted on a 3-1-1 vote
(Miller, Wong and Chien voted aye; Giefer voted not; Kaneda abstained) to recommended
reverting the Rl Hillside standards prior to the 2005 Rl Ordinance.
April 3, 2007
The City Council discussed the applicability of the hillside standards to properties located
in the Cupertino foothills that are currently zoned Single Family Residential (R1) and
Agricultural Residential (AI). The Council conducted a first reading and amended the
body of the R1 Ordinance to preciude all Rl properties east of the General Plan 10% hillside
transition line from the residential hillside ordinance standards. The Council clarified that
the intent of the R1 hillside standards was not meant to be applicable to the water course
area or any area that is east of the hillside transition line. The intent of the Rl hillside 4 _ 8
regulations is to protectthe Rl properties that are located on the coterminous hills up slope
(or west) of the 10% hillside transition line. The Council also urged the neighbors residing
on the north and south side of Lindy Lane to meet and help define a set of shared ordinance
objectives for properties located in the Rl hillside neighborhood area (up slope of the
General Plan 10% slope line). The Council directed that this issue be brought back to the
Council on August 21, 2007 with Planning Commission recommendations.
April 17, 2007
A courtesy notice was mailed to the neighbors inviting them to identify representatives
from varying areas and view points to discuss criteria for the R1 hillside development
standards based on the Council's direction.
May 1, 2007
The City Council conducted the second reading of the R1 Ordinance Amendment to take
out the areas east of the General Plan 10% slope transition line from any of the hillside
development standards. An informal neighborhood proposal was submitted to the Council
for review (see exhibit A) however the Council postpone reviewing the proposal to its
scheduled August 21, 2007 hearing.
Tune 8, 2007
A second courtesy notice was mailed to the R1 hillside neighbors inviting them to attend a
formal neighborhood meeting in order to help facilitate progress on the neighborhood
discussion and at the same time meet the Council's schedule.
Tune 20, 2007 and Tuly 19, 2007-- Nei~hborhood Meetin~s
Neighborhood meetings were held at City Hall on June 20,2007 and July 19, 2007. Neighbors were
asked to identify common objectives and to describe issues that are important to them. Their
responses are summarized as follows:
.:. Property Value
.:. Presetvation of Hillside
.:. Ttee Preservation
.:. Rural Character
.:. Development Standards fOt Toe Slope Properties
.:. Simpler Rules
.:. Home Size
On the second meeting, the neighbors were presented with some potential ordinance solutions or
options with regards to the R1 hillside development standards. The spectrum of options
available ranged franz reverting back to the pre 2005 Rl, do nothing and retain the current R1
hillside development standards, create a hybrid ordinance that is tailored to the neighborhood, or
rezone to RHS. Unfortunately a general consensus could not be reached by the neighbors at the
meeting. Several neighbors (representing the north Lindy Lane area) expressed the desire to
revert the Rl hillside development standards back to the pre-200S Rl Ordinance where only
developments occurring on slopes of 30% or greater is subjected to both the Rl and the RHS
Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive.
4-9
Exhibit C
Home Size Comparison between Rl vs. RHS ("'assuming 20% avg. slope)
Address Net Lot Sa. Fla o1al House SII. Ftll R1 Max. RHS Max RHS so. It. po1en1illl RHS % 01 po1ential R 1 so. 11. lIDIen1lal A 1 % of potential
11205 hAt. Crest 20.959 3367 9432 4380.09 993.09 29% 6045 178%
11233 hAt. Crest 21.182 2908 9.532 4391.39 1 483.39 51% 6.624 228%
11245 hAt. Crest 17.198 3.252 7.739 41811.59 937.59 29-;' 4487 138%
11254 hAt. Crest 28.558 4.892 12.651 4764.99 72.99 2'1'. 8.159 174%
11244 hAt. Crest 30 700 3.728 13.815 4673.49 1.145."9 31% 10087 271%
11234 hAt. Crest 19.492 3181 11771 4305.78 112".78 35% 5.590 176%
11206 hAt. Crest 18D30 5891 8.11" 4231.73 (, .SSP .27 -28~. 2.223 311%
11204 hAt. Crest 22 652 4080 10 193 4485.84 385.s.. 9% 6113 150%
11191 Santi Teresa 16.801 2.973 7.580 4169.48 1.196.48 40oy, ".587 154%
11201 Santa Teresa 18101 2.939 8.145 4235.33 1 296.33 44"- 5.206 177%
11215 hAt. Crest 30..86 3737 13.719 4862.65 1.125.65 30% 9982 267%
11210 hAt. Crest 24.156 3.415 10.870 4542.02 1.127.02 33% 7455 218%
11206 hAt. Creal 17.376 3.706 7.819 4196.61 492.61 13% 4113 111%
11255 hAt. Crest 18.567 3456 8.355 4256.93 802.93 23% 4.699 142%
21630 Santa TereSI 34.996 3.289 15748 5091.08 1.802.08 55% 12459 379%
21945 Santi Teresa 55277 3.136 24.675 6116.35 2.980.35 95% 21.737 693%
22101 Un ~ 43.580 3159 19.602 5524.86 2.365.86 75% 16443 521%
21839 Un 30977 2.942 13.9..0 4887.52 1 945.52 66% 10.998 374%
1849 Un 21 989 2.862 9895 4432.26 1.550.26 54% 7013 243%
21950 Un \I 21 780 2..98 9.AO' 4421.67 1.923.67 77% 7303 292%
21951 Un \I 76.404 9.853 34.362 7188.46 12.654.54) ..2;0'0 24.529 249%
121992 Un 9147 2.057 4116 3498.73 1441.73 70% 2.059 100%
11387 Un PL 10454 2.898 4704 3848.00 950.00 33% 1.806 ll2'I'.
21962 Undv 9.583 . 2788 4.312 3665.50 877.50 31% 1524 55%
21952 Indv 10.018 2423 4508 3825.91 1.402.91 58% 2.085 86%
21932 Lindv 1045.l 2.502 4704 3848.00 1.346.00 54% 2.202 88"1.
21912 Unrlv 10.454 :>390 4704 3848.00 1 458.00 61% 2.314 97%
21902 Unrlv 9.583 2198 .. 312 3865.50 1.467.50 67% 2.114 98%
21882 Undv 6712 2.724 3.920 3332.34- 808.34 22% 1196 44%
21862 Lindv 8.276 2.230 3724 3165.57 935.57 42% 1."94 67%
21852 Unrlv 10.454 2.696 4704 3848.00 1.152.00 43% 2.008 74%
21842 Undv 9583 2.206 4.312 3685.50 1.459.50 66% 2106 95%
21832 Undv 9.583 2.869 4.312 3885.50 796.50 28% 1.443 50%
21822 Undv 10.018 2.418 4.508 3825.91 1...07.91 58% 2.090 86%
21802 Undv 9583 2.012 ".312 3665.50 1.653.50 82% 2.300 114%
21792 Undv 9147 2.570 ..116 3498.73 926.73 36% 1.546 60%
21782 Undv 10.018 2.354 ..508 3825.91 1 471.91 63% 2.154 92%
21762 Undv 9.583 2.131 4.312 3865.50 1.534.50 72% 2181 102%
21723 Undv 6.534 2.592 2.9"0 2499.26 192.74 -4% 34B 13%
21702 Undv 9.583 2.722 ".312 3665.50 943.50 35% 1.590 58%
21692 L1ndv 8712 3.:>"9 3.920 3332.34 83.34 3% 671 21%
21682 Und 10.890 2415 ".901 3870.08 1."55.08 60% 2486 103%
21675 Un 10018 2.400 4.508 3625.91 1425.91 59% 2.108 88".
21685 Un 8.276 2.:>06 3.724 3165.57 959.57 43-'" 1518 69%
21695 Un 10.018 2.168 4.508 3825.&1 1.657.91 76% 2.340 108%
21725 Re nart 10.454 2.721 ".704 3848.00 1 127.00 41% 1983 73%
21735 Re nart 9.147 2.741 4.116 3498.73 757.73 28% 1.375 50%
21745 Rs nart 10.890 2,508 4.901 3870.08 1.362.08 54% 2.393 95%
11117 linda Vista 14.810 2.074 6.665 4068.63 1.994.63 96% ".591 221%
11127 Linda Vista 13.939 2.074 6.273 4024.52 1 950.li2 94% 4.199 202%
11137 linda Vista 1176 2.482 5.292 3914.20 1.43220 58% :> 810 113%
11147 Unda Vista 8.712 1.890 3.92Cl 3332.34 1 442.34 76% 2.030 107%
11157 linda Vista 7...05 2.255 3.332 2832.41 577.41 26% 1.077 48%
11167 Unda Vista 7405 2.255 3.332 2832.41 5n.41 26% 1.077 48%
11177 Linda Vista 7.405 2.255 3,332 2832.41 577.41 26% 1.077 48%
11187 Linda Vista 7405 2.255 3.332 2832.41 5n.41 26% 1077 48%
11197 Linda Vista 7.s..o 1.ARC 3528 2998.BO 1,108.80 59% 1.638 87%
11191 Santa Teresa 17.424 2-'21 7.841 4201.04 1.780.04 74% 5.420 224%
11201 Santa Teresa 9.583 2.481 4.312 3665.50 1.184.50 48% 1.831 74%
. Assumes an IIveraoe sloDe 01 20% I
4 -10