Director's Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CUPERTINO
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2007
The City Council met on August 21, 2007, and discussed the following items of interest to
the Planning Commission:
1. Clifford Chang Application, 10100 N. Tantau Avenue:
The City Council approved a one-story, 10,582 square foot retail commercial
building and one-level, 94-space parking garage on an existing office complex on
the northeast corner of N. Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard at 10100
N. Tantau Avenue. The Council unanimously approved the Use Permit,
Architectural and Site Approval, Heart of the City Exception for the front yard
setback, Tree Removal application and Tentative Map on a 4-0 vote with the
following additional conditions of approval:
· Require a retail parking management plan which shall require retail
employees to park in the garage, provide highly-visible signage which
says that retail customers can park anywhere on site, and provide bicycle
parking in or around the retail development.
Require the applicant to contribute to the City an amount not to exceed
$50,000 to enhance pedestrian walkways that would be used for
enhanced pedestrian crosswalks, possibly for adding a crosswalk, a
lighted walk, or other enhancements as reviewed and directed by the
Public Works Department.
Fees in the resolution shall reflect current rates instead of those shown in
the staff report.
· Trees shall be maximized on site and developer shall replace as many
trees on site as possible, subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
The Council also directed the Public Works staff to agendize a discussion item
about the possibility of removing the traffic blocks at the Stevens Creek
Blvd/Tantau Avenue intersection that would include a report on the historical
nature of the traffic blocks, and to notify the entire Rancho Rinconada
neighborhood of the discussion.
Report of the Community Development Director
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Page 2
2. Tree Removal and Replacement Fees:
The City Council unanimously adopted a resolution on a 4-0 vote to establish fees
to enact the City's newly adopted Protected Trees Ordinance. The new fees include
lower tree removal application fees consisting of $150 for .the first tree removal
request and $75 for each additional tree removal request; a retroactive tree removal
application fee of $2,662 for trees that have been removed prior to approval of a
permit; and a tree management plan application fee of $1,041. The Council also
stipulated that the Public Works Department will oversee the in-lieu tree
replacement fees, present a plan of strategies for use of the fees to the City Council
at a later meeting, and provide an annual review of the use of the fees.
3. Report on the R1 Ordinance Regarding Hillside Development Standards:
The Council reviewed and considered the report from staff and the Planning
Commission recommendation on the Rl hillside ordinance. The Council also took
public testimony on the matter. The majority of the public expressed concerns on
the current Section 19.28.060, related to the 15% slope, and requested that the
Council either delete the entire section or provide reasonable rules that would be
applied to the entire city (or all hillside areas instead of the estimated 15 properties
on Lindy Lane/Mount Crest Court/Terrace Dr.) There was a handful of neighbors
who still wanted the Council to preserve some levels of hillside protection
measures.
Main discussion points:
a. Include or exclude the A1 properties from the hillside discussion-
Council decided to exclude the Al properties
b. Include or exclude the R1-10 (toe of slope properties) from the hillside
Discussion-- Council decided to exclude the RI-IO properties (straw vote)
from Section 19.28-050 (C) 1 and directed staff to process the ordinance
amendment as soon as possible. The earliest this can be scheduled is for the
Planning Commission meeting on September 11 and the City Council
meeting on September 18
c. The possibility of deleting Section 19.28.050 (C)1 & 2 per the Planning
Commission recommendation-Council decided to delete only section (C)
1 (straw vote) and directed the Planning Commission to evaluate and report
back with a recommendation on the following potential options:
1. Replace Section 19.28.050(C)1 with some hillside standards
appropriate to the 15 Rl hillside parcels remaining (including, but
not limited to, grading, fencing, tree preservation and house size):
OR
2. Delete Section 19.28.050(C)1 without any replacement measures or
language. The schedule for this ordinance amendment would also
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No._
Agenda Date: August 21, 2007
Application: U-2007-03, ASA-2007-05, EXC-2007-08, TM-2007-08 & TR-2007-03
Applicant: Clifford Chang, Chang Architecture
Property Owner: Sandhill Property Co.
Property Location: 10100 N. Tantau Avenue (APN 316-19-061)
Application Summary:
1. USE PERMIT and ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL to construct a 10,582
square foot retail building and one-level parking garage on an existing office site.
2. EXCEPTION to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for a front yard setback.
3. TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a 9.4 acre site into two parcels, approximately 1 acre
and 8.4 acres respectively.
4. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT for the removal of 54 trees and replanting in conjunction
with a proposed 10,582 square foot retail building and one-level parking garage on
an existing office site.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission recommends on a 5-0 vote that the City Council approve:
1. Use Permit (U-2007-03) and Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2007-05) to
construct a new retail building and one-level parking garage in accordance with
Resolution Nos. 6463 and 6464, respectively.
2. Exception to the Heart of the City (EXC-2007-08) for a front yard setback in
accordance with Resolution No. 6467.
3. Tentative Map (TM-2007-08) to subdivide a 9.4 acre site into two parcels in
accordance with Resolution No. 6465.
4. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2007-03) to remove 54 trees to accommodate the
development of a new retail commercial building and one-level parking garage
in accordance with Resolution No. 6466.
U-2007-03, ASA-2007-05, EXL-L007-08, lM-2007-08 & TR-2007-03
Page 2
August 21, 2007
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Specific Plan:
Acreage (Net):
Proposed Parcell (Retail):
Proposed Parcel 2 (Existing Office):
Building SF:
Parcell (Proposed Retail Building):
Parcel 2 (Proposed Parking Garage):
Parcel 2 (Existing Building):
Proposed Retail Building Height:
Proposed Garage Height:
Total Parking Proposed:
Total Parking Required:
Project Consistency with:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Heart of the City
Specific Plan:
Yes
Yes
Commercial/ Office / Residential
P (CG, 0, ML, Hotel)
Heart of the City (Commercial & Office)
9.4 acres
1 acre
8.4 acres
10,582 square feet
26,500 square feet (Approx.)
151,321 square feet (two-story office
building)
28 feet (fin wall at 31 feet)
14 feet
594 spaces
573 spaces
No, due to request for front yard setback exception
Environmental Assessment:
Categorically Exempt per Section 15332, Class 32 of
CEQA
BACKGROUND
This item was originally scheduled for the July 3, 2007 City Council meeting; however,
due to noticing errors, this item was required to be continued. The Council continued
this item to tonight's meeting at the request of the applicant.
On June 12, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 5-0 vote to
allow construction of a new one-story, 10,582 square foot retail commercial building
and a new one-level 94-space parking garage within an existing office complex site
located on the northeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and N. Tantau Avenue. The
project involves constructing the retail commercial building in. front of the existing two-
story office building on the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and N. Tantau Avenue,
and the new parking garage along the rear (northern) property line of the project site.
Construction of these buildings will not entail demolition of any existing structures on
the property, but will affect existing landscaping, including trees and shrubs within the
parking lot and along the perimeter of the site.
The project site is currently developed with a 151,321 square foot, two-story office
building that is occupied by Verigy, which designs and develops testing systems for the
semiconductor industry. The site is surrounded by Interstate 280 to the north; retail
U-2007-03, ASA-2007-0S, EXL-2007-08, TM-2007-08 & TR-2007-03
Page 3
August 21,2007
commercial, residential and office uses to the south across Stevens Creek Boulevard; a
4-story office complex to the east; and vacant land to the west across N. Tantau Avenue.
DISCUSSION
Plannin~ Commission Comments:
The Planning Commission recommended adding two conditions to the project to retain
additional trees on site that were previously identified to be removed and to allow an
alternate "hardscape" for the patio plaza around the retail commercial building in
addition to permeable pavers.
The trees that the Plalming Commission recommended to be retained are 9 existing ash
trees located behind the back of sidewalk along Stevens Creek Boulevard and N. Tantau
Avenue that would reduce the total proposed tree removal on site to 54 trees rather
than the previous proposal to remove 63 trees. The applicant explained that the original
tree survey for this project was prepared in November of 2006 and recommended
removal of these 9 existing ash trees identified as trees 83, 84, A, B, 88, 89, 90, 91 and 92
because they were located within the building footprint that was proposed at that time.
However, prior to application of the project in April, the applicant revised the plans by
moving the building further northwest to allow for additional setbacks from the corner.
As a result, the applicant stated at the meeting that these 9 trees could be preserved. The
applicant also stated support to retain these trees.
The Commission also recommended that the applicant be permitted to use decomposed
granite within the patio plaza around the retail commercial building in addition to the
proposed permeable pavers. The Commission supported this alternate "hardscape"
proposed by the applicant during the meeting because it is also considered a green
building material that reduces storm water runoff.
Public Comments:
The Commission also heard from members of the public who provided the following
comments:.
It is good to see development activity proposed on this side of the city.
Saving the trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard and N. Tantau Avenue as
recommended by the Planning Commission is a positive action.
If a coffee shop is proposed in this new building, it may negatively affect the
adjacent existing coffee shop across the street.
· The project will be an asset to the community.
City should consider moving the trees proposed to be removed at the project site
to the south side of the Stevens Creek Boulevard to beautify the street.
. Mature trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard should be retained.
Noticing for this project should have been a citywide notice.
U-2007-03, ASA-2007-0S, EXL-2007-08, TM-2007-08 & TR-2007-03
Page 4
August 21,2007
Staff Comments:
Staff is supportive of the applicant's proposal with the additional conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission to retain the 9 existing ash trees and to
allow the applicant to use decomposed granite in the patio plaza.
ENCLOSURES
Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 6463, 6464, 6465, 6466, and 6467
Exhibit A: Minutes to the June 12,2007 Planning Commission meeting
Exhibit B: Planning Commission Report of June 12,2007, including all attachments
Plan Set
Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Steve Piasec i
Director, Community Development
David W. Knapp
City Manager
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC\U-2~07-03 CC Report.doc
1.;<,
<.--<.. ..,
:,<
CITY OF
CUPEIQ"INO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No. JJ
Agenda Date: August 21, 2007
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Consider establishing the following fees related to the City's new Protected Trees
Ordinance (Chapter 14.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code) and adopting a resolution
adding these fees to the fee schedule:
a) Establish a City tree fund in which in-lieu tree replacement fees based on the
installation and purchase cost of replacement trees are to be deposited and
determine how to implement use of the tree fund (e.g., if the Public Work Dept.
or a separate subcommittee will oversee the use of the fund).
b) Establish a retroactive tree removal application fee of $2,662, and lower the tree
removal application fees to $150 for the first tree removal request and $75 for
each additional tree removal request on the < same property for applicants who
apply to the City prior to removirig the tree.
c) Establish a tree management plan application fee of $1,041.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Platuiing Commission recommends that the City Council establish the fees related
to the City's Protected Trees Ordinance atid adopt the model resolution attached as
Exhibit A to include the fees into the City's 2007-2008 Fee Schedule.
BACKGROUND:
On June 5, 2007, the City Council introduced the tree ordinance. However, except for
the lli-lieu tree replacement fees, the Council deferred detennination on the
establishment of all other fees until after < the adoption of the tree ordinance. The
Council adopted the ordinatiCe including language that' specified in-lieu tree
replacement fees are based upon the purchase and lliStallation cost of replacement trees.
Therefore, the iIi-lieu fee has already been established and will not need to be included
in the fee schedule, but will require a procedure on how to admiIuster the use of the
fees once they are deposited into a City tree fund.
On July 19, 2007, the new tree ordinance became effective, which was 30 days from the
date of the second reading of the ordiIiance that occurred on June 19,2007.
Application: Tree Ordinance Fees
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
Establishment and acceptance of these fees into the City's fee schedule is critical at this
time because the new tree ordinance is now effective without a procedure to implement
the use of in-lieu tree replacement fees, and without application fees to address the
more simplified tree removal application process, retroactive tree removals and tree
management plans. The following is a. list of the Planning Commission's
recommendations on fees to fully enact the tree ordinance:
1. Establish a City tree fund in which in-lieu tree replacement fees are to be
deposited and determine who is to oversee use of the city tree fund.
Options that the Council may consider include allowing the Public Works
Department or a subcommittee established by the City Council to oversee the use of
the funds. The ordinance as adopted already specifies what the funds are to be used
for, which include adding or replacing trees on public property in the vicinity of the
subject property, or adding trees or landscaping on other City property.
2. Establish a retroactive tree removal fee of $2,536, and lower the tree removal
application fee to $150 for the first tree removal request and $75 for each
additional tree removal request on a property.
The retroactive tree removal fee is a new fee that will be required when a protected
tree has been removed prior to approval of a tree removal permit. This would serve
as a "stick" approach to discourage such tree removals. The retroactive tree removal
fee is a cost recovery fee that is based upon the previous Planning COnimission tree
removal application fee. Staff recommends that if the Council decides to apply this
fee as the retroactive tree removal fee, that the fee amount of $2,662 be used, which
is based upon the current Planning Commission tree removal application fee that
became effective on July 1,2007 as part of the updated fee schedule.
The lower tree removal application fees are proposed to serve as an incentive or
"carrot" approach for property owners who receive approval of a tree removal
permit prior to removing a protected tree. At the May 1, 2007 City Council meeting,
the Council expressed concern about lowering these fees because they would not be
based upon cost recovery. The newly adopted ordinance simplified the previous tree
removal application process by now allowing many tree removals to be reviewed
and determined at staff level. Therefore, staff believes that the lower tree removal
application fees as proposed are reasonable.
3. Establish a tree management plan of $992 and include this fee into the fee
schedule.
This is a new application fee that would need to be established. Per the new
ordinance, the tree management plan fee allows for a property owner to apply for
approval of a tree management plan to remove trees on his/her property in the
future within a specified time fralne as indicated in the plan to prevent the
overcrowding of trees on the property. The proposed fee, as a cost recovery fee, is
Application: Tree Ordinance Fees
Page 3
based upon the fee for a Director's Minor Modification application because the
review process is similar to this type of application. The proposed $992. fee was
recommended by the Planning Commission prior to adoption of the updated fee
schedule. Staff recommends that the updated fee of $1,041 for a Director's Minor
Modification application that became effective on July 1, 2007 be used as the tree
management plan application fee to maintain consistency with the current fee
schedule.
Enclosures:
Exhibit A - Model Resolution
Exhibit B - Minutes to the May 1, June 5 and June 19 (draft) City Council meetings
Exhibit C - Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees Ordinance
Prepared by: AId Honda Snelling, Senior Planner
Approved by:
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 07-145
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 07-056 TO AMEND SCHEDULE C OF THE
FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the State of California requires fees charged for service rendered not
to exceed the cost of delivering said services; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held to review user fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has established guidelines
for setting user fees;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. Approve amended user fees per attached Schedule C.
2. User fees are effective October 22,2007.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 21 st day of August 2007 by the following vote:
Vote
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Wang, Sandoval, Lowenthal, Mahoney
None
None
None
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Isl Kimberly Smith
Isl Kris Wang
City Clerk
Mayor
Resolution No. 07-145
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution No. 07-145, August 21,2007
*Fees Effective October 22, 2007
Schedule C - Definition of Planning Fee Services
*New fees effective October 22,2007. All other fees to remain the same. Fees with strikethroughs are
eliminated.
General Plan Amendment Authorization - Major
$3,883.00
General Plan Amendment Authorization - Minor
$1,941.00
Study Session
$3,883.00
General Plan Amendment - Major
$12,096.00
General Plan Amendment - Minor
$6,048.00
Development Agreement
$15,994.00
Zoning - Minor
$2,995.00
Zoning < one acre
$5,990.00
Zoning one to five acres
$9,106.00
Zoning> five acres
$12,408.00
Tentative Map
$13,200.00
Use Permit - Major
$13,200.00
Exception
$2,325.00
Amendment to Development Approval
$3,525.00
Hillside Exception
$5,847.00
Parcel Map
$6,165.00
Use Permit - Minor
$6,165.00
Planning Commission - Architectural and Site Approval
$6,165.00
Resolution No. 07-145
Planning Commission Interpretation
$3,080.00
PllffiRing Cemmissien Tree Remeval
$2,662.00
Environmental Impact Report (Plus State & County Filing Fees)
$23,093.00
Negative Declaration - Major (Plus State & County Filing Fees)
$3,553.00
Negative Declaration - Minor (Plus State & County Filing Fees)
$1,776.00
Tree Removal Permit *
First Tree
Each Additional Tree
$150.00
$75.00
Retroactive Tree Removal Permit *
$2,662.00
Tree Management Plan *
$1,041.00
For all projects requiring more than 48 hours of staff time, applicants will be charged at the hourly rate of
$118.00 per hour, which includes staff time, overhead and administrative oversight.
Categorical Exemption (Plus County Filing Fee) $206.00
Design Review Committee - Architectural and Site Approval
$2,982.00
R-1 Design Review
$2,070.00
R-1 Exception
$2,325.00
Sign Exception
$1,743.00
Fence Exception
$593.00
Director - Variance
$1,488.00
Director - Minor Modification
$1,041.00
Direeter Tree Reme'/al
$U;O.OO
Minor Residential Permit
$1,041.00
Temporary Use Permit
$1,189.00
Temporary Sign Permit
$174.00
Resolution No. 07-145
Sign Program
$596.00
Appeal/Petitions for Reconsideration
$156.00
Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code (Building Permit Fees)
Commerical/Multi -Family
Residential Single Family
$0.24/sq. ft.
$0. 13/sq. ft.
Wireless Master Plan Fee: Equipment Mount on Existing Light
Utility Pole
$5.41/mount
Wireless Master Plan Fee: Other Personal Wireless Facility
$1,081.00/facility
Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fees
Residential
Office/Industrial/Hotel/RetaillR&D
P(MP)
$2.50/sq. ft.
$4.75/sq. ft.
2.38/sq. ft.
Stevens Creek Boulevard Specific Plan Fee
$.044/sq. ft.
Zoning Verification Letter
$157.00
F or all projects requiring more than 48 hours of staff time, applicants will be charged at the hourly rate of
$118.00 per hour, which includes staff time, overhead and administrative oversight.
CUPERTINO
Agenda Item No. _
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAO<(408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Date: August 21. 2007
Application Summary: Report on the R1 ordinance regarding neighborhood meetings
on the Residential Hillside Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council delete Section
19.28.050(C)(1) & (2) of the R1 Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
In. January 2005 the City Council
incorporated RHS development
rules into the R1 ordinance
revisions for properties upslope
from the 10% line and with
average slopes of 15% or greater.
Following these actions
residents' in the affected areas
stated they were not aware that
the Council might apply these
hillside development standards'
to their properties.
Consequently, the Council
directed that staff revisit the
process to provide ample opportunity for input. On April 2005 the City Council
discussed the R1 hillside development standards and decided to preclude all R1
properties east of the General Plan 10% hillside transition line.
~.~-
";-....
3D Aerial
Map of the
Lindy Lane
Rl Hillside
Area from
Google
Earth
(illustrative
purposes
only not
intended to
be to scale)
~'... "~
~-
'\. ".. ,....
,,~ ~. . ...:...~c:.~<':
-": ;.. ,,' '~ · ",., ~, 'C- - ,'"
"!t1'",,,,,.., ';- ,~?, , ~,~ -:;",;'.'0""
" ,'} 0, ',O""':\J, lo.. " __"
. .. ".. '{!f ~~',....: .....t'J'"T' j" . ~"" -~~~..
'-ti 1 ... ,""'". < '" '\ 0 , '
"" .~.. , '.-= ......~~ .", .. '..:~' . ~....
.~;;: -, ';.. ',-, , '. >, c..c,.
'..': . ~. ........:(~~~..._.i::' :_" {. _~ ~
. " -y.-..., ~ - >'. '\., 1(
~- - ~.. . -......... ~...~;.. .."... . .
'~ " "'~ 7., '-<, , Ie'
. , . -,. .... '., ........ --~. "'>o.~ "$"" " .
~;., ',:;';'" ': ;:;:,'" ,,',: < ~"'~...",
r"~f. '-~4"';" '..~t< t.~ '. ~
'r!1
The Council asked the neighbors upslope of the 10% line to get together to discuss
options and try to reach consensm; on an approacl1 to development in the area. The
additional notice. and neighborhood discm;sions 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. TI1e Planning Commission
reviewed the issue on Tuesday, August 14,2007.
MCA-2006-0 1
R1 Hillside Ordinance
Page 2
August 21, 2007
DISCUSSION:
The City of Cupertino General Plan contains goals and policies to preserve hillside
areas as follows:
GoalIIF" Hillside Protection
Policy 2-48: Hillside Developntent
Standards
Establish buildi11.g and development
sta11.dards for the hillsides that ensure
hillside protection.
1. Ordinance Regulations and Development
Approvals. Apply ordinance regulations and
development approvals that limit develop111.ent on
ridgelines, hazardous geological areas and steep
slopes. Control colors and materials, and minimize
the illumination of outdoor lighting. Reduce
visible building mass through such means as
stepping structures down the hillside, following
the natural contours, and limiting the height and
mass of the wall plane facing the valley floor.
2. Slope-density Formula. Apply a slope density
formula to very low intensity residen,tial
development in the hillsides. Density shall be
calculated based on the foothill modified, foothill
modified 1/2acre and the 5-20 acre slope density
formulae. Actual lot sizes mid development areas
will be determined through zoning ordinances,
clustering and identification of significant natural
features and geological constraints.
Strategies:
The strategies that are outlined in, the General Plan to help control hillside development
impacts are as follows:
.:. Limit development on ridgelines
.:. Limit development on steep slopes
.:. Limit development on hazardous geological areas
.:. Control color and material
.:. Reduce visible building mass
MCA-2006-01
R1 Hillside Ordinance
Page 3
August 21, 2007
.:. Contour development with the natural terrain
.:. Limit the height and mass of wall plane facing the valley floor
.:. Avoid mass grading
.:. Retain significant trees
The RHS ordinance applies to almost all properties in the hillsides and contains special
development standards that are designed to address these issues. Upon reviewing the
R1 Ordinance amendments in 2005, the Council was concerned that some areas in the
hillsides retained R1 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.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS
After hearing concerns about the notice and opportunities for input, the City Council
directed the neighbors to get together and attempt to reach consensus on an approach to
protect the hillsides. Two neighborhood meetings were held on June 20, 2007 and July
19, 2007. During the first meeting, neighbors were asked to identify the common
objectives for the areas. A summary of the common objectives are summarized as
follows:
.:. Property Value
.:. Equity
.:. Preservation of hillside
.:. Rural character
.:. Simplify rules for the toe of slope properties
At the second meeting, the neighbors were presented with a number of options:
1. Revert back to the R1 hillside development standards pre-200S.
2. R1 foothill modified standards.
3. Retain current R1 hillside development standards (2005).
4. Rezone to RHS.
Neighbors were not able to reach a consensus at that meeting. However, there were
some benefits that came out of the lneeting. It helped us identify some of the values and
common objectives in the area.
PLANNING COMMISSION
The PlaIu1ing Commission met on August 14,2007, took public testimony aI1d reviewed
the staff report on the neighborhood meetings. The Planning COlllinission
recomlnended to the City Council with a 2-1-2 (Wong and Miller - Yes, Giefer - No,
Kaneda and Chien - Absent) vote to delete Section 19.28.0S0(C)1&2 for the following
reasons:
MCA-2006-01
R1 Hillside Ordinance .
Page 4
August 21,2007
.:. If the toe of slope lots were taken out, the affected properties by the R1 hillside
rules would decrease from 124 parcels to 22 parcels.
.:. Hillside preservation measures should be applied to the entire City.
.:. There were some unintended consequences from the R1 15% overlay resulting
from the 2005 R1 Ordinance Amendment.
.:. The 15% overlay triggered more development.
.:. The 15% overlay triggered more trees cutting.
.:. The current rules are more complex then they should be.
.:. Concerned with the issue of fairness in terms of applicability of the rule.
.:. The rule should apply equally to all that are on hili regardless of geographical
location.
The one Commissioner that voted no on the deletion of Section 19.28.050(C)1&2
provided the following comments:
.:. The toe of slope lots (R1-"10 lots) should be exempted from this discussion since
they do not contribute to the overall preservation of the hillside.
.:. Concerned with the lack of fairness and wanted the discussion to also how the R1
hillside lots compare with all of the RHS lots located also upslope of the 10%
hillside line that consist of similar character and topography as the hillside R110ts
in discussion.
.:. Concerned that by deleting the 15% R1/RHS overlay, that some of the RHS
property owners would argue in fairness that they should be rezoned to R1 due to
equal treatment of properties with similar characteristic and geographical
locations.
PUBLIC INPUT
Numerous neighbors spoke at the August 14,2007 Commission meeting. The majority
of the neighbors wanted the removal of the 15% R1/RHS overlay citing unfair treatment,
negative property value impacts and unintended consequences. Only a few neighbors
expressed that some measures still should be retained in this area to protect the hillside
and that what was presented by staff at the meeting is acceptable.
ORDINANCE OPTIONS
If you imagine the R1 and RHS ordinance being placed on the opposite ends of a section
(see diagram below) you can visualize the possible options for development control in
the hillside areas. The current 2005 R1/RHS hillside development standards trigger is
probably between the midpoint of the spectrum and full RHS.
MCA-2006-01
Rl Hillside Ordinance
Page 5
August 21, 2007
- < 30% average slope
triggers hillside
develooment
- Controls Density
- House size adjustment
based on slope
- Hillside development
Standards
- R 1 development
standards
Rl and RHS Development Control Spectrum
Short of deleting all of the hillside development standards, the Coun~il has the following
options:
1. Revert back to the Rl hillside development standards pre-2005.
2. Rl foothill modified standards.
3. Retain current Rl hillside development standards (2005).
4. Rezone to RHS.
If the Council decides to retain. some hillside development staI1.dards on the Rl hillside
properties, staff believes you CaI1. incorporate some of the ideas that came out of the
neighborhood process. TI1.e Rl hillside standards can be amended to provide greater
flexibility for the property owners while preserving the intellt of the sensitive hillside
development. Even though neighbors were unable to reach consensus, the discussions
clarified the areas of disagreement leading to subsequent individual discussions aIld
emails with suggestions for possible solutions to house size, setbacks and trees. TIle
following outlines the staff approach:
MCA-2006-0 1
R1 Hillside Ordinance
Page 6
August 21, 2007
STAFF PROPOSAL: The Council directed the neighbors and the Commission to
provide input and recommendation on the section of the R1 Ordinance relating to
hillside development (Section 19.28.050C1 - 15% R1/RHS overly rule) that was revised
during the 2005 R1 Ordinance Amendment process. The Commission's
recommendation focuses on removing the past Council action and offers no compromise
or consensus on alternative solutions. Additionally, it deletes Section 19.28.050C2 which
deals with development on excessive slopes in excess of 30%. This section has been
effective since 1999 (Ord. 1834) and was not revised during the 2005 R1 Ordinance. Staff
recommends that SectiOl119.28.050C2 be retained.
Section 19.28.050C2 states that "no structure or improvements shall occur 011. slopes of thirty
percent or greater unless an exception is granted in accordance with Section 19.40.140, unless no
l1wre than five hundred square feet of development, including gJ'ading and structures, occurs on
an area with a slope of thirty percent or greater. II
Staff recommends the Council apply a modified foothill standard to the 22 parcels
located in the Lindy Lane/Mt. Crest Place area that represents the best of compromise
and consensus given all of the cormnents received from neighbors during the
neighborhood Ineetings and during the Planning Commission Ineeting. Staff
recommends that all parcels currently zoned R1-10 be removed from the modified
hillside rules and treated as conventional R1 zoning rules.
MODIFIED FOOTHILL STANDARDS
Vvl1at 'i'\'e heard fr0111 the neighbors:
More flexibility on FAR and review process if the development is located on a flat pad or
conforms to RHS house size
Potential Ordinance Solution:
.:. Allow up to 45% FAR if the development or expansion is located on the flat pad
portion of the lot (< or =10%).
.:. Allow property owners to build off of the flat pad if they conform to the RHS
house size limits.
.:. If not, then an Architectural and Site approval is required at the Planning
Commission level.
Rationale: Larger homes can be sensitively designed to minimize impacts to the hillside
and support the rural character of the area. It is unlikely homes willlnaximize their FAR
with the setback and offset requirements but it provides added flexibility for the
property owners and a public process to review the details.
MCA-2006-01
R1 Hillside Ordinance
Page 7
August 21, 2007
What "\\~e heard from the neighbors:
Flexibility on second floor size
Potential Ordinance Solution: No second floor size limits but retain the Rl setbacks
and articulation rules.
Rationale: Provides an incentive to develop on the flatter portion of the lot and minimize
grading and retaining walls by adding flexibility to permit -more square footage on the
second floor. Larger second floor is also consistent with the design pattent of the
surrounding hillside neighborhoods.
Vvl1at we heard from the neighbors:
Fencing, grading, retaining wall standards more appropriate to the hillside
Potential Ordinance Solution: Retain the RHS fencing and grading standards. Add a
requirement that all solid walls over 5 feet must be screened by landscaping or siding
materials.
Rationale: Adopt the same prote,ction that is offered in the RHS Ordinance. Provide
visual relief from large retaining walls.
';\That we heard from the l"\eighbors:
More tree protection
Potential Ordinance Solution: Planning Commission approval if more than two
- specimen trees are removed.
Rationale: More stringent than the current Tree Ordinance but adds flexibility for
discretionary review if more trees must be removed. The Council may want to consider
if the tree size should be a factor. For instance, you may want a very large Oak to be
preserved or at least subject to public review under any circumstances.
';\That vve are hearing fro111 the neighbors:
Simplify development standards for the toe of slope lots
Potential Ordinance Solution: Exempt all properties located in the Rl-10 zoning
district from any hillside development measures.
Rationale: Homes at the toe of slope are largely built out with full fencing and are not
visible to the valley floor properties. They do not contribute to preservation of the
hillside environlnent. The majority of these hOlnes are approxiInately 10,000 square feet
which would allow a house size up to approximately 4,500 square feet. Only a few are
larger than 10,000 square feet. If the R1-10 lots are exempt from this discussion, the total
number of affected properties is reduced from 124 to 22 (see diagrams below).
MCA-2006-01
RI Hillside Ordinance
Page 8
August 21, 2007
I -..
'--r-/ Ii
I 'Mf&II;-"
Exempt RI-I0
Properties Affected
Approximate
.
..
Current Rl Ordinance Approx. 124
Properties Affected
22
Al PROPERTIES
The Council also directed the staff and
the PlaIming Commission to evaluate
rezoning the Al properties to Rl and
include them into the Rl hillside
development discussion since there are
approximately seven Al properties that
are located on the hillside upslope of the
10% hillside transition line. Staff
believes that these properties should be rezoned to RI with lot size minimums equal to
their existing lot size and be subjected to the. same Rl hillside guidelines because they
share the same hill and similar topography. The Planning Commission did not make
any recommendations on the Al properties. Alternatively, the Council could direct that
all of the changes to the Rl ordinance be incorporated into the existing Al ordinance.
MCA-2006-0 1
Rl Hillside Ordinance
Page 9
August 21, 2007
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE CHANGES
On May 1, 2007 the council asked the neighbors to work together to arrive at some
consensus regarding potential solutions for their neighborhood (see attached minutes of
May 1, and April 3, 2007). Staff has been unable to anticipate the direction of the
potential ordinance changes that is necessary to begin the public notice process.
Several residents want. to begin processing remodel plans for their homes and are
concerned about how. long it will take for any ordinance amendments to take effect.
Once the direction is provided it typically takes three to four weeks to provide public
notice, draft the ordinance changes and schedule a public hearing before the PlalUIDlg
Commission. It takes two weeks to forward the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to the City Council two weeks for the second reading and 30 days prior to
the ordinance taking effect. Therefore, the total time from Council direction to the
effective date of the ordinal1ce changes Cal1 take about three to four months.
If the Council reaches consensus on Tuesday al1d directs specific OrdU1al1Ce chal1ges they
probably will not be effective until the end of this calendar year. In the meanthne, the
Council could invite any of the affective residents to file either exception ans/ or variance
applications from the current Rl ordh1al1ce if their application otherwise conforms to all
of the provisions contemplated by the Council. While you Call110t provide absolute
aSSUral1Ce that the application would be approved the exception/varial1Ce procedure
would allow residents to immediately begin processing remodel applications ahead of
the actual effective date.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff to begin processing ordinance chal1ges reflecting the Pla1111ing
Commission recommendation or the alternative Foothill Modified standards. Staff
prepared very preliminary ordinal1ce wording to facilitate your review reflecting both
recommendations as exhibits A and B attached.
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner
Submitted by:
Approved by:
~
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
David W. Knapp
City Mal1ager