.03 MCA-2007-01 Amendment to the R1 Ordinance
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
CUP E RT IN 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
MCA-2007-01, EA-2007-09
City of Cupertino
Various
Cupertino Foothills
Agenda Date: September 11, 2007
Application Summary: Amendment to the Rl Ordinance (Chapter 19.28.050Cl) to:
A. Municipal Code Amendment to amend Chapter 19.28 Single Family Residential
(Rl) Zones to exclude properties zoned RI-I0 with an average slope equal to or
greater than fifteen (15) percent slope.
B. Municipal Code Amendment to amend Chapter 19.28.050(C)1 of Single Family
Residential (Rl) Zone regarding hillside development standards for buildings
proposed on properties zoned RI-20 located west of the 10% slope line.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Recommend approval to the City Council the Rl Ordinance amendment to
exclude the RI-I0 properties located adjacent to the foothill areas from the Rl
hillside development standards; and
2. Identify appropriate hillside development standards (Section 19.28.050Cl) for
the RI-20 zoned properties up slope of the 10% slope line and provide
recommendations to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
On August 21, 2007, the City Council held a public hearing and discussed the
applicability of the hillside standards to properties located in the Cupertino foothills
that are currently zoned Single Family Residential (Rl) and Agricultural Residential
(AI). After reviewing the results from the neighborhood meetings and public
testimony, the Council decided to take no further action on the Al zoned properties,
leaving them under the Al Ordinance. So for the purpose of the Rl hillside discussion,
the Al properties are not being considered for any change. The City Council also
decided to preserve Section 19.28.050C2, which deals with development (over 500
square feet in area) on greater than slopes of 30% since it was never intended to be
modified.
The City Council directed staff to initiate proceedings to delete the Rl-lO foothill
properties from any hillside standards and consider appropriate hillside standards for
the remaining 15 properties zoned RI-20 located on the Lindy Lane knoll.
3-}
MCA-2007-01
Septernberll,2007
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Exclusion of the RI-I0 foothill properties:
The R1 hillside standards discussion evolves around the General Plan's direction (GP
Policy #2-48) to establish building and development standards for the hillsides that
ensure hillside protection. Almost all of the R1-10 (toe-of-slope) properties located near
the foothills are already developed and are located in established neighborhoods with
smaller lots. Although some of the toe-of-sloped lots may have steep rear yards, the
majority of the homes are built on existing flat pads near the street and will not be able
to develop on the slope unless an exception is approved by the Planning Commission
(Section 19.28.050C2). Generally the R1-10 homes are not highly visible from the valley
floor, and do not contribute to the overall protection of the hillsides.
The ,development impacts from the regular R1 floor area ratio versus the RHS slope
adjusted floor area ratio is not considered significant and will not change the character
, of the foothill areas. For example:
10,000 s . ft. lot (assumin 150/0 avera e slo e)
Re ular Rl FAR RHS FAR
10,000 x .45 = 4,500 sq. ft. 4,500 - (4,500x.075) = 4,162 sq. ft.
Net difference:
4,500
- 4,162
338 sq. ft.
Staff recommends that the R1-10 lots be excluded from Section 19.28.050C1.
J
-::;;;P I
3-2
MCA-2007-01
September 11, 2007
Page 3
Developntent Options for the Rl-20 foothill properties:
In reviewing the applicability of the R1 hillside standards after the exclusion of the R1-
10 toe-of-slope parcels, the Council decided to focus on the remaining 15 properties that
are zoned Rl~20 (see map below - properties in purple). These properties are larger in
area (over 20,000 sq. ft.) and are located on the Lindy Lane knoll higher in elevation
relative to the toe-of-slope lots. There are more significant biological (trees and wildlife)
and geological considerations in this area, and some of the upper properties are more
visible from the valley floor area then the RI-IO lots.
The potential development impacts from the regular Rl floor area ratio versus the RHS
slope adjusted floor area are much greater for these parcels:
20,000 s . ft. lot (assumin 150/0 avera e slo e)
Re ular Rl FAR RHS FAR
20,000 x .45 = 9,000 sq. ft. 4,500 + (IOx59.59) = 5,096 sq. ft.
5,096 - (5,096x.075) = 4,714 sq. ft.
Net difference:
9,000
- 4,714
4,286 sq. ft.
3-3
MCA-200 7-0 1
September 11,2007
Page 4
The Council directed the Planning Commission to evaluate the foothill modified hillside
development standards that were proposed by staff (which primarily came from
suggestions from individual discussions and email correspondence with neighbors) for
the remaining 15 properties that specifically address the following key issues:
. House size
. Second floor size
. Grading
. Retaining walls
. Fencing
. Tree protection
MODIFIED FOOTHILL STANDARDS
Staff believes that using some of the ideas that came out of the neighborhood process,
the Rl ordinance hillside standards (Section 19.28.050Cl) can be amended to provide
greater flexibility for property owners while preserving the intent of the sensitive
hillside development with a couple of key measures.
House Size
.:. Allow up to 45% FAR if the development or expansion are located on the flat pad
portion of the lot (less than or equal to 10% slope).
.:. Allow property owners to build off of the flat pad if they conform to the RHS
house size limits.
.:. The property owner could request to exceed the RHS house size limits by
obtaining an Architectural and Site approval at the Planning Commission level,
with full public notice to the neighborhood.
Rationale:
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 property owners to build a home up to a
maximum of 45% FAR if they can stay on the flat portion of the lot. If the proposed
new development or expansion is off the flat pad, the property owners have the option
of either adhering to the RHS house size limits or demonstrating to the PlaMing
Commission the merits of a larger home through a public review process. Staff believes
larger homes can be sensitively designed to minimize impacts to the hillside and
support the rural character of the area.
Second Floor Size
.:. No second floor size limits (but retain the Rl setbacks and articulation rules).
'b~4
MCA-2007-0l
September 11,2007
Page 5
Rationale:
Provides an incentive to develop on the flatter portion of the lot and minimize grading
and the need for retaining walls by adding flexibility to permit more square footage on
the second floor. Larger second floor is consistent with the design pattern of the
surrounding hillside neighborhoods, and is therefore allowed for other hillside
properties zoned RHS.
Grading
.:. All site grading shall be limited to a cumulative total of two thousand five
hundred cubic yards, cut plus fill. The two thousand five hundred cubic yards
includes grading for building pad, yard areas, driveway and all other areas
requiring grading, but does not include basements. The graded area shall be
limited to the building pad area to the greatest extent 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.
a. All cut and fill areas shall be rounded to follow the natural contours and
planted with landscaping which meets the requirements in Section
19.40.050G.
b. 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.
Rationale:
Grading is one of the most significant impact of hillside development. Special attention
is necessary to protect the hillside from over ex~avation and large retaining walls
similar to what is offered in the RHS Ordinance.
Retaining Wall Screening
.:. Retaining walls in excess of five feet shall be screened with landscape materials
or faced with decorative materials such as split-faced block, river rock or similar
materials.
Rationale:
Neighbors felt strongly that when retaining walls are warranted, there should be
measures to provide visual relief from taller, more visible retaining walls.
Fencing
.:. All fences shall be governed by the following regulations:
3....5
MCA-2007-01
Septenrrberll,2007
Page 6
Solid board fencing shall be limited to a five thousand square foot site area
(excluding the principal building).
Open fencing (composed of materials which result in a minimum of seventy-five
percent visual transparency) shall be unrestricted except that such fencing over
three feet "in height may not be constructed within the front yard setback. (Ord.
1634, (part), 1993)
Rationale:
Prevent solid board fencing from boxing up the entire hillside property and detract
from the open rural character of the hillside area similar to what is offered in the RHS
Ordinance.
Tree Protection
.:. Up to two protected trees with a diameter less than 18 inches may be removed to
accommodate a building pad subject to the approval of the Director of
Community Development. Removal of protected trees exceeding 18 inches or
removal of more than two protected trees requires approval of a tree removal
permit by the Planning Commission in accordance with the Tree Ordinance.
Rationale:
The neighbors have expressed that more tree protection is warranted in this area. What
is proposed is more stringent than the Tree Ordinance but provides flexibility for
discretionary review if more trees must be removed.
Summary
Staff believes these recommendations from the neighborhood are reasonable standards
that ensure maximum building flexibility, while providing hillside protections
envisioned in the General Plan.
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Gary Chao, Senior Planner ~
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developll~
Enclosures:
Exhibit A: Planning Commission Model Ordinance reflecting the exclusion of the
R1-10 foothill properties
Exhibit B: Planning Commission Model Ordinance reflecting the foothill modified
standards
Exhibit C: City Council Staff Report, August 21,2007 (with attachments)
City Council Draft Meeting Minutes, August 21,2007 (available at the meeting)
Initial Study
Recommendation from the Environmental Review Committee
3..,
MCA-2007 -01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 19.28.050 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE
EXCLUSION OF THE RI-I0 FOOTHILL PROPERTIES
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Ordinance Amendment as
shown in Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of September 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Lisa Giefer, Chairperson
Planning Commission
?'-1
MCA-2007-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 19.28.050 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
FOOTI-llLL MODIFIED STANDARDS
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Ordinance Amendment as
shown in Exhibit B.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of September 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Lisa Giefer, Chairperson
Planning Commission
3~
Exhibit A (draft ordinance reflecting the exclusion of the R1-10 foothill
properties)
. 19.28.050 Development Regulations (Site).
C. Development on Properties with Hillside Characteristics.
1. Buildings proposed on properties generally located south and west
of Santa Teresa Drive, west of Terra Bella Drive and West and
North of Lindv Lane (see attached map) zoned RI-20 loc~ted v"yeot
of the 10~/v hill~ide ~lope line ~J defined in the CupertirLo Ccner~l
Phm:, that have an average slope equal to or greater than fifteen
perc"ent 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 ordina~ce, 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 Sec~ion 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. (O~d. 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)
3-'1
Exhibit B: Draft ordinance wording reflecting the Foothill Modified standards
19.28.050 Development Regulations (Site).
C. Development on Properties with Hillside Characteristics.
Buildings proposed on properties generally located south and west of Santa
Teresa Drive, west of Terra Bella Drive and West and North of Lindy Lane (see
map below) zoned Rl-20, that have an average slope equal to or greater than
fifteen percent and are zoned for lot sizes greater than 10,000 square feet shall be
developed in accordance with the following site development standards:
1. Thirty Percent Slopes. 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 ~undred
square feet of development, including grading and strllctures, occ~rs on
an area with a slope of thirty percent or greater.
2. Site Grading. All site grading shall be limited to a cumulative total of
two thousand five hundred cubic yards, cut plus fill. The two thousand
five hundred cubic yards includes grading for building P?id, yard areas,
driveway and all other areas requiring grading, but does not include
basements. The graded area shall be limited to the building pad area to
the greatest'extent 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
1
*3 ,.. to
for that lot development. A maximum of two thousand square feet of
flat yard area, excluding driveways, may be graded.
a. All cut and fill areas shall be rounded to follow the natural contours
and planted with landscaping which meets the requirements in
Section 19.40.050G.
b. 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.
3. Floor Area.
3.a. The maximum floor area ratio shall be forty-five percent of the net
lot area for development proposed on the flat pad portion, defined as
pad areas equal to or less than 10% slope, of any lot.
Formula: A = 0.45 B: where A = maximum allowable house size and
B = net lot area.
3.b The maximum floor area for development where any portion of the
building is proposed on a slope area exceeding 10% shall be four
thousand five hundred square feet plus 59.59 square feet for everyone
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.
Formula: A=((B-IO,OOO)I1,OOO)(59.59)+4,500: where A = maximum
allowable house size prior to instituting the maximum 6,500 square foot
building size and B = net lot area.
3.c The floor area ratio may be exceeded for development on pads
exceeding 10%, if a site and architectural permit is approved by the
Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.134 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code~
4. Second Floor Area
The amount of second floor area is not limited provided the total floor area does
not exceed the allowed floor area ratio.
5. Retaining Wall Screening.
Retaining walls in excess of five feet shall be screened with landscape materials
or faced with decorative materials such as split-faced block, river rock or similar
materials subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development.
2
3-11
6. Fencing.
All fences shall be governed by the following regulations:
6.a. Solid board fencing shall:
1. Be limited to a five thousand square foot site area (excluding the
principal building).
2. Open fencing (composed of materials which result in a minimum
of seventy-five percent visual transparency) shall be unrestricted
except that such fencing over three feet in height may not be
constructed within the front yard setback. (Ord. 1634, (part),
1993)
7. Tree Protection.
Up to two protected trees with a diameter less than 18 inches may be removed to
accommodate a building pad subject to approval of the Director of Community
Development. Removal of protected trees exceeding 18 inches or removal of
more than two protected trees requires approval of a tree removal permit by the
Planning Commission in accordance with the Tree Ordinance.
3
!J-/~
Exhibit C
City of Cupertino
10300 'forre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
CUPERTINO
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. _
Agenda Date: August 21, 2007
Application Summary: Report on the Rl ordinance regarding neighborhood meetings
on the Residential Hillside Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council delete Section
19.28.050(C)(I) & (2) of the Rl Ordinance.
B'ACKGROUND:
In January 2005 the City Council
incorporated RHS development
rules into the Rl ordinance
revisions for properties upslope
from the 100/0 line and with
average slopes of 150/0 or great.er.
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 tha t staff revisit the
process to provide ample opportunity for input. On April 2005 the City Council
discussed the Rl hillside development standards and decided to preclude all Rl
properties east of the Ge'ner~l Plan 100/0 hillside transition line.
3D Aerial
Map of the
Lindy Lane
Rl Hillside
Area from
Google
Earth
(ill ustrative
purposes
only not
intended to
be to scale)
The Council asked the neighbors upslope of the 100/0 line to get together to discuss
options and try to reach consensus on an approach to development in the area. The
additional n.otice. 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. The Planning Commission
reviewed the issue on Tuesday, August 14, 2007.
3'/0
MCA-2006-0 1
R 1 Hillside Ordinance
Page 2
August 21, 2007
DISCUSSION:
The City of Cupertino General Plan contains goals and policies to preserve hillside
areas as follows:
Goal /IF" Hillside Protection
Policy 2-48: Hillside Development
Standards
Establish building and development
standards for the hillsides that ensure
hillside protection.
1. Or-dinance Regulations and Development
Appl"ovals. Apply ordinance regulations and
developlnent approvals that limit deiJeloplnent on
ridgelines, hazardous geological areas and steep
slopes. Control colors and Inaterials, and minimize
the illumination of outdoor lighting. Reduce
visible building Inass through such Ineans as
stepping structures dOlun the hillside, folloluing
the natural contours, and limiting the height and
Inass of the wall plane facing the valley floor.
2. Slope-density For-mula. Apply a slope density
forlnula to very 10IU intensity residential
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 and developlnent areas
Iuill be determined through zoning ordinances,
clustering and identification of significant natural
features and geological constraints.
I
.rj
_ -z ':.. I
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-2006-0l
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 meeting. It helped us identify some of the values and
common objectives in the area.
PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commi'ssion met on August 14, 2007, took public testimony and reviewed
the staff report on the neighborhood meetings. The Planning Commission
recommended 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:
~15
MCA-2006-0l
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 hill 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 R1lots
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.
3 -I (..
MCA-2006-01
R 1 Hillside Ordinance
Page 5
. August 21, 2007
- R1 development
standards
- < 30% average slope
triggers hillside
development
- Controls Density
- House size adjustment
based on slope
- Hillside 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 developinent standards (2005).
4. Rezone to RHS.
If the Council decides to retain some hillside development standards on the Rl hillside
properties, staff believes you can incorporate some of the ideas that came Oilt of the
neighborhood process. The Rl hillside standards can be amended to provide greater
flexibility for the property owners while preserving the intent of the sensitive hillside
development. Even though neighbors were unable to reach consensus, the discussions
clarified t11e areas of disagreement leading to subsequent individual discussions and
em ails with suggestions for possible solutions tohous'e size, setbacks and trees. The
following outlines the staff approach:
8"/1
MCA-2006-01
R 1 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 Section 19.28.050C2 be retained.
Section 19.28.050C2 states that "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."
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 comments received from neighbors during the
neighborhood meetings and during the Planning Commission meeting. 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
\Vha t we heard from 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 will maximize 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.
:r1B
MCA-2006-01
Rl Hillside Ordinance
Page 7
August 21, 2007
What 'we 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 pattern of the
surrounding hillside neighborhoods.
\Vhat 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 protection that is offered in the RHS Ordinance. Provide
visual relief from large retaining walls.
What \ve heard from the neighbors:
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.
\Vhat we are hearing from the neighbors:
Simplify development standards for the toe of slope lots
Potential Ordinance Solution: Exempt all properties located in the RI-IO 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 environment. The majority of these homes are approximately 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).
!r'/ q
MCA-2006-01
R 1 Hillside Ordinance
Page 8
August 21, 2007
Al PROPERTIES
The Council also directed the staff and
the Planning Commission to evaluate
rezoning the Al properties to Rl and
include them into the Rl hillside
development discussion since there are
approximately seven Al proper.ties that
are located on the hillside upslope of the
100/0 hillside transition line. . Staff .
believes that these properties should be rezoned to Rl 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.
'!
:/
. C.' ,,4-,
) s
-....
-
Exempt RI-I0
Properties Affected
Approximate
.
..
Current Rl Ordinance Approx. 124
Properties Affected
22
~! ','1
,"-t'
S)
,W:- -
3'2.0
MCA-2006-01
R 1 Hillside Ordinance
Page 9
August 21, 2007
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE CHANGES
On May I, 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 I, 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 Planning
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 ordinance changes can take about three to four months.
If the Council reaches consensus on Tuesday and directs specific ordinance changes they
probably will not be effective until the end of this calendar year. In the meantime, the
Council could invite any of the affective residents to file either exception ans/ or variance
applications from the current Rl ordinance if their application otherwise conforms to all
of the provisions contemplated by the Council. While you cannot provide absolute
assurance that the application would be approved the exception/variance 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 changes reflecting the Planning
Commission recommendation or the alternative Foothill Modified standards. Staff
prepared very preliminary ordinance 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 Manager
3':21
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Draft Ordinance Reflecting the Planning Commission's Recommendation:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING
CHAPTER 19.28.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONES (R-l), REGARDING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS ON PROPERTIES WITH AN AVERAGE SLOPE EQUAL TO
OR GREATER THAN FIFTEEN PERCENT LOCATED WEST OF THE 100/0
HILLSIDE SLOPE LINE
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).
C. Dc.Tlop.mcnt on Propcrtieo v{ith Hilloidc Ch.::rracteriotico.
1. Buildingo propooed on propcrtico located \\'-cot of thc 10% hilloide
slopc linc ao defincd in thc Cupcrtino Ccncrnl Plar.., tI-:.at l....aT.'e an
avcragc clopc cqunl to or grcatcr than fiftccn pcrccnt shall be
dcvelopcd in accordancc ".ith thc oitc dC.Telopmcnt and dcoign
standards spccified in ScctiOnD 19.1.0.050 through 19.1.0.110of the
Rcsidcntinl Hillside ordinancc, Chapter 19.10, or thc Rl zonir:.g
ordinancc, Chapter 19.28, ,,:ruchc"\'-cr opccific rcgulation io more
rcstrictiT.'e.
2. No otructurc or improvcmcnto ohill occur on olopco of thirty
pcrccnt or grcatcr unlcso an exccption io grantcd in accordnr..cc
T,\,-ith Scction 19.10.110, unlcoo no morc than fiT.'C hundrcd oquarc
feet of deT.'clopment, including grading and otructureo, oecum on
an area vdth a slope of thirty percent or greater.
c. th An application for building permits filed 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 the ordinances in effect at that time. (Ord. 1886, (part),
2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, ~ 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part),
1999; Ord. 1635, ~ 1 (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 192)
:3 "':23
Exhibit B
Exhibit B: Draft ordinance wording reflecting the Foothill
Modified standards-staff proposal
19.28.050 Development Regulations (Site).
C. Development on Properties with Hillside Characteristics.
Buildings proposed on properties located west of the ten percent hillside slope
line as defined in the Cupertino General Plan, that have an average slope equal
to or greater than fifteen percent and are zoned for lot sizes greater than 10,000
square feet shall be developed in accordance with the following site development
and design standards:
1. Thirty Percent Slopes. 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.
2. Site Grading. All site grading shall be limited to a cumulative total of two
thousand five hundred cubic yards, cut plus fill. The two thousand five
hundred cubic yards includes grading for building pad, yard areas,
driveway and all other areas requiring grading, but does not incl.ude
basements. The graded area shall be limited to the building pad area to
the greatest extent 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.
a. All cut and fill areas shall be rounded to follow the natural contours
and planted with landscaping which meets the requirements in
Section 19.40.050G.
i
3-2+
b. 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.
3. Floor Area.
3.a. The maximum floor area ratio shall be forty-five percent of the net
lot area for development proposed on the flat pad portion, defined as pad
areas equal to or less than 10% slope, of any lot.
Formula: A = 0.45 B: where A = maximum allowable house size and B = net
lot area.
3.b The maximum floor area for development where any portion of the
building is proposed on a slope area exceeding 10% 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.
Formula: A=((B-1 O,OOO}/1 ,OOO}(59.59}+4,500: where A = maximum
allowable house size prior to instituting the maximum 6,500 square foot building
size and B = net lot area.
3.c The floor area ratio may be exceeded for development on pads
exceeding 10%, if a site and architectural permit is approved by the Planning
Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.134 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code.
4. Second Floor Area
The amount of second floor area is not limited provided the total floor area does
not exceed the allowed floor area ratios.
J....:ls
5. Retaining Wall Screening.
Retaining walls in excess of five feet shall be screened with landscape materials
or faced with decorative materials such as split-faced block, river rock or similar
materials subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development.
6. Fencing.
All fences in an RHS zoning district shall be governed by the following
reg u lations:
6.a. Solid board fencing shall:
1. Be limited to a five thousand square foot site area (excluding the
principal building) for lots exceeding thirty thousand square feet in
net lot area.
2. Open fencing (composed of materials which result in a minimum
of seventy-five percent visual transparency) shall be unrestricted
except that such fencing over three feet in height may not be
constructed within the front yard setback. (Ord. 1634, (part),
1993 )
7. Tree Protection.
Up to two specimen trees with a diameter less than 18 inches may be removed
to accommodate a building pad subject to approval of the Director of Community
Development. Removal of specimen trees exceeding 18 inches or removal of
more than two specimen trees requires approval of a tree removal permit by the
Planning Commission in accordance with the Tree Ordinance.
~",~
April 3, 2007
Cupertino City Council
Exhibit C
ayor Wang reordered the agenda to take up items 20, 21, and 22 next.
20.
edule an interview date for the Bicycle Pedestrian
o ment Block Grant Committee vacancies.
/
Commis~J6n and Community
~
~. 6
Council '~curred to set an application deadline of Fri~, April 27, and to conduct
interviews l\l{. these vacancies on Tuesday, May 22, alpfg with other interviews already
scheduled to ~ at 3:00 p.m. Council asked th,~.,:~taff schedule a 45-rninute dinner
break at approxi~~~~ 6:00 p.rn./,
21. Consider canceling th~'~ity Council meetin~~ July and/or August. (No documentation
in packet).:\. /1'
Council concurred that they wo'
July 17); and that they would can
to hold both regular meetings in July (July 3 and
:t,l1e regular meeting of Tuesday, August 7.
.;~
"':,A.
"'/11.
ORDINANCES
.:,.\
-.,~.,
22. Conduct the second re ina of Ordinance N~-'\'lZ-1999: "An Ordinance of the City of
Cupertino, Amendi Title 11, Section 11.24.1~; of the Cupertino Municipal Code
(Parkina for Pu es of Servicin or Re airin , R~ding For-Sale Signs in Cars), to
Conform the E visions of the Code to the Requireme..ts of Current Case Law, and
Conform the ovisions of the Code to be Consistent With ~ent City Practices."
"""'''"
Lowen ahoney moved and seconded to read the ordinance l::i _ . e only and that the
City erk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. es: Lowenthal,
oney, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: Kwok.
Lowenthal/Mahoney moved and seconded to enact Ordinance No. 07-1999. Ayes:
Lowenthal, Mahoney, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: Kwok.
19. - Consider a Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 19.28 Single-Family Residential CR1)
Zones regarding buildings proposed on properties with an average slope equal to or
greater than fifteen percent, Application Nos. MCA-2006-01 and EA-2006-12 City of
Cupertino, Citywide:
a) Open and close the public hearing with possible continuance to an adjourned
regular meeting on April 4 at 6:45 p.m. for a decision
b) Adopt a Negative Declaration
c) Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 07-2000: "An Ordinance of the
Cupertino City Council Amending Chapter 19.28.050 of the Municipal Code,
~ ..-:2,1
April 3, 2007
Cupertino City Council
Page 7
Single Family Residential Zones (R1) Regarding Buildings Proposed on
Properties with an Average Slope Equal to or Greater than Fifteen Percent,
Application No. MCA-2006-01"
The City Clerk distributed the following: (1) A letter dated April 2 from T.E. and Marion
Schmidt regarding item No. 19 asking that the Council revert the R-l ordinance to reflect
30% slope parameters; and (2) A letter from "The Arzeno Voters and 21902 Lindy Lane"
regarding item no. 19 asking Council to retain the 15% slope overlay.
Director of Community Development Steve Piasecki presented a brief background, and
said that in 2005 the Council had approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance applying
hillside standards to Rl lots with an average slope of 15% or greater. Those hillside
standards were intended to reduce house size, grading and retaining walls. The issue of
geographical applicability was also under discussion including properties west of the
hillside transition line and the Rl sloped properties along the Stevens Creek floodplain.
The Planning Commission made the following recommendation to Council: Revert the
Rl hillside standards prior to the 2005 Rl Ordinance where only developments on slopes
of 30% or greater would be subjected to the hillside standards regardless of geographical
locations.
The following spoke in favor of keeping the 15% overlay: Bob Rodert, John James,
Robert Berti, Sara Arzeno, Jennifer Griffin and Julia James. They believed that more
hillside protection measures were consistent with the General Plan policies and goals and
the 15% overlay would protect the hillsides for the benefit and enjoyment of all.
The following spoke in favor of removing the 15% overlay: Kit Chan, Shabbir
Nomanbhoy, Mark Santoro (speaking also for Suzette Pangrle, Chuck Lee and Jim
Black), Homayour Hasheim, Ming Shan Yang, Farzad Haghigh, Eva Wong, Harold
Sinzig, Homa Govashiri, Arya Hashemi, Viktor Sinzig, Doug Knirck, Shan Zhu, Sinzig
Iriva, Simon Ko, Frank Sun, Barry Pangrle, Sherry Fang, Bill Guangerich, Tim Maslyn
and Jim Holl. They cited the following concerns: property owners' rights, property
values, confusion at having two sets of regulations and difficulty in remodeling under
15% overlay rules. They also did not think the overlay protected the hillsides.
Councilmember Mahoney suggested the establishment of a new category that would
recognize the unique features of these properties including those zoned agricultural. For
now he suggested leaving the overlay in place and drawing the line at the 10% slope and
removing it from everything else.
Councilmember Sandoval agreed with Councilmember Mahoney. The overlay was not
working and she suggested utilizing the talents of the neighbors inarriving at a mutually
agreeable solution. She also noted.that spot zoning was not effective and the agricultural
properties should be included in the discussion.
Councilmember Lowenthal agreed that the properties on the valley floor should be
discussed separately. He also agreed with working with the neighbors on this issue and
!J "dB
April 3, 2007
Cupertino City Council
Page 8
recommended that staff ask the community to identify a working committee of no more
than 15 people to represent them. The preservation of hillsides was important and the
issue of grading needed to be addressed as well as the issue of house size.
Councilmember Lowenthal recommended telling the Planning Commission that Council
would like to see this matter back the second meeting in August.
Lowenthal/Sandoval moved and seconded to adopt a Negative Declaration. The motion
carried 4-0 with Kwok absent.
Lowenthal/Mahoney moved and seconded to amend Section 19.28.050, C.l of the
ordinance to read: "Buildings proposed on properties located west of the 10% hillside
slope line, as defined in the Cupertino General Plan, that have an average slope equal to
or greater than fifteen percent, shall be developed in accordance with the site
development..."; that the ordinance be read by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading
would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Lowenthal, Mahoney, Sandoval, and
Wang. Noes: None. Absent: Kwok.
Council also directed staff to remand this matter back to the Planning Commission to
consider a possible specific treatment, including properties zoned A-I; to develop a plan
with input from the neighbors, and to report back to the City Council on August 21.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
~l!, REPORTS
.#
'~~,
23. Res~_~e to corrirnents made during Oral COnllnunications, March 20,2007 by Grace and
Tonv Tov~
Director of Parks mid Recreation Therese Smith stated that there had been many
inaccuracies in the Toy's comments at the March 20, 2007 meeting concerning the Sports
Center and she referred C8tmcil to the 27 -page staff report prepared in response to these
inaccuracies. She further stated that management of the facility, charges, accessibility
and the. terms of conducting business in a public facility were all very important issues
and ones that she believed were well addre~sed regarding the Sports Center.
Ed Hirshfield noted that he was a long time partiCip,ant in the Cupertino Tennis Club and
he thl:!Jlked Council for their support of the Sports Center., He believed the complaints
registered by only two people in the last ten years were destructive to the public interest
and had 'cost the city a lot of staff time and money.
I
Grant Gower, past president of the Cupertino Tennis Club, thanked Council and the Parks
and Recreation Department for their assistance and support. He believed the Sports
Center was an excellent asset in the community. He particularly referred to th~er
tournament which included over 400 participants and in 2005 and 2006 had been ~ed
'the tournament of the year'. Mr. Gower also commented on the excellent customer
service provided by the staff.
3~.2q
May 1, 2007
Cupertino City Council
Page 8
During Postponements, KwokIMahoney moved and;;;~~wjefHtTll) 'labie tills item, since
ell ant had withdrawn his a irect staff to place an item on the May
10 Cou ISCUSS policies and procedures regarding the appeal of
adminis imously.
,.....,""""',"""'"
"~--..".~
l....,,~
RDINANCES
17. Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 07-2000: "An Ordinance of the Cupertino
City Council Amending Chapter 19.28.050 of the Municipal Code, Single Family
Residential Zones CR1) Regarding Buildings Proposed on Properties with an Average
Slope Equal to or Greater than Fifteen Percent, Application No. MCA-2006-01."
(Continued from April 17).
Patrick Kwok stated for the record that although he was not at the meeting when this was
last discussed, he did read the staff report and watch the videotape of the meeting.
Community Development Director Steve Piasecki noted that at their April 17 meeting
Council had continued this item to allow the neighbors to reach some agreement on the
RI hillside zoning issue. Piasecki said that staff had not had the opportunity to fully
review their suggestions, but he highlighted them and their possible ramifications.
Mark Santoro (speaking also for Suzette Pangrle, Sherry Fang, and Frank Sun) stated that
a lot of information had been received from the neighbors, and the consensus was that
they did not want to be separated from the rest of the city; they wanted the issue resolved
tonight; they did not want spot zoning; they did not want the matter to go back to the
Planning Commission; they wanted to stay RI; and they believed there was confusion
regarding the 10% line. They were requesting that Section 19.28.050, Section CI and C2
of the RI ordinance be removed and replaced with the following: The following rules
apply to buildings whose slope within the footprint of the proposed building are over
15%: 1) allowable floor area be reduced by 1 % for each percentage of slope over 15%
within the building footprint. The maximum floor area reduction shall be 50%. and 2) in
order to reduce the footprint of buildings on hillsides the size of the second floor of a two
story building may exceed the 45% RI limit however it shall not exceed 100% of the first
floor. Mr. Santoro concluded that the recommendation of the north side (including some
members of the south side) was to remove Section 19.28.050, Sections Cl and C2 from
the RI Ordinance. However, they were willing to accept the south side's proposal.
James Seay noted that their home was built in 1979 and he currently wanted to do a
remodel which would include an elevator. He would be negatively impacted by this
ordinance.
Bob Rodert questioned what the problem was with the current ordinances. He could not
support changes that were not directed at solving specific community-wide problems. He
recommended maintaining the current ordinances.
'3-~
May 1, 2007
Cupertino City Council
Page 9
Emily Maslyn supported adopting the ordinance before Council. She noted that their
property was near a creek bed not a hillside and this process was holding up their building
permit.
Ron Berti commented that the neighbors had tried to work together and they should be
given the opportunity to continue to try to reach consensus. He did believe the hills
should be treated differently and did not support adopting the ordinance before Council.
Jim Holl noted that his house had been built in 1971 and should be designated RI. There
was no reason for the overlay and the area should not be separate. Furthermore, he did
not think this issue should be sent back to the Planning Commission.
Jennifer GriffIn expressed her concern about the possible loss of second story setbacks
and questioned whether this would be setting a dangerous precedence.
The City Attorney noted that legally Council was unable to take action on any
recommendations made at tonight's meeting. Any new ordinance changes would need to
be noticed (including the agricultural properties) and sent back to the Planning
Commission for review. The only issue before Council at this meeting was adoption of
the ordinance on this agenda.
Council commended the neighbors for working together on this issue and suggested that
their recommendations and comments be reviewed by staff and the Planning Commission
in a study session format to facilitate better communication between all parties.
Mahoney/Kwok moved and seconded to read the Ordinance No. 07-2000 by title only and
that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Kwok,
Lowenthal, Mahoney, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None.
Mahoney/Kwok moved and seconded to enact Ordinance No. 07-2000. Ayes: Kwok,
Lowenthal, Mahoney, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None.
STAFF REPORTS
~. ............
3-31
Exhibit 0
Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through.
ORDINANCE NO. 07-2000
AN ORDINANCE OF THE "CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING
CHAPTER 19.28.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, SINGLE FAMILY
RESII)ENTIAL ZONES (R-1), REGARDING BUILDINGS PROPOSED ON .
PROPERTIES WITH-AN AVERAGE SLOPE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN
FIFTEEN PERCENT, APPLICATION NOS.1\1CA-2006-01
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Chapter 19.28 ofthe 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(1) of this
section, but not less than five thousand square feet, may neverthelc::ss 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 nieasured 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 located west of the 10% hillside slope line
as defined in the Cupertino General Plan. that have with an average slope
equal to or greater than fifteen percent,- shall be developed in accordance
3-3~
Ordinance No. 07-2000
with the site development and design standards specified in Sections
19.40.050 through '19.40.140 ofthe Residential Hillside ordinance, Chapter
19.40, or the R1 zoning ordinance, Chapter 19.28, whichever specific
regulation is more restrictive.
D liil.:iing::! 13re13e3ea. an a pertieR af alet .-. itll Jlepc3 ef tll1rt) p8I'esnt 8r
greater BRall Be a8veJef1ed i;R aeeera8ilee -.-;it13. the Jite de ;e18fl1~..8flt em.a
aeJign :3tB:llc1Etla:s J1"ecifiecl in Secti611~ l?~O.OSO lL..1uu.:,'L.. 19.40.140 uflL....
RS5iG0ntia1 Hillside ordiE.8ileS, Cha13ter19. 40, Elf the R 1 zaning eraiFl8:Rse,
Cha13tef 19.28, dlriehe.er :3peeifie regtt1a.tien Ls mol':' I.:.s1:ikti.c.
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 fe~t of developplent,
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.
1860,9 1 (pmi), 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 accepted 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.
*************
PUBLICATION CLAUSE:
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published at least once in' a newspaper
of general circulation published and circulated in the City within 15 days after its adoption, in
accordance with Government code 9 36933, shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and
shall cause this ordinance and her certification, together with'proof of publication, to be
entered in the Book of Ordinances ofthe Council ofthis City.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage.
3'33
Check with the. Public Works 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 regu1ations-CR I-a).
Interpretation by the Planning
Director.
19.28.130
19.28.140
19.28.010 Purposes.
R-l single-family residence districts are intended to
create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached
dwellings in order to:
A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods;
B. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable
level of privacy to individual residential parcels;
C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale
of structures within residential neighborhoods;
D. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting
in the community; (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868,
(part), 2001; Ord. 1860, g 1 (part), 2000; Ord; 1834, (part),
1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations.
No building, structure or land shall be used, and no
building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally
altered or enlarged in an R-l 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. 1860,91 (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-l sing1e-
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 four adult
household pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs
or cats may be kept on the site;
1. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility
services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices,
construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation yards;
1. 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, g 1 (part), 2000; Ord.
1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1688, 93 (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-l 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
~~:35
19.28.040
Cupertino - Zoning
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 six or 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 residence 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, 93 (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
(
R1 5
R1 6
R1 7.5
R1 10
Rl 20
5,000
6,000
7,500
10,000
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
R 1-5 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 specified in Sections 19.40.050 through
19.40.140 of the Residential Hillside ordinance, Chapter
19.40, or the R1 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.
D. An application for building permits filed and
accepted by the Community Development Department (fees
paid and permit number issued) on or before March 1, 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. 1860,91 (part),
2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635, g 1 (part), 1993;
Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
i
\.
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 thisiordinance in determining whether the mass and scale of the
project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
/
(.
3"~
31
Single-Family Residential (R1) Zones
19.28.060
1. The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on
a lot shall be forty-five percent.
2. The maximum floor area of a second story shall
be forty-five percent of the existing or proposed first story
floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is
greater.
3. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet,
measured from the floor to the top of the roof-rafters, have
the mass and bulk of a two-story house and shall be counted
as floor area.
a. If the house is a two-story house, this area will
count as second story floor area; otherwise, the area will
count as first floor area.
C. Design Guidelines.
1. Any new two-story house, or second-story
addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent
with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The
Director of Community Development shall review the
project and shall determine that the following items are met
prior to design approval: .
a. The mass and bulk of the design shall be
reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood
pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately
larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern
in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge
heights, and entry feature heights;
b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than
high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces;
c. There shall not be a three-car wide driveway curb
cut.
d. No more than fifty percent of the front elevation
of a house should consist of garage area.
e. Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls
should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of
the second story.
f. The current pattern of side setback and garage
orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained.
g. When possible, doors, windows and architectural
elements should be aligned with one another vertically and
horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and
placement.
h. Porches are encouraged.
i. Living area should be closer to the street, while
garages shoqld be set back more.
j. All second story roofs should have at least a one-
foot overhang.
D. Setback-First Story.
1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is
twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the
setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there
are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring
side by side.
2. Side Yard. The combination of the two side yard
setbacks shall be fifteen feet, except that no side yard
setback may be less than five feet.
2005 S-4
a. For a corner lot, the minimum side-yard setback
on the street side of the lot is twelve feet. The other side
yard setback shall be no less than five feet.
b. For interior lots in the RI-5district, the side yard
setbacks are five feet on both sides.
c. For lots that have more than tWo side yards, the
setback shall be consistent for all side yards between the
front property line and the rear property line.
3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is
twenty feet.
a. With a Minor Residential Permit, subject to
Section 19.28.090, the rear setback may be reduced to ten
feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less
than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front
setback line.
4. Garage. The front face of a garage in an Rl
district shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from a
street property line.
a. For projects with three-car garages oriented to the
public right-of-way, the wall plane of the third space shall
be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane of
the other two spaces.
. E. Setback-Second Story.
1. Front and Rear Yards. The minimum front and
rear setbacks are twenty-five feet.
2. Side Yard. The combination of the side setbacks
shall be twenty five feet, except that no second-story side
setback may be less than ten feet.
a. In the case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is
twenty feet from any property line.
b. In the case of a comer lot, a minimum of twelve
feet from a street side property line and twenty feet from
any rear property line of a single-family dwelling.
3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet
shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front
and side-yard setback requirements specified in this section.
F. Basements.
1. The number, size and volume of lightwells and
basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required
by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and
ventilation, except that in the case of a single-story house
with a basement, one lightwell may be up to ten feet wide
and up to ten feet long.
2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be
located within a required setback area, except as follows:
a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell
retaining wall shall be five feet;
b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell
retaining wall shall be ten feet.
3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street
shall be screened by landscaping.
4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than
three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent
to the lightwell.
?r'?J 7
19.28.060
Cupertino - Zoning
32
5. The perimeter of the basement and alllightwell
retaining walls shall be treated andlor 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 defIned
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)(I) 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 Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the
total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have
exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a
minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story
roof against the second story wall. The overlap shall be
structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from
the first story exterior wall plane.
a. The Director of Community 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 shallbe 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 S-4
2. The minimum side-yard setback shall be fifteen
feet.
3. The minimum rear-yard setback shall be twenty
feet.
I. 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 or a Minor
Residential Permit subject to Section 19.28.090..
(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord.
1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, 9 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834,
(part), 1999: Drd. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 179991, 1998;
Drd. 1784, (part), 1998; Drd. 1637, (part), 1993; Drd.
1635, (part), 1993; Drd. 1630, (part), 1993; Drd. 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-story decks, two-story additions,
or modifications to the existing second-story decks or
existing windows on existing two-story homes that increase
privacy impacts on neighboring residents. Skylights,
windows with sills more than five feet above the finished
second floor, windows with permanent, exterior louvers up
to six feet above the finished 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.
3 "'36
33
Single-Family Residential (Rl) Zones
19.28.070
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
planting.distance between trees.
E. Covenant. The property owner shall record a
covenant with the Santa Clara County Recorders Office that
requires the retention of all privacy planting, or use of
existing vegetation as privacy planting, prior to receiving a
fInal building inspection from the Building Division. This
regulation. does Dot apply to situations described in
subsection B(I)(b) of this section.
F. Maintenance. The required plants shall be
maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes
irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a
growth rate expected for a particular species.
G. Replacement. Where required planting is removed
or dies it must be replaced within thirty days with privacy
tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it
is determined to be infeasible by the Director of Community
Development. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005)
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 5-4
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. Only 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; Ord. 1860, ~ 1 (part), 2000;
Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord.
1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.090 Minor Residential Permits.
Projects that require a Minor Residential Permit shall
be reviewed in accordance with this section. The purpose of
this process is to provide affected neighbors with an
opportunity to comment on new development that could have
signifIcant impacts on their property or the neighborhood as
a whole.
A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete
application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all
owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax
assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subject property,
including properties across a public or private street. 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.
B. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public
comments, the Director of Community Development shall
approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The
permit can be approved only upon making all of the
following findings:
1. . The project is consistent with the Cupertino
General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning
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.
3 "'aq
19.28.090
Cupertino - Zoning
34
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 pursuantto 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
ofCommuriity 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)
19.28.100 Two-Story Residential Permit.
Two-story additions or two-story new homes require a
Two-Story Residential Permit in accordance with this
section. Two-story projects with a floor area ratio under
35 % shall require a Level I Two-Story Residential Permit,
while a two-story project with a floor area ratio over 35 %
shall require a Level II Two-Story Residential Permit.
A. Notice of Application (Level I). 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 adjacent to the subject
property, including properties across a public or private
street. 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 in the front yard of the subject site that is clearly
visibie from the public street. The notice shall be a
weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall and three feet wide
firmly attached to a five-foot tall post. The notice shall
remain in place until an action has been taken on the
application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall
contain the following:
a. The exact address of the property, if known, or
the location of the property, if the address is not known.
b. A brief description of the proposed project, the
content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City;
c. City contact information for public inquiries;
2005 S-4
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 II). 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
permit can be approved only upon making all of the
following findings:
1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino
General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning
ordinance and the purposes of this title.
2. 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.
E. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning
Commission, applicant and any member of the public that
commented on the project shall be notified of the action by
first class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may
appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the
Planning Commission will make the final action on the
appeal.
F. Expiration of a Two-Story Permit. Unless a
building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid
and control number issued) within one year of the Two-
Story Permit approval, said approval shall become null and
void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed
by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building
permit expires for any reason, the Two-Story Permit shall
become null and void. The Director of Community
Development may grant a one-year extension, without a
!J-t/O
35
Single-Family Residential (R1) Zones
19.28.100
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)
19.28.110 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 Departrrient 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
receive a reduced scale copy of the plan set with the public
notice.
B. Decision. After closing the public hearing, the
decision-maker shall approve, conditionally approve, or
deny the application based on the findings in this section.
Any interested party can appeal the decision pursuant to
Chapter 19.136.
C. Expiration of an Exception. Unless a building
permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and
control number issued) within one year of the Exception
approval,. said approval shall become null and void unless a
longer time period was specifically prescribed by the
conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit
expires for any reason, the Exception shall become null and
void. The Director of Community Development may grant
a one-year extension, without a public notice, if an
application for a Minor Modification to the Exception is
filed before the expiration date and substantive justification
for the extension is provided.
D. Findings for Approval.
1. Issued by the Director of Community
Development. The Director of Community Development
may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulation
described in Section 19.28.060 G(4) upon making all of the
following findings:
a. The project fulf1lls the intent of the visible
second-story wall height regulation in that the number of
two-story wall planes and the amount of visible second story
wall area is reduced to the maximum extent possible.
b. The except 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.
2005 S-4
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)
19.28.120 Development Regulations-Eichler
(R1-e).
Rl-e single-family residence "Eichler districts" protect
a consistent architectural form through the establishment of
district site development regulations. Regulations found in
the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties
zoned Rl-e. In the event of a conflict between other
regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall
prevail. Nothing in these regulations is intended to preclude
a harmonious two-story home or second story addition.
A. Setback-First Story.
1. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet.
B. Building Design Requirements.
1. Entry features facing the street shall be integrated
with the roofline of the house.
2. The maximum roof slope shall be three-to-twelve
(rise over run).
3. Wood or other siding material located on walls
facing a public street (not including the garage door) shall
incorporate vertical grooves, up to six inches apart.
4. The building design shall incorporate straight
architectural lines, rather than curved lines.
5. Section 19.20.060 G(4) shall be considered a
guideline in the Rl-e district.
6. The first floor shall be no more than twelve
inches above the existing grade.
7. Exterior walls located adjacent to side yards shall
not exceed nine feet in height measured from the top of the
floor to the top of the wall plate.
C. Privacy Protection Requirements.
1. Side and Rear Yard Facing Second Floor
Windows. In addition to other privacy protection
requirements in Section 19.28.070, the following is required
for all second story windows:
3...41
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), 200S; Ord.
1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, ~ 1 (part), 2000)
19.28.130 Development Regulations-(R1-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 feet in area.
D. Setback - First Story.
1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is
thirty feet.
2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is ten
feet.
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 conform to the second-
story buildlng 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
wallplane(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 S-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 buildhig
envelope defined 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 ljne referenced in subsection
H(2)(I) 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
there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project.
1. Second-story windows. Windows on the side
elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of six
feet above the second floor, should have permanent exterior
louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor or
should have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate
intrusion into a neighbor's privacy.
2. All second story wall heights greater than six
feet, as measured from the second story fmished 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 consider.ed 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.
3 -f:J.
37
Single-Family Residential (Rl) Zones
19.28.130
b. In no case shall any wall plane of a first-story
addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line.
c. This section does not apply to attached accessory
structures such as attached carport~.
d. This section applies to the first story only and
shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an
encroachment by any building, which is the result of the
granting of a variance or exception, either before or after
such property become part of the City.
2. 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.
3. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches are
encouraged in this zone. When viewed from the street, a
porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in
height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a
proportionately greater height than its width. Use of this
yard encroachment provision shall require the approval of
the Director of Community Development.
a. Posts. Vertical structural supports, such as posts,
for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the
required front setback. Structural supports must be designed
such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive.
b. Columns. The use of large columns or pillars is
discouraged.
c. Fencing. Low, open fencing for porches are
allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback
area.
d. Eave Height. The eave height for a front porch
should not be significantly taller than the eave height of
typical single-story elements in the neighborhood.
e. Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing
that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence
elements.
f. The porch platform and roof overhang may
encroach five feet into the required front setback.
M. Landscaping.
1. Landscaping plans 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. .
2005 S-4
2. Landscaping plans for two-story development
shall include specific mitigations for impacts from mass,
bulk and privacy intrusion as required in Section 19.28.070
of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that:
a. Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback
from the property line equivalent to one-quarter of the
spread noted on the City list.
b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of
twelve feet at the time of planting.
c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed sucbthat
views from second-story windows across the street to
neighboring homes are partially mitigated.
d. The Director may waive the front yard tree based
on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing
conflict with existing mature trees.
N. Design Review Findings.
1. Findings. . The Design Review Committee may
approve a design review application for two-story
development only upon making all of the fmdings below:
a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino
General Plan and Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
b. The granting of this permit will not result in
detrimental or injurious conditions to property or
improvements in the vicinity, or to the public health, safety
or welfare.
c. The project is generally compatible with the
established pattern of building forms, building materials and
designs of homes in the neighborhood.
d. The project is consistent with the City's single-
family residential design guidelines and the guidelines in this
chapter and any inconsistencies have been found to not result
in impacts on neighbors.
e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as
viewed from adjoining properties have been mitigated to the
maximum extent possible.
(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005)
19.28.140 Interpretation 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 thischapter 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; Drd. 1860, ~ 1 (part), 2000; Drd. 1834, (part), 1999;
Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
348
Landscape Mitigation Measures
PRIV ACY SCREENING MATERIALS
1. 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 r
Height
to 80'
30'
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 Crassifolium
D. Pittosporum Undulatum- Victoriari Box
E. Cupressus Sempervirens - Italian Cypress
F. Podocarpus Gracilior-Fern Pine
G. Privet Ligustrum - Glossy Privet
H. Laurus Nobilis-Grecian Laurel
I. Rhus Lancia - African Sumac
40'
40'
25'
15-40'
60'
60'
35-40'
15-40'
25'
20'
20'
15-20'
15-40'
3-6'
20'
20'
20'
20'
5'
5'
8'
8'
5'
10'
10'
10'
10'
The minimum shrub size shall be 15-gallon minimum and a minimum of 6' high planted height. See Page
2 of Appendix A for minimum planting distance from City street trees for planting in the front yard
setback.
Notes:
The Community Development Department may use other species than those listed above subject to
. approval. Applicant shall be required to submit adequate documentation in order for approval of other
planting materials. Documentation shall include a letter from an Internationally <:::ertified 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.
?rIt/
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*
I. 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*
U.Elm
V. Sycamore
W. Mulberry
X. Silk Tree
Y;-Raywood Ash
Z. Medesto Ash
AA. Shammel Ash
BB. Camphor
Cc. Zelkova
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
30'
30'
30'
30'
30'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
50'
50'
50'
50'
50'
50'
50'
50'
50'
50'
60'
60'
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'
*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)
!r%
Release of Privacy Protection Measures
Single-Family Residential Ordinance
Ordinance 19.28 (Single-Family) requires that after September 21, 1998; all new two-story additions or
homes be required to complete privacy protection measures. Staff may grant a modification or deletion
to this requirement if the adjacent affected property owners sign a release agreeing to modify or delete
the requirement.
Date
Property Location
Address
I agree to waive or modify the privacy protection measures required of the Single-Family Residential
Ordinance as follows:
Property Owner:
Address:
Phone:
Signature:
(Ord. 1860, 81 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999)
?r~cf'
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
Professional License #
Date
(Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, S 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999)
~ 'c/7
Section
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
19.40.010
CHAPTER 19.40: RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (RHS) ZONES';'
Purpose.
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 individual hillside lots.
Applicability .
*
Prior history: Ord. 1601.
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;
G. Promote compatibility of colors and materials of
structures and the surrounding natural setting. (Ord. 1634.
(part), 1993)
19.40.020 Applicability of Regulatiom.
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
development regulations (building coverage. setbacks,
height restrictions and design standards) of this chapter or
shall obtain an ex.ception as provided in Section 19.40.140.
(Ord. 1725. (part), 1996; Ord. 1634. (part), 1993)
19.40.030 Permitted Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted man 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 19.80 of
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
~-4f;
19..00.030
Cupemno a Zm.ug
52
2. Adult dogs are limited to a maximum of two for
lots less than one acre and four for lots greater than one
acre,
b. The number of geese, ducks, chickens, rabbits
and other farm ~nlm~l~ are not limited on a site greater t:han
one acre,
2. Small household pets,
3. Large animals, such as horses, cows, sheep, and
goats, limited as follows:
ale Two large :mim:1l111. for the first forty thousand
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 scb.ool 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 ~nlm~h: must be kept and maintained in
accordance with other Cupertino or Santa Clara County
codes and ordinances,
6. No ~nim~l~ kept and maintained in an RHS
zoning district may be raised for commercial purposes,
7. Crop, tree or horticultural farming for personal
use. Produce grown on the site may be sold if the business
activity is con~ucted in a manner consistent with the home
occupation ordinance;
H. Large family day care home which meets the
parking criteria contained in Chapter 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 administratively approve large day
care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and
proximity requirements;
I. Congregate residence with ten or less residents.
(Ord. 1658, (part), 1995; Ord. 1688, ~ 3 (part), 1995; Old.
1657, (part), 1994; Old. 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. The
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 conditional 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 feamreor
features will not result in privacy impacts. shadowing, or
intensive noise, odor, or oilier oov~ impacts to the
surrounding. area,
6. Second dwelling units which require a conditiolMl
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 2S
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 seven
or greater residents, 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 ,
4. Residential care facility, that is not required to
obtain a permit from the State, County agency or
department license and has .seven or greater residents, 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 Regulations.
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, Band 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
?;...tfJ
53
IR~del!llltw Hillside (RHS) Zol!lle$
19040.@SO
RHS zoning district shall be determined by the General
Plalll. based upon slope density standards described therein.
2. Upon recordation of a subdivision map or parcel
map in an RHS zoning district. density credits derived from
application of a slope density fomwla to a lot or group of
lots may not be transferred to property outside the
subdivision or pucel map boundary.
B. Lot Area.
1. The minimum lot MeGll foil." aI. specific property
shall correspond to the number following the RHS zoning
symbol (multiplied by one thousand sqmrre feet). Examples
are as follows:
Zoning Symbol N1lIDIDe1' Mmimwn Lot Area
In Square Feet
RHS 20 20,000
RHS 40 40,000
RHS 80 80,000
RHS 120 120.000
RHS 180 180,000
RHS 200 200,000
RHS 400 400,000
2. For purposes of subdivision. the minimum lot
area shall be the average lot area computation for a zero
percent slope gradient as contained in Appendix E of the
General Plan, 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 thousand square
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 structures
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 ff~;
granted.
E. LDts Adjoining Public Open Spaces. For lots
adjacent to public open space preserves or parks. the
driveway and building shall be located in a manner to be set
as far as feasible from the preserve or park and designed in
a manner to minimi7.e impacts on the preserve or park.
F. Site Grading.
1. All site grading shall be limited to a cumulative
total of two thousand five hundred cubic yards, cut plus fill.
The two thousand five hundlred CUllbic yaurds includes gradling
for building pad, yard areas, driveway and all other areas
requiring grading, but does not include basements. The
graded area shall be limited to the building pad area to the
greatest extent 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.
1. A licensed landscape architect shall prepare a tree
planting plan for the site which will screen grading areas,
and residential structures, to the greatest possible extent. as
well as to reintroduce trees on barren slopes which were
denuded by prior agricultural activities.
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 extent
possible.
H. Watercourse Protection.
1. Any watercourse identified in Figure 6-1 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
~~
19.40.<<1150
C1Illpertmo D Zol!lfurng
54
feet ollllots which are greater than one acre. The setbalCk
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.
1. 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 in Appen.dix A. The fIfteen percent sire
line shall be measured 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 become 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
include topographical information at contour intervals not to
exceed ten feet and a horizontal map scale of one inch
equals two hundred feet or larger. Areas where slopes
exceed thirty percent shall be identified on the site
development plan.
2. No structure or improvements shall occur on
slopes greater than thirty percent unless an exception is
granted or unless no more than five hundred square feet of
development. including grading and structures. occurs on
an area with a slope greater than thirty percent.
K. Trail Linkages.
1. Among other items required to be identified on
the site plan, the site plan shall identify trail linkages as
shown in the General Plan Trail Plan. on and adjacent to the
site.
2. If a trail linkage, as shown in the General Plan
Trail Plan. is identified across a property being developed.
no development shall take place within that area except if
approved through the exception process.
L. Views and Privacy. It is not the responsibility of
City Government to ensure the privacy protection of the
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)
19.40.060 BWldmg Coverage, Setbacks and Height
Restrictions.
All. provisions of this section may be deviated from
upon an exception grlmted by the P12Jllll!1ing Commission in
accordance with Section 19.40.140.
A. Floor Area.
1. a. For lots with less than ten thousand square feet of
net lot area the maximum. floor area ratio shMl be forty-five
percent of the net lot area.
Formula: A = 0.45 B
A = Maximum allowable home size.
JB = Net lot area.
b. For lots with more than ren thousand sqU2lI'e feet
of net lot area the maximum. floor area shall be four
thousand five hundred square feet plus 59.59 square feet fer
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.
Formula:
A= ((8010,000)/1,000)(59.59) +4,500
A = Maximum allowable house size
prior to instituting the maximum
6.500 square foot building size.
B = Net lot area.
2. Lots Within Clustered Subdivisions Containing
Common Open Space. Lots within clustered subdivisions in
which land is reserved as cominon open space, may count
a: proportionate amount of the reserved private open space
for calculating the allowable house size, except that no
developable lot would be subject to greater than a forty-five-
percent floor area ratio prior to slope consideration. The
average slope of a lot within a clustered subdivision shall be
calculated on the developable lot.
3. Slope Adjustment Criteria. For lots with an
average slope greater than ten percent, the allowable floor
area. prior to instituting the maximum six thousand five
hundred square foot allowable building size, shall be
reduced by one and one-half percent for each percent of
slope over ten percent. For lots with an average slope over
. thirty percent the allowable floor area shall be reduced by
a constant thirty percent.
Formula: C =
A=
A x (1-(1.5 x (D 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=
0....51
55
Ril5Rdelllltial Hillside (RHS) ZollD.esl
1l9.M>>.06$
A'Ve. sRope
ROOUllcnOD
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%
1.5%
9%
10.5%
12%
13.5%
15%
16.5%
18%
19.5%
21%
22.5%
24%
25.5%
27%
28.5%
30%
B. Setbacks-First Floor.
1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is
twenty feet, except that if the grade exceeds twenty percent
within the first twenty feet from the street elevation, the
minimum front yard setback may be ten feet.. The driveway
and garage must be designed to enable vehicles to park off-
street.
2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is
ten feet, provided that a minimum of fifteen feet shall be
provided on the street side of a comer lot.
3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback shall
be twenty feet.
C. Setbacks-Second Floor.
1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback
shall be twenty-five feet.
2. Side Yard. The minimum. side yard setback shall
be fifteen feet.
3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback: shall
be twenty-five feet.
4. Downhill Elevation. The downhill elevation shall
be offset in the following manner: at least seventy-five
percent of the second story downhill facing wall plane shall
be set back an average of seven and one-half feet and in no
case less than five feet from the first story downhill wall
plane. The remaining twenty-five percent may not extend
past the first story wall plane.
s. Should the downhill contours not: be confined to
one elevation, then the downhill offset shall 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 least five feet
in width and extend the length of the wall on which it is
located.
D. Setback-Habitable Third Floor. The minimum
setbacks for a habitable third floor shall be the same as
those for a second floor. except that. the minimum side yard
setback shall be twenty feet.
E. Height of Principal Buildings and Structures.
1. The maximum height of a principal building in an
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 19.40.060D
and E.
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)
19.40.070 Design Standards.
All provisionS of this section may be deviated from
upon an exception granted by the Planning Commission in
accordance with Section 19.40.140.
A. Building and Roof Forms.
1. The building shall follow as closely as possible
the primary natural contour of the lot. The main building
mass shall be on the upslope side of the building and the
roof pitches shall trend downslope.
2. Second story dormers are permitted within the
second story setbacks as long as they are minor in shape and
size.
3. The downhill elevation of the main structure shall
have a minimum of four offset building and roof elements.
These requirements are intended to provide varied building
forms to produce shadow patterns which reduce the impact
of visual mass.
4. Wall planes exceeding one story or twenty feet in
height, whichever is more restrictive, must contain
architectural elements which provide relief and break up
expansive wall pianes.
B. Colors. Exterior colors of all structures on the
lot shall use natural earth tone and/or vegetation colors
which complement the natural surroundings and shall not
exceed a reflectivity value of sixty on a flat surface.
Natural earth-tone and vegetation colors include natural hues
of brown, green and shades of gray.
C. Outdoor Lighting. All outdoor lighting shall be
identified on the site development plan. No high-intensity
lights are permitted for tennis courts or other recreational
3-1j:J
19.40.010
Cal!pertino m Zom1fum~
56
purposes. Movement-activated security lights, not to exceed
one hundred watts, are permitted but must be shielded to
a.void all off-site ~iOlll. All other lights must be directed
to meet the particular need. (Ord. 1725, (part), 1996; Ord.
1634, (part), 1993)
19.40.080 Fencing..
All provisions of this section may be deviated from
upon an exception granted by tlle Planning Commission in
accordance with Section 19.40.140.
All fences in an RHS zoning district shall be governed
by the following regulatiolllS:
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
transparency) shall be unrestricted except that such fencing
over three feet in height may not be constructed within the
front yard setback. (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993)
19.40.090 Permitted Yard Encroachment.
All provisions of this section may be deviated from
upon an exception granted by the Planning Commission in
accordance with Section 19.40.140.
A. 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
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)
19.40.100 Geologic wmd Soilii Report PrOCedm'ES.
A. A geological report prepared by a certified
engineering geologist and a soils report prepared by 2
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 district
which has been designated by the General Plan to be within
a geological hazaro area; and!
2. Where an addition, allreration or repair of an
existing building or structure include at least one of the
following:
2. The improvements include 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 the
improvements in kind, which value shall be determined by
the building official.
. B. These reports shall be filed in conjunction with a
site development plan and, in addition to the requirements
of Chapter 16.1Z of this code, shall contain:
1. All pertinent data, interpretations and evaluations,
based upon the most current professionally recognized soils
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;
5. 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)
~-63
57
R9tdlenoal Billsfttdle (lUIS) ZoIDl~
19.4l@.11a>>
19.40.110 Priv~te Rd)l3lw ulll Driveways.
All provisions of this section may be deviated from
upon an exception 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
Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 18.52 of !his code.
B. Reciprocal IngresslEgress. An applicant for at
. building permit for a lot served by a private road or
common driveway shall 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
mainterumce 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,
are approved by the Director of Community Development
after consultation with the Central Fire District. (Ord.
1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1634, (part), 1993)
19.40.120 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 exception by
the Planning Commission. (Old. 1634, (part), 1993)
19.40.130 Interpretation of pfl~nning 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
Individual Hillside Lots.
A. With respect to a 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 grant am exception to allow
development if the subject property cannot be merged with
adjacent property pu.rsuant to GoveI1lIilent 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 public health and safety.
2. The proposed development will not create m
hazardous condition for pedestrian or 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 prescribed 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 known geological or environmental
hazards which have been determined by expert testimony to
be unsafe or hazardous to structures or persons residing
therein. (See General Plan Policies 2-49.)
7. The proposed development includes grading and
drainage plans which will ensure that erosion and scarring
of the hillsides caused by necessary construction of roads,
housing sites, and improvements will be m;n;mi7: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 oD. 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 environInent
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 open space preserves
;,54
19.40.140
Cupertmo .. Zonfum~
58
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 a landscape
plan which retains as many specimen trees as possible,
which utilizes drought-tolerant native plants and ground
covers consistent with nearby vegetation, and which
minim17es lawn areas. (See General 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
provided in Section 19 . 1 20.060 (relating to zoning changes).
After a public hearing, and consideration of the application
in conjunction with the mandatory findings contained in
subsection A above, the Planning Commission shall
approve, conditionally 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; Old. 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. (Old. 1725, (part), 1996)
3....55
19.20.010
CHAPI'ER 19.20: AGRICULTURAL-RESIDENTIAL (A-I) ZONES
Section
19.20.010
19.20.020
19.20.030
19.20.040
19.20.050
19.20.060
19.20.070
19.20.080
19.20.090
Purpose.
Applicability of regulations.
Permitted uses.
Conditional uses.
Excluded uses.
Site development regulations.
Permitted yard encroachments.
Solar design.
Interpretation by the Planning
Director.
19.20.010 Purpose.
Agricultural-residential zones are intended to preserve
agriculture or forestry activities in areas suited to that
purpose, and to include therein residential development of
a semi-rural character. (Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.20.020 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 agricultural-residential (A-I)
district other than in conformance with the provisions of this
chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. (Old.
1601, Em. A (part), 1992)
19.20.030 Permitted Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in an A-I
~mct: .
A. Agriculture, horticulture, viticulture and forestry,
including but not limited to, the following uses:
1. Field and truck crops, including drying and
storage,
2. Orchards and vineyards, including bottling and
storage,
3. Tree farms, botanical conservatories and
arboreta,
4. Barns and sheds,
5. Keeping of draft lIn1Tnllh: and lInimllh: providing
products used on the property, and household pets;
B. Single-family dwelling unit;
C. Residences of farm workers and their families
whose primary employment is incidental and necessary to
agricultural operations conducted on the same parcel of land
on which such residences are located;
D. A second dwelling unit conforming to the
provisions, standards, and procedures of Chapter 19.84 of
this title, except for a second dwelling unit requiring a
conditional use permit;
E. Noncommercial stables, and the keeping of no
more than three riding horses, except that additional foals
may be retained for a period of six months after birth;
F. Accessory facilities and uses, customarily
incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming with
the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title;
G. Home occupations, when accessory to other
permitted uses and otherwise conforming to the provisions
of Chapter 19.92 of this title, and subject to any conditional
use permit requirements continued in that chapter;
H. Small-family day care home;
I. Large-family day care home, which meets the
parking criteria contained in Chapter 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 administratively approve large day
care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and
proximity requirements;
J. Residential care facility that is licensed by the
appropriate State, County agency or department with not
more than six residents, not including the provider, provider
family or staff;
K. Congregate residence with ten or less residents.
(Old. 1688, ~ 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Old.
1601, Em. A (part), 1992)
19.20.040 Conditional Uses.
The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the
A-I zoning district, subject to the issuance of a conditional
use permit:
A. bsued ~ the D~tor of Community
Development:
1. Temporary uses subject to regulations established .
by Chapter 19.128,
2. Animal breeding,
3. Home occupations requiring a conditional use
permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title,
23
g '5.7
19.20.040
Cupertino - Zoning
24
4. 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
intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the
surrounding area,
5. 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 1597.46 (3) of the State of California Health and
Safety Code;
B. Issued by the Planning Commission:
1. livestock ranches and dairy farms,
2. Processing of dairy products produced on the
property,
3. Fur farms,
4. Poultry raising and hatcheries,
5. Apiaries,
6. Nurseries, greenhouses and landscaping gardens.
7. Boarding kennels,
8. Transmission lines, transformer stations,
television and radio towers, and other public utility and
communication structures,
9. Noncommercial stables for riding horses in
excess of the number permitted by Section 19.20.030E of
this chapter,
10. 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,
11. Residential care facility that has the appropriate
Stilte, County agency or department license and seven or
greater residents, 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 ,
12. Residential care 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, provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of
five hundred feet from the property boundary of another
residential care facility,
13. Congregate residence 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;
C. Issued by the City Council after consideration of
the Plamring Commission's recommendation:
1. Retail sale of wine, fruit and berries produced on
the property,
2. Cemeteries, crematoriums, mausoleums, and
columbaria,
3. Mines, quarries and gravel pits,
4. Riding academies, commercial stables, and the
boarding of horses,
5. Guest ranches,
6. Golf courses and driving ranges.
7. Commercial swimming pools and picnic areas. .
8. Public and quasi-public buildings and uses. (Old.
1822, (part). 1999; Ord. 1688. I 3. 1995; Ord. 1657,
(part). 1994; Old. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.20.050 Excluded Uses.
The following uses shall not be permitted in an A-I
zoning district:
A. Hog farms;
B. Cattle farms mainly depending upon feed brought
onto the property;
C. Slaughterhouses. fertilizer yards. feed yards,
boneyards, or plants for the reduction of animal matter;
D. Commercial feed sales;
E. Other semiagricu1tural uses mainly depending on
raw materials, semifinished products, or feed brought onto
the property;
F. Other agricultural uses which. in the opinion of
the Director of Community Development, create a private
or public nniqnce. (Ord. 1601. Em. A (part), 1992)
19.20.060 Site Development Regulations.
A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. In A-I zones. the
minimum lot area shall correspond to the number
(multiplied by one thousand square feet) followingthe A-I
ioning symbol. Examples are as follows:
Zoning Symbol Number
Minimum Lot Area in
Square Feet
A 43
A 215
43,000
215.000
B. Minimum Lot Area.
1. The minim11m lot size for a lot in an A-I zoning
district having no incidental residential use is two hundred
fifteen thousand square feet.
2. The minimum lot size for a lot in an A-I district
having incidental residential use is forty-three thousand
square feet per dwelling unit on the lot. Dwelling units in
farm labor camps for temporary laborers. and second
dwelling units. shall not be counted for the purpose of
determining required total area under this section.
C. Required Lot Shape. Each lot in an A-I zone'
shall have a shape that a square with a side of two hundred
feet can be inscribed in the lot.
D. Lot Coverage, Building Setbacks, and Height"
Restrictions.
1. The maximum building coverage is forty percent
of the net lot area.
3..-58
25
Agricultural-Residential (A-!) Zones
19.20.060
2. The maximum floor area ratio is forty-five
percent of the net lot area.
3. Minimum Setbacks.
a. First Floor.
i. The minimum front-yard setback is thirty feet.
n. The minimnm side-yard setback is twenty feet.
ill. The minimnm rear-yard setback is twenty feet.
b. Second Floor.
i. The minimum front-yard setback is thirty feet.
n. The minimum side-yard setback is twenty feet.
ill. The minimum rear-yard setback is twenty-five
feet.
E. Height of Principal Buildings and Structures.
1. The Inayimnm height of a principal building or
structure is twenty-eight feet. Fireplace chimneys.
antennae. or other appurtenances are excluded from this
restriction.
2. Heights exceeding twenty feet shall be subject to
the setback regulations in subsection D of this section.
3. The City Council may prescnbe that all buildings
in a designated area be limited to one story in height (not to
exceed eighteen feet) by affixing to th~ A-I zoningdistritt
symbol the designation "i."
4. Exception for Hillside Areas. Notwithstanding
any provision of subsection D of this section to the contrary.
upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City
Council may approve building heights in an A-I zoning
district greater than twenty-eight feet upon making all the
following determinations:
a. The subject property is in a hillside area and has
.an average slope of ten percent or greater;
b. Topographical features of the subject property
make an exception to the standard height restrictions
necessary or desirable; and
c. In no case. shall the maximum height exceed
thirty-five feet for a principal structure or twenty feet for an
accessory structure;
d.In no case. shall the maximum height of a
structure located on a prominent ridgeline as defined by
Section 19.40.05006 relating to RHS zoning districts. or
above the four-hundred-fifty-foot contour, exceed twenty
feet in height. (Ord. 1630. (part). 1993; Ord. 1601. Em.
A (part). 1992)
19.20.070 Permitted Yard Encroachments.
A. In A-I zones. where a building 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 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 and shall only
apply to the first story. 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 property becomes part of the
City .
B. 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.
C. 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
accessory structure may extend closer than three feet to any
property line. (Ord. 1601. Exh. A (part). 1992)
19.20.080 Solar Design..
The setback and height restrictions provided in this
chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or
active solar purposes in A-I zones. provided that no such
structure shall infringe upon solar access or property rights
of adjoining property owners. Any solar structures which
vary from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter
shall be allowed only upon issuance of a conditional use
permit by the Director of Community Development pursuant
to Section 19.20.040A40fthis chapter. (Ord. 1601, Exh.
A (part). 1992)
19.20.090 Interpretation by the Planning 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 the chapter by the Director of Community
Development JIUiy petition the Planning Commission in
writing for review of the interpretation. (Ord. 1601, Em.
A (part). 1992)
~~q
Exhibit F
Dear Cupertino City Council and Planning Commission members,
We the undersigned are AGAINST the 15% RHS overlay of RI properties. Please treat
everyone equally in Cupertino and REMOVE section 19.28.050.C (both CI and C2) of
the RI ordinance.
Name Address
& it ))A-tlfj") G,er~ (oJ<J$ ~ ~,~
:rv,\.\e.-)'(yor 1vJfe..~ Jf}3t,~ K-rlb-n... Ci-. ~'ro:>
I r~ //-t- Ie? YO,l /!NIST/ir!) Cr.~f6-RT/NV.
~ c.r~)
~ Gi4tlJ lie
,//t5~ a~
h~t!
5o~~~~
;J1\M-eA D\.o\~c\a r
Bl~ hl1., ~
K\1-Qv\
Rctlle..
S m i +0.
f<ctY\fL
_~elJ' ~ l.O(P)
P_titi^" t", 'l"Pno.^u.. 1,Clt., ORe;;: n'U~rl";n'
/0377 ~clct--cy,J.~
/ (/4.7 /f 11441 a.. '" Utj-uP"',
$-'l? ,( ~ WsU '&tI'L ~'/I.P ,
vvY&t( VOV,) ~ tftr.w{7").-
1JlJi;b~ ~<s 4V~Cwr~
\D65\ ~~~ 'LlA(>~ e~C.kf.~)01
Rlw.p- Cf5"~JL
\06S"<;"" 5ctn~ LucAo Rot I G..rp. q~O]Lt:
Jl lo6<:~ Ah~~Cl;" f<JJ., G-..p.. "lS-OI"t-..
1 ~-b1' .sJtn"~ l~" FJ. c.~ q~/4-'
3--' I
Dear Cupertino City Council and Planning Commission members,
We the undersigned are AGAINST the 15% RHS overlay of RI properties. Please treat
everyone equally in Cupertino and REMOVE section 19.28.050.C (both Cl and C2) of
the RI ordinance.
Name 4 t.-e/ (' ~ Address
Itpf/t1/1EJ> )'I/OVt'U 106ft, >Ai"rjJ L fJ(.LA if).
7d" >Iv/f)
Hh-(tJ( Sho""4 (o;;l{',--1J-t7-1 (oa:4 ~{).
$/.C/AJIA ~u.V<I{lu(/~-I / _ vi / I .,
2:.1 f 5U L,/ u0 / . L-:IV
W.)I-. 6-&..1 ~ "'-J4. ....J~1.
~~ ~/l' k..:
.......... '-,-
. ~
l, r I (" y....._..A-ec
( A A. c... A .,..~
,..... .....
~)o
lvft10 c Y ZiJ-YLJD
q
rrV' -
(JII ~ rt' 1\1 I z..-f.UA tf f
/o~/s S1-tvva kC-TA Rd
-
tt?7fJ-~ ~~~ "~o. ~
~.~('-"'-~~. ~0;V\~~
I a 1- ~ 5 ~ ~+-~ L...Je le,- U-
k ()I~~ I,' .l(!A.OI~
t64,- 0JeL~ /'
{0(23 5c,1] ~ LLcCiCt... R.t{
{07'(( <;A.ui"1\ lJ..tr\1i r€"",,-
--:- , r? I
~ av&1I{~ uhk.o/nlK (01'1 { SW\~ L \Juf( ^-Of
V~.-t..Ma4 {o7n ~-~L~ R.L.
cJJ~-fL- {OlS/ S~Luut;! ,eJ.
J),atitinn tn. n:>>ft'nUiP 1"~ DR~ n"iPIrl~"\,
3-'~
Dear Cupertino City Council and Planning Commission members,
We the undersigned are AGAINST the 15% RHS overlay of Rl properties. Please treat
everyone equally in Cupertino and REMOVE section 19.28.050.C (both CI and (2) of
the R 1 ordinance.
Name Address
~~ C#1\~ ~ -zL6f'l3 L-;L.J \) Y LtJ ~~
}
~
Jv1AR>HALL W~,.v 0 2J ~ 22 L1.fV or LJ1II ~f~iI'J1.fr I cA ~4
'-
k.VTU/1 MPr~ 1-/832.- Lt N /)Y [,N J Cv PGR..n,.jdJ CA,:::
/Lv/A a/PS'~~ /J21fP" $/ ~/-4---: " ~/ a&' ~
:7];;pz ~/1:5'p!,~
a~ &~4- //
~.?t- &d~4 / / / /
Cf/aje C#IlM
~/~
&~o.e- ~
~.tJ~(~u Y~(/-'7
;Vtti-U~ dZ:
9 ~S1"h L //J
PPtitinn tn ....mn.... (,q. ~l-f~ ,,,,....IQ~:
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
.//
11'2.0 {, M r (,f2-fj"S"r PfL Ct1lf~T7IfO/(
qrtJly
t t l ~ l L10M- V lS ']"A-)).ft.. CvrEfm-Ni> O)-~
) /
/fI t, 1 1,,.} dOJ tIt.s -Ie.- () f< Cu~ Ai
q.sb.
l.flll.. LrJt!~l LAN~ C(/~$i?7,,1V7. e'/{.9J7P/;
1/ :JUt{ 1J11. Oe<;t p/. ~n';zo
v
II 9ro/'-I
~"",3
Dear Cupertino City Council and Planning Commission members,
We the undersigned are AGAINST the 15% RHS overlay ofRI properties~ Please treat
everyone equally in Cupertino and REMOVE section 19.28.050.C (both CI and C2) of
the Rl ordinance.
Address
2li 7 'ff '1 LJ l!lJ Y 4r I ~u.per.-h 11 0
. I / I 9S0;tf
,'f!b{'j
ff/ rs:o fi-"'r~~ /:7- cv~;?"!.: /
'7:.rz::r .
.
~~~ S-"d~/?
/~~? .
okcn - --.r; h 2J. j
rL t~ - -
~ovo.,,"^-<>-
'Uc:. 1) ~ 1? .
Pp,i'.nn t", n;arnn1lP J ,(I:. 'P"-': n1l,prJ'21f
;Z1f1~(f ~,,~oe pv,e. ~h",..., ~
?S2J
Z 1% 3..0 T ~J-'5 "<- c&e.. C;)::zru<./-th<} ?.s--
~,j. I ~ tI~ b (j rAt( 4w, 791/.
(~UCeq ~ Gt~ l~~. S SUly
,;).167r Re(jl\4:,f 72,1 .,..c...r.....J.;I<" 9S!J/,
3~cf
Dear Cupertino City Council and Planning Commission members,
We the undersigned are AGAINST the 15% RHS overlay of RI properties. Please treat
everyone equally in Cupertino and REMOVE section 19.28.050.C (both Cl and 0) of
the RI ordinance.
Name
~H--lfel/ /Z, ,J OJf'1;J;l &11-07
rt W N I M- Alp/"'( qr/6 fft:i'1
I;J SlY 'hi ,..J"n-t A7tJ ~/HJ '7
5'1t-~H. ,.Jo~~8lf-cr'
~~ ffb4
l8 i r-to ~() 'oIL
Ko l~ S-o~ }C-
B^r~~ lLl4-'-~
-(W> ~
"]3a.rrl ~{' \e-
<Si h'Lnvv Ko
0J ().. I~
p~~
~Z:
'D~titinft '^ rornn.u~ 1 "f.& OR~ 1"\,,~rloQ~
Address
4..-i
/ J 2, .)ly rl r cLIE ~-r ~L.'
wl'e,erJ,..Jo / c.A- ,?..>V/y
jJp,*?AJJhHcY-5 @. /wl-DT..,,9JL . ~
{1/2t- LWJda.. ~~~ ,ph
~mt? C'A q !:oIl/-
III ?l1 "_';-A.LJ.fl t A ~ +a \6v
~rcl\..O . C-ft" "'tit> I V- '1~iJl~ ~<~
I "?J"7 "--~ ,^,,~ J6v '
~~ J c.~ qft>/v..-
1<~tc:. _ sF ~ 'I/tH-oo. Co!-\-
1 J J 4. 7 L.\,.I", ~'( J.. /)"
bk. Je~ ~ ..I-e..c..h.p {\DjQ,cA -c.,V'v\.
'" ...,
1/1~7 L{~.u sre-- ~
L bptU\~r\~~ItIc.~c(
..z.18 'f~ in d'l La-It.-e...-
1"lBhL- Lt.NPY l ~&- -6~~_l4~
~~;-hJy 11l~
.P /la WIAl6)1IKA.tJO. LAM
Z/'JI Ln-.Jy it-, C~Y&1Y.fPt6 C4 'f.rG1f!
;1{i31 L~/ Ltx..e (;;~~.f/o/M'i9..
3~
Dear Cupertino City Council and Planning Commission members,
We the undersigned are AGAINST the 15% RHS overlay of RI properties. Please treat
everyone equally in Cupertino and REMOVE section 19.28.050.C (both CI and C2) of
the Rl ordinance.
Name
~
r ~ck.f I - .. vJ,~
Ut^'~ IN I]'J
I3.CJ.~;JJ
Address
'1;,q-,~~~~d.~~",,~) ~q50(4.
--u<kS ~)~~ ~~. ~SO(4
,"J C!4.fp~tJ"}
:2/7:16 ^~ "'iJ~ R.IJ. PJ") O/Lf
Jj;JJ 0~N 7- ~ ("7-:3.5 f( {Jk<(a,f- (i...o / ~d'~.";c. ~$O 14
rrL~., '\7~S \R~~. Cif"'il'~1> C/So1lt
~ f'~~ 21'l0'"Z t-.~~ Ll1.~~\'\
{2~~~ ~44~ 2-f<t()J,. Lillllj LYJ.rj..O~71~Dl7/j
I
Sarent( L)'h I/JIIlf mi. {!/es! p! IHpl/#C1e#:?J
'C5UL a-r
liT< TAD W4;:'/:.l- 611/-
//(tW o/mt w~ Co/. ~7i;t7fA-ba4/ft/~
71 Blo -r;. r:r.~~ 0";11' 1 C..f,.....A:..e:> CA-
C( 5l:> fl/
J l( iQj \lOtJr h oOf{ 1jJ ~ li)~ lJ Iff)) If; a s Ckf
qVd;J.."
LiQOl"{lf~ IIttMi/C,/lJ' lIved '/rrr",CR An,..-€ LV..J-rx) (D /selL, 0
I /
LAN1/Y tVq 112-0~ Hf. C~77 ~_ Cuprs'PfTiNV
/
CA~S"~ 1,-/
S "il~1A C)M>&ori e
'P~fifinn In rPrnnU_ 1 ~t:K. 'PUC;;: l"IU,arl"!2v
3 -'"
Dear Cupertino City Council and Planning Commission members,
We the undersigned are AGAINST the 15% RHS overlay of RI properties- Please treat
everyone equally in Cupertino and REMOVE section 19.28.050.C (both Cl and C2) of
the RI ordinance.
Name
~~
~f
...:Cy, ~ ,.d.€ i-t ~ Y, (',< . .
.. A~ ~ "'d --r~ 1;, ('t.' .~: E.. . J
tv\t<.!j^rn ~hn?:7... cl
. S(]<w-. L a.J-;. ~
~~~-\'^'" ~a&<fO
SL\.5.CV'-' ~.o~~
N (J~: lJla f \,a.-h....
tv: It ;4~ c, W.e.,l/s
~~.:;
, d-'
Ppfitinn. tn narnnup t ~Qk OJ.l<;;! ^u..-rl,~:"t
Address
l/4-ro CMYD.N V~~ C~AcLG-.
,
VUfB"R"T-z.AlO, ~ 9rc /9
/O:J.P:'I Ton1!. (UI J Htil.~ , ~~ ~ i) t:.4 '1$&/ tf
it 2-1 C, rTel14 g( Ii e. 1);' , .
( .: a~ .-.j-,' ,., n r.... c::r-s ~ I I .'
/1.2 iq Te.t""Jc.L"beJ la t:> r. c-vVi'Ju--h }~I'"
tl {;;c I Li
t , '3 0 ~ -r -en,'Y",(A... s.eU ~ ?.-r-. ~~ ~v..D
1\ 3r.$" -lu.>\O-- ~ -:D...... Y""-O
l~fa ~~tt\O-~t C~Ot*-l\.O
jv4Z" ~~ ~~~~
/64-3 G ttVJL'1I'ot", L~ c'-' f2'J4-t s' '/0
10 1-(0"1 ~ tt. ...(}.JA.4 ~ (!( wr l{...i~v<:)
/0117 7 a y~..~~ c!H.n': ('4.-rI.f~~-'
I f)t{ I/"" AVeM/0A IJ/. CIA~~A T/J{)D
3"'l, 1
Dear Cupertino City Council and Planning Commission members,
We the undersigned are AGAINST the 15% RHS overlay of Rl properties. Please treat
everyone equally in Cupertino and REMOVE section 19.28.050.C (both CI and C2) of
the Rl ordinance.
Name
1
J NJ. n\
-YlLV'
MOt
zCL OL.{
.-J:
__ ,ett\r\
Fe~
,1/2 j/1clS 1:%,,'
2m~6v clr -I"
-
::J4fg ~ C '-. , ...
te~~1~,_l~
,.- l.. Y" .-
/~!-i~' r -
b//"'7?;:... ~c
d
If( ./- c./)
/II jI iGt ;Ltt
I~~
~J~ O~
~tif'l\n tn ..1"ftt'\VO 1 ~q;. PUC;;: nu,.rlQ,r
Address
7115. OrfiU:?-
i i.fq Cl1..~lC{l-efl\lJl~e-
B /~SoP1 D,.. _ Ct"'i'i!..-tiw,
vJoj W-peyf1 ~
770h Qc. Ie ;v( e"...d.tL..; C{;lA.irJ G..t~tf1 0
1/ {t: 17/ &' II }/.,/;;.}~b re 'y 'Y tA U? .oj/. /-:i.Pb/J l)f/7~'>
oj
(Ql'1/ pi;.! ./ ~'" Ci4.-f0::/~-D
Jq /1 LYfA A') LcciA{ c..(~.d~
11t} , ~I / ~ Cor! <f,b--, ;
. ./.a '1 I/'~-' //11 -<~-A' J
/ /.61h)( 0::'. . -1'/[ "ift'". ~~6/-E/;~/lJ
/./
?~.. /..-;J ~ / -/'.
//'/;;;' 1/('7/ ,./7/". r:&"hP////d
t. /
I J 11 Y",.,l'slhrw e7; ~pl!Aiil.
11" Yortsh.w C7: 4'~~"
3~,g
Dear Cupertino City Council and Planning Commission members,
We the undersigned are AGAINST the 15% RHS overlay ofRI properties. Please treat
everyone equally in Cupertino and REMOVE section 19.28.050.C (both CI and C2) of
the Rl ordinance.
Name J. Address
::fr'-.L SL -1 J '2..55 W- Crze.<:r PL
~ /,u-r k ~ ?L.
.
E-,/c. 1(< ~
pJ~~ fQMt
~ ^--'----
flYDhJ dUK J>11-4
~~
(1 ... _II);.. L>
()~ N,e~
~Q M.Q~~~~~
C . ~~ &r---.
C~~~
v. \ \\.
~
No.1;.,: SO\.v~~
I)ptitin.n to 'l"PY'l'tnuiP I "CI.. ou<: n.v,*rl"':l't.:
// UJ ~ /)jOONIc..RJ~r
- ~~
~lZ(o Wt,u.t/7 tA~r oR.. CA- CfJ1JIY:;
~~/
/J.::uo /Y1~CrtUt 0/") c,4- 9st>/y
\\ ~ ~~ 1'b1lU ~""tlA ,Cu~1L\1V\14 I (A.
G~o 14
':J./GS,- I.~ ~-' ~/;.4
J-\b&1- kv-cl,! ~, ~rt: II\.C) <J\950J~
)J.l b I Li ~ u....._ Cu..~.[,:'L<-01 cA <j5bI'
IQ57,p ~1k-:1~c:f- ~ t'5o
,~$. 8'; {:;y.-.'sk CJ- ~ ,?S'o II
3-10
Exhibit G
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
CUPERTINO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
Agenda Date: August 14, 2007
MCA-2006-01
City of Cupertino
Various
City-wide
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 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 Othey were not
aware the Council might apply these hillside development standards to their properties.
Consequently, the Council directed that the staff revisit the process to provide ample
opportunity for input. Additionally, the Council asked the Lindy Lane 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 background is
discussed on the attached
exhibit B.
3D Aerial
Map of the
Lindy Lane
R1 Hillside
Area from
Google
Earth
(ill ustrative
purposes
only not
intended to
be to scale)
~-71
MCA-2006-01
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
hillside protection.
Strategies:
1. Ordinance Reflulations and Develooment
Aoorovals. 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 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. Slove,densit-v Formula. Apply a slope density
formula to very low intensity residential development
in the hillsides. Density shall be calculated based on the
foothill modified, foothill modified l/2acre and the 5~
20 acre slope density formulae. Actual lot sizes and
development areas will be determined through zoning
ordinances, clustering and identification of significant
natural features and geological constraints.
~-
_~,;,;;;c-.'
?J"7~
MCA-2006-0l
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 Rl Ordinance amendments in 2005, the Council was concerned that
some areas in the hillside retained Rl zoning and had none of the above hillside
protections. The Rl 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 Rl 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 Rl to RHS that are available for the Planning Commission to
consider:
1. Revert back to the Rl hillside development standards pre-2005 Rl.
2. Hybrid ordinance tailored to the Rl hillside area.
3. Retain the current Rl hillside development standards (2005 Rl).
4. Rezone the Rl hillside areas to RHS.
The current 2005 Rl /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.
?J.73
MCA-2006-01
August 14, 2007
Page 4
Valley Floor
Rural Hillside
;
;
;
Existing R1/I)HS (2005)
;
;
;
;
;
;
- 45% max. house size
- R1 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 R1 (2005) vs. pre-2005 R1:
2005 R1 (current) Pre-2005 R1
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) = 9,000 sq. ft.
?rl+
MCA-2006-0l
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 public 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.
~"15
MCA-2006-01
August 14, 2007
Page 6
5. Eliminate the requirement to comply with the RI 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 RI 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 should be amended to
incorporate 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 Or~inance
Exhibit B: Background Discussion
Exhibit C: House Size Comparison (Rl vs. RHS)
3"'1'
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 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.
1860,91 (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 accepted by the Community
Development Department (fees paid and permit number issued) on or before
March I, 2005 may proceed with application processing under the ordinances in
effect at that time.
";-11
Exhibit B
BACKGROUND
The following is a brief chronological summary of prior events 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 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.
Tanuary 18, 2005 (Rl Ordinance 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. 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 (between the 58:06 to 1:46 video clip position):
http://www.cupertino.org/citv government/city channellwebcasting archives 2004/in
dex.asp
Tanuary 2006
Several affected property owners expressed concerns that the new Rl hillside standards
were approved without enough public notice and input opportunities. Consequently, the
Council directed staff as part of its work program to re-open the Rl hillside standards for
discussion and public input.
Tanuary 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 (Rl) and
Agricultural Residential (AI). The Council conducted a first reading and amended the
body of the Rl Ordinance to preclude 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 Rl 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
~ ..10
regulations is to protect the R1 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 R1 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-- Neizhborhood 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
.:. Preservation of Hillside
.:. Tree Preservation
.:. Rural Character
.:. Development Standards for 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 Rl hillside development standards. The spectrum of options
available ranged from reverting back to the pre 2005 Rl, do nothing and retain the current Rl
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.
~-1q
Exhibit C
Home Size Comparison between Rl vs. RHS (*assuming 20% avg. slope)
Address Net Lot Sq. Ftg Total House Sa. Ftc R1 Max. RHS Max RHS sq. ft. potential RHS % of potential R 1 sq. ft. potential R 1 % of potential
11205 Mt. Crest 20.959 3.387 9,432 4380.09 993.09 29% 6.045 178%
11233 Mt. Crest 21.182 2.908 9.532 4391 .39 1.483.39 51% 6.624 228%
11245 MI. Crest 17198 3.252 7.739 4189.59 937.59 29% 4,487 138%
11254 Mt. Crest 28,558 4.692 12,851 4764.99 72.99 2% 8,159 174%
11244 Mt. Crest 30,700 3,728 13,815 4873.49 1,145.49 31% 10,087 271%
11234 Mt. Crest 19.492 3,181 8,771 4305.78 1,124.78 35% 5.590 176%
11206 Mt. Crest 18.030 5,891 8,114 4231.73 1.65927 -28% 2,223 38%
11204 Mt. Crest 22.652 4,080 10,193 4465.84 385.84 9% 6,113 150%
11191 Santa Teresa 16.801 2,973 7,560 4169.48 1,196.48 40% 4.587 154%
11201 Santa Teresa 18,101 2,939 8,145 4235.33 1,296.33 440/0 5.206 177%
11215 Mt. Crest 30,486 3,737 13.719 4862.65 1,125.65 30% 9.982 267%
11210 Mt. Crest 24.156 3.415 10,870 4542.02 1,127.02 33% 7,455 218%
11206 Mt. Crest 17,376 3,706 7,819 4198.61 492.61 13% 4,113 111%
11255 Mt. Crest 18.567 3,456 8.355 4258.93 802.93 23% 4,899 142%
21830 Santa Teresa 34.996 3,289 15,748 5091.08 1,802.08 55% 12,459 379%
21 945 Santa Teresa 55.277 3,138 24,875 6118.35 2,980.35 95% 21,737 693%
22101 lindY 43,560 3,159 19,602 5524.86 2,365.86 75% 16,443 521%
21839 Lindy 30,977 2,942 13,940 4887.52 1,945.52 66% 10,998 374%
21849 lindY 21.989 2,882 9,895 4432.26 1.550.26 54% 7.013 243%
21950 Lindy 21,780 2,498 9,801 4421.67 1,923.67 no/a 7,303 292%
21951 lindY 76,404 9,853 34,382 7188.46 (2.664.54 -27'::'0 24,529 249%
21 992 Lindy 9.147 2,057 4,116 3498.73 1,441.73 70% 2,059 100%
11387 Lindy PL 10,454 2.898 4,704 3848.00 950.00 33% 1.806 62%
21 962 Lindy 9,583 2,788 4,312 3665.50 877 .50 31% 1,524 55%
21952 lindY 10,018 2,423 4,508 3825.91 1 ,402.91 58% 2,085 86%
21932 Lindy 10,454 2,502 4.704 3848.00 1,346.00 54% 2,202 88%
21912 Lindy 10,454 2.390 4,704 3848.00 1,458.00 61% 2,314 97%
21 902 Lindy 9,583 2,198 4,312 3665.50 1.467.50 67% 2,114 96%
21882 lindY 8,712 2,724 3,920 3332.34 608.34 220/0 1.196 44%
21 862 Lindv 8,276 2,230 3,724 3165.57 935.57 42% 1,494 67%
21852 lindY 10,454 2.696 4,704 3848.00 1,152.00 43% 2,008 74%
21842 Lindv 9,583 2.206 4,312 3665.50 1,459.50 66% 2,106 95%
21832 Lindv 9,583 2,869 4,312 3665.50 796.50 28% 1,443 50%
21822 Lindy 10,018 2,418 4,508 3825.91 1.407.91 58% 2.090 86%
21802 Lindv 9,583 2,012 4,312 3665.50 1.653.50 82% 2,300 114%
21792 Lindv 9,147 2.570 4,116 3498.73 928.73 36% 1,546 60%
21782 Lindv 10,018 2,354 4,508 3825.91 1,471.91 63% 2,154 92%
21762 lindY 9,583 2.131 4.312 3665.50 1.534.50 72% 2,181 102%
21723 Lindv 6.534 2.592 2,940 2499.26 192.74 -40/0 348 13%
21702 Lindv 9.583 2,722 4,312 3665.50 943.50 35% 1,590 58%
21692 Lindy 8,712 3,249 3,920 3332.34 83.34 3% 671 21%
21682 Lindv 10,890 2,415 4,901 3870.08 1,455.08 60% 2,486 103%
21675 Lindy 10,018 2.400 4,508 3825.91 1,425.91 59% 2.108 88%
21685 Lindv 8,276 2.206 3,724 3165.57 959.57 43% 1,518 69%
21695 Lindy 10,018 2,168 4,508 3825.91 1,657.91 76% 2,340 108%
21725 Reanar! 10,454 2,721 4,704 3848.00 1,127.00 41% 1,983 73%
21735 Reanar! 9.147 2.741 4,116 3498.73 757.73 28% 1.375 50%
21745 Regnar! 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% 4.591 221%
11127 Linda Vista 13.939 2,074 6,273 4024.52 1,950.52 94% 4,199 202%
11137 Linda Vista 11,761 2,482 5,292 3914.20 1,432.20 58% 2,810 113%
11147 Linda Vista 8.712 1.890 3,920 3332.34 1,442.34 76% 2,030 107%
11157 Linda Vista 7,405 2.255 3,332 2832.41 577.41 26% 1,077 48%
11167 Linda Vista 7,405 2,255 3,332 2832.41 577.41 26% 1,077 48%
11177 Linda Vista 7,405 2.255 3.332 2832,41 577.41 26% 1.077 48%
11187 Linda Vista 7,405 2.255 3,332 2832,41 577.41 26% 1.077 48%
111 97 Linda Vista 7,840 1,890 3,528 2998.80 1,108.80 59% 1,638 87%
11191 Santa Teresa 17,424 2,421 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 averace sloDe of 20% I
3"eo
Exhibit D
EXISTING ORDINANCE
19.28.050 Development Regulations (Site).
C. Development on Properties with Hillside Characteristics.
1. Buildings proposed on properties located west of the 10% hillside slope
line as defined in the Cupertino General Plan, that have 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.
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.
1860,91 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635,91 (part), 1993;
Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 192)
D. An application for building permits filed and accepted 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.
~81
Exhibit H
Exhibit H
EXISTING ORDINANCE
19.28.050 Development Regulations (Site).
C. Development on Properties with Hillside Characteristics.
1. Buildings proposed on properties located west of the 10% hillside
slope line as defined in the Cupertino General Plan, that have 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 R1 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 Department (fees paid and permit number issued) on or
before March I, 2005 may proceed with application processing under the
ordinances in effect at that time.
3-6;?
.. City of Cupertino
QF c~~~o.:;n:~~~ A~~~~:
C1lYOF (408) 777-3251
CUPEIQ"INO FAX (408) 777-3333
; ..... .. . .... .... .. .... ....... . ... .. Commun.ity Develop~ent Department
lNITlAL StUDY L ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUATlON CHECKLIST
Staff Use Only
EA File No.EA-2007-09
Case File No.MCA-2007-01
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Project Title: Amendment to the R1 Ordinance (Chapter 19.28.050C1) to exclude
properties zoned R1-10 with an averaae slope of 15% or areater located west of
the 10% slope line. In addition. identify the appropriate hillside development
standards (Section 19.28.050C1l for the remainina 15::!: foothill properties zoned
R1-20 upslope of the 10% hillside transition line.
Project Location: Properties in the foothills of Cupertino
Project Description: See proiect title
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.t. Zone -R1 G.P. Designation - Residential Low 1-5 DU/Gr. Ac.
Assessor's Parcel No. -
If Residential, Units/Gross Acre -
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
If Non-Residential, Building Area - s.f. FAR ~ Max.
Employees/Shift - _Parking Required Parking Provided
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES [R] NO 0
3~3
INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST
B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS
11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778
12. City Aerial Photography Maps
13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History
Center, 1976)
14. Geological Report (site specific)
15. Parking Ordinance 1277
16. Zoning Map
17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents
18. City Noise Ordinance
18b City of Cupertino Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Plan
27. County Parks and Recreation Department
28. Cupertino Sanitary District
29. Fremont Union High School District
30. Cupertino Union School District
31. Pacific Gas and Electric
32. Santa Clara County Fire Department
33. County Sheriff
34. CAL TRANS
35. County Transportation Agency
36. Santa Clara Valley Water District
36b Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Program
36c San Jose Water Company
A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES
1. Land Use Element
2. Public Safety Element
3. Housing Element
4. Transportation Element
5. Environmental Resources
6. Appendix A- Hillside Development
7. Land Use Map
8. Noise Element Amendment
9. City Ridgeline Policy
10. Constraint Maps
C. CITY AGENCIES Site
19. Community Development Dept. List
20. Public Works Dept.
21. Parks & Recreation Department
22. Cupertino Water Utility
E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS
37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses
38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps
39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County"
40. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
41. County Heritage Resources Inventory
42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak
Site
43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances
Site
43b National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater
Discharge Permit Issued to the City of
Cupertino by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board
43c Hydromodification Plan
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES
23. County Planning Department
24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments
25. County Departmental of Environmental
Health
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued)
26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
F. OTHER SOURCES
44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials
45. Field Reconnaissance
46. Experience w/project of similar
scope/characteristics
47. ABAG Projection Series
INSTRUCTIONS
A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES
ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE.
B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist
information in Categories A through O.
C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s)
in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate.
D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the
potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed.
E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - :3 Historical") Please
try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each oaae.
F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit.
G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City.
v'Project Plan Set of Legislative Document
v'Location map with site clearly marked
(when applicable)
BE SURE YOUR INITIAL STUDY SUBMITTAL
IS COMPLETE - INCOMPLETE MATERIALS
MAY CAUSE PROCESSING DELAYS
~..-84
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44]
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? [1,17,19,44]
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44]
The exclusion of the R1-10 properties (approximately 124 parcels) from Section
19.28.050C1 (R1 Hillside Development Standards) should not have significant impacts to
the general aesthetics of the Cupertino hills and the surround neighborhood. Most of these
properties are already developed and do not significantly contribute to the overall protection
of the Cupertino hills. Most homes on the R 1-10 properties are already built on existing flat
pads at the toe-of-slope in existing established neighborhoods not highly visible from the
general valley floor of the City.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sources]
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
>-.... s::.... 0 s::....
- s:: s:: s:: ... s::
-co.... COco oco coco.... ....
.! CJ CJ .s:: CJ .s:: .- '- .s::CJCJ CJ
c!E ~ I- .- .... 'tU 0 I- .- co 0 co
f/) :!:: .i tn c. f/) :!:: C. Z C.
G) s:: E f/) s:: .- '- f/) s:: E E
o.~- G)tn .:!::O G) .~-
...I .- :a: CJ
c..en en s:: ...I en
I
I
0 0 1RI 0
0 0 0 1RI
o
o
1RI
o
o
o
o
1RI
Approximately 15 R 1-20 properties are being considered for hillside development
standards. Even though some of the R1-20 properties are located on a knoll, most of them
are developed. There are only 2 or 3 homes left that may be developed into larger homes.
Each of the 15 properties will be reviewed individual for potential impacts and mitigation
measures.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by
the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
o
o
o
1RI
3~85
>-- 0 s::-
- s:: s:: C s:: ;: s::
-ea- eaea oea eaea- -
.!!! u u .s:: u .s:: .- ... .s::uu u
ISSUES: c:E a I- .- _ as 0 1-,- ea o ea
UI :!:: 'j tn c. UI:!:: C. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) s:: E UI s:: .-... UI s:: E E
o.~- Q) tn ::: 0 Q) .~-
...J .- :! u
a.. en en .5 ...Jen
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? [5,7,39]
b) Conflict with existing zoning for 0 0 0 [8]
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? [5,7,23]
c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 0 0 [8]
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39]
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 0 0 0 [8]
the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] .
b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 [8]
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44]
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 [8]
increase of any criteria pollutant for which I
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 0 0 0 [8]
pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] I
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 [8]
substantial number of people? [4,37,44]
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 0 0 0 [8]
directly or through habitat modifications, on I
any species identified as a candidate, I
sensitive, or special status species in local or I
I
reQional plans, policies, or reQulations, or bv
?'~
>o- s:::- 0 s:::'C
-s::: s::: s:::o;
-ca- caca oca caca- -
.!! u u .c u .c .- ~ .cuU u
ISSUES: -.- ~ 1-~~1ao 1-,- ca o ca
s::::= en'- :: l:n C. en:= C. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] CI) s::: E en s::: .- ~ en s::: E .5
c5.~ - CI) l:n .'t:: 0 CI) .~-
..J .- :a: u
c.en en .5 ..Jen
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 I 0 0 0 [RJ
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 0 0 0 [RJ
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? [20,36,44]
d) Interfere substantially with the movement I 0 0 0 [RJ
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 0 0 0 [RJ
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? [11,12,4"1]
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 0 0 0 [RJ
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 0 0 0 [RJ
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in 915064.5? [5,13,41]
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 [RJ
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to 915064.5? [5,13,41]
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 [RJ
paleontoloQical resource or site or unique
?-'81
>- 0 1:-
-I: I: 'E I: ; I:
-C'CS- C'CS C'CS 0 C'CS C'CSC'CS- -
.~ U U J: U .- I., J:UU U
ISSUES: 'E!E & I- .- -= 'S 0 I- .- C'CS o C'CS
CI) :!:: 'i 0') c. CI):!:: C. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] (I) I: E CI) I: .- I., CI) I: E E
c5.~ - (1)0') ~o (I) .~-
..J .- :a: U
D..en en .E ..Jen
geologic feature? [5,13,41]
d) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 0 [RJ
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
[1,5]
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOilS - Wou"ld 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 0 0 [RJ 0
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 [RJ
[2,5,10,44]
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 [RJ
liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44]
iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] I 0 0 0 [RJ
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 0 0 [RJ 0
loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44]
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 0 [RJ
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
. in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
[2,5,10,39]
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined 0 0 0 [RJ
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1997), creating substantial risks to life or
property? [2,5,10]
;--fOS
>- t: _ 0 t:c
-t: t: t: :.;:
-as- as as oas as as- -
.~ CJ CJ J: CJ .- I- J:CJCJ CJ
ISSUES: c!E ~ I- .- ; ai 0 1-,- as o as
I/) :!:::: 's: en a. I/):!:::: a. za.
[and Supporting Information Sources] CI) t: E I/) t: .- l- I/) t: E E
o.~- CI) en .::: 0 CI) .~-
..J .- :iE CJ
a.. en en t: ..Jen
e) Have soils incapable of adequately D D D [8J
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]
The majority of the R 1-10 properties that are being excluded from the hillside standards
have developments on existing flat pads. In the event if development will occur on slope of
30% or greater (in an area that exceeds 500 sq. ft.) then an exception approval is required.
The potential grading, drainage, geological and environmental impacts and the associated
mitigation measures will be assessed at the time of review.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Would the project:
D D D [8J
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? [32,40,42,43,44]
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or D D D IRI
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44]
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle D D 0 IRI
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
[2,29,30,40,44]
d) Be located on a site which is included on a D D I D IRI
list of hazardous materials sites compiled I
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 D I D D IRI
use plan or, where such a plan has not been i
::veq
>,- 0 1:-
-I: 1:1: I:+:; I:
-m- m mom mm- -
.!! u u .c u .c .- "- .cuu u
ISSUES: 1:!E 3 I- .- _ 10 0 1-.- m o m
en :!:: .~ C) a. en:!:: a. za.
[and Supporting Information Sources] CD I: E en I: .- "- en I: E E
'0.2'- CD C) :!:: 0 CD .2'-
..J .- 2 u
l1.CJ) CJ) I: ..JCJ)
adopted, within two miles of a public airport I
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 0 0 0 [RI
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? [ ]
g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 [RI
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? [2,32,33,44]
h) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 0 [RI
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 I
-- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 I 0 [RI
I
waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37]
b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 0 [RI
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)? [20,36,42]
e) Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 0 [RI
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 [RI
quality? [20,36,37] ,
g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood 0 0 0 [RI
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
?---Gto
>0- 1:- 0 I:'E
-I: I: 1::;0
-C'lS- C'lS C'lS 0 C'lS C'lSC'lS- -
.~ u u .c u .c .- J.. .cuu u
ISSUES: 'E!E ~ 1-;:_100 1-.- C'lS o C'lS
(1).-.- tnOo (I) :!:: a. zOo
[and Supporting Information Sources] (1) I: E (I) I: 3:.- J.. (l)I:E E
c5.~ - (1)tn ~o (1) .~-
...I .- :aE U
c..en en .5 ...ICJ)
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
[2,38]
h) Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 1RI
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? [2,38]
i) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 1RI
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam? [2,36,38]
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 1RI
mudflow? [2,36,38]
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would
the project:
a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 1RI
community? [7,12,22,41]
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 0 1RI
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or I
mitigating an environmental effect?
[1,7,8,16,17,18,44]
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 1RI
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 1RI
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 1RI
locally-important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10]
XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, 0 0 0 1RI
?,91
>o- s:::- 0 s:::-
- s::: s::: s:::~ s:::
-ea- eaea oea eaea- -
.~ u u .s:: u .s:: .- I- .s::uu u
ISSUES: c:e ~ I- .- _ 10 0 I- .- ea o ea
tn :: '3: tn a. tn :: a. za.
[and Supporting Information Sources] C1) s::: E tn s::: .- I- tn s::: E E
c),2>>- C1)tn .:t::O C1) .2>>-
..J .- :2: u
c.en en s::: ..Jen
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 [RI
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44]
c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 0 [RI
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
[8,18]
d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 0 0 [RI
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 [RI
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
[8,18,44]
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 [RI
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? [8,18]
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an 0 0 0 [RI
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 0 0 0 [RI
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44]
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0 0 0 [RI
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44]
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
?;-q ~
>-- 0 Cc
-C C C C ~
-co- COco oCO CO CO- -
.~ u u .c u .- "- .cuU u
ISSUES: c!E ~ I- .- -= 10 0 1-,- co o co
rn :!:: 'i en c. rn:!:: c. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] (1)cE rn C .- "- rn C E E
c5.~ - CI) en .'!::: 0 CI) .~-
.J .- ::a: u
a. en en .5 .Jen
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? [19,32,44] D D D I [R]
Police protection? [33,44] D D D [R]
Schools? [29,30,44] D D D [R]
Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] D D D [R]
I
Other public facilities? [19,20,44] D D D [R]
XIV. RECREATION--
a) Would the project increase the use of D D D [R]
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that I
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
[5,17,19,21,26,27,44]
b) Does the project include recreational D D D [R]
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment? [5,44]
XV. TRANSPORTATIONrrRAFFIC--
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is D D [R] D
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)? [4,20,35,44]
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, D D D [R]
a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for I
designated roads or highways? [4,20,44]
3 --9 ?>
ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sources]
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? [4,?]
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
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?
[2,19,32,33,44]
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
[17,44]
>-
-t:
-ctl-
.! U U
-.- !
t::= ~
CD t: E
o.~-
c.en
D
D
D
D
D
o
t: 1: t: ;::
ctl ctl 0 ctl
J: U J: .- ...
1-:;:::=:1tio
en.- ~ C) a.
en t: :> .- ...
CDC) =:0
..J .- "== U
en C::t:
D
D
D
D
D
t:1:
ctlctl-
J:uu
I- .- ctl
en:= a.
ent:E
CD .~-
..Jen
D
D
D
D
D
-
u
o ctl
zOo
E
00
00
00
00
00
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? [4,34]
There are approximately 124 R 1-10 properties located upslope of the 10% slope
line. By excluding them from any R1 hillside standards, there may be potential for
larger homes. However, the cumulative impacts from the increase home sizes are
insignificant. The cumulative home size impact does not have any direct correlation
with any increase in traffic count or pattern since the occupancy type for each of the
homes do not change.
Same concept applies to the R1-20 properties depending out the outcome of the
final ordinance amendment. If the ordinance is made more lenient that allows for
full R1 45% floor area ratio irrespective of property slope, then larger homes may
be built. However, the cumulative impacts of this effect are insignificant.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44]
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [36,22,28,36]
D
D
D
D
D
D
00
00
3.,Q4
I
>.- c- 0 Cc !
-C C c..
-ea- eaea oea eaea- -
.! u u ..c u ..c .- ~ ..cuu u
ISSUES: c!E ~ I- .- _ 1a 0 1-.- ea o ea
rn ~ .i C) 00 rn ~ 00 zOo
[and Supporting Information Sources] CI> C E rn C .- ~ rn C E E
o.~- CI> C) .'!:: 0 CI> .~-
..J .- == u
a.. en en .E ..Jen
c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 [R]
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44]
e) Result in a determination by the 0 0 0 [R]
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 [R]
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
I g) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 0 I 0 [R]
I
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
(To be completed by City Staff)
a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 [R] 0
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 0 0 [R] 0
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects 0 0 0 [R]
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
~-,q 5
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 Signatu/~ //~
Print Preparer's Nan;e~ ?;AR,/ UJ A[,
~"
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 /Soils
0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology / Water 0 Land Use / Planning
Materials Quality
0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population / Housing
0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 T ransportation/Traffic
0 Utilities / Service 0 Mandatory Findings of
Systems Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that:
00 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 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.
0 The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Date
Date
3-91
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMEND A TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
September 5, 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
September 5, 2007.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
MCA-2007-01 (EA-2007-09)
City of Cupertino
Cupertino Foothill area
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Municipal Code Amendment to amend Chapter 19.28 Single Family Residential (Rl)
Zones to exclude properties zoned RI-I0 with an average slope equal to or greater than
fifteen (15) percent slope
Municipal Code Amendment to amend Chapter 19.28.050(C)1 of Single Family
Residential (Rl) Zone regarding hillside development standards for buildings proposed
on properties zoned RI-20 located west of the 10% slope line
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative
Declarati n finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no
significa t env' ental impacts.
Steve Piaseckl
Director of Community Development
g/erc/REC EA-2007-09
3,916