The URL can be used to link to this page

12. Heart of the City Specific PlanU CITY OF cuPE~iNo SUMrVIARY City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Agenda Item No. Application: SPA-2008-01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Community Development Department Agenda Date: October 21, 2008 Application Summary: Update the Heart of the City Specific Plan to reflect the changes adopted in the 2005 General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the draft Heart of the City Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: The City Council directed that the Heart of the City Specific Plan be modified, as part of its 2008/2009 work program, to incorporate technical revisions reflecting the changes made to the 2005 General Plan. The Colzncil directed the Planning Commission to review and forward its recommendations to the Council. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft Heart of the City Specific Plan at its regular meetings on June 10~, August 26tr and at a study session on September 23rd, The Planning Commission conducted a study session to receive additional input from the Redevelopment/Economic Developme~?t Manager and the public. On October 14, 2008, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 (Comm. Kaneda absent) to recommend approval of the draft Specific Plan with changes. DISCUSSION: FUNDAMENTALS OF THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN The Heart of the City Specific Plan was adopted in 1995 to guide future development and redevelopment of the Stevens Creek Corridor generally between Highway 85 and the eastern City limits near Lawrence Exprf~ssv~Tay. The purpose and overall goal of the plan for this area is to create a greater sense of place and coirununity identity and to develop this area as apedestrian-inclusive gathering place. The general policy framework for the Heart of the City area involves creating a link generally between the Oaks Shoppilg Area at the western boundary of the plan area to the Crossroads area, which encompasses the span of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stelling Rd to the City Center at N. De Anza Boulevard, and further east to the Cupertino Square Mall vicinity. ~z-~ SPA-2008-01 Heart of the City Specific Plan Update October 21, 2008 Page 3 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Commission stated that they would like the opportunity to review the Crossroads plan and consider techniques to enhance the retail commercial viability of the area. One of the techniques proposed 'includes the concept of narrowing Stevens Creek Boulevard to allow for on-street parking anal to reduce the traffic speed along Stevens Creek Boulevard that would provide grea~:er visibility of retail uses along the street rather than having Stevens Creek Boulevard function as apass-through boulevard. The Commission would like to request the City Council to consider testing this technique by implementing "test" lane closure for a limite~3 period to see what the traffic impact might be. During the past years, construction activity has closed a lane at various segments pf Stevens Creek Blvd. With seemingly little impact on the traffic levels of service. Other clean up items/clarifications The Commission also recommended the following additional amendments to the draft Specific Plan as clean up and clarification items: • Use native and water-wise plantings with ~~rip irrigation systems for on-site landscape areas in developments. • Retain the list of streetscape trees as recontinended in the draft Specific Plan • Allow for flexible side yard setbacks as recommended in the draft Specific Plan. • Include application requirements and specify the approval authority for developments • Include criteria for placement and frequency of street furniture • Prohibit barbed wire and razor wire fencing, in addition to chain link fencing • Require screening of heating/air conditioning units from public street view. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Plaruner Submi Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager Attachments Exhibit A: Table of changes proposed by staff and Planning Connnussion Exhibit B: Model Ordinance with attached Draft Heart of the City Specific Plan Exhibit C: P1aiuling Conunission Resolution No. 6533 Exhibit D: Planning Conunission report on the Heart of the City Specific Plan Update dated October 14, 2008. Exhibit E: Conunissioner Brophy's recommended changes to the Heart of the City. Exhibit F: Email from a citizen, Dan Marshall. Exhibit G: Minutes of the regular Planning Conunission meetings from: June 10, 2008 & August 26, 2008 & Study session minutes from study session Septennb~>_r 23, 2008. 12-3 Q +~+ ..~ .~ N U U z •~ ~ z J !/~ ~l T ~ z Y, N _ ; ~ cr, C r ._ ~. N 0 U w w U7 U ~ U >, _ ~ v v .~: > C ~ ;n .;~ `~ ~ ~ u J v-~ ~ ~~ o ~ G C V U U _ ~ U ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ V C ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ (v U O ` r ~ v U _ ~_ •~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• U r r O ~ r ~ V n O e.i r- U r i 2_' v `V ~~ i-I r • ~ ~- U J '~ • U -_ ~ > ~ - ~ j ~ U -~+ O~ r U y U r, C -- U ~ .r. Vwy-1 r' y J J v U J u ~ - U ~ ! v r J , O ~ y ~ O ,,~ ,~ ~ > o ~ ~' v v J .r. ~ -,-~ I--I _ U O i~ C O _C ~ r a >~ y~ 0 'G o h o o ~ v U c U c c' '~ O U J ~ ~ O _ ~ ~ ~ ~ c , ~ U _ ~ ~ = ~ o - ~, r I ~ _ _ _ C ~ .._ ~ U w O ~ O ~ w ~ y '7" J r ~ __ ~ r ~ O U .+ G'. ~ U ~ w U p :J 'J n ~. :.7 In s~. y ~ ~ C r U U ~ _, ~ ='~ -r J r ~ J U~ T p ~ ~ ~~ N v ~> U u ~ O ~~ J ~ ~ U V G ~ r,; >' v 0 0 G r .~ J O U ~ ~ N ~ V • r>. . ~ :J LJ ~ ~ c v ~ G Z 3 O U V ~ y V Y C~ ~. O U U .r, O, J C~ ^! ~ ."ter. f: ~ V ~ w O r ~ ~ V ~ J ' r r ;n . :J r ~ _ ~. V :.~ cv O .1r . v r >. O R. CI :p U 1' VU U ` U U ~ ~ :-I r~J O r,~ r _; r . ~ C O r I r ~ + .~ ~ ~ O .~ ' i ` ~ V :J J ~ v v C/~ V . ~ .rri O O •v ~ r. ., y r ~ O ~~ ~ 'C r r ~ ~ ^ ^° C r, .~ U 12 r N N C J ^J Il v 'U !J C/: _~ - U r -~ N O t!'i i r ~ G ~n ' c ~ r •~ v P, ~ \ r ^. O O C1~ r ~ ~ v UV cn < .~ • :u - ~ r ~ .fie r Y ~ 'tY ~ G l " 1 U ~ '~ .'_ U Ci ~ ~ U ~ U y,,,i 7C ~ ~ ~ U ,~ r .. .r ~' ~ v ,n, yr. y a by ^ O t~ V '~ ~ ~~ ~ n v ~ y O ~ .-~ C. r U u U ~ y c:~ r `" _ O ~ 'a.. ~ .~ .rc~n{ ..y ~ V r O.. ~ f~] n i N U G ~ U V ? ~ U •+.a U U '7;J '~ U ~ G ~J) ~ V ti U ~ J r C _ O ~ O ... " ~ _ C1 O" r3. CJ -O r. ~.~ _ O "C .. ' • U y O 1 ~ C O -~0. ~ :v 1 O o O '~ ,y O c; O y ~ O ..~r i U r U ~ r ~'+ .~, ~ ~ ,: ~ Z y r Z •~ ~ J Z '~ ~~ ~' R _ ~ '~ = ~ te = , - v , r., -r O .a ..~ `~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ .ri U U f ~ r, ., ~ ~ O ~ c i - ~ 'y ~ O U ~ y ~ U Y . Y U ~ ::: U :J ~ U "C U 'G p j~ U ~ y ~ O ~ J Lr In U ~ O U "' s p y '~ .r, -+ ~ Or. r J :, V J :~ O ~ U N "'~ .~ u C '~ U cn U r U v ?' s r ~ ~ y '~ ~ ti n u U U ~ ~ -r r ~S ~ ,U' ~ y J -' ~ r ~ ..G r f _ _ ~ G O~ '~ ~ V O .~ -O, ~ =-' E~ '~ y y -.~ 'C ~ ~ r ~ '~ v J '. U ~ -, ~ ~ U y ~ ~ O ~ - ' O r r -~ "' l7 '~ U v p r .~. s"' =~ , v ~ ~ ~ .-, u p U ~ O ~ r, C ? ~ r c~ ~ ~ - ~ ,rr, r ~ V , / U O r (n r ~ ,~ ~ ~ O-' ~^~.) :J 'T.+ ~ :J U O V it ~ ?r '_' L`a ~,~ " U ~ J ~ ~'~ L' O ..J .~ ~ O.. O 00 ~ V U N .~ O 12-5 N N ~~-+ :J J U T U r o :' ~~ ~ .: ~ ~ nG f ~ ~~ 5n :~ ~+ ',~ d ~ r rr. r \ r r , "., O O 'r ~ - p c w ~ ~ ~ c3 - y ~ U - O ~ ~ ~ uv.~ ~, ~ U ~ ~ ~ = 1 rJ r C' O ; 'r. O c~ - ~ O ' O '~ U ~ U ~r J ~ J1 ~ • r ~ '~ ~ ~ -r ~ O O b0 C~ i ~' G = ~ "' .'" ~ X - y .r. ~~y V .~ -r. V .~ ~ ~ m ~- G ~ _ ,~ r ~ ~ - ~ `. .. ~ V, ~ O O ., y u :+ O ~' ~ ~ cn ~:. ~ ~ -p ~ ... ~ U .~ U ~ ~ r ~ -G - V V O 2 J /~ ~ u '_' U r ..G ~ ;J c~ .~ u u `~ ~ y J _y O C ..y V f J ~ J -• ~ O ~ ~l .rry n+ ~ a. ~~ u> ' ~' '~ U ~ ~ U ~ ~ - V ~-' V '~ ~ 2 v c~ U y V ~ c~ v U ~. O - O z U~ u ~, O f" i r s .rr. C -, H in .^ > C ~ O :. V O '.~ U - r bfJ r0 = O., ~ ~ O y :.~ y r ! .~ u ~ ~ ~ = U ~.. [~ r ;~ >~ Y ~ ~ rn ~ r rr y V ~ r ~ ~ r C ' ~ -~ ' i O vi ,,,_; :~ O C1 =., C O ~ O., , m O "~ ~., V V O J y ~ ~ v v~ '> r bt; O ~~ ~ y r ~ J~ r ~ "" r N G ~~ V ~ 0• r J ~ .~ V O -' ' ~ ..i G '~ .Y ~ ~ O ~ J V O W O.. - ~ ~ " ~ ~ t~ U r ~ J O ;~ .~ O J v~ ~ hD .~] ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ C O y ~ ~ ~ V J ~ .~ ~:~ r _r ~i J ~ I, .~ J ~ U .r ~ ~ ~ ~ :y ~ .y J ~ U U J ~ v '~ :J J r O_~„ -r.. n .J -rr. ;n ' ~ u -ri r. ~ . ~--~ .~ O .= 'r C'' >~ V - v f3 V ~ P ~ L~r ~ ~ '",. o U .., r' o o ~ 12-6 UU p N ~~ !J :J r V r~- r v .~ :-, - U CJ `~ [~ :/; J ~. ~_ d O U ~ u.w ~ ~ 0 5n = r = '- ~ ~ O •~ ~ _ :n u c, v r q ~ _ - = ~ ~ ~.~ c ~ ~ O ~ J • !n V r ~ ~. ~. ~_ I/] _ = ~ U ~ iil CI J \ f_ _ ~ u ~ ~ G ~ ~ _ ~~ ;n ~ ~ s ° o C r Z _ _ _ ~ - G '~ .~ G - - - ~ - ~ r ~ ^ _, v > ~ J ~ ~ ti ~ v • C v .~ _ - O -~ D ' 'r ~ J r x ~ ~ ~ -. C U r :J O ~; :~ U r r ~ J ;~ ~. U 3 ;~ ~ _ ~ N ~. -r. ~ rj ~ ~ ~ ;n ~ ~ -• _ ~-1 .J ^ v J ~ ~ ~ U~ J h~ ~ y V _ :J y :~ ~ ~i .~ ~ O r• .1 . ~ s v r U v ~ ~ J _ = y -~ r' J v r . ~ t"] v ~ y ~, r r O ~ -. r .~ ~ ~ ~ v U C z ,..7 or r Y, V r -r U U .y V V ~ U ~a o -C c~ 3 O > :J ~ ~ ~ O r ~ , ~ ~ y O >, u ;n U n ~ _ ~ O V U ++ ~ `--~ v Nr ^, O p :-.1 O ~ r > U ~ [!; •~ :J r ~~ ~ n ~ `1 O U ~ i r-~ .. . - O _ U y '~ = ~ ^. r -~ :~ U `r r `~+ ,~ r ~ >, u O ro c ~' ~ ~ U ~ cn j~ ~ v •.n • ~ p :n ~ a v v .,~~ o ~ • o " o..~, ~ ~ ~ ~ O N V c;, ~ _ a. U ~ o o ~ c, ~ u ~ ~ CJ -`ri U N ~ ~ ~ C _, > ~. :J ^~ _ J ~' `~ T' ~ .t+ U " ~ ~ U ` Cv J v ~ ~ O O ~ t~ ~,j ;:1 r ~ r ~ ` 0 ~ ' i. r CI 7 - ~ V ~ :-~ n a hfJ .. • . ~ O~ J ~' cn U ~ ~ "'' J ~ ~ ~ .--. -~i ~ ~ U U ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ C ~ O ~ o i u > ~ ' ~ :n r r, ' • U ::1 i-' ~' : ' ~ ~ U '~ ~ ~'" ~ . r U - U U U ~ U ~7+ .CJ. ~ :J -~ ^ ~ . ^~ ~ ~ ^ o ^ .. .. C n r o •~ y 'C ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ -ts .~ -~ ~ C7 C r 0 0 ~ ~ .~ to V ~ ~ ~ Q ~ 0 12-~ N N u 'J ~' :J J :J U r r N _ =L J O N TS ~••~ fG ^J O O „a. v :J ::J O U R 'C r r. ~ > U ~ ~ ~ O V O ^ ~ .i+ C ri u O _~ ~ . r1., O er-' ~ U ~ _ O ~ U ~ .y _ y ,. r U ~ J ^r - "~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ O O tC Cl r U r V ~ C ~ .U. .r ~ O _V~ r O V _" J O ~~ O U ~, y .~ V cA V *„ V U U :J cn > U u o 'aq ``~ c' 0 0 >~ O O. ~ ~ r _. ~ ~ v J O O v rS u~ r, U v :. ~ O _ ~ j U ~. C ' ' U > U ~ ' w ' ~, V ~ v ;n ~ . O c O ,~ J J ~ ~ V ry V Y U ' G ~ r V ,_ v~ ~ :~ ~~ ~ v ci U~ _ _ O r O ~O U -ri O ~ '-~ - ~ ~ ~: y ~ ~ V O U U r. ter. y r . r -. U ~ fi D p "O a e~ ~ c ~~ '. n ~ .~ ~ ~r:n 3 U ~ ~ <~ Y~ r3 V .rr r ~ ~ .r., ~ ~ u . U o ~ > GA ~ : ~ n 0 r :n z_ c L' r O tC "C1 r U r C O V C O .~ m .~ O U DID . ~ r G 'C, , ;~ O U V ~ U `ter" >~ " V >~ U y Q" r ~ r ~ ,U C . te ~ 5 '~ U v ~ U ~• 0 (J ~ N ~.~ r p ~ ~ >, r [n V r U i ir U r,. [f~ ~ .. e ~ -rte .r, y vi U U U r. ~ "f~ O O '' O O r ~" r r- > ~~ O . C r U . ~ r4 ;n ^~ '"C'i 1 ~ ~ .".~ ~ ~ 'G U n ~. ~ O ~ O :J U ~ V `n '~ V > G ~ J U r --~ ~ J .' i T.j •_.- ~- C ~ -' r ~ r \ s \ J r y O V ~ ~ O ^ 'J ... • O y .~- V J U O '~ ,U. OJ y ~ J U ~ [ :1J U `~ U ~ J O '.~ V ~ p` C .r, . ~ U / H U ~~ O r J ~= 1 U s. N CJ .~ 1..+ .7- V U U f/) T ~ U ~_ C N J U O A r U G" U O ~~ r 'G U r U r. r'". 'J p r V v ~ ~+ r ~! , J G .J ~ J •~ r y .~ ~J O U ~ Wd ~ ~ . ~f .~ ~ ~ 1 n - ~r G J r,~ v ~ J y O ;n r r G O ~ ~ `(~ r ~ Vj' U ~ .-r. r y i U r -• O„ ~ ~ r r i s O r ~ (, ~ J .. O '.a~ r V ~ '~ ~ ~ V ~. O ^ u -~ v 0 r N . rr ~ r cn .~. ~ y ~ p .r. V r y ' " y~ - ~ U ~ C ~ r •~ O C V . O . U ~ ~ U r > r ?' y p p u J.~ ~ ~ U ~ fi u~. ~ r. ~ ~ ~ V ~ J O ~ ~ U G o ~ U ~ ~ U . ':-~ ~ ,~~, oD O V r, ~, ~, o . ~ j ~ U J r~ O 7 v .r. O U~ J .~ G ,~ ~ ~ J~ .y~ ,_ ~ U O J :n u -. i~ J ~ ~; . ~ ~_ U ~ U w r-. ~ ~;, V r ~ V ~ b9 .r., r ~ V U c _ ' ~ O v ~ V J 'vii tip U ~ r, u O Y J J :-+ y ~ :J CJ ~ r ~ y ~ ".~ ~ ~ 'V V , ~ i ~ ~- J V N ~ r r ~ ~-: ~ r U V r _, r ° , , ° ~ O J p _. V :n ~~ n ;~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ . ~ r ~ o ~ ~ O r '~ O U V r p J -r (- ~ ~- J C ~ ~ ~ - ~ U ~, ~ N ~ ~ :~ r r CJ J J .~ :J -r rr. ` O C r1. ~ O J J ~ ~ '-~ ~ ~ o J~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ v u ._ y o 3 v~ o ~ .~ ~ V _ .~ •~ ~° r~ r u •~ ~ ~y ~ •~ ~ r J> ~ ~ G ~ rr.+ CJ r ~ C ~ y Y Y r. y r --~ r ~ v y U r N (' :., u r N = [~ `J :n y W .r-. V ~ U V ~ tel: C ~ J -=~ [.~ ~ -"' C ~' ~ S .~ O ~ ~ ~ p G C L ~ ~ ~r,. ~ :J G ~ ~ C ~ ^~ --' U U Or '.J-~ C !J -'r+ C O C n ~ n'~ --7 C~ U '~ •ri . ~ y ~ '1" ti '~ y H ~ •J ~ r u ~ ~ L ~ ~ o J U ~' ti ~ C U ~" C. J 1 _ J ~= r G~ 12-9 Exhibit B Proposed text is unde~•lined. Deleted text is strL MODEL ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: The Heart of the City Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 21St day of October, 2008, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 21St day of October, 2008, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor, City of Cupertino 12 - 10 ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~J ~~~~~1 ~I ~e~.~~~ ®~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~c ~~~~~. 12 - 11 Fact % OI : _- 1 able of Conten~s _ _~ -- _ , _ti;J - - --_:.. -~~-- iii cl - - _--- ~- - _ "' --+ ~ r ~ -^ - ~'- _ ---- - -:1 ~ .~ - - - - -,~. _~ _~ _ _ _ 1~.~~ -- -_ ---- ~ _.l =.. _ - -- _ - ;, - _~~'_ 12 - 12 Pave ~ of __= The City of Cupertino List of Diagrams and Maps ~~ - -- -- ;. - - - -- *F- -~ - - ~ ~- 12 - 14 1~3vz ~ OI _~ adhered to in a specific plan. these requirements include text and diagrams that specify all of the following in detail: 1. The distribution, location and extent of the uses of land, including open space, jvithin the area covered by the plan. 2. Standards and criteria by which development twill proceed and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources ~^There appropriate. 3. The proposed distribution, location and intensity of major components of the public and private transportation, sanitary sejverage, water, storm~vater drauzage, solid ~tiJaste disposal, energy and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the p1_an. ~. A program of implementation measures includuzg regulations, programs and public v,~orks projects and financing measures needed to carry out the provisions of the =-_ - - ---- 12 - 16 pgc~ (Z Ci =-- Overall Goal 1 o create a positive and memorable image _ . -e-~ c_"_ ~ _ ~~ ~ ~~ _: ~ ~ ,_ .~. ; - `-_:-.-:-_ .; . Land Use/E.conoi~ic Coal Develop a Heart of the City that provides a t%ariet~~ of land use opportuiuties _ _ ______ policies ,,l ~~~ ,,_t~Z c---ci=~':", i X11 _!~- =~. _ - _ ~- - - --:~ ~.-mac - - - - -__ 1~C ~\ -_l - - - ___ -__ - --- 12-17 p3~Z ~ Oi - - `l 1' 2. 111e majority of the ~ _-- - - __ _ _ square foot - -- - cor~Lnercial development allocation for the Heart of the City should Ue devoted to enhaiuizlg activity ill the major activity centers_______ _ _ ~_____ _ _ L' _ --- -'-- - -mil _ ._ _ _.... ~..-. ~~__ _ _..._~ -~ ~ __ ~-_ . -- ~ _s•~ i _ _ ~- j--- -- - __ _ ~. _c__. ., ~______ ~.,. _._~. .. .~.___. _ _,.__ .___~_..,._"~ _. _ s_ _ --: l~iixed conunercial and residential developmel~t may Ue a11o~ti-ed :.-. ~~.~ ~c-_ _- - __ _ - _.~ - _,-~ Vii. - - -_-_ - -- - - 6. -- ----- ----- ~2 -1s Pd~Z c> O1_~-- rC_~~CL. CL_a_ - ~ - - L ;Cl:~ .aL~L.^. il'lt ~.T.IV C~1 -.~i'~'r;:Ci:l - .~1 ~~'~ ~- - '`_-_ Ar----.~- - - ~ 1 1 . .1., Plan for the gradual development of vacant, nonresidential sites and the upgrading of underutilized, nonresidential sites. S~_rategies: o Identify Stevens Creek Boulevard conunercial sites between the major activity _ -- -. - _- . _ __ and provide Heart of the City retail commercial development allocation for the upgraduzg of these properties to Heart of City desib standards. a Prepare development regulations and guidelines that clariy City expectations for quality development. Through economic develop_ent aCZ~ltles, fOCL1S On attracting ne~ti' 17i.zslllesS2S and retalnulg exlStlllg busuzesses. __ Ensure the compatibility of adjailling land uses Strategy: Prepare land use and development regulations that assure campatibility, ~~,-1ule employing specific, j~-el.l-designed buffers for adjacent residences. - _ _ Generally%, the expenditure of pubLc fZinds to acoluire and develop typical neighborhood parks is not endorsed; ho,~,-ever, passive rest areas should be incorporated in ne~v develop?ilent to the extent feasible and i-i1 furtherance of Heart of the City Specific Plan policies. _-__- - --- - - - -- _---- -----=- --_ _-_-= 12 - 19 ~'~ c~ d OI Circulanon/Parking Loal FaciLtate efficient and safe movement of people and vehicles ~%~ithin the specific plannuzg area. l~Zaintain or improve transportation level of sen-ice (LOS) "D" except at - - - - - ~ Stet%ens Creek _ - - _ ~ and De Anna Boulevard- - _ - ----- ---- --- =" ~ .: - _ __ _ ~ ~ : _ - _.- _ . =_ ~ __ u ~ : ~ ___ _ - , . _ ~ _ where L.OS E+ is allowable to further a unique community gathering place. Policies: 1. Promote bicycle and pedestrian access -= _ _ - . _ -- _ _ .: - - -- -- - -- - along Stever Creek Boulevard b5- creating a net<tiork of attractive formal and iruormal pedestrian pathjvays that link together the Boulevard and adjacent properties. Strategies: -------------- ----------- -- -------- • Require pedestrian plarutng for new =-- -- _-- ----= includes pedestrian linkages between properties and pedestrian-oriented ameiuties - - __. _ _-- -__---_ Barriers to pedestrian access should not be created between adjou~lg retail commercial properties. a Encourage active, outdoor-oriented commercial uses ---_-- ---=-. ® Develop design guidelines and izlcentives for pedestrian plazas, courtyards and passive rest areas. Q Comp1_ete implementation of the bicycle plan for Stevens Creek Boulevard and provide bicycle racks as needed. e Investigate the possibility of creatslg greater pedestrian access bet~~-een the residential neighborhoods and retail centers. Investigate potential open =pace linkage from Creekside Park to Stevens Creek Boulevard and into Va_llco I1ldustrial Park us»Zg the Calabazas Creek Corridor. 2. I-nproz-e traffic flow and visual contuZUity along the Boulez-ard. Strategy: Reduce the number of curb cuts by requiring shared driveways and uztercoiulected roads along the Boulej%ard v,-here feasible through private deg%elopment improvements. ~. Adjust parking standards ~~1 accorda~lce v4%ith actual 1_and use demand. S trafe gy: ___Establ_ish ret%ised parking standards for mixed used developments that include residential uses. 12 _ 20 - Fa~e ~ ~ of ' - Urban I7esib /Sneei:scape Goal To create a high quality and distinct conununity image and a functional and vibrant heart for Cupertino. Policies: 1. Provide a public improvement program, development standards and design guidelines that ~tiTill promote the future image of Stevens Creek Boulevard as the Heart of the CitST. strategies: ® Implement astreetscape --=-=- - -----__ .._ ~ _ _ _ __. _ will create a distinct, 'but cohesive, high quality image for Stevens Creek Boulevard. a Require compliance with the Heart of the City design a idelines for ne~v development or redevelopment of existing buildungs. Emphasize urban design as a major consideration of the desib 1 re~~iew and approval process. 0 1 romote Boulej%ard landscaping that complements the planned land uses and activities along the Boulevai d. o Enhance and promote the creation of public space throughout the Heart of the City through the use of building siting and design, public art, landscaping and street furniture. ® Design entry points and --=---- _ - _ _.: - _ _ . ___ : prow ide a sense of arrival to the Heart of the City, initiate the streetscape theme and provide signage to important destinations. v Det%elop entrance concepts jvhich may include structures and/or landscaping for major projects to be implemented by private property o~tiners. Consider the visual and functional access of significant pu'olic facilities in developing building designs for the >=leart of the City. Emphasize private property landscape materials that complement the streetscape landscape plan. ® Implement a p1_an to haZ%e a professional architectural adtTisor to assist the Clty lln the design review process. 2. Soften alnd define the hardscape of parking areas, pedestrian spaces and pathways by using landscaping- _ .- _ -_ _ - -_ _ -- _ : _ - ~ . Strategy: Det%elop design guidelines for the use of landscaping and ~ urniture in the hardscape areas in order to define and separate use areas as v~-ell as create more attractive env~orsneints. 12-21 Pale ~~ of _= 12-22 P2~e ~~ OI Back~rou_nd and Purpose The streetscape Element of the Specific Plan implements community design goals contained in the 1993 General Plan, -design concepts subsequently developed and revised in the __ __ "Heart of the City" Desib 1 Charette _____ _ __ __ , ,_ ;_ _- . _ _ . __ .. ~ _ _ ~ = - ~ _ ~ .The general streetscape concept endorsed at the Charette v,=as named "Parkurbia." It promotes a "green" city, acknowledges Cupertizo's agricultural past, and has linking the street's major activity centers ~~,=ith a continuous landscaped parkway as a principal objecti~-e. The streetscape E1_ement complements the Specific P1_an's Land Use Element by reflecting the corridor's different land use concentrations and designations. Design approaches vary to accommodate land uses. Options for implementation depend to a significant extent on the tyke of existing development immediately adjacent to the street right=of-j~=ay. streetscape policies also reflect the setback, frontage improvements, and landscape and signage requirements established in the Plan's Development Standards and Design Guidelines. Together, these three Plan Elements combine to promote an attractive, mixed-use boulevard, consistent ~~=ith the goals of the General Plan. streetscape improvement policies apply to both public and private sector actions i1 the Specific Plan Area. For example, large-scale improvements within the existing right-of- ~~=ay, such as street trees and street lighting, may be best implemented by the City with future reimbursement by private property ova-Hers when redevelopment occurs; construction can be more efficient and the appearance of the impro~-ements more consistent. Improvements to private property adjacent to the right-of-way would need to be coordinated with the City, but could be implemented as part of privately-financed site repot%ation or redevelopment. - - _ _ __ _ _ . .e _ _ . __ -= __ --- _ -.-=---Hou-ever, the primary purpose of the streetscape Element is to define the improt%ements needed to fulfill the City's vision for the Stevens Creek Bou1_evard corridor. It aL1os~-s fo~~ f1_exibiity u1 terms of phasilg, financilg, and desiglz modifications iz order to address the needs of the City and Specific P1_an Area property= owners and busilesses. Stree~scape l~esi~n Principles l Ile streetscape Element has - : -_ __wlderlyuZg principles: 1) Unify the Visual Appearance of the Street ~%~ith Orchard/Grove Street Trees Plantings, a Consistent Palette of Furni_hilgs, and Civic Landmarks. 2) Improve the Pedestrian Environment Along the Street Frontage with Passive Rest Areas, Planting Strips and bufferilg Trees and Slu~ubs. 3) A11o~v for. Flexibility i1 the Design of streetscape Immprovements to Address Access a_nd ~jisibility 1~Teeds of Adjacent Commercial Development. 12-23 Pa6e ~ .~ of . -=., properties with narrow c~sivev,-ays, the second loj1J tree on each side of the drivel-ay need not be planted if it obscures retail visibility. Ec_st - - _ _. _ -- _~ -- - _::~-- -The fiast _- -. -- _--_ _ ___ = - - subarea extends from ~ - - --. _ _-- - . _ __~_~______ ~ ~ to the City boundary adjacent to Tantau Avenue. The planting theme is an "Ash GrotTe." It features a relatively formal planting of Ash (Fraxinus species) in curbside planting strips and the center median. Similar to the =--------- -__ _ _ . - _ _ __= subarea, this approach fills in and extends the tree plantings that presently exist along the street. It also combines with the "Oak Grove" i1 the ~tiTest subarea to frame - - - -_ the -- - ___ _ _. - _ __ . _, _ __ __, _ _, subarea. Both will have a shady, some~~,-hat rural ~%isual character. Trees should be planted in rows on both sides of the sidewalk at approximately 3d feet on center. Grass or lo~v-gro~vilg groundcover may be used as the surface material. -------- - _- - -- - -_ - =For retail properties jvith narrow driveja%ays, the second ro~v tree on each side of the drit%e~~Tay need not be planted if it obscures retail t%isibility. If a double row of mature ashes =already established al_eng a con-~merdal retail frontage, neither ro~~,~ of trees should be removed. Frontage Renovation Condi~ions A curbside planting strip 10 feet iz1 width and a sidewalk a mulunum of 6 feet in width should be established along the entire frontage of the street. Iz1 the -- - - ______ _ -_=_= and East ---- - - - _ - , :. - _. subareas, a planting area 10 feet ul width should also be established behold the v.-alk to acconunodate a second ro~tir of trees. Conditions along the street vary, ho~~-ever, and il-nplementing the Design Concept in a uniform v,%ay will be difficult, at least for the near term. TIZe montage Renovation Conditions plans on the follo~~,~ing page i1_lustrate typical existing frontage conditions and recommendations for respondilg to them to implement the Design Concept. Conditions are described belo~a%, from least to most constrained. 1) 1~1~de La~~dscape Ensel~Le~~i ~-ith Pin_nti~ig Strip -This condition is the model for the rest of the street. It contains a 10 feet planting strip and a 10 foot landscape easement adjacent to the side-~ralk. It reflects City requirements for frontage landscaping that have been in place for tl~e past tj~,~elz-e years and as such characterizes most of the ne~v development along the street. Existing trees iz these areas, ho ;~; ever, rarely form consistent rove%s along the street..4dditional trees should be added to create a double rot~,% of trees at a spacing consistent with the streetscape design. Existilg trees of the recommended tree species should not be remot%ed if spaced closer than the streetscape design. Over the long term t~-hen redej-elopment of properties occurs, 12-25 r --_ Pale l• ~ ol__ i ~ __ _i __ ~~__~_._ _~ _.~_ _. ~.~ __..r .. _....t __ _ _~___ ` /_ - 12-27 ?a=~e ~~ of ~ -= ~~~~~a~~-~~~~~ 5~.~~~a~~~ a~~ IIf~~~g~ ~~~~~~~~~s Background the Development Standards and Design Guidelines contained in iris Element provide regulatozy support for the Specific Plan's land use policies. they are intended to promote high-qualify private-sector development, enhance property values, and ensure that both private ilvestinent and public activity continues to be attracted to the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor. 111e Standards and GuideLules reflect the Community Design Goals of the 1993 General Plan, the "Parkurbia" streetscape concept that emerged from the _ , . _ "Heart of the City" design charette, -- -=- the implementing streetscape irmprovement policies contained i1 the Specific Plan's Streetscape Element _ _ ~ . ~s noted throughout the Specific Plan, the "Parkurbia" concept promotes a "green" city, acknowledges Cupertino's agricultural past, and envisions Stevens Creek Boulevard as a landscaped park«~ay linking major centers of cultural, office, and retail use. However, Stevens Creek Boulevard must also accommodate a variety of development types outside of the _- _ _ -___-._:~ ~--. :_---= - - ._. _--_ -=, and a central objective of the Standards and Guidelines is to accommodate this variety within the overall parameters of the "Parkurbia" concept. The 1_VLixed-Use Park~~vay The image of Cupertino is most on display along Stevens Creek Boulej%ard. The corridor is the central element of Cupertino's "public real_m," where much of its public life occurs. Yet the corridor's bodge-podge appearance contributes little to the overall character of the community and is at odds with the orderly sub-urban character of its neighborhoods and busil7ess parks. Land uses, building forms, and landscapiZg vary from one property to the next. - --__ _ _ _______ - __ commercial buildings, sleek offices, old and ne~~a shopping centers, parks, parking lots, gas stations, condominiums and apartments all ''do their o~~Tn thing," ildependent of one another. - _i:4~'- -- -_,~ - i:C`~ ~ir r~?i-:cl-:t "L ~l ri31 = .Lt _i.cit - - _ ._- --- Participants iz the General P lan process and the Heart of the City Design Charette -. _ = identified this lack of coherence as particularly undesirable, and identified a "park«~ay" design approach as a means of both brilgilg visual order to the street and reflectilg the physical characteristics of the rest of the conununit~~. the goals of the Standards and Guidelines are therefore: 12-28 • Pave 1g of _- 1) Accommodate a continuous parkway /street-tree planting scheme that facilitates pedestrian activity, yet maintain the visibility and access needed for successful commercial retail businesses. 2) Promote visual compatibility between commercial, office, and residential development. 3) Allow commercial, office and residential development flexibility to meet different needs in terms of buildup form and site and frontage orientation. The manner in which the Standards and Guidelines address these goals is summarized below: Visibility%: The Standards and Guidel_ires implement the parkway frontage concept established in the Streetscape Element of the Specific Plan. They require that all new development provide a fiontage landscape easement that extends t<%=enty six feet back from the curb. Tlne easement ~~=ill accommodate a curbside planting strip, sidewalk, and either a single rojf~= or double ro~f~= of street trees. Hoff,=ever, visibility of development from the road~~=ay is i-zzlportant for most types of development. Because businesses market hoods and serz%ices directly to motorists, it is essential for coml-nercial retail development. The Standards and Guidelines therefore contain the following provisions to maintain visibility: ._, ~__- _ _ _ ____Buildung-from-curb setbacks are reduced = :~ _ -_ : _ - - - - to 35'; ____ Total area permitted for commercial ~f,=all signs is increased from 1 square foot per l:r:ear foot of store frontage to 1.5 square feet. .. 11z addition. - , - - __ _-- - - •--, - -~ - .~_- -. _- _-_ - _-- - - - _ - - - __, _ _._ .-- _---1 __ -- --_-- -._-_ the Streetscape Element contains poLcies for installing trees v,=ith canopies high enough to allov~ z%isibility of adjacent properties. Compatibility: The Standards and guidelines do not require a particular architectural s~~le or std=les. rio~ti-ever they do encourage a common approach un terms of architectural features. For example, al1_ buildings are required to have a maul building entrance visible from the street frontage, and all buildings are encouraged to hay=e a?n architectural base, a consistent arrangement of buildung masses, and an attractive roof or roofline. In addition to the consistent parkSf,=ay frontage, elements of agricultural landscaping and pedestrian scale character - "orchard" tree plantings, =_ _ . --trellises and arbors, and pedestrian-height light fixtures -are emphasized. Clearly-defined ~ti=alk;lzg paths coiunectung public sidejti-alks, promilnent building entries, courtyards, and parlcung areas are required. Properties are buttered along ==_----= rear lot lures by fences and/or v,~alls and everLly-spaced "~f,=und roof,=" tree plant~sngs. 12-2s Page 1,~ of Flexibility: Different forms of development typically exhibit different on-site relatiorLhips between buildings, parking, street frontages, and landscaped areas: 1MdX1ITlum vlslblllty, znirlimal landscaping, and a frontal relationship of buildings to the street frontage i5 t~%pically preferred for commercial development. Some amount of visibility combined with attractive landscaping is preferred for office buildings, jti-ith the relationship of buildings to street frontages varying from site to site. Delnse screening and landscaping is preferred for residential development, with buildings often oriented away from street frontages. 11ne Standards and Guidelines encourage buildings to be located in relatively close proxinit~% to the frontage to increase visibility, and architectural and site i_mprot%ement prop%isiolU encourage compatibility i1 terms of the general appearalnce of development, as noted above. I-lo~~-ever, OIn-Slte Telat10I15111pS may vary from development Type to development type.. - - - -~-=----- ----_--- =------ _ L~ Ts~~~~ ~~.e Slandards and ~uidel~r~es Development Standards address those aspects of development that are essential to achieve the goals of the Specific Plan. They are specifications for site development and building design, such as permitted land uses, building height, and setbacks. Standards must Ue adhered to andry~ical_ly employ the i~Tord "shall_." Desigln Guidelines, on the other hand, provide guidance for nenv development in terms of more subjective considerations, such as district character or design details. They also seI-~~e as criteria for design reviet%J by City staff and the Plaruning Commission. Guidelines typicall~% employ the word ''=_hould." Variations are permi~ ed if they ~~~ill substantially aid in meeting the overall principles and objectives of the Specific Plan. Illustrative Building Prototypes ---------- - -= ------_-: -- illustrate appLcation of the Standard and Guidelines and the forms of development desired by the City. Standard and Guidelines begin on the follot~-ing pages: Dez~elopme~it St~~~darcis__ _ - - ... Desio;t Gilic%elilies 12-30 Page =(~ of ~ -= 12-31 Pa~e~lof_= - - = .~-"- ~_=cam ~~ -"~ --- c __ -- - _ - - -_ L '~ - - _- _ - - - -_- - _ - _ ._ L . , , - - c - - - 'r..= - - _~c -_ - -_ _ _ _ _~ __ - _- _--- ~- _ ~ - - -. =_ O`fice Oz%er Retail- _ --=-- = -- . - -_- -=-_-- -= --- -- -.-Other Conditional uses - as specified i11 the City's General Commercial (CG) Zonulj district. 12-33 P3~e ~~ OI == ~` ~_ I~~faximijm Development Intensify . .._\ _~'_ :.~i -~1.~.-~ x'11 _. tTM -1~:- -_ --~^_ ~1 _ -_ ~1 ~ - '~._ .L':~L _~..\L __~_ Commercial Retail ~__,_-. ___ Development -Applicants must apply for an allocation from the retail commercial __ _;.__= development allocation pool. 1.01.030 Building Height, Setbacks and Orientation ~. weight - as measured from side~~Ta1k to top of cornice, parapet, or eave line of a peaked roof shall be as follojvs: 1, ?Maximum - - - - - ~_---_ - - . _ _.. _ - - - _ .. _ - _ 2. 1~Zu~imum - i' r_ :~'~ - .CC.L - tt _.' _ _ h.-_.... __. .-.-.._-___ -_-- _._ ~ .-_.~_._. _ _ .~.. _. _ _ _ 12-34 Page ~< or _- 1_.01.0'0 Site Development and Parking ~~ access 1. Direct Pedestrian Access - in the form of a walkway shall be provided from the StecTens Creek Boulevard sidewalk to the main building entrance; i.e., pedestrian access to building entrances shall not require sti%allcing between parking spaces. If pedestrian access ~~Tays cannot be separated from parking bays and/or circulation aisles, They must be distinguished by a different pavilg material. 2. Vehicular Access/Curb Cuts -shall be shared wherever possible. a. lvlaxinum Number - of curb cuts - - - -- -_- -_ - - - - _ _-.__. _ _ -_ .-- _. --- _ shall be one (1) two-way curb cut or tZ~To (2) one-vray curb cuts on Stet=eltis Creek Boulevard. c. Driveway Setbacks - shall be d. Drop-Off Areas -shall be provided at both the main (street front) building entry and the secondary (parking side) building entry. e. Se1~-ice Access -shall be fiom rear parking areas. Service access should az%oid locatilg next to residential areas ~vhenez%er possible. B. I' arki~~g _ Location of Surface Lots -shall _ - ~:: be to the side and/or rear of buil_dL1gs . _ _ _ -. _ - , _.:The Perimeter of Parking Lots algid Driven,=ays - - : _ _~_".' . - '_ _ _ ._"- 12-36 Page ~~ cf .= --_ - . __ . _ _ - - - ~ _ :- =- . _ -- . _ . _ . ~ ~-1~ze perimeter of parting areas adjacent to the side and/or rear property Lees shall be screened ~~,~ith a ~%~all or fence - _ _ _ ~ : ~ ~ - -- - - = --_ - _ - mac: -st ^-'- SQL= - --- ~.c'~ __~ ':~.- ;~ ^- ^ci., -_ , See "Site Improvements and Landscaping" for jvall, fence, pier, and pedestrian access guidelines. ~_:~~~ _ _ Cu _ ___ _ ~ \ _ _~. __ ~~ .__ Gammon Open Space poi `c =- :;~ ~.~~., -- C'. ~_-~~:! ~`F.=i~ --.t- - ~iG U.r .:_. ~'1 `il :~ - -.u f_tLI_ ?~:L .C -` t_ _j'-'i ~1-~ Cu :L_ _..__:\ ~ _C-1CGl:_ _.~i ::uC. _ .. ,-L GS 1 ..__...C_. __.._._ ~.C_: ~~Z ~ ..:il~~'l'. _ ~ ~~1 - _ - ~ t.. - - C-_ _ 12-37 Pape ~'~ of _= ~_ .- _Landscaping and Screening 1. Parkv.Tay Landscape Easement -All nezv development shall establish an easement twenty six (26) feet ;1z width along the Stei-ens Creek Bou1_evard frontage. ~...__ _ - a. Easement Improvements -The easement shall consist of _ - _ 1 - - _~_ -- - b. Special Condition: View Corridors - Area(s) may be clear of boulevard street trees to allo~~T for unobstructed views of buil_dulgs aszd/or signage. This area shall include necessary curb cuts and driveways. It shall Ue a mutimum of sixty (60) feet betv,~een trees and a maximum of one third (1/3) the length of the parcel frontage, not to exceed one hundred tea-eery (120) feet betj~,%een trees per opening. Parking area lot trees ~~-ith.ul the view corridor may also be cleared to allo.v for wlobstructed z%iejvs of build;lzgs and sighs iii this area. 2. Adjacent to Designated or Deve1_oped Residential Properties - a~ractive screen fencing or v,%alls shall be provided along the ___ . ,__ __ property laze=_ to screen buil_d~?Zgs, sei~Jice areas, and parkilzg areas; a minimw.n five (~) foot plantizlg area shall be established ~~-itlun and adjacent to the fence or wall with e~~ergreen trees planted at a minimum spacslg of tt~-enty fiC-e (2~) feet on center. ~,; --- - 12-38 P2tre ! ~ Oi ~ __-- =~. Screen Fences and ~1Talls -not adjacent to streets and sidet~=alks shall be a minimum of siX (6) feet in height and a maximum of eight (8) feet in height. 5. Plant 1\-~ateriaLs -See "Site Improt-ements and Landscapi_n~" section. Sijns -shall conform to Ciry of Cupertino sib 1 ordnance. However, the following provisioitis shall apply in the Specific Plan Area to offset the reduction n ~=isiUility associated ~~,=ith the park~~=ay frontage inpro~=ements: 1. I`~laximum Buildil~-Mounted Sib1 Area - for com-mercial retail development shall be one and one half (1.5) square feet per one (1) linear foot of tenant frontage. l A f - - - ~ ~~ „ _ ,~ _ ~ _ - __ _ - _ ... - 1 _ __ _ _ .. _ . '1 ~, - _ _ _ ~- 12 - 40 Pa`e ~~y or _= -~ ~~_1-~_ 1 _ J _ _.. _ .._ .. - _ _. . ~~R ~_ .~... ~..~~ • - ~._.. ~_ ~`._ __ `__ a .. ..-~ ~~._.~ _~__ .~~_~_ ~~. _ . _ f .... ._ . _~ _ _ _. _ ~ .-. ~ ._. _ . __ .. ~ _ . _ _ . ~ .._ ~ .. _ . _._ ~ . _ ,.. . _ ~ . _ . j _(_ _ _ _ "- }~ ! 12-42 Page s~ of . -= 12-43 Pa~~e..~~ oI === Single-Fa1~nily residential Development Standards 1.==_ .010 Description Standards promote retention and development viability of single-family residential sized lots in the transition area betzti-een Stevens Creek Boulevard fronting development and single-family neighborhoods u1 the vicinity of Tantau, Judy, Bret and Stern Avenues. Standards apply to existing lots 10,000 square feet or less in area and 22.5 feet or more in distance from Stevens Creek Boulevard. 1.-- _ .20 Land Use ~. Berrnitted Uses 1. Silgle-Family Residential- at a de?~sity range of 1-.5 u?uts per acre. 2. Other permitted uses i1 the R-1 su1g1_e-family residential zoning district. B. !necessary 'Uses 1. Customary Home Occupations -subject to City review. 2. Accessory Uses and Buildings -customarily appurtenant to a permitted use. ~. Conditional Uses 1. Conditional uses as allo~%-ed in the R-1 si1g1_e-family residential zoning district. 1.=x..30 Building Height and Setbacks 1. BuildiZg heights and setbacks are as allowed in the R-1 single-family residential zoning district. 1.= -.?0 Other Site Development Regulatio~zs 1. tither site development regulations applicable in the R-1 single-family residential zoning district shall apply to lots affected b~T these single-fainil~% residential development standards as shojvn iz the figure. 12-44 1'3`e ~~ Of _= In order to provide design flexibility in situations when small lot size, unusually shaped parcels, or unique surrounding land uses make it difficult to adhere to the development standards and v,~here all efforts to meet the standards have been exhausted, an applicant for development may file an exception request to seek approval to deviate from the standards. The possibility of lot consolidation, if an exception is needed for a substandard parcel, shall be evaluated. The exception process shall not be used to increase la?zd use intensity or change permitted land uses. A. An exception for development standards can be approved if the final approval authority for a project makes all of the follo~~-iz1g findings: 1. T11e proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and ~~Tith the goals of this specific plan and meets one or more of the criteria described above. 2. The proposed development ti7ill not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. 3. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 4. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. 5. 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. B. An application for exception must be submitted on a form as prescribed by the Director of Commtulity Development. lie application shall be accompazued 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 I~~otice of Public Hearing before the Plaruung COITL`nl.SSlon for an exception under this chapter iln the same maiuzer as provided in section 19.120.060 (relating to zoning changes). After a public hearil-~g, and consideration of the application ii1 conjunction with the mandatory findings contained uz subsection A above, the Plaiuluzg Conunission sha11 approve, conditionally approve or deny the application for an exception. The decision of the PlannuZg Commission inay be appealed to the Ciiy 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 shal_1 specifically be prescribed by the conditions of such permit or variance. A?Z exception permit shall be deemed to have been used in the event of the erection of a structure or structures when sufficient building activit~r has occurred and continues to occur in a diligent manner. 12 - 45 PaSe ~~ of == ~~~~~~ ~~~~e~~~~~s 2.01.010 Description The Design Guidelines promote buildings that assume some of the communication functions of suns. Through their oz=erall form and appearance buildings should commul-ucate more than just a business name to a motorist who is shopping b~= car - ho~v many businesses are there? j~=here to park? ~ti=here to enter the building? A "buildu1g as sib is taller than a typical one-story building, 5~-ith a distinctive si1_houette. It is located in close proxunity to the street frontage. Ilse driveway and main building entrance is identified by a taller architectural form, v,=hick is an excellent location for mounting a sib ~ visible fiom a car. ~. Building increment -Long facades should be divided il-~to shorter segments or modules. T\-Todu1_es along the Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage are recommended to be tjventy-_fit%e (2~) feet long and a maximum of fifty (50) feet long, and should be separated by ______changes in the building mass or facade treatment, such as a projected entrance or window volul-ne(s), notch, roof form, or other architectural feature. _ _ _ - - ~- - ~- - _ _ _ _ - _ a - - - Be Special :architectural Features -should accent buildings at the main building entrance, adjacent to entrance drives, and / or at building comers.. _-- ~: ~ . _ .-. ~- ~~.t~ C:.'r.-tI'` `;,'_.'~ t=~I~ -: _" _ rte. "i?-:t~.~c~. ~ ~~: - - - ~~ _>>~~= ~ - ii '~ s11 - -;'~ 1 _ - ~-_ii~ i-• _ -ram- ~ - - - -- _ - - - _ - `.c~ '~ i, is _ _ - t J ~ _I ~_ T _L.-. _ - - - --I - - - -- - - - 12 - 46 Pale ~~ o~ __- I -!_. _ racade Eomposition - j/very buildu1g and/or individual tenant space should have a base; a clear pattern of openings and surface features; a prominent main entrance; and an attractive, visually interesting roofline. The building should convey quality materials. 1. Building Base -This may be as simple as a visual thickening of the ~~,-a11 jvhere the building touches the ground, a different surface material and/or wall color, or a different design treatment for the ground floor in a t~ti-o-story building facade. 2. Pattern of Openings and Surface Features - VJindo~~,-s, wall panels, pilasters, building bays, and storefronts should be based on a ?nodule derived from the building's structural bay spacilg. --=-- - _ -=- --- 3. Building Entrances - __ :u'.u _- _~__ :~~_- __._-_ =-- - - --_ . _-_ __ -- =_ - - - - =~ __ __ __ -. L.~ L_-_ - Cll. _____ ___. ~..~._.. - 12 - 47 Pa~~ ~5 of _== ~1 ~~-.: :.1 :. ~_.~-~ _C... .. C_-:.C. 4. Rooflines - should be simple, changing shape to reflect important building masses, tenants be- lo~v, and/ or other important internal building functions. -_ ~'~indows -are an important element of facade composition and an indicator of o;-er all builduZg quality: 1. ~~Vuzdot~,=/Wall Proportion - In general, upper stories should hat=e a v,=indojti-to-j~=all area proportion that is smaller than that of ground floor storefro?Zts. 2. ~~ti~indo~~= Operulgs -should generally be vertical or square in shape. Horizontally-oriented openings generally make buildings appear squat and massif=e. ~. ~-'Vindoty Lrtset -Glass should be inset a muzimum of 3" from the windov,= frame or from the exterior wall surface to add relief to building surfaces; this is especially unportant for stucco buildings 4. Shaped Frames and SiL1s -should be used to enhance openings and add relief to ~~=all surfaces. - .:, _ - - -- - ~.L .. _ - __ - -- - - ~._ -- _- j '_ - - _ ~! L1_.t1 :- .~..1 .e L L--Cl l : .'i •.'~- ~ ~' 'T` '" G -- -- ~_ - Roofs -Parapets and/or shallo;ti= gable, hip, or other t~ti-o-slope roofs are ~•ecommended for all buil_dLzgs -_.- ____.__--- ---_ _-_-_.--- 1. Roof S1_opes -should lie bet~~~een x:12 and 6:12. __-Roof Ridges -should be aligned ±o be parallel and/or perpendicular to the street frontage. =Roof O-~%erhangs -are strongly recozninended. O ~=erhangs should be a n~1i~.num of tizree (3) feet, ;~=ith additional articulation in the form of support struts, gutter facia, and/or exposed beams/ ra er ends. --?~~taterials - The follov,=ing roofing materials are typical for the district: 12-48 Pave ~~ of __ - ~~' Signs -Guidelines 1 through 4 belo`v apply tobuilding-mounted sib s. 1. Sign Location - Sib Zs should be mounted on parapets, towers, turrets, recessed wall areas, aild/or other architectural features specifically designed for them. slush-mounted and painted ~~=a11 signs should alibi ~1=ith major architectural elements, such as doors and ~tillld0j~=5. OI"Ilamelltal elements, SLlch aS nloldlllgS, pilasters, arches, clerestozy wildo~a=s, roof eaves, or cornice lines should be used as a frame. -_~Ata=Wing and canopy signs -are recommended for commercial retail buildings. Awning sib should appear and function primarily as awnings, however. Awnilgs should reflect the build»1g's facade module and should not extend for more than fifty (50) 1ilear feet without a break. Signs on canopies should Ue integrated with the canopy ~ ~ - - _ ._ _ - _J or be in the form of freestanding letters mounted on top and extending above the - - - --~ ..Projecting Sib 1s -are recommended if designed as architectural features or are 1_ocated primarily for pedestrian risibility; minimum side~~,=alk clearance should be sej=en (~) feet. =-. Architectural Style - Sib1 shapes, tyke styles, and color combinations slnoul_d complement buildu1g styles. ==,Structural supports -should be attractij=e. Tl1ey should co~nplenlent the o~%era11 design of the s1g11 and/ or buildilg(s). Ornamental ?1letal is strongly recommended. =_ . >~Zaterials - should be attractl~-e and long-lastilg. Recommended materials are: a. Sib lboards - of ~1rood or metal, ~~=ith painted, engravred or routed 1_etters, or mounted letters of ~~~ood or metal. 12-49 Pale .~~' of =_ - b. Silhouette or fibrati~%e sib -three-dimensional levers, symbol, and / or ornamental fibres made of Gti-ood or metal. __Fabric a«~ings -such as canvas or nylon, v,~ith painted or applied letteril-~~; plastic anti%nings should not be used. - ~- - - ~`- --~,-, =_-- -_--- _- ace - ~=~,•: ei-, :,-.---, _ - ---.~ - -, -_ - cr ~~.- --- :~;:~~_ - - - - --_ :.._ ~~ --_ il~tc .i'~~ ___~~S..C _..=1~ _......ai ~'C ~~_._.CL_C.~ ~.1~~L:a\ iCJ ._.C _~1.1.:.1__.t Z _~i~ _ =L:r' - c~ 1 ~C CrII.l .L ..1. ___ _ J _1 i~ _'-. `_ _I~ 1. :~C 21 L.S ._. -- .1 . a. -' - -_-,i - =_t 1,- -'1: ~iC "%.%~ _i~ -..L_ _.CL.~eU, ~'~ :i' -_',. ~ - __~__ .z ~O.__. - - - ______ ~.i~htin~ -should be used to enhance si~1s and buildu1~s. ~N-hen possible, sibs illumuzatioil should be coordizlated v,-ith an overall buildu1~ li~htv1,~ scheme. rtecom?r.ended 1i~ht-i~~ approaches are: 12-50 l Page ~ C~ of _: - 1. Backlit - ~~%ith lighting inside and beluld projectL-~g lettering and/ or a~vnulgs. 2. Floodlit - ~~,-ith sul~le or multiple spotlights, provided light sources are shielded to protect motorists, pedestrians, and adjacent properties. 3. Color and lamp tyke -Light sources providing the most pleasing and accurate color rendering are metal halide, incandescent, and color- corrected fluorescent. Other lamp types, such as cool ~~,=bite fluorescent, mercury vapor, and high and lose pressure sodium may distort sign colors and should be used according to adilice from a lightng professional; these lamp types are not appropriate for area lighting. ?. The light fixtures shall be oriented and designed to preclude any light and direct glare to adjacent residential properties. Iho direct off-site glare from a light source shall be visible above 3 feet at a public right-of-~~%a5~. ,~. Parking lots, sidev,~alks and other areas accessible to pedestrians and automobiles shall be illumilated with a uniform and adequate intensity, Typical standards to achieve l.uuform and adequate intensity are _Lighting around automatic teller machines shall meet minimum standards required by the State Business and Professions Code. 1. "i=ni .r1a _- - - - -- - - _L-~- - --_ .- a =-- - - =c~i. -i 12-51- ~2/~ ~=~ Oi _- ~ _ _ _; - - - - - -- - - _ .. --- . ---- --- 12 - 52 Page ~~ or ; -- ~.._-~-.~ ..~~.r • _r.~~--. i~ .~.-rte ~-~-~ ~-~~ ~r~~ .~- ~~.~r~._. ..~ \. `--.r- ~~.~ _~ -~~. ,.1 ~.r... ice. `._.~_. --.. .~_.~ ~. ....-~ _~_. __ .~~~ _ `.~ ~.~-~_.._ .. ~_. ~~ . . 12-53 p2~Z =~~' of _- _ _ _ , _ _ - - ., - - -- :, - 12-54 T_ f - ~ _ - S _~ _ --- 12-55 1.. ~p~~ ~~~~®~~~~~~-~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~c~~~~~ ~~~~~~i~-~~~ 2.01.040 Description The follo~vung Design GuideLunes for Site Improvements and Landscaping apply to all Step%ens Creek Boulevard Specific Plan Areas Lunless otherv,%ise indicated. ~.. Pedestrian Pathways - Isnformal pedestrian path~a%ays linking adjacent properties and buildings are recommended. These pathways are intended to form a nets,=ork separate from the public right-of-jvay. A variety of approaches are possible and the City will revieja= linkage opportunities and proposals on a case-by-case basis. B. Paving R~aterials - recommended for pedestrian surfaces are listed belojti=. IIn general, a maximum of tv,-o materials should be combined un a single application: 1. Stone -such as slate or granite 2. Brick pavers. 3. Concrete Lunt pacers. Poured-in-place concrete - z~%ith any of the foLo~~,=ung treatments: integral pigment color; _special aggregate; special scor>slg pattern; ornamental insets, such as tile; pattern stamped. All concrete v,~a_lks should be tutted to reduce glare. C. ~'~alls, Perlces, 1-sedges, ~ate~~:ays And ?iers -should be used to defuse public and prij%ate boundaries and/ or spaces and screen parking areas. 1. Design - ~-~Ta11s, fences, gate~ti=a~%s and piers should be designed to reflect the architectural style and materials of the principal building(s). ~_ - 12-56 Page ~~ of == -= A combination of thick and thn structural elements -should be used, with thicker elements for supports and/or panel divisions. Fenceposts and/or support columns may be built up ~a=ith additional trim, cornices, and/or moldings for this purpose. =_Walls and piers - should hay=e a base and coping. -, Piers - A ro~v of freestandilzg piers can be effective as an open screen between parking areas and streets or ~~=alks. ~ continuous chain or open metal fence between piers can be an attractive device for creating a stronger separation. __ - - 2. Materials -should be the same as or compatible vaith those of the principal buildu1g(s). Support post or pier materials may differ from fence materials; e.g. metal fence panels combined ~~=ith masoiuy piers. a. Fences -Recommended materials are wrought iron, cast iron, and v,=elded steel for commercial applications. Metal fences may be mounted on a lose masonry ~~,=all, and/ or spa-~?Zi1g masonry piers. V~~ood fences are appropriate iz residential Plan Areas only. They should be substantial in design and painted a light color. b. ~~1~alls a.nd piers - recolYUnended materials are precast concrete stucco- faced concrete, brick, or stone. c. 1_\?ot reconur.ended: (i) Chaiz 1i~k fences (ii) Unfiushed or unsurfaced concrete block v,=alls -are s~longly discouraged. Block walls should be coated ~~=ith cement stucco or similar surface. Split-face b1_ock v,=alls inay tie appropriate along side or rear property lies only. (iii) Rustic ~~}lood fences g~ Plant Materials And 4 andscape T reatnterLts -Used on properties adjacent to the right-of-ivay should reflect the following guideliles: 1. Plant ?~~Iaterials Along Stevens Creek Boulevard -should a•eate an attractit%e and harmonious character, i1 keepilg ~=.-ith the orchard/grove streetscape theme. ~2 5~ ?aye ~! ~ cf - -- a. Trees with open branching structures- should be used. Deciduous trees are recommended. U. Planting/landscaped areas -should ha~re a simple pales e of plant species. c. Complex planting schemes -should not be used in front yard areas. 2. Plant Materials iu1 Other Locations -should be selected and placed to reflect both ornamental and functional characteristics. a. Deciduous trees -should be the predominant large plant material used. They should be located adjacent to buildings and ~~-ithin parking areas to provide shade in summer and allow sun i, ~vilter. Species should be selected to provide fall color, and to minizuze litter and other maintenance problems. b. Evergreen shrubs and trees -should be used as a screening device along rear property lines (not directly adjacent to residences), around mechanical appurtenances, and to obscure grillwork and fencing associated jvith subsurface parking garages. c. Flo~verilzg shrubs and trees -should be used where theS~ can be most appreciated, adjacent to walks and recreational areas, or as a frame for builditg entrances, stairs, and walks. 3. Fousztails -are recommended in hardscape open spaces to provide cooling ilz hot weather. Tl~e design and materials should be re1_ated to the principal build;llg(s) and/or on-site furnishilgs. ?. Surface Parking Lots - utilize a simlificant amount of site area and should be designed as an Lntegral feature of the overall site development plan. a. Space-defiuzg elements -such as trellises, columns, S~1alls, arbors, and hedges should be provided to enhance the appearance of lots. these elements should be consistent in design and materials ~~-ith the principal Luild;ilg(s) and other site features. b. ParkilgLots- ~-~-'~-____:-_~--_-_....~~_-.___;.~-._-. _-_-.~ 12-58 1 aye ~~ cr . -=_ ,1~..._ _ „~~.- _-'-- _ - -' - - -~` `.`-- -viii -~' _-' - .tC.. -'~ - . ---- .._ _'__ .__~_~ _ ----x--. c. "Orchard Parking" -should be employed in all surface lots. the "orchard" tree. placement provides better shade on the passenger compartment and more even shade and vegetation throughout the parkilzg area. -- -- - - - - - - - -- - --_ _ - _ =_rees shall be planted tottiTard the rear of parking stalls to create a grid rather than rotti%s. Such trees shall be protected by curbing or bollards as appropriate. E. Surface Grading -should be muzimized to mailltaill an ordlard/grove character of det%elopment throughout the Stevens Creek Boulevard Specific Plan area. - - ---- - = -_: _ - ~- -_~.. - =_-= __ _--- - -_ _~Moundillg earth - to elevate Uuildings, or "bermulg" earth against the side of buildings, is not recommended. _~ - _ ,y - 12-59 P3~Z ~i~ Ot Background State late requires that all specific plans include text describing the distribution, location and intensity of major components of infiastructure needed to support the proposed land use and deg%elopment iz the specific plannilig area. the level of private and public improvement and development as contemplated iz the Heart of the City Specific Plan. v,%ill not warrant any major expansion of the City's infrastructure. The major components of this specific plan ins%oh=e: d Streetscape improvements, primarily landscaping, which do not require purchase of property Or narro~~~=i1g of existing s Teets. o allocation of development potential, Gvliich was previously demonstrated ii the General Plan envi_rolunental impact report to be within the capacities of existing services and iifrastructure. ® Guidance of architectural design of future deg%elopn-lent ~1=hich will not require expansion of infrastructure. 1 ranspor ration The Heart of the Ciry Specific Plan envisions a mvlfimodal transportation corridor for Stevens Creek Boulevard. As such the plan proposes the even~ual completion of all side«=alk inlprovemerits along the boulevard such that the sidewalk will be separated from the street by a buffering easement of trees and other landscaping. The amount of sides=alk improvements that ~ti=ill need to be made are as follo~tiTs: Reconstruction of monolithic sidewalk: -- ___ ft. Construction of ne~a= sidev,=alk: -==- ft. The majority of side~~,%a1k improvements will take place iicrementally as properties redevelop. llie nnissin~ sections of bicycle lanes from De ri1La Boulevard to Stelling Road jti=ill be completed as part of the streetscape project. j=ulidilig ;will be allocated through the Capital Improvements Program. Tl~e estihiated cost is $x,000. Tlie development ilitenslfication Oi the _ `=- -_---__ __ -_ _.__.-__ ma~j V.=arrant additional signaliz.ation of Stevens Creek. Boulevard. Fuiidilg v,=ill be allocated in the .~- year Capital Improvement Program or paid for by the der=elovment community as Heart of the City development proceeds. ~jaler°, Se~ti~er, Storm l~rainabe, So1_ic1_ ~~Tasle Disposal Facilities and Energy Facilities. 1~0 expalLiOli Oi these FaC1~it12S 1S contemplated as a result of Heart oi' the Clty develOp121el1t aC~ .%ity. 12-60 Pase SQ' Oi ; -- Regulatory Framework The Heart of the City Specific Plan is both a policy and regulatory document. The goals, policies and strategies provide the rationale for the development standards and land use map. The Heart of the City Specific Plan is a regulatory document i, that its land use map and development standards will be incorporated 'alto a ne~v plaruled development zoning for the property within its boundart=. The Plan is a1_so a policy document by virtue of the guidance it prozTides in allocating future development in the planning area and in establishing commuluty expectations of the design and quality of new development. The Heart of the City Specinc Plan was prepared as a means to implement the City's 1993 General Plan __ _ __ ~ ___- ____- ------ =. <4s such the specific p1_an executes the major general plan goal of creating a Heart of the ._ _ - a memorable, pedestrian-inclusive place for Cupertino. Once the Specific Plan is adopted, all future rezoning, tentative subdicis""ion maps and public works projects must be consistent with the specific plan as required by state la~v. Ill the event, that any regulation, condition, program or portion of this Specific P1_an is held invalid or unconstitutional by a California or Federal court of competent jurisdiction, such portions shall be deemed separate, distinct and independent provisions, and the invalidity of such provisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining provision thereof. Stree~scape Improvements background Appendix A depicts the various estimated costs to install the proposed Heart of the CitS~ Streetscape improvements. The improvements will Ue phased over time and geography aS I71o111eS beCOille at%allable t0 1i11~lement the streetscape Lnpl"OZ%eti~eilt$ 1111tS tOtallt~%. Ii ~aTill take a concerted public and private effort before all the streetscape improvements and its ultimate public benefit can be achieve. The proposed 5-year capital improt%ement program allocates 51.5 million for Heart of the City =treetscape improvements. Phase 1: T.ledia~~, F Un~~norks v_rici ~a_teways Replantilg of median landscaping to include pears, ash and oak trees - -._ - _ - --- - 12-61 1'3Qe.~~ OI_- Funding Sources: -City 5-year Capital Improvement Program ~'hase ~~: 1~arzdscape Ea_sefzzeizi Itzsiallat~o~z Description of :4ctivities As private redevelopment occurs, the full landscape easement impro~=ements swill be installed by private property owners. Depending on existing site conditions, this may include additional 1_and, neSV side~a=aLk, turf, additional trees and hedge fencilg. Fundu1g Source: Prij=ate property o~%=Hers as redevelopment of properties occurs. ~'Izase 1II: ~einaindez• ~j lzszpro ve~szettis Description of Activities: The unfunded improvements include: pedestrian lights, benches, bus shelters and trash receptacles. The timilg for these improvements is unknoiNn. Funding Source: Public and pritjate sources as may be identified. 12-62 Pale ~'~ of === _~ __ ___ _. _ _ _ __ ___ __ Sw- • ~ 1 - - _ . 12-63 = rs ?ZQz ~.3' Oi - Construction Costs Recommended materials and preliminary construction cost estimates for Stet-ens Creek BouletTard streetscape improvements a_re listed belo`v. Quantities are approximate and are likely to vary. Improvements are proposed to be phased over the term of the Specific Plan, with street trees the first priority. ----- - - ~ - - - - Trees are assumed to be 24" box size. Estimated costs for single-row /double-row frontage street tree arrangements are provided; both options include matching trees in existing medians. Cost figures for 36" box size trees are not itemized but would add about an extra 5200 per tree installed. Existing "cobrailead" street lights would remain; hojvever ne~~T, pedestrian-scale street lights v,~ ould Ue installed „1 bet~~7een them to light sidewalk areas. lh'e~t = - - -_----_- ----- ___-=Street Trees - Quercus agrifolia @^ 0' a.c, 2' " box: ~,~00 delivered; X1,000 installed (inc. irrigation and demo). Quantitj%: 120/210 Cost: ~~20,000/5210,000 -__-__ _ __- ,_ - : _ .. Street Trees - P~~rus calleryar.a ~ "Chanticleer" @ 25' a.c, 2s" box: 500 delivered; S1,000 installed (incl. irrigation and demo); Qualltiiy: J"~g/°60 COSt: $548,OOL1/5960,000 Evst =--- __-_-___ = _=Street Trees - Fraxizus latifolia ~ 30' a.c, 2~" box: X500 delivered; X1,000 installed (i1c1. irrigation and demo). Quantity: 51?/901 Cost: Sal-?,000/S901,000 12-64 Pace s!~ of_ Street L.igl7ts - S1~F /se'lu.; Saturn 2 or EQ Q 90' a.c «- /single-head _ polycarbonate globes, lamp type color-corrected metal halide @ 3000K, 100-1~0 S~~%atts: S1,200 delis%ered; ~3;i00 installed (incl. cone. base, i~%~rs1g, conduit, etc.). Quantity: 260 COSt: 5962,000 -~ - - - - Total Streezscape Costs: 1. 51,180,000 for single-ro~v of frontage trees and median trees. 2. ~2,Oi0,000 for double-rojv of frontage trees and median trees. i . ~ _ _ , - - _ for suzgle-row, - . - - _ - - - - _ -_ and street lighting __ ~ = _ ~ _ for double-row - -~ - ~ _.. -- _ _. - -- - ___ and street lighting. - -i_ ~J - - 12-65 Pale ~~ or _-- V ~ I". Q L.-, -t•-- .4 ~_ - - _ - - _ _ .__-_ _.._ _- _L~ _. _ _- __- __ ~ ~._1 .-i, _. ._ .___- ~~~ . ~_ h_ 1.". - t - - ~:L: - -1,__.. __ -. ._ ~l~ ___ ___~. l \~. .~ - - ~ ~ - _ 12-66 Fatre s~ oz ~ ~= 1___ ___ _ __.. _ -__ _ _ . - :LC ~..- _~ __ - _~_ -~-1.- -e _ - - - -~ - - =-- - - ---- --- ---- -_- ~_ 12 _67_ ~2~e =+ / OI Cupertino Planning Commission 30 June 10, ?008 a The applicant agreed to a five year duration :For the second phase. ® All Commissioners concurred with the 5 yezr period. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Conn. Kaneda, to recommend aggravat of use permit iJ-2007-0~, architectural and site approval ASA-2007-06, EA-2007'06, EXC-2008-07, 'FM-2007-Q9, T+ R-211OS-02 as amegded tonight. (Vote: 5-0-0) The application will be fon~~arded to the City Council on Tune 17, 2008. Chair Miller declared a recess. 3. Heart of the City Specific Plan amencments to achieve conformance ~~ith the General )<''lan Tefttative City Council date: Jur~:e l7, 2005 Steve Piaseeld: ® Provided directions to the Planning Commission to receive the report, inform staff if the Commission agrees with the general direction they are taking so staff can go back and draft it based on the general direction. Piu Ghosh, Assistant P'Ianner, presented the ;staff report: ® Said that the Heart of the City Specific Play update ~~~as approved with the ?008 City Council work program in February ?008. The updates are due to three reasons: 1) The policies of the General Plan are in direct conflict with the Specific Plan. 2) Vagueness and repetition of the same concepts making the document difficult to read. 3) Prescriptive requirements that try to fit one set of requirements for all types of parcels. e She revie«~ed the recommended changes in the draft Heart of the City Specific Plan as outlined in the staff report and ans«~ered Commissioner's questions about the update. ® Staff is seeking Planning Commission corrunents to incorporate them into the final document -that the Planning Commission will recommend to the City Council in July ?008. FJice Chair Giefer: o Said it would be helpful for the next meeting for staff to bring examples of what did «~ork, and worked ~~~ell, vs. «rhat did not. The last slide you shovred us of the Travina; that one has never looked consistent «~ith what I think of thr. Heart of the City sireetscaping, and I think it is because it doesn't have a double row planted trees and the sidewalk seems to be nano«~er. © I hear v,~hat }you are saying with the side setbacks, I think that makes sense; but in practicality, and as s~-e flush this out, obviously «~e need to think about getting onto the site and off the site, garbage pickup. ~~~e need to think about how that whole boulevard is going to ~=,~ork as ~~~ell. Street furniture; I don't think bike racks are included in that; but I have seen some really nice bike racks and a lot more people are ticyclmg now. ~jJe need to thinl: about ho~,~ to incorporate more bike and ped traffic as pa-t of this as well. Corn. Trapp}~: 1~Tothing to add. Com. Kaneda: a Said he had conversations «~ith staff about what they are trying to accomplish, but he still did not Sally understand the three different are 3s; what is different about ~~~hat you are tr}~ing to do there; how far along you are; and how «~el] it is ~~~orking; and those types of issues. He 12-68 Cupertino Planning Commission ~~ 1 June 10, 2008 reiterated that he did not have a good enough understanding of how all these pieces fit together. Com. Rose: o Said she appreciated Com. Kaneda's comment, and felt Vice Chair Giefer brought up some good points as well. Chair Nl':iller: • Said his understanding was that they were focusing on inconsistencies between the General Plan and the Specific Plan, vagueness and repetition of some of the concepts, prescriptive requirements that try to generalize from on+, example to the many, and not really addressing conceptual issues at all here. It is a fairly prescriptive exercise. The only comment I would add is if you take out the requirement for~the side setbacks, everybody is going. to ask what is the requirement for the side setbacks. Perhaps there needs to be some language with respect to side setbacks there. ® There is a setback requirement and they are: going to have to get an exception or variance in order to change it, but perhaps there is some language that says we are amenable to exceptions for flee following reasons and elaborate so fiat people understand. Put it in writing and try to clarify it, rather than not have it in writing and have everyone call asking questions. Steve Piasecld: • Said it has been one of the most problema'_ic areas and it doesn't seem to further the public objectives; there is no debate about having a front setback and no debate about how you treat the rear property lines adjoining residential. Offset buildings, set them back, screen them; but when we get into the side setback issues as staff indicated, if you get into less than 100 foot depth and you have two 20-foot setbacks, ;,=ou have a 60 foot skinny builduig and }you apply for an exception, and we have had a lot o.f resistance to the word "exception" let alone the concept of exception. We think that when it was put into, the Plan, it was just as you suggested, that it was just a mechanism to a'..low you to focus on what is the right thing to do in this particular property; but it hasn't been the experience at all. My suggestion is if we put in some kind of language about setbacks, it :needs to be respectful of the neighbors, it should provide for the utilitarian value of the property in terms of Crash and garbage. Otherwise you may have zero side setbacks. and that may b•: the most appropriate location on site. ® Would rather look at it on a case-by-case -basis, have some language about the consistency bet«~een buildings, and then just get rid of it entirely. It does not make sense to have a prescriptive requirement of any kind. Chair 1~')iller: a Is there cun-ently a prescriptive requirement or not? Steve Piasecki: g yes, the people are informed about it, and tlen,they ask for an exception. Chair 1~'l!;iller: Said that an applic-ant he ~~,~ould look at eve:r}~thing and try to evaluate ~~~hat he could do, ~~~hat it will cost, and what is the revenue streanl from it. I have to know what to expect with the side setbacks or else I cannot complete my analysis. If }you don't put it in the text and I cannot Qet an idea from the text, I am going to call you. 12-69 Cupertino Planning Commission 32 June 10, 2008 Steve Piasee)~: That is what happens in other areas of town as «=ell. North DeAnza Boulevard does not have a side setback requirement and it's a specific plan as well. I don't think that it should be; it is something you don't need to prescribe; it is something; we will sit down with the applicant and say let's analyze this in relationship to its neighbors; what makes good common sense. If you don't have it, then you are not iequired to do 20 feet or 10; you are doing to do what is the right solution for that site. We do that in a lot of other areas; I don't see why eve can't do it in this area as well. a Said he was willing to devote staff time because the end result is a better product. Corti. Brophy: ® I think he is sa}=ing also that he has no choice; ~=hether }=ou had the prescriptive setbacks or not, staff still has to do it when you have these odd shaped properties. Chair 14'Filler: Perhaps the task could be setbacks, talk about it just that way; setbacks are always an issue with tight lots; staff is willing to talk to you about the details about that; stating the reasons they have given flexibility to setbacks, and listing them. Steve ]<'iasecld: ® Said he had no problem with that; this isn't a single family home where things are fairly standardized. Cam. Kaneda: a Is this an issue related to tight sites only, or if you have a generous site then can you get prescriptive about it. Steve Piasecla: Yes, if }=ou said sites greater than 200 feet have a requirement for 20 foot setbacks; we could figure it out. As an example, in theor}= if the Marketplace built up to the property years ago and United Furniture wanted to do the same; you might say this is the best solution we could have two side by side buildings, close together; «~e are not wasting space. In this case, I don't see a major public objective in prescribing side setbacks; I do in the front and I do in the rear. I am saying just take it out, let's not be prescriptive, let's have some general language about relationships and buildings and good contextual design and let's work with that. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. ,~enttifer Griffin, l~aneho I+`ineonada resident: ~ Referred to a narro~~= lot near her residence that «-as owned by Barry S«=enson; next to the Roasted Coffee Beans, Subs=,~a}~, Affordable Housing Units and an empty lot leased out to trucks. She said there is high density development on the left of the lot, ~~~hich has apartments; and the neighbors are sensitive about high density in the area. When the property is developed there will need to be adequate buffer side setbacks, back setbacks, and.front setbacks. She said the consensus of the neighborhood is not to over-build on that lot. She asked that they make sure that the public right of way along Stevens Creek Boulevard particularly in the eastern area, bet~~~een Tantau and Finch, is left u~ tact as a greenbelt with double rows of A sh trees. 0 This area has the potential to have wonderful public right of way and eve ~=,=ant to make sure that there is little or no business encroachment into the public right of ~vay. ~~1e had some. 12-70 Cupertino Planning Commmssion ~3 June 10, 2008 instances with the previous Toll Brothers plans, c~=here they were asking to put parkin] with the spaces, etc. into the public right of way. • I hope that as a General Plan all the way do`vn Stevens Creek Boulevard that we will retain the public right of way for people to have sidewalks and double rows of Ash trees at the eastern end of town. • I hope there will be every effort made to make sure that we do have our greenbelts along Stevens Creek Boulevard all the way to the eastern end. I am not a big fan of onsite parking on Stevens Creek Boulevard at the eastern edd of town. . Chair Miller closed the public hearing OI~,D BUSINESS: None NE~'V BUSII~TESS: 4. Discuss the Planning Commission's surnin er. meeting schedule. • Discussion was tabled to the next meeting. REPORT Olt TF~E PLANNING CONIlVIISSION: Environmental Review Cornn~ittee: No meeting. Housing Commission: • Steve Piasecki will look into the possibilit•~ housing element. of having a joint meeting in July to discuss. the Mayor's lYionthly Meeting ~'Vith Comrrzissioners: No meeting. Economic Development Committee Meeting: No meetirig. Report of the Director of Community Development: No additional report. Misr. a Com. Rose suggested that noticing of projects be expanded to include the entire city, so that all residents «=ould be informed of~the projects and the public hearings. Steve Piasecki explained Cupertino already notices residents home ov,-ners outside of the mandated parameters. Suggestions for changes can be for«~arded to the City Comlcil for their consideration. He noted that the cost for expanded noticing is ~.bsorbed by the applicant. .4D.IOURNIlZENT: The meeting was adjosrned to the next regular Planning Conunission meeting at 6:45 p.m, on June 24, ?008. Respectfull}~ Submitted: /slElizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary Approv=ed as preserzted: .furze 2~; 2008 12-71 SPA-2008-O1 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION N0.6533 Exhibit C OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN TO ACHIEVE CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The Planning Corrunission recommends approval of the Heart of the City amendment as shown in Exhibit A with additional changes recommended. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Rose, Brophy NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Kaneda ATTEST: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: /s/Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chairperson Planning Commission G: \Planning\PDReport\Res\2008..\SPA-2008-01.doc 12-72 Ems,, ~ ff 12-73 CIJPERTINO 1 TABLE OF CO?~*TENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...........................................................5 Policy Framework ............................................... ...6 Streetscape Design ............................................... .12 Development Standards and Design Guidelines ............................................... .16 Development Standards ..................................... .19 Single-Family Residential Development Standards ............................................................ .24 Exception Process for Development Standards .....:................................................:...... 25 Design Guidelines ................................................ Z6 Site Improvements and Landscaping Guidelines ....................................... 33 Infrastructure Plan ............................................... 36 Implementation ................................................... 37 Appendix A ......................................................... 38 Appendix B .......................................................... 39 LIST OF DIAGRAMS AND MAPS 3 ' Land Use Map ........................................................9 Streerscape Concept Plan ....................................13 Development Form ..............................................31 CITY OF CUPERTINO -HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PL4N 12-74 CITY OF CUPERTINO -HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFTC PTaN 12-75 INTRODUCTION 5 INTRODUCTION Overview The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides specific development guidance for one of the most important commercial corridors in the City of Cu- pertino. The purpose of the specific plan is to guide the future development and redevelopment of the approximately 250 acre Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor in a manner that creates a greater sense of place and community identity in Cupertino. The overall goal is to develop a Heart of the City, a pe- destrian-inclusive gathering place that will create a positive and memorable image of Cupertino. To achieve this goal, the Specific Ilan intends to guide future investment and development in the area by: 1) Providing a clearly defined plan for the inten- sification of certain subareas and the arrange- ment of land uses to concentrate activity; 2) Developing detailed development standards and architectural guidelines to inform build- ers and the public about the community's ex- pectations for quality development; and 3) Committing public investment and estab- lishing additional financing to fund public improvements that will enhance community identity and unity along Stevens Creek Bou- levard. The Plan does not force the relocation of busi- nesses; such decisions are determined by market conditions, rather, the land use regulations and de- sign guidelines are in place to guide future devel- opment and renovation of existing businesses. As such private development ~vi11 probably occur in- crementally, but directed toward a common vision. Specific Plan Area Description The Heart of the City specific planning area encompasses the properties fronting on or near the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor, aneast/west transportation spine that is bounded by the eastern City limits near Lawrence Expressway and High- way 85 to the west. Authority for the Plan Section 65450 of the California Government Code provides for local governments to prepare specific plans for the systematic implementation of the General Plan. The Specific Plan is a planning tool that can be used to carry out the goals and poli- cies of the General Plan. State law establishes cer- tain minimum requirements that must be adhered to in a specific plan. These. requirements include text and diagrams that specify all of the following in detail: 1. The distribution, location and extent of the uses of land, including open space, v=ithin the area covered by the plan. - Standards and criteria by which development will proceed and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resourc- es where appropriate. The proposed distribution, location and intensity of major components of the public and private transportation, sanitary sewerage, water, storm- water drainage, solid waste disposal, energy and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan acid needed to support the land uses described in the plan. 4. A program of implementation measures includ- ing regulations, programs and public works proj- ects and financing measures needed to carry out the provisions of the plan. CITY OF CUPERTINO -HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN 12-76 b f~f3L[~~ ~l~Al~E~f~(~E~[~ ®vEraf! Gaa! PcLlcr F ==~s_~~'e~I: to create a positi~=e al-ld memorable image of Ste.-ens Creek boulevard. L'_a~d €~se/Ec~~arnic Coil Develop a Heart of the Ci`~= that prof=ides a variety of land use opportunities of z:~~}:ed use de- velopment, enhanced activit}= nodes, and safe and ef:cient circulation a_nd access for all modes of transportation betti~=een actin-iry centers that help lOCL1J and S'ptl0rt aCLIt=1tj= In the CcP.ters. Falic~es 1. la•o major areas and three subareas are identi- r ~ r! eo: Crossroads: r1-1 active, pedes~~ia_n-oriented shopping district along Stevens Creek Bou- Ievard, berg=een De ?1-a_a Bou1.e~-ard and Stelling Road. Develop*_?-:ent sh a1_l have re- tail uses w=ith storefronts on the ground lei el. Commercial olSce uses lnaj= be allowed cn the second lei-e1. Limited residential uses are al l o ~~=ed. Stet~e;~ls Creel; Bcu~~Jard:.~ ml;:ed com.._er- C1a1, GfilCe a;-ld resldent131 CGiildCr connect- , ing e An>a College, Cressroacs, Ci~y Cen- ter and Va11co Fashion 1`.4ai1 extending from Highv,-ay S~ to the ~,-est to the easten cir~= limits. tj/est Ste~Jens Creek Boul_Uard (~~-om High- ~,a~~ 85 to ~n:.on ~s~'a~~) : Includes the Oaks Shoppinng Center and the De r~P~,a Com- r_lunit}= College campus. Ne~;= develop- ment should incorporate min:ed commer- cial/residential uses. Cenn-al SteUelu Creek Bo~lzvard (from De r1n~a Bou~vard east to Perimeter Road): Nets= development sha11 consist of co,:l- mercial_/col_lmercial office uses on the first _1oor. Office uses are ter._Zitted on the second floor. Residential uses are allo„=ed. Residential mined use is allo~a~ed if the residcnt131 L'rllu prOt%lde ail ll'?Ccntlt'e t0 r ~evel.op the retail we, it the development is tve11 designed, '.inanciall}= beneficial to Cup2rrino, provides cor_mI_nitp zn::eni- tlc5 a_nd 15 Dcde~trlall-Crleritcd. 1 i1Y C: CL"i-cr\TI?JO - t':=~3T C= T'r_= CIi :' CrnCIFtC 1'L4'i 12-77 PoucY Pi v~~~;'c~i: 7 cast ,Ste4~e;1s Creek Bovlec~¢rd (j1-om Pz- rlreter Rom to eastern City limiu): New development shall consist of comr_zercial/ commercial off ace uses on the first floor. Qfnce uses are permitted on the second floor. Residential uses are allowed. Resi- dential rzv.ed use is allowed if the resi- dential unit ' provide an L-lcentive to ae- velop the retail use, if the development is well designed, financially beneficial to Cupertino, provides coi,mul-liLy 2lneni- ties and is pedestrian-oriented. 1 he properties as sho;a-n in the fl;ure on page 9 shall maintain the Heart of the City Park\~>ay Landscape Easen:er.t 2nd 1-ror_tage Rencvatlen requirements and shall meet the Design Guide- lines in this document. 11_ese properties include De ?Liza College, properties to the south of Ste- ;'E::s Creole Boulevard '„>ihiil the City Center are2, properties to the north of Stevens Creek Bou1e\-ard \a-ithii~ the South \%allco Park area. f . 1 ~e majorit}° or the 2Z~,300 square foot commer- cial de\-e'_opment 211ocaticn for the Heart of the C1C)? ShGUId be deCOtcd LO eP11a1.C?nom aCtl'P1L}' in the n~ajGr 2ctivit-y cen:ea along the cGrridor. ~. 1 he 11,00 square foot o;:ice development al- locationmay be used for of ace uses in the Cross- roads, Central 2_~ld Fast Stevens Creek Boule- vard subareas. ~. Mi_~;ed con,_mercial and residential develGpment may be allo\a-ed if the residentaial units provide an incentive Lo develop retail use, if the de\-el- opment is a=ell designed, financially beneficial to Cupertino, pre;=ides coinmunit}= ainenities =~-~d is pedestrian-oriented. 6. Residential or once developments shall be con- sidered in mid-block parcels. 1 he 330 unit resi- dential a1_location is available for the entire area; ho\~=ever, limited residential uses ere allotaed in the CrOSSLOadS area. 1 ne ?na-~:1R~L'rn dEIlSlt}' al- lol\•able sha11 be 23 d\,e11;1~~ units per acre. 7. Project specific development a11oc2tion and de- \'elOt)nlent iP_tcil=7iJ hill be deterlnlncd On d C2Se-17}''G2Se bas15 Ln COi1~LT1CtiOn \a=ith specinc develotment revie;a=. 8. Plan for the gradual development of vacant, nO1lreSldentlal Sltes and L11e ut?~r2dlno Of under t util_Led, non-esiaential sites. Strategies: • 1_der_tif}= Stevens Creek Boulevard cominer- cia sites ei~\`een the najor activity= areas a_-1d provide Heart of the City .et2il cof~1- mercial development allocation for the up- r ~3 1n~ G t11eSe ~ rO~erIIeS t0 HE2rL Or Caj' design :t-_nda-ds. a Prepare development re 12uGns and gulde- l1neS that ClaPi)' Clt}' eJCpeCt2L10i1S fOr gL'21- it}= developn~enL. ~ 11'irOL'h eCCnG'7iC ~evelOp menL aCLI;%lilec, "GClls On atLr2ctln2 P_cvv Lllsines~eS a-~d re- t3lniri? e>;15L1nQ'Dll5Lie5.Se5. ~. P-rCe15 On Or near intersections 1n the vte\°ens =ilsllre tie COinpatibilin= Gf 2djOL-ling lend uses Creel: Boulevard area shall have a neighbor" Srra~eg~: hood commercial component. 1 rep2re l~r_d use end dE\`elOpnlenL regLia- CITY Oc CL-i'=?-;?v0 - Ia~~=T OP Ti'.°_ CiTS' ~?ECIcIC 1'L=_'.~: 12-78 8 PoucY tions that assure compatibility, while em- ploying specific, well-designed buffers for adjacent residences. lO.Generally, the expenditure of public funds to ac- quire and develop typical neighborhood parks is not endorsed; however, passive rest areas should be incorporated in new development to the ex- tent feasible and in furtherance of Heart of the City Specific Plan policies. Circulation/Parking Goal Facilitate efficient and safe movement of peo- ple and vehicles within the specific planning area. Iv4aintain or improve transportation level of service (LOS) "D" except at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard and at the intersection Of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelli.ng Road, where LOS E+ is allowable to fur- ther aunique community gathering place. Policies: 1. Promote bicycle and pedestrian access along Stevens Creek Boulevard by creating a network of attractive fornal and informal pedestrian pathways that link together the Boulevard and adjacent properties. Strategies: • Evaluate options on Stevens Creek Boule- vard to improve the pedestrian environment by proactively managing speed limits, their manual and automated enforcement and traffic signal synchrony. • Require pedestrian planl~ing for new devel- opment that includes pedestrian linkages between properties and pedestria.-I-oriented amenities. • Barriers to pedestrian access should not be created between adjoining retail commercial properties. • Encourage active, outdoor-oriented commer- cial uses. • Develop design guidelines and incentives for pedestrian plazas, courtyards and passive rest areas. • Complete implementation of the bicycle plan for Stevens Creek Boulevard and pro- vide bicycle racks as needed. • Investigate the possibility of creating greater pedestrian access between the residential neighborhoods and retail centers. • Investigate potential open space linkage from Creekside Park to Stevens Creek Bou- levard and into Vallco Industrial Park using the Calabasas Creek Corridor. 2. Improve traffic flow and visual continuity along the Boulevard. Strategy: Reduce the number of curb cuts by requiring shared drive«'ays and interconnected roads along the Boulevard where feasible through private development improvements. 3. Adjust parking standards in accorda,-:ce with ac- tual land use demand. Strategy: • Establish revised parking standards for mixed used developments that include residential uses. • Require shared parking agreements in the Crossroads area, with overall parking starl- dards reduced to reflect shared parking ar- rangements. Urban Design/Streetscape Goal To create a high quality and distinct community image and a functional and vibrant heart for Cu- pertino. Policies: 1. Provide a public improvement program, devel- opment standards and design guidelines that CITY OF CUl ERTINO -HEART OF THE CI l j' SPfiCItIC PIAN 12-79 U Q U u L^ n 17 C N C d C! V a N O v4t ~lc_k Y~ .~ any ~:•',r A. ~ ¢ - f` _"_' C ¢ _ ~ ~"s .~i. Zu~d~ ~ i ~ L u c ? _~ ~ ~ ~ ,,,,,_ ~ : e ~. - - I~ I ~~ _d7 - o . ___ c`~ _ ~ ~ _> ~ ~ e j R - -v~i< ~/,~-~ Z C~ '~ ~ e F ~e CJ V _a ij O1 V f, i` v 'l, Z 12-$~ POLICY F~~u.~au~orx 11 «=ill promote the future image of Stevens Creek Boulevard as the Heart of the Cit}=. S~ra~egie.s: Implement a streetscape program that wi11 create a distinct, but cohesive, high quality image for Stevens Creek Boulevard. o Require coinpl_iar~ce ~,-ith the Heart of the City design guidelines for nei~= development or redevelopment of existing buildings. Em- phasiieurban design as a major consideration r or the design review and approval process. 1 romote Boulevard landscaping that comple- ments the planned land uses ar_d activities alor_g the Boulevard. Enhance and promote the creation of pub- lic space throughout the Heart of the City throu,;h the we of buildi-ig siting and design, public art, landscaping and street furniture. 0 Design entry po~~zts and landmark that pro- vide asense of arri~=al to the Heart of the Cit}~, initiate the streetscape theme end pro- vide siQnage to important destinations. ® Develop entrance concepts, to=hick may in- clude structures and/or landscaping for major projects to be implemented b5= prig-ate prop- erty ea=per. ® Col~ider the visual and ~ ~nctional access of significant public facilities in developing buildi-Ig designs for the Heart of the Cit}J. F Emphasi.e private property landscape mate- rials that complement the streetscape land- scape plan. s Implement a plan to have a professional ar- chitectural advisor to assist the Ciy in the design review process. 2. Soften and define the hardscape ofparking areas, pedestrian spaces and path~,'a5=s by using land- scaping. Stray egg: Develop design guidelines for the use of land- scaping and furnitu;•e in the hardscape areas in order to define and separate use areas as ~=,=ell as create :Wore attractive envirorL-rents. CITY OF CC~i ERTI;vO - HEAT CF Tfic CITY Ci cCIFiC PL?'.Q 12-81 S1 'lti--.?=1 ~C?.t~: L'i:=1GN S E f~~E~`~~~F~ ~E~Ec"sPJ PacttigrouEld and Pu~pQS~ T 17e StreetSC3De 1;leIl7enL Gf the Specific Plarl implements comr7unit}- design goals contained in the 1993 General Plan, design concepts subse- quently developed and revised i_~ the 1993 "Hear of the City" Design Charette, and an}= ne~,= poli- ties and concepts identi ed in the 2005 General 11an. The general streetscape concept endorsed at the Charette u'as named "1 arkurbia." It promotes a "green" cir)-, ackno~~=ledaes Cupertino's agricultural past, and links L'ne street's r:72)Or aCLivl~)= centers -,~=ith a continuous landscaped park~~ray as a princi- pal objective. 117e Streetscape Flem_enL cor_zplements the Spe- C1L1C Plan's Lu-1d Use F_lemer_t b}= reflecting the cor- ridor's differer:L land use concer_Lr :Lions and desig- i7a`L1017S. De51=17 appr03Chc5 varj= t0 aCCCn7i_70date Lana uses. Options for implen7entation depend to a sier_mcar.L czLent OI7 Lhe L~"De Of e?:Lt1I7g de1~e1- Gplllent 1rhITledlatcly adlaCcP.L t0 the Street n~l'it- cf-~, aj°. Streetscape policies also reflect t17e setback, Cntage in7t)1'OPen~el7tS, and lal~ascape and Slgil2ge eCLirci77eP_tS eSt?b11S17cd ll7 Lhe Plai7's Develop- .17~r_t Star_dards and Design Guide?roes. Together, L11C_~ L111 ...~ -'--.° '--=a 1 tan EleinenLS COmbine LO prOii70re an 2tLraCLiPe, n7L~cd-liSe bollle\`ard, COP.SLtent ~s=1th r 1 P7 t .e goa s or Lhe Genera an. ~uectSCape 1T_prOVcZlenL p011C1es apDlj= t0 bOLh public and pri~-ate sector actions in the Specific Flan Area. For exal-nple, lane-scale improvements r u=i lr1 the existirLg right-or-wa}=, such as street trees and street lighting, may be best implemented by the Clt~= \~=1t17 future reimbursement by pri~~ate propert~r o«-Hers u=hen redevelopment occurs; construction can be more efficient and the appearance of the lmpr0~`eri7ent5 mere CCI7SLSte_:t. lmprOi'ementS LO private property ad~2Cerlt t0 Ll7e r1g'ht-Oi-lC=a j= v,'OUId need to be coordi-sated ~,1th the Cis)=, but could be linplemenLed as part of prn-at~ly-~r_a-lced Slte re17- GvatlOn Or redevelopment. Ho-~~ et-er, the pnl::ary purpose of the Streetscape dement is to deane the improvements needed ro fulfill the Citj='s vision for the Stevens Creek Lou1_e~-ard corridor. It a11e«=s for r e~i i sty i17 terri7s el phasing, _:na:-lcina, and design modifications in order to address r17e needs of the r d lty an SpeCiIlC Plait t~re3 prOperi")= O\~T_erS ~'? busLilCSS~.:. SEF`EELSCcj~° Qesigt~ Fri«CiP1Es The Streetscape F_lement has iive underlying principles: 1) Unif}= the \%ir~ual Appearalzce of the Street ~~-ith Orchard/Gro1-e Street Trees Plantings, a Coi7sistent 1 alerte of Fut~7ishings, and Civ- ic ~ancmar_ s. ~) lmpr0\'e tl7e 1 CdcSLr'_ai7 ~I7Z'irOnmer.L Along the Sn•eeL FIOnt2_e "~+ll}7 1-assive Rest Ar- rr ens, I'lanLn? ~-rr:p ~ _.~L'I rL'~ler'_i.? JiecS C?:~.~ Sl,-,,b:. 3) Allow= for Fle?:ibility i17 the Design of Streetscane lmr•ro~-en7c_:u to ?address Ac- CeSS ar_d ~~LSlbllitj= .\~ccdS Oi A~~aCel?L CC'c7- LnerClal Dew elODmci7L. ~) ACCGi17mOdaLe CF~LiOriS iOr 1P_7~ l~re7ciitin~ CLrecLSCape IP~pr01'cIlicnu: e.g., Clc)T COi7- StrL'CtlOi7, Renc\=aLlons Gi ~'xiStiP_g D~velOp- mer_t, Standards for l\c:~;= i~el clopIIlent. ~) Create a Ln?Cue Rcd~:trlail Orlel7ted acts\'ILy i Cci7ter aL Lhe Crossroaas. C11T Oc CL", i=..^-.Ti?v0 - ~"ic. =T Oc T =CITY Ci~3CiF1C L_;. 12-82 13 S~~ee~s~ap~e ~os~~e~~ Principles: • Unify Visual ?,ppearance of Street v~~ith Orchard/Grove Street Tree Plantings, Consistent Furnishings, and Civic Landmarks. • Improve Pedestrian Environment Along Street Frontage v,~ith Planting Strips and 3u.=.~eringTrees and Shrubs. • Allov/ Flexibility to Address Access and Visibility Needs of Adjacent Commercial Development. • Accommodate Options for Implementing Streetscape Improvements: e.g. City Construction, Renovation of Existing Development, Standards for Ne~~~~ Development. • Create a Unique Pedestrian-Oriented Activity Center at the Crossroads. ;~ z gj u r ^ Cros=roads ,Refer to Crossroads SpecirlcPlan r'or details E e E E e E E E^ L G L^ E E^ L C L f EE E :Eo Easy Sevens Creek Bh~d: Ash Grcve _ ; r -- - -• - - - - - lrJest Stevens Creek Byrd: Cencrai Stevens Creek Blvd: Oak Grove Flevrering Orchard Informal Ar2ngement Cf I\~atiV2 Trees and Wild Flo~a~ers Along Frontage and in hr~edian. Consid=_r ?emoving Curbs and Y~ralks and Replacing vrith Crushed Granite Surr"ace. Focuses Charcter of De Anza College, h~amorial Park, Oaks Cent_r. ~. ~~ ~ ~ z_ L=~~ - ~.~•-~ ~`~-'~e~, -" -may 't` . LET- '=r T ~- :`_--_T.~ ~' ~~_ - ,- -- ~`~'~ ~~ -=~- _ - . - ~~_ -r Formal Grid of Flov,~ering I roes •Semi-Formal Arrangement and Grass Along Frontage and of Large Shade Trees, Grass, in f~tiedian. and Flov,~ering Shrubs Focuses Character of City along Frontage and in Center, Target, Office Buildings, trledian. • Focuses Character cf 1lallco, Ariarketplace Center,lrvolfe Road. C?T'i OP CUi-eRTi'_v0 - i~E3nT Cr T~2 CIT'P S?eC?FiC 1 Lx_'4 12-83 ~~ ~Tti=TSCPS'E DES1G\' Qc~1gE11 COREE[3~ Four Streetscape subareas are defined for the corridor: ~FJest Stevens Creek Boulevard, Crossroads, Cen~~al Sief~c"ns Creek Bov_hvard, and Easi Stevens Creek Boulevard. See the Concept Plan on the fol- lo;;-ing pa^e. ?~ continuous curbside planting s~Lip and a con- tinuous ro;;~ of street trees ;;could extend along the entire co7Tidor. Ho;;~ever, each subarea ;;-Quid fea- ~f cure a dir;erent tree species. Tree SpeCIeS are ScleCt- ed to rerZect differences in the character of deg-elop- ment i,-1 the subareas and/or the predominant tjFes of existing trees and frontage conditions. Streeucape Design policies for each of the sub- areas are described below=: Cer.~~ al Sievelu Creek Bovlea>ard - 1 he Central Stevelu Creek Boulevard subarea extends front De t~iL%3 Bollleti'ard cast to Periirleter Road. The plant- ing theme is a "Flo~;-ering Orchard." It features a formal planting of Flou~enng Pear (Pyres calleriana "Chanticleer") and ~ ass in curbside planting strips. Flo;,•erina shr-ubs could be planted in tl~e center median ;;-here appropriate. 1 his approach ~11s in and extends the tree plantings that presently ex- ist along the street, and the formal tree placement expresses the 1mpOrtallCe Of the Cel7tral Ste;%ens Creek Boulevard as the civic and cultural heart of the City. frees should be planted in ro;;~s on both s7deS Of the sidc;;'21k at appIax1ii13telj' ~~ feet On Center. FOr retail properties \;'ith narrOZb% drit'e;;~3ys, the second ro;;* tree on each side of the dri;-e;;>ay need not be planted if it obscures retail visibility. 1j~~sr. Stevens Creek Boulevard - 1 he ljJest Ste- vens Creek Boulevard subarea exter_ds from Route S~ to Steliing Road. 1 he planting theme is an "Oak Grove." It features an ir~iarazal planting of Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and native ;;-ild ;Zo;vers Ln CL'rbSLde planting strips and the center median. It is al-lticipated that u'~ese oaks could. be planted a~-1or_, the existing Deodar cedars at De .awl>a Co1- lc`e ;;'lthallt needing i0 ren10;'e file exlstL-lg trees. 1 pis approach is intended to bring the la_rldscape Of tl~e ad;acert foothills into ~Ze Clt-yi, as ~;=ell as ue roger. er the es:istirg character of De Anima College, ?;~lcr~Orlal Park, and T lie Oaks sl•lOppillg Center. Trees should be planted at approximately ^0 feet Cn Cel7ter. DeCCr.7pOSed ~raP_lte SI?Cllld be used as r the su~;ace materiel ;;here appropriate. Crossroads -Refer to the Crossroads Streetscape 1"fan far details. 1 his subarea e};tends i~o?Il ~tellin~ East Ste~:~ens Creel: Boulevard -The East Stevens Creek Boule•,~ard subarea exter_ds from 1 erilneter Road to the City bowl-ldarj=adjacent to Tantau Ave- nue. 1 he planting therne is an ".-ash Grove." It fea- tures a relatively formal plannng of ash (Fraxn~us species) In curbside pl~zti_ng strips and the center median. Similar to the Central Stevens Creek Bou- levard subarea, tI11s 2pprC2Ch ~11s in arld exter?ds Lhe tree plarltin_gs that 'V`reseP_tly exist along the street. It also combines v,~ith the "Oak Grove" erl the ~fi~est Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea to frame the Central Stevens Creel: Boulevard subarea. Both Will hive a shady, Some;;-hat rural visual character. CIr!' OF CL''YEI2T1'-+O - ]??4RT Oc T1 :13 C1T't ~P13C7. 1C Fi ^_)~ 12-84 Road to De ?_n~a Boulevard. STREETJC.4PE DESIGN I ~ Trees should be planted in ro;;=s on both sides of the sideu=a1k at approximately 35 feet on cer_ter. Grass or lo;;=-gro;;=ing groundcol=er may be used as the surface material. For retail properties ~;=ith nar- row drive;;=ays, the second row tree on each. side of the drive;;=ay need not be planted if it obscures retail c=isibilit}=. If a double ro;;= of mature ashes is already established along a commercial retail front- age, neither row of trees should be rz_noved. E~a~~~ge ~~~~~ra~E~~ ~~~~E~€~~~,~ A curbside planting strip 10 feet in ;;,idth and a side;;=alk a minimum of 6 feet in u=idth should be established along the entire frontage of the street. In the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard and East Stevens Creek Boulevard subareas, a planting area 10 feet in width should also be established behil-Id the ~;=alk to accommodate a secor_d ro;v of trees. Conditions along the street var}=, ho;;=ever, and implementing the Design Concept in a uniform ;;=ap s;=ill be difficult, at least for the near term. The Frontage Renovation Conditions plans on tide follo;ai-lg page illustrate typical existing iiontage conditions 'and recommendations for responding to them to implement the Design Concept Con- ditions are described bolo;;=, froth least to most con- strained. 1) ~k%ide La~v.~sc¢~e Easement with Plantilig 57-ip - This condition is the model for the rest of the street. It contains a 10 feet plant~~zg strip and a 10 foot landscape easement adjacent to the r side.;=alk. It Le1leCls CIt}= regUlretilents fol lLont' age landscaping that have been in place for the past t;;=elve years and as such characterises most of the new development along the street. Exist- tng trees lr2 tl?ese aIeaS, ho;;=ever, rarel}= fOIn7 CGRSlstent r0;;=S along file street ,a ddltlonal trees should be added to create a double ro;;= of trees at a spacing consistent ~,=ith the streetscape de=_ign. Existing trees of the recommended tree species should not be removed if spaced closer than the streetscape design. Over the long term ;;=hen redevelopment of properties occurs, the ;=ide landscape easement ~;=ith planting strip ~;=i11 be implemented on all Town Center and East Gate.;=ay frontage properties. 2) Cvrbsidz t~Talk with Las~scape Easement - A curb- side plantiz-lg strip up to 10 feet in width and a double ro;a of trees can be established under this condition. Ho;;>ever, because the width of the easement area varies, tL~e second ro;;= of trees may need to be offset from the Lrst rou=. 3) «iJ~e Curbside ~y~alk ~;~dt}wut Lvulscape Easement - In this condition the entire curbside right-of- ;;=ay is paved as a side;;=a1_k. Levels of pedestrian activity a1_ong the street generally don't demand a walk this ;;=ide, and a curbside planting strip approximately 6 feet ;;=ide should be established by removing the curbside portion of the ~;=alk. 4) Curbside 1~'Talk without Landscape Easement - As illustrated, a monolithic curb, gutter and side- walk exists with a relatively narrov,= planting area betv.~een the side;;=alk and adjacent build- ings al-ld/or parking areas. There is no 1ar_dscape easement adjacent to the right-of-=~a=a}=, and there is only 10 feet j;=ithin the right-of-`;=a}=. To implement the Streetscape Concept under these conditions the location of the ~;•a1k and p1_al-±tin~ area needs to be reversed. A S feet curbside planting strip and a ~ feet sidewalk should be established ;;-ith+.n the right-of-.;>ay. Trees should be located in adjacent parking 1_~ts as feasible to establish a double ro;;=. T lie zontage impro~=en~ents recommended should be improved as part of renovations to exist- ing developmen`s and properties, and/or required 31ong ;;`lth 3 ~;=1de1' lanCiscape easement 1I rede;'el- opment of a property occurs. CITY OF CliP~RTI~~0 - HE~ ~T Or TI?E CITY Si~C?FIE PL4'~ 12-85 16 D.~`=LGPh4cNT JT~I:D.h?~s rND DESIGN ~.7liIDE1INES LJ~WG~~~1tl[~Ytl 6 ~~~6`CV~R~,7 ~l~L~ DE~E~(~ ~d~~DE~Ef~ES Backgra~nc~ the neat. "Bullding as a sign" commercial build- irlgs, sleek offices, Gld and new shopping centers, parks, parking lots, gas stations, condominiums and apartments all "do their ov,-n thing," independent of one a~-LGther. 1 he DevelGpment St?ndz'ds and Design Guide- lines cor_tair_ed in this Element provide regulator= support for the Specinc Plan's land use policies. -1-hej~ are inte?1dcd i0 prGmGte higll-L1Ualltj% prll'ate- sector development, enhance property values, and ensure that both private investmer_t znd public activity= continues to be zttracted to the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor. The Standards and Guidelines re$ect the Com- munit}% Design Coals Gf the 1993 General Plan, the "Parkllrbla~' SLTeetSCape COP_Cept that emerged frGP-7 the 1993 "Heart of the City" design charette, the i_~~plementL-~g StreetSCape improvement polices contal-~ed in the Specific Plan's Streetscape Ele- ment, and al-Ly tie\,=policies a_nd concepts identiaed in the 2003 General P l~-1. As noted throughout the Specinc Plan, the "P2rkllrUl3" COilCept prOinOteS a "green" CIt~', aC- kr_o1a=ledges Cupertino's agricultural past, and en- visions te;%ens ree_ bou-et-ar as a landscaped parl.-~a=ay linking major centers of cultural, office, and retail use. Ho~~,=ever, Stevens Creek Boulevard must also aCCOmmOdate 3 \'arieC3T of development t}'pes outside of the activity nodes around irsersec- t1Gns, and 3 Central objective of the Standards and i -uidelines is to accoinmoazte this variety= ~~-ithin the G~-era11 p_lair_etCls of the "P zrkurbia" concept. Fhe NElil;ze~-f~~e Parl<c~~a~r ,. e liIlage O2 Lpertlr?O 15 n105t On QSplay alOr~~ Stevens Creek Boulevard. The corridor is the cen- tral element of Cupertino's "pul=:lic realm," there much Gl It~ L'>>blil 1_ife occurs. ti'et the corridor's bodge-podge appearance contributes little to the overall character of the communir>> and is at odds ~•~~i-1 `~i1e orderly sub-urban character Gf its neigh- borhooas a-:d business parks. Land uses, building fOrnl;, aild 1?~7dsCaplllg warp frOi?7 One ~~TCpcri?7 i0 ~~Jhi1e progress has been made duruzg the life Of t:e Hezrt Ot Ltle C1L\%, Set%eral properties along the corridor still have de~'elopment potential and therefore, a consistent set of standards and guide- lines is necessaryr. Some exzmples GI proaecs v,-here the Heart of tl:e Cit~% standards have been suc- cessfully applied are: Adobe Terrace, Marketplace Shopping Cer_ter and the Travigne development at the nortl_z east comer of Blaney Avenue and Ste- yens Creek Boulevard. Cii i CF Clii'E~TI_JO - P_~RT Oi= T-:E CIT'z SPEC1PiC 1 L4?.' 12-86 ~ - - DE\=ELOPMELTT STA?.D.SRDS AIVD DESIGN GUIDELINES Participants in the General Plan process and the Heart of the City Design Charette in 1993 identi- fied this lack of coherence as particularly undesir- able, and identified a "park\vay" desioarl approach as a means of both bringing visual order to the street and reflecting the physical characteristics of the rest of the community=. The goals of.the Standards and Guidelines are therefore: 1)Accomrnodate a continuous parkway /street- tree planting scheme that facilitates pedes- trian activit}=; yet maintain the visibility and access needed for successful commercial retail businesses. 2)Promote visual compatibility betv~een com- mercial, office, and residential development. 3)Allow commercial, office and residential de- velopment flexibility= to meet different needs iI1 terms of building form and site and front- age orientation. The manner in \~=hich the Standards and Guide- lines address these goals is summarLed belo\~=: Visibility: The Standards and Guidelines unple- ment the park-\~=ay frontage concept established in the 5treetscape Element of the Specific Plan. They require that all ne\v development provide a front- age landscape easement that extends t\venry six feet back from the curb. The easement \=.-i11 accommo- datz acurbside planting strip, side\\~alk, and either a single rota or double ro\v of street trees. Ho\\=ever, visibility of development from the roadu=a}% is important for most types of develop- ment Because businesses market goods and services directlyl to motorists, it is essential for commercial retail development. The Standards and Guidelines therefore contain the follo\ving provisions to main- tain visibility: 1. Building-from-curb setbacks are reduced to 3~'; Z. Total area permitted for commercial \;=all si~~zs is increased from 1 square foot per linear foot of store frontage to 1.5 square feet. 17 In addition the Streetscape Element contains policies for iristalling trees with canopies high enough to allo\~= \=isibiliry of adjacent properties. Compatibilit~~: The Standards and guidelines do not require a particular architectural style or styles. Ho\~=ever they do encourage a common approach i1z terms of architectural features. For example, all buildings are required to have a main building en~~ance visible from the street frontage, and all buildings are encouraged to have an architectural base, a consistent arrangement of building masses, and an attractive roof or roofline. In addition to the consistent parlc~=ay= frontage, elements of agricultural landscaping and pedestrian scale character - "orchard" tree plantings, trellises and arbors, and pedestrian-height light fixtures-are emphasized. Clearly-defined \~=alking paths connect- ing public side\a=alks, prominent building entries, courtyards, aizd parking areas are required. Proper- ties are buffered along rear lot lines by fences and/or u=a11s and evenly-spaced "wind row" tree plantings. Fle~.ibilit7~: Different forms of development t}~i- cally exhibit different on-site relatiol>_ships bettia~een buildings, parking, street frontages, and landscaped areas: Maximum visibility=, minimal landscaping, and a Lontal relationship of buildings to the street front- age is typically preferred for commercial development. Some amount of visibility combined \a=ith attractive lal~dscaping is preferred for ofice buildings, with the relationship of buildings to street frontages varj,u~g nom site to site. Dense screening and landscaping is preferred for residential development, \a=ith buildings often oriented away from street frontages. 1 he Standards and Guidelines encourage build- ings to be located in relatively close proximity to tIIZ frontage to increase visibility, and architectural and site improvement provisions encourage compatibility u~ terms of the general appearance of development, as noted above. However, on-site relationships may vary from development tyke to development ty=pe. CITY OF CL~PERTINO -HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PL? N 12-87 Z S DE\%ELOP1~fENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN G~~IDELINES ~.Fsi~g ct~e ~fia~dare4s a~~ Ec~i~~€Ertes Development Standards address those aspects of development that are essential to achieve the goals of the Specific Plan. They are specifications for site de~Telopment and building design, such as permitted land uses, building height, and setbacks. Standards must be adhered to and t}~ically employ the word "shall." Design Guidelines, on the other hand, provide guidance for new development in terms of more subjective considerations, such as district char- acter or design details. They also sense as criteria for design review by City staff and the Planr_ing Commission. Guidelines t5~ically employ the word "should." Variations are permitted if they «~i11 sub- stantially aid in meeting the overall.principles and objectives of the Specific Plan. Illustrative Building Prototypes illustrate ap- plication of the Standard and Guidelines and the forms of development desired by the Cit~r. Standard and Guidelines begin on the folloi,~ing pages: Development Stardards -Pape 17 Desig~l Gvidetines -Page Z4 CITP OF Ct~PERTINO - HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PL°.N 12-88 DE\%ELOPTIE?~'T ST9?~TDARDS 19 ~~ 6/ ~L~PIYI~f~I~ ~~~f~~~~~.7 1.01.fl'! 0 i~escrip~€an Standards and guidelines promote de\%elopment that is compatible both ~=irh nearby neigh- borhoods and u=irh existing and planned development along Stevens Creek Boulevard. A va- riety of different t}pes of commercial development, from stand-alone single-tenant buildings to small convenience centers, office buildings and large shopping centers may be proposed. Buildings are encouraged to be located closer to the street frontage for visibilit},. The devel- opment standards generally require that surface parking areas shall be located to the side or rear of buildings, \a=ith shade trees in an "orchard" planting arrangement. Amenities, such as benches, pedestrian-scale lighting, and planters are encouraged along buildil-Ig frontages, v,=here they will be visible from Stevens Creek Boulevard. 1,01.~?ZQ ~ar~d ~'~e f~.. t~er~i~iec6 ~~E~ 1. Commercial - As specined in the City's General Commercial {CG) Zoning district «=ith the follo\\=ing locational restrictions: a. Uses such as professional, general, administrative, busuzess offices, business services, such as advertising bureaus, credit reporting, accounting and similar consulting agencies, stenographic services, and communication equipment buildings, vocational and specialised schools, dance and music studios, g}-mnasiulns and health clubs and child care centers and other uses that do not involi=e the direct retailing of goods or services to the general public shall not be a11o\~~ed on the Stevens Creek Boulevard street frontage of buildings. b. These uses may be located at the rear of buildings provided there is a viable storefront space along the Steven Creek Boulevard street frontage for other rental pu~oses. 1 his space shall also have adequate depth to accommodate tenants. 7_. Residential - at a maximum densit}= of n\=enty five (25) units per acre. For mixed residential and commercial developments this shall be net density, excluding parking and/or land areas devoted to the commercial portion of the development. T1ze follo\a=ing is an illustration of hou= net density is calculated: Gross lot = 1 acre (43,560 sq. ft) Commercial building area = S,DDO sq. ft. Sum ace parking area for commercial area = 6,1?D sq. ft. (40 uni-si.e spaces C~ 1/230 sq. ft. ) Allo\a-ance for outdoor open/landscaping area (1D% of commercial building and parking area) = 1,117_ sq. ft. Total area for commercial portion of development = 15,532 sq. n. Remainder area = 28,028 sq. ft. = 0.643 acres CrI-\' Or CIJPERTIIQO -HEART OF THE CI71 CPECIFIC PL-.?~ 12-89 zo DEl%nLOPUE?vT STA1:'DARDS Units allowable on remainder area = 0.6?3 * 2~ = 16 units 3. Office O~=er Retail ?. Other Conditional Uses - as specified in the City's General Commercial (CG) Zoning district. B. l~Eaxirrt~€m €~~~r~~a~rr~~€~~ 1€~te~si~y 1. Residential and Residential Mi}:ed Use Development -Applicants must apply for an allocation from tl~e residential development allocation pool. 2. Commercial Retail and Office Development -Applicants must apply for an allocation from the retail commercial or office development allocation pool. 1.Q1.~?3© B~ilc~E~g E~E~g~tt, Sc~l'~ac~s 4~d ~Ic~i~n~a~iQC~ ~.: t~e~g~t - as measured from sides;>alk to top of cornice, parapet, or eave line of a peaked roof shall be as follo;;=s: 1. Maximum -Forty five (?5) feet 2. Minimum - a. Sloped roof: Ten (10) feet to eave line b. Flat roof: Fourteen (1?) feet to parapet 3. The primary bulk of building shall be maintained below= a 1:1 slope line drat;=n from the arterial street curb line or lines in all areas subject to the Heart of the City standards except for the Crossroads area. See Crossroads Streetscape Plan for details. 4. Rooftop mechanical equipment and utilit}= structures may exceed height limitations u` they are enclosed, centrally located on the roof and not visible froim adjacent streets. B. Fresstt SE~I~aE~s 1. Minimum Setback - for near development shall be nine (9) feet from the required Boulevard Landscape Easement; see section 1.01.0?0(E), belo;;=. Ne;a= development shall be defined r as a t;aen~y nve per cent (25%) or o eater increase in floor area or a ?~% or erecter change in floor area resulting from use permit or architectural and site approval w=ithin t<;=elve (1Z) months. Z. Comer Parcels -setback requirement appliES to both frontages (e. g., comer parking lots not permitted); minimum n-ontage requirement recommended but not required. 3. Special Architectural Features -subject to Ci~y reviev,,: entrance porticoes, canopies, and or other features may extend up to four (?) feet into the front setback area. ~. ~c~fr~t.~tr ~i~E ~~tc~ i~cac ~~~l~ac(YC 1. Alinimum Side Setback -for ne`;= development shall be detenmilned in conjunction ;;=ith the development review process and shall depend on the follo;;~ing factors: CITY Or CtJPERTi?i0 - Hi=m hT OF THE CIT1` SPECIFIC 1 LAN 12-90 DEVELOPMENT STAI.'DARDS 7 1 a. ~Jidth of the lot being developed and b. Setbacks and relationships with buildings on immediately adjacent properties. ~1hen adjacent properties are jointly developed as they may occur in a shopping center the setbacks betw=een buildings may be reduced to zero «=hen it promotes pedestrian access. Minimum Rear Setback -for ne]~= development along developed or zoned residential properties the rear setback shall be equal to one and one-half (1.5) times the height of the building ~a%ith a minimum setback of 70 feet. 3. Uninhabitable building elements -such as chimne}=s and projecting eaves may encroach up to three (3) feet in to a required setback. s. Mixed Use Developments -may reduce the minimum side and rear setbacks betw=een onsite buildings within a common master plan in accordance with an approved development plan. ®. ~u€lt~i~tg Orues~ta~b~r~ -The main building entrance~to all buildings shall be located On the front building facade, a fronting building comer, or aside-facing facade visible from the street frontage. Other orientations may be permitted subject to City review=. 1.6~.Q46 Site ®eve&optne~~ a~ci ~a~~eErtg A. Recess 1. Direct Pedestrian Access - in the form of a walk],%ap shall be provided from the Stevens Creek Boulevard sidewalk to the main buildil-]g entrance; i. e., pedestrian access to building entrances shall not require «=alking between parkinng spaces. If pedestrian access ]i=ays cannot be separated from parking bays and/or circulation aisles, they must be distinguished by a different paving material. Z. Vehicular Access/Curb Cuts -shall be shared wherever possible. a. Maximum Number - of curb cuts shall be one (1) t«=o-]a=ay curb cut or ni=o (?) one- ]~=ay curb cuts on Stevens Creek Boulevard. b. Ramping drive«=ays -shall be located beyond the back of sidewalk, ]~-ith a maximum grade of twenty percent (20°io) and adequate sight distance. c. Driveaa=ay Setbacks -shall be (i) A minimum Of nve (5) feet from adjoining properties and (ii) Three (3) feet from adjacent buildings. d. Drop-Off Areas -shall be provided at both the main (street front) building entr}= and the secondar}= (parking side) building entr}=. e. Service Access - shall be from rear parking areas. Service access should avoid locating next to residential areas whenever possible. CI l Y OF CUPERTI!~'O - ~iE_=.RT Or THE CIT]' SFECiFIC PLAN 12-91 ~~ DE\rELOP1~'`T STA?SDP.RDS B. Farl~ir<g Location of Surface Lots -shall be to the side and/or rear of buildings and planted with shade trees in an "orchard arrangement"; in no case shall surface parking lots be closer to surrounding public \~=alks than to=enty (20) feet. Subsurface parking is highly recommended. 2. The Perimeter of Parking Lots and Drive\\>ays -The perimeter of parking areas adjacent to the side and/or rear property lines shall be screened with a wall or fence if located next to a residential development. Interconnectivity betZVeen retail/commercial developments is desired, so any \valls or fences shall consider providing access beta=een properties. See "Site Improvements and Landscaping" for \va11, fence, pier, and pedestrian access guidelines. Subsurface Garages -The majority= of parking should be depressed partially below grade. The finished first floor height should be no more than three and one half (3.5) feet above side\\=alk grade; this may be averaged but shall not exceed height of five (5) feet above side\valk grade. 4. Garage Doors - or gates shall be provided for all residential garages. Maximum «=idth for common garage entrances shall be to-enty= (ZO) feet for double doors and ten (10) feet for single doors. C. B€~il~irtg Flcc~ss Direct Pedestrian Access - in the form of a \vall`~=ay shall be provided from the Stevens Creek Boulevard sideu-alk to the main building entrance; i.e., pedestrian access to building entrances shall not require \a~alking bete=een parking spaces. If pedestrian access v=ay=s ca~-uzot be separated from parking ba}=s and/or circulation aisles, they must be distinguished by a dif- ferentpaving material. D. CQ~ttnor~ pert SFac~ 1. For Commercial (Office Or Retail) Development - a. A minimum area equal to two and one half-percent {2.5%) of the gross floor area of buildings of t~a~enty= thousand (?0,000) square feet or more, or restaurants of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or morn shall be provided for passive recreational use, such as a garden sitting area or outdoor eating area. b. Plaaas and court}=ards shall include outdoor seating. Such areas shall be integrated into the project site design and/or situated in the park\\>ay= landscape easement. 2. For Residential Development - a. Common, usable outdoor space shall be provided for all multi unit buildings. A minimum of one hundred fifty (1~0) square feet shall be provided for each unit excluding required setback areas; see Design Guidelines. b. Private outdoor space shall also be provided \vith at least si_~Ity= (60) square feet for each unit. Private space shall be in the form of a patio or deck attached to the unit, not less than six (6) feet clear in any dimension. CIi ~' OF CliPERTI2.0 - HE°_RT Or THE CIT'E' SPECIr'IC PL9?~' 12-92 DES=ELOPME?vT ST4?C•DARDS ~. ~an~€sca~in~ and Scr~~nEng 23 1. Parka=ay Landscape Easement -All new development shall establish an easement to=enty six (26) feet iZ width along the Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage. . a. Easement Improvements -The easement shall consist of (i) a curbside planting strip ten (10) feet in «=idth, (ii) a sided=alk six (6) feet in width, and (iii) aback-of-~~=alk planting strip ten (10) feet in v,>idth. Planting strip areas shall contain grass and street trees in accordance with dze policies of the Streetscape Element. b. Special Condition: Vieva Corridors -Area(s) may be clear of boulevard street trees to allova for unobstructed viev~=s of buildings and/or signage. This area shall include necessary curb cuts and driveways. It shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet bet~~=een trees and a maximum of one third (1/3) the length of the parcel frontage, not to exceed one hundred t<a=enty (170) feet betw=een trees per opening. Parking area lot trees within the view corridor may also be cleared to allow= for unobstructed view=s of buildings and s j~ns in this area. Adjacent to Designated or Developed Residential Properties -attractive screen fencing or walls shall be provided along the side or rear property Lines to screen buildings, service areas, and parking areas; a minimum fit=e (~) foot planting area shall be established ~s=ithin and adjacent to the fence nr will u=ith evergreen trees planted at a minimum spacing of tv,=enty five (25) feet on center. 3. Side Street Trees -Shade trees at a spacing of approximately na=enty-five (25) feet on center shall be planted within required curbside planting strips. 4. Screen Fences and Wa11s -not adjacent to streets and side«=alks shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height and a maximum of eight (8) feet in height. 5. ~Ylhere a commercial and residential property share a common property line, the sound «=all separating the uses shall have a minimum height of eight (8) feet. (See Des jan Guidelines for recommendations on t~~e and materials. ) 6. Plant Materials -See "Site Improvements and Landscaping" section. F. B~€eE~ling ~asign 1. Variety in the Design of Building Facades -shall be required so that block frontages are varied and attractive. 2. Privac}> -Buildings shall be designed and/or arranged to avoid ~~=indo~a=s facing ~s-indows across side and rear building setback areas. 3. Buildng forms shall be such that buildings adjacent to parcels coned for residential uses shall be stepped back or terraced Or have adequate setback so that privacy is maintained. CITY Or CUPERTINO - 1~~4 :T Or THE CITP SPECIr;IC P LA?~' 12-93 24 SII.'GL'F4~/.ILY i~.6IDbI1TL9l. DE\%ELOPME?JT ST_Ah~?~tDS ~. ~igtts -shall conform to CitSl of Cupertino sign ordinance. However, the following provisions shall apply in the Speciac Plan Area to offset the reduction in visibility associated with the parka=ay frontage improvements: 1. Maximum Building-Mounted Sign Area -for commercial retail development shall be one and one half (1.5) square feet per one (1) linear foot of tenant frontage. 1.E)2.Qi~® 'QeSCr613'fOrl Standards promote retention and development viability of single-family residential sized lots in the transition area betlveen Stevens Creek Boulevard fronting development and single- family neighborhoods in the vicinity of Tantau, Judy, Bret and Stem Avenues. Standards apply to existing lots 10,000 square feet or less 11-I area and 225 feet or more in distance from Stevens Creek Boulevard. 1.OZ.~f~ E.artd Else I~. gErmi~fied Elses 1. Single-Family Residential- at a density range of 1-5 uni`s per acre. i NORiH l ~ ~ ion I ~~ o hNNE LhWE I ! ~ I ' 2. Other permitted uses in the R-1 I I ~~ single-family residential zonil-Ig ~ ~' ~ district. Heart of the City Specific P{an Area Boundary ~. ~eeessasry Uses ~ Properties Subject to Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment to Allow 1. Customary Home Occupations - Single Family Residential Development subject to City reviev,~. 2. Accessory Uses and Buildings - customaril}T appurtena~-It to a.perlnitted use. J. ~QE~EIf~Et}flca~ E15~~ 1: Conditional uses as allowed in the R-1 single-family residential zoning district. '~.~~e~€l f~~€fc~i~~ Fie€~C~~ ~t~d SEtfaa~E~s . 1. Building 1?eights and setbacks are as alloy=ed in the R-1 single-familjr residential zoning district. ~.~~.~El ~~f~eE ~i~e ~e~afef~~~te~~ ~E€~~C~fife~s 1. Other site development regulations applicable in the R-1 single-family residential zoning district shall apply to lots affected by these single-family residential development standards as shown in the figure. CITY OF CLil EnTll~'O - I,itART Or T?iE CITY SPECIFIC PL°_N 12-94 EXCEPTION PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT ST_4'\TD.4RDS 2~ ~~~E~'~E~~I P€~E3C~55 FC1~~ ®~W~L®P~lElE6~~ ~~~~M~A.E~®S In order to provide design flexibility in situations when small lot size, unusually shaped par- cels, or unique surrounding land uses make it difficult to adhere to the development standards and «=here all efforts to meet the standards have been exhausted, an applicant for devel- opment may file an exception request to seek apptoval to deviate from the standards. The possibility of lot consolidation, if an exception is needed for a substandard parcel, shall be et=aluated. The exception process shall not be used to increase land use intensity, or change permitted land uses. A. An exception foi- development standards can be approved if the final approval authority for a project makes all of the follo«=ing findings: 1. The proposed development is others=ise consistent ~~=ith the City's General Plan and with the goals of this specific plan and meets one or more of the criteria described above. 2. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improz=ements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. 3..The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 4. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to sense the development. 5. 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. B. An application for exception must be submitted on a form as prescribed by the Director of Community Development. 1 he application shall be accompanied by a fee prescribed by City Council resolution, no part of w=hich shall be refundable, to the applicant. Upon receipt of an application for an exception, the Director shall issue aN otice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission for an exception under this chapter in the same manner as provided in section 14.120.060 (relating to zoning changes). After a public hearing, and consideration of the application Ln conjunction with the mandatory findings contained u1 subsection A above, the Planning Commission shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application for an exception. The decision of the Planning Commission map be appealed to the City Council as provided in Section 19.136.060. C: An exception w=hich has not been used within t~vo years follow=ing the effective date thereof, shall become null aizd void arld 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 «~hen sufficient building activity has occurred and continues m occur in a diligent manner. CI')-~' OF CiJPERTINO -HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PL4N 12-95 26 ~~~~~~ ~~@@3ElI~lES 2.Q1.a't© €~escrE~tia~ DESIGN GL"~IDELI2~Es The Design Guidelines promote buildings that assume some of the communication functions of signs. Through their overall form and appearance buildings should communicate more than just a business name to a motorist ~vho is shopping by car -how many businesses are there? v,~here to park? where to enter the building? A "building assign" is taller than a t}-pical one-story building,.with a distinctive silhouette. It is located in close proximity to the street frontage. The driveway and main building entrance is identified by a taller architectural form, ;;'hick is an excellent location for mounting a sign visible from a car. t~. Bt~i@dE~g @r~ere~ter~~ -Long facades should be divided into shorter segments or modules. Modules along the Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage are recommended to be tv,~enty-five ,(25) feet long and a maximum of fifty (~0) feet long, and should be separated by major changes in the building mass or facade treatment, such as a projected entrance or windo;;J volume(s), notch, roof form, or other architectural feature. In some cases, these modules may be separated by varying the color of individual modules within a harmonious palette of colors. B. ~p~c6a1 t~.rc@titec~~ral Fe~~r~re5 -should accent buildings at the main building entrance, adjacent to entrance drives, and/or at building comers. A diagonal "cut" at a comer, or a notch for a grand building ently, can also be effective. Features that relieve flatness of facades, such as recessed ~;~indo;;'s, architectural trim «~ith substantial depth and detail, bay windows, `;-indow boxes, dormers, entry porches, etc., are recommended. Balconies, trellises and porches are also recommended to add human scale elements to projects. C. FVlassing -the o~=erall form of a quality building is created by its three-dimensional characteristics, or massing. Different combinations of building mass should be used to compose a building. $uilding masses may be singular, like a tall or projecting mass located in the center to Inark a main entrance. They map be symmetrical, for example to;;-ers placed on either side of the main enti-i~; or they map be repeated in a slightly different «~ay in another building location. ~. Bts@@dErag ~@e~stiers -Buildings should relate to one another to shape open space in between, as is common on campuses. Changes in building form should be used to organise and accent space, by creating axial relationships be7;'een buildings, denning special courtyard spaces, etc. ~. F~EZ~~ ~Q~~a€~s@~'s~s~ -Every building and/or individual tenant space should have a base; a clear pattern of openings and surface features; a prominent main entrance; and an ' attractive, visually interesting roofline. T he building should convey qualit~i materials. 1. Building Base -This may be as simple as a visual thickening of the ;;>all where the building touches the ground, a different surface material and/or wall color, or a different CI17' OF CliPGRI iN0 -HEART OF THE CITY ~?cCIFIC PLSN 12-96 DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 design treatment for the ground floor in a na=o-story building facade. 2. Pattern of Openings and Surface Features - ~Xlindo«=s, ;~=all panels, pilasters, building bays, and storefronts should be based on a module derived from the building's structural bay spacing. 3. Building Entrances -should be Basil}= identinable and distinguishable and located on the front of the building or on a fronting, traffic-facing building comer. One or more of the following treatments should be used: a. A 1 alley Mass Above -such as a to;a=er or turret, or a volume that protrudes from the rest of building surface. b.. Ceritered in the Facade - as part of a symmetrical overall composition. c. Accented by Architectural Elements -such as columns, overhanging roofs, awnings, canopies and/or ornamental light fixtures. d. A Change in Roofline or Roof 1}*pe Above. For detached residential buildings in a development, building entrances should be part of a clear entry sequence, extending from the public sidewalk to the private front door. The following elements are recommended: e. Stoops and/or Open Porches -should be provided at regular internals which correspond to the vertical modules of building units. The stoops shall be wide enough for people to sit on and to make entries inviting. Open porches should have attractive bulkheads or balustrade railings and a roof that complements the pitch and materials of the main roof. £ Stairs -should be boxed and framed by attractive stepped bulkheads walls or balustrade railings. Bullnose treads are recommended. Open or "floating" exterior stairs should not be used. g. Ornamental Lighting - of porches and ;,=a1ks to highlight entrances and add securit}=. h. Freestanduzg Landscape Elements -such as trellises, arbors, and special landscape materials that add character to yard spaces and/ or accent the entry sequence. -^r. Rooflines -should be simple, changing shape to reflect important building masses, tenants be- lo;a=, arid/ or other important internal building functions. C. lft(F~~daE~rs -are an important element of facade composition and an il-Idicator of over all building qualit}>: 1. Wir~dov.-/~~Jall Proportion - In general, upper stories should have a ;;>indo;a=-to-;~=all area proportion that is smaller than that of ground floor storefronts. 2. \X/u~dow Openings -should generall}= be vertical or square in shape. Horirontally- oriented openings generally make buildings appear squat and massive. CITY OF CUPERTINO -HEART OF THE Cif ~' CPECIFIC PLAN 12-97 28 DESIG*7 3. Window Inset -Glass should be inset a minimum of 3" from the «rindow frame or from the exterior wall surface to add relief to building surfaces; this is especially important for stucco buildings. 4. Shaped Frames and Sills -should be used to enhance openings and add relief to «~all surfaces. Cx. ~PJ~Ei Stt~-f~ces - If the building mass and variety of windows and doors is complex, simple wall surfaces may be preferable (e. g. stucco); if the building volume and the pattern of wall openings is simple, additional wall texture and articulation should be employed (e. g. bricks or blocks, or rusticated stucco). Pilasters, columns, cornices, and other forms of surface relief should be used to add visual interest and scale. E-~. l~aofs -Parapets and/or shallo«~ gable, hip, or other tvao-slope roofs are recommended for all buildings. 1. Roof Slopes -should be bet«~een 3:12 and 6:12. 2. Roof Ridges -should be aligned to be parallel and/or perpendicular to the street frontage. 3. Roof Overhangs -are strongly recommended. Overhangs should be a minimum of three (3) feet, «-ith additional articulation in the form of support struts, gutter facia, and/or exposed beams/ rafter ends. 4• Materials -The following roofing materials are typical for the district: a. Metal seam made of aluminum, galvanized steel or other coated steel, recommended finishes are anodized, fluorocoated or painted. b. Clay, ceramic or concrete file may also be appropriate if consistent with the desired building character. c. Tar and gravel, composition, or elastomeric roofs should be screened by roofed parapets. d. Asphalt shingle roofs are not recommended. @, ~ig€~s -Guidelines 1 through ? belo~a~ apply to building-mounted signs. 1. Sign Location -Signs should be mounted on parapets, towers, turrets, recessed ~i~all areas, and/or other architectural features specifically designed for them. Flush-mounted and painted a~~all si,,Qns should align with major architectural elements, such as doors and windo~a,s. Ornamental elements, such as moldings, pilasters, arches, clerestory «~ilndows, roof ear=es, or cornice lines should be used as a frame. 7_. A«-Wing and canopy signs -are recommended for commercial retail buildings. Awning signs should appear and function primarily as a~,~nings, however. A«-nings should reflect the building's facade module and should not extend for more than i4fry~ (50) linear feet «~ithout a break. Signs on canopies should be integrated ~~~ith the canopy fascia, or be in the form of freestanding letters mounted on top and extending abot-e the fascia. CITY OF CtiPERTIh'O -HEART Or' Trii= CITY SPL;CIFIC PL4N X2-98 r DESIG2~ GUIDELII~~s 29 3. Projecting S jpns -are recommended if designed as architectural features or are located primarily for pedestrian visibilitj=; minimum sidewalk clearance should be seven (7) feet. 4. Architectural StiTle -Sign shapes, type styles, and color combinations should complement building styles. 5. Structural supports - should be attractive. They should complement the overall design of the sign and/ or building(s). Ornamental metal is strongly recommended. 6. Materials -should be attractive and long-lasting. Recommended materials are: a. Signboards - of ~arood or metal, with painted, engraved or routed letters, or mounted letters of u=ood or metal b. Silhouette or figurative signs -three-dimeilsional letters, s}-mbols, and / or ornamental figures made of wood or metal. c. Fabric awnings -such as canvas or nylon, ~~=ith painted or applied lettering; plastic awnings should not be used. ~. ~ot~~os~ Olen Space -Developments with a residential component should contain both landscaped/garden areas and hardscape areas that encourage social interaction. Common Landscaped Space - A landscaped green and/or garden space should comprise betty-een seventy per cent (70%) and eighty per cent (80%) of the common outdoor space. The location should be in a courtyard, side yard, rear yard, or common green for larger de~Telopments. Space should be rectilinear «=ith no side less than fifteen (15) feet. Space should be se~renty fi~=e percent (75%) enclosed by buildings, to«~ wails, lota~ fences, or linear landscaping (e.g., hedges or rota-s of trees) and not be bordered by surface parking areas on more than one side. 2. Common Hardscape Space - Between to=enty per cent (ZO°o) and thirty per cent (30%) of common outdoor space should be irl the form of unit-paved or gravel areas, common roof deck- space, or any combination of the two. Hardscape space shall be connected directly to the required landscaped space by stairs, t~-alks, and/or ramps if necessary. 6~~ ~cEe~~a~-~ B~EI~€~g~ General -Accessory buildings of all tykes should have architectural treatments derived froaz the main building in terms of surface materials, trim, fenestration, roof materials, and color. ?. Freestanding Garages - should be unobtrusive, preferably located at the rear of properties to minimLe visual impact. a. Single-car garage doors -are strongly recommended, «=ith ~t~indotvs, surface panels, and other forms of architectural detailing to reduce their impact and scale. b. A maximum of five (S) garage doors -may be lined up consecutively; a space of five (~) feet shall be provided beat=een each garage or group of doers. CITY OF CUPERTINO -HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PL4N 12-99 30 DESIGN GL"'IDELi26ES ~. ~~g ~ttErt 9 - should be used to enhance signs and buildings. ~X~-hen possible, sign illumination should be coordinated «=ith an overall building lighting scheme. Recommended lighting approaches are: 1. Backlit -with lighting inside and behind projecting lettering and/ or awnings. 2. Floodlit - ]~~ith sil-]gle or multiple spotlights, provided light sources are shielded to protect motorists, pedestrians, and adjacent properties. 3. Color and lamp t}~e -Light sources providing the most pleasing and accurate color rendering are metal halide, incandescent, and color-corrected fluorescent. Other lamp t}-pes, such as cool white fluorescent, mercury vapor, and high and low pressure sodium may distort sign colors and should be used accordil~g to advice from a lighting professional; these lamp types are not appropriate for area lighting. 4• The light fixtures shall be oriented and designed to preclude any light and direct glare to adjacent residential properties. No direct off-site glare from a light source shall be visible above 3 feet at a public right-of-~=ay. 5. Parking lots, side]valks and other areas accessible to pedestrians and automobiles shall be illuminated ]with a uniform and adequate intensity. Typical standards to achieve uniform and adequate intensit}= are identified in the Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.100. 6. Lighting around automatic teller machines shall meet minimum standards required by the State Business and Professions Code. ll~i.~€a-~~ A~a~Er's~Es -See "Site Improvements and Landscaping" section for guidelines. CiT]' OF CUl ERTINO - ~?AZT OF TciE CiT]' SPECIFIC PL4N 12 - 100 0 c d C 0 d _~~ ~~= ;_> ~ J 7 7 7 ~~_ a a F = __ C ~ ~ - d. u ~ ~ m d~+.~ ~ - A~ D N ~ a Y _ m ~ . ~ ~ - J Y - O r -.J 7 j ~ % _ t~~ 3 .~~ \. ~~ ,~ '. .~. ~r `; i ~ ~` ~e :~ o~_ ~d= o- 0 E 1 -~ Y _ ~ CJ I _ ~ U 7 __ - = _ ~+ 3 3 ~. T = a ~ = ~ ~ j 7 N ~ O 7 _ __ _- _ ' G ._ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ K T ` m E? ~.\ J ~_ j - _ - ~ _ ~~ r ~ 7 .3i ~ 7 .- ~ ; L ~ ~n ~ ~ ~`~ ~'r _~ ._ _ o _ r: fF ~! ~ ~ . ~' E - -_ ~- ~ =_ __ S ss - J ~' ~ ~ =_ r - - .i-~."i m x ~ ~'~ 3 n ~ u ~. C 7 a `c ~. o_Ni~ o - ~ - 3 ~2 - 101 12 - 102 SITE IMPRO\%EMENTS AI~T7~ L~.NDSCAPING GUIDEISIQES 33 SITE !lt~Pl~O~/E[~E~lTS A~Q !~RlQSCQ~l~G ~!!lQE~lE~ES ~.©1.Q~~ Q~scri~~ion The following Design Guidelines for Site Improvements and Landscaping apply to all Ste- vens Creek Boulevard Specific Plan Areas unless otheravise indicated. a4. Ped~s~cian Pathv~ays.- Inform~~l pedestrian pathways linking adjacent properties and buildings are recommended. These pathways are intended to form a net«~ork separate from the public right-of-way. A vatiet}T of approaches are possible and the City «>ill review linkage opportunities and proposals on a case-bp-case basis. B. P~v~r~g ~+ta~~erB~Qs -recommended for pedestrian sulfates are listed below. In general, a maximum of two materials should be combined in a single application: 1: Stone -such as slate or granite. 2. Brick pavers. 3. Concrete unit pavers. 4. Poured-in-place concrete -with any of the following treatments: integral pigment color; special aggregate; special scoring pattern; ornamental insets, such as tile; pattern sEatnped. All concrete v,~alks sh~~uld be tinted to reduce glare. C. EAla~ls, Fe~ees, ~-hedges, Gatev~'ays Arid k~iers -should le used to define public and private boundaries and/ or spaces and screen parking areas. 1. Design -Walls, fences, gate~vays and piers should be designed to reflect the architectural style and materials of the principal building(s). a. A combination of thick and thin structural elements - should be used, with thicker elements for supports and/or panel divisions. Fenceposts and/or support columns may be built up with additional trim, cornices, and/or moldings for this purpose. b. ~gJalls and piers -should have a base and copuzg. c. Piers - A row of freestanding piers can be effective as an open screen between parking areas and streets or s~~alks. A continuous chain or open metal fence bet~a~een piers can be an attractive device for creating a stronger separation. 2. Materials -should be the same scs Or compatible alith those of the principal building(s). Support post or pier materials Inap differ from fence materials; e.g. metal fence panels combined with masonry piers. a. Fences -Recommended materials are ~aTOUght iron, cast iron, and vaelded steel for commercial applications.. Aletal fences map be mounted on a lo~~r masonry wall, and/ or spanning masonry 1~iers. ~X~ood fences are appropriate in residential Plan Areas only. They should be substantial in design and painted a light color. b. galls and piers - recomrended materials are precast concrete stucco-faced concrete, brick, or stone. CITY OF CLiPERTINO - 1 1L 9RT OF THE CITY SPECIFIC Pt nia 12 - 103 34 SITE IAQPIioVEMENTS AID L.42~TDSGePIhTG GtTIDEI_I?~~s c. Not recommended: (i) Chain link fences. (ii) Unfinished or unsurfaced concrete block v,=alls -are strongly discouraged. Block v,=alts should be coated vaith cement stucco or similar surface. Split-face block ~~=alls may be appropriate along side or rear property lines only. {iii) Rustic wood fences ~o [~6aret Ei~ater'sats c~~d ~.a~e€~Calse ~rea~tt~~n,~s -Used on properties adjacent to the right-of-c~=ay should reflect the follow=ing guidelines: 1. Plant Materials Along Stevens Creek Boulevard -should create an attractive and harmonious character, in keeping ~a=ith the orchard/grove streetscape theme. a. Trees u=ith open branching structures -should be used. Deciduous trees are recommended. b. PlantingJlandscaped areas -should have a simple palette of plant species. c. Complex planting schemes -should not be used in front yard areas. Z. Plant Materials in Other Locations -should be selected and placed to reflect both ornamental and functional characteristics. a. Deciduous trees -should be the predominant large plant material used., They should be located adjacent to buildings and within parking areas to provide shade in summer and allow sun in ~~,=inter. Species should be selected to provide fall color, and to minimize litter and other maintenance problems. b. Evergreen shrubs and trees - should be used as a screening device along rear property lines (not directly adjacent to residences), around mechanical appurtenances, and to obscure grille,=ork and fencing associated w=ith subsurface parking garages. c. Flo«~ering shrubs and trees -should be used where they can be most appreciated, adjacent to «=alks and recreational areas, or as a frame for building entrances, stairs, and walks. 3. Fountains -are recommended in hardscape open spaces to provide cooling in hot «~eather. The design and materials should be related to the principal building(s) and/ or on-site furnishings. 4. Surface Parking Lots - utilLe a significant amount of site area and should be designed as an integral feature of the overall site de~Telopment plan. a. Space-defuzing elements -such as trellises, columns, walls, arbors, and hedges . should be provided to enhance the appearance of lots. These elements should be consistent in design and materials ~i=ith the principal building(s) and other site features. b. Parking Lots -Planting should be consistent ~~=ith the standards outlined in the parking ordinance. CITY OF CUPERTiI~TO -HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PI.A~T 12 - 104 SITE 1MYlZO\TEMENTS A?c~D L.4N-DSCAPING GLJIDEIZ?.TES 35 c. "Orchard Parking'' -should be emploS=ed in all surface lots. The "orchard" rtee placement provides better shade on the passenger compartment and more even shade and vegetation throughout the parking area. Trees shall be planted to\vard the rear of parking stalls to create a grid rather than rows. Such trees shall be protected by curbing or bo1l~Irds as appropriate. E. Surfface CsF'~E#EE~g -should be minimLed to maintain an orchard./gro\=e character of development throughout the Stevens Creek Boulevard Specinc Plan Area. The grading should be performed to satisfy the r°quirements of the Department of Public ~~Jorks. 1. Mounding earth - to elevate~buildings, or "berming" earth against the side of buildings, is not recommended. CITY OF CL"PERTINO - HE~~.T of THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN 12 - 105 36 [[~~t~ASTF~UC~~RE P~.AN BacEcgro~arBd I?~TFRASTRUCTURE PLAN State law requires that all specific plans include text describing the distribution, location and inten- sity of major components of infrastructure needed to support the proposed land use and development in the specific planning area. The level of private and public improvement and development as con- templated in the Heart of the City Specific Plan will not w=arrant an}= major expansion of the City's infrastructure. The major components of this spe- cific plan involve: 0 Streetscape improvements, primarily land- scaping, u=hick do not require purchase of property or narrowing of existing streets: o .Allocation of development potential, a=hich w=as previously demonstrated in the Gen- eral Plan em=ironmental impact report to be w=ithin the capacities of existing services and infrastructure. a Guidance of architectural design of future development w=hick u=ill not require expan- sion of infrastructure. ~'ra~s~ortatior~ The Heart of the City Specific Plan envisions a multimodal transportation corridor for Stevens Creek Boulevard. As such the plan proposes die eventual completion of all sidewalk improvements along the boulevard such that the sideu=alk a=ill be separated from the street b5= a buffering easement of trees and other landscaping. 1 he amount of side- w=alk improvements that will need to be made are as follow=s: Reconstruction of monolithic sidewalk: -7,750 ft. Construction of new= sideu=alk: -150 ft. The majority of sideu=alk improvements will take place incrementally as properties redevelop. The missing sections of bic}=cle lanes from De Anna Boulevard to Stelling Road will be completed as part of the streetscape project. Funding will be allocated through the Capital Improvements Pro- gram. The estimated cost is $5,000. The development intensification of the major areas may. u=arrant additional signaliration of Ste- vens Creek. Boulevard. Funding a=ill be allocated in the 5-yeaz Capital Improvement Program or paid for by the development community as Heart of the City development proceeds. ~atEr, Sewer, SEorm Drainage, Solid Vt/as~e Disposal Facilities arbd Energy 1=acill~bes. No expansion of these facilities is contemplated as a result of Heart of the City development activ- ity. CITY OF CUPERTZI4O - HE.~.StT OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN 12 - 106 II+IPI.ET SENT.4T'I ON l~~~~~l~lVj~~lQ~1! Reg~la~ary ~rar~ew©r!c The Heart of the Ciry Specific Plan is both a policy and regulatory document. The goals, policies and strategies provide the rationale for the devel- opment standards and, land use map. The Heart of the Ciry Specific Plan is a regulatory document in that its land use map and development standards will be incorporated into a new planned develop- ment zoning for the property within its boundary. The Plan is also a policy document by virtue of the guidance it provides in allocating future develop- ment in the planning area and in establishing com- munity expectations of the design and quality of new development. The Heart of the City Specific Plan «~as pre- pared as a means to implement the City's 1993 General Plan and the 2005 General Plan. As such the specific plan executes the major general plan goal of creating a Heart of the City - a meLnorable, pedestrian-inclusive place for Cupertino. Once the Specific Plan is adopted, all future rezoning, tentative subdivision maps and public «=orks projects must be consistent with the specific plan as required by state lave=. In the event, that any regulation, condition, program or portion of this Specific Plan is held in- valid or unconstitutional by a California or Federal court of competent jurisdiction, such portions shall be deemed separate, distinct and independent pro- visions, and the im=alidity of such provisions shall not affect the validity of the remauzing provision thereof. ~~ree~~~a~e Ec~~rc~~e€~et~~s Back~roccn~ Appendix A depicts the various estimated costs to install the proposed Heart of the Ciry Streetscape improvements. The improvements ~a~ill be phased over time and geography as monies become avail- 37 able to implement the streetscape improvements in its totality. It will take a concerted public and pri- vate effort before all the streetscape improvements and. its ultimate public benefit can be achieve. The proposed 5-year capital improvement program allo- cates $1.5 million for Heart of the City streeucape improvements. Phase L• Median, Landmarks ancf Gatev~rays Description of Activities:. Replantuzg of median landscaping to include pears, ash and oak trees. Fv_ndzng Sources: City 5-pear Capital Improvement Program I}tease f!: Landscape Easement lnstaffation Description of Activities: As private redevelopment occurs, the full landscape easement improvements will be installed by private property owners. Depending on existing site condi- tions, this may include additional land, new side- walk, tuff, additional trees and hedge fencing. Fu,uiing Source: Private property owners as redevelopment of properties occurs. Phase ill: Edemainder oftmprovements Description of Activiries: 1 he unfunded improvements include: pedestrian lights, benches, bus shelters and trash receptacles. The timing for these unprovements is unknow=n. Furuling Sourcz: Public and private sources as map be identified. CITY OF CLTPcRTIhTO - HE,SR 1 GF THE CITY Sl ECI.`IC PL4N 12 - 107 38 A~~~I~E~~A C1 COFIS~CEtC~tOC1 Cd5$S APPEI~TDLx A Recommended materials and preliminary construction cost estimates for Stevens Creek Boulevard streetscape improvements are listed below. Quantities are approximate and are Likely to vary=. Improve- ments are proposed to be phased oz=er the term of the Specific Plan, u=ith street trees the first priority. Trees are assumed to be 24" box sire. Estimated costs for single-ro«= /double-roa= frontage street tree arraizgements are provided; both options include matchil-]g trees in existing medians. Cost figures for 36" box sire trees are not itemi.;ed but would add about an extra $2.00 per tree installed. Existing "cobrahead" street lights a=ould remain; however nev,=, pedestrian-scale street lights u=ould be installed in between them to light sidev,=alk areas. ~k~est Steve~u Creek Boulevard Street Trees - Quercus agriltolia Ca340' a.c, 24" box: $500 delivered; $1,000 installed. (inc. irrigation and demo). Quantity: 120/210 Cost: $120,000/$210,000 Crossroads Street Trees -See Crossroads plan Central Steve~u Creek Boulevard Street Trees - P}TUS callers=ana "Chanticleer" ®25' a.c, 24" box: $500 delivered; $1,000 installed (incl. irrigation and demo); Quantity=:548/960 Cost: $548,000/$960,000 East Steveiu Creek Boulevard Street Trees - Fra_Kinus lati`olia Ce3 30' a.c, 24" box: $500 delivered; $1,000 installed (incl. irrigation znd demo). Quantity: 514/901 Cost: $514,000/$901,000 Street Lighu -STAFF /se'lux Satum 2 or EQ ®90' a.c «_ /single-head polycarbonate globes, lamp type color-corrected metal halide CQ3 3000K, 100-150 watts: $1,200 delivered; $3,700 installed (incl. cone. base, ~~siring, conduit, etc.). . Quantity:' 260 Cost: $967_,000 Total Streetscape Costs: 1. $1,180,000 for single-ro«- of frontage trees and median trees. 1. $2,0 (0,000 for double-row of frontage trees and median trees. 3. $2,142,000 for single-roue, and street lighting. 4• $3,032,000 for double-row, and street lighting. CITY OF CUPE~TINO - I lEA1.T OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN 12 - 108 APPEI~"DIX B - A.CKNOWLEDGEMbNTS 39 APL~t:RIDt3(g - AC[~t~®~fVLEQG~~lEt\if6~ 1995: Cirj~ Coutlcil t~Jally Dean, Mayor John Bautista Don Burnett Barb Koppel Lauralee Sorensen Update 2QQ8: City Council Dolly Sandoval Orrin Mahoney Kris Wang Gilbert Wong Mark Satoro P1a1111111g Commission David Do}=le, Chairperson Paul V. Roberts, Vice Chairperson Donna Austin Andrea Harris Orrin Mahoney Staf f Donald Brown, City Manager Robert S. Cowan, AICP, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, AICP, City Planner Colin Jung, AICP, Associate Planner/Project Manager Michele Bjurman, AICP, Planner II Vera Gil; Planner II Anu Natarajan, Planning Intern Yvonne Kelley, Administrative Secretary Paln Eggen, Administrative Clerk Bert Viskovich, P.E., Director of Public Works Glenn Grigg, P .E., Traffic Engineer Steve Dota~ling, Director of Parks and Recreation Consultants/ Contributors Freedman Tung Bottomle}', Streetscape & Urban Design Consultants Planning Commission Lisa Giefer Marty Miller David Kaneda Jessica Rose Paul Brophy Staff David Knapp, City Manager Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director Ciddy Wordell, Citq Planner (Retired) Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner Beth Ebben, Administrative Clerk Ralph Qualls, P.E., Director of Public Works Glenn Goepfert, P.E., Assistant Director of Public Works Co~uultants A~4ichael Fomalski, Michael Fomalski Illustration Crn' OF CUPERiINO - HE_AIZT or TfiE C1T7 CPECIFIC PL?N 12 - 109 40 Amendments By pity Caur~cEi As of Sept 4, 2i~t}0 As of March 3,1997, amendments to the Heart of the City Specific Plan will result in a page revision date in the lower inside comer 'of the changed page. Types of changes may include page-numbering, minor t5~- pographical or cosmetic changes or policy and text changes. Substantive changes will be noted in the table belov% in addition to the page revision dates. date.®~d~r~ance E?eser€ptE®~ Number March 3, 1997 CC 1753 Text and Map: City Center Area changes December, 1997 CC 1769 Text: Single-Family Residences Allowed on Certain Properties July 6, 1498 CC 1786 Text: Exception Process for Development Standards June 19, 2000 00-192 & 00-193 Map: City Center Area changes August XX, 2008, Ordinance 08-XX: Conformity to General Plan CIri Or CUPERTINO -HEART OF THE Clrr SPECIFIC PLAN 12 - 110 Exhibit D CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: SPA-2008-01 Agenda Date: October 14, 2008 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: Stevens Creek Boulev~crd between Highway 85 and eastern city limits Application Summary: Update the Heart of the City Specific Plan to reflect the changes adopted in the 2005 General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide recommendations to the City Council on the draft Heart of the City Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: On September 23, 2008, the Planning C~~mmission conducted a study session to consider possible amendments to the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The Commission reviewed the draft specific plan and took public input at which time a number of issues were raised. In addition to suggestions to soften and clarify language in the draft specific plan, the Commission discussed whether a prescriptive side yard setback should be reinstated in the plan, and if some of the General Plan policies should be re- evaluated before incorporating them into the specific plan. Some of the Commissioners expressed concern about the City's General Plan policies that allow for mixed use retail/residential developments because t11ey felt such policies send a message to developers that they must incorporate mixed use into their projects to obtain approval by the City, even if the developers felt that the retail spaces may not be viable. Some of the Commissioners also felt that the General Plan policy requiring developments to have shared parking. agreements in the Crossroads area would unfairly burden a developer and should be left to property owners to decide. Therefore, a consensus was not reached on some of the proposed amendments to the draft specific plan. The Planning Commission made a recommendation at the meeting and took a vote (3-2) to recommend approval of the draft specLEic plan with additional revisions that are outlined in this report. The Commission to~~k action after planning staff indicated that it would be possible for the Commission to make a recommendation during the study session. However, the City Attorney was consulted about this issue after the meeting and determined that a recommendation should not have been made because the item was conducted as a study session .anc1 the public was not notified that a recommendation could be made at the meeting. As a result, the draft Heart of the City Specific Plan is being brought back to the Planning Commission as a regular public he~~ring item for consideration at which time a 12-~~~ Heart of the City Specific Plan Update October 14, 2008 Page 2 formal recommendation may be made. The Commission may reaffirm its previous recommendation, or may modify its recommendation. The Planning Commission recommendation will then be subsequently forwarded to the City Council for review and a determination. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider the draft specific plan and the Planning Commission recommendation at its October 21, 2008 meeting. DISCUSSION: The proposed amendments that the Planning Commission recommended by a 3-2 (Chair Miller and Commissioner Brophy dissented) vote during the study session include the following: • Allow for flexible side yard setbacks as recommended in the draft plan • Use native and water-wise plantings with drip irrigation systems in landscaped areas of project sites behind the streetscape improvements ^ Retain the tree selections for the streetscape as recommended in the draft plan • Provide separated bike lanes along Stevens Creek Boulevard and additional language in the plan to support upgrading bicycle lane improvements along Stevens Creek Boulevard • Include criteria for the frequency and placement of street furniture along Stevens Creek Boulevard • Prohibit barbed and razor wire fencing, in addition to chain link fencing • Require heating/ air conditioning units to be screened from public view • Discourage drive through uses along Stevens Creek Boulevard • Clarify that shared parking agreements are required and parking standards are to be reduced in "mixed use developments" in the Crossroads area • Remove language identifying examples of developments that have applied Heart of the City standards • Clarify that developments "should" have retail uses with storefronts, and limited residential uses "may' be allowed in the Crossroads area • Remove the word "highly" from the statement "Subsurface parking is highly recommended." • Clarify that development in the Heart of the City "provides a variety of land uses "that include" mixed use development, enhanced activity nodes..." as the Land Use/Economic Goal. Chair Miller expressed his concern about removing side yard setback requirements from the draft plan and indicated that it was unclear which approval authority would approve the side yard setbacks for developments, particularly if developments could be approved with zero lot lines. Staff has reviewed the draft specific plan and concurs that the draft specific plan does not clearly address which approval authority would approve the setbacks on developments. 12 - 112 Heart of the City Specific Plan Update October 14, 2008 Page 3 The majority of the Heart of the City SpE~cific Plan area is located in a P (Planned Development) zone, except for Memorial P~irk, which is located in a PR zone. All new developments within a P zone require a conditional use permit, in addition to an architectural and site approval, that require approval by either the Planning Commission or City Council. The Planning Commission approves conditional use permits in the P zone for new developments less than 5,000 square feet of commercial, less than 10,000 square feet of industrial and/or office use, or less than 8 residential units. The City Council approves condition~il use permits for developments that exceed these numbers. Therefore, staff recommends that an additional amendment be made to the draft specific plan that incorporates the application requirements and approval authority for developments. Commissioner Brophy expressed concerns about certain General Plan policies that were incorporated into the draft specific plan for conformance, particularly with respect to allowances for mixed use development; and requirements for shared parking agreements in the Crossroads area. Conunissioner Brophy's concerns are outlined in a memo (See Exhibit B) that was presented to i:he Commission during the study session. Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Pl~inner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Community Development Directo~~r e.~-L Enclosures: Exhibit A: Planning Commission Staff Report of SeptE~mber 23, 2008 with attachments Exhibit B: Memo from Commissioner Brophy G: lPlanninglPDREPOR71pcSPArepor1s120081SPA-2008-OIOct 14, 2008. hoc 12 - 113 Exhibit q CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: SPA-2008-01 Agenda Date: September 23, 2008 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 and eastern city limits Application Summary: Update the Heart of the City Specific Plan to reflect the changes adopted in the 2005 General Plan. (Continued from the August 26, 2008 Planning Commission meeting) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide recommendations to the City Council on the draft of the updated Heart of the City Specific Plan following the Planning Commission study session. BACKGROUND: At the August 26, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the draft of the updated Heart of the City Specific Plan and voted (5-0) to hold, a study session on September 23, 2008, and invite the public to provide comments during the study session. The Commission approved a minute order informing the City Council of the Planning Commission decision to hold a study session to allow for public input and additional discussion on recommended amendments to the specific plan. Further, the Commission requested that Kelly Kline, Redevelopment/. Economic Development Manager, be asked to attend the study session. On June 10, 2008, the Planning Commission first reviewed the draft specific plan. The Commission did not recommend changes to the document, but requested clarification on the proposed elimination of the prescriptive side yard setback requirements, examples of existing Heart of the City streetscapes, and discussion on whether bicycle racks should be incorporated into the specific plan. The Heart of the City Specific Plan update is a part of the 2008-2009 Work Program that the City Council adopted on February 19, 2008. The Council requested that the Heart of the City Specific Plan be modified to incorporate technical revisions reflecting the changes made to the 2005 General Plan. The Council also requested that the Planning Commission review and forward its recommendations to the Council. 12 - 114 Heart of the City Specific Plan Update September 23, 2008 Page 2 DISCUSSION: Fundamentals of the Heart of the City Specific Plan The Heart of the City Specific Plan was adopted in 1995 to guide future development and redevelopment of the Stevens Creek Corridor generally between Highway 85 and the eastern City limits near Lawrence Expressway. The purpose and overall goal of the plan for this area is to create a greater sense of place and community identity and to develop this area as apedestrian-inclusive €;athering place. The general policy framework for the He~~rt o£ the City area involves creating a link generally between the Crossroads area at the western boundary of the Stevens Creek Corridor, which encompasses the span of Stevens Creek Boulevard between The Oaks shopping center at Highway 85 to the Ciiy Center at N. De Anza Boulevard, to the eastern activity center of the Cupertino' S~luare Mall and vicinity. The specific plan involves cultivating a link between these a~nters by providing development standards and design guidelines to promote land usf~s and development that focus and support the growth of these centers which include a mixture of conunercial, office and residential uses along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The plan also involves connecting these centers by promoting the streetscape concept of a tree-lined landscaped parkway continuously along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The role of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor is determined by the activity centers, as mentioned above, and the supporting uses and developments that are within the mid-blocks of these centers. Currently, there is a diverse mixture of uses and building forms along Stevens Creek Boulevard that vary from not only the specific plan, but also from each other, and particularly within the mid-block areas due to the nature of incremental development that occurs and has occuzred along StevE:ns Creek Boulevard. The current specific .plan virtually allows a~zy variety of general commercial, office and residential uses along the street frontage ~~f Stevens Creek Boulevard without much consideration for the compatibility of how i:hese uses and building; forms relate to each other along the street frontages to create a uniform streetscape, and how such uses and building forms in mid-block support the activity centers. The Planning Commission may consider a discussion of these issues during the study session to determine whether the vision :Eor the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor should be modified to address these issues. The draft of the updated Heart of the City Specific Plan currently proposes-retail usE~s along the street frontages; however, the Commission may want to consider whethf~r this is suitable, or if perhaps other uses, such as residential or office uses, may be appropriate along certaut portions of Stevens Creek Boulevard in the mid-block areas to support the activity cenl:ers. Staff would like the Commission to consider how any ne~N buildings should be oriented to have a frontage presence along Stevens Creek B~~ulevard to integrate with the streetscape along the corridor. 12 - 115 Heart of the City Specific Plan Update September 23, 2008 Page 3 The draft of the updated Heart of the City Specific Plan maintains these fundamental purposes and goals. The updating of the plan primarily involves incorporating changes that reflect the 2005 General Plan and additional language to provide further clarity in the plan. New concepts and language have been incorporated to also promote better usability of the plan (e.g. elimination of prescriptive side yard setbacks to support the development of odd or narrow lots) without compromising the fundamental purposes and goals of the plan. Proposed Changes in the Draft Plan In order to facilitate the Commission's discussion of the changes proposed in the draft specific plan, staff has outlined the changes below based on the reasons for the changes: 205 General Plan Consistency Maps A. Updates the Land Use Map and Streetscape Concept Plan to reflect the new boundaries. Policy Framework A. Updates the Land Use/Economic Goals and Policies to Section incorporate the General Plan policy to allow for mixed- . use commercial and residential development "if .the residential units provide an incentive to develop retail use, if the development is well designed, financially beneficial to the Cupertino, provides community amenities and is pedestrian oriented." B. Updates office and commercial development allocation numbers. C. Updates the maximum residential density allowance to 25 dwelling units per acre. This replaces the ~ previous density allowance of 35 dwelling units per acre. D. Incorporates new references for activity centers, including the Crossroads area, subareas of Stevens Creek Boulevard (east, west and central), and other properties north and south of Stevens Creek Boulevard within the Heart of the City area. This replaces the previous references to activity centers identified as the Oaks/De Anza College area, the Crossroads/City-Civic Center and Vallco Fashion Park and Vicini Circulation/Parking A. Includes language from the General Plan as a new strategy Goals to "evaluate options on Stevens Creek Boulevard to improve the pedestrian environment by proactively managing speed limits, their manual and automated enforcement and traffic signal synchrony." B. Incorporates language from the General Plan as a new strategy to "require shared parking agreements in the Crossroads area, with overall parking standards reduced to reflect shared arkin arran ements." 12 - 116 Heart of the City Specific Plan Update September 23, 2008 Page 4 Development A. Updates the maximum building height allowance to 45 Standards feet with a clarification that rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures may exceed height limitations if they are enclosed, centrally located on the roof and not visible from adjacent streets. This replaces the previous maximum of three floors or 36 feet. ConsolidationlRemovin~ Revetition and Cbbsolete LanQ-uaue Development/Design A. Consolidates standards into one section generally Standards applicable to all development types to eliminate repetition. Where certain types of developments have specific development/design stand~crds, they are clearly identified in. the sections (e.g. common open space re uirement~; for commercial/office versus residential . Streetscape Design A. Removes ;sections on Street Furnishings, Civic Landmarks and Gateway Entrances since the street furnishing examples have never been enforced and the _ concept of €;ateways at the eastern and western end of the Heart of the City area is obsolete. B. Removes the Frontage Renovation Conditions illustrations to eliminate confusion for users. t~l ew t;oncept Development Standards ew A. Eliminates prescriptive side yard setback requirements to encourage better relationship of developments to adjacent buildings and streetscapes. This would also assist development of narrow and odd shaped lots to develop or rE~develop. B: Includes loc~itional restrictions for a list of commercial uses along the street frontage of Stevens Creek Boulevard. C. Includes example of how net density as a "twenty-five percent (25%) or greater increase in floor area or a 25% or greater ch~~nge in floor area resulting from use permit or architecfi::ral and site approval within twelve (12) months. D. Incorporates clarifications on building height measurements, use of residential allocation for residential and residential mixed-use projects, encroachment of elements (e.g. chimneys) into required setbacks, driveway setbacks, parking standards, landscape screening and building design. 12 - 117 Heart of the City Specific Plan Update September 23, 2008 Page 5 Development E. Provides new section on Building Access that requires Standards Continued direct pedestrian access from Stevens Creek to the main building entrance. F. Includes new common open space requirements with different standards for commercial and residential. Design Guidelines A. Adds additional clarification on building increment, special architectural features, facade composition, building entrances . B. New language is added for massing, building clusters, building entrances, common open space, accessory buildin s Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Community Development irector Enclosures: Exhibit A: Planning Commission Staff Report of August 26, 2008 with attachments G:IPlnnninglPDREPOR71pcSPArepor1s12008LSPA-2008-01 Sep 13 s~wlysession.rloc 12 - 118 CITY OF CUPERTINO . 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: SPA-2008-O1 Agenda Date: August 26, 2008 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 and eastern city limits Application Summary: Update the Heart of the Ci{y Specific Plan to reflect the changes adopted in the 2005 General Plan. (Conti~lued from the June 10, 2008 Planning Commission meeting) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning ConUnission recommend that the City Council review and approve the updated Heart of the City Specific Plan as it has been presented in its finished design format. BACKGROUND: On June 10,' 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the draft of the updated Heart of the City Specific Plan. The Commission did not recommend changes to. the document, but requested clarification on the following items pertaining to the specific plan: a. Provide examples of existing Heart of the City streetscapes that are consistent with the streetscape requirements. b. Discuss whether a requirement for bicycle racks should be incorporated into the specific plan. c. Clarify why the .prescriptive requirements for side yard setbacks are being eliminated. The Heart of the City Specific Plan update is apart of the .2008-2009 Work Program that the City Council adopted on February 19, 2008. The Council requested that the Heart of the City Specific Plan be modified to ina~rporate technical revisions reflecting the changes made to the 2005 General Plan. The Council also requested that the PlaivluZg Commission review and forward its recommendations to the Council. DISCUSSION: Heart of the Cify Streetscape Examples The Heart of the City Specific Plan streetsca~~e standards have been applied to some of the more recent developments within .the City, including the Metropolitan mixed use commercial/residential development and the Whole Foods supermarket site. These 12 - 119 Heart of the City Specific Plan update August 26, ?008 Paae developments have incorporated the Heart of the City streetscape standards reflecting an aim to achieve the "orchard grove" appearance with a continuous landscaped parkway along the curbside planted jvith trees, a separated pedestrian sideta~alk, and a landscape parkway behind the sidewalk that is also planted with a continuous row of trees. Bicycle Racks The Planning Commission requested clarification on whether a requirement for bicycle racks should be incorporated into the specific plan. Staff would like to indicate that bicycle racks are standard requirements for developments per the City's Parking Regulations (Chapter 19.100 of the Zoning Ordinance). Developments within the Heart of the City Specific Plan still need to comply ~~Tith the Parking Ordinance; therefore, staff believes it is not necessary to ilcorporate an additional reference requiring bicycle racks. Prescriptive Side Yard Setback Requirements The Commission also commented on the elimination of prescriptive side yard setback requirements i1 the updated specific plan and' ho~v this could create confusion for applicants. As indicated ii the previous report, staff elunilated such requirements and proposed ne~v language i1 the updated specific plan to allojv for developments that emphasize relationslps to adjacent buildings and lot widths to create a more connected, pedestrian-oriented streetscape than developments with rigid setback standards regardless of their surrounding buildiZg and site relationships. This will also aid i1 the development of narrow and odd-shaped 1_ots v~-ithil the Heart of the City. >=ir±ished Design Parmat As a result of the JLU1e 10, ?008 Plannng CoiYU.ni_ssion meeting, the layout of the updated Heart of the City Specific Plan has been arranged ilto its finished design format (See Exhibit A). The finished format ilcludes additional photos that have been ir~erted 'unto the document. 12 - 120 Whole Foods Metropolitan development Heart of the City Specific Plan L~date - ~ August 26, 2008 Pale 3 The strikethrough version of the updated specific plan is also attached to this report (See Exhibit B) to illustrate the changes th2it have been made to the existing document. The strikethrough version illustrates lan€;uage that has been deleted, consolidated, added and retained in the updated specific plan. The following table lists the changes tha-: have been incorporated into the updated Heart of the City Specific Plan: Deleted Language Introductory overall goal paragraph of the Policy Framework that are no longer consistent with the General Plan. ^ References to activity ceni:ers that are no longer referred to in the General Plan. ^ References to side yazd setbacks for new developments. ^ Outdated allocation numbers for office square footages. ^ References to "new hou~:ing sites" as a strategy under Land Use/Economic Goals. ^ References to the maximum 35 units per acre residential density. ^ References to Orchard Park (replaced by Civic Pazk). ^ Sections on Street furnitw•e, Civic Landmazks, and Gateway Entrances. ^ Development standazds by type of development. ^ Fronta e renovation illustrations. Consolidated Development/Design Standards are consolidated into one section applicable to Language - all types of development.. Where certain types of developments have specific development/design star.dazds different from other development types, they aze clearly identified in these sections (e.g. common open space requirements for commercial/office versus residential). Added Language Land Use/Economic Goa] and Policies to reflect the 2005 updated General Plan language, including new references to the Crossroads area, subareas of Stevens Creek Boulevard, and other properties within the Heart of the City area to the north and south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. ^ Updated office/commercial allocation numbers. ^ Updated residential density allowance of up to 25 dwelling units per acre. ^ Updated Land Use Map and Streetscape Concept Plan to reflect the ne~v boundaries. ^ References to projects -here the Heart of the City Standards have been successfully applied (e.g. ,adobe Terrace, Marketplace shopping center, and the Travigne development). ~ . ^ Updated Land Uses in the Development Standazds section. ^ Example of how the net density is calculated for residential developments. ^ Updated the building height section, including a reference for maximum building height to 45 feet. ^ Definition of new develo~~ment as a 25% or more increase in floor area or 25% or more change in floor area. ^ New side yard setback language reflecting setbacks dependent on lot width and adjacent building relationships through the development review process. ^_ Updated and developme~zt standards for vehicular access to sites, pazking, building access, landscapvng and screening, and building design. ^ Updated and new design ;;uidelines for special architectural features, massing , building clusters, facade com osition, wall surfaces, and accesso buildings. 12 - 121 Heart of the City Specific Plan Lpdate August 26, 2008 Page 4 Retained Introduction overview of the plan. Language Many sections of the Policy Framework chapter including strategies for the gradual development of vacant sites and compatibility of adjoining land uses. ^ Much of the language and policies under the Circulation/Pazking Goal, Urban Design/Streetscape Goal, Streetscape Design background and principles, Frontage Renovation Conditions, and Development and Design Guidelines Prepared by: Aki Honda Shelling, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Community Development Direct Enclosures: Exhibit A: Updated Heart of the City Specific Plan Exhibit B: Draft Strikethrough Updated Heart of the City Specific Plan Exhibit C: Minutes to the June 10, 2008 Planning Commission meeting Exhibit D: June 10, 2008 Planning Commission staff report G:V'fanning~PDREPORI\pcSPArepons~2008~5'PA-2008-01.4ugust 26, 2008.doc 12 - 122 ~1~ ~3~ ~QJ~ }~~~L1~T~ 10300 r ogre Avenue, Cup~ert-in©, California 3'5014 BEPA~T1l~ElF~' ®E C~I~I~TI~Tl'1~' B~T~~~P'T~l~TT I~LIy®~'F' 1~® Apgliea~ior~: SPA-2008-01 Agenda Bate: June 10, 2008 Applicant: City of Cupertino l~roperfy Lmc~t-ion: Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway S5 and eastern city 1i.inits Applicatia~ra ~'~tFI4~Pary: Update the Heart of the City Specific Pl~~n to reflect the changes adopted in the 2005 General Plan. 1bEC®IEl~dBA'1'l~l~: Staff recommends that the Plaruling Commission: a. Review the changes to the Heart of the City Specific Plan and provide staff with direction and comments b. Conduct another .hearing on the item on July 22, 2008 allo~~uzg staff to incorporate ~ the comments of the Planning Commission into the final document to be forwarded to the City Council. 13AC~G~ZO~~IB: The City Council has requested that the Heart of the City Specific Plan be modified to reflect the changes made to the 2005 General Plan. They directed that technical revisions to t11e Heart of the City plan be made for the Plaiulirig Commission to review and forward their recommendations to the Council. The minutes from the meeting are attached as Exhibit A. The changes it the draft Heart of the Cit<T Specific Plan are due to the following three reasons: a. Inconsistencies bet~tiTeen the General Plan and the Specific Plan b. Vagueness and repetition of the wine concepts u1 the document making it difficult to read c. Prescriptive requirements that try to fit one set of requirements for all types of parcels _ BI~SC~JSS~.~I~: Jnea~nsisteneies between the Geateral Plari and S~eeifie Plan With the adoption of the 2005 General Plan, policies pertaililg to t11e Heart of the City Specific Plan within the General P 1a,~1 need to be ilcorporated in to the Specific l lan. The section of the General Plan related to the Heart of the City is included as Exhibit B. There are several items that need to be changed and updated in the Specific Plait. On the following page is a list of updates t~1at need to be made: 12 -123 Heart of the City Specific Plan Lp,.iate June 10, ?008 Page 2 _ (terns ~4ef~o~n Boundaries Changed Land Use Map and Streetscape Concept Plan to reflect the neS~ boundazies Goals ~ C-hanged oats in S ecific.Plari;to:refl'ect the General Planlan "a e ' ~ ~~ - Development Activity Changed the language in the Specific Plan to reflect the General Plan lanauaQe Develo ment Allocation U dated the fi res for commercial and ofi:ice aIlocation to reflect changes Develo meet Intensi ~ U dated the allo~a~able densi in the S ecific Plan Area Sub-areas U date the sub-areas as defined in the General Plan Design Elements Updated language to include the General Plan language into the Specific Plan with regard to front setbacks and to parking in the front of arcels/buildin~-s Heights Updated the language in the Specific Plan to reflect the changes limiting the hei~-ht of buildin s to 45 feet. ~aguea~ess and repetition of Fee same concepts in tl~te Sp~eelfge Phan.: In the fiontage renovation section, there are several images that refer to interim and final conditions of the renovation. However, these illustratioitis are seldom used and seem to confia.se users. These unages have been removed from the Specific Plan. IVlost frontage renovations are undertaken when a property redevelops and, typically, most applicants plant a double roi~T of trees to achieve the final fiontage conditions. There is also significant repetition of the wine concepts in the Specific Plan ill the desib 1 standards and guidelines section of the Specific Plan. Most of the design standards are the same across the different types of development. This makes it difficult for users to read and understand the standards and guidelvzes. In the draft Specific plan, staff has eluninated the duplicated language and tried to simplify the. standards and guidelines ll1 to one section for each rather than groupuzg the standards and' guidelines by type of development. For example: fiont setbacks and height requirements are the same regardless of the type of development. However, they are in several places in the design standards section of the current Heart of the City Specific Plan, once for each type of development, commercial and multi-uiut residential. Another example of repetition is that ~ti-indozv treatments, roof forms and several other guidelines are repeated in three different sections of the design guidelines section, once for each type of development, corrunercial, office and multi-uiut residential. Additionall~J, ~nTith development occurring along Stevens Creek Boulevard over the last decade or so, some of the references to older sites have changed. For example, the property that was previously envisioned to be the Orchard Park has been developed as the Civic P ark. The concept of gateways at the eastern and th=esters end of the Heart of the City is obsolete as is the installation or use of street furniture in the Stevens Creek Boulevard P1a.nuling Area. No private development has been required to install or provide any street furniture s;I1ce the adoption of the Heart of the City Specific Plan and 12 - 124 Heart of the City Specific Plan Update Tune 10, ?008 Page 3 references to these seems obsolete. Staff has drafted a model ordinance incorporating proposed amendments to address these simplifications and deleted language. The following is a table of the changes th~~t have been recommended by staff to make the Specific Plan an easier document to regd. - ~~L~EFgeS I Staff c31.F ~C'31~Qr45 3.. Design Standazds: Should the current design standazds be Eliminate the duplicated language from eadt type of simplified from being grouped by type of use to development and create one set of standards for all the one combined set of design standards for aIl ci=pes of development. uses? 2. Design Guidelines: Should the current design guidelines be Eliminate the duplicated language ,from each type of simplified from being grouped by type of use to development and create one set of g-uidelines for all the one combined set of design guidelines for all t5-~es of development. uses? 3. Removing obsolete lansuage: Should the ideas in the Specific Plan that are Eliminate the language that makes reference to: obsolete be removed? a. The Civic Park as Orchard Park. b. Gate~a=ays across Stevens Creek Boulevard at Highway S5 and at the eastern city limit . c. Street furniture. Prescriptive StarLdaras that try to iit one set c~~ regca.lat-inns for a~14-gpes of parcels: The Heart of the City Specific Plan has very rigid side setback standards that make it hard for narrov~~er and odd shaped lots to develop or redevelop. It is very difficult for narrow lots to obtain development approti-al without applying for an exception for side setbacks. This discourages property owners fiom developing their property. Staff recoiYUnends that side setback reb ations be removed from the Specific Plan document. These can setbacks can be reviewed in conjunction with the development application and the design review process. The dr~:ft Specific Plan does not include any side setbacks for properties. Staff will take Planning Coinnnissions corrunents and incorporate these u1 the fugal document that the Plaiu-ung Coilunission can recommend to the City Council in July 2005. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planne:c ~~ Approved by: Steve P iasecki, Comr?ZUnity Development Directo~~~f ~ ~- Enelos~~es~ Exhibit A: I~tinutes from City Council meeting for Feb I9, 2008 Exhibit B: General Plan Pages 2-22 - 2-25 Exhibit C: Current Heart of the City Specific Plan Exhibit D: Draft Heart of the Ciiy Specific Plan with strikeouts Exhibit E: Draft Heart of the Cit}' Specific P1_an witl-~out strikeouts G: L~lawti~:gIPDREPORT1pcSP.AreaonsL 008LSP.9-_008-Ol.r~oc 12 - 125 EXHIBIT E PROPOSED LANGUAGE CIiANGE FvR DART OF THE CITY PLAN UPDATE 1-57 Policies 1. The citizens of Cupertino desire to have a corridor of well planned and designed commercial, ofr'ice, and residential development along Stevens Creek Boulevard (SCB) from Higher=ay 85 to the eastern city limits. Individual projects shall be attractive in their own right as well as complementing adjoining uses and designs. 2. Proposed developments shall be expected to continue the implementation of the city's master landscape plan 3. Plans for proposed new projects should include sensitivity to pedestrian and bicycle travel, both from the new project as well as from travelers passing that site. 4. Development applicants are encouraged to submit commercial, office, residential, or mixture of uses as they see fit. Regardless of proposed land use, high quality site planning, architectural design, and onsite landscaping will be expected. 5. The city shall design and implement improved bicycle paths from DeAnza. Blvd to the eastern city limits that separate bicyclists from automotive traffic. These protected lanes shall be extended west of DeAnza Ave. if feasible. 1-60 Strike sentence; "Require shared parking... 1-63 Strike "any new" 1-64 Strike "unique" 1-68 Strike "any nevv'' 1-68 Strike proposed new paragraph that emphasizes mixed use structures as models for future development. 1-69 "Buildings from curb setbacks shall be 35 feet." 1-72 strike a) and b) in 101.20 1-73 "Office use" rather than "Off ce over retail" 1-74 add (5) "A combination of office, retail, and/or residential use whether as part of a single building or in separate structures. 1-77 Strilre 101.040D-Common Cpen Space 1-78 1.01.040E Is there a need for fnis section? 1-86 to 1-91 Doesn't this whole section constitute unnecessary mieromanagement of the design process? 12 - 126 1-97 to 1-99 Same comment as above regarding micromanagement, this time for 2.01.040 1- 12-727 Piu Ghosh From: Aki Honda Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:32 AM To: Piu Ghosh Subject: FW: Heart of the City Plan -----Original Message----- From: Traci Caton On Behalf Of City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 8:56 AM To: Aki Honda; Vera Gil; Gary Chao Cc: Steve Piasecki Subject: FW: Heart of the City Plan FYI -----Original Message----- From: Dan Marshall [mailto:dan_marshall@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 8:59 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Heart of the City Plan I was in the audience during your discussion of the Heart of the City Plan on 10/14. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, and for seriously listening to my comments. Exhibit F In the follow on comments there was discussion of reducing the lanes of traffic between Stelling and DeAnza. Another alternative to consider would be to drop the roadway between Stelling and DeAnza, and put a roof over the roadway which pedestrians can walk on. It could be like a big plaza. This may seem too expensive to even consider, but if we had an artist's rendition of what it could look like, the communities' imagination could be captured, and it just might happen. Regarding housing in the Heart of the City... One characteristic of Cupertino is that it has exceptional schools, and everyone in the world wants to move here so their kids can benefit from our schools. Developers can make big profits by building housing to meet this need. If you let market forces dictate what type of use is implemented in the heart of the city you'll wind up with lots of housing, because the market wants housing. Street level housing does not lend itself to a heart of the city feel. If you're going to keep the 2 mile "heart of the city" concept, you must specify mixed use, so you get buildings similar to Santana Row, with retail downstairs and housing upstairs. If you're going to establish one or more heart nodes, then you're in a position to demand that developers pay part of the profit they make from housing development toward creating these heart-of--the-city nodes. 1~. Mwir.P~.~C Cell: 408-859-6628 Home: 408-253-7096 12-~2s 10/16/2008 Cupertino Planning Commission 9 August 26, 2008 Com. Kaneda: • There are two parts to this; the one part is the driveway and the sidewalk in, it appears that there was some ~Yiisunderstanding th EXfllblt G according to the R1 standards, the trees you were trying to prote~ n. Brophy: id he understood from the City Council meeting that there is no way a stand d section can be tin that would meet the conditions set for the tentative map; so that if t applicant came in wi a 40 foot standard section, the; Public Works Director the Community Develop ent Director couldn't sign it because it would violate the r es. It states that the applicant h one year to have a section designed that is accepta e to two-thirds of the neighbors. Com. Kaneda: • I presume when this ame up originally, 1:here wasn't th understanding That there was a conflict between the tre and what the requirement was. that correct? Colin Jung: • Said they did not have that leve of engineering d when the subdivision map was approved. Steve Piasecki: • Said they didn't assume at the time th t are two 12 foot travel lanes which is e side of that and sidewalks behind t t. curb to curb, as another standar and tl Council can approve that base on the r. works for them, whatever it a sup being. Chair Miller: would be doing a 40 foot street. A 40-foot street gay wide lane, two 8 foot parking lanes on either st valley floor subdivisions are actually 36 feet, works just as well. It is not an exception; the ;h~prhood coming together and saying this one • Said that the last issue ' that the application was not no ' ed to the neighborhood; can they go back and change so of the conditions of a~~proval witho the proper noticing? Steve Piasecki: • The ordinanc doesn't specifically require it; if you are unco ortable with it, you could continue it r 30 days; we could do a notice and you could take it u gain. Chair d that the issue was not the exten:.ion, but that they are changin he conditions of without noticing. Av~'endment Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to accept Motion: Kaneda's comment about .requirement for core samples to (Vote: 4-1-0; Chair Miller No) PUBLIC HEARING: 2. SPA-2008-O1 (EA-2008-02) City of Cupertino Stevens Creek Blvd. between Hwy. 85 and the Eastern city limit Heart of the City Specific plan amendments to achieve conformance with the General Plan. Postponed from July 22, 2008 Pi anning Commission meeting; Tentative City Council date: September 2, 2008 12-~2s Cupertino Planning Commission 10 August 26, 2008 Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: - • Reported that the application addresses the Heart of the City Specific Plan update which is part of the 2008/2009 work program approved by the Council and also reflects the changes in the 2005 General Plan update. • She reviewed the changes incorporated into the updated Heart of the City Specific Plan including deleted language, consolidated language, added language and retained language which are outlined in detail in the table on Page 2-3 of the staff report. • At the June 10~' Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested clarification on providing some examples of Heart of the City streetscape standards that have been implemented; discuss whether or not bike racks or parking requirements should be incorporated into the Plan; and to discuss whether or not the prescriptive side yard setback requirements should be eliminated in the Plan as well. • She provided examples of Heart of the City Streetscapes as outlined in the staff report, including the Metropolitan development and Whole Foods development. • Relative to bike racks, staff has reviewed the Commission's question whether or not they should be included in the Specific Plan. All the developments are subject to the city's parking regulations and in the parking regulation requirements, there is a requirement for a bike racks therefore staff believes it is not necessary to incorporate those additional references in the Specific Plan. However, if the Commission desires to do so, it can be done. • Relative to prescriptive side yard setback requirements the Commission also commented that eliminating the prescriptive setbacks could create some confusion because developers would not know what kind of requirement they would be held to. Staff recommends eliminating the setback requirements so that the Planning Commission and City Council can review development projects on a case-by-case basis, particularly with developments which have odd shaped or narrow lots; and also because eliminating the setback requirements would emphasize allowing the city to look at relationships on adjacent buildings and lot widths to development sites and also to help create better connected pedestrian oriented streetscapes. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the draft document, which has been done in its fmished design layout for review. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council review and approve the updated Heart of the City Specific Plan. - Com. Brophy: • Said he felt there were a substantial number of items that are not minor cleanup items, but rather constitute radical change to how future development will occur compared to what past development has been. He said some of the major areas encourage and practically require development that is aesthetically and economically substandard; that the proposed changes are not a matter of bicycle racks, street furniture and side setbacks, but a fundamental question of how the core street in Cupertino should be developed. He said he felt they should not be voting on the item tonight and if so, will speak strongly against it. The changes are such that it is not a matter of cleaning up two or three sections. • What has happened in a suburban community with little to moderate density areas that has this kind of housing, is that you end up with inferior commercial space; driving down Stevens Creek one can see most of the commercial space that has been built, has either been vacant years after its completion or is occupied by marginal uses. • Some of the proposals for the Crossroads area where we are talking about changing the relationship between buildings and parking try to create a more urban setting. Said he was skeptical that the concepts proposed there will work for the kind of urban development we have. They may well and we may well agree that they should; but this is dealing with 12 - 130 Cupertino Planning Commission 11 August 26, 2008 • fundamental issues that need to be carefully analyzed and not be taken in what has otherwise been described as technical amendments and updating. • The concept of parking arrangements on Crossroads is a major issue; the idea of doing pedestrian oriented activity at the Crossro~ids is one of those terms that sounds great, but requires some major discussion of what is pf;destrian activity on a street that is 61ane highway with highway commercial uses such as a Target and Whole Foods. • The limiting of uses on Stevens Creek would no longer be necessarily followed with that aheady in the zoning ordinance for CG but has additional locational restrictions; we can discuss that, but I think that is a major issue: that needs to be analyzed. The idea of requiring again on Stevens Creek the passive recreational use in office buildings and restaurants is a major issue that needs to be discussed. • The key point is we are talking about issue; that are fundamental as to how we are going to design the central road that runs through the Heart of the City and these are not questions that I think are covered within the summary we received to review. There needs to be a process to discuss them, hear views from the community because many of these issues are ones that have come up during the course of the contentious referendums of the last couple of years. • People come here and are unhappy about proposed developments and fmd out that they have already been approved in General or Specific Plans and we as Planning Commissioners feel like we have no choice but to accept projects that we are not really happy with, and that the neighbors are not happy with because we previously approved General or Specific Plan clauses. That is something we should try to <<void. Steve Piasecki: Said the basis of the staff report to you was based on the direction from the City Council, that is make this Plan consistent with the General Plan, so you need to separate of all the issues which of-those are General Plan related issues that would require amendment of the General Plan versus those that are floating issues in the Specific Plan that you can deal with. If you wanted to postpone this, we could try to distinguish those and give you the background documentation on that. The other part of the direction was to make it consistent with the General Plan, but don't go in and change everything. Some of the comments are related to the old Heart of the City Plan that Com. Brophy is pointing out that he does not like. We feel like Council has directed that we keep it focused just on the General Plan; we could try to distinguish what those are as well. It would take some time to do that; we have not done that to this point, because we have been following; very limited parameters in terms of what we are reviewing and suggesting to you. Chair Miller: • Said it appeared that staff was reducing the density for mixed use from 35 to 25 units per acre. There are potential changes to the side setbacks. Steve Piasecki • Correct, Aki Honda explained that we don't: think that is productive; it seems to be counter intuitive that.it would provide gaps and breaks where you want to have continuous activity and walkability. • Staff said they were reflecting the General Pl;~n. Vice Chair Giefer: • She recalled that as part of the General Plan 'l:'ask Force and the Planning Commission who sat and adopted that, they did not want to have allocations in Specific Plan because with those allocations such as commercial or residential change, they would have to go back and modify the Plan; hence they were going by refere~lce to those items. She said they were in the 12 - 131 Cupertino Planning Commission 12 August_26, 2008 Specific Plan; and for consistency she suggested they remove the specific allocations in this Plan commercial. • In the General Plan we talk a lot about hying to have a vibrant streetscape and promote walkability, but yet we are removing street furniture from the Plan, which is in conflict with the intent and specificity of the General Plan. If we want people to walk down and have a coffee, we need to give the people a place to sit; I feel that needs to go back in. • Relative to HVAC units on top of buildings, change to effective screening of HVAC systems on top of buildings on Pages 2-68. • For consistency with the General Plan, we talk about consistent landscape palettes but not about using native plants or drought tolerant species which is consistent with the General Plan. I would like to put those specific references into the Specific Plan as well for compatibility. • We talk about having a less vehicle centric streetscape, but we are not saying that you can't have a drive through on Stevens Creek; If In-N-Out Burger wanted to come to Cupertino, I wouldn't want to see them go in the Heart of the City; nor would I want Wells Fargo Bank drive through to go in the Heart of the City. I would like to disallow any drive through businesses in the Heart of the City. • The other thing is we specifically list lighting types on 2-85. We are not anticipating new technology like solid state lighting, LED lighting; we are talking about fluorescents and different types of lighting. I suggest we make that reference to low energy using wattage lighting systems on our street so we can anticipate future improvements. • Through the Heart of the City, we have a responsibility to have a vision of what we want our city to look like in the future. If we want to build a city for the future, and if we want to build a city for the future, we need to look at having some big strategies that we want to pursue. • If we synchronize the lights on Stevens Creek and have a diverse lane for non-pedestrian but non-motor vehicles, it would probably run more traffic smoothly along Stevens Creek and encourage people to get out of their cars, being consistent with the direction the State is moving toward. Com. Kaneda: • The vocabulary used along Stevens Creek is not drought tolerant landscaping; there seems to be a tension between the desire to have drought tolerant landscaping, but if we are consistent, we have this look in Cupertino along that road, and if we are consistent with that, it is not drought tolerant. Vice Chair Giefer: Said they make a strong visual statement with the treescaping along Stevens Creek, and she did not want to affect that; but as new businesses are developing or they are putting in boulevard shrubbery bushes, she said they need to go to more drought tolerant landscaping and drip systems to save water. She said she did not want to meddle with the tree selection because it cools the city. She supports the tree selections, but had some issues with the palette of species on the shrubbery list being recommended. Com. Kaneda:' • Said there was a comment made about the streetscape and its not being used. What is the reason it is not being used; is it just inertia; are you suggesting taking it out? Ald Honda Snelling: • Said the street furniture has never been put in place and followed up by Public Works department, and she was not sure why. 12 - 132 Cupertino Planning Commission 13 August 26, 2008 Steve Piasecki: • It is out there in various locations, but not c~~nsistently applied. We can leave it in and we can make sure it happens in the future. Com. Kaneda: • The comment about more public input into ;some of the changes; is there an opportunity for a study session if we decided we wanted to go that route. Steve Piasecki: Said that given the comments from Com. Brophy; if the commissioners feel the same way, a study session is appropriate. It gives you more time to drill down, work it page by page, policy by policy and come up with whether you like it or not, how would we change it, and that is usually the appropriate mechanism. Responding to a request for a history of the: original Heart of the City document and how it was developed, he said the concept of the original Heart of the City was to reflect the fact that the Crossroads district and Vallco Park, Cu~~ertino Square, will become the shopping district nodes. Cupertino Square might be extended to include Portal Plaza and the Marketplace Shopping Center and as we are talking about the Sand Hill property site, it becomes a node in and of itself, and that the mid-block area berNeen those districts would be quieter, more mixed use office; and it could be more market driven. I think the comment that we are forcing mixed use or encouraging it; that is an easy one; lest the market drive whatever happens in that mid- block area. You have examples in the Crossroads district with Peet's, Panera, Whole Foods, and at the Marketplace Center where you ha~~e all commercial buildings, there is no mixed use in those buildings. We have had mixed use as well and I think it is correct that gives you especially with the high speeds, 6 lane boulevard we have, it is hard to pull over; there is no teaser parking, there is no incentive to bring in national tenants; you tend to get smaller tenants. Two nodes, mid block, a little bit tanner, quieter, mixed use; I think the first thing you need to look at is what is the real overall purpose; what are you trying to accomplish both at the nodes and at the mid-block. Is that still the vision or is there something different. The General Plan still speaks to that node concept where you have the more intense activities at the two nodes and then the variety stringing along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Part of the perception is, that it is hard to walk Stevens Creek Boulevard and stay entertained with the retail uses. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • The Heart of the City Plan down Stevens Creek Boulevard from Wolfe Road eastward to the Santa Clara boundary is an area where part of it is not developed; the Sand Hill properties has no trees, they have some existing mature 1<<ndscaping which we hope will be preserved and then there is some extremely lush plantings on either side of Wolfe Road. I hope that the full 35 foot setback public right of way along t}iat road will be honored in future; double row of Ash trees at that end of town; lawn as much as possible; very minimal or little invasion of private buildings into that setback. We had some issue where Sand Hill is proposing putting parking in that public right of way. We wa~7t to make sure that we keep the entire 35 feet of public right of way, how the Heart of the City Plan pans into this; I think Heart of the City extended all the way back to the Sand Hill property to Vallco Parkway. That end of town needs as much parkland and that public right of way along that street is very important. Please make sure we keep the double row o:f Ash trees along there and we have more planted in the future. I see that the heights have done to 45; not a big fan of having tremendous buildings looming up immediately against the public right of way. Also having buildings that 12 - 133 Cupertino Planning Commission 14 August 26, 2008 have no setbacks on each side for smaller lot areas sets the precedence of having building on zero lot line, which you are going to have a bunch of boxes connected all down Stevens Creek Boulevard and that is not a good look for that end of town. I appreciate the consistency of keeping our Ash trees down there. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Kaneda: • Said he agreed with Com. Brophy's comments and some of the other issues that were raised. He suggested continuing the item to try to set up some type of study session and get public input into the edits on the Plan. Com. Brophy: • He -summarized what he felt was specifically wrong and said that he felt they should hold a study session. He quoted Page 2-62 "some examples of projects where the Heart of the City standards have been successfully applied are Adobe Terrace, Marketplace Shopping Center and the Verona development." He said if they felt that those projects are examples of what was done well in Cupertino and that they should try to encourage more of that, they should ignore him when he talks. He said it was time to drill down into the Heart of the City study and take a serious look at what kind of projects we are encouraging or discouraging through our Heart of the City Plan. Vice Chair Giefer: • Asked if City Council was expecting a recommendation back from the Planning Commission at their next meeting. Steve Piasecld: ' • We originally scheduled it for last week; anticipating that when we went to the Commission in June that we would have the opportunity to have a second meeting, and we would be ready to go to the Council at that time. We pre-advertised it; it did not come to fruition so we have removed it from the Council's agenda to wait for the Planning Commission to finish its work and re-advertise it for the City Council. • Said it was within the purview of the Planning Commission to have study sessions but it would be wise to communicate to the City Council that they are focusing on the document in greater detail; are holding a study session to do that; consequently it will not get to them before the end of September or October. • Said it was important to get it right, rather returning to revisit it repeatedly. Vice Chair Giefer: • Concurred, and said she had considered it a landscaping and accoutrement plan; and had not thoroughly considered how it may impact future business development on that street. Said she did not want drive-thrus and would be interested .in understanding more about Com. Brophy's position on these items. • Said she would support having a study session to clearly articulate what further information they need.to improve the Plan and make it even stronger. Com. Rose: • Said she appreciated Com. Brophy discussing some of the issues that were buried in the large document, and if a study session would be a safe way to ensure they are not acting too quickly without enough education, it would be the appropriate way to proceed. 12-134 Cupertino Planning Commission l5 August 26, 2008 Chair Miller: • Said he agreed also, and he felt it was aF~propriate that they revisit the document; it is a planning document and they have expertise on it, which could help address the document in more detail than has been done in the past. 7'o reiterate Vice Chair's question earlier, you said the Council gave us some very specific direction as to what to do or not do, and you commented back that it was in our purview t~o widen that scope. Steve Piasecki: • Said the Council gave the direction; I think what will happen as a result of it, is if it goes beyond the Council's scope, then the Planning Commission could suggest that you think you should go beyond it and/or that this is reall}~ a General Plan concern, not necessarily Heart of the City concern, and as we are going to be ;amending the Plan for the housing element update which by necessity opens up the land use element; you could suggest to the Council that we go in and fix some element of the Plan that is disagreeable. Chair Miller: • Said he agreed; it is timely since they are doing the housing element as well, and what they do on the housing element and what they do here, are in some ways synergistic. • Said he would support a study session. Steve Piasecki: • Said that if it is the will of the Commission, he suggested they have a meeting on the 9a' of September and 23'~ of September; holding ~i study session before the regular meeting, which would give staff an opportunity to send out notices to the affected property owners and get broader notice of this. Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second ley Vice Chair Giefer, to continue the aplication to the September 23, 2008 Planni~ig Commission meeting, at which time a study session will be convened to receive public input on the Plan, Minute Order: Minute action of the Plannin~,g Commission advising the City Council of the Planning Commission holding a study session on the Heart of the City Plan and focusing on a number of issues in relation to the General Plan; consequently the document ~Nill not be forwarded to the City Council until either October or possibly later November. Vice Chair Giefer: • Suggested that Kelly Kline, Economic Development Manager, be included in the discussions. Amendment accepted by Com. Kaneda; second by Vice Chair Giefer. (Vote: 5-0-0) 3. EXC-2008-14 Hillside Exception for a new two-story, 3304 square foot, (EA-2008-OS), single family residence on a slope greater than 30%, and TR-2008-05 Tree Removal request to remove and replace three Amy Cheng specimen size Oak trees. Planning Commission decision San Juan Rd. final unless appealed. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • He reviewed the application for a hillside ex~;eption to construct a new two-story, 3,304 square foot single family residence on a slope great~:r than 30%, and a tree removal request to remove and replace three specimen size Oak trees, as outlined in the staff report. 12 - 135 Cupertino Planning Commission ~ 30 applicant agreed to a five year duration for the second phase. June 10, 2008 • All Co ' sinners concurred with the 5 year period. Motion: Motion by Com. hy, second b .Kaneda, to recommend approval of use permit U-2007-04, arc and site approval ASA-2007-06, EA-2007-06, EXC-2008-07, TM-2 - 8-02 as amended tonight. (Vote: 5-0-0) The application' Se forwarded to the City Council on June 17, Miller declared a recess. 3. Heart of the City Specific Plan amendments to achieve conformance with the General Plan Tentative City Council date: ,Tune Y7, 2008 Steve Piasecld:0 • Provided directions to the Planning Commission to receive the report, inform staff if the Commission agrees with the general. direction they are taking so staff can go back and draft it based on the general direction. Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Said that the Heart of the City Specific Plan update was approved with the 2008 City Council work program in February 2008. The updates are due to three reasons: 1) The policies of the General Plan are in direct conflict with the Specific Plan. 2) Vagueness and repetition of the same concepts making the document difficult to read. 3) Prescriptive requirements that try to fit one set of requirements for all types of parcels. • She reviewed the recommended changes in the draft Heart of the City Specific Plan as outlined in the staff report and answered Commissioner's questions about the update. • Staff is seeking Planning Commission comments to incorporate them into the final document that the Planning Commission will recommend to the City Council in July 2008. Vice Chair Giefer: Said it would be helpful for the next meeting for staff to bring examples of what did work, and worked well, vs. what did not. The last slide you showed us of the Travina; that one has never looked consistent with what I think of the Heart of the City streetscaping, and I think it is because it doesn't have a double row planted trees and the sidewalk seems to be narrower. I hear what you are saying with the side setbacks, I think that makes sense; but in practicality, and as we flush this out, obviously we need to think about getting onto the site and off the site, garbage pickup. We need to think about how that whole boulevard is going to work as well. Street furniture; I don't think bike racks are included in that; but I have seen some really nice bike racks and a lot more people are bicycling now. We need to think about how to incorporate more bike and ped traffic as part of this as well. Com. Brophy: • Nothing to add. Com. Kaneda: • Said he had conversations with staff about what they are trying to accomplish, but he still did not fully understand the three different areas; what is different about what you are trying to do there; how far along you are; and how well it is working, and those types of issues. He 12 - 136 Cupertuio Plamiing Commission :31 June 10, 2008 reiterated that he did not have a good enough understanding of how all these pieces fit together. - Com. Rose: • Said she appreciated Com. Kaneda's comment, and felt Vice Chair Giefer brought up some good points as well. Chair Miller: • Said his understanding was that they were Focusing on inconsistencies between the General Plan and the Specific Plan, vagueness and repetition of some of the concepts, prescriptive requirements that try to generalize from one: example to the many, and not really addressing conceptual issues at all here. It is a fairly prescriptive exercise. The only comment I would add is if you take out the requirement for the; side setbacks, everybody is going to ask what is the requirement for the side setbacks. PerhaFrs there needs to be some language with respect to side setbacks there. ~ There is a setback requirement and they are going to have to get an exception or variance in order to change it, but perhaps there is some language that says we are amenable to exceptions for the following reasons and elaborate so that people understand. Put it in writing and tr}~ to clarify it, rather than not have it in writing and have everyone call asking questions. Steve Piasecki: Said it has been one of the most problematic areas and it doesn't seem to further the public objectives; there is no debate about having a front setback and no debate about how you treat the rear property lines adjoining residential. Offset buildings, set them back, screen them; but when we get into the side setback issues as staff indicated, if you get into less than 100 foot depth and you have two 20-foot setbacks, you have a 60 foot skinny building and you apply for an exception, and eve have had a lot of resistance to the word "exception" let alone the concept of exception. We think that whe:~ it was put into the Plan, it was just as you suggested, that it was just a mechanism to allow you to focus on what is the right thing to do in this particular property; but it hasn't been the: experience at all. My suggestion is if we put in some kind of language about setbacks, it needs to be respectful of the neighbors, it should provide for the utilitarian value of the property in terms of trash and garbage. Otherwise you may have zero side setbacks and that may be the most appropriate location on site. Would rather look at it on a case-by-case basis, have some language about the consistency between buildings, and then just get rid of it entirely. It does not make sense to have a prescriptive requirement of any kind. Chair Miller: • Is there currently a prescriptive requirement or not? Steve Piaseclri: • Yes, the people are informed about it, and the:.i they ask for an exception. Chair 1\tiller: • Said that an applicant he would look at everything and try to evaluate what he could do, what it will cost, and what is the revenue stream from it. I have to know what to expect with the side setbacks or else I cannot complete my analysis. If you don't put it in the text and I cannot get an idea from the text, I am going to call ycu. 12 - 137 Cupertino Planning Commission 32 June 10, 2008 Steve Piasecl~: • That is what happens in other areas of town as well. North DeAnza Boulevard does not have a side setback requirement and it's a specific plan as well. I don't think that it should be; it is something you don't need to prescribe; it is something; we will sit down with the applicant and say let's analyze. this in relationship to its neighbors; what makes good common sense. ff you don't have it, then you are not required to do 20 feet or 10; you are going to do what is the right solution for that site. We do that in a lot of other areas; I don't see why we can't do it in this area as well. • Said he was willing to devote staff time because the end result is a better product. Com. Brophy:. • I think he is saying also that he has no choice; whether you had the prescriptive setbacks or not, staff still has to do it when you have these odd shaped properties. Chair Miller: • Perhaps the task could be setbacks, talk about it just that way; setbacks are always an issue with tight lots; staff is willing to talk to you about the details about that; stating the reasons they have given flexibility to setbacks, and listing them. Steve Piasecki: • Said he had no problem with that; this isn't a single family home where things are fairly standardized, Com. Kaneda: • Is this an issue related to tight sites only, or if you have a generous site then can you get prescriptive about it. Steve Piasecld: Yes, if you said sites greater than 200 feet have a requirement for 20 foot setbacks; we could figure it out. As an example, in theory if the Marketplace built up to the property years ago and United Furniture wanted to do the same; you might say this is the best solution we could have two side by side buildings, close together; we are not wasting space. Iii this case, I don't see a major public objective in prescribing side setbacks; I do in the front and I do in the rear. I am saying just take it out, let's not be prescriptive, let's have .some general language about relationships and buildings and good contextual design and let's work with that. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Referred to a narrow lot near her residence that was owned by Barry S«~enson, next to the Roasted Coffee Beans, Subway, Affordable Housing Units and an empty lot leased out to trucks. She said there is high density development on the left of the lot, which has apartments, and the neighbors are sensitive about high density in the area. When the property is developed there will need to be adequate buffer side setbacks, back setbacks, and front setbacks. She said the consensus of the neighborhood is not to over-build on that lot. • She asked that they make sure that the public right of way along Stevens Creek Boulevard particularly in the eastern area, beriveen Tantau and Finch, is left in tact as a greenbelt with double rows of Ash trees. • This area has the potential to have wonderful public right of way and we want to make sure that there is little or no business encroachment into the public right of way. We had some 12 - 138 Cupertino Planning Corrimission 33 June 10, 2008 instances with the previous Toll Brothers plans, where they were asking to put parking with the spaces, etc. into the public right of way. • I hope that as a General Plan all the way doom Stevens Creek Boulevazd that we will retain the public right of way for people to have sidewalks and double rows of Ash trees at the eastern end of town. • I hope there will be every effort made to :make sure that we do have our greenbelts along Stevens Creek Boulevard all the way to the eastern end. I am not a big fan of onsite parking on Stevens Creek Boulevard at the eastern er~d of town. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 4. Discuss the Planning Compassion's summer meeting schedule. • Discussion vas tabled to the next meetin;;. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: • Steve Piasecki will look into the possibility of having a joint meeting ul July to discuss the housing element. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No meeting. Economic Development Committee Meeting: No meeting. Report of the Director of Community Development: No additional report. Misc: • Com. Rose suggested that noticing of projects be expanded to include the entire city, so that all residents would be informed of the projects raid the public hearings. Steve Piasecki explained Cupertino already notices residents home owners outside of the mandated parameters. Suggestions for changes can be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. He noted that the cost for expanded noticing is absorbed by the applicant. AD.TOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Conunission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on June 24, 2008. Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: June 24, 2008 12 - 139 EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE ~C /d/~/lP~~ Grace Schmidt ~ ~`~ From: Aki Honda Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 11 :45 AM To: Grace Schmidt Cc: Steve Piasecki; Traci Caton; Beth E:bben Subject: FW: Heart of the City Plan - housini3 Hi Grace, Could you include this email as a desk item for tomorrow night's; Council meeting? It is a follow up email from a citizen that spoke at last week's Planning Commission meeting on the Heat of the City Update item. Thanks, Aki -----Original Message----- From: Traci Caton On Behalf Of City of Cupertino Planning Dept Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 9:08 AM To: Aki Honda; Piu Ghosh; Vera Gil; Gary Chao Subject: FW: Heart of the City Plan -housing FY I -----Original Message----- From: Dan Marshall [mailto:dan_marshall@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 8:49 AM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Heart of the City Plan -housing Planning Commission, I had a further thought regarding the question of whether to firmly specify housing in the heart of the city plan, or leave it up to market forces... What is the purpose of the Planning Commission, zoning, and :3 heart of the city plan? My understanding is that their purpose is to modulate and moderate the market forces so the' overall result is better than it would be if market forces are permitted to run without restraint. Tijuana is a good example of the end result when market forces are permitted to run un-bridled. Housing is a key issue in the Heart of the City Plan. You need to specify what the plan is for housing. Dan Marshall From: Dan Marshall [mailto:dan_marshall@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 8:59 PM To: 'planning@cupertino.org' Subject: Heart of the City Plan I was in the audience during your discussion of the Heart of th~~ City Plan on 10/14. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, and for seri~ausly listening to my comments. In the follow on comments there was discussion of reducing ttre lanes of traffic between Stelling and DeAnza. 1 Another alternative to consider would be to drop the roadway between Stelling and DeAnza, and put a roof over the roadway which pedestrians can walk on. It could be like a big Krlaza. This may seem too expensive to even consider, but if we had an artist's rendition of what it could look like, the communities' imagination could be captured, and it just might happen. Regarding housing in the Heart of the City... One characteristic of Cupertino is that it has exceptional schools, and everyone in the world wants to move here so their kids can benefit from our schools. Developers can make big pr~afits by building housing to meet this need. If you let market forces dictate what type of use is implemented in the heart of the city you'll wind up with lots of housing, because the market wants housing. Street level housing does not lend itself to a heart of the city feel. If you're going to keep the 2 mile "heart of the city' concept, y~~u must specify mixed use, so you get buildings similar to Santana Row, with retail downstairs and housing upstairs. If you're going to establish one or more heart nodes, then you're in a position to demand that developers pay part of the profit they make from housing development toward creating these heart-of-the-city nodes. 1?~. M Cel I: 408-859-6628 Home: 408-253-7096 HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE ConsolidationlRemovmgBepetition and Obsolete Language ~iy CC iD~a~~O~ Planning Commission Draft Specific Plan Language Recommendation DevelopmentlDesign Page 12-32 to 12-44: Consolidate standards into one section Standards generally applicable to all development types to eliminate repetition. Where certain types of developments have specific development/design standards, they are clearly identified in the sections (e.g. common open space requirements for 10111111CI'C18~~OtfICC Ce1"51151'CSldelltl1l~. StreetSCape Deslgn Page 12-62 RL 12-63: ReInOVe Sect10115 011 Street FLIrnIS1ll11g5, ClviC hlcOrpOrate lallgllage On placement ~I L8ndl11ark5 a]ld Ci1tl'Way EntrallCeS 5111Ce the 9tl'eet fllrluShing fregllellcy Ot Street 1111'111tllre examples have never been enforced and the concept of gateways at the eastern and western end of the Heart of the City area is obsolete. Page 12-26: Pemove the Frontage Penovation Conditions illustrations to eliminate confusion for users. Site Improvements and Page 12-56 to 12-59: );liminate language so that intent of the Landscaping Guidelines section conforms to the General Plan, Page 12-58: Simplify concepts such as ellsllre parking lots conform to the landscaping requirements in the Parking Ordinance. Page 12-59: Climinate section o11 Lighting since the General Commercial Ordinance regulates lighting requirements on projects and the Parking Ordinance regulates the parking lot re uirements. Infrastructure Plan Page 12-59: Update t11e figtu~es i11 the Infrastructure Plan to reflect the changes made in the area since the adoption of the Specific P1a11 m 20~(). Page 1 of 2 ConsolidationlRemoving Repetition and Obsolete Language P arming Commission DraFt Specific Plan Language Recommendation Implementation Page 12-60: Update the language to reflect changes since the ~~doption of the Specific Plan in 2000, Appendix A Page 12-62 & 12-63: Eliminate language referring to Street hicorporate lanluage on placement ~\ Furniture since this section has never been implemented since the fre~luencV of street furniture adoption of the Specific Plan in 1995. Page 12-63: Ehmll1~lte Obsolete' co11CCptS Wlth regdl'd t0 C1V1C Landmarks, such as the Orchard Park (noiu Cali Mill Plaza) and Gateway Entrances. Page 12-64 & 12-65: Update the Streetscapc Costs section, Page 2 of 2 HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE New ConceptslNew LanQua~e Dri t Speei is P an Language Pinning Commission Recommendation Stitt Comment Land OselEconomic 1~ 1~ 1-New policy: "Proposed developments shall Goals be expected to continue the implementation of the City's master landsci e plan." ~' -New Polic ~: "Develo ~ment i licants are -New Poiicv, "Subdivision of commercial arcels is discoura ed." -New policy: "Plies for new projects should Add to include sensitivity to pedestrian and bicycle travel, Circulation/Parking both from the new project as well is from travelers Goals & Strategies passing that site." There is n nerd to pronir~ic n sepmnted and protected bike Inne. I~' New policy: "The City shall design and Add to implement improved bicycle paths from De Anza CirculationlParking Bocdevard to the eastern city linuts that separate Goals & Strategies bicyclists from automotive traffic. These protected lanes shall be extended west of De Anza boulevard if feasible." Then is n need to }~i'~z~u1e n sepnrntcd and protected bikr Bici(gl'nlind tO pigel2.28:Clal7tyingianguigeilddl'd-~~hl~epl'OgfesS ~~ii~iili~~~'-T~tIPiCdP2~CtpplllClltblll'PnUtSlliCe>IIItIIIISPd Development has been made during the life of the Heart of the City, n„' dez~elopnn~uts and should unl be riled ns ernuq~les. Standards ~ Design several properties along the corridor still have Guidelines development potential and lherehu•e, a consistent set of fitandal'd5 dJlrl gllldl'hnl'S IS neCe5S11'y. SOme eX1mplfS Of pl'Olel't5 Where the 1-lLaft Ot the crty StalldilCdS h1ve b2en successhdly applied ire: Adobe Terrace, Marketplam Shopping Center and the Verona development at the north east corner of Blanev Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Development Page 12-35: Pliminate prescriptive side yard sclback Standards repuirements to encourage better relationsltip of developments to adjacent buildings and streetscapes. This would also assist development of narrow and odd shaped lots to develop or redevelop. Page 1 of 2 New ConceptslNew Lan~ua~e Dratt Speci is flan Language Planning Commission Recommendation Sta f Comment Development Page 12.32 & 12-33: hulude locational restrictions for a I iiuui~~~i~-Development along Stevens Creek Standards list of commercial uses along the street frontage of (ioulevard should be market driven. Stevens Creek boulevard. This is to allow for "active uses" to be located along Stevens Creek while allowing "passive uses" to be located within the Heart of the City. Page 12-33. hulude an example of how net density is calculated. Incur orate clarifications on Page 1234: Use of residential allocation for residential and residential nuxed-use ro'ects, Page 1235: Encroaclmlent of elements (e.g. chimneys) into required setbacks (used to be 5 feet, no~i~ proposed to be 3 eet and Page 12-39: Building design to protect the privacy of 5111'~C laml~Y LOnL'S. ~, I, I -New permitted use: "A combination of office, retail, and/or residential use whether as part of a single building or in separate struchires." Page 2 of 2