PC Packet 06-25-2019CITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:45 PM
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Draft Minutes of June 11, 2019
Recommended Action: approve or modify the Draft Minutes of June 11, 2019
Draft Minutes of June 11, 2019
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission
on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most
cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect
to a matter not on the agenda.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a
member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted
on simultaneously.
STUDY SESSION
2.Subject: Study Session regarding status of Objective Standards Update to General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance. FY-2019-2020 Work Program Item (Application No.:
CP-2019-03; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
Recommended Action: That the Planning Commission conduct the study session,
receive this report and provide direction to staff regarding moving forward with the
Objective Standards Update to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Page 1
June 25, 2019Planning Commission AGENDA
Staff Report
1 - Phase 1 Objective Standards Review
2 -General Plan Figure LU-2
3 - Topics under consideration for Phase 2 General Plan and Zoning Objective Standards process
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Page 2
June 25, 2019Planning Commission AGENDA
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior
to, the public hearing. In the event an action taken by the Planning Commission is
deemed objectionable, the matter may be officially appealed to the City Council in
writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Commission’s decision. Said appeal
is filed with the City Clerk (Ordinance 632).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning
to attend the next Planning Commission meeting who is visually or hearing impaired
or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at
408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon
request, in advance, by a person with a disability, Planning Commission meeting
agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made
available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an
assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission after
publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the
Community Development Department located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue,
during normal business hours and in Planning packet archives linked from the
agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal
Code 2.08.100 written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council,
Commissioners or City staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as
supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are
accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. You are
hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written
communications to the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall
constitute a waiver of any privacy rights you may have on the information provided to
the City.
Members of the public are entitled to address the Planning Commission concerning
any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during
consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on any
issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of
the Commission, and deliver it to the City Staff prior to discussion of the item. When
you are called, proceed to the podium and the Chair will recognize you. If you wish to
Page 3
June 25, 2019Planning Commission AGENDA
address the Planning Commission on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so
by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure
described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less.
For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items
on the agenda, contact the Planning Department at (408) 777 3308 or
planning@cupertino.org.
Page 4
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
ACTION MINUTES, June 11, 2019
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 6:45 p.m Chairperson Wang called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting in the
Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. and led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson R Wang, Vice Chair Vikram Saxena, Commissioners Kitty Moore, David
Fung. Absent: Alan Takahashi
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Subject: Draft Minutes of May 23, 2019.
Recommended Action: Approve or modify the Draft Minutes of May 23, 2019
Moved by Fung and seconded by Saxena to: “Approve the minutes” with a correction to
Item #3 to change the Motion from Wang to Fung. The motion carried 3-0-2 (Wang abstained,
Takahashi absent).
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
STUDY SESSION:
2. Subject: Below Market Rate Housing Program presentation
Recommended Action: Receive presentation and provide any input or recommendation to
Staff
Housing Manager, Kerri Heusler, reviewed the Below Market Rate Housing Program and
answered questions from the Commissioners.
Chair Wang opened the public comment period and the following individual(s) spoke:
Kim James
Janet Van Zoeren
Jennifer Griffin
Chair Wang closed the public comment period.
The Planning Commission recommended that Staff compare the various manuals, Municipal
Codes, and other legislative guidelines to address and correct discrepancies.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC MEETINGS:
3. Subject: Consider approving a new 185 room, 5-story hotel (24 hour operation) with
underground parking, event meeting rooms, a restaurant with separate bar and rooftop lounge
with a separate bar at the Cupertino Village Shopping Center by demolishing two commercial
buildings with an area of 13,429 square feet and the removal of 41 trees. City actions would
include a General plan Amendment to consider increasing the development allocation of hotel
rooms to 185 hotel rooms in the North Vallco Special Area; other permits include: Development
and Architectural and Site approval, Tree Removal and Use Permits. A Development
Agreement is also proposed. (Application No(s): GPA-2017-05, DP-2018-04, ASA-2017-09, DA-
2017-01, TR-2017-46, U-2018-03, EA-2017-06; Applicant(s): Kimco Realty (Michael Strahs);
Location: 10801 and 10805 North Wolfe Road APN# 316-45-017, 316-05-056)
Recommended Action: Conduct the public hearing and recommend that the City Council
adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the applications per the Draft Resolutions
Associate Planner, Erick Serrano, reviewed the Staff Report and answered questions from the
Commissioners. The Applicant, Michael Strahs, the project’s Environmental Consultant, Terri
McKracken; the project’s Landscape Architect, Cliff Lowe, and the project’s Attorney, Kristina
Lawson (Law Offices of Hanson Bridgett), reviewed the proposed project for, and answered
questions from, the Planning Commission.
Chair Wang opened the public comment period and the following individual(s) spoke:
Keith Warner
Jennifer Griffin
Lisa Warren
Chair Wang closed the public comment period.
The Planning Commissioners discussed the development agreement, landscaping, the results
of the environmental site assessment, and traffic control aspects of the project.
Moved by Saxena and seconded by Moore to: “recommend to the City Council the adoption of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2017-05; Approve the General Plan Amendment (GPA-
2017-05), Development Permit (DP-20147-09), Architectural and Site approval (ASA-2017-09),
Tree Removal Permit (TR-2017-46), Use Permit (U-2018-03), and Development Agreement (DA-
2017-01).“ The motion carried 4-0-1 (Takahashi absent).
Draft resolution ASA-2017-09 will be revised to remove Condition #6, “Closure of Driveway”
4. Subject: Municipal Code Amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code to clarify City
Standards for size of Accessory Dwelling Units (Chapter 19.112 – Accessory Dwelling units),
for clarifications, and consistency. (Applicant No(s).: MCA-218-04; Applicant(s): City of
Cupertino; Location: citywide
Recommended Action: Conduct the public hearing and recommend that the City Council
find that the proposed action is exempt from CEQA and adopt an Ordinance of the City
Council, amending Chapter 19.112, Accessory Dwelling Units per the Draft Resolution
Associate Planner, Gian Martire, reviewed the Staff report and answered questions from the
Commissioners.
Chair Wang opened the public comment period and the following individual(s) spoke:
Jennifer Griffin
Lisa Warren
Chair Wang closed the public comment period.
The Planning Commissioners discussed the proposed housing bills in the State legislature and
the potential impacts those bills may have on the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
Moved by Fung and seconded by Wang to: Recommend to the City Council that the proposed
action is exempt from CEQA and adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino amending Chapter 19.112, Accessory Dwelling Units as submitted in the packet”.
The motion failed 1-3-1 (Moore, Wang and Saxena voting no, Takahashi absent).
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Commissioners each mentioned the various public meetings and events they have
attended.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 pm to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on
June 25, 2019 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
______/s/Beth Ebben_______________
Beth Ebben, Deputy Board Clerk
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: June 25, 2019
Subject
Study Session regarding status of Objective Standards Update to General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.FY-2019-2020 Work Program Item (Application No.: CP-2019-03;
Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
Recommended Action
That the Planning Commission conduct the study session, receive this report and
provide direction to staff regarding moving forward with the Objective Standards
Update to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Discussion
Background:
As part of the City Council’s 2019/2020 Work Program, the City is undertaking an
update to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to ensure that those documents
include objective standards that can be readily understood and applied by project
applicants, including streamlined and ministerial projects. Recent changes to State law
provide that in some circumstances a development project may only be required to
comply with objective standards in a city’s or county’s general plan and zoning, as
opposed to applying standards that are subjective and open to interpretation.
The update is proposed in two phases. In phase 1, areas where objective standards may
be missing for the core elements of local land use: density, height, and setbacks have
been identified. Phase 2 involves a more comprehensive assessment including input
from the community and Planning Commission. This report provides the Planning
Commission an update on the status of the project and seeks direction with respect to
next steps.
Analysis:
Phase 1 Review
The Phase 1 review has identified areas in which the General Plan or Zoning can be
strengthened to add objectivity. These are presented in Attachment 1 and include
2
amendments to the General Plan’s “Community Form Diagram” (Figure LU-2, General
Plan pages LU-16-17; included as Attachment 2) to clarify some elements of that
diagram, and zoning ordinance amendments to clarify the development standards that
apply in the “P” zone. . These amendments are relatively straightforward and could be
pursued immediately.
Two other items to consider would be to develop objective design guidelines by type of
development – row house, town house, multi-family or mixed-use development. These
design guidelines would be applicable to all projects, whether discretionary or
ministerial. In addition, the City can review previously adopted mitigation measures to
identify those generally applicable to new development, and develop an objective
method for imposing them while avoiding burdening classes of projects to they would
not apply, as a practical matter. These would take some time but should be considered
during the Phase 1 timeline as opposed to the Phase 2 timeline (see below)
Phase 2 Review
The Planning Commission has had two meetings to discuss potential objective
standards and has invited public comment on topics to be addressed as part of the
comprehensive review. Attachment 3 is a table listing the topics that have been
suggested to date together with preliminary notes from staff.
Several of the proposed topics are not merely amendments to existing zoning standards
or fill gaps in objective standards but to include development of new policy. These
amendments are more far-reaching and will require additional analysis and discussion.
As noted above, the development of objective design guidelines is recommended to
ensure that projects proposed would meet the communities vision for developments as
opposed to any design ethic proposed by an applicant which would have to be
approved due to lack of objective standards.
Summary of Questions for Planning Commission to Address:
In summary, direction is sought for the following:
Does the Planning Commission wish to move forward with the Phase 1 General Plan
and Zoning Code amendments discussed in Attachment 1 and above and are there
any refinements to those amendments that should be considered?
Does the Planning Commission wish to move forward with the development of
objective design guidelines by type of development in Phase 1 as discussed above?
Does the Planning Commission have direction or any prioritization with respect to
the topics to be evaluated as part of the Phase 2 process?
Next Steps
This item will be heard by the City Council at a future meeting date and Planning
Commission’s direction will be incorporated for final direction from the Council.
3
Prepared by: Seph Petta, Deputy City Attorney
Reviewed by: Heather Minner, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Benjamin Fu, Acting Director of Community Development
Attachments:
1 –Phase 1 General Plan and Zoning Objective Standards Analysis
2 – General Plan Figure LU-2
3 – Topics under Consideration for Phase 2 General Plan and Zoning Objective Standards
Process
ATTACHMENT 1
Phase 1 – General Plan and Zoning Objective Standards Analysis
I. General Plan
Existing Issue Proposed
A. Figure LU-2 Community Form Diagram: Height and Setback Standards. Maximum heights and setback ratios for development
in the City are specified in the Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-2). That Figure includes four notes regarding Building
Planes in the City. Each of those notes could be clarified to provide better objectivity as discussed below.
Footnote #1 “Maintain the primary
building bulk below a 1:1
slope line drawn from the
arterial/boulevard curb line
or lines except for the
Crossroads Area.”
This standard applies to sites or portions
of sites that adjoin arterials or
boulevards (identified in the General
Plan’s Chapter 5: Mobility to include De
Anza Blvd., Homestead Road, Stevens
Creek Blvd. (up to Bubb Road), and
North Wolfe Road.). Sites or portions of
sites that do not adjoin arterial or
boulevards are subject to the setbacks
and height limits established in the
Zoning Code.
Revise note to state explicitly that the
applicable standards in the Zoning
Code govern setbacks and height
limits for portions of sites not
adjoining arterials or boulevards.
Footnote #2 “For the Crossroads area,
see the Crossroads
Streetscape Plan.”
No Crossroads Streetscape Plan has
been adopted.
Amend to state that the default 1:1
standard applies until a Streetscape
Plan has been adopted.
Footnote #3 “For projects adjacent to
residential areas: Heights
and setbacks adjacent to
residential areas will be
This sentence is ambiguous and
someone could interpret this to mean
that increased heights or reduced
setbacks are permitted.
a. Amend to clarify that where a
Specific Plan or an Area Plan has
been adopted, there are
established maximum heights and
minimum setbacks from
2
Existing Issue Proposed
determined during project
review.”
For the General Commercial,
Administrative and Professional Office,
and Light Industrial Park non-
residential zones the Zoning Code
establishes setbacks from adjoining
residential uses and Figure LU-2 sets
height limits. For areas of the City
where a Specific Plan or an Area Plan
has been adopted, there are established
setbacks, including those from
residential neighborhoods. For example,
the Heart of the City Specific Plan and
the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Zoning Plan
establish setbacks from adjacent
residential development, while the
South De-Anza and North De-Anza
Conceptual Zoning Plans include large
landscape setback requirements from
adjoining properties.
However, if a mixed use project is
proposed in a Planned Development
zoning district where a Specific Plan or
an Area Plan has not been adopted (e.g.,
North De Anza), while there are
minimum landscape setbacks for surface
parking lots (Chapter 19.124) that may
residential neighborhoods, and
also state that reduced heights or
increased setbacks adjacent to
single family residential areas
may be required, which could
only be determined during project
review.
b. Update N. De Anza Conceptual
Plan to incorporate the eastern
side of the North De Anza Special
Area into the Conceptual Plan to
ensure implementation of
consistent landscape easements
on both sides of De Anza
Boulevard.
c. Adopt development and design
guidelines that can objectively be
applied to any housing
development or mixed-use
development. A form based code
could implement the most
comprehensive set of objective
standards to be applied to
projects. Including open space
requirements, building form, etc.
3
Existing Issue Proposed
be applied, there are none for buildings.
This could impact the western section of
the North Blaney neighborhood
(abutting Apple’s Infinite Loop and
Mariani Campus).
Footnote #4 “For the North and South
Vallco Park areas (except for
the Vallco Shopping District
Special Area): Maintain the
primary building bulk
below a 1.5:1 (i.e., 1.5 feet of
setback for every 1 foot of
building height) slope line
drawn from the Stevens
Creek Blvd. and Homestead
Road curb lines and below
1:1 slope line drawn from
Wolfe Road and Tantau
Avenue curb line.”
The Vallco Shopping District is not a
part of the South Vallco park area.
Therefore the default 1:1 slope line from
footnote #1 applies.
Eliminate parenthetical reference to
Vallco Shopping District for
clarification.
B. Heart of the
City Special
Area text box
Maximum residential
density is “25 or 35 (South
Vallco) units per acre”
This sentence is ambiguous. The Heart
of the City Land Use Map identifies
several sites within the Heart of the City
Special Area that have a density of 5-10
du/ac, 10-20 du/ac and 20-35 du/ac.
To avoid ambiguity the text could be
amended to be similar to the
description of the Homestead Special
Area requirements with regards to
maximum residential densities (e.g.,
“up to 25 units per acre, except 35
4
Existing Issue Proposed
units per acre for the South Vallco
sub-area”).
In addition, Figure LU-2 could be
amended to include a more generic
note explaining that densities are
provided for reference purposes and
that specific densities are established
by General Plan Land Use Map or in
a Specific Plan.
C. Crossroads,
East Stevens
Creek, West
Stevens Creek
and Central
Stevens Creek
Subareas.
General Plan Goals LU-14
through -18 state that
permitted uses in these areas
are described in Figure LU-
2.
There could be confusion in that these
subareas do not appear on Figure LU-2.
However, these subareas are described
and established in Chapter 2 of the
General Plan (Planning Areas) and are
existing areas identified in the Heart of
the City Specific Plan. Goals LU-14
through 18 are essentially “nested goals”
that support Goal LU-13.
Amend text in General Plan Goal LU-
13 to clarify that the Heart of the City
Special Area is composed of all
subareas geographically contained
within it, which are further described
in Goals LU 14 through 18.
5
II.Zoning Ordinance
Current Text Issue Proposed
A. Planned
Development
Districts.
“Section 19.80.030
B. All P districts shall be identified on the
zoning map with the letter coding "P"
followed by a specific reference to the
general type of use allowed in the particular
planning development zoning district. For
example, a planned development zoning
district in which the uses are to be general
commercial in nature, would be designated
"P(CG)." A planned development zoning
district in which the uses are intended to be
a mix of general commercial and residential
would be designated "P(CG/Res)."
C. Permitted uses in a P zoning district
shall consist of all uses which are permitted
in the zoning district which constitutes the
designation following the letter coding
"P." For example, the permitted uses in a
P(CG) zoning district are the same uses
which are permitted in a CG zoning district
for sties with a mixed-use residential
designation, Section 19.80.030F shall apply.
D. Conditional uses in a P zoning district
shall consist of all uses which require the
issuance of a conditional use permit in the
The Code does not establish
development standards for P zoning
districts. It contemplates that
standards will be developed as part
of the discretionary development
permit for the site. The City’s practice
has been to apply the development
standards from the R-3 zones for
attached multifamily mixed-use
applications, or the R-2 zone
standards for small-lot single
family/townhome applications,
which are then modified during the
design review process to develop the
standards for each development.
For projects subject to new state law
that are subject to only objective
zoning standards, there are no
applicable adopted development
standards. Therefore a change to the
zoning code is proposed.
Codify the City’s current
practice, or develop and
adopt development and
design guidelines for
different development
types such as
townhomes, row houses,
attached multi-family
etc. A form based code
may establish the most
objective standards for
implementation and
ensure that there is
minimal room for
interpretation.
6
Current Text Issue Proposed
zoning district which constitutes the
designation following the letter coding
"P." For example, the conditional uses in a
P(CG) zoning district are the same uses
which require a conditional use permit in
CG zoning district. Each conditional use in
a P zoning district requires a separate
conditional use permit for sites with a
mixed-use residential designation,
Section 19.80.030F shall apply.”
DE ANZAJUNIPERO SERRA
STELLINGSTEVENS CREEK
HOMESTEAD
TANTAUWE
S
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
BLANEYBUBBFOOTHILLWOLFEPROSPECT
MCCLELLAN
STEVENS CA
N
Y
O
N MILLERXX
X
LAWRENCEMARYBOLLINGER
ALVES
MONTEBELLO JOHNSONVOSS ESTATESLOREE
REGNARTPORTALTILSON
HYDEJUDYBRETMANNPRUNERIDGE
LORNE
FINCHBYRNERODRIGUES
MERRITT
BANDLEYSTERNVAI WUNDERLICHKIRWINKIMORANGEC
R
E
S
TO
N
COLUMBUS
PHILSCENIC
POPPYWRIGHTSTOK
E
S
VALLCO
BARKBEARDON COLBYWEYBURNLA MAR
ERINPHAR LAPR
A
E
C
R
I
S
T
O
R
E
Y
STERLINGLINNETD
E
O
D
A
R
A
PALM
FARALLONEHERONBALBOA VISTALAZANEO
CALVERTGIANNINICHIALA
RAINBOW
SALEM
GREENLEAFCASTINE
WHEATON
LANCERALPINEBONNYDENISONPRIMROSELARRYAINSWORTHMAXINEF
E
S
T
I
V
A
L
WINDSORLARKRANDYBLUE HILL
TERRACE
GL
E
N
V
I
E
W
SCOFIELD
FARGO
LINDA VISTAMARIANI
280
F
W
Y
R
A
M
P
WILKINSONVALLEY GREEN
SHELLY
K
E
N
TW
O
O
DNOELSTAF
F
O
R
D
S
A
N
J
U
A
N
HYANNISPORT
DUMAS
GALLI BLUE JAYALCALDE
GASC
OI
G
NE
HARLANTIPTOE
PRICE
DE FOE PERIMETERALCAZAR
CRAIGRICHWOODARATA
DUNBAR
KE
N
T
SEPTEMBEROA
K
V
A
L
L
E
Y
MELV
I
NWESTLYNN
PEACOCKSUISUN
PENDLETON
SANTA TERESACUPERTINO
SUNRISE
L
INDY JOHNHILLSDALEHUBBARDUPLANDCARVERNEWSOMFLORA VISTAARBORETUMLILAC
TOMPKINSMINERJANICE
ANCOCK
LUCILLE
V
I
S
T
A
K
NO
L
L
DE SOTO
LOWELLLONDONDERRY
HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
S
ST JOSEPHPROUTYMORETTIHANFORD
FALLEN LEAFTULAPRESIDIOKIMBERLYPENINSULA MARTINSAICHROSARIO
MILKY
WOO
DS
POR
T
O
L
A
MARIABAHLBETTEBARNHART
PHYLLIS
CASTANO
PACIFICA
AMAPOLALA RODADRAKE
LOCKWOODDEMPSTERCORDOVA
BETLINASPE
N
M
A
D
E
R
A SAMEDRAFOREST SWALLOWWINDI
M
E
R
PASADENATUGGLE
PENDERGAST
FORGE
CANYON OAKANTONS
A
N
T
A
L
U
C
I
A LONNALILYPLUM TREECYNTHIACEDARWATERFORD
SULLIVA
NBERNARDO
HILLCRESTLOMITA
BELVEDERE
ELMSFORDMIRA VISTAARLINGTONREDWOODGARDEN GATE
TONITACARMENNOVEMBERPALO VISTAOAKTREEHANNA
A
V
E
N
I
D
AST MARY'SCORVETTEMINETTE
CLAY MEADOWOLIVE
MILFORD
EDWARD
PINEVIL
L
E NORWICHSYCAMO
R
E
AVONDALEMENHARTCASTLETON ANN ARBORS
C
O
T
L
A
N
D
CLARENDON
MEDINA
STENDHALFELTONMERRIMANPARLETTBRENT
OAKVI
L
L
E
STARLINGBEECHWOOD
SWISS CR
E
E
K
W
A
L
L
A
C
E
JAMESTOWNSOMERSET
BELKNAP
BARR
A
N
C
A
ANNNORTHWOOD
ALLEYHOWARDSILVERADO
ALDERBROOKYORKSHIREROSE BLOSSOMCHERYLSTONEHEAVEN
SHARON
BEAUCHAMPSA
R
R
O
W
H
E
A
D
RIVERSI
D
E
LA CONNER
LAURETTA
HEATHERWOODBAXTERADRIANA
VIA RONCOLEMAUREEN
MELODY
CORONADOTERRYWIINSTON BIXBY
AMULET
MEIGGS
VINEYA
R
D
CULBERTSONWESTACRESBAYWOODSHADOWHILL
RUMFORD
PA
R
K
W
O
O
D NORANDASHASTA
LEEDSEMPIRE
GILLIC
K
LONGDOWN
BEEKMAN
ST FRANCISHOLLENBECKSAN FERNANDO
BL
U
E
H
I
L
L
S
AMHERST
VICKSBURGANSONHUNTERSTONDAVIS
O
N
GRENOLA
KINTYRENORMANDY
BENTOAK
PAYETTE
ELMFIR LA HERRANTULIPANASTERTORRELEBANONCRAFTCHRISTENSEN
STANFORD
DOLORES MONTCLAIRPOCATELL
O
ALHAMBRACEMETERYGL
E
N HUDSONBELLEVILLEHUNTINGTONS
E
Q
U
O
I
A
GRANADA
RICARDO
HAZELBROOK
OAK CREELEDSEL
HERMOSA
HARTMAN
MORENGOFRANCOGARDENA
VIA VICO
CLIFDEN
ORIONCASS DANBURYNEWCASTLE LA SALLESANTA CLARALAURENTIANDERBYSHIRERAMP
A
R
T
ROBINDELLHENEY CREEKCANARYSHADYGROVE
DARTMOOR
SANTA PAULA CALGARYPUMPKIN
DRYDENKRZICH
PEPPER TREE
HI
B
I
S
C
U
S
RUPPELLPARISHFERNGROVEPEACH BLOSSOM
DEVON
WOODRIDGE
SERRA
RESULTSFRIARSMETEOR
IMPERIALCHACEPI
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
EDD
ING
TON
BUR
N
E
T
T
LAS ONDAS
CREEKLINE
BUCKTHORNEMERCEDES
LA PALOMAINFINITE LOOPGREENWOODMIMO
SA
FIRWOODGLENCOESELKIR
K
LANSDALEC
R
I
C
K
E
T
H
I
L
L
SOLA MEADOWLARKTUSCANYCOLD HARBORANDOVERM
A
N
Z
A
N
I
T
A
OLMOWHITNEYBROOKGROVEPARNELL
HALL
DE LA FARGE
P
E
N
I
N
S
U
L
A
R
GRAND
ST
A
U
F
F
E
R
ORANGE BLOSSOM
WOOD
V
I
E
W
RALYA
PEAR TREE
CRESTLINEQUAILKESTERRIDGEVIEWPRUNE TREEDONEGAL
CLI
F
F
O
R
D
ACADIA
ALMADEN WESTERNHAMMONDRUCKERSTONYDALE JOHANSENNILE
LONGFELLOWLINDSAYKAMSACKWOODBURY
CALI
CARLYSLEBANFF
APPLE TREE
SH
E
T
L
A
N
D
MONROVIA
CODYHALEAUBURN
ELENDA
MYERCHELMSFORDOXFORDJACQUELINEWILDFLOWERBARBARA GREENOA
KCARTA BLANCAPARADISELIND
E
N
B
R
O
O
K
W
O
O
D
H
I
L
L
LA GRANDE
CHERRY TREEHOLLANDERRY
SHATTUCK
TWIGNEW BRUNSWICKKINGSBURY
MONTE
SARATOGA SUNNYVALERUNOPRADO VISTAOLIVEWOOD
CLARKSTONMAS
O
N
M
A
D
R
O
N
E
MARTINWOODROSE GARDENENGLISH OAKVIA MADEROSMAGELLAN
CH
AN
T
E
L
ANNE
ATHERWOODCAMINO VISTAREGENTCELESTE
RANDOLPH
LOCKSUNART
MOLTZEN DAWSONST
M
A
R
K
DEXTER
BALDWIN
OROGRANDE
SQUIREWOOD LEONARDG
R
A
N
T
VIA LOMBARDIST AND
R
E
W
S
VIA HUERTA
WHITEOAKWOODLARKAMELIA LIVERPOOL
DEAN KENNEWICKBLAZINGWOODPATRIOT
HOLLY OAK
MCGREGORJULIE
FOLKESTONE
BLA
C
K
O
A
K
MARSHALL
C
O
LO
N
Y
H
I
L
L
S
OAKVIEW
WEYMOTHJOLLYMANBROOKWELL
CALABAZAS
PARK VILLA
STEVENS
MI
R
AMON
T
E
KODIAK
ESQUIREMILLARD
RAMONAD
O
R
O
T
H
Y
A
N
N
E WILLCITATIONSQUIREHILL
SCENIC HEIGHTSMACKENZIE
WESTMOOR
AUGUS
T
WALNUT
BIGOAKNARCISOCEDAR TREE
BREWERKRING
SORENSONVILLA DE ANZABERLAND
SILVER OAK
OCTOBER
BROOKVALEPINE BROOKWEST HILLVIA SORRENTOCAROL LEEWISTARIA
FORT BAKERCEDARBROOK
RIEDELGLENTREE
WALLI
N
MELLO
EL PRADOFLORENCEDUCKETTTERRA BELLAJUNIP
E
R
TWILIGHT
T
R
E
S
S
L
E
R CYPRESSNOONAN
RITANNASTARRETT
OAKDELL
PARKSIDEGALWAYTONIMURIEL
EDMINTONNORTHSKYFALLBIANCHILAMBETH
NORTHWIND
MANITACOTTONWOODMADRIDORLINEAL
IC
IA
SIERRA
SPR
ING
LOCH LOMONDMARIA ROSANORTHPOINTCLEO
CALLE DE BARCELONA
CHARSANPALO
M
A
E
L
D
E
RWOO
DAMISTAD ALBATROSSANNETTEEVULICHGROVELAND UNITEDGARDENVIEW
CORTE MADERA ONTARIOVENTANA
WILLOWGROVE
MACADAM
VARIAN
VIA PALAM
O
S
BALUS
T
R
O
L CROWNROLLINGDELL
ORCHARDLOCKHAVENEL SERENOCOZETTE
SUTTON PARK
OAK
N
O
L
LSWEET OAKLAMONTPARK CIRCLEMELISSATULITA
SUNDERLAND
QUEENS OAK VIA PAVISORONALDECHO HILLSERENO PINOLEPRIVATE STCLUB HOUSEMURANO
DANIEL
PLUM BLOSSOMDOVE OAKNIGHTINGALECOLLINGSWORTH
CORY
PE
R
A
L
T
A
WHITE FIRGARDENSIDEBEAVEN
SHADY OAK
PRINGNORTHFORDE
WESTSHORECALIFORNIA OAKEATONVIRGINIA SWANLUCKY OAKLIBERTYPINNTAGELA PLAYAACACIACARNO
U
S
T
I
E GRINELLOAK SPRINGPARKVIEW
MOSSY OAKBYERLYLA JOLLACATALANO
OASIS
SAKURAMCLAREN
CARRIAGE
RIFREDI NORTHSEALSWAN OAKORANGEWOOD
MAPLETREE
SEEBER
CARTWRIGHTCHETAMONCLOVERLY
REDONDOSHASTA SPRINGTOMKI
CLASSIC
LANGPORT
RIVIERAMINE
DREAOLD TOWNBRENDA
MONTEREYBENE
T
T
I
NORTHVIEW
CEDAR SPRINGOAK MEADOWRANCHOTAMARINDCAPILLAKRISTACHADWICKCONRADIA VERNIEREINELL
CREEKSIDERIVERCREST
KINST
L
EONGALDERNEYAMADOR OAKWINDSORMIRA VISTACYNTHIA
XXXARLINGTONBONNYKIMBERLY
RAINBOWFORGERANDYAVONDALEXXXFI
R
MEADOWPEACOCKNEWSOM
BARNHART
XXX
SILVER OAK
HOWARD
XXXCARMENS
T
E
V
EN
S
C
R
E
E
K
XXX
XXXLA HERRANJOH
N
PA
L
O
M
A
GLENCOEMARYMARIANIXXXDEODARAXXXIMPERIALXXXBUBB BOLL
I
N
G
E
R
HERON
XXX
XXXXXX
RIVE
R
S
I
D
EXXX
ASTERXXX
XXX
VISTALI
N
D
A
V
I
S
T
A
PACIFICA KINTYREPOPPY
LOCKWOODRAINBOW
CRAIG
MERRIMANXXXYORKSHIREIMPERI
A
L
Crossroads
Area
1
4
3
2
5
6
7
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
STELLING RDBUBB RDDE ANZA BLVDPROSPECT RDLINDA VISTA DRTERRACE DR
MC C L E L L A N FOOTHILL BLVDSTE V E NS CR E E K B LVD BLANEY AVEHOMESTEAD RD
WOLFE RDPRUN E R I DGE TANTAU AVEVALLCO PKYPERIMETER RDPERIMETER RDTANTAU AVEBARNHART AVE
JOHNSON AVEBOLLINGER RDSTELLING RDGarden
Gate DE ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD RD
LAWRENCE EXPYRAINBOW DR BLANEY AVESTELLING AVEMILLER AVETANTAU AVEMCCLELLAN RD
PROSPECT RD
RAINBOW DR
Deep Cliff
Golf Course
Linda
Vista
Park
Rancho San
Antonio Open
Space Preserve
Gate of Heaven
Cemetary
Varian
Park
Cupertino
Sports
Center
Jollyman
Park
Three Oaks
Park
Hoover
Park
Creekside
Park
Wilson
Park
Sterling
Barnhart
Park
Rancho
Rinconada
County Park
Portal
Park
Somerset
Park
Monta
Vista
Park
Blackberry Farm
Golf Course
McClellan
Ranch
Park
Fremont Older
Open Space
Preserve
Franco
Park
Lincoln
Elementary
School
Kennedy
Middle
School
Monta Vista
High School
Regnart
Elementary
School
Eaton
Elementary
School
Saint Joseph of
Cupertino School
Garden Gate
Elementary
School
Stevens Creek
Elementary
School
William Faria
Elementary
School
Sedgwick
Elementary
School
Montebello
Elementary
School
Lawson
Middle
School
Collins
Elementary
School
Hyde
Middle
School
Cupertino
High
School
Homestead
High School
Apple
Campus 2
Hil
l
s
i
d
e
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
280
280
280
85
85
SARATOGA
SUNNYVALE
SANTA CLARA
STEVENS CREEK BLVDWOLFE RD DE ANZA BLVDDE ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD RD
Homestead Special Area
Maximum Residential Density
As indicated in the General Plan Land Use Map;
15 units per acre for Neighborhood Commercial Sites
Maximum Height
30 feet
Homestead Special Area
North Vallco Park Special Area
Maximum Residential Density
Up to 35 units per acre per General Plan Land Use Map
15 units per acre (southeast corner of Homestead Road
and Blaney Avenue)
Maximum Height
30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling)
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Maximum Residential Density
25 (north of Bollinger) or 5-15 (south of 85) units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet
Monta Vista Village Special Area
Maximum Residential Density
20 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
West of Wolfe Rd
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
Per Specific Plan
East of Wolfe Rd
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
Per Specific Plan
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 35 (South Vallco) units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 30 feet where designated by hatched line
Maximum Residential Density
Up to 15 units per acre per General Plan Land Use Map
Maximum Height
Up to 30 feet
Heart of the City Special Area
North De Anza Special Area
South De Anza Special Area
Monta Vista Village Special Area
Bubb Road Special Area
Vallco Shopping District Special Area
Neighborhoods
North De Anza Gateway
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Stelling Gateway
West of Stelling Road:
Maximum Residential Density
15 units per acre (southwest
corner of Homestead and
Stelling Roads) 35 units per
acre (northwest corner of
I-280 and Stelling Road)
Maximum Height
30 feet
East of Stelling Road:
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Oaks Gateway
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
North Crossroads Node
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
South Vallco Park
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with retail
North Vallco Gateway
West of Wolfe Road:
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
East of Wolfe Road:
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
75 feet (buildings located within 50 feet
of the property lines abutting Wolfe
Road, Pruneridge Avenue and Apple
Campus 2 site shall not exceed 60 feet)
City Center Node
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet or as existing, for existing buildings
Building Planes:
• Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the arterial/boulevard curb line or lines except for the Crossroads Area.
• For the Crossroads area, see the Crossroads Streetscape Plan.
• For projects adjacent to residential areas: Heights and setbacks adjacent to residential areas will be determined during project review.
• For the North and South Vallco Park areas (except for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area): Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1.5:1 (i.e., 1.5 feet of setback for every 1 foot of
building height) slope line drawn from the Stevens Creek Blvd. and Homestead Road curb lines and below 1:1 slope line drawn from Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue curb line.
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures may exceed stipulated height limitations if they are
enclosed, centrally located on the roof and not visible from adjacent streets.
Priority Housing Sites: Notwithstanding the heights and densities shown above, the maximum heights and densities for Priority Housing Sites
identified in the adopted Housing Element shall be as reflected in the Housing Element.
Legend
City Boundary
Special Areas
Homestead
North Vallco Park
Vallco Shopping District
North De Anza
South De Anza
Bubb Road
Monta Vista Village
Avenues (Major Collectors)
Boulevards (Arterials)
Key Intersections
Neighborhood Centers
Heart of the City Hillside Transition
Urban Service Area
Sphere of Influence
Urban Transition
Avenues (Minor Collectors)
Neighborhoods
Neighborhoods
Figure LU-2
COMMUNITY FORM DIAGRAM
#1
#2
#3
#4
Topic No.Comment General
Plan
Special
Plans Specific Plan Muni
Code
Design
Guidelines No Action Comments/Notes
1
Introduction:
Consider the Vision Statement:
- "…vibrant, mixed-use 'Heart of the City'"
- Correct inconsistencies in maps of "heart of the City"
- Create objective standards to maintain the vision
X X X
More information is needed into the apparent inconsistencies.
The Heart of the City Specific Plan has objective standards for setbacks, open space (common and private) to
implement the vision for the area.
Design guidelines may be developed and adopted. A form based code may establish the most objective standards for
implementation.
2 PA-3, define "more pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities"X These vision statements are more developed in the City's pedestrian and bicycle master plans.
3
Correct map on PA-7, boundaries of Heart of the City
- Define boundaries of the "tree-lined boulevard"
- Define how commerce centers will be configured
- Define frontages, breaks in architectural features, distance between park
areas, shade canopy, pollinator pathways, dark skies, roof policy, sustainability
(green building), fire safety in surface materials
- Define roof setback requirements precisely and show precisely the
requirements for maintaining the building mass below the setback line.
Remove the workd "bulk" as in the bulk of the building will be below the 1:1
setback for example.
Provide dimensions for how long a building can be without a change in the face
plane. Such as, for every 100 feet of building length there shall be a plane-
break along the facade comprised of an offset of at least seven feet in depth
by 30 feet in length. The offset shall extend from the grade to the highest story.
- Provide minimum street width to building height requirements to avoid
caverns
- Address the move to electric heating and cooling
- Roof policy defining requirements for white, green, and solar
- Solar retrofitting city property policy
- Sidewalk shading policy. Distances between unshaded areas at noon, for
example
X X X X
* More information is needed into the apparent inconsistencies.
*Design guidelines for development may be developed and adopted. A form based code may establish the most
objective standards for implementation.
* Some of these issues may be addressed citywide. For e.g. the following, should the council decide these should be
addressed, should be addressed on a city wide level in the Environmental Resources & Sustainability Chapter:
- Address the move to electric heating and cooling (Decarbonization - part of the 2019/2020 Work Program)
- Roof policy defining requirements for white, green, and solar (New Sustainability policy)
- Solar retrofitting city property policy (New Sustainability Policy - not an objective standard for purposes of
ministerial and streamlined projects)
- Sidewalk shading policy. Distances between unshaded areas at noon, for example (This is addressed in the Heart of
the City Specific Plan.)
4 Define "gateway" on a bordering jurisdiction (are 95' hotels acceptable on a
city boundary adjacent to single-4 story properties?)X Defining a gateway on a bordering jurisdiction would not be applicable to project development in that jurisdiction.
5
Revisit Heart of the City Specific Plan:
- Update HoC Specific Plan to reflect its status as a primary transit route
- Unify the existing 5 subareas into a single entity
- Unify land-use designations across the area
- Set appropriate development allocations for the entire area
- Elminate GP LU-1.3.1.3 and LU-1.3.1.4 (residential in mixed-use restrictions)
- Change the "75% direct retail frontage" requirement in the HoC SP to reflect resident-facing commercial
X
6 Heart of the City ‘boundary’ should revert back to before Dec 4, 2014 and include the ‘Vallco’ site.X X The Heart of the City streetscape standards are applicable for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area. See Heart of
the City Figure 4: Streetscape Concept.
7 Consider Heart of the City updates to special areas served by transit (North and South DeAnza, etc.) but not covered by Specific Plan: Move to a unified
land-use model/entitlement across the special area X
8
Have requirements for all Specific Plan Areas such as height, decrease
density to match allocations in Table LU-1, removed expired allocations, create
residential specifically zoned areas outside of mixed use clearly defined.
X * Every part of the city already has height limitations except the Vallco Shopping District Special Area.
* Reductions in density may be limited by state housing laws.
9 Separate non-residential land use designations to remove the commercial/
office from mixed use except for specified clearly throughout mixed use areas.X This could allow 100% housing developments, which is different from the previous vision for the Heart of the City
and the De Anza corridor to be commercial corridors.
10 Consider removing community benefits from project approvals or have some more direct connection between the project impact and the benefits
provided.X * The Council could rescind or amend its policy related to General Plan Amendment Authorizations.
* A policy that identifies specific community benefits maybe adopted.
11
Codify "resident-facing commercial uses" in the GP: Today's GP does not recognize a difference between commercial activities that serve the community
(retail, consumer services, dentist) and those that do not (a corporate office with no local interaction) while they have very different effects on the
community. We should recognize that difference and set separate land-use allocation limits in projects and city-wide.
X X The General Plan has allocations for commercial and office development. Commercial allocation is for all commercial
activities while office allocation is for professional offices including corporate offices.
12
Eliminate citywide major allocation table:
- Allow applications and entitlement by special area or land-use category rather than limited by citywide allocation table.
- Impose developmental limits by special area or citywide limits established with GP rather than on a site basis
- We should encourage redevelopment on sites as owners want to do it rather than handing out "golden tickets" during the GP update process.
X
The Council could consider:
* Regulating development using Floor Area Ratio instead of development allocation by Special Area. This would
determine the maximum development that could be allowed on a site/in a special area.
* Amending or rescinding the General Plan Amendment Authorization policy to allow review of projects that might
need general plan amendments for council's consideration.
13 Require that all housing units (not only single family homes) define ‘size by square foot’ not only ‘number of units’.X X The Council could consider regulating development using Floor Area Ratio instead of development allocation by
Special Area. This would determine the maximum development that could be allowed on a site/in a special area.
Land Use/
Community Design
Planning Areas
Which documents may require amendments?
Topic No.Comment General
Plan
Special
Plans Specific Plan Muni
Code
Design
Guidelines No Action Comments/Notes
Which documents may require amendments?
14
Don't require parcel consolidation: The city's requirement for parcel consolidation at Vallco was intended to facilitate complete redevelopment, but has
greater impact to the community because of the size of the resultant project. This would not prohibit consolidation, but we shouldn't make this a
necessity.
X
* Requiring parcel consolidation is good planning practice when considering future opportunties for accomodating
housing sites. If not, the City may have to consider upzoning within neighborhoods to accomodate any future
housing needs, which the Association of Bay Area Governments staff anticipates to be very high with the next
Housing Element cycle.
* The City has a very high ownership to rental ratio. Providing opportunities primarily for ownership housing might
not allow housing opportunities of various types.
15
Adopt Form Based Code standards for all Special Planning Areas: Traditional standards (height, FAR, or setback) insufficiently capture the elements that
matter in a design proposal. Some standards like residential density undermine good design goals (density limits encourage larger units). FBC can
objectively set standards for building mass and articulation and incorporate placemaking and human-scale elements at the start of the design process.
FBC is the best way to express "neighborhood flavor" to preserve or enhance the existing character of an area.
FBC adoption is not equal to increased densification! We can impose objective restrictions via FBC - for instance, a Heart of the City FBC can maintain the
tree corridor and setback standards today while making for better quality redevelopment in the years ahead.
X X X
While the City is not allowed to consider the impacts on school districts in the consideration of housing or other
development, it should be noted that larger housing units on average have a higher student generation rate, as has
been pointed out by the City's school impact assessments conducted by the school district's consultant.
16
Standards that vary by project scale: Small and large projects have intrinsically different requirements which should be reflected in the GP and building
code. For example, including residential parking in the FAR calculation effectively controls mass in a SFH area, but the same rule is not meaningful for a
200-unit multi-story apartment building. New objective standards should be appropriate for the scale of a project, which might require dividing R-3
regulations to reflect small, medium, and large projects. This affects FAR calculation, setbacks, parking requirements, and more.
X X X A separate definition of Floor Area may be developed for Multi-family, non-residential and/or mixed use
developments.
17
Reconsider the design review process: The current process which involves a late stage architectural review is both highly subjective (applicant can't
anticipate feedback) and limited in scope (too late in process to address placemaking concerns). A better set of front end guidelines (including Form
Based Code) can make this a more effective process.
X X
18
Define "buffers" with dimensions and type: if a boundary wall defines
minimum height, setbacks have actual distances, park areas be specifically
defined.
X X X
19 Policy for shelters X Existing Strategy HE-5.1.1 is related to Emergency Shelters. Should the Council wish, it could adopt a strategy related
to Permanent Shelters. If so, could be part of Existing Work Program Item: Housing Strategies.
20 Policy for ELI X Existing Work Program Item: Housing Strategies.
21
Require the city to post on the website what the RHNA numbers are, how many
applications have been approved and associated benefits in the developer
agreements associated with the approvals.
X
* RHNA numbers are on the City's website at: www.cupertino.org/housing.
* Applications have their own project website with status including links to approval documents at
www.cupertino.org/majorprojects.
22 Policy such as Housing Element sites with no housing after two years forfeit
the designation to have it redistributed.X This might require review of the City's Housing Element by HCD. This would also require the City to identify sites
significantly in excess of it RHNA to ensure that enough sites exist that coud accommodate RHNA.
23 Eliminate in lieu of fees where they are addressing a need in an area not
meeting standards.
If a need is determined to be met by a project for the in-lieu fees the City assesses, that in-lieu of fee is not assessed.
For e.g. if BMR housing is provided, BMR in-lieu fees are not assessed; if park land is dedicated or private open space
is provided, the park land dedication fee is not assessed or a park land dedication fee credit is provided, in
compliance with Chapter 14.08.
24 Consider a BMR citywide dispersal requirement. Define dispersal, both within
a BMR project and citywide.
A city wide dispersal requirement might be viewed as a barrier to housing development by HCD. A developer only
controls the property he/she owns or has legal control over, but may not have control over property in other parts of
the City. However, the City may adopt a policy to distribute it's Affordable Housing Fund funds throughout the City.
25 Provide for senior retirement living for active seniors wanting proximity to
shopping dining and entertainment areas.X
Existing Work Program Item: Housing Strategies.
The City can possibly adopt a policy to streamline review of a project that includes a significant amount of senior
housing.
26 Market rate ADUs should NOT count as Moderate BMR production: Today all ADUs would be counted toward the city's Moderate RHNA production, even
though many have no BMR obligations or restrictions. This is an oversight that should be fixed.X This could be reviewed with the upcoming Housing Element cycle.
27 Level of Service as threshold of significance in CEQA (EIR) process LOS cannot be used as a threshold of significance in CEQA. It may be used outside of the CEQA process, during
project review. Adoption of a VMT policy and a possible LOS policy is part of the 2019-2020 Work Program.
28 Bicycle Level of Service X X If adopted would also need an amendment to the Bike Master Plan.
29
Potential autonomous vehicle requirements for a future city fleet concept
- For instance, residents are allowed access to autonomous vehicles
remaining in some mapped area
- Parking area policy
- Charging area determinations
X This would be an impact to the General Fund at the City Council's discretion.
30 Adopt VMT standards: VMT and LOS traffic analysis are often in opposition. With VMT established by the state as the standard for review, the GP and
codes should reflect that unambiguously, even while we continue to perform LOS studies.X X FY 2019-2020 Work Program Item. This has to be completed by July 2020.
31 Adopt Vision Zero Standards: ...Consideration of the multi-national Vision Zero program goals would help identify best practices around non-auto
mobility.X
32
Adopt objective standards that projects must implement the mitigation measures already identified in a certain list. Partial list of mitigation measures:
MM TRN-1.2: Impact at De Anza/McClellan intersection
MM TRN-2.4: Impact at Stevens Creek Blvd/Tantau
MM TRN-7.2: Stevens Creek Blvd/SR 85 Northbound ramps
MM TRN-7.3: De Anza Blvd (between I-280 and Homestead Road)
X
The Mitigation Measures identified are from the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan EIR certified on September 19,
2018. As identified in the language of the Mitigation Measures, these are already covered under the City's
Trasportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. All projects must pay a TIF adopted by the Council depending on the
number of trips generated by the project. This offsets the cost of the construction.
Land Use/
Community Design
(contd.)
* The adoption of design guidelines (form based or otherwise) by housing type (row houses, town houses, attached
multi-family units, etc.) could establish objective design guidelines that all projects, whether streamlined and
ministerial or discretionary, would have to meet. Examples are available online at:
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=2468 or
https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2019-
05/Bernal%20Heights%20East%20Slope%20Building%20Guidelines.pdf
Housing
Mobility
Topic No.Comment General
Plan
Special
Plans Specific Plan Muni
Code
Design
Guidelines No Action Comments/Notes
Which documents may require amendments?
33 MM TRN-1.3 addresses the cost sharing of freeway segments and freeway interchange. It could be included as an objective standard on cost sharing so
that such cost sharing is NOT treated as voluntary contribution be the developer.X
The Mitigation Measure identified is from the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan EIR certified on September 19, 2018.
MM TRN-1.3 only discusses freeway segments. Any future project would have to pay their fair share of the impacts
to the freeway segments.
MM TRN-1.3 does not discuss freeway interchange impacts. The freeway interchange project is already funded
under Measure B. Past voluntary contributions pledged/received by the City have been to ensure that the project
design could keep moving along while Measure B funds were unavailable due to ongoing (now resolved) litigation at
the time.
34
Adopt objective standards that projects must implement the mitigation measures already identified in a certain list. These include:
MM TRN-2.1: TDM Program
MM TRN-2.3: Wolfe Rd/Vallco Pkwy
MM TRN-7.1: TDM Program
X
* The Mitigation Measures identified are from the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan EIR certified on September 19,
2018. The City can review previously adopted mitigation measures to identify those generally applicable to new
development, and develop an objective method for imposing them while avoiding burdening classes of projects to
which they would not apply to, as a practical matter.
* As part of the 2019-2020 Work Program, adoption of VMT thresholds for CEQA purposes and a possible LOS policy
for non-CEQA purposes will be proposed.
35 Adopt decarbonization policy: Objective standards for reduction of greenhouse gas through electrification in the building code should be established
along with a time line to phase in these requirements on residential and commercial properties.X X X This is part of a Work Program item in the 2019-2020 Work Program. May need GPA, Climate Action Plan update and
Municipal Code Amendments.
36 Adopt sequestration policy: Objective updated standards for city and private plantings and landscaping should be established that encourage plant
species that remove carbon dioxide and particulates from the air.X X In addition to any General Plan policies, this should be addressed through the Climate Action Plan and amendments
to Title 14 of the Municipal Code.
37 Adopt parking lot shading standard: Objective standards that aim for mature tree coverage of some percentage of the grade-level footprint of parking
lots/structures to reduce heat island effect should be considered. In Mountain View, this is currently 40% coverage X
The City's Parking Ordinance (Chapter 19.124 of the Municipal Code) currently requires planting at a rate of one tree
for every five parking stalls for every ten spaces in a single row. The Municipal Code allows a reduction one tree for
every 10 spaces depending on the type of tree species and canopy size.
38 Find language to use that will protect solar ‘rights’ in a variety of situation.
There is a California Solar Rights Act – originally from 1978 X X The City Council may adopt policies related to Shadow studies.
39
Solar Access Policy. In consideration of health and wellness, especially
gardeners and urban farmers, provide a quantified requirement for allowable
changes in solar access.
X This could be linked to the Shadow Study. However, clear objective standards need to be identified to be able to
implement this.
40 Specify a shadow policy based on Berkeley's X X Clear objective standards need to be identified to require a shadow study and implement the objective standards
identified.
41 Add language related to the importance of, and goal for, ‘dark sky’.X X Adoption of a dark sky policy and standards is part of the City's 2019-2020 Work Program.
42 ‘Replacement’ trees that are required for development approval should spell out clearly that any replacement tree(s) must be at grade/in similar public
areas as the trees that are being replaced.X
43 Reconsider the landscape review process: Identifying a more comprehensive set of requirements [for landscape plan approval] at the outset makes for a
better and more objective approval.
The landscape plan for a project is reviewed during both the planning entitlement process and also during the
building permit review process to ensure compliance with the planning approval, or to review minor changes
necessary due to conflicts arising with landscape during the construction process, generally, to address building or
fire code requirements.
44
Search for "mitigation incoporated" in Vallco EIR document. If an impact could be mitigated in some measure, the City should consider adding objective
standards in either General Plan or Municipal Code so that the proposed mitigation in the EIR is required for any project, especially streamlined projects.
Whatever measure the EIR uses to determine that mitigation measures are needed, the City should consider using those measures as objective standards
for any future projects, especially streamlined projects within proximity of existing residential neighborhoods.
Some examples:
MM AQ-2.1- BAAQMD's Basic and Enhanced Measures
MM AQ-3.1: Use low VOC paint and no hearths of fireplaces (including gas-powered) in development
MM AQ-7.1: Implement MM AQ-2.1
MM CR-2.1: Archealogical Resource protection
MM GHG-1.1: Prepare and implement a GHG Reduction Plan
MM NOI-1.1: Construction noise requirements
MM NOI-1.2: Construction noise control plan
MM NOI-1.3: Acoustical consultant to review mechanical noise
X
The Mitigation Measures identified are from the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan certified on September 19, 2018.
1. The City can review previously adopted mitigation measures to identify those generally applicable to new
development, and develop an objective method for imposing them while avoiding burdening classes of projects to
which they would not apply to, as a practical matter.
It should be noted that currently the City:
* Requires implementation of BAAQMD's Basic control measures since they were adopted as mitigation measures
with the General Plan EIR;
* Allows no new wood burning fireplaces (General Plan Strategy ES-4.3.2)
* Requires protection of archaeological resources as part of construction management plans, though a General Plan
policy related to this would be recommended.
* Requires all projects to meet the City's Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 10.48)
* Requires all projects to have a construction management plan that includes several of the requirements listed in
MM NOI-1.2 including temporary noise barriers, equipment must have mufflers in good condition, be considerate in
locating stationary noise-generating equipment, stage materials and parking areas as far away from residential
receptors as possible, designate a "noise disturbance coordinator"
* Prior to installation of mechanical equipment, the applicant has to provide information on the noise generated by
the equipment to ensure that the noise generated meets the City's Noise Control Ordinance standards (Chapter
10.48)
Mobility
Environmental
Resources and
Sustainability
Topic No.Comment General
Plan
Special
Plans Specific Plan Muni
Code
Design
Guidelines No Action Comments/Notes
Which documents may require amendments?
Health and Safety 45 Include objective standards for noise and air quality and emergency response time.X X
* Noise standards are already included in the City's Noise Control Ordinance and in standard conditions of approval
imposed on all projects.
* Air Quality mitigation measures are dependent on project type. The General Plan Mitigation Measures require
implementation of BAAQMD's basic control measures on all projects, streamlined and ministerial or discretionary
projects. However, the enhanced control measures are dependent on the project size. 2. The City could retain
experts to determine whether objective standards can be developed for enhanced air quality control measures.
* The City could retain experts, consult with relevant agencies (e.g., fire), and/or review what other local jurisdictions
have done, to determine how objective standards on emergency response times can be developed, and how
applicants would demonstrate compliance with these standards.
Infrastructure 46
Include objective standard for infrastructure. Apparently, the sewage system under Wolfe Road is at capacity. Adding a few thousand residents and a few
thousand workers at Vallco will likely affect the aging sewage system in the area. Could we include objective standard in the General Plan to ensure the
infrastructure of the City is not overloaded?
Whose responsibility is it to pay for the expansion of the sewage system under Wolfe? The City, I suppose.
X
Mititgation Measure UTIL-6b of the certified General Plan EIR and the General Plan Strategy INF-5.1.2 requires
developers to pay their fair share of costs for, on in some cases, construct, infrastructure upgrades to ensure that
service levels are met. For the Vallco SB35 project, the applicant is required to upgrade the lines as required by the
Cupertino Sanitary District.
47
Define requirements in park deficient areas
- Define park deficient areas
- Show on maps
X
48
Define recreation area (is it an aquatic center, gym, basketball court,
badminton facility)
- Show on maps
- Show population density expected to use
X
49 Future population policies to maintain park land ratios X
* Adopting policies related to future population to maintain park land ratios may not be feasible.
* The Quimby Act states that jurisdictions can require up to 5 acres for every 1,000 residents within a city's
boundaries. This is not intended to be implemented by neighborhood or geographically for every 1,000 residents.
* Identifying park land areas for future acquisition in park deficient areas should be identified in the Parks Master
Plan, including those areas developed in jurisdictions that were subsequently annexed into the City (such as the
Santa Clara County for the Rancho Rinconada development). Such policies could include identifying areas of the
neighborhood where parks could potentially replace existing homes.
50 Review in parallel with the coming Quimby Act requirements X The City's current Ordinance complies with the Quimby Act and we are not aware of changes to the Quimby Act at
the state level.
51 Include community garden space in park land requirements for all new
residential developments. Define requirement.X X X
The City's existing General Plan Strategy RPC-2.5.3 encourages community gardens. Should the Council wish to
require this, an update is required to this strategy to replace "encourage" with "require" and objective standards
might be placed in the Municipal Code.
52
Define park land
-Size and shape requirements
- Requirements to developers to dedicate park land acreage as a development
criteria
X X X
* The definition or characteristics of parkland may be in the Parkland dedication chapter.
* Objective standards related to parkland dedication may be identified in the Parkland dedication chapter of the
Muni Code, but should evolve from the policy requirements in the Parks Master Plan.
53 Review of Park Land Dedication policy: Should include objective definition of "recreational facility" as well as grade-level land requirements and
alternatives. The park land requirement should scale with the size of the proposed project X X X
* Definition of recreational facilities and the area of need for one should be identified in the Parks Master Plan.
* Parkland definition based on objective characteristics may be in the Parkland dedication chapter. Park Land
dedication requirements currently scale with the size of the project. No dedication can be required for developments
with 50 units or less. But the city can impose common and private open space requirements on site as are required
by the City's Municipal Code with Chapter 19.36 or with the Heart of the City Specific Plan.
54 “Parks” defined in a useful way including the need to be on grade, not falsely elevated. Reinforce language that defines AND enforces requirements for
‘real parks’ to meet goals of acres per density of any given area of the city, and vicinity to parks. X X X
* The definition or objective charateristics of park land may be in the Park Land dedication chapter of the Municipal
Code.
* Identifying park land areas for future acquisition in park deficient areas should be identified in the Parks Master
Plan, including those areas developed in jurisdictions that were subsequently annexed into the City (such as the
Santa Clara County for the Rancho Rinconada development). Such policies could include identifying areas of the
neighborhood where parks could potentially replace existing homes.
Miscellaneous 55
Clarify impact fee exemptions: Current regulations are ambiguous on whether a project owes parkland, BMR, and traffic impact fees. There should be an
explicit default for each fee and each class of development that might be assessed, including regular construction, BMR homes, ADUs, and any other
categories...
* BMR Housing Mitigation fee exemptions are identified in Section 2.1 of the BMR Housing Mitigation Program
Procedural Manual available online at: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=9788.
* Traffic Impact Fees are assessed for all development allowed under the current general plan. Exemptions are
identified in Section 14.02.060 of the Municipal Code.
* Applicability of Park Land Dedication requirements are in Chapter 13.08 of the Municipal Code.
Parks
The City's Parks Master Plan is working on identifying these. The policies and strategies in the Parks Master Plan
(once adopted) can be implemented when reviewing all projects, whether streamlined and ministerial or
discretionary projects.