Loading...
PC Packet 07-09-2019CITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION 6:45 PM 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber Tuesday, July 9, 2019 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Subject: Draft Minutes of June 25, 2019 Recommended Action: approve or modify the Draft Minutes of June 25, 2019 Draft Minutes of June 25, 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) Continuation of discussion from the June 25, 2019 study session 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 July 9, 2019Planning Commission AGENDA Staff Report 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 OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Page 2 July 9, 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 July 9, 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 25, 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, Alan Takahashi. Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Subject:Draft Minutes of June 11, 2019. Recommended Action: Approve or modify the Draft Minutes of June 11, 2019 Moved by Fung and seconded by Takahashi to: “Approve the minutes”. The motion carried 5-0-0. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Steven Buss spoke regarding Chair Wang Richard Mehlinger spoke regarding Chair Wang WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Speaker Lisa Warren provided documentation during Oral Communications for Item #2 CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: None STUDY SESSION: 2. Subject: Design Objectives and Standards presentation, FY 2019-2020 Work Program item. Application No(s).: CP-2019-02; Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: citywide 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. The Deputy City Attorney, Joseph Petta, reviewed the Staff Report for the Planning Commission. The City Attorney’s office is recommending that this project be discussed and implemented in two phases; Phase 1 topics are identified as areas where the General Pan or Zoning Codes can be amended and strengthened to add objectivity (shorter turnaround time); Phase 2 topics are identified as areas where more evaluation and new policy development is necessary(longer turnaround time). The Planning Commissioners discussedthe Phase 1 topics, General Plan height and setback standards for development and building planes and the Special Development Areas and Planned Development Districts. 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 continued the discussion regarding the Phase 1 objective standards topics. The Planning Commissioners directed Staff to incorporate their recommendations from the Phase 1 topic discussions into a new Staff Report for presentation at the next meeting. The discussion for the Phase 2 topics was continued to the next meeting date. Staff will check the availability of the meeting room for a possible special meeting of the Planning Commission should the discussion be continued further. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 pm to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on July 9, 2019 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: ______/s/Beth Ebben_______________ Beth Ebben, Deputy Board Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: July 9, 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 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. At its regular scheduled public meeting on June 25, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed items in Phase 1, made recommendations and provided direction to staff. The Commission recommended that three items in Phase 2 (items 8, 2 20, and 52) be moved from Phase 2 into a new “Phase 1.5.” The rest of the items in Phase 2 were continued to a future meeting for further discussion. Analysis: Phase 1 Review The Phase 1 review identified areas in which the General Plan or Zoning can be strengthened to add objectivity. These are presented in Attachment 1 and include 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. The Planning Commission’s recommendations from its June 25, 2019 meeting regarding these Phase I items are indicated on Attachment 1. In addition, the Commission asked for further explanation regarding “Proposal (b)” in the row corresponding to General Plan Figure LU-2, footnote 3. General Plan Policy LU- 21.1 (North De Anza Special Area Conceptual Plan) states, “Amend the North De Anza Conceptual Plan to create a cohesive set of land use and streetscape regulations and guidelines for the North De Anza area.” Although the intended plan would have applied to both sides of De Anza, in apparent response to comments submitted by property owners, the plan was only applied to the west side. The conceptual plan recommended by the Planning Commission for adoption, and adopted by the City Council in 1976, was thus applied only to the west side of the N. De Anza Special Area. The contemporaneous staff report suggests an intention to incorporate the east side at some future date. Since that time, development of the east side of N. De Anza Blvd. has largely mirrored the west side, partly as the result of conditions of approval. The staff report for the June 25, 2019 Planning Commission meeting identified this plan in particular because (1) whereas a large landscape easement on the west side of N. De Anza Blvd. has been adopted, no objective standard exists for the landscape easement on the east side; (2) setbacks from the residential structures on the east side are not clear; and (3) updating the existing conceptual plan to apply the existing standards to the east side would be relatively straightforward. In addition, the staff report for the June 25, 2019 Planning Commission meeting stated that the City could 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, as a practical matter. Staff indicated that this would take some time but should be considered during the Phase 1 timeline as opposed to the Phase 2 timeline. Phase 1.5 Review 3 At its June 25, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that items 8, 20, and 52 from the Phase 2 list (Attachment 3) be made a higher priority than the other Phase 2 items, without impacting the timeline for developing the Phase 1 items and proposing them for adoption. Item 8 relates to developing objective requirements such as height limits and decreased density in all specific plan areas. Item 20 refers to an existing Housing Commission Work Program on Extremely Low Income (“ELI”) Policy. Item 52 refers to definitions and requirements in the Municipal Code regarding park land. This Phase would be presented to City Council with Phase 1 for consideration for immediate evaluation, creation, and implementation. Additional City resources should be provided if this Phase is approved by City Council. Phase 2 Review The Planning Commission has had three 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 to fill gaps in objective standards but would 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 community’s 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 forward its recommendations regarding Phase 1 and Phase 1.5 to City Council for consideration? Does the Planning Commission wish to recommend for inclusion in Phase 1 or Phase 1.5 a review of previously adopted mitigation measures to identify those generally applicable to new development, and development of an objective method for imposing them while avoiding burdening classes of projects to which they would not apply? Does the Planning Commission have direction or any prioritization with respect to the remaining 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. Prepared by: Seph Petta, Deputy City Attorney 4 Reviewed by: Richard Taylor, Assistant City Attorney Approved for Submission by: Benjamin Fu, 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. City Attorney (“CAO”)/Staff proposal for 6/25/19 PC meeting: 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. PC recommendation (6/25/19): • Delete “primary” and “bulk.” • Add “avenues” and “major connectors” after “arterial/boulevard.” • Clarify that slope line is drawn from the curb line of any 2 Existing Issue Proposed frontage road abutting property. • Delete “except for the Crossroads Area.” Footnote #2 “For the Crossroads area, see the Crossroads Streetscape Plan.” No Crossroads Streetscape Plan has been adopted. CAO/Staff proposal for 6/25/19 PC meeting: Amend to state that the default 1:1 standard applies until a Streetscape Plan has been adopted. PC recommendation (6/25/19): Delete the footnote. Footnote #3 “For projects adjacent to residential areas: Heights and setbacks adjacent to residential areas will be determined during project review.” This sentence is ambiguous and someone could interpret this to mean that increased heights or reduced setbacks are permitted. 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 CAO/Staff proposal for 6/25/19 PC meeting: 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 residential neighborhoods, and also state that reduced heights or increased setbacks adjacent to 3 Existing Issue Proposed 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 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). 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. PC recommendation (6/25/19): 4 Existing Issue Proposed • Proceed with CAO/Staff proposal (a), above. • Staff was asked to provide additional clarity on proposal (b), above. See accompanying staff report. • Adopt development and design guidelines that can objectively be applied to any housing development or mixed-use development” in Phase 2, but do not recommend pursuing form based code. 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 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. CAO/Staff proposal for 6/25/19 PC meeting: Eliminate parenthetical reference to Vallco Shopping District for clarification. PC recommendation (6/25/19): 5 Existing Issue Proposed 1:1 slope line drawn from Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue curb line.” Proceed with CAO/Staff proposal and further research the applicability of the default 1:1 slope line. 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. CAO/Staff proposal for 6/25/19 PC meeting: 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 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. PC recommendation (6/25/19): Commented [JDP1]: please confirm slope line that applied to the Vallco Specific Plan – was it 1:1 at Stevens Creek? what was it at adjacent residential uses, and along Wolfe? 6 Existing Issue Proposed Proceed with CAO/Staff proposal. 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. CAO/Staff proposal for 6/25/19 PC meeting: 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. PC recommendation (6/25/19): Proceed with CAO/Staff proposal. 7 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. CAO/Staff proposal for 6/25/19 PC meeting: 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. PC recommendation (6/25/19): Evaluate the implications of removing P zones in the city and reverting to the 8 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.” underlying zoning designations. Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take appropriate action, and develop timeline for such action, to address an inconsistency between Ordinance 18- 2178 and the General Plan. [Note: Proposed General Plan Amendment and associated Zoning change to come before Planning Commission at July 23, 2019 meeting.] 1136368.1 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.