The URL can be used to link to this page

13. Heart of the CityCITY OF CUPERTINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ~ Agenda Date: February 3, 2009 Application: SPA-2008-01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Application Summary: Update the Heart of the City Specific Plan to reflect the changes adopted in the 2005 General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may consider the following options: 1. Adopt the Heart of the City Conceptual Plan, including any changes as directed by the Council. 2. Continue discussion on the Heart of the City plan to determine if the boundaries should be adjusted and if the plan should be restructured ii conjunction with a General Plan Amendment. BACKGROUND: On December 16, 2008, the City Council reviewed the updated version of the Heart of the City Conceptual Plan (abbreviated version) that included all of the changes recommended by the Plaruning Commission. The Conceptual Plan also distinguished between the recommended changes that the Council expressed support for and items that the Cotuncil identified as requiring additional discussion from the December 211d City Council meeting. The Council also heard from members of the public who requested that the 35-foot setback and double tree-Puled streetscape along Stevens Creek Boulevard be maintained, expressed both support and opposition to concepts of on-street parking along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and raised concerns about re-writitng the Heart of the City Specific Plan. As a result of the meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare a map of the Heart of the City Plan area showing the land uses by type and percentages. The Council also directed staff to clarify miscellaneous items in tine draft Conceptual Plan. DISCUSSION: HEART OF THE CITY MAPS BY LAND USE Staff has prepared a map of the Heart of the City plan area showing the land uses by type and percentages (See Exhibit C) based upon the current boundaries. The type of 13-1 SPA-2008-0 ] Heart of tt~e City Specific Plan Update February 3, 2009 Paae 2 land uses noted on the map include residential, mixed-use, commercial, service station, office, surface parking lot, public/quasi-public/open space and vacant. For comparison purposes, a second map is also included that incorporates the hatched areas "subject only to Heart of the City design guidelines" as if they are part of the Heart of the City boundaries as an adjusted map. The current Heart of the City land use boundary map shows that commercial use is approximately 56% of the land uses by acres and 51% of the land uses by building square feet. If office is uzcluded, the total retail and office uses by acres and building square feet are approximately 70% and 71% of the land uses, respectively. The adjusted Heart of the City land use boundary map (ulcludnlg hatched areas) shows that commercial use is approximately 49% of the land uses by acres and 44% of the land uses by buildu1g square feet. With office, the retail and office uses would be approximately 62% of the land uses by acres and 66% of the land uses by buildu1g square feet. The folloivilg pie charts show u1 light pink the percentages of commercial and uz dark pull the percentages of office land uses by awes and buildu1g square feet in both maps: Current HOC boundary Land Use by Acres 1 ~ r o.~x~ IO.:Bk ~ 1R ,tk ' f J// 9% ~,. y ?.4-0S 5; 1_'. Current Land Use F.esiden5al r•,7ixed Use Land Use by Building SqF _ oaf; 2C.77Y a.c~.; SOS ". Commercial - Parcels Solely Used for Parking Lot-Surface HOC Boundary w/hatched areas land Use by Acres Land Use by Building SgFt J..:' l54L .1 :14 .. :0 . °*c S53w 1SCy. ~= °Oti Service Station ® Office - Public'Quasi-Publi~Open Space `:vacant There are a total of 402 residential units within the current Heart of the City boundaries and 875 residential writs withal the adjusted map. The existing available residential allocation for future development withal the Heart of the City area is 309 writs. The General Plan available allocations table for the Heart of the City is attached for reference. (See Exhibit F) 13-2 SPA-2008-01 Heart of the City Specific Plan Update February 3, 2009 Paje 3 CHANGES TO DRAFT CONCEPTUAL PLAN The Council directed staff to clarify the following items withal the Conceptual Plan (See Exhibit A). These are addressed below: 1. Refere~ICes to Specific P1a11: References to "Specific Plan" have been eliminated. 2. Definltlolz of Streetscape Element: The Streetscape Element is described in the Streetscape Design section of the Conceptual Plan. The underlying principles of the Streetscape Element are defined in the Streetscape Desib n Prutciples section. 3. Streetscape Exceptions for Narrow Driveways on Retail Properties: Council needs to discuss whether to remove or retain the following language: "For retail properties with narrow driveways, tine second row tree on each side of tine driveway need not be planted if it obscures retail visibility." This is found at the end of tine Central and East Stevens Creek Boulevard Design Concept paragraphs (See page 8 of the plan). A concern was raised that allowing for such exceptions may weaken tlne consistency of the streetscape. The intent of this language is to allow for retail visibility of driveway entrances and signage for retail commercial businesses that might otherwise be blocked by a double row of trees. 4. Variations in the Frontage Rellovatioll Conditions: The various frontage renovation conditions under the Streetscape Design section allow for variations in the curbside walk and landscape easements where the standard streetscape cannot be applied due to existng streetscape, buildnng and parking location conditions. For example, it may be difficult to apply the standard streetscape if it requires dedication on a development site that would remove existing parking needed to satisfy the parking requirement for a site. 5. Logo-like: Council asked for a definition of "logo-like "commercial in the Mixed Use Parkway paragraph on page 11 of the plan. This language is part of the origilal Heart of the City Specific Plan adopted ii 1995. Staff recommends removing this language since it does not appear to modify the intent of the sentence. 6. Development Standards: a. Fro11t setbacks: Reference has been corrected to "see section L01.040(D)", rather than (E) for the required Boulevard Landscape Easement. b. Corner parking lots not permitted: Counncil requested clarification on this language that does not permit corner parking lots. Staff suggests modifying tine language to read, "Corner parking lots are discouraged." c Minimum Side and Rear Setbacks: Council needs to consider if more prescriptive language is needed for side yard setbacks. For example, if a 1:1 height to setback ratio should be considered. It was also suggested that the minimum rear yard setback be reduced to 17 feet if uninhabitable building elements, such as chimneys, may encroach up to three feet into a required setback. Staff suggests retaining the existing language because only the uninhabitable buildnng elements are permitted to project into the setbacks, and the 20 foot setback is only a minimum setback; Council could require greater setbacks for any development project i1 the P zone. 13-3 3 S PA-2008-01 Heart of the City Specific Plan Update Page 4 February 3, 2009 d. Maximum Number of Curb cuts: Language included to clarify that additional curb cuts may be allowed upon review by the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department was consulted on providing prescriptive language on distance between two driveways. They concluded that it is impossible to provide any prescriptive language on this issue since that would depend upon traffic volumes, sight lines and proximity with intersections etc. e. Driveway Setbacks: Language has been incorporated to clarify that these are applicable only if the driveway is not a shared driveway. f. D1•op off Areas: Council remarked that this language is confusing because if street parkilg is not permitted along Stevens Creek Boulevard or the parking lot/driveway is located to the side of the building, then how can drop off areas occur at the front entrances facing the street. Staff suggests eliminating this language. g. Subsurface Garages: Council asked why the subsurface garage height should be no higher than 3.5 feet above the sidewalk grade. Staff suggests retaining the existing language, as it prevents subsurface garage walls from being the dominant feature along street frontages. h. Screen Fences a~zd Walls: Council requested clarification on maximum and minimum wall heights. Staff suggests adding language to clarify that sound walls taller than eight (8) feet inay be allowed when commercial and residential uses share a property line, subject to approval as part of a development plan. i. Building Design: Council asked whether a prescriptive terracing setback should be incorporated. Staff suggests retanng the existing language and allowing each building design to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for the Council to determine if this standard is met to allow for flexibility in design. This requirement is particularly applicable to parcels that are adjacent to residential uses to mitigate privacy impacts onto adjacent residential uses. j. Otl2er Applicable Site Development Regulations in the R-1 zoning district: Council asked if this was necessary to retail in the plan. Staff suggests retaining this language as it reiterates that the development standards in the R-1 ordinance apply to these silgle-family residential properties u1 the Heart of the City boundary, in addition to the land use, building height and setback requirements. k. Application Requirements alzd Approval Authority: Council requested staff to provide this language to incorporate into the plan. Staff has incorporated draft language in accordance with the Planned Development zoning district ordinance specifying that the P1aruling Commission or City Council is the approval authority for development projects through a Use Permit application. 13-4 4 SPA-2008-O1 Heart of the City Specific Plan Update Page 5 February 3, 2009 1. Pla~zt Materials section: Council asked that the appropriate section for the Site Improvement and Landscape requirements be referenced. Staff has added Section 2.01.040 as the reference section. m. Fountains: Council needs to consider whether fountains should be recommended in hardscape areas per the existing language in the plan. Other minor spelluzg and editing errors have been corrected in the draft per Council direction. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Plaruler Aki Honda Snelling, AICP Reviewed by: ~a- ~ ~o Citv Planner David W. Knapp City Manager Attachments Exhibit A:Abbreviated Heart of the City Conceptual Plan with recommended changes by the Plaruung Commission Exhibit B: Matrix of Platuling Conunission recommendations Exhibit C: Heart of the City Land Use Maps Exhibit D: Minutes of December 16, 2008 City Council meetutg Exhibit E: December lb, 2008 Council report without attaclunents Exhibit F: General Plan Available Allocations Table for Heart of the City 13-5 J Steve 1'tasecxt Community Development Director CITY OF CUPERTINO Exhibit A ~ _ _ Heart of the City Conceptual Plan The Intent of the ehan es ro osed is to: "`~, e--` g P p '°~ 1. Reformat document to be u1 an understandable format `~. 2 Islclude f nguage to: _.. - - _ - ~ . __ • Allow flexible side yard setbacks for odd shaped lots • Improve relationships betti~een buildings - _ - This draft accomplishes these objectives ul a simple,and understandable format. ~ IY, ~~ fir. k ~zx~m~! `~:~~ ~: L~ . `~f Blue highlight -City Council concurred changes (December 2, 2008) Red highlight -Planning Commission changes for Council to consider Page l ,~f ~ 1 Date: December 16, 2008 Page 2 0,33 l~ Date: December 16, 2008 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................~...... 5 Policy Framework ........................................................................................................................ 5 Streetscape Design ....................................................................................................................... 7 Development Standards and Design Guidelines ..................:............................................... 11 Development Standards ............................................................................................................ 13 Exception Process for Development Standards ..................................................................... 20 Design Guidelines ...................................................................................................................... 22 Site Improvements And Landscaping Guidelines ................................................................ 24 Appendix A -General Plan Policies related to the Heart of the City Plan Area .............. 26 Appendix B -Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... 30 Page 3 0~3 Date: December 16, 2008 The City of Cupertino List of Diagrams and Maps Land Use Map Streetscape Concept Plan Development Guidelines Page 4 of 31 Date: December 16, 2~f~0~ Introduction Overview The Heart of the City Conceptual ifie-Plan provides specific development guidance for one of the most important commercial corridors in the City of Cupertino. The purpose of the specific plan is to guide the future development and redevelopment of the approximately 250 acre Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor in a manner that creates a greater sense of place and C011111nulnlty identity in Cupertino. Tlne overall goal is to develop a Heart of the City, apedestrian-inclusive gathering place that will create a positive and memorable image of Cupertino Policy Framework Develop a Heart of the City that provides a variety of land use olJrortunities of rti'el planned and designed commercial, office and residential development enhanced activity nodes, and safe and efficient circulation and access for all modes of transt~ortation beriti~een activity centers that help focus and support actiti itv in the centers. Policies 1. Require shared parking arrangements in the Crossroads area in mixed use developments ~ti~ith overall parking standards reduced to reflect shared parking arrangements. 2. Protrosed develoL~nnents shall be expected to continue the implementaticn of the City's master landscaue Dlan. 3. Dez-elopment applicants are encouraged to submit commercial, office residential or mixture of uses. Regardless of proposed Iand use, high q_ualit_v site_planninQ, architectural design, and on-site landscaping is expected. ~. Subdivision of commercial parcels is discouraged. 5. Plans for ne~ti~ projects should include sensitivity to pedestrian and bicycle travel, both from the ne~4 project as j4~e11 as from travelers passim that site. ~'~'ote:l~Iternate Jan~,ge recorrrtnerrded bu Courrcilz~ersc~n Sandoval: Plans for the new vroiects should irtclude pedesfi•iaii and bicycle patlr~{~.zus, incot~oratitr,g the Cittl's eristiri~: rtetrrork. 6. The Citv shall design and implement improved bicycle oaths from De ~nza Boulevard to the eastern city limits that separate bicyclists from automoti~-e traffic. These protected lanes shall be extended ~4°est of De .-~nza Boulevard if feasible. 'Vote: Planirin~ COiitr)1t~~1(311 1"eCOiftltTelided e11111UiQti11~ file fOllOZp111~: - 'T " ' ~ ' ' ' - ' ~ ~ ' i ' " } . o .. ='f- t ,t S riii. r? 4 t? i ~ .z-r-n„ - r i-c t~srt' T r -~~'~i'i--t- ' ~ =c -' -T- - ~~£ 1~- .,, .7 / r.+: .,/ . 7.,T:,...i , : ~ : .. . c 1 / . .. : ~ '-t - - - ~3it~~Ell-FE'z ~ fT ,J ~~r.a ,. ',d t't• ~' ~ ~F=c3 ~>~=c'r'J-itiTt~~ i-~r;~r~T?:','::~ ~ricv:,-tri=rr7=r.~r~t"T:~:'r'rj ?:-?-c=cri-5-E-i=t'~Jc Page 5 of 31 Date: December 16, ~00~ -s _ T_ J .,.. ~ . .,., ..... ~ .. ~ . . r - ... . . f;,~ r-,..,,..,.~ nT.. ~• ~. Residential or office developnrerrts shall be considered in raid-block parcels. Parcels orr or near irrtersectiorrs shall Irave a rrei,glrbvrliood conmrercial component. (Police) 5. ~'11i~ed conrrnercial acrd residerrtiat development nrau be allou7ed if the residential units provide tan incentive to develop retail uses, if the development is zyell desigryed, inarrciallu beneficial to Cupertino, provides comnrunitu amenities and is pedestrian-oriented. (Policy,{.) .~ . The 2005 General Plan contains the policies that govern the following de~Telopment aspects withal the Plan area: 1. Specific Areas & Subareas withal the Heart of the City 2. Land Uses allowed in each of the areas and subareas 3. Development Allocation 4. Development Intensity 5. Residential Density 6. Design Elements and 7. Buildu1g Heights. These are attached as Appendix A to this document. The map on the following page outlines the boundaries for the Heart of the City and the yulderlying land uses allowed by the General Plan. LAND USE MAP AND SPECIFIC AREAS Page 6 of 3~ Date: December 16, 200 Streetscape Design Background and Purpose The Streetscape Element e~-tie-~pe~f'~~n implements community design goals contained in the 1993 General Plan, design concepts subsequently developed and revised in the 1993 "Heart of the City" Design Charette, and any new policies and concepts identified ii the 2005 General Plan. The general streetscape concept endorsed at the Charette was named "Parkurbia." It promotes a "green" city, acknowledges Cupertino's agricultural past, and has linking the street's major activity centers with a continuous landscaped parkway as a principal objective. The Streetscape Element complements the Conceptual Plan's Land 1_Tse Element by reflecting the corridor's different land use concentrations and designations. Design approaches vary to accommodate land uses. Options for implementation depend to a significant extent on the type of existing development immediately adjacent to the street right-of-way. Streetscape policies also reflect the setback, frontage improvements, and landscape and signage requirements established in the Plan's Development Standards and Design Guidelu1es. Together, these three Plan Elements combine to promote an attractive, mixed-use boulevard, consistent wit11 the goals of the General Plan. The primary purpose of the Streetscape Element is to define the improvements needed to fulfill the City's vision for the Stevens Creek Boulevard coriidor. It allows for flexibility in terms of phasing, financing, and design modifications in order to address the needs of the City and Conceptual Plan Area property owners and businesses. Streetscape Design Principles The Streetscape Element has four underlyilg principles: 1) Unify the Visual Appearance of the Street with Orchard/Grove Street Trees Plantings, a Consistent Palette of Furnishings, and Civic Landmarks. 2) Improve the Pedestrian Environment Along the Street Frontage with Passive Rest Areas, Planting Strips and Buffering Trees and Shrubs. 3) Allow for Flexibility in the Design of Streetscape Improvements to Address Access and Visibility Needs of Adjacent Commercial Development. 4) Accommodate Options for Implementing Streetscape Improvements: e.g., City Construction, Renovations of Existing Development, Standards for New Development. Design Concept Four streetscape subareas are defined for the corridor: West Stevens Creek Boulevard, Crossroads, Central Stevens Creek Boulevard, and East Stevelzs Creek Boulevard. See the Concept Plan on the following page. Page 7 of 31 Date: December 16,1~0~8 A continuous curbside planting strip and a continuous ro~v of street trees would extend along the entire corridor. However, each subarea would feature a different tree species. Tree species are selected to reflect differences in the character of development in the subareas and/or the predominant types of existing trees and frontage conditions. Streetscape Design policies for each of the subareas are described below: West Stevens Creek Boulevard -The West Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea extends from Route 85 to Stelling Road. The planting theme is an "Oak Grove." It features an informal planting of Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and native wild flowers in curbside planting strips and the center median. It is anticipated that these oaks could be planted among tine existing Deodar cedars at De Anza College without needu1g to remove the existing trees. This approach is intended to bring the landscape of the adjacent foothills into the City, as well as tie together the existing character of De Anza College, Memorial Park, and The Oaks shopping center. Trees should be planted at approximately 40 feet on center. Decomposed granite should be used as the surface material where appropriate. Crossroads -Refer to the Crossroads Streetscape Plan for details. This subarea extends from Stelling Road to De Anza Boulevard. Central Stevens Creek Boulevard -The Central Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea extends from De Anza Boulevard East to Perimeter Road. The planting theme is a "Flowering Orchard." It features a formal planting of Flowering Pear (Pyrus calleriana "Chanticleer") and grass in curbside planting strips. Flowering shrubs could be planted in the center median where appropriate. This approach fills in and extends the tree plantings that presently exist along the street, and the formal tree placement expresses the importance of the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard as the civic and cultural heart of the City. Trees should be planted in rows on both sides of the sidewalk at approximately 25 feet on center. For retail properties with narrow driveways, the second row tree on each side of the driveway need not be planted if it obscures retail visibility. East Stevens Creek Boulevard -The East Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea extends fronn Perimeter Road to the City botuZdary adjacent to Tantau Avenue. The planting theme is an "Ash Grove." It features a relatively formal planting of Ash (Fraxinus species) in curbside planting strips and the center median. Similar to the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea, this approach fills i1 and extends the tree plantings that presently exist along the street. It also combines with the "Oak Grove" in the West Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea to frame the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea. Both will leave a shady, somewhat rural visual character. Trees should be planted in rows on both sides of the sidewalk at approximately 35 feet on center. Grass or low-growing groundcover may be used as the surface material. For retail properties with narrow driveways, the second row tree on each side of the driveway need not be planted if it obscures retail visibility. If a double row of mature ashes is already established along a commercial retail frontage, neither row of trees should be removed. Page 8 ~ ~~ Date: December 16, 2008 Frontage Renovation Conditions A curbside planting strip 10 feet in width and a sidewalk a minimum of 6 feet in width should be established along the entire frontage of the street. Iz1 the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard and East Stevens Creek Boulevard subareas, a planting area 10 feet in width should also be established behind the walk to accommodate a second row of trees. Conditions along the street vary, however, and iinplementilg the Design Concept in a uniform ~vay will be difficult, at least for the near term. The Frontage Renovation Conditions plans on the following page illustrate typical existing frontage conditions and recommendations for responding to them to implement the Design Concept. Conditions are described below, from least to most constrained. 1) Wide Landscape Easement with Pla~zting Strip -This condition is the model for the rest of the street. It contains a 10 feet planting strip and a 10 foot landscape easement adjacent to the sidewalk. It reflects City requirements for frontage landscaping that have been in place for the past twelve years and as such characterizes most of the new development along the street. Existing trees u1 these areas, hoti=ever, rarely form consistent rows along the street. Additional trees should Ue added to create a double row of trees at a spacing consistent with the streetscape design. Existing trees of the recommended tree species should not Ue removed if spaced closer than the streetscape desib 1. Over the long term when redevelopment of properties occurs, the wide landscape. easement with planting strip will be implemented on all Town Center and East Gateway frontage properties. 2) Curbside Walk witl2 Landscape Easement - A curbside planting strip up to 10 feet u1 width and a double row of trees can be established under this condition. However, because the width of the easement area varies, the second row of trees may need to be offset from the first row. 3) Wide Curbside Walk without Landscape Easement - In this condition the entire curbside right-of-way is paved as a sidewalk. Levels of pedestrian activity along the street generally don't demand a walk this wide, and a curbside planting strip approximately 6 feet wide should be established by removing the curbside portion of the walk. 4) Curbside Walk without Landscape Easement - In this condition, a monolithic curb, gutter and sidewalk exists with a relatively narrow plantilg area between the sidewalk and adjacent buildings and/or parkitg areas. There is no landscape easement adjacent to the right-of-way, and there is only 10 feet within the right-of- way. To implement the streetscape Concept under these conditions the location of the walk and planting area needs to be reversed. A 5 feet curbside planting strip and a 5 feet sidewalk should be established within the right-of-way. Trees should be located in adjacent parkilg lots as feasible to establish a double row. The frontage improvements recommended should be improved as part of renovations to existuzg developments and properties, and/or required along with a wider landscape easement if redevelopment of a property occurs. Pale 9 f 3 Date: December 16,~00~ h~OtP: Rettalrl ir~F U~ Sir•Ec"t=CtaL%L it"~ E'~ Itrcor•~rorate i~angrsa~e orr piacerrtent arrd {r•equenru vfi :treet,~ur-rrit2rre Pale 10 ~~ 3,~ Date: December 16, ?008 Development Standards and Design Guidelines Background The Development Standards and Design Guideliles contained in this Element provide regulatory support for the Conceptual Plan's land use policies. They are intended to promote high-quality private-sector development, ei~llance property values, and ensure that Uoth private investment and public activity continues to Ue attracted to the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor. The "Parkurbia" concept promotes a "green" city, acknowledges Cupertino's agricultural past, and envisions Stevens Creek Boulevard as a landscaped parkway linkilg major centers of cultural, office, and retail use. However, Stevens Creek Boulevard must also acconullodate a variety of development types outside of the activity nodes around iltersections, and a central objective of the Standards and Guidelines is to accommodate this variety within the overall parameters of the "Parkurbia" concept. The Mixed-Use Parkway The image of Cupertilo is most on display along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The corridor is the central element of Cupertilo's "public realm," where much of its public life occurs. Yet file corridor's bodge-podge appearance contributes little to the overall character of the community and is at odds with the orderly suU-urban character of its neighUorhoods and Uusiless parks. Land uses, building forms, and landscaping vary from one property to the next. lege-lie Commercial Uuildings, sleek offices, old and new shoppilg centers, parks, parking lots, gas stations, condominiums and apartments all "do their own thilg," independent of one another. t4'hile pro,ress has L~een made durirt~ the lire or the Heart ~~t the City several properties along the corridor still have development potential and therefore a consistent set of standards and guidelines is necessar~~. Some examples of projects sa-here the Heart of the City standards have been successfully applied are• adobe Terrace, Marketplace Shopping Center and the TraViQne development at the north 225t COri'~r Oz 131a11c`e' :~~ c'7 i„±~ dPa 5:e1 EilS ~r2e'_K BOUle~' =. 4. Participants in the General Plan process and the Heart of the City Design Charette i1 1993 identified this lack of coherence as particularly undesiraUle, and identified a "park~~~ay" design approach as a means of Uoth Uri~ging visual order to the street and reflecting the physical characteristics of the rest of the community. The goals of the Standards and Guideliles are: 1) Accommodate a continuous parkway /street-tree planting scheme that facilitates pedestrian activity, yet maintail the visiUility and access needed for successful commercial retail Uusinesses. 2) Promote visual compatiUility Uetiveen commercial, office, and residential development. Page 11 c~_~~ Date: December 16, 2008 3) Allow commercial, office and residential development flexibility to meet different needs u1 terms of building form and site and frontage orientation. Page 12 ~~ 3,~ Date: December 16, 2008 Development Standards 1.01.010 Description A variety of different types of commercial development, from stand-alone single-tenant buildings to small convenience centers, office buildings and large shopping centers may be proposed. 1.01.02 1'ermittecl Uses Note: PTcanrrirrg Corrt~rrissior: retorrtmended elinrirrntirrg the follo~rirrg section: LCommercial - As specified in the City's General Commercial (CG) Zoning district with the folloFVin~ locational restrictions: a. Uses such as professional, general, administrative, business offices, business services, such as advertising bureaus, credit reporting, accounting and similar consulting agencies, stenographic services, and communication equipment buildings, vocational and specialized schools, dance and music studios, gymnasiums and health clubs and child care centers and other uses that do not involve the direct retailing of goods or services to the general public shall not be alloiti•ed on the Stevens Creek Boulevard street frontage of buildings. b. These uses may be located at the rear of buildings provided there is a viable storefront space along the Steven Creek Boulevard street frontage for other rental purposes. This space shall also have adequate death to accommodate tenants. 2. Residential - at a maximum density of hw~enty five (25) units per acre. For mixed residential and commercial developments this shall be net density, excluding parkin, andlor Iand areas devoted to the commercial portion of the development. The following is an illustration of ho`v net density is calculated: Gross lot = 1 acre (-13,560 sq. ft) Commercial building area = 8,000 sq. ft. Surface parking area for commercial area = 6,120 sg. ft. (-10 uni-size spaces ~ 1/250 sq. ft.) :~lIo~vance for outdoor open/landscaping area (10°~0 of commercial building and parking area) = 1,-112 sq. ft. Total area for commercial portion of development = 15,532 sc~. ft. Remainder area = 23,028 sq. ft. = 0.63 acres Units allowable on remainder area = 0.6-13 " 25 = 16 units 3. Office Over Retail -1. Other Conditional Uses - as specified in the City's General Commercial (CG) Zoning dlStrlCt. .'Vote: Planning Cnrrrnrission recorrrrnenderT izcTdrrrg the follau~irrg: 1. O ice r.rses Z. .-1 contbirtatiort of office, retail aruTlvr residertti:al use rc~ltetlter ns ~~~zrt of a stn~Te Pale 13,~f dal Date: December 16, 2008 builclitt,g or itz ce~1~zr~ite structures 3. Drive tltryu~lt uses are rliscoura~ed. 1.01.030 Building Height, Setbacks and Orientation A. Height - as measured from sidewalk to top of cornice, parapet, or eave line of a peaked roof shall be as follows: 1. Maximum -Forty five (45) feet 2. The primary Uulk of building shall be maintained below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the arterial street curb line or lines in all areas subject to the Heart of tlne City standards except for the Crossroads area. See Crossroads Streetscape Plan for details. 3. Rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures may exceed height limitations if they are enclosed, centrally located on tine roof and not visible from adjacent streets. Heating and air conditioning units shall be screened from public vie«~. B. Front Setbacks 1. Minimum Setback -for neiv development shall be nine (9) feet from the required Boulevard Landscape Easement; see section 1.01.040(~D) ; helm. New development shall be defined as a twenty five per cent (25%) or greater increase in floor area or a 25% or greater change in floor area resulting from use permit or architectural. and site approval within twelve (12) months. 2. Corner Parcels -setback requirement applies to both frontages (e.g., corner parking lots are net iscouraged); minimum frontage requirement recommended but not required. 3. Special Architectural Features -subject to City review: entrance porticoes, canopies, and or other features may extend up to four (4) feet into the front setback area. C. Minimum Side And Rear Setbacks 1. Minimum Side Setback -for new development shall be: a. one-half (1/2) the height of the buildung, or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater on lots 150 feet or wider b. determined in conjunction with the development review process on lots less than 1~0 feet in width, at any point bet~4~een the side property lines, based on the setbacks and relationships with buildings on immediateIy adjacent properties Page 14 q~ 3.~ Date: December 16, 2008 STAFF COMMENT: Prescriptive language proposed to allow for development of narrow and odd shaped lots as directed by Council. Itihel2 adiacent properties are iointly de~~eloped as the~~ may occur in a slloppill~ center the setbacks beri+•een buildups may be reduced to zero +,~hen it t~romotes ~edestrialt access. ?. '~gillimum Rear Setback -for ne„ de+ elo~~ment aloe de+ eluped or zoned residential properties the rear setback shall be equal to one and one-half (l.~l times the hei;ht ~}f the buildint ~,-ltll a 1I11I111I1lln1 setback of ,Q feet. 7 lnillhabitable bullding elelI1e11ts - Sucll a5 C11112ll1e~~~ d11d pry}lE'~tlllt ea, es ma+- encroach up to three ~~) feet iI1 to a rewired setback. ~. ~si~ed t:se De+~elot~ments - lnav reduce the minimum side and rear setbacks bet„-eelz onsite buildings +,-it11u1 a common master elan 1T1 accordance ~~ ith all ant7ro,~ed de,•elot~ment rlall. D. Building Orientation - Tl1e maul buildu1g entrance to all buildings shall Ue located on the front buildu1g facade, a fi•onting buildu1g comer, or a side- facillg facade visible from the street frontage. Other orientations may be permitted subject to City review. 1.01.040 Site Development and Parking A. Access 1. Direct Pedestrian Access - u1 the form of a walkway shall be provided from the Stevens Creek Boulevard sidewalk to the maul building entrance; i.e., pedestrian access to building entrances shall not require ivalkulg between parking spaces. If pedestrian access ways cannot be separated from parking bays and/or circulation aisles, they must be distinguished by a different paving material. 2. Vehicular Access/Curb Cuts -shall be shared wherever possible. a. Maximum Number - of curb cuts shall Ue one (1) tcvo-way curb cut or two (2) one-way curb cuts on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Additional curb cuts may be allowed upon review and approval by the Public Works Department. U. Ramping driveways -shall be located beyond the Uack of sidewalk, with a maximum grade of twenty percent (20%) and adequate sight distance. c. Drive+vay Setbacks for drivev~~ays that are not shared shall be (i) A minimum of five (5) feet from adjouzing properties and (ii) Three (3) feet from adjacent buildings. Page 15 4~ 3~ Date: December 16, 2008 e. Service Access -shall be from rear parking areas. Service access should avoid locating next to residential areas whenever possible. B. Parking Location of Surface Lots -The preferred location of surface lots shall be :o the ~i,i,~ ~:1~1~~r Liar of buildings. Other parking arrangements will be considered ii necessar~~ for the successful operation of the business. Subsurface/deck parkin, is alloxed provided it is adequately screened from Stevens Creek Boulevard or adjacent residential developments. .. -- ~- L_ „ ,,. o ~ ~ ~~0t~~~s~'=r8i3 ~-~~~i` ~F~iiriis ~ `L, ~ - iii ci ri'-~ ~ c~icc` C ~~ "T 'a=rc L - ___ ,3 a 2. Subsurface Garages -The majority of parking should be depressed partially below grade. The finished first floor height should be no more than three and one half (3.5) feet above side~~~alk grade; this may be averaged but shall not exceed height of five (.5) feet above sidewalk grade. C. Common Open Space 1. For Commercial (Office Or Retail) Development a. A minimum area equal to ttvo and one half percent (2.5%) of the gross floor area of buildings of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet or more, or restaurants of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more shall be provided for passive recreational use, such as a garden sitting area or outdoor eatilg area. b. Plazas and courtyards shall include outdoor seatilg. Such areas shall be iltegrated into the project site design and/or situated i1 the parkway landscape easement. 2. For Residential Development a. Common, usaUle outdoor space shall Ue provided for all multi wzit buildings. A minimum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet shall be provided for each writ excluding required setback areas; see Design Guideluzes. b. Private outdoor space shall also be provided with at least sixty (60) square feet for each unit. Private space shall be in the form of a patio or deck attached to the unit, not less than six (6) feet clear in any dimension. Page 16 ~~' 3~ Date: December 16, 2008 D. Landscaping and Screening 1. Parkway Landscape Easement -All new development shall establish an easement twenty six (26) feet u1 width along the Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage. a. Easement Improvements -The easement shall consist of (i) a curbside planting strip ten (10) feet in width, (ii) a sidewalk six (6) feet in width, and (iii) aback-of-walk planting strip ten (10) feet u1 width. Planting strip areas shall contain grass and street trees u1 accordance with the policies of the Streetscape Element. b. Special Condition: View Corridors - Area(s) may be clear of boulevard street trees to allow for unobstructed views of buildings and/or signage. This area shall include necessary curb cuts and driveways. It shall be a milimum of sixty (60) feet between trees and a maximum of one third (1/3) the length of the parcel frontage, not to exceed one hundred twenty (120) feet between trees per openilg. Parking area lot trees within the view corridor may also be cleared to allow for unobstructed views of buildings and signs ii this area. 2. Adjacent to Designated or Developed Residential Properties -attractive screen fencing or walls shall be provided along the side or rear property lines to screen buildings, service areas, and parking areas; a minimum five (5) foot planting area shall be established withal and adjacent to the fence or wall with evergreen trees planted at a minimum spacilg of twenty five (25) feet on center. 3. Side Street Trees -Shade trees at a spacing of approximately twenty-five (25) feet on center shall be planted withal required curbside planting strips. 4. Screen Fences and Walls -Where the fence or wall is not adjacent to residential property, streets and sidewalks, the fence or wall shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height and a maximum of eight (8) feet i1 height. Where a commercial and residential property share a common property line, the sound tiTall separating the uses shall have a minimum height of eight (8) feet. The sound wall may be taller than eight (8) feet subject to approval as part of a development plan. 5. Plant Materials -See "Site Improvements and Landscaping" section. E. Building Design Pale 17 of 31 Date: December 16,~~0~8 1. Variety in the Design of Building Facades -shall be required so that block frontages are varied and attractive. 2. Building forms shall be such that buildings adjacent to parcels zoned for residential uses shall be stepped back or terraced or have adequate setback so that privacy is maintained. F. Signs -shall conform to City of Cupertino sign ordinance. However, the following provisions shall apply in the Conceptual Plan Area to offset the reduction u1 visibility associated with the parkway frontage improvements: 1. Maximum Building-Mounted Sign Area - for commercial retail development shall be one and one half (1.5) square feet per one (1) linear foot of tenant frontage. Page 1$ f Date: December 16,~~0~~ Single-Family Residential Development Standards 1.02.010 Description Standards promote retention and development viability of single-family residential sized lots in the transition area between Stevens Creek Boulevard fronting development and single-family neighborhoods u1 the vicinity of Tantau, Judy, Bret and Stern Avenues. Standards apply to existing lots 10,000 square feet or less in area and 225 feet or more ii distance from Stevens Creek Boulevard. 1.02.20 Land Use A. Permitted Uses 1. Single-Family Residential- at a density range of 1-5 units per acre. 2. Other permitted uses in the R-1 single-family residential zoning district. B. Accessory Uses 1. Customary Home Occupations -subject to City review. 2. Accessory Uses and Buildings -customarily appurtenant to a permitted use. C. Conditional Uses 1. Conditional uses as allowed in the R-1 single-family residential zoning district. 1.02.30 Building Height and Setbacks 1. Building heights and setbacks are as allowed in the R-1 single-family residential zoning district. 1.02.40 Other Site Development Regulations 1. Other site development regulations applicable in the R-1 single-family residential zoning district shall apply to lots affected by these single-family residential development standards as shown in the figure. Page 19 ~~_3~ Date: December 16, 2008 Application Requirements and Approval Authority 'Vote: Plra~r±ii~~Q Co~ni~tissic?rr f ecnnnarended a~f~~irtg a ~~escri~tinrr of the a~~t~lic~tinn A. Prior to the erection of a new building or structure in the Plan Area, or prior to the enlargement or modification of an existing buildu1g, structure or site (including landscaping and lighting) u1 the Plan Area, the applicant for a building permit must obtain a use permit in a manner consistent with the requirements specified in Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. If the building square footage is less than five thousand square feet, the Plaiinilg Commission may grant a conditional use permit. If the building square footage is five thousand square feet or greater, the conditional use permit may only be issued by the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. B. Minor architectural modifications, includung changes in materials and colors, shall be reviewed by the Director of Commwuty Development as specified it Chapter 19.132 or 2.90 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. If an application is diverted to the Design Review Committee or the Plaiuling Commission, the application will be agendized for a Design Review Committee or Planning Commission meeting as an architectural and site application. Exception Process for Development Standards I11 order to provide design flexibility ii situations when small lot size, unusually shaped parcels, or Lulique surroundu1g land uses make it difficult to adhere to the development standards and where all efforts to meet the standards have been exhausted, an applicant for development may file an exception request to seek approval to deviate from the standards. The possibility of lot consolidation, if an exception is needed for a substandard parcel, shall be evaluated. The exception process shall not Ue used to increase land use iltensity or change permitted land uses. A. Aiz exception for development standards can be approved if the fi1a1 approval authority for a project makes all of the following findings: 1. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with the goals of this conceptual plan and meets one or more of the criteria described above. 2. 'The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements i1 the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. 3. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 4. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. 5. The proposed development requires an exception, which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed i1 this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. Page ZO~~f ~1 Date: December 16, ?008 B. An application for exception must be submitted on a form as prescribed by the Director of Commtulity Development. The application shall be accompanied by a fee prescribed by City Council resolution, no part of which shall be refundable, to the applicant. Upon receipt of an application for an exception, the Director shall issue a Notice of Public Hearing before the P1aiuling Commission for an exception under this chapter in the same manner as provided i1 section 19.120.060 (relating to zoning changes). After a public hearilg, and consideration of the application i1 conjunction with the mandatory findings contained ii subsection A above, the Plaiuzilg Commission shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application for an exception. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council as provided in Section 19.136.060. C. An exception which has not been used within two years follo~~ving the effective date thereof, shall become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period shall specifically be prescribed by the conditions of such permit or variance. An exception permit shall be deemed to have been used in the event of the erection of a structure or structures when sufficient building activity has occurred and continues to occur in a diligent manner. Page 21,~f ~~ Date: Deceml3er 16, 2008 Design Guidelines 2.01.010 Description The Design Guidelines promote buildnngs that assume some of the communication functions of signs. A. Building Increment -Long facades should be divided into shorter segments or modules and should be separated by major changes u1 the building mass or facade treatment, such as a projected entrance or window volume(s), notch, roof form, or other architectural feature. In some cases, these modules may be separated by varying the color of individual modules within a harmonious palette of colors. B. Special Architectural Features -should accent buildings at the main building entrance, adjacent to entrance drives, and/or at building comers. Features that relieve flatness of facades, such as recessed windows, architectural trim with substantial depth and detail, bay windows, window boxes, dormers, entry porches, etc., are recommended. C. Building Clusters -Buildings should relate to one another to shape open space in between, as is common on campuses. Changes in building form should be used to organize and accent space, by creating axial relationships between buildings, defining special courtyard spaces, etc. D. Facade Composition -Every building and/or individual tenant space should leave a base; a clear pattern of openings and surface features; a prominent main entrance; and an attractive, visually interesting roofline. The buildu1g should convey quality materials. E. Windows -are an important element of facade composition and an indicator of over all building quality: 1. Window.Openilgs -should generally Ue vertical or square in shape. Horizontally-oriented openings generally make buildings appear squat and massive. 2. Window Inset -Glass should be inset a minimum of 3" from the window frame or from the exterior wall surface to add relief to buildu1g surfaces; this is especially important for stucco buildings. F. Roofs - 1. Roof Overhangs -are strongly recommended. Overhangs should be a minimum of three (3) feet, with additional articulation in the form of support struts, gutter facia, and/or exposed beams/ rafter ends. Pale 22 ~ 3 Date: December 16, ~00~ G. Common Open Space -Developments with a residential component should contain both landscaped/garden areas and hardscape areas that encourage social interaction. 1. Common Landscaped Space - A landscaped green and/or garden space should comprise between seventy per cent (70%) and eighty per cent (80%) of the common outdoor space. The location should be u1 a courtyard, side yard, rear yard, or common green for larger developments. Space should be rectilinear with no side less than fifteen (15) feet. Space should be seventy five percent (75%) enclosed by buildungs, low walls, low fences, or linear landscaping (e.g., hedges or rows of trees) and not be bordered by surface parking areas on more than one side. 2. Common Hardscape Space -Between twenty per cent (20%) and thirty per cent (30%) of common outdoor space should be in the form of unit- paved or gravel areas, common roof deck space, or any Combination of the two. Hardscape space shall be connected directly to the required landscaped space by stairs, walks, and/or ramps if necessary. H. Plant Materials -See "Site Improvements and Landscaping" section (Section 2.01.040) for guideliles. Page 23 of 31 Date: December 16, ~OU~ Site Improvements And Landscaping Guidelines 2.01.040 Description The following Design Guidelines for Site Improvements and Landscaping apply to all Heart of the City Conceptual Plan Areas unless otherwise indicated. A. Paving Materials -recommended for pedestrian surfaces are listed below. In general, a maximum of t~vo materials should be combined in a single application: 1. Stone -such as slate or granite. 2. Brick pavers. 3. Concrete unit pavers. 4. Poured-in-place concrete -with any of the following treatments: integral pigment color; special aggregate; special scoring pattern; ornamental insets, such as tile; pattern stamped. All concrete walks should be tinted to reduce glare. B. Plant Materials And Landscape Treatments -Used on properties adjacent to the right-of-ivay should reflect the following guidelines: 1. Plant Materials Along Stevens Creek Boulevard -should create an attractive and harmonious character, in keeping with the orchard/grove streetscape theme. a. Trees with open branching structures -should be used. Deciduous trees are recommended. b. Planting/landscaped areas -should have a simple palette of plant species. c. Complex planting schemes -should not be used in front yard areas. 2. Plant Materials in Other Locations -should be selected and placed to reflect both ornamental and functional characteristics. a. Deciduous trees -should be the predominant large plant material used. They should be located adjacent to buildings and within parking areas to provide shade in summer and allow sun in winter. ,Species should be selected to provide fall color, and to minimize litter and other maintenance problems. b. Evergreen shrubs and trees -should be used as a screening device along rear property lines (not directly adjacent to residences), around mechanical appurtenances, and to obscure grillwork and fencing associated with subsurface parking garages. Page 24 of 3 Date: December 16,1~0~~ c. Flowering shrubs and trees -should be used where they can be most appreciated, adjacent to walks and recreational areas, or as a frame for building entrances, stairs, and walks. d. :~;ative and Fvater-«ise plantings - should be used ~ti•ith drip ini~ation s~-sterns for on-site landscaue areas in de~~eio,pi~ents. 3. Surface Parking Lots - utilize a significant amount of site area and should be designed as an integral feature of the o~=erall site de~-elopment plan. a. Parking Lots -Planting should be consistent with the standards outlined in the parkilg ordinance. b. "Orchard Parking" -should be employed in all surface lots. The "orchard" tree placement provides better shade on the passenger compartment and more even shade and vegetation throughout the parkilg area. Trees shall be planted toward the rear of parking stalls to create a grid rather than rows. Such trees shall be protected by curbing or bollards as appropriate. C. r ences - Chain link, barked i~-ire and razor ~~~ire fencing are not ~e~ommended. Page Z~~~f ~1 Date: Becember 16, 2008 Appendix A -General Plan Policies related to the Heart of the City Plan Area Page 26 ~_3~} Date: December 16, 2008 Appendix B -Acknowledgements 1995: City Council Wally Dean, Mayor John Bautista Don Burnett Barb Koppel Lauralee Sorensen Planning Commission David Doyle, Chairperson Paul V. Roberts, Vice Chairperson Donna Austin Andrea Harris Orrin Mahoney Staff Donald Brown, City Manager Robert S. Cowan, AICP, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, AICP, City Planner Colin Jung, AICP, Associate Planner/Project Manager Michele Bjurman, AICP, Plaruler II Vera Gil, Planner II Anu Natarajan, Planning Intern Yvoruze Kelley, Adnnistrative Secretary Pam Eggen, Administrative Clerk Bert Viskovich, P.E., Director of Public Works Glenn Grigg, P .E., Traffic Engineer Steve Dowling, Director of Parks and Recreation Consultants/ Contributors Freedman Tung Bottomley, Streetscape & Urban Design Consultants Update 2008: City Council Dolly Sandoval Orru1 Mahoney Kris Wang Gilbert Wong Mark Satoro P1aiuling Commission Lisa Giefer Marty Miller David Kaneda Jessica Rose Paul Brophy Page 30 4'~_~~ Date: December 16, 2008 Staff David Knapp, City Manager Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director Ciddy Wordell, City Planner (Retired) Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner Beth Ebben, Administrative Clerk Ralph Qualls, P.E., .Director of Public Works Glenn Goepfert, P.E., Assistant Director of Public Works Consultants Michael Fornalski, Michael Fornalski Illustration Amendments By City Council As of Sept 4, 2000 As of March 3,1997, amendments to the Heart of the City Specific Plan will result in a page revision date in the lower inside corner of flee changed page. Types of changes may include page-numbering, minor typographical or cosmetic changes or policy and text changes. Substantive changes will be noted in the table below, in addition to the page revision dates. Date Ordinance Number Descri tion March 3, 1997 CC 1753 Text and Map: City Center Area than es December, 1997 CC 1769 Text: Single-Family Residences Allowed on Certain Pro erties July 6, 1998 CC 1786 Text: Exception Process for Develo went Standards June 19, 2000 00-192 & 00-193 Ma : Ci Center Area char es December XX, 2008 CC XXXX Text and Map: Conformity to General Plan, Flexible side yard setbacks, consolidate sections and u date numbers Page 31 ~~ 3 Date: December 16, 20~~ 2'22 LA23D USE~COMI.4UNITY DESIGN 1 Design Elements. Residences are required to Sae z-DA-97, I-GPA-93, reflect traditional architectural styles and 6-U-97, 4-Tl`~-97 use of natural materials. 1 AND j-Z-q'] Fairgrove The Fairgrove neighborhood is located in eastern Cupertino, and consists of a group of 220 Eichler homes built in the early 1960's. The area has maintained a consistent Eichler architectural style. In col- laboration with the Fairgrove neighborhood, the R1-e -Single Family Eichler zoning was adopt- ed. The _oning includes regulations that govern setbacks, roof slope, materials and other unique Eichler features. Eichler Design Guidelines \a-ere also adopted, which property o\vners use voluntarily to pre- serve the Eichler style \~=hile remodeling their homes. Policy2-26: Fairgrove Preserve the unique character of the Eichler homes in the Fairgrove neigh- borhood. t SEE CHAPTER 1q.2s.0~0 OF THE CUPERTINO ~'~UId1CIP.4L CODE AND THE ):IC'HLEIi DESIGN GUIDE' L]NES FOR THE F.47RGR0\=E I~EIGHBORH OOD. /~ a~ f Development Intensity: Require all new consn-uction to confornl to the Rle zoning (Eichler Development Regulations) Residential (DU) 2000 Built 220 Buildout 220 Design Guidelines. Encourage residents to incorporate the design guidelines illustrated in the Eichler Design Guidelines prepared for tine Fairgrove neighborhood. 1 Other Areas The remaining neighborhoods are areas drat are not planned as unique neighborhoods CITY OF CLiPERTINO GENER-4L PLAN G~4~'~n1biX A at this time and are not mixed-use zoning areas. Development intensity is determined by existing zoning and land use designations. Residential (DU) 2000 Built 17,376 Buildout 17, 776 COMMERCIAL CENTERS Commercial areas in the City offer a variety of goods and services directly to resi- dents in the neighborhoods or the larger region. Vallco Park and the Crossroads Area are the primary, concentrated commercial areas. General Plan allocations for other com- mercial areas are for Local-serving commercial needs. Commercial/residential mixed-use is encouraged in all conunercial areas if the res- idential units provide an incentive for retail development and the resulting development is financially beneficial to Cupertino. Active commercial uses, such as bookstores, coffee shops, restaurants, office supply, furniture and electronic stores are encouraged to locate in Cupertino. Heart of the City Policy 2-27: Heart of the City Create a positive and memorable image along Stevens Creek Boulevard of mixed use development, enlnarued activity nodes, and safe and efficient ci-culatioln and access for all modes of transportation. Development Activities: A majority of the commercial development allocation should be devoted to enhancing activity in the major activity centers. Mixed commercial and residential development may be allowed if the residential units provide an incentive to develop retail use, if tlne development is v=ell designed, financially beneficial to 13-34 C01.4Mli'~ITY DE\''ELOPDQENT 7-2~7 Building Heights: See sub-areas. _; -= w:~,_ ~ _ Strategies 1. Heart of the Ciry Specific Plan. Revise the Heart of the Ciry Specific Plan to reflect modified plan-area boundaries, pre- fen-ed development patterns, land use dis- tribution and height limits for each sub- area of die Stevens Creek P1aIU~nZg Area. Cupertino, provides community amenities and is pedestrian-oriented. Land uses bet\veen the activity centers should help focus and support activity in the centers. See Policy 2-29 for development activities in these areas. Development Intensity: Below is the devel- opment allocation for the entire Heart of the City area. See Policies 2-28 and 2-29 for development intensity in the Heart of the City sub-areas. Residential Buildout: Table 2A Commercial (sq. ft.) 2000 Built 1,182,456 Buildout 1,476,1li Office (sq. ft.) 2000 Built 510,531 Buildout 521,987 Hotel (rooms) 2000 Built - Buildout 2000 - Residential (DU) 2000 Built 238 Buildout 570 Design Elements: The Heart of the City Specific Plan shall provide design standards and guidelines for dlis area. They promote a cohesive, landscaped streetscape that links the major activity centers. 2. Traffic Calming. Evaluate options on Stevens Creek Boulevard to improve die pedestrian environment by proac- tively managing speed limits, their manual and automated enforcement, and traffic signal s}~zchrony. Crossroads Area Policy 2-28: Crossroads Area Create an active, pedestrian-oriented shopping district along Stevens Creek Boulevard, bet<\~een De Anna Boulevard and Stelling Road. Development Activities: Development along Stevens Creek Boulevard shall have retail uses \vith storefronts on the ground level. Commercial office uses may be allowed on the second level. Limited resi- dential uses are allowed. -~ ~. '{ CITY OF CL?PERTIAO GEtiER4L PLA'~ ~ 3 - 35 2-24 LAND USE~COMMUNITY DESIGN /~ `f;l~~ :~.:. Development Intensity: Development intensity shall be determined in conjunction with specific development review. Residential buildout: Up to 25 units per acre. Design Elements: Primary ground-floor entrances shall face the street. The streetscape shall consist of wide pedestrian sidewalks with inviting street furniture, street trees, pedestrian-scaled lights with banners, small plazas, art/water features, pedestrian crosswalks with special paving, and other ele- ments identified in the Crossroads Area streetscape Plan. Designs should include entt-~~ features at the Stelling Road/Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersections to mark the Crossroads area. A landmark feature shall be provided at Ciry Center Park at the Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevard intersection to mark the center of the city. Building Heights: Maximum of 45 feet. Strategies: 1. Crossroads Area streetscape Plan. Prepare a specific plan for Stevens Creek Boulevard bet`veen De Anza Boulevard and Stelling Road, with the objective of creating a tuuque streetscape and shop- ping district. The Crossroads at-ea pres- ents a uniquepedestrian-oriented activi- ty center, which «~ill be a positive and memorable gathering place for Cupertino citizens and visitors. The plan shall include the following elements: • A land use plan specifying the type, intensity and arrangement of land uses to promote pedestrian and busi- ness activity. CITY OF CL''PERTINO GENERAL PLAN • A design plan that provides for an attractive pedestrian streetscape. The design plan shall contain guide- lines that foster pedestrian activity and create a sense of arrival. 2. Shared Parking. Require shared park- ing agreements throughout the area, with overall parking standards reduced to reflect shared parkingParking areas may be located below-grade, in above- grade structures or behind the buildings. Above grade structures shall not be located along street frontages and shall be lined ra~ith active uses on the ground floor. 3. Commercial-office Uses. Allow com- mercial-office uses above ground Level retail to be dra«rn from the commercial allocation for the area. Stevens Creek Boulevard Policy2-29: Stevens Creek Boulevard Retain and enhance Stevens Creek Boulevard as a mixed commercial, office and residential corridor coru7ect- ing De Aroma College, Crossroads, City Center and Vallco Fashion Mall. This con-idor extends from Highway 85 to the eastern city limits and is split into three segments: "\~Vest," "Central" and "East." The Crossroads Planning Area is betlveen the ~yJestem and Central sections of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Planning Area. Development Activities: The Stevens Creek Plaruzing area includes the "Heart of the_C_ity" development standards and guide- lines. Residential or office developments shall be considered in mid-block parcels. Parcels on or near intersections shall have a 13-36 neighborhood commercial component. Project-specific development allocations will be determined on a case-by-case ba=i=. 1. West Stevens Creek Boulevard (from Hiah~vay 8~ to Anton Wag): This area includes the Oaks Shopping Center and the De Aal:a Community College campus. i\ety development in this area should incorporate mixed commercialfresidential uses. 2. Central Stevens Creek Boulevard (from De Anna Boulevard east to Perimeter Road): i~ew development shall consist of commercialjcommercial office uses on the fist hoar. C-ffice uses are permitted on the second floor. Residential and residen- tial ITai_~:ed uses are allowed. East Stevens Creek Boulevard (from Perimeter Road to eastern City lim- its}: i~Tew development shall consist of commercialAcommercial offices uses on the first floor. Office uses are perrrlitted on the second i-loot. Residential and residential mixed uses are allaw-ed. Development Intensity: Development ir_tensity shall be determined in conjunction with specific development review 11~Iixed commercial and residential development may be allowed if the residential units pro- vide an incentive to develop retail use, if the development is well designed, financially beneficial to Cupertino, provides communi- ty amenities and is pedestrian-oriented. ~. Residential: Ug to ~ d«-elling units per acre. Design Elements: Buildings shall be located at the front setback line defined in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Parking shall be located to the side or rear of the building . Building Heights: '~'Iaximum height of ~d feet. COI fMti`_~I-P-Y DES tLOP?.fE:vT Vallco Park South - - -- Policy 2-30: Yaftco Park South - Retain and enhance Vallco Park South a; a lame-scale commer- cial area that is a regional commercial (including hotel), office and entertainment center with supporting residential development. Strategies 1. 1-~aster Plan. Prepare a Master Plan for this area to ensure continuity of mass, scale, corulectivity and adequacy of ir~frastn:cture and services, including sc:oc ~. 2. Vallco Parkv~~~: Continue the Vallco Parkway streetscape, which was approved as part of the Vallco Rosebowl mixed-use development, alonj the entire Parkway. Development Activities: A regional shopping mall and office and industrial buildings are the rrtain features of this area. Hotels are also allowed in the Vallco Park area. Day-time and nighttime regional entertainment activities, such as a movie theatre complex, are highly encouraged in the mall area. As part of the development agreement, office and industrial uses are also allowed. The precise mix of land uses shall be determined via a ma_~ter plan and an approved use permit The City has formed a redevelopment proj- ect area encompassing the regional mall properties. The redevelopment area allows for most of the funds derived from the "tax increment financing" to go to the redevel- opment area. `Tax increment" refers to the amount of the property tax value increase CITY OF CL"PERTIYO GE\E~AL PLAN 2-2~ ,~ . _., 13-37 00 .Q Z W Planning Commission Recommends on Heart of the City Heart of the City Planning Conceptual Plan Section Policy Framework 1. Retain the following with new language in bold: A. Develop a I Ieart of the City that provides a variety of land use opporhmities of well planned and designed commercial, office and residential development, enhanced activity nodes, and safe and efficient circulation and access for all modes of transporl-ationbetwem activity centers that help focus v1d support activity vz the centers. B. Require shared parking arrangements in the Crossroads area in mixed use developments with overall parking standards reduced l-o reflect shared parking arrangements. 2. Add the following new policies: A. Proposed developments shall be expected to continue the implementation of the City's master landscape p11n. B. Development appliclnts are encouraged to submit commercial, office, residential or rnixlure of uses. Regardless of proposed land use, luglz quality sil-e planning, architectural design, and on-site landscaping is expected. C. Subdivision of commercial parcels is discouraged. D. Plans for new projects should include sensitivity to pedestri~ul anal bicycle travel, both fiom the new project as well as from travelers passing that site. /tit~•rn.~tc r~•r~rmm~~ncl.~liuri fey I)ully.;anduv,~l: I'I;~n~; iiit• II~~• ni•~~~ ~~rc~jt•rlt; shiiulcl ini'litrl~• h~•~I~•stri:ui nni'I ~I~~~'~,,~I~, i~~~fl~~~~,i~~ti in~'~~r~,~~r~tlin~~ fl~~• (~it1~~~, ,~~•;c.liiiC~, nrttvurl.. iJ. The City shall design and implement improvecl bicycle paths from De Anza Boulevard to the eastern city limits that separate bicyclists fiom automotive traffic. These protected lanes shall be extended west of Dc Anza Boulevard if feasible. M M Recommendations on - Council supports this change. - Discuss on 12/16 - Council supports this change. - Discuss on 12/16 - Discuss on 12/16 - Discuss on 12/16 - Discuss on 12/16 Heart of the City Plann;ng Commission Recommendations City Council Conceptual Plan Section Recommendations o~ Policy Framework 3. l;lirninate the following: December 2, 2008 (Continued) A. Development along Stevens Creek Boulevard shall have retail - Council supports this uses with storefronts on the ground level. Commercial office change uses maybe allowed on the second level. Limited residential uses are allowed. (Policy) B. All other goals, strategies and policies in this section related to - Council supports this identification of Crossroads area, West Stevens Creek change Boulevard, Central Stevens Creels Boulevard, and East Stevens Creek Bo~.~levard, since they are already includedvz the General Pl~ui.. C. All policies u1 this section stating existing allocation numbers, - Council supports this since numbers change over time. change D. Residential or office developments shall be considered in mid- - Discuss on 12/16 block parcels. Parcels on or near intersections shall have a neighborhood commercial component. (Policy) E. Mixed commercial and residential development maybe - Discuss on 12/16 allowed if the residential units provide an incentive to develop retail uses, if the development is well designed, financially beneficial to Cupertino, provides commtulity amenities and is pedestrian-oriented. (Policy) F. Project specific development allocation and development - Council supports this intensity will be determined on a case-by-case basis. (Policy) change StreetSCape Design 1. Retain list of streetscape trees. - Council supports 2. Add the following: streetscape trees A. Incorporate language on placement and frequency of street - Council supports this furnihire change Page 2 Heart of the City Pla„n;,,g Commission Recommendations City Council Conceptual Plan Section Recommendations oft December 2, 2008 Development 1. Replace with the following: Standards A. The preferred location of surface lots shall be to the side - Discuss on 12/16 and/or rear of buildings. Other parking arrangements will be considered if necessary for t11e successful operation of the business. Subsurface/deck parking is allowed provided it is adequately screened from Stevens Creek Boulevard or adjacent residential developments. B. Office uses. (from Office Over Retail, Permitted Uses) - Discuss on 12/16 2. Eliminate the following: A. While progress has been made duxing the life of the I Ieart of - Discuss on 12/16 the City, several properties along the corridor still have development potential and therefore, a consistent set of standards and gtudelines is necessary. Some ex~unples of projects where the Heart of the City standards have been successfully applied are: Adobe Terrace, Marketplace Shopping Center and the TraVigne development at the north east corner of Bllney Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. (Mixed-Use Parkway) B. Specific list of commercial uses as specified in the City's - Discuss on 12/16 General Commercial (CG) zoning district with locational restrictions. Page 3 Heart f th Cit o e y Conceptual Plan Section Planning Commission Recommendations City Council Recommendations o~ D l December 2, 2008 eve opment 3. Add the following: Standards A. Drive through uses are discouraged. (Permitted Uses) - Discuss on 12/16 (Continued) B. A combination of office, retail and/or residential use whether - Discuss on 12/16 as part of a single building or in separate structttres. (Permitted uses) C. Screen heating/air conditioning units from public view. - Council supports this (Building Height, Setbacks and Orientation) change D. Description of the approval authority and application - Council supports this requirements for developments. change E. Minimum side yard setback for new development shall be - Discuss on 12/16 determined in conjunction with the development review process on lots less than 150 feet in width, at any point between the side property lines, based on the setbacks and relationships with buildings on immediately adjacent ro erties. Si I te mprovements 1. Retain the following with new language in bold: and Landscaping A. Not recommend: Chain link, barbed wire, and razor wire - Council supports this Guidelines fences. change 2. Add the following: A. Use native and water-wise phultings with drip irrigation - Council supports this systems for on-site 1~uldscape areas in developments. change Page 4 ,. ` - ' - ~_.... Exhibit C - i E E °""° -_..... , °-' Land Use: Office "' •°•~- - ! ' Acreage: 9.37 _ ..~. ~ Building SF: 163051 • -"" " , Nore acreage aFgns wdh parcels nor twundary area. M Land Use: Public/Quasi-Public/OS • S Total Acreage: 110.22 ' ...,. '""" 1 *Total Building SF: 62,467 Land Use: Commercial Mixed Use 6.87 Acres (Comm Bldg ._• Note acreage aligns with parcels not boundary area. °" sF: s3soe, Ofl`ice Bldg SF: 100000, *NO[e square I o[age pertains to the Flint tenter and new Ferfnrrrrvng Ar6 Budding only. Acreage: 12.42 ' Res. Bldg SF: 272066, 267 Res. Units) I Building SF: 273910 Office 4.44 Acres Bldg SF: 108947 - , i ' j Nole acmage ahgns with varcels no[ boundary area. 7 ......, r ._ ' Comm 8.0 Acres Bldg SF: 333817 ~ ...,... - <... .... A, -, i Public/Quasi-Public/Open Space 3.25 Acres •...•.. Nore acreage adgns wfth parrek not boundary area. ' ~ r ~ __.... ~ ..,. -- - - r~ ~ t ' ~ ``, - j ~~ --- r , ~~~~~~_ r ...a -.. Office 1.30 Acres Building SF: 161379 ~ °• • __. ~,~„ ' Mixed Use 1.90 Acres (Comm. Building SF: 6775, -- r .. -... Res. Building SF: 299725, 206 Res. Units) -, ~ - , _ i Parking Lot 1.58 Acres ~ ._,. - -•~«•- Public/Quasi-Public/OS 1.23 Acres ; _ . Note acreage ahgns wfth vanek nu[ boundary area ~. •,. ,,, , ~ " s r ~ ' `" Heart of City: Current Land Use Specific Plan ..., ~ ~t Heart of the Gily I$ubjad b Design Gaitllires) ._ _- ~~~- t QHearonne Ciry Land use by noes Land Use by Building SgPt ;Land Use (Total Ares ~05 of Total Area ,Total Building SgPt jTotal Res.Units ' ., ,~ Residential Current Land Use - ° -. 5 _ __ ____ ~ 17.97 _ _ 101g7T__ __ 415867 376 rtesmenuai I -,,, ,_'~° MI><ed USe _ 1.26 _ 071% __ 48522 _ _ _26_ s ~'. !. _ rsaea use I m.m _ _ 99.0_7 56 13%I 1011603 .•,~~... IServicle Statllon -~ ~_ 4.31 2.44% Commar:'ai _ 12331 aarwts swaiy sad roe na-k ~:y cons s asa -~ ~ Offke y _ _ _ g -L 23 g6 13 52q 413775 _, - ~ Parcels 5olel Used for Parkin Lot-Surface I~ 3 16 1.79~%- _ _ 0 _ os.a - .- ~ _ - ~ = "- 1 -" serf s~ a . ~-~ PublkJQuasi-Public/Open Space 25.67 14.54%~ 99941 _.. ~ Urtic9 ,.« ar,. - ~- -• sssea .Vacant --~~, 1.19 0.68%! 0 f r~a[A Pubrc7!)uavPUbLCOFen Space t e. __ __ _ 176A9. 100 00%~ _ 2002039 402 .' , _.. ... ... _ Vacam c nos - i_ i ... _. ...-... i j ". , .., I i t . _. - r o ...., t ........ .: ~ ...• I 13 - 42 -" 2 n .~ . t a E a F t 4 £ y c :y • u .~.... o. ........ f 5 .. w., ' q ~ s E n ~ i `F ~ s ~ f ~ ; - b 3 °~ i .+ S ...~ ' ~ ~~,P i K ~ F ~ t - ~ ~ _~ j ~ x a E t ~ ~ ~ t ~ - ... + , - ~ ~. ~ '.. _ _ C 3- a ... G ' ~W3 ~ ~mp/ mn~ ~® a ... se a ~° e j f F rw,ac4na e .~.. ~~ ... .. .... 7 T Se F - _-Total Res• Uni, nd v Total Building 5Q ' .._.. t La 415867 • Curren -= ,'°f°of Total Area 680896. ,~ t of C ty • 7.65°~ ~~, ear ~- Total Acres 17.97 ~ 3.89%,, 1635312. 1 9.14~'~ gg.86%~ 12331 Building SQFL Land Use 1 ' Land UsebY 114.73', 1.84%~, 836570'. Residential ' 4.31, 13.58%~~ 0 Acres ~ ~~-~ 408 y ~ P1~ixed U5e ` 31.88 3 96~°~ 162 `~ ~_ 11.11% "` ~'~Comrpercial 1 9.29. 19.72°/ ~, 0. 389"• _=~ ~ Station 765Y '.Service 1 46.32 0,51%~, 3743384 ~~Offiice urface i 1.19 10000%', ~ ~~ lot-5 en Space ,~. ~ it p~bl'c~U-~as~_publiclUP 1 234.84 +? _ ° _" ~ vacant 11 4 ... a8 B6X x3.69% ' S 0 ~ .. Mies r _ p ~5 8 8 L ~ a E . S E S £ 6 i - _ F _ ~ . S _ _ E ~ { i ,o ~ ~ t 3 i 6 ~ i ` ,. a F f ... F s F F 1 ~. ~ d ? E ~ F s { .,. F hand e Use: P . ~ °ta/ q crea9eb/ic/Quasi-P~,~- - ` . ~., NTOta/ Bui/ding S~~ ~~ °te acrA - . */Vpre S4uar FF r - ~ t . - ~; ~ :4 i t 4 ~ ~ 1 J~ 6 o c " 4 t S ~ j ~ a ~. ~ 6 it E t ~ :i T p ~ ~, t 9 m ~ e r ` s ~ <4 ~ t Y - ~ ~ r 'E '{ ^ t ~ ~ * ~ S ~ v +y : S `x S i; e L . L u S ~ ~ '4 -- 1 ,~ 1 ~~ O ~~. _. .. ~ _ ~ ~ * ~, ' I t I ~ a I ~ ... ~ ~ ~° ~ ~ ~~ _ E I I S r ... FY ~-~ ~ ~,~~dGn°al ,,.- tGp`a~ lSUtilecttO~~cgn Spe~tf o1 the Gty u ~ ~ 4 '` Neap `t o1 the G<y -, ©N~ Vse F "'` G~<<eRts aana - ~ ~mm°~ ca1 usod c PacWn91'ot SJrt2 {o :. _ ac~1s So1e1y _ yy" ~ PsarNOe Station a~ ice sc PoblccJ~Pan SP ~~ p~bGdQoa •- ®va`ant ,..: . 1 ' t i I r _... ... } t ~ ..., _..... I ~ I i ~ ..._,.. .... S ..._.. i i i .. 1 i t ..,... f i i i .. -,. .., _.,. .. _ ._._.... I i f i ..... { _... # ... . ' ._... 1 ~ ~ .....,. ~ ...._.. + f ~ ~ i I .... ..... i ~ , i t ,.a i i f i t I ._.... , -- - ..,, .,. ..~-,,. r i , . , r , y"i.. ~~ , ; I r ~ I -__ _-__ __._.___ _.___ , 7 _~__________~__ I~ ~_ lJ ... ~. i . ... , i .»v.... i i ......,. ; t , _.... i .Heart of City: Current Land Use Specific Plan ~I Haan d the City l5ut;act lu Design liuidlinas) ' Land Use by Acres Land Use by Building BgFt Heartd the Cily _ _. ° ~„• w Land Use 'Total Acres j%of Total Area jTolal Building SgFt Total Res. Units Current Land Use r. rµ, ';7 „rn Residential ~ 17.971 _ 765%' 415867 376- aastdsr,ual __... ._ _ _ _. (w._ ~ ~ r.; M zed Use 9.141 _ 3.69% C80696. d99~ tt.ed uaa s' t Co n erdal i 114 73~ 48.66%~ 1635312 cw„rrercie -Parcels &ulel U ad ,.r !'»:,~r Lnl Sur'aca r ~. a ~' . + - .Service Station ': - _ O(fce 4.31 __ 33 88 1.84% _ 13 58% 12331 ~' - 836870 . 9eMCe Staha, n13» ~S'yi' '~ ~~ ~ _ '. ParV.in lobSUrface ~ 8 _ ~ ___ . 9.29 . 3.969:. -- ~ ---' 0 r om 00 ...e. ~~,q,g."- 7 Public/grr_asi-Public/Open Space ' _ 46.32 19.F2% _ 162408 ~- -~-~ ~ Pvnik>uuas'-awlioopen Scaw wu n..n , Vacant ~ 1.19 0.51% 0 .. ., .. ~. .._ S vacant . es __ ____....__..._._ -_ _ 234.84 100.00% - 3743384 875 _ r .., ... ....... + ~ ..._~.,. ! ., r ..... I 1 F ~ s December 16, 2008 Cupertino City Council Exhlblt D following individuals gave their experience of living in a S e and asked Council to support the for funding for Senior H~ Lerma a P. Generoso Larry Gott Carolyn Leech mousing Solutions Solutions: Bob Campbell, Exec e Director of S r Housing Solutions, explained about that this would be the first home ' Cuperti out of 9 in Santa Clara County. He said that the funding would help to sub ' iz a house and keep the rent at 30% of income. He answered questions from Co At 7:55 p.m. Mayor Money closed th~iblic hearing. SandovaUWon moved and seconded t accept the Housing Commission recommend n that the Council loan $500,000 o itional CDBG funding to Maitri to complet a purchase of a four-plex for transitional ho g; make a $1,090,000 loan of Affor le Housing Funds to Senior Housing Solutions the purchase of a single f y home in Cupertino for congregate senior housing; disso he Teacher Housing ssistance Program; and direct staff to amend the 2008 Annual P o reference the funding amendments. The motion carried tmanimously. Council recessed from 8:15 p.m. until 8:22 p.m. 13. Consider Application No. SPA-2008-01; Heart of the City; Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 and the Eastern city limit. Heart of the City Specific plan amendments to achieve conformance with the General Plan. (Continued from October 21). At 8:27 p.m. Mayor Mahoney opened the public hearing. Darrel Lum said that the existing Heart of the City plan works well and it seems like it is being re-written. He asked what the difference was between the specific plan and the conceptual plan and said that he favors the more restrictive one. He noted that new development in the plan should be more detailed. Ruby Elbogen said she wants to have on-street parking allowed on Stevens Creek in front of the Main Street project. Jennifer Griffin said that it's important to have a strong Heart of the City plan because it's what ties Cupertino together. She noted that the look and feel should be the same on the Eastern end as the Western end of Cupertino and urged Council to keep the 35-foot public right of way on both ends. 13-44 December 16, 2008 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Tom Hugunin said that he supports making; minor modifications to the existing plan and doesn't support the conceptual plan because it affords the City less protection than the current plan. He listed a number of items that he supports and does not support. Keith Murphy said that he is concerned about a conceptual plan vs. a specific plan. He said he likes the furniture feature and is against on-street parking anywhere on Stevens Creek Blvd. Council went through Exhibit B and made some minor typographical changes and noted items for staff to look into for next time. Wong/Wang moved and seconded to continue this item to Tan. 20 and to see an overview of the current allocations in the General Plan. The motion carried unanimously. Council also noted that they only needed to see what was Exhibit B from this meeting and not the entire backup. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None NEW BUSINESS 14. Consider Application Nos. U-2008-01, EA-2008-07, ASA-2008-06, T 08-01, TR- 00$-08, Kevin Dare / 500 Forbes, LLC (:>outh Vallco Main Stree o'ect); North Side o tevens Creek Boulevard between Finch Avenue & Tanta enue, APN Nos. 316- 20-0 316-20-079, 316-ZO-085. (This is an introductio v to this a lication since a) Use P it and Architectural and Site royal for a master plan for amixed-use developm t consisting of appr imately: 147,000 square feet of retail commercial; 0,000 square fee office; a t 50 room hotel a 160 unit senior (age restricted house facility; 5,000 square feet of athletic club; a four level parking garage an 1.6 re park/town square. (A project altemative consists of approximately 205,00 ware feet of office and a 250-room hotel in place of the athletic club.) b} Tentative ~ to subdivide 3 p is (approximately 18.7 acres} into 5 parcels for a master an for a mixed-use dev went consisting of approximately: 147,000 squar eel of retail commercial, 101), square feet of office, a 150 room hotel, a 16 unit senior (age restricted) housing, ility, 145,000 square foot athletic club, four level parking garage and a 1.6 acre p town square. (A project alternative consists of approximately 205,000 square feet office and a 250 room hotel in place of the athletic club) c) Tree Removal request to remove approximately 93 trec~,i'n conjunction with a proposed master plan for amixed-use development. 13-45 -. EXHIBIT E CITY OF City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 C U P E RT ! N O FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: December 16, 2008 Application: SPA-2008-01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Application Summary: Update the Heart of the City Specific Plan to reflect the changes adopted in the 2005 General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The City CoLU1ci1 may consider the following options: 1. Adopt the Heart of the City Conceptual Plan (abbreviated version) with the changes previously directed by Council. 2. Discuss and consider the remaiting P1aiuulg Commission recommended changes (See Exhibit B). BACKGROUND: On December 2, 2008, the City Council reviewed the drafts of the Heart of the City Specific Plan and abbreviated Conceptual Plan, and recommended that staff: • Provide a review of the 2005 General Plan to describe the boundary changes in the Heart of the City area • Create a matrix of all changes reconunended by the Planning Commission • Prepare an updated version of the Heart of the City Conceptual Plan (abbreviated version) with all changes recommended by the Plaiulilg Commission The City Council previously heard this item on October 21, 2008, at which time the staff-proposed draft Heart of the City Specific Plan was presented to the Council with changes as recommended by the P1aiu1ilg Commission. The Couiuil requested that an abbreviated version of fhe Heart of the City Plan he prepared to singly the document by removing all repetitive language that is already ii the General Plan. Since all goals and policies in the General Plan regarding the Heart of the City would still prevail, the Council felt it was urulecessary to repeat these goals and policies in the Heart of the City plan. DISCUSSION: Staff has prepared a matrix (See Exhibit A) of all changes recommended by the P1aiuling Commission and a colturul that identifies the Council's recommendations on each recorninended change from the December Zl~d meeting. Staff has also prepar13das SPA-2008-0 l Heart of the City Specific Plan Update Page 2 October 21, 2008 redlined version of the abbreviated Heart of the City Conceptual Plan that includes all changes for the City Council to consider as recommended by the PlanniZg Commission. The matrix and redlined version also include the recommended language by Council member Sandoval to revise one of the Plannilg Commission policies to read: Plans for the new projects should include pedestrian and bicycle pathways, incorporating the City's existing network. (See Page 4 of Exhibit B) REVIEW OF 2005 GENERAL PLAN Staff was able to confirm that the Heart of the City plan boundary was amended as part of the 2005 General Plan update. The boundary changes included the removal of the South Vallco Park area, the City Center area, the Glenbrook Apartments, the rear portion of Memorial Park and De Anza College from the Heart of the City boundaries. The main reason for the changes is because the Heart of the City plan is principally a streetscape plan that governs buildilg frontage details along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The areas that were taken out as part of the 2005 General Plan update were all cohesive areas that either have been built out, are not within the City's review jurisdiction, or are governed by another specific plan. However, the portion of these areas along the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor were still required to comply with the Heart of the City design guidelines to retail a consistent tree-Bled streetscape along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner i~ Approved by: David W.1Cnapp City Manager Attachments Exhibit A: Matrix of Planning Commission recommendations Exhibit B: Abbreviated Heart of the City Conceptual Plan with recommended changes by the Planning Commission Exhibit C: Minutes of December 2, 2008 City Council meeting Exhibit D: December 2, 2008 Council report ~~~/attachments 13-47 Director of Community Development `~ EXHIBIT F [~~` ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ '~~~~ ~~~ - CITY OF CUPERTII~TO `~lJ 1~ _ \~\ `~' t -. ~ ~ ~ = ,~~ 2005 General Plan Development Allocation System: ie~G~ Retail Commercial Development t Re~~sed 9/12(08 Monta Vista Approved Allocation Allocation/ Balance (sq.ft) .Approving Application Applicant Adoption Body File Number Pro erty Locatioi>IAPN Name Date 10,882 557/PC U-2006-08/ 21761 Granada Ave./ Terry 8122/06 ASA-2006-11 357-17-055, -056 Bro~~7i 10,325 1,082/PC U-2006-14/ 10056 Orange Avenue/ Terry 3/13/07 ASA-2006-25 357-17-058 Brown 9.243 Heart of the Approved City Allocation/ Allocation Approvng Application Applicant Adoption Balance (s .fr) Body File N?umber Property Location/APN I~Tame Date 281,951 37,233/CC U-2005-20 20955 SCB/APN 326- Peter Ko 1/17/06 ASA-2005-18 31-018, -020 244,718 19,000/CC U-2005-09 19620-19780 SCB/ Todd Lee 2/07/06 ASA-2005-06 APN 369-06-008, -009, -010 225,718 428/DCD DIR-2006-15 20955 SCB/APN 326- Peter Ko S/05,'06 31-018, -020 225,290 Hotel: 61,822* U-2007-04, 21265 SCB/326-27-035 Karen Ngo 4/2/08 Mixed Use: ASA-2007-06, 56,194 TM-2007-09, EXC-2008-07 107,274 * Hotel building area w~derestimated -closer to 79,000+ s.f. Vallco Park Approved South Allocatioir/ Allocation Approvng Application Applicant Adoption Balance (s .fr) Body File Number Pro erty Location/APN Name Date 250,414 19,114 U-2007-06, Cup. Village/316-OS- Brian 4/15/08 (partial)/CC ASA-2007-10 050,-051,-052,-053,- Replinger OS6,-072 231.270 13-48 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2005 General Pian Development Allocation System: Office Development Revised 3!.0;07 D4onta Vista Approved Allocation Allocation/ Balance (sq.ft) Approving Application Applicant Adoption Body File'_~'umber Property Location/APN Name Date 38;$84 $2$iPC U-2006-08/ 21761 Granada Ave./ Terry 8/22/06 ASA-2006-11 3$7-17-0$$, -0$6 Bro«n 38,0$9 1;264iPC U-2006-14/ 100$60rangeAvznue/ Terry 3/13;07 ASA-2006-2$ 357-17-058 Brotin 36,79$ - t ~ , ~ 15 /cG 1'~ 'v~3 -ate ~ ~a.}~,, l~ 1,11• T,;,. ~ lti 6 0 9c) ;; .. Heart of the City Allocation Balance (sq.ft) Approved Allocatioi>/ Approving Body Application File Number roperty Location/APN Applicant Name Adoption Date 11,456 Val]co Park Approved South Allocation/ Allocation Balance (sq.ft) Approving Body Application File I~'umber Pro erty Location/APN Applicant I~Tame Adoptioa Date 0 13-49 Heart of the Approved City Allocation Allocation/ Approving Application Applicant Adoption Balance DUs) Body File Number Property Locatioir/APN I`Tame Date 309 CITY OF CL'PERTL~O 2005 General Plan Development Allocation System: Residential Development Rerised x/23/07 Vallco Park Approved South Allocation/ Allocation Approving Application Applicant Adoption Balance Body File Nwnber Property LocatiorrlAPN Name Date (DU's) 400 Homestead Approved Road Allocation/ Allocation Approving Application Applicant Adoption Balance Body File Number Property Location/APN Name Date (DU's) 300 116iCC ASA-2007-03 20800 Homestead Rd./ ?~~ichael 7/3/07 329-09-029,-047,-048,-056 Ducote 184 Other Approved Commercial Allocatioi>l Centers Approving Application Applicant Adoption Allocation Body File 1~'umber Property Location/APN ;Fame Date Balance (DU's) 300 North De Anza Blvd. Allocation Balance (DU's) Approved Allocatiot>/ Approving Body Application File :`umber roperty Location/APN Applicant Name Adoption Date 100 3 iCC I TM-2004-OS Greenleaf Ct./ APN 326-33-107 \~Vayne Aozasa 11/29i0~ 97 13-50 S ~ ..... . - _ F ~ ~ _.. Exhibit C _ ~ - F t 1 a~..~ . o-.. F _ ~ -....... t ; ~ Land Use: Office .~ °°~ • - ' E Acreage: 9.37 .,.. a.... .~.,... ._.. ..._.. ...-.. F ~ 4 E ` . Building SF. 163051 Note acreage aligns with parcels Land Use; Public/Quasi-Public/OS not boundary area. fi . Total Acreage; 110.22 LL' ° ' ~., , °~ 4 `"" *Total Building SF: 62,467 Land Use; Commercial Mixed Use 6.87 Acres (Comm Bldg ... o - •~ Note acreage aligns with parcels not boundary area. ~~ SF; 53808, Office Bldg SF: 100000, Note square footage pertains to the Hint Center and new l~ri orming Arts building only. Acreage: 12, 42 ` Building SF; 273910 Res, Bldg SF: 272066, 267 Res, Units) - t F = = i Note acraage afrgns with parceh not boundary area. OfflCe 4.44 Acres Bldg SF: 108947 ' _ "' ~ • ~ ' J' F Comm 8.0 Acres Bldg SF: 333817 3 ....a.• •<•• a a{s W.. r Public/Quasi-Public/Open Space 3,25 Acres •_•., Note acreage aligns with parcels not boundary area F E ` - v.~..e. .:, r f $ i „~p i ' F w-•ci E tl _. F.r ... ~~ ~ fi y E ~ P •._ - tvxfApP F 1 F w aro. a F t ~~ = i `~"~. ~ i i _. .. 3 ... ~. ...... ~ 1k ~~ <~ .. . Office 1.30 Acres Building SF; 161379 ,a, a _.. ' Mixed Use 1.90 Acres (Comm. Building SF; 6775, -~~ ~ ~ =.<a,F Res. Building SF; 299725, 206 Res. Units) ~ •• E F `- "' Parking Lot 1.58 Acres .~.. "~ ~ .~~~,a Public/quasi-Public/OS 1.23 Acres -" .... - - • Note acreage aligns wdh parcels not boundary area. ~ a.. ,., f • Y' r - `j Heart of City: Current Land Use Specific Plan y~ ~ ~ Hsartofth= Gty (Subjact b Design Cruidlines} t ... i i Heart of the City Land Use byAcres Land Use by ButldingSgFt j Land Use Total Acres % of Total Area ;Total Building SgFt (Total Res. Units Current Land Use °:_:: ~aox ;Residential ~ 17,97, 10.18% 4158671 376 "".'•° ,rte.°° ___ R=sidenfial °.,1t m:ew 1ss ! ,~"~' Mixed Use 1.26 0.71% 48522 26 . Mixed U-e ~ 1 -~. 1 aoarx cORlnltrClal ' 99.07 56.13%~ 1011603 °~ ~ • Commerdal s , <uexs !Service Station ~' 4 31 2 44%~ 12331' F Par~Is 5olel Used br Parkin LoFSuracz - y g ''~ 4 ZcaF ~ Oifice 23.85 13.52%~ 413775 ,,, °`~' Parcels Solely Used for Parking Lot-Surface ~ 3.16', 1 79% 0 _ ser~~station ~jce •. .. 55.13K ,Public/Quasi-Public/Open Space I ~ 25.67'. . 14.54% . 99941 ~• •- ~~ ._. s°ss+c (Vacant ~ 1.19 0.68% Oj PubliclQuas-PubGc~Openspace ! 17649 10000% 2002039 402 •° .Vacant o a.2s os ,.. z Mies e r [ f 5 F .... ...... e - 13-42 ` ` ..~ ., . i i E E S o... E Pi.. ~~.. .. T ) ....~. ,. E E W • E ~ E . e .~. ~.. E .tea ..r,s.,.e• F ,. I ..... E .. i S n.. .... t _...,...- . i ~ as. •u ~ . o-«. n. ve,. 4 r. j fi E i s . E : t t E ... P w,. ~., ° E ... ..~. .. F ~ ~ E .. k . ' ~ E 6 F ` . ` 3 ,~ .v .. ; f i F I - [ ~ ~ ~ E a ..<:.a E . ~-A ~ w• ~--' I ~. .~ -_ ~-0 ~: , r ..~..~ ,. ® ~ _ _ - -- - ~ ~'~ a .. .. 'eY r .., ~. ~ u r e ~ ...... ~rc..F ......., ,. .... .. uL ~ t E ..a. ...re~~e,w . o,~,.. ., ...,. E .. - Heart of City: Current Land Use ` Specific Plan ` ~' ~ ~1 Heart of the City (Subject to Design Guidli rr~) Land Use byAcres land Use by Building Sgft a Heart of the City __ 'y° l.3E',; Land Use iTotal Acres I %of Total Area ~ Total Building SgFt i Total Res. Units j Current Land Use y'I ,6Sx sa«; Residential ~ 17.97, 7.65%) 415867, 376 R=_sidenEal '~ ii~ix ~ ~ 680896 499 rs.7ix ',Mixed Use ~ 9.14, 3.89%~ M!xedUse Commercial •-„ :z=sx ~ 114.73 48.86%i 1635312 '~ Commercial "' Service Station I 4.31 1.84%I 12331 Parcels Solely Used for Parking Lot~Surfac °' ^ ?~ ' ~ Office j 31.88 13.58°!! 836570 °_: ~~ Service Station ~ParkingLot•Surface ~ 9.29 3.96%~' 0 ® Ofice +eesx Public/Quasi-Public/Open Space i 46.32 19.72%~ 162408 E "' ~ ' PublidQuasi-PublidOpen Space , e<x Eissx Vacant I 1.19 0.51% 0 i Vacant ii 234.84 100.00%', 3743384 875 Idles ,.. ... ,. t o~~b~..e - - ... E E - ~ C F ~. .i. ... au...,. E E f .. w,.. ~ P f e v .. 'ta ..,. ~ . k .. ~ E i 6 F F .... .. f E 4 E ... ~~ .... ~:.. d ~...... . 1 ... ... 13-43 EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE ~~- 2-1 ~ l v9 ~ #i~ TO: ORRIN MAHONEY, MAYOR KRIS WANG, VICE MAYOR DOLLY SANDOVAL MARK SANTORO GILBERT WONG FROM: DARREL LUM RE: AGENDA ITEM # 13 APPLICATION: SPA 2008-IJ 1 AGENDA DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2009 DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2009 THE PURPOSE OF APPLICATION SPA-2008-01 .WAS TO UPDATE THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN TO REFLECT THE CHANGES ADOPTED IN THE 2005 GENERAL PLAN. THIS PROCESS WAS STARTED O1V DECEMBER 'I 8, 2007 AS DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATIOI`1 SUMMARY, AGENDA ITEM #36 DATED DECEMBER 18, 2007. ON OCTOBER 21 , 2008 THE C[7['Y COUNCIL DIRECTED THE PLANNING STAFF TO ELIMINATED ALL LANGUAGE IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT IS ALREADY IN THE t~ENERAL PLAN. AS A RESULT, THIS SPECIFIC PLAN CAN NOT BE A :SPECIFIC PLAN. THE RESULT IS THE PROPOSED ~~EART OF THE CITY CONCEPTUAL PLAN DATED FEBRUARY 3, 2009, IS PRIMARILY A LANDSCAPE PLAN. IT DOES NOT EVEN FULFILL THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE PLAN "THE HEART OF THE CITY CONCE=PTUAL PLAN PROVIDES SPECIFIC GUIDANCE FOR ONE OF THE MOS'1" IMPORTANT COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS IN THE CITY OF CUPF_RTINO." THE NEW PLAN LACKS THE ORIC3[NAL POLICY FRAMEWORK OF OVERALL GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES. THE DRAFT MENTIONS BUT DOE'S NOT INCLUDE THE LAND USE MAP AND SPECIAL AREAS. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN WAS CHANGED DURING THE 2005 GENERAL PLAN WITH LITTLE PUBLIC AWARENESS. THE STREETSCAPE DESIGN SECTION DOES NOT HAVE A REVISED STREETSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN AS SHOWN ON PAGE 1 1 OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN. THE STREETSCAPE DESIGN SECTION DOES NOT HAVE ANY FRONTAGE RENOVATION CONDITIONS AS SHOWN ON PAGE 13, 'I 4~, 16, 17, 'I 8, 19, AND 20 OF THE: ORIGINAL PLAN PAGE 1 1 , PARAGRAPH 4 OF NEW PLAN: "...THEREFORE, A CONSISTENT SET OF STANDARD~~ AND GUIDELINES IS NECESSARY." THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN DOES IVOT FULFILL THIS STATEMENT. PAGE 1 'I ,PARAGRAPH 4 OF NE'VV PLAN: "SOME EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS WHERE THE HEART OF THE CITY STANDARDS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY APPLIED ARE:... `CRIB CONCLUSION IS DEBATABLE. PAGE 'I ~ OF NEW PLAN: ~ .O ~ .030 BUILDING HEIGHT-, SETBACKS AND ORIENTATION A. HEIGHT 2. THE PRIMARY BULK: OF BUILDING SHALL BE MAINTAINED BELOW A 1 : 1 SLOPE LINE DRAWN FROM THE ARTERIAL STREET CURB LINE... WHAT IS THE DEF][NITION OF ARTERIAL STREET? ARE MARY AVENUE Al\ID VALLCO PARKWAY ARTERIAL STREETS? B. FRONT SETBACKS 2. CORNER PARCELS -SETBACK REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO BOTH FRONTAGES...; MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIRE- MENT RECOMMENL)ED BUT NOT REQUIRED. PLEASE CLARIFY THE AMOUNT OF SIDE SETBACK SINCE THERE IS NO STEV'ENS CREEK BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ON THE SIDE STREET. MINIMUM FRONTp.GE REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED. PAGE 'I 7 OF NEW PLAN: 1 .O 1 .040 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING D. LANDSCAPING AND iCREENING 1 . PARKWAY LANDS(~APE EASEMENT -ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT.... THE DEFINITION OF "NEW DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE DEFINEL AS A TWENTY FIVE PER CENT (25°Io) OR GREATER INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA..." SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS SECTION T1 AVOID MISUNDERSTANDINGS (SEE ATTACHMENT # 1 REGARDING OAK'S PROJECT SHOWING THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT WANT TO FOLLOW THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFI PLAN) . PAGE 17 OF NEW PLAN 1.O 1 .040 SITE DEVELOPMEIT AND PARKING E. BUILDING DESIGN 1 . VARIETY IN THE DESIGN OF BUILDING FACADES -SHALL BE REQUIRED SO THAT BLOCK FRONTAGES ARE VARIED AND ATTRACTIVE. 2. BUILDINGS FORMf~ SHALL BE SUCH THAT BUILDINGS ADJACENT TO PAF'CELS ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES SHALL BE STEPPED BACK OR TERRACED OR HAVE ADEQUATE SETBACK SO THAT' PRIVACY IS MAINTAINED. THESE TWO SENTEI`ICES DO NOT SEEM TO PROVIDE ANY BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS OR GUIDANCE . ATTACHMENT #2 SI:-IOW THAT ALTHOUGH THERE ARE BUILDING DESIGN S'['ANDARDS THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWED. APPENDIX OF NEW PLAN CITED SECTIONS OF GENElR.4L PLAN ARE NOT SPECIFIC: "THE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVp.RD PLANNING AREA INCLUDES THE HEART OF THE CITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES." THE ORIGINAL HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN SHOULD BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE CHANGES ADOPTED IN THE 2005 GENERAL PLAN. IT SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE IN TH1E FORM OF A SPECIFIC PLAN. ~.w~. ~ - 3 Attachment #1 HEART OF THE CITI' LANDSCAPE at THE OAKS Concern about the Oaks Shopping Center o~nrner`s and the developer's reluctance to implement the Heart of the City landscape. HEART OF THE CITY LANDSCAPE versus (most and Requirement Planning Staff Report dated May 27, 2008, page 6: HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAIN REQUIRES LANDSCAPE AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ALONG STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD WHEN SITE REDEVELOPMENT INCREASES BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 25% OR MORE... Planning Staff Summary dated June 17, 2C)08„ page 3 THE SHOPPING CENTER OWNER IS NOT WILLING TO SHARE THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS AND THE APPLICANT IS NOT WILLING TO BEAR THE ENTIRE COST. THEY VIEW THE HEART OF 1'HE CITY LANDSCAPING AS AN "OFF-SITE" IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE= SUBDIVIDING THE PROPERTY AND THE PORTION THEY WANT TO DEVELOP HAS- LIMITED STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD FRONTAGE. Planning Staff Summary dated June 17, 2008, page 4 THE DEVELOPMENT ADDITION IS SI~aNIFICANT AND WILL INCREASE THE SHOPPING CENTER BUILDING SQU~~RE FOOTAGE BY ABOUT 137%. HEART OF THE CITY LANDSCAPE versus Ownership Planning Staff Summary dated May 27, 2008, page 3 The applicant PROPOSES TO ACQUIRE the subdivided hotel lot and construct the hotel in phase 1. Planning Staff Summary dated August 5,2008, page 3 City Council Meeting on June 17, 2008 At the June 17th hearing, the applicant ~;tated that he PLANS TO LEASE the three acres from the property owner in order to build the hotel and mixed-use building. If the parcel remains under single ownership, the nexus to require the Heart of the City Specific Plan landscape is increased. mac. zl 3 I v`~ -~-.3 ATTACHMENT #2 HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN/LIBRARY Heart of the City Specific Plan was adopted in October 2, 1995. CUPERTINO LIBRARY BUILT 2003/04 CUPERTINO LIBRARY IS 50+ FEET IN HEIGHT DA3E 14 THE CITY DISREGARDED ITS HEART OF CITY ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES FOR A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 36 FEET DUE TO ITS SHED-STYLE ROOF IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT 2 "The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides specific development guidance for one of the most important commercial corridors in the City of Cupertino." (page 5 of Heart of the City Specific Plan dated October 2, 1995) The Heart of the City specific planning area encompasses the properties fronting on or near Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor ..,(from) the eastern City limits near Lawrence Expressway to Highway 85 to the west. (page 5) (The Cupertino Library is) within the specific planning boundaries ...(It is) required to conform to the architectural and site design guidelines of the Specific Plan. Development Standards (page 23 and 24) Commercial Development Standards 1.01.020 Land Use A. Permitted Uses 3. Public and Quasi Public Buildings 1.01.030 Building Height A. Height-as measured from sidewalk to top of cornice, parapet, or eave line of a peaked roof 1. Maximum-three (3) floors or thirty-six (36) feet. (45 feet in 2005 GP) 3. Exceptions-maximum excepted height shall be 45 feet b. Sloping portions of roofs-may exceed height limits provided they are gable or other NON-SHED roofs not exceeding 6:12 slope Two-slope roofs are recommended for all buildings. Heart of the City Land Use Map as De.,..a.a ..,,.r~y~ .r.r .~...~..,.x:a 2eo ..~ ~' ~~ 1 - _ O Educational City Boundary Neighborhood Commercial parcels Residential or Office Residential density is 25 DU/ac. max. ~ µ" ~w ,~" W,~ Heart oRhe City Specific Plan Area Boundary + ~ ~ Subject only to ~ ~ Heart of the City I ~ ~ ~ Design Guidelines N W Streetscape Concept Plan Principles: • Unify Visual Appearance of Street with Orchard/Grove Street Tree Plantings, Consistent Furnishings, and Civic Landmarks. • Improve Pedestrian Environment Along Street Frontage with Planting Strips and Buffering Trees and Shrubs. • Allow Flexibility to Address Access and Visibility Needs of Adjacent Commercial Development. • Accommodate Options for Implementing Streetscape Improvements: e.g. City Construction, Renovation of Existing Development, Standards for New Development. • Create a Unique Pedestrian-Oriented Activity Center at the Crossroads. '~ i o - J - d' ¢1 ~ - Z N _ 7 Z ~ 0 3 - - Crossroads Refer to Crossroads Specific Plan for details West Stevens Creek Blvd: Oak Grove Informal Arrangement of Native Trees and Wild Flowers Along Frontage and in Median. Consider Removing Curbs and Walks and Replacing with Crushed Granite Surface. Focuses Character of De Anza College, Memorial Park, Oaks Center. Central Stevens Creek Blvd: East Stevens Creek Blvd: Flowering Orchard Ash Grove - .r" ._ • Formal Grid of Flowering Trees and Grass Along Frontage and in Median. • Focuses Character of City Center, Target,Office Buildings. j.. y, f a ~ : t t F r _. _ ~.... T ~~ ~.~` ,~_ I~ ~;;:: - . ~__ ~1_._ ~4 _ ~{_ /_ Y __.-Y' ~ ~ ~ 1 l ~_. _. ~.. ~. 7._. ~... . •..... • Semi-Formal Arrangement of Large Shade Trees, Grass, and Flowering Shrubs Along Front- ageand in Median. • Focuses Character of Vallco, Marketplace Center,Wolfe Road. --, ~~., ~'"--"1 ~ _. ~; City Council reviewed the :Heart of the City Plan w /Planning Commission recommendations on Oct. 21, Dec. 2 & Dec. 16 December 16 -City Council directed staff to provide: • Information on the Land Use clistribution within the HOC area • Clarify & make corrections to the draft Conceptual Plan • February 19, 2008 -HOC update for GP consistency added to Work Program • Planning Commission direction to staff: - June 10, 2008 -requested additional information - August 26, 2008 -requested a study session and additional background information. MO to CC -recommendation will not be forwarded until Oct/Nov OS - September 23, 2008 -Conducted study session - October 14, 2008 - PC recommendation ~~ City Council direction to staff: - October 21, 2008 -Provide two versions of HOC document -one with changes and one abbreviated - December 2, 2008 -Council agreed on some PC recommended changes and continued item to discuss at next meeting - December 16, 2008 -Clarify the land use distribution ~/3 ('~ ~ ~3 ~6q cup Crossroads Area Commercial-~ S ~ ~r- South Vallco SpecialCenter - Heart of the City ,~ _ ! ~ ~ 1L Q \ b W' \\a ~ < t ~ "~.t r~~~ry grEy•:N,~rREEY, $~VG ~.. F ~~} c 1,, ~~.:., 3 •6 ~ 1 City Center.Area De Anza f~llege -' - ~~ V Neart of the Chy land Use Map Q heart.x the CltY SceMC _ crkicauawl rpy BOUMary Pu^. Nea Botnoary " IwlgM:ortncd Subject ordY to Near, of Commerca! parcels 0 »e City Design G/tddnes Res~derrtal of Grace rte5i{lenhaE densfv i5.5 DJ)ac maz e CUP~RT1Nd ^ 2005 General Plan amended Heart of the City boundaries ^ HOC Plan is principally meant as a streetscape plan -r ^ Following areas were removed: ~ ~! , ` , Areas Reason Removed South Vallco Park Master Plan City Center Developed Glenbrook Apts Developed Rear of Memorial Pk Not Applicable De Anza College Not Applicable CUP1=R'f"INC> \ p al ~.._ .y p ~. .r 10 1 ', ,,. SF 1. l '., ~ ge a/ q s th part'e!s of bo ndary area ` ~ v s wa wr amp sr. lain ~.,...,.,._~ -. _~_ .+.m ._.. _ -s ~ .ae swus ~p as ze ~ ., ~ _- .. _..~.. .,. _.. ,...~. on .p,ap . ... ... .CC BOA sIX0p 5F lllA _ Autllx/QU sl 4'tlK,'Op Snxe l . i Arne I ~.a « aw. ~ ` ~_ t •V 1 r ~ 1 1 I 1 ~ . ~ ~ :i~~~ 1 ~~ - _ ; ~ ~ r ~. w s: • ~~ ~~ ~. ~ ~< fW M'n0 St Y9 1 1tb ,/rl•YS) k rglMl 8 Hd IQue:: bbr OS 131_•cs s ~ .. ... A~ Heart of City: C urrent Land Use C _~ ~M~.atl rsv,~ da.a, ~a~ Q x..~a~~o., waa..wAO.. ~.a u,.wsw.r snn ~:~u~~Y _.. ~ aAr,e. xor w.. ~ra~i ~,~ c. '; ra~,iw<. uMn ~ c~.r.~u,~e u.. _ _ .,,. xe a ,,., .... .. nv.,,.__, m lex ____ ase«l~ ____ _ nc asr.a ..ae e...g ~»swa .~~'_~ "+ ,~ ,eau es _ __ ms v. Is cez ^i; ~~QW.P,~..s,... I >s.Y ,aaaa,~i :aalalY, .pl • Eliminate references to "Specific Plan" • Define "Streetscape Plan" • Consider Streetscape exceptions for retail driveways • Consider variations in frontage renovation conditions • Eliminate "Logo-like" • Clarify plant material section • Review Development standards - Setbacks -Front, Rear, Side, Driveway - Drop off areas, walls/ fences, subsurface garages • Clarify Building design guidelines • Clarify R-1 development regulations • Clarify the application requirements and approval authority ^ Council considerations are needed on remaining Planning Commission recommendation: of the Draft Conceptual Plan ^ Exhibit A includes: ^ Blue highlights for changes Council supported (Dec. 2) ^ Red highlights for changes Council still needs to consider ^ Gray highlights -New/updated language per Dec 16 • Council options: - Discuss the remaining changes recommended by the Planning Commission and adopt the HOC Conceptual Plan with changes - Provide new direction to staff ~;~ - `~~', r r __.~ ~/3 C~ Z~~ °y CITY OF CUPERTINO GRAND BOULEVARD COMMITTEE Final. Report November r 6 , 19 91 MembPxs Nta,^Gh~ll Goldman, Oamcilmember (Chairman) Fari Aberg, Resident Representative Don Allen, Chamber of Coatuneroe Representative mn ~~rnet-~. Chien Spar-p R~epresP.ntati`re Daryl Fazekas, Planning Conmiission Representative Herman Hijmans, Chamber of Ccs~unerce Representative Pat Jacl~son, Architectural and Site Approval Representative Phil Johnson, C1~amber of c7cm~ex ce Representative Joe Timbroak, Resident Representative Alternate Members Barbara Rogers, Councilmember Allen Bidwell, Q7ambex of Ooacurnroe Representative Lucille Honig, Resident Representative Frederick Lavios, Architectural and Site Approval Representative John Statton, Ci~amber of Camm~er~ Representative David Wheeler, Chamber of ComnnPxce Representative Phil Zeitman, Open Space Representative Staff Donald Brawn, City Manager Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works Robert Cowan, Director of (xe~urnuiity Development Blaine Snyder, Director of Finance Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Frank Strazzarino, Chamber of Ccurnneroe ~tecutive Director City of Cupertino .Final Grand Boulevard Report PrE~ared by Grand Boulevard Ccs~unittee NoveY[iber 6, 1991 Q~i 'Ihe Grand Boulevard Committee was formed by the City Council to evaluate the feasibility of a plan to reconstruct. a segment of Stevens Creek Boulevard into a unique envirorm~zt .designed to create identity and a oo~utwnity gathering place for Cupertino Citizens. The need to foster coatumu~ity identity was identified by the Cupertino Goals Committee. The Goals Committee carefully- evaluated C'.upertino's land use activities and .physical form which is characterized by strip conanexcial/office centers stnuig along Stevens Creek.~~ulevard and De Anza Boulevard. The strip develo~zt is punctuated by major activity nodes. The activity nodes are diverse, ranging from public instiitutions represented by De Anza College and trial Park/Senior Center/Quinlan Center on the west to Vallco Fashion Park and major corporate centers on thE~ east. Although most centers are well designed, there is no central focus i:hat symbolizes "downtown" and serves as a central gathering place for a wide ranee of public and private activities. Grand Boulevard Report November 6, 1991 Page -2- 'Ihe Goals Cc¢~m-ittee considered alternative design solutions to provide a central gathering place. .Michael Freactnan, a partner in the design firm Freedman, 'Ituzg and Bottaanly, was retained to assist the Committee in this endeavor. Zhe De Anza College/I~emorial Park area was considered because of its role as a gathering place for cultural activities and the attractiveness of the Oaks Center. The Town Center area was considered because of existing high activity development and the potential for new c~rnrercial retail activity on a relatively large vacant site. The site is also located within close proximity to City Hall and the Library. Zhe Goals Coatunittee began to realize that Stevens Creek Boulevard was a connnon element in each of the activity centers. Stevens Creek Boulevard was the thread holding together a "string of pearls," the pearls symbolizing the activity centers strung along the City's main east/west artery. As a result, the initial concept to strengthen an existing activity node eventually gave way to the concept of emphasis on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Goals Committee rimed configuring Stevens .Creek Boulevard into a "Grand Boulevard." The Grand Boulevard concept reclaims Stevens Creek Boulevard from a coaimnite corridor serving through traffic and strip commute centers to a street which enables local residents acid shoppers to experience a pedestrian friendly, small town scale, central business district. The Grand Boulevard should be inherently different from the endless line of strip centers and unrelated buildir,gc along most Bay Area arterials. Following aoceptan~ of the Goals Committee report by the City Council, Michael Freedman was retained by the City Grand Boulevard Report Page -3- Novembex 6, 1991 Council to provide definition of the (7arrl Boulevard concept. A corx~pt drawing was unveiled at a Joint City Council and Planning Carrnnission meeting held on May 2, 1991. (See Appendix B). ~ GR~lt~ID BOIDLEVAl~ Q~T The Grand Boulevard concept that evolved frarn the Goals Committee and Joint Planning Ccattnttission/City Oauncil meetings is a plan to reconfigure the street design and land use pattern for the segment of Stevens Creek Boulevard located between Stalling Road and Portal Avernae. Zhe street and lard use configuration - i.s designed to create a sense of enclosure and camnfort for pedestrians frequenting shops, offices, and residences which front onto Stevens Creek Boulevard. Retail uses are consolidated at the crossroads, with office, residential or mixed use located along the remainder of the Boulevard. The street configuration provides an outkound, local traffic lane designed for slow moving autcanobiles and bicycles seekitx~ access to adjoining businesses and residences. The tree lined median SE!parating the fast and slow lane provides a sense of enclosure defining the pedestrian envirornnent. C~2~ID BODGEVAl2D ~7Ti~E Wt~ PAOQ2Al~![ 'Ihe Grand Boulevard Committee's task was to cxat~plete a technical feasibility report of the initial design concept.. The Coa~unittee's initial response was to divide the task into three co~iponents: 1. Land Use 2. Traffic 3. Furxiing Grand Boulevard Report November 6, 1991 Page -4- After several meetings, the subco¢~unittees reached tentative conclusions which were shared .with all members. Although the initial boulevard concept or a modified version is technically feasible, there is mrnr-i-ainty req~~q ;,,~~ of the wn~nodified design on traffic level of service standard and the funding mr~chanicm, Tl1e general conclusions are defined in ATr~~ix A. The Ccamtiittee determined that it would be beneficial to reach consensus on key goals and objectives rather than continue to focus on technical solutions to problems associated with the implementation of the boulevard design. ~TQ~15 Goals And Consensus Points 'The Cca~unittee adopted goals and key consensus positions. 'They are: Goals 1. Positive memorable image 2. Create a heart of the City 3. Visually. and functionally link nodes on Stevens Creek Blvd. Consensus Points 1. Stevens Creek Blvd. should be beautified to strengthen identity and create a sense of arrival. 2. 'The Heart of City should be at the Crossroads area. 3. Stevens Creek Blvd. should be recaptured to primarily serve local traffic and secondarily to serve regional traffic. 4. Any plan should make sense froan a business and aesthetic point of view. C~and Boulevard Report Page -5- November 6, 1991 5. Neighborhoods should be buffered from privacy intrusion and on site noise. 6. 'Ihe design of Stevens Creek should not result in traffic diversion to residential streets. 7. 'Ihe plan should actively encourage housing to be located along Stevens Creek Blvd. 8. Zhere should be strict architectural design guidelines. 9. Provisions should be made for future mass transit. 10. Abroad based ocarnnunity Cpnc~?nc»c ;process is r~n~ired to gain acceptance. ~~ 11. Encourage pedestrian and bicycle activities on Stevens Creek Boulevard and adjoining nodes. 12. New development occurring along the boulevard should be strongly encouraged to be oriented toward and visible from Stevens Creek Boulevard. Positions Supported by the Maiority of Members But Consensus not Reached 1. Endorse Goals Committee: A reduction of LOS to regional standard (E) is ok if Goals are achieved. 2. New. development should be strongly encouraged toward the Blvd. and the nodes. Concern was expressed that the Boulevard not preclude develc~pament in other sites deen-ed important to the City. The Boulevard and Parkway Design Conce~ots The Ccarnmittee determined that it was important to discuss more than one design concept. The Committee evaluated two concepts, the Boulevard and Parkway. Refer to Appendix C fora graphic description of each concept. Grand Boulevard Report November 6, 1991 Page -6- Zhe Urban Parkway and Grand Boulevard concept drawings describe design oorioepts which can be measured against the adopted goals and consensus points. Differences between the two concepts are expressed in terms of haw they relate to building orientation and pedestrian movement, sidewalk and landscaping function, and the heart of the city concept. Building Orientation and Pedestrian Movement. Buildings on the boulevard front onto the street and are segmented into small 20 to 30 foot wide store fronts. Pedestrians enter frcan the street frontage. Buildings on the parkway have wider store fronts and are orientated to parking lots which are visible to the street: Pedestrians enter the buildings from side parking lots. Sidewalk and Landscaping Function 'Ihe sidewalk in the boulevard design exterx3s frcea the curb to the store/office entrances. Autccnobile parking is curbside to connote activity and to screen pedestrians from moving traffic. Zhe pedestrian env9sonment is isolated frarn fast moving vehicles by a slow travel lane aril parallel parking. The slaw lane and parking are isolated frown fast lanes via a planted median. The parkway sidewalk is separated frcan the curb and fast moving traffic by a 10 to 15 foot wide landscaped area. The sidewalk can be narraw since it is not designed for heavy pedestrian activity. Grand Boulevard Report November 6, 1991 Page.-7- Heart of the City Concept 'Ihe Grand Boulevard is the Heart of the City. Stevens Creek Boulevard changes frcan a mere txavelway to a destination. A section of Stevens Creek Boulevard will thc~ "r1Y~[„m C~iit-1?r~ ~~ a ~aynr aat'liFari m nl ~ _ for chn~j,~~~p~ cultural activities. The Urban Parkway will lead to a "Town Center" located off the Parkway. 'The Parkway will extend frcan DeAnza College to the eastern bowxlary of the City. It will unify the City via a stsE:et design which leads to the "Heart of the City" at the Crossroads. The Grand Boulevard Carrnnittee reconnnerr]s the followinct: 1. mat the Planning Commission anti City Council determine that the Goals and Consensus Points are valid and should be forwarded to 'the Plannuzg Ccatnnission for consideration for incorporation into the General Plan. 2. 'That the Planning Ccarnnissiori ar~d City Council agree to include _ the"Boulevard" and "Parkway" design concepts for further consideration. 3. 'That if the General Plan incor~~orates the reoommeryded goals and consensus points and the alternative design plans, the affected general plan policy should provide for a broad ba~~ed Citywide Cce~mwnity review process . The purpose of the process would be to confer with affected residents and ccarnnPxcial property awnPxs as well as the entire cxn~mnuzity. Zhe final product of the co~mwnity review process would be a specific plan containing design criteria, reooarnnended l~uzd use, txaffic management plan, and a detailed funding plan. APPIIQDIX A Gland Boulevard Report November 6, 1991 Appendix A contains preliminary technical finr7in~rnc of the land use, traffic, and funding subcartnnittees. The term preliminary is used because the cce~unittee determined that the final report should focus on goals and objectives and a description of alternative design plans instead of detailed technical feasibility of the original Grand Boulevard design. The preliminary technical firr3ing~ will identify topics .for further review should the general plan be amended to incorporate the co~mnittee's reccuunex~ded land use and urban design . goals/consensus points. Iand IIse CbmIDittee ~e Heart of the City concept can be implemented by either the Boulevard or Parkway concept. In either case, the central focus should be in the vicinity of the intersec.-tion of Stevens. Creek and DeAnza Boulevards. TIe~37~LC~.d7 f; rrh nr~ 1. There may not be sufficient demand to establish retail 17usinPCv~_ along the entire reach of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Therefore, retail activities should be clustered near the intersection of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard. 2. Reduced neighborhood impacts, both visual and otherwise, would be achieved by building closer to the curb and farther away frost residences. 'This orientation will result- in a unique environment which encourages Grand Boulevard November 6, 1991 Page-2- pedestrian activity on Stevens Creek Boulevard and facilities creation of a landscaped parking area buffering adjoining residents frcan o~rcial development. Building height should. be limited to three stories maxiirnnm, with more stories allowed as an exception deperyding on the surrounding neighborhood. 3. R,esidP.ntial development is .desirable and viable. It gives life to the Heart of the City and k~enefits retail uses. 'Ihe heart of the city concept is dependent on housing. 4. Arc~hitecttn"al control: is needed for quality (design and materials) . Architectural thematic control is more difficult but is worth trying. 7.Yaffi~c C+c~ittee The level of traffic congestion at ~reAnza and Stevens Creek Boulevard with the current street configuration will k~e level of service (IAS) E following build out of the existing general plan. Zraffic congestion must be mitigated if the existing IAS standard D i.s to k~e maintained. The Traffic subcoa~unittee determined that it would not be feasible to maintain IAS D if an urninodified version of the grand• boulevard dee,ign is used. The w~nodified version of the plan uses an intersection configuration for DeAnza and Stevens Creek Boulevards and other intersections which adcLc complexity to turning movements -and thus lowers level of service. A modified version may mitigate the problem. A grade separation at the aforemexltioned inter~sec,~tion may also mitigate the problem. Grand Boulevard November 6, 1991 Page-3- 1. Level of Service on Stevens Creek Boulevard will be reduced by construction of the Grand Boulevard. 2. Parking on the Grand Boulevard is considered necessary to encourage. pedestrian activity. It would be used for short-term parking to support retail. However, on street parking presents hazards for bicyclists. 3. Friendly pedestrian access will be needed. ifider or over pedestrian crossings for Stevens Creek Boulevard should be explored, althouc,~ at~rade . solutions are preferred. 4. Designing the Grarxl Boulevard to eventually aoconmyodate transit is desirable. 5. Further study of design specifics especially turning movements is required. 6. Zhe (wand Boulevard configuration poses difficulties for bicycle use. Ftu~d.ing Co~rnnittee 'Ihe Ftiuydirig Coam~ittee was charged with answering three questions Hvw much will the Grand Boulevard cost? What alternatives are available to pay for it? v~o will pay for it? The Grand Boulevard concept offers an interesting and provocative solution to the need for establichir ~r a definitive heart of the City of A~ertino. At the same time it provides a major challenge to the City Council because of the significant cost for implementation. Grand Boulevard November 6, 1991 Page-4- The Grand Boulevard would extend for, approx;_~tely 6,000 linear feet, frcan Stalling Road to Portal Avenue. The estimated cost of the project, including underground configuration of utilities, restructuring of Stevens Creek Boulevard and appropriate landscaping, at grade, is estimated to be $15 million. If DeAnza Boulevard is to be depressed beneath Stevens Creek Boulevard, that cost is estimated at $10 million. The ~ittee feels the decision on grade separation is inherently separate from the Grand Boulevard concept and that funding need is not addressed in this study. Once the question of total cost is defined, the alternatives are more easily .. identified. 'There are several alternatives (or ccanbi.nations thereof) which may be used. mile several may be feasible in a fiscal sense (i.e., they would generate sufficient funds) they have significant negative political implications. Methods reviewed include: General Ftiuxl revenues Per parcel assessment district Tiered fee based on percentage of assess value Formation of redevelopanent agency Lengthening Grand Boulevard to enhance tax base Per square foot amt district After careful analysis, the least onerous method of revenue enhancement arn~ar-~ to be creation of a redevelopment. project. However,-given the poor fiscal condition of County Governanent, it will be difficult to negotiate a successful tax increment "pass through" agreement. with the County. Grand Boulevard November 6, 1991 Page-S- An altexnative approach is to create an assessment district which will separate nonresider-tial frarn residential properly and will also reoogiiv.ze the "value added" advantage of proximity to the Grand Boulevard. Preliminary estimates indicate a sufficient revenue stream. can be achieved by imposing an assessment equivalent to 4 cents per square foot of building space per month for business aaners located on Stevens Creek Boulevard and 2 cents for business owners located. in Zone 2 which is cx¢rpri.sed of propexties not located on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Careful consideration must be given to use an equitable funding mechanism which derives revenue froan residences and businesses. If the Genexal Plan includes a city identify heart of the city program, it will be extxemely in~ortant to develop a design plan and funding arrangement which meets the needs of those who will benefit frarn the program. Failure to do so will jeopardize the Proj~- reports/appgrand ~~ ~ .. ... `, > ar Nw/Wt - . ew:lau- ! a-- n . , - r~r t ~ ... re~nwwnw aa~Ghr/~(p~ a~rcacar M~r-~r. ~ emt xrorra~as-~,av P ctiaa~ aw~r- GyVMgC{~_ . . ~a:trtgnarwtrr~urrc =.efNw+o vturw. nwad arc. +aae~w~>~ai!M+ct+r . as H A z w w a ~p ~rwn rn~nw tdPi~ ~umf• e~rc~ 0~-1,vtw. Land Use trategy ~ ~w~ '~ .. ~ [~ , ~ ' 4~N~ Y v~~~ ... , , \, c ,~ ' r -, ~ ,r , . -, r `., eR n~nr . = -~' ~ • .NUw - eam wnea wYwt w•r~ rov • alwr icr.,~ •wowsf • nw+K a ~/~5il.~ .-__.. ' !i 6 p- ~ ~ i. w .« r , .. r 't +s - - , e :.. ._ s ~ ~ -. ,r ` a_, rdt .. ..,rem,,, `~.°" _. -~ +.i . m ~ C ~ ~' ~• ~ ~ .~ ~ erYrR~ Mt - •aKN4w• wM.M t+{ N~fl+ • Mx+blf+~eiuf ~ icww0 ie~y~w w- a~ ~ ~+4~ M'IrM~ ~. ~ ©~ w Au~tflwx~ ~ ~ . ' ` 4 ~ N J o S E ... .- ~ war rY~wwi~µw+..e. ~ :~ ~ o~ :... ~ . •~. _ ., Y . ~a n ~ a i o°r~i+u~ °r`~: i ~ ~ ar°p"snxh ~Ns1-"ra~s~i • yea. n«~'.~ nv~+- - b. A • ~ A F ~ r o hM~: ~ll. ~O~q~l,C City Conte t • frontage: ,~. ~ ~-' Land U e ~ tTrb~~ E _ _ Rear riP - C011C~.1tl.:o~~~. :f1°tb M~~ 1T ~fpli` ~..~,i~ • y~«w w-a'- DCSl~'11 COnC~'~t . ~. Citu of Cupertino STEVE SCREEK BOLTL~EVARD DESIGN CONCEPT .~. tL$:1 ... , b ; ;t ~yyyM!!!y~~7 ~f l .. .. :.~ ................. _ .. ~:. w : , h ~ t~ . ... r °~ ._...: FENS CREEK DOULE~ RRt) - . ~ • .__ ~.ii.. ... _ V .w.. _ .. ._. - _~. _ .., : ~ ; ~ ~ y _ : ,. ` y . .:e € ..~ ,.. ~ _, .... ^. 'ti. . ;. ~ . ~~ E ,, ' .. t .. ~ 3 t ~ . i i S . t ~~~ ~ s , ~ ~ £r ~ ~~ ....,_ ....., ~ ~ , ~ ~ ,,. a .t .. .. i . .... ....... ..~ .. .1 '. , ~ ............._~.._~ ~ .....:. _ ..... ~~ >x ~ ' I ~ ~ ~ .r. E .. ... ~ P r ' ' ~ ~ '.. ' s ' ~1... ~ to t -:. a ~I . ~ ,~ s . r < i ~ _ . ~ 'x - .. s ~ .. ~. De Anza In ection : At ..Grade Alternative N ~~ ~~ n~tsY~t tc ttl; tY(li ,. .... City of Cupertino ' STEVE~N.S CREEK BOULEVARD DESIGN CONCEPT Plan Existing Condition !;: > 4 4 t i , ~, `.... ~` im `~: £ ? a 3 ~a ' ..CII~ of Cupertino S T E V E N S C R E E K: B ~ `CJ L EV ARD :` ~~ !. f.~ w r i Plan Alternative A Future Typical Development • I/ii3tl1! I £ 1 C £ IililYlli ,.,. DESIGN CONCEPT . , . ~•~ s - i ~• .. PIail wtr. I~h• . r-r Alternative A Existing I~e-velcipment ' 4~ F ~ 7 r ...~:~..- ~ ' ~ ,. .,,. 77 ~ 4 ~ _ ~ ' P' £ .. ..._ _... ~ ~ ~ ~, ~EYi`PT'~ {} t~~. , k, l lr~: .- r ~ `i ~~ ~~ ':i 'I l ~ ll f ~ p _.. ,. '~..~r~ ~ ~ ., r. r ~'~~~` _ .. _ - ,„~ . ~~} Pe 1.'fY,f1 De Anza Inter ecton : "Visko~ich Ditch" Alternative ~ 1 `~ .... K«~r.f. .... . Citq o_f Cupertino STEVEN CREEK ~C7ULEVARD DESIGN CONCEPT 4 "Rural" li ulevard ~'G T3rfan ` I#ni~iel~ard ~::I:~' "ittir~.tl' ~o4levird S ~~A • P ~+r e~~ _ .,1a£~Y '~"µ ~T'.r ~~. +3.,11 .n.r ""WA F'..~ Grand Boul yard Concept ~~ ~.P1 `".... h ..... .......... .. ...._::..::. w.4. ::.: ...:.:.::.: :: ..... "Urban" _ .~ f j y 1 .!-y t 4: ? . evard :Existing & +Future Development N MM' ~ . P: O C i •'. Z W ',. G i i ~~ e b :[!: :h 9i Iii, 1,F411 • tlk 1' +4r ) l i fE~IFY3ir , City oI Cupertino STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD DESIGN CONCEPT _. - ~ - f~tRe Dt•ciJurnta Trrr ~`,`` _ ~, 18' llttighl nnublr Ilredati Gtrrt Ltglu w.~S'~d•.._ ~ Mn1wm Ilri¢SJ L7rriduous Tnr :Section .~,~~-.t•.~ Future Typical Development Section ,.~: 1Ik' . ,.. STEVENS City of CuFtertino CREEK BOULEVARD DESIGN CONCEPT v H Q 2 W a w 4~ ...., c~ ...1 cat O U U O U C~ +~ U 0 U ~. a~ H - ~ a~ U O U -d 0 a~ t'H) - C/7 ru n ~. O Building Setback Sidewalk -Tuff Bike Iane Through Lana. Through Iane Through Lane - - • Planting Mcdian Through Iane Through Iane Through Iane Bike Lane Turf C~a~l4 Building Setback -~l~ ~` C'D Q.. ~-t i l 1 n r"h r-f~ - ~~ ~~ O -~-t O n CD rQ r-i Sidewalk Bi a La- ncl~e Local Lane Parking Planting Median Through Lane Through Lane - -Turn Lane - - Through Lane Through Lane Planting Median Parking Local Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk ~ Building Sctbacl Sidewalk n Turf ~ Bikc Lane .~3 (~ ~ Through Lane r-F Through Lane Through Lane - - Planting iviedian Through Lane Through Lane Through Lane Bike Lane Turf Sidewalk Building Setback t'~ n 0 n fit ~~ ~~~-~c f-+ I CU C'1 f... • ~.... W n O~ Sidewalk Bike Lane Local Lane . Parking Planting Median Through Lanc Through Lane - - - Turn Lane Through Lane Through Lane Planting Median Parking Local Lana Bi- ecrlane Sidewalk Cr~ 4 ~ ~-t >~ f~ ~"! ^~ l J 0 n ~~