01. Heart of the CityCITY OF
GIJPERTINO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. ~_
Application: SPA-2008-01
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Community Development Department
Agenda Date: April 7, 2009
Application Summary: Consider amendments to the Heart of the City Specific Plan
to reflect the changes adopted in the 2005 General Plan and to update the Heart of the
City 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 Conceptual Plan to determine if
amendments should be made to the plan and according to the boundary
changes.
BACKGROUND:
At the February 3, 2009 meeting, the City Council reviewed the revised draft of the
Heart of the City Conceptual Plan, and requested staff to incorporate additional
changes into the document, to mark in red the items that require additional review by
Council, and to create a conceptual land use map that further clarifies predominantly
permitted land uses for the various neighborhood centers identified in the Heart of the
City.
The Council also heard from the public who provided the following comments:
• Retain the 35-foot setback and double tree-lined streetscape along Stevens Creek
Boulevard
• Update the Heart of the City plan in accordance with the 2005 General Plan
• Need a specific plan with standards and guidelines that will be followed
• Concerned that a conceptual plan may not be as enforceable
• Incorporate street furniture requirements
• Concerned about commercial and residential interface
• Provide the appropriate maps and diagrams in the draft
i-i
cc./~--t-oq ~ 1
Linda Lagergren
From: virginia TAMBLYN [vtamcupt@sbc~3lobal.netj
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:23 AM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Dolly Sandoval
Cc: Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro
Subject: Heart of the City Plan Section #1.0'1.030 A 3. c.
Dear Members of the Cupertino City Council,
This letter addresses "Rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures on developments adjacent to
residential areas."
Section # 1.01.030 A. 3. c. reads "Shall be provided with measures where possible with reasonable efforts to
buffer noise from adjacent resident uses." This statement is not strict enough. I can speak from experience.
might add that , as yet, I have not noticed a decrease in the noise behind my home.
In the state of Oregon compressors must be enclosed in ro~~ms, as per my son-in-law who is a dentist. He said
that is not true in California. Compressors should not be ~~laced on the roof. They should be required to be in
an enclosed room with appropriate air flow.
I noticed that Peets Coffee, on Stevens Creek, seems to have an enclosed compressor.
The residents should have more protection from the equipment of commercial centers adjacent to their homes.
The term "reasonable efforts to buffer noise" is not accept~ible.
Please consider this in your planning.
Sincerely yours,
Virginia Tamblyn
19721 Bixby Dr.
vtamcunt(cr~,sbc~lobal.net
408-253-2278
~~~ i
Linda Lagergren
From: Ned & Rusty Britt [nrbritt@comcasl:.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:14 AM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Dolly :iandoval; Mark Santoro; Gilbert Wong
Subject: Updates to HOC plan
Attachments: Ltr to City Council.doc; ATT00001.1itm
Mr. Mayor and other members of the council.
A business trip prevents me from attending the Council meeting tonight. Please accept and read the attached letter
regarding public input on the proposed updates to HOC plar~. My letter is embedded into this entail and also
attached as a MS Word file incase the format gets scrambled by the entail.
---- Ned Britt
To: Orrin Mahoney, Mayor
Kris Wang, Vice Mayor
Dolly Sandoval
Mark Santoro
Gilbert Wong
From: E. J. "Ned" Britt, for Concerned Citizens of Cupertino
Re: Agenda Item # 1 for April 7, 2009 City Coun~~il Meeting
Heart of the City Specific plan Amendments and Update
Application: SPA 2008-01
The Concerned Citizens of Cupertino are alarmed about the proposed actions on the Heart of the
City plan. We have reviewed the Staff Report on the Draft Heart of the City Conceptual Plan, as
well as the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The current versions of these documents lack clarity.
There are many cross-references between them -- and also to the Crossroads Streetscape Plan.
Indeed, there may even be some self-referential loops. Layered on top of this complexity is
another problem, because documents are marked yap with 3 sets of highlighted additions,
deletions, and staff-recommended changes. Asa :result, it is difficult for a member of the public
to get a concise picture of the proposed updates/amendments. Action should be postponed until
the ambiguities are cleared up, and the combined effects of the interlocking subsections of the
HOC plan are explained to the public.
Nevertheless, the staff report, etc., contains proposed specifications for some HOC areas that
concern us. For example:
1. Building heights of 45 ft.
2. Sidewalks of 20 ft.
3. Supporting Use -Residential over and be~~iind.
I want to remind you of the situation that caused us to organize CCC in 2003. At that time the
Council and Planning staff put forth a plan to evolve the Crossroads area of Stevens Creek Blvd
into a sort of "urban canyon", with tall (45 ft.) cormercial buildings close to the street (next to a
20 ft. sidewalk), and with residential apartments/condominiums on top of the stores or behind
them. Of course, this proposal sparked outrage among the residents, and we formed CCC to
oppose it. We showed up in the Council meetings with "Save Our City" white Tee shirts, and
told the Council that we must preserve an environment with trees where we can see the
mountains and sky. The Council backed down from the Crossroads plan at that time and told us
that they agreed with us.
However, the community outrage was exacerbated by construction of the very large, and out-of-
character, Montebello Apartments plus other plamied high-density developments. This led to
three ballot initiatives for architectural standards, rind later two referenda against changing
zoning from commercial to residential uses. The initiatives were nearly successful, despite
questionable practices of seated Council members campaigning against them, and untrue claims
by the opposition to scare residents. The referend~~ did pass with a large majority of the vote,
because by that time the community had become activated and residents are aware that they
must be vigilant. Cupertino residents now under~;tand that their Council is likely to give in to
pressure to destroy the suburban character of Cuf~ertino, and efforts by developers and housing
special interests who want to build high density, which would cause worse traffic and damage
our schools.
The proposed updates/amendments to the HOC portion of the General Plan seem to be a
disguised effort to subtly entitle some type of "url'~an canyon" development along Stevens Creek
Blvd. Please be aware that the residents do not want that to happen, and we will oppose it with
all means at our disposal: including referenda, initiatives, or recall.
We urge the Council to reject any portions of the HOC plan(s), which contain explicit, or
implicit, intentions to build more tall structures and/or buildings close to the street. The
community has clearly spoken that they do not ws~nt any conversion of commercial space to
residential. The Crossroads Area is the commercial center of Cupertino, and it should remain as
such. The HOC plan should be updated to ackno~~vledge the existing residential development
along the length of Stevens Creek Blvd., but the flan should also clearly state that there would
be no more loss of commercial space to residenti~~l development.
Thank you for your attention and your service to Cupertino.
/ ~ `~
G~~~~
/'
Edward J. "Ned" Britt, Ph.D.
President of Concerned Citizens of Cupertino
S PA-2008-01
Heart of the City Specific Plan Update April 7, 2009
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
The proposed amendments to the Heart of the City Conceptual Plan are being
considered by the Council to achieve conformance with the 2005 General Plan and to
update the plan with respect to the land uses, development standards, design
guidelines and streetscape standards described in the plan.
Staff has revised the draft Heart of the City Conceptual Plan (See Exhibit A) to include
the changes (marked in blue) that the Council accepted during the meeting and to
reference the items in red that still require Council discussion. Staff has also included
language (marked uz purple) for the Council to consider to bring further clarity in the
plan. A summary of the key issues highlighted in the revised draft is provided below:
Accented Changes (Blue Highlights)
• Incorporate the description of the Policy Framework, including policies
pertaining to shared parking arrangements, implementation of the streetscape
plan, discouragement of commercial parcel subdivisions, and incorporation of
pedestrian and bicycle pathways for new projects.
• Delete policies concerning separated protected bicycle lanes, requirements for
ground-level retail storefronts with office uses on second floors and limited
residential uses, and references to allocations.
• Delete a paragraph in the Mixed-Use Parkway section of Development Standards
and Design Guidelines referencing projects where Heart of the City standards
have been successfully applied.
• Add a clarification for Corner Parcels that corner parking lots are discouraged, as
opposed to "not permitted."
• Add setback requirements for minimum rear yard setbacks, allowable
uninhabitable building encroachments, and mixed use developments.
• Add allowances for additional driveway curb cuts.
• Add Application Requirements and Approval Authority section.
Further Discussion Needed (Red Highlights)
• Consider new language in the Overview section of the Introduction concerning:
• Expanded boundaries beyond the existing approximately 250 acres.
• Properties incorporated into the Heart of the City boundaries as a result of
General Plan Amendments that would be subject to the Heart of the City
Conceptual Plan.
• An explanation that the expanded boundaries are beyond the current
Heart of the City boundaries in the General Plan and overlap with other
specific plan areas which are not in conflict with the Heart of the City
Conceptual Plan.
• Review policies pertaining to allowable types of land uses (commercial, office,
residential or mixed uses) and locational requirements for particular land uses
~-2
SPA-2008-01
Heart of the City Specific Plan Upda[e April 7, 2009
Paae 3
(neighborhood commercial components for parcels on or near intersections, and
residential or office developments in mid-block parcels).
• Consider new language in the Streetscape Design section:
• Allowing the City to consider wider spacing for trees on a case-by-case
basis where trees obscure retail visibility.
• Allowing variations from the frontage improvement requiremeizts on a
case-by-case basis.
• Requiring street furnishings.
• Consider whether to retain existing descriptions of variations in the frontage
improvement renovations_
• Review the goal of the Development Standards and Design Guidelines that
allows flexibility uz terms of building form and site and frontage orientation for
commercial, office and residential development to meet different needs.
• Review the list of Permitted Uses in the Development Standards section.
• Consider new language requiring roof-top mechanical equipment to provide
noise buffer measures_
• Review language for Minimum Side Setbacks.
• Review language oiz Location of Surface Parking Lots_
• Consider new language clarifying that building forms should have a 1.5:1
setback to height ratio.
• Review the Single-Family Residential Development Standards.
Staff Clarifications (Purple Highlights)
• New language describing land uses in the Heart of the City boundary map based
upon various neighborhood centers identified in the Heart of the City area_ The
map also adds expanded areas including De Anza College, the City Center as a
sub-area of the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard area, the Glenbrook Apartments
and Memorial Park, and the South Vallco Park area.
• New language clarifying the Streetscape improvements for the Crossroads area.
• Minor language clarifications.
Land Use Map
Staff has created a land use boundary map (See Exhibit D) in response to the Council's
direction. The map identifies primary, secondary and supporting land uses permitted in
the various neighborhood centers of the Heart of the City. The map also designates
district names to each of these centers to provide further clarification of the overall land
use goals for each district. The following is a detailed description of each neighborhood
center and the land uses associated with each center:
1-3
SPA-2008-01
Heart of the City Specific Plan Update
Page 4
April 7, 2009
West Stevens Creek Blvd
- Identified as the Educational/Public/Park District
- Includes De Anna College, the Oaks Shopping Center, City Sports Center, and the
Glenbrook Apartments
Primary Use: Quasi-Public
Supporting Use: Supporting Commercial Uses
Residential over and behuzd
Crossroads Area
- Identified as the Commercial Shopping District
- Includes Stevens Creek Boulevard between N. Stelling Road and De Anza
Boulevard
Primary Use: Commercial/Retail
Secondary Use: Limited Office
Supporting Use: Residential over and behind
Central Stevens Creek Blvd.
- Connecting Neighborhood Commercial District sub-area that includes Stevens
Creek Boulevard between De Anza Boulevard and Portal Avenue.
Primary Use: Neighborhood Commercial
Secondary Use: Supporting Commercial
Supporting: Limited Residential
- City Center sub-area that includes S. De Anza Boulevard between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Pacifica Drive
Primary Use: Office
Residential
Institutional
Limited Service 8z Retail
East Stevens Creek Boulevard
- Identified as the Regional Commercial District
- Includes Cupertino Square Mall, the Marketplace Shopping Center, Portal Plaza
Shopping Center
Primary Use: Commercial/Retail
Secondary Use: Office
Supporting Use: Limited Residential
i-a
SPA-2008-01
Heart of the City Specific Plan Update
Pase 5
Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, AICP
Submitted by:
~~ ~~~~~
Aarti Shrivastava
Director of Community Development
Approved by:
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Attachments
Exhibit A: Revised April 7, 2009 draft Heart of the City Conceptual
Exhibit B: Mialutes of February 3, 2009 City Council meeting
Exhibit C: February 3, 2009 Council report
Exhibit D: Draft Heart of the City Land Use Boundary Map
April 7, 2009
i-s
~n~b~t A
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Heart of the City
Conceptual Plan
I
Blue highlight -Accepted changes by City Council (Februar3' 3, 2009)
Red highlight -Further discussion requested by City Council (February 3, 2009)
Purple highlight -Changes proposed by staff
Page 1 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
i-s
TaUle of Contents
Policy Framework ..............•------............---------.............-------.......................................................... 3
Streetscape Desigil ....................................................................................................................... 7
bevel opment Standards and Desi giz Guidelines .................................................................. 1 3
bevel opnlent Stand ards ............................................................................................................ 1 5
Application Requirements and Approval Authority ........................................................... 22
Exception Process for Development Standards ..................................................................... 22
Design Guidelines ...................................................................................•--••--------......----------...... 24
Site Improvements And Landscaping Guidelines ................................................................ 26
Appendix A -General Plan Policies related to the Heart of the City Plan Area .............. 28
Appendix B - Acknowled gen~ents ...........• ..............................................•------......................--- 29
Page 2 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
~-~
Introductio><z
Overview
The Heart of the City _ - -;-_ Plan provides specific development guidance
for E=;=,~-€ the most important commercial corridors in the City of Cupertino. The
purpose of the specific plan is to guide the future development alad redevelopment of
the _ i- r :.-=-~~-~:r i~ ~;E~-.-~;_~ Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor in a manner that creates
a greater sense of place and conunulaity identity in Cupertino- The overall goal is to
develop a Heart of the City, cc~17~1 ri~in~_ a cullc~tinn ~.t a pedestrian-inclusive gathering
placed t11at ~Nlll Create d pOSltlve Glad IneIlaOYable c~~lerlelllc~ ;c 7" tr~2~~tllt-~ a111~1 ~ l~lilll"S
in TI~-e~ Cupertino.
The boundaries ~~t the Heart ~~f the C-it~ area are set by the Genera] Plata. Currently the
boundaries of the Heart of the Citti~ area encompass approximately ~~O acres Ho~~•ever
the boundaries may be subiect to change ~~ ith General Plan amendments affeciin this
area. Tlaerefora, any properties that are incorporated into the boundaries of the Hurt of
the City area as a result of General Plan amendments are subject to the Heart of the City
Conce~~tual Plata.
Tlae plan includes a boundary map that nro~•ides expanded boundaries bed and the
current Heart of the Ciri' boundaries in the General Plan and overlaps c~-ith other
specific elan areas in the City which are not ita conflict with the Heart of t}ae City
Cr.nce>_~tual Plan.
Policy Framework
l"_~. i ~~ .! Ita.i ~.-'1 i[1' [... fl 1 :~1:: i~ it !L[\ if _ -:U ~.- ii t'[lli[:Ll t.Il i.~ 11
y~l .,;.~~Y ,I_l tl c>li~llc~~ ~~~i12 i:~ ~:.~~. .1:. ~. ~.::~! .t~.1 etc .i[/3l ~i c'. C1CiPlRcll t, e'Rila it~r_,..i
activity nodes and safe and efficient circulation and access for all modes of
transportation between activity centers that help focus and support activity in the
centers..
Policies
1. Require shared parkira; arranQement_s in the Crossroads area in Infixed use
deveionments tivitla overall parkine,_,_ standards ~-edlaEed to re€leE~ ~'~'----'
_ _..
yu _ i~
2. Proposed develv~?ments shall be e~nected to continue the imvlementation of
the City's streetscape sn e~,lalt.
3. De~~elopment applicants are encouraged to submit commercial office
residential or mixture of uses_ Regardless of proposed land use high quality
site plannins;, architectural design and on-site landscaping is expected
~. Subdivision of col.~ianerrial ~_~srcels is disalura<,e_i.
Pale 3 of 30
Date: April 7, 2UU9
t-s
iniorpurating tlae City 's existing net~ti ork.
(]. ~-lit-~-3'~-i` •-1•-~Ti-r.==~Fi-a=rc`A-r-, _rrrr~-l-c -i ~"° ~rpi-t=~-2-v-viczc:c~3s3-E~S-~~@i-rr-vc^--'~-rl~".d
~_A-L~~iT~TS,zL,~y~c __n I_.~. .,_L_, ._.~a .~-J ._ ..L _.c t1.., A_ Lt _,.iT~
rc~a-_~.iz-;-~
\.>tcr P1cJUr7irr,K C nnn+ris.in+r rr'i r/rrr+r;rndcvl c•lirnilrntirr,ti= tlrr fcrlln;r in~r
~,#caa~='a*:_-.`'~e~~-t-#1t~-utrt~r,'+r+! r.._ .. t_ L:............~:.,.L~~~s*-t ~e==r1-'--rrr.~-a!~~+i-1~~:-~-~zz~-e.t~-t-lfir
_`__ _.. J I.__..,) r :...: L.,.J .....,:.J_._. L:..7 ..~...- .~..., ., If-.-...,.-+ rrJ .. l:: ..~
) rl .. sl_-,- ... ... 7~- •_-., t..,.: ~.- ~.. J ,... 1:, :.,~ ai~-t~rs~si~a'~ri-tt`f~~-tL :.J_...L.Ff ~-,.:.. _.. .tea
L
_ r __ - , )
~--r-f---=ryii,., ~-1. . ....-. 11 '~a -F i. F_.-.., ...- / -~...1- rel... / .-.-. .1 1-.-.. 4...-. I C i ~.-...... .-
.
~.'-r+tl-1rT=.-+-F-r~, .~v-i-.-cr..a c., .-. c..._.....~- r-_. .. r- a ,..~.e c.~=i;_;Tl, .~:r-.-:-r~~=:T~rf-r riYf~-r"t-t~r~-try-rt<-IJ++-!c`.-~~-1-J•7
. r, .-- , r n r., .,
c-1~:~a:~-~<~-ter
-~. Residential or office dereloynrents shall be considered irr mid-block parcels.
Parcels or: or hear irrtersectima shall lraz=e a rreigltborhood conrntercial
conrpoucrrt. (Polica~)
.7. 1~'/i.xcd cosnrnercial mrd residerrtictl development roar/ be allowed if the residential
units proz+ide rzr: incentiz+e to develop retail uses, if the dez+elopnrent is zr•e17
designed, frnanciallrl beneficial to Cupertino, provides conrurtntftll ar»enities arrd
is pedestrian-oriented. (Policrl)
ia.- -Pr~e~-~-=t~=~-•~ ~~.-.r~~?rLl~+i, e=-rte,- rt-T1<3['rs-xtr~i~~+~~~--~,,'T_.+tt~7 i a?i F~;T-ri~~
The 2005 General Plan contains the policies that govern the following development
aspects \~•ithil~ the Plan area_
1. Specific Areas 8s SuUareas within the Heart of the City
2. Land Uses allo\ved in each of the areas and suUareas
3. Development Allocation
4. Development hitensity
5. Residential Density
6. Desib Z Elements and
7. Building Heights.
These are attached as Appendix A to this document.
The map on Page 6 outlines the Uoundaries for the Heart of the City and the underlying
land uses allowed Uy the General Plan t~.lse~l u}~~~1~ the nei;ht~c/nc~~c~d center. idenlifit~l
111 the l~c'~i 7-i 1'} 111c ~_li'.~ .:1-e 3. 111e ]?l.l L' Klentltle5 pI711ldr\', Seltllld ar\- dlld cU~~~-'C~1-f 1i~1 •'
uses ~~ermitted in these nei~,hborlu)od centers. and also deli«nates district names to
each of these centers to further clarify the ov erall deve]ohnient ,oats f~~r each district"
Page 4 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
~-s
A. t1'est Stevens Creek Boulevard (from Highway 8~ to Stelling Road)
ldentified as the Educationali Public 'Park District
Includes De Anza Ci,lle~ e the Leaks Sho~~in<~ Center City ~t-~c,rts Center an~~ the
G1~°n1 rook Apartments
Primary Use: Quasi-Public
Supporting Use: Commercial
Residential c,~ er ground floors and behind Stevens Creek
Boulez and fi-onta~-e
B. Central Stevens Creek Boulevard (from De Anza Boulez>ard east to Portal Avenue)
Connecting Nei~hbarhood Conunercial District sub-area that includes Stevens
Creek Boulevard bete°een De Anza Boulevard and Portal Avenue
Pri.marv Use: Ne~_hborhood Commercial
Secondary Use: Supporting Commercial
Supporting.; Use: Limited Residential
City Center -i~L~-.~rta th.;t include- ti-< cast -ide of S. De Anza Boulevard bete°een
Ste~~»~ Ci c~~l. 6c~u1e•. ~,i~i and Pa~:tl~a :~~ c,-~ue~
Primary Use: Office
Residential
Institutional
Limited Service ~ Retail
C. East Stevens Creek Boulevard (from Perimeter Road to eastern City limits)
ldentified as the 12e~~ional Commercial District
Includes Cut~ertino `~guare'\1a11 the >\larkett~lace ~hop~in~ Center Portal Plaza
Shopping Center
Primary Use: Cc,nzn~ercial/Retail
Secondary Use: Office
~up~~ortin~~ Use: Limited Residential
D. Crossroads Area (from Stelling Road to De Anza Boulevard)
Identified as the Re_ional Commercial District
Includes Cut~ertino square >v1a11 the Marketplace Shop} in ~ Center Portal Plaza
Sho}~_pine Center
Primary Use: Conunercial % Retail
Secondary Use: Limited Office
S_ upt.~c,rtin<~ Use: Residential o~ er ground floors and behind Stevens Creek
Boulevard fronta~-e
Paje 5 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
~ -io
~-- WEST-~' I ~--G~Ra3SRfiADS~~ G~BNTRAL - -
s ~
O
V
T
Commercial
ShopPin~ District f
Primary:
Commercial/Retail
Secondary:
- Limited Office
Eduation~[/ supporting r
Pubtie/Park District Residential over and behind
Primary:
Quasi~ub[ic
SUPPOtting:
Supporting Commercial
Residential over and beftind
.SSCVCf15 G~ tir(~.
l~onnectine NeieFtborhood
commercial District
Primary:
Nei~hboritood Commercial
Secondary:
SV PPOfYin2 Commercial
SUPPOrI ing:
Limited Residential
c.~-_a~e~z: GfTY CENTER
Office
Residential
Institutional
Limited Service ~ Retail
EAST
Regional Commercia[
District
Prirnarv:
Commercial/ Retai I
Secondary:
Office
Support i n e:
Limited Residential
1 - 1 f
Streetscape Design
Background and Purpose
The Streetscape Element -- _ __, implements comnnunity design goals
contained in the 1993 Genera] Plan, design concepts suUsequently developed and
revised in the 1993 "Heart of the City" Design Charette, and any new policies and
concepts identified in the 2005 General Plan. The general Streetscape concept endorsed
at the Charette was named "ParkurUia." It promotes a "green" city, acknowledges
Cupertino's agricultural past, and ~=-=-link-=;; the street's major activity centers with a
continuous landscaped parkway as a principal oUjective.
The Streetscape Element complements the Conceptual Plan's Land Use Element Uy
reflecting the corridor's different land use concentrations and designations. Design
approaches vary to acconnmodate 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 tine setUack, frontage improvements, and
landscape aind signage requirements established in the Plan's Development Standards
and Desigrn Guidelines. Together, these three Plan Elements comUine to promote an
attractive, mixed-use Uoulevard, consistent with the goals of the General Plan.
Tlne primary purpose of the Streetscape Element is to define the improvements needed
to fulfill the City's vision for the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor. It allows for
flexiUility in terms of phasing, financing, and design modifications in order to address
the needs of the City aind Conceptual Plan Area property owners and Uusinesses.
Streetscape Design Principles
The Streetscape Element has four underlying 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 SlnruUs.
3) Allow for FlexiUility in the Design of Streetscape Improvements to Address
Access aand VisiUility Needs of Adjacent Commercial Development.
4) Accomnnodate Options for Implementing Streetscape Improvements: e.g., City
Construction, Renovations of Existing Development, Standards for New
Development.
Design Concept
Four streetscape suUareas are defined for the corridor: West Stevens G•eek Boulez~ar-d,
Crossroads, Central Stevens Creek Boulevard ~: ~ ~ ; .:, : : % : ~ ; tv ~ ~ ~:~; ~ ~ . +,, ~: ~, and East
Stevens Creek Boulez~nrd. See the Concept Plan on the following page-
Page 7 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
1 - 12
A continuous curbside planting strip and a continuous row of street trees would extend
along the entire corridor. Ho\vever, each subarea would feature a different tree species.
Tree species are selected to reflect differences in the character of development in the
suUareas and/or the predominant types of existing trees and frontage conditions.
Streetscape Design policies for each of the suUareas are descriUed Uelow:
West Stevens Creek Boulezard -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 Ue planted among
the existing Deodar cedars at De Anza College \vithout needing to remove the existing
trees. This approach is intended to Uring 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 Ue planted at approximately 40 feet on
center. Decomposed granite should Ue used as the surface material where appropriate.
area #_~ r ..~ ,are .~
Crossroads - m~~-~=z I ht• Crossroads ~ n~~~, r zn j-1T=~--l,i '
extends from Stelling Road to De Al2za Boulevard. 7hc~ plantin~thCnie is t~, fall<~\, thy'
Cr~,~>ruads Area Streetsc~hc• flan „hirh in, cal, ~'~ ill~tallin<._ a ?O-foot wide sidewalk that
1nLlUdc'~ a fl\-t-fl~C,t \~']de trre l,rll t~~ IIl~~~7"L~i~l-ate e?~1 ~tlll~ tercel trees \~"Ilere possible
and },lal,t ne\, streot tree. at ~~ feCt ~~n centc°r \, ith pedestrian-scaled street funliture-
The t~~e cif tree is determined \,n a case-L„ -~:ase basis Uv tl~e Cite. This approach is
intended to create an actin e, pedestnan-oriented .hol,pin~.; district that is
~~redominantly commercial and allo\~-s fc,r outdoor dining, o>_~portunities adjacent tl~
buildin<=s orlon, Stet ens Creek Boule, ar~j. In the future. the Crc:ssr~,ad> .~I ea
Streetscape Plan is au~tici}~ated ti? he de, t;~- c•eci _:nd adoi_~tCd h~ tl-ice. Lit,
Central Stez+e~ts 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 (Pyres calleriana
"Chanticleer") and grass in curbside planting strips- Flowering shrubs could Ue planted
in the center median where appropriate. This approach fills in and extends the tree
plantings that presently exist along the street, and the forma] tree placement expresses
the importance of the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard as the civic and cultural heart of
the City. Trees should Ue planted in rows on Uoth sides of the sidewalk at
approximately 25 feet on center- For retail properties with narrow driveways, the City
l~ll .~\ l l'-Il~7Cle 1 'tl r.'J" r~1~aCil ~~ Il-~r lrc'e~ Cell a ~_1~e-LEI-L _STC-' L~.aG1C Ill 5~1eC1al Ccv>c-r. \~ here trees
uL~scur~ 4;=-~----«~~+=tt~~-.-~--T-: ; -.~-_-x-'.3 ~a _ -.?--ti~~~'.-_; ~ ., ~_ r i--~~
~~I---.r,•-~,T~- r~=t.~i1 i~il~,,lit~
East Stevens Creek Boulez~nrd -The East Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea extends from
Perimeter Road to the City Uoundary adjacent to Tantau Avenue. The planting theme is
an "Ash Grove." It features a ,--~~~'-_.- formal planting of Ash (Fraxinus species) in
curbside planting stI-ips and the center median. Similar to the Central Stevens Creek
Boulevard subarea, this approach fills in and extends the tree p1alltings that presently
exist along the street It also combines \vith the "Oak Grove" in the West Stevens Creek
Page 8 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
1-t3
Boulevard suUarea to frame the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard suUarea_ Both will
have a shady, somewhat rural visual character- Trees should Ue planted in rows on Uoth
sides of the side~~alk at approximately 35 feet on center- Grass or low-growing
groundcover nay Ue used as the surface material. For retail properties with narrow
driveways, the Cite may consider wider spacin~~ far trees on a case-b~ -case bads in
~}-~ecial ca-es ~~ here trees obscure +'_. - -_ , ~ _-- ._- ~ - ~ ~ ~ a ~
F ,~..T
nt tie ',-,.<' ~' ~` •~'-- -•--- ~~ retail ~ i.ibiJit~ . If a douUle row of mature ashes is already
estaUlished along a commercial retail frontage, neither row of trees should Ue removed.
t Trst U1 ctTt'FtSi-~IUP t/-C['S
Page 9 of 30
Date- April 7, 2009
1 - 14
Streetscape Concept Pian
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.
v 0
~ a
z
85 -
J z
o
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:
Flowering Orchard
`-~- -t~ t. ~-ice ~,:
r
~_ - ~ - ;-
~ ~
_ _
d ~. ~ ~- ~• i L 6--ir.~ -
- Formal Grid of Flowering Trees
and Grass Along Frontage and in
Median.
• Focuses Character of City Center,
Target, Office Buildings.
0
0
3
~, zw
East Stevens Greek Blvd:
Ash Grove
y- ,.r ..
;
i... ~~y i~ ice. ~ ~- %.
I~
~~ ~ ~ ~~~~
~ E~~~
., ice.- ~..;~.- ~ ~'~i..
- Semi-Formal Arrangement of
Large Shade Trees, Grass, and
Flowering Shrubs Along Front-
age and in Median.
• Focuses Character of Vallco,
Marketplace Center,Wolfe Road.
t - ~ 5
Frontage Renovation Conditions
A curbside planting strip 10 feet in width and a sidewalk a minimum of 6 feet in width
should Ue established along the entire frontage of the street. In the Central Stevens
Creek Boulevard and East Stevens Creek Boulevard suUareas, a planting area 10 feet in
width should also Ue established Uehind the walk to accommodate a second row of
trees. The frontage improvements recommended should Ue improved as part of
renovations to existing developments and properties, and/or required along with a
wider landscape easement if redevelopment of a property occurs. The Lit . :_~... : i!,, .
i ariations from the frontage impro~ emetit requirements cuz a came-by-ca~c L~ ,-ice iii ~t
may include one of the folloivin~ or a variation of the follo~~-in~
a - n --a
- - ~
- - b O
lumen-. •.~ .~7~-..~-..~~a a.l~.~ 11.~~- l" _
t b ~ Y ~
1) 1'~'idc l~zndscaye Eacentertt it+itlt Plarttittg Strip -This condition is the made] for the rest
of the street. It contains a 10 feet planting strip and a 10 foot landscape easement
adjacent to tl~e sidewalk. It reflects City requirements for frontage landscaping that
have Veen in place for the past t~ti•elve ~°ears and as such characieri~,es most of the
ne~o* der-elapment along the street. Existing trees in these areas, however, rareh~
form consistent rows along the street. Additional trees should be added to ~-reate a
double row of trees at a spacing consistent with the streetscape desio Existir~g trees
of the rernmmended tree species should not be removed if spaced closer than the
streetscape design. Over the long term when redevelopment of properties occurs,
the wide landscape easement tie'ith planting strip ~~-ill be implemented on all Tota-n
Center and East Gateway frontage properties.
2) Curl-sale F1-alk u'itlr Lattdcape Erzsertrent - A curbside planting strip up to 10 feet in
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) Node CurHside L1'nik ze'ttlrcrr+t Landscape Eatemetrt - In this condition the entire curbside
right-of-~~-ay is paved as a sidewalk. Levels of pedestrian activity along t11e street
generally don't demand a walk this «-ide, and a ~-urbside planting strip
approximately 6 feet .vide should be established by removing the curbside portion
of the walk.
~) Curbside 6-'4'aIk zoitlrnut L~zrzdscape E.zsetncttt - In this condition, a monolithic curU,
gutter and side~~•alk exists with a relatively narrow planting area between the
sidewalk and adjacent buildings and/or parking areas. There is no landscape
easement adjacent to the right-af-way, and there is onh~ 10 feet within the right-of-
w-a~ . To im}~lement the Streetscape Concept under these conditions the location of
Page 1 1 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
i - is
the ~,-aix anu piannng area neeas to tie reversea. ~ ~ reet curr+siae pianung strip ana
a ~ feet side~,•alk should be estaUlished ~~ ithin the right-af-~,•a~-. Trees should be
located in adjacent parking lots as feasible to establish a double rat,-.
Street Furnishings
\1 hen fronta<~e impro~ ements of the Streetsca~~e Element are required, the City may
require projects to pro~~ide street funiishings that may include benches, trash
receptacles, sides,°alk li~htin;a and the like- The City ~,~ill determi~ze the location, amount
and t~ pC of street furnishin,s required <~f ~~roiects on a cact-b~•-case hasis-
Page 12 oY' 30
Date: April 7, 2009
t - t~
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Background
The Development Standards and Design Guidelines contained in this Element provide
regulatory support for the Conceptual Plan's land use policies- They are itltended to
promote high-quality private-sector development, enhance property values, and ensure
that both private investment and puUlic activity continues to be attracted to the Stevens
Creek Boulevard corridor.
The "Parkurbia" concept promotes a "green" city u , _ ~~~ r ~.- l ~ ~.t. ,~ ttn , _ ,acknowledges
Cupertino's agricultural past, and envisions Stevens Creek Boulevard as a landscaped
parkway linking major centers of cultural, office, and retail use- However, Stevens
Creek Boulevard must also accommodate a variety of development types outside of the
activity nodes around intersections, and a central objective of the Standards and
Guidelines is to accommodate this variety within the overall parameters of the
"ParkurUia" concept.
The Mixed-Use Parkway
The image of Cupertino is most on display along Stevens Creek Boulevard- TIZe corridor
is the central element of Cupertino's "puUlic realm," where much of its puUlic life occurs-
Yet the corridor's bodge-podge appearance contributes little to the overall character of
the community and is at odds with the orderly suU-urban character of its
neighborhoods and business parks. Land uses, Uuilding forms, and landscaping vary
from one property to the next. - Uuildings, ~~ ni.>~ltrn offices,
old aild new shopping centers, parks, parking lots, gas stations, condominiums aid
apartments all "do their own thing," independent of one another.
i1-#ilt;-k=t~t~f-e«~-'~Q~T-1~-t~~rta-'.~z- c~cz:is~.~~~-~-k+a--~ _rt_s:--tk=~<= 1#t.3~T-~,~ tl~-C~Et-~~1~}
__:r...__.~ .~.,--. v~___` "c ~s_~ r-:._, ~._,-..a__-,.a. >>_..... s_._~_. ~- .-_r__tr.,_a.~;~>_lie~--ate-.~z.~'_sik~-±.
lerraee, f~~4ailEet~laEe Ste' - =~~----=-~-`--~--te~~E#i~ r_~~~ ~< ;-<--:: -=-+li~
~a~-Et~a~r.t~_Blat3~~•-.ast,~u-r-.<l~t~t=tt~4~t-c-elm--13t~r-1-.~z-a~~'. -.
Participants in the General Plan process and the Heart of the City Design Charette in
1993 identified this lack of coherence as particularly undesiraUle, and identified a
"parkway" design approach as a meaivs of both Uringing visual order to the street and
reflecting the physical characteristics of the rest of the community.
The goals of the Standards and Guidelines are_
1) Acconunodate a continuous parkway /street-tree planting scheme that facilitates
pedestrian activity, yet maintain the visiUility and access needed for successful
commercial retail Uusinesses.
2) Promote visual compatiUility Uetween conznzercial, office, and residential
development.
Page 13 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
i - is
3) Allo~~• commercial, office and residential development flexibility to meet
different needs in ternzs of building form and site and fmnta ;e orientation.
Pale 14 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
i - ~s
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 nay
be proposed.
1.01.020 Permitted Uses
Note: Planrrirrg Corrrrrrissiorr r~•comnrerrde~i elirninatin,~ the fnllowirrg section:
I.Commercial - As specified in the City's General Commercial (CG) Zoning_ district
with the following locational restrictions:
E. 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 allowed on the Stevens Creek Boulevard street frontage
of buildings.
F. These uses may be located at the rear of buildings~+rovided there is a viable
storefront space along the Steven Creek Boulevard street frontage for other
rental purposes. This space shall also have adequate depth to accommodate
tenants.
2. Residential - at a maximum density of twenty five (25) units per acre. For mixed
residential and commercial developments this shall be net density. excluding
parking and/or land areas devoted to the commercial portion of the development.
The following is an illustration of how net density is calculated:
Gross lot = 1 acre (43,560 sq_ ft)
Commercial building area = 8,000 sq. ft_
Surface parking area for commercial area = 6,120 sq. ft. (40 uni-size
spaces ~ 11250 sq. ft.)
Allowance for outdoor open landscaping area (10°io of commercial
building and parking area) = 1,412 sq. ft.
Total area for commercial portion of de~•elopment = 15,532 sq. ft.
Remainder area = 28,028 sg. ft_ = 0.643 acres
Units allowable on remainder area = 0.643 * 25 = 16 units
3. Office Over Retail
4. Other Conditional Uses - as specified in the City's General Commercial (CG)
Zonin? district.
Note: Plan::ing Cormrrissior: reconrrnended adriirrg the folloec~ing:
1. Office :ryes
2 .4 conrbiuation o~ff'ice retail and/or residential rrse ze~ltether as wart o a single
Page 15 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
i - Zo
~.ur •~ yr c f• rc ar ra~aua c~
3. Drrz~e through uses are discouraged.
1.01.030 Building Height, Setbacks and Orientation
A. Height - as measured front side~n>alk 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 bulk 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 the Cit}~ standards except for the Crossroads area. See
Crossroads Streetscape Plan for details.
.a \1ia=,:~~~ rte. rr~~3 hr~i;;lii Itn~tl.~tt~~~n-. tt ihrti ,erg rn~ Ic~~~-i1. crr-rtr~ill~. Ic~~.rte~~1
.~~; llh" rt ,•. ,f .; r~.i rl, •i Ill L~l r~ f71•171 a~f ~d;.a_'Ii2 ~I7 rcL
1~ ~1r.~ll Lie ~~rt>c•tr~~] iic~rn l~t,l ~-.'-- - --
~- Shall be }provided with n~teasures where possible with reasonable
efforts to buffer noise fr~~n~ adiacenY residential uses.
B. Front Setbacks
1. Minimum Setback -for new development shall be nine (9) feet from the
required fioulevard Landscape Easement; see section 1.01.040 -
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 pernut or architectural and site approval within twelve
(12) u~onths.
2 Corner Parcels - setback requirement applies to both frontages
- __~ - 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. 1\-litumum Side Setback -for new development shall be:
one-half (1/2) the height of the building, or ten (10) feet, whichever
is greater on lots 150 feet or wider
b. determined in coniunction with the development review vrocess
on Iots less than ISO feet in width. at any point between the side
property lines, based on the setbacks and relationships with
buildinss on immediately adiacent ~~roperties.
Page 16 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
~ -21
\1"hen adjacent properties are iointly deg-eloped as they mat- occur in a
sho~~ii~ center the setbacks bet++-een buildings may be reduced to zero
when it promotes pedestrian access.
'~lin~mum Fear ~tback - fi•r nrl+ dC+ rlut,nlent alun dry eloped e,r coned
residential ~~rol?ert~CS thr rear s~tba~k Shall be r~qual to <+nr an~i onY-half
(151 Limos t11e heif_hi of the Luil~iiii ~.a:t~ a lilltlil]lUlll setbacl. cif ?U teei_
?. L'ni~ll-+abitaL~l~ t•uildink elen~enis -such a~~ chiinne+ s and l~r~~iectin~~ ea+ es
ma~~ encr~_,ach up to three [~) feet in to a rE--.auire~i seil-+ack.
-1 Aliaed lJ~e De+eluk~nlont4 - n~a+ reduce tl~e ~niiurnum side and re:jr
setbacks bet~+een oiislte huildin~4 7+itllin .a cc~~r~nr~n nlastt~r Ulan in
acct+rrlance „ith an appru+E.1 ~ir+elu}~mrnt Man.
D. Building Orientation -The main Uuilding entrance to all Uuildings shall be
located on the front Uuilding facade, a fronting Uuilding comer, or a side-
facing facade visible from the street frontage. Other orientations may Ue
permitted subject to City review.
1.01-040 Site Development and Parking
A. Access
Direct Pedestrian Access - in the form of a cvalk~+~ay shall Ue provided
from the Stevens Creek Boulevard sidewalk to the main Uuildu~g
entrance; i.e-, pedestrian access to Uuilding entrances shall not require
walking Uetween parking spaces. If pedestrian access ways cannot be
separated from parking Uays and/or circulation aisles, they must Ue
distinguished Uy a different paving material.
2. Vehicular Access/CurU Cuts -shall Ue shared wherever possiUle.
a. Maximum NumUer - of curU cuts shall Ue one (1) two-way curU cut
or two (2) one-way curU cuts on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
~: ,~. ~-
- - __. __
U. Ramping driveways -shall Ue located beyond the Uack of sidewalk,
with a maximum grade of twenty percent (20%) and adequate sight
distaizce.
c. Driveway SetUacks shall Ue:
(i) A minimum of five (5) feet from adjoining properties and
(ii) TYu-ee (3) feet from adjacent buildings.
Page 17 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
t - 22
d.
e. Service Access - shall Ue from rear parking areas. Service access
should avoid locating next to residential areas whenever possiUle.
B. Parking
Location of Surface Lots -The preferred location of surface lots shall be
to the side and/or rear of buildings. Other parking arrangements will
be considered if necessary for the successful operation of the business_
Subsurfaceldeck parking is allowed provided it is adequately screened
from Stevens Creek Boulevard or adiacent residential developments
.-L..77 L!. ~ the :•7.~ .-. .i ~~_ ~ _ .-.c L__:l.i:... ~... .-. ~i 1 !i L t_ -1
a
trees 2z-.i "~~OI'E13 s3~E~ a~-anL,enre-zZt'~, ~f-n-c-rcrcc3~e-~l-TZ-rarr77 ~~ ~C~~.._ ._ _-l,:~y 7~. ~..
e-E18$er tB Sk3fC9l3n~lnn ~~•L7:.- _ ._ti_'_~._-E_'~ - i}~-}' ~ ~...f---'~T- ~•-t_.-. ~F -.. ..,
D O
2. SuUsurface Garages - The majority of parking should Ue depressed
partially Uelow grade. The finished first floor height should be no more
than three and one halt (3.5) feet aUo~~e sidewalk grade; this may Ue
averaged Uut shall not exceed height of five (5) feet aUove sidewalk grade.
C. Common Open Space
1. For Commercial (Office Or Retail) Development -
a. A n~inimun~ area equal to t~~~o and one half percent (2.5`%) of the gross
floor area of 1uildings of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet or
more, or restaurants of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more shall
Ue provided for passive recreational use, such as a garden sitting area
or outdoor eating area.
U. Plazas and courtyards shall include outdoor seating. Such areas shall
Ue integrated into the' project site design and/or situated in the
parkway landscape easement.
2. For Residential Development -
a. COII'i17lOn, usable outdoor space shall Ue provided for all multi unit
Uuildings. A nzulimum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet shall Ue
provided for each unit excluding required setUack areas; see Design
Guidelines.
U. Private outdoor space shall also Ue provided with at least sixty (60)
square feet for each mzit. Private space shall Ue in the form of a patio
or deck attached to the ulut, not less than six (6) feet clear in any
dimension.
Page 18 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
1 - 23
D. Landscaping and Screening
1. Parkway Laizdscape Easement -All new development shall establish an
easement twenty six (26) feet in 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) a Uack-of-walk planting strip ten (10) feet in width.
Planting strip areas shall contain grass and street trees in 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 minimum 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 opening.
Parking area lot trees within the view corridor nzay also be cleared to
allow for unobstructed views of buildings and signs in this area.
2. Adjacent to Designated or Developed Residential Properties -attractive
screen fencing or walls shall be provided along the side or rear propert}'
lines to screen buildings, service areas, and parking areas; a minimum
five (5) foot planting area shall be established witlun and adjacent to the
fence or wall with evergreen trees planted at a minimum spacing of
twenty five (25) feet on center.
3. Side Street Trees -Shade trees at a spacing of approximately ttiventy-five
(25) feet on center shall be planted within required curbside planting
strips-
4. Screen Fences and Walls - is not adjacent to
residential property, streets and sidewalks, the fence or wall shall be a
mi~umum of six (6) feet in height and a maximum of eight (8) feet in
height.
Where a commercial and residential property share a conunon property
line, t11e sound wall separating the uses shall have a minimum height of
eight (8) feet- ~ ,: _ ., _,
5- Plant Materials -See "Site Improvements and Landscaping" section.
Page l 9 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
1 - 24
E. Building Design
Variety in the Design of Building Facades -shall be required so that block
frontages are varied and attractive.
Building forms shall be such that buildings adjacent to residentially
developed parcels shall be stepped back or terraced or have adeyuate
setback so that privacy is maintained. Bui]dings reyuiri»g terracing shall
have a 15:1 setback to height ratio.
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 in 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 20 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
i - 25
Single-raniity i<esiaeiznal uevelopnzent 5taizaaras
1.02A10 Description
Standards promote retention and development viabilit}> of single-family residential
sized lots in the transition area between Stevens Creek Boulevard fronting development
and single-family neighborhoods in 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 in distance from Sterens Creek Boulevard.
1 _02.20 Land Use
.~. Permitted Uses
1. Single-Family Residential- at a density range of 7-~ units per acre.
2_ Other permitted uses in the R-1 single-fanuly residential zoning district.
B. Accessory Uses
1 . Customary Home Occupations -subject to Cit},- review.
2. Accessory Uses and buildings - ~-ustomaril_y appurtenant to a pen•nitted
use.
C. Conditional Uses
1. Conditional uses as allowed in the R-1 single-family residential zonitlg
district.
1.02.30 Building Height and Setbacks
1. Building heights and setbacks are as allo~~~ed in the R-7 single-family
residential zoning district.
1.02.40 Other Site De~>elapment Regulations
1. Other site development regulations applicable in the R-7 single-family
residential zoning district shall apply to lots affected by these single-family
residential development standards as shoe-n in the figure.
Page 21 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
i - zs
:'• I'I7L71" to the cfr'Ctl U11 Ut .3 Ilr\• L~U lld l7l~ lU mil UCtU 1"r` irl Il1C I~ldll Art.d, Or }~1 ]~+1 to lllr'
tnlar::enu'nt /lr n1L~dificatic+n of al] r°air.t:ll~ 1-uIIL{ins~. ~tru~iure ur alt,' Iin~ludul-,
Ialld~~~1'llli~ Ind 11>allttll~) 111 the L'l.]n ~1L.J, tilt ~i},}'ll~aill fl)r a3 L~U1ldlll`; ~.1C1 Illlt 11111^i
~)hL till d u``C ~~Ci"illll iJl d Ill r.IlllCr ~C)il~l;-lenl lYlt11 ills IC~UIrt lllt'llt~ ~~''CLIt It ~i ill
Ll~ea ~~iL:r lU.l2~ of ihc: Cul'•r.riux) !~1unlr iL?al Ll~dc
if 1131' bulidill~ square fl,uta~r i:~ leers than fl. e th+lu~~,l ld slluar~ feet. the I'lannlll,
~__~,1!il llJ_`c 11+31 r13d\ ~131~t .3 ~(+ll,i ltlUTl i3 l_la ~C }gel lull It It;l' hU11 L~ln .~ ti1~U~tre. fl)C t3 ~C. i~
t7\ C ill. +tl _>dlla/ c•~U.9 rt' tc'Ct l+r SCI CC3tt'1, tllC ll~Il Lil til+Il.3l LI ^~ I,`<l~il ll: I31~i\ l+l~ll\ L~+~ I~r UC~..I
b\ 11-.c t_rt\ Luunul upl~n recommrndatu)n of the 1'laluun•~ Cl,Inntis~i~+n
L?. '\lllll+l ar'_hltec:tul~>tl I1lC)liltilcltllUlS. 17lClUltlll_ rhallttE`~ ill nl.airn.ilti dlld Lu1L)rti. shdJ1
Lam.- rC\li~..t~i 1'\ illC I~irr.tt,l 1)1 La~l]tllll.~llli', L?<\r'lV}~lilcllt d5 ~~~Cllflt~l 111 L1'liiLitl
1`/-1.~~ C~i ~'`Iil i)1 the LUL~cttlnU 11U131LJp.al L~\11c'_. 11 dll d}'t'lJiolll~ll lb dl\CrTC.l ti, iJie
l.le`°I `Il 1•'~e\lrl\ L.\.+1171131ttee' Ur tl3t 1'lcillill ll L_11llllllt~~ll,ll, tl3e dL~}~llcatl•+71 \~]il he
.A_endite~~ tl+r .l U1t41:111 Re\ IC\\ L-iinu3utir-e ~+1 I'laltnln_ Lr+rnn,i~~il`n il~~'ctlnv, .3s ,ln
1r.11it~'ciur.al .3111 snl ~li_~hlllati,.+n.
Exception Process for Development Standards
In order to provide desib Z flexibility in situations \vhen small lot size, wwsually shaped
parcels, or unique surrounding land uses make it difficult to adhere to the development
standards and where all efforts to meet the standards have Veen exhausted, an
applicant for development may file an exception request to seek approval to deviate
from the standards. The possibility of lot consolidation, if an exception is needed for a
substandard parcel, shall be evaluated. The exception process shall not be used to
increase land use intensity or change permitted land uses.
A. An exception for development standards can be approved if the final approval
authority for a project makes all of the 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 injw-ious to property or improvements in
the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety.
3. The proposed developn-lent \vill not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian
or vehicular traffic.
4. The proposed development has legal access to public streets a~zd public services
are available to serve the development.
5. The proposed development requires alp exception, which involves the least
modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in
this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel.
Page 22 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
~ - z~
B. An application for exception must Ue submitted on a form as prescribed Uy the
Director of Commuiuty Development. The application shall be accompanied Uy a fee
prescribed Uy 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 PuUlic Hearing Uefore the Planizu~g Commission for an exception under
this chapter u1 the same mam~er as provided in section 19.120.060 (relating to zoning
changes). After a puUlic hearing, and consideration of the application in conjunction
with the mandatory findings contained in subsection A above, the Planning
Commission shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application for an
exception. The decision of the Planning Commission may Ue appealed to the City
Council as provided in Section 19.136.060.
C. An exception which has not been used within two years following the effective date
thereof, shall become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period
shall specifically Ue prescribed Uy the conditions of such permit or variance. An
exception permit shall Ue deemed to have Ueen 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 23 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
1 - 28
Design Guidelines
2.01.010 Description
The Design Guidelines promote Uuildings that assume some of the commutucation
fwlctiotzs of sigtzs.
A. Building Increment -Long facades should Ue divided into shorter segments
or modules and should Ue separated by major changes in the Uuilding 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 Ue separated Uy varying the color of individual modules within a
harmonious palette of colors.
B. Special Architectural Features -should accent Uuildings at the main Uuilding
entrance, adjacent to entrance drives, and/or at Uuilding comers. Features
that relieve flatness of facades, such as recessed windows, architectural trim
with suUstantial depth and detail, hay windows, window Uoxes, dormers,
entry porches, etc., are recommended.
C. Building Clusters - Buildings should relate to one aizother to shape open
space in Uetween, as is common on campuses. Changes in Uuilding form
should Ue used to organize and accent space, Uy creating axial relationships
Uetween Uuildings, defining special courtyard spaces, etc.
D. Facade Composition -Every Uuilduzg and/or individual tenant space should
have a Uase; a clear pattern of openings and surface features; a prominent
main entrance; and an attractive, visually interesting roofline. The Uuilding
should convey quality materials.
E. Windows -are an important element of facade composition and aim indicator
of over all Uuilding quality:
1. Window Openings - should generally be vertical or square in shape.
Horizontally-oriented openings generally make Uuildings appear squat
and massive.
2. Window Inset -Glass should Ue inset a minimum of 3" from the window
frame or from the exterior wall surface to add relief to Uuilding surfaces;
this is especially important for stucco huildings.
F. Roofs -
1- Roof Overhangs - are strongly recommended. Overhangs should Ue a
minimum of three (3) feet, with additional articulation in the form of
support struts, gutter facia, and/or exposed Ueams/ rafter ends.
Page 24 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
i - zs
G. Common Open Space -Developments with a residential component should
contain Uoth landscaped/garden areas and hardscape areas that encourage
social interaction.
Conunon Landscaped Space - A landscaped green and/or garden space
should comprise Uetween seventy per cent (70%) and eighty per cent
(80°~) of the common outdoor space. The location should Ue in a
courtyard, side yard, rear yard, or common green for larger
developments. Space should Ue rectilinear with no side less than fifteen
(15) feet. Space should Ue seventy five percent (75`%) enclosed Uy
Uuildings, low walls, low fences, or linear landscaping (e.g., hedges or
rows of trees) and not Ue Uordered Uy 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 Ue in the form of unit-
paved or gravel areas, common roof deck space, or any comUination of
the two- Hardscape space shall Ue cow~ected directly to the required
landscaped space Uy stairs, walks, and/or ramps if necessary.
H. Plant Materials -See "Site Improvements and Landscaping" section
for guidelines.
Page 25 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
1 - 30
Site Improvements And Landscaping Guidelines
2.01.040 Description
The following Design Guidelines for Site Improvements and Laindscaping apply to all
Heart of the City Conceptual Plan Areas unless otherwise indicated.
A. Paving Materials -recommended for pedestrian surfaces are listed Uelow. In
general, a maximum of two materials should Ue comUined un a single
application:
1. Stone -such as slate or granite.
2. Brick pavers.
3. Concrete uinit pavers.
4. Poured-in-p]ace 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 Ue tinted
to reduce glare.
B. Plaint Materials And Landscape Treatments -Used on properties adjacent to
the right-of-way 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 Uranclning structures - should Ue used. Deciduous
trees are recommended.
U. Planting/landscaped areas - should have a simple palette of plant
species.
c. Complex planting schemes -should not Ue used in front yard areas.
2. Plant Materials in Other Locatio~zs - should Ue selected and placed to
reflect Uoth ornamental and functional characteristics.
a. Deciduous trees - should Ue the predominant large plant material
used. They should Ue located adjacent to Uuildings aid within
parking areas to provide shade in summer aind allow sun in winter-
Species should Ue selected to provide fall color, and to minimize litter
and other maintenance proUlems.
b. Evergreen shruUs and trees - should Ue used as a screening device
along rear property lines (not directly adjacent to residences), around
mechanical appurtenances, and to oUscure grillwork and Eencing
associated with suUsurface parking garages.
Page 26 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
1 -31
c. Flowering slu-ubs 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.
i \_. :~ ~ n? ~~ ~~ _s [ :i. :~__ - -l: :I~i L~~ a cil t+ith dr1F
irri~,atiuri ~~tit~rn~ litx i~~r-.itc la'n~i~ca~~e areas in iie~eloi~rnents.
3- Surface Parking Lots - utilize a significant amount of site area and should
be designed as an integral feature of the overall site development plan.
a. Parking Lots - Planting should be consistent with the standards
outlined in the parking 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
parking 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. i ,_ aces - C1~in link. barged wire and razor wire Fenciura are nol allo» ed
Page 27 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
1 - 32
Appendix A -General Plan Policies related to the Heart
of the City Plan Area
Page: 28 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
1 - 33
2-22
1
SEE ~-PAy~,
I -~3PA-v3•
~-U-v~, 3-TM-97
AND 5'Z'V7
I
SEE CH.4 PTER
19.2 R. o.~o OF THE
CL+PERTINO
~QUN1C'I P-4L L.o DE
AND THE EICHI_ER
nESIGN ~+l'IDE-
LINES FC+R 'rHF
F-41 RGRU\' F_
N EK:H P.CI RIIC,. aA.
_~ lll~
LAND USE~COMMUNITY
Design Elements. Residences are required to
reflect traditional architectural styles and
use of natural materials. t
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 st}%le. In col-
laboration with the
~ Fairgrove neighborhood,
the R1-e -Single Family
Eichler zoning was adopt-
ed- The zoning includes
regulations that govern setbacks, roof slope,
materials atzd other unique Eichler features.
Eichler Design Guidelines were also adopted,
~~+hich property owners use voluntarily to pre-
serve the Eichler style while remodeling their
homes.
` Po/icy 2-26: Fairgrove
Preserve the unique character of the
Eichler homes in the Fairgrove neigh-
borhood.
Development Intensity: Require all new
construction to conform 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 the Fairgrove neighborhood. t
Other Areas
The remaining neighborhoods are areas
that aze not planned as unique neighborhoods
CITY OF CUPERI-INO GENERAL PLAN
at this time and are not mixed-use zoning
areas. Development intensity is determined by
existing zoning and land Ilse cle~i+~nlations.
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 commercial 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, restauratzts, office supply, fun7iture 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, enhanced
activity nodes, and safe and efficient
circulation 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 the development is
well designed, financially beneficial to
1 - 34
DE\%ELOPMENT
Building Heights: See sub-areas-
Strategies
1. Heart of the City Specific Plan. Revise
the Heart of the City Specific Plazz ro
reflect modified plan-area boundaries, pre-
ferred development pattenis, land use dis-
n-ibution and height linuts for each sub-
area of the Stevens Creek P1aliliilig Area-
Cupertino, provides community amenities
and is pedestrian-oriented- Land uses 2. Traffic Calming. Evaluate options on
bete%een the activity centers should help Stevens Creek Boulevard to improve
focus and support activity in the centers. the pedestrian environment by proac-
See Policy 2-29 for development activities tively managing speed limits, their
in these areas- manual. and automated enforcement,
and traffic signal synchrony.
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 1,476,115
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 this area- They promote a
cohesive, landscaped streetscape that links
the major activity centers-
Crossroads Area
Po/icy 2-28: Crossroads Area
Create an active, pedestrian-oriented
shopping district along Stevens Creek
Boulevard, bet\veen De Anza
Boulevard and Stelling Road.
Development Activities: Development
along Stevens Creek Boulevard shall have
retail uses with storefronts on the ground
level- Commercial office uses may be
allowed on the second level. Limited resi-
dential uses are allo\\>ed.
2-23
P , '' ~
CI-I-Y OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
1 - 35
2'G4 LAND USE~COMMUNI'rY DESIGN
Development Intensity: Development • A design plan that provides for an
£__
intensity shall be determined in conjunction _
attractive pedestrian streetscape. '=_=___-`==_=
with specific development review.
The design plan shall contain guide-
Residential buildout: Up to 25 units per lines drat foster pedestrian activity and
acre. create a sense of arrival.
Design Elements: Primary ground-floor 2. Shared Parking. Require shared park-
ena'ances shall face the street. The ing agreements throughout r.he area,
streetscape shall consist of wide pedestrian with overall parking standards reduced
sidewalks with inviting su-eet furniture, street to reflect shared parkingParking areas
trees, pedestrian-scaled lights with banners, may be located below-grade, in above-
small plazas, art/water features, pedestrian grade structures or behind dle buildings-
crosswalks with special paving, and odzer ele- Above grade structures shall not be
meats identified in the Crossroads Area located along street frontages and shall
streetscape Plan. Designs should include be lined with active uses on the ground
entry features at the Stelling Road/Stevens floor.
Creek Boulevard and De Anza/Stevens
Creek Boulevard intersections to mark the 3. Commercial-office Uses. Allow com-
Crossroads area. A landmark feature shall be mercial-office uses above ground level
provided at City Center Park at the Stevens retail to be drawn from the commercial
Creek and De Anza Boulevard intersection allocation for the area.
to mark the center of the city.
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Building Heights: Maximum of 45 feet. ` PoJicy2-29: Stevens Cree%Bou/evard
Strategies: Retain and e7lhance Stevens Creek
Boulevard as a mixed commercial,
1. Crossroads Area streetscape Plaa. office and residential corridor cotz7iect-
Prepare aspecific plan for Stevens Creek ing De Anza CGllege, Crossroads, City
Boulevard between De Anza Boulevard Center and Vallco Fashion Mall. This
and Ste11i7ig Road, with the objective of corridor extends from Highway 85 to
creating a unique streetscape and shop- the eastern city limits and is split into
ping district. The Crossroads area pres- three segments: "West," "Central" and
ents a u7zique pedestrianz-oriented activi- "East." The Crossroads Planning Area
ty center, which will be a positive and is between the Western and Central
memorable gathering place for sections of the Stevens Creek
Cupertino citizens a7~d visitors. The plan Boulevard Planning Area_
shall include the following elements=
Development Activities: The Stevens
• A land use plan specifying the tS'Pe, Creek Planning area includes the "Heart of
intensity and arrangement of land the City" development standards and guide-
uses to promote pedestrian and busi- lines. Residential or office developments
Hess activity. shall be considered in mid-block parcels-
Parcels on or near intersections shall have a
_ %/ ~ ~-
4 ~, i _
~.
~
°°""'
^'°""" CITY OF CLIPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
1 - 36
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
z-zs
neighborhood commercial component. Vallco Park South
Project-specific development allocations ~. poliey2-30: Va!/eo
will be determined on a case-by-case basis. park South
1. West Stevens Creek Boulevard (from
Highway 85 to Anton \TJay): This
area includes the Oaks Shopping
Center and the De Anza Community
College campus. New development in
this area should incorporate mixed
commercial/residential uses.
2. Central Stevens Creek Boulevard (from
De Anza Boulevard east to Perimeter
Road): Ne~~> development shall consist of
conunercial/commercial office uses on
the first floor. Office uses are pet-nutted on
the second t7oor. Residential at~d residen-
tial mixed uses are allowed.
3. East Stevens Creek Boulevard (from
Perimeter Road to eastern City lim-
its): New development shall consist of
commercial/commercial offices uses on
the first floor. Office uses are permitted
on the second floor. Residential and
residential mixed uses are allowed.
Development Intensity: Development
intensity shall be determined in conjunction
with specific development review. Mixed
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: Up to 25, d~a>elling units per acre.
Design Elements: Buildings shall be located
at the fi-ont setback line defined in the Heatt
of the City Specific Plan. Parking shall be
located to the side or rear of the buildings.
Building Heights: Maximum height of 45
feet.
Retain and enhance
Vallco Park South as
a large-scale commer-
cial area that is a regional
con~.mercial (including hotel),
office and entertainment center with
supporting residential development.
Strategies
1_ Master Plan. Prepare a Master Plan for
this area to ensure continuity of mass,
scale, connectivity and adequacy of
infrastructure and services, including
schools.
2. Vallco Parkway. Continue the Vallco
Parkway streetscape, ~a>hich ~>,>as
approved as part of the Vallco Rosebo~a>l
mixed-use development, along the
entire Parkway.
Development Activities: A regional shopping
mall and office and industrial buildings are the
main features of r-his area. Hotels are also
allowed in the Vallco Park area. Daytime 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 master 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 at-ea- "Tax increment" refers to the
amow~t of the property tax value increase
CITY OP CUPER"rINO GENERSL PLAN
i- i_ -
>
1 - 37
2-2U LAND USE~COMMUNITY DESIGN
Office (sq. ft.)
2000 Built 708,057
Buildout 708,057
Hotel (rooms)
2000 Built -
Buildout 2000 764
Residential (DU)
2000 Built -
Buildout 711
above the property rax v.71ue at the time of
the redevelopment area approval.
The regional mall site has a development
agreement ~+~ith the City to allow alt addition-
al 535,000 sq. ft. of commercial area above the
1,1 10,700 sq. ft. of space, ~~-hich existed on July
1, 1991. The development agreement expires
in 2006. This area can be used as additional
commercial, office, industrial and/or hotel
building space. The development agreement
ties many of the mall's future development
activities to the regulations and policies in
effect at the time of its adoption.
Development Intensity: .Development
intensity shall be determined in conjunction
with specific development review. Mixed
commercial and residential development
may be allowed if the residential units pro-
vide an incentive to develop retail use, if die
development is ~a~ell designed, financially
beneficial to Cupertino, provides conununi-
ty amenities and is pedestrian-oriented.
Residential: Up to 35 units per acre.
~~~ .
Commercial (sq. ft.)
2000 Built 1,110,700
Buildout 1,902,564
CITY OF CUPER7-INO GENERAL PLAN
Design Elements: To better integrate the
shopping mall with the surrounding commu-
nity, encourage any new retail development
to provide outdoor shopping experiences in
continuity with the present indoor shop-
ping. New office development should also
be pedestrian-oriented. To achieve this, pro-
posed projects should:
Parking Services: Avoid parking struc-
tures along the Stevens Creek
Boulevard frontage, and minimize the
height and bulk of parking structures
visible from public streets.
2. Linkages: Develop pedestrian linkages
bete>een the industrial park and the
regional mall.
3. Active Retail: Provide active retail
uses facing the street or outdoor pedes-
trian corridor with colirlections to the
interior mall area, residences and
industrial park.
4 . Barrier-free Parking: Design parking
areas relatively free of pedestrian barri-
ers and shopping islands.
5. Street Presence: Site buildings to cre-
ate a su-ong sn-eet presence. Buildings
facing the street shall be designed in
consideration of the scale of the build-
ings across the street.
~ - 38
COMMUNITY DEV
2-27
6. Development Next to Residential Development Intensity: Development
__- _ Areas: Reduce heights and increase intensity shall be determined in conjunction
setbacks for new development pro- with specific development review. Mixed
posed adjacent to residential areas. commercial and residential development
7. Pedestrian Amenities: Include pedes- may be allowed if the residential units pro-
trian amenities: landscaping, furniture, vide an incentive to develop retail use, if the
lighting, fountains, canopies, special development is well designed, financially
paving materials and other features to beneficial co Cupertino, provides communi-
enhance pedestrian activity. ty amenities and is pedestrian-oriented.
8. Trees: Retain the trees along the I-280
frontage, Wolfe Road and Stevens Commercial (sq. ft.)
Creek Boulevard as much as possible 2000 Built 238,735
~a=hen new development is proposed. Buildout 193,678
Building Heights: Maximum of 60 feet if Office (sq. ft.)
there is a retail component and 45 feet if not. 2000 Built 69,550
Buildout 69,550
Homestead Road
Hotel (rooms)
2000 Built 126
Buildout 2000 126
Residential (DU)
2000 Built 484
,_- Buildout 784
6~ Policy 2-31: Homestead Road
Create an integrated, mixed-use com-
mercial and housing village along
Homestead Road, consisting of three
integrated areas. Each area will be mas-
ter plam~ed, with special attention to
the interconnectivity of these areas.
Development Activities: A commercial area
~~=ill be located at the southeast corner of
Homestead Road and Stelling Road.
Residential uses are encouraged along w=ith the
commercial component. A medium-density
residential area m=ill be located in the mid-block
area bete=een the nvo commercial areas. The
residential area will include a new public paI-k.
Design Elements: Buildings facing the
street shall consider the scale of the build-
ings across the street.
Building Heights: Maximum height of 45 feet
Strategy
Develop a conceptual plan for the
Homestead Road P1alzlZing Area.
Remainder Of Neighborhood
Commercial Areas
Policy 2-32: Remainder of
Neighborhood Commercial Areas.
Retain and elzhance neighborhood
commercial areas, which provide goods
and services to neighborhood residents
and visitors. These areas include:
CITY OF CUPEATINO GENERAL PLAN
1 - 39
Appendix B -Acknowledgements
199s:
City Counci]
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 Browi~, City Manager
Robert S. Cowan, AICP, Director of Community Development
Ciddy Wordell, AICP, City Planner
Colin Jung, AICP, Associate Plana~er/Project Manager
Michele Bjurman, AICP, Planner II
Vera Gil, Planner II
Anu Natarajan, Planning Intern
Yvonale Kelley, Administrative 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 8z Urban Design Consultants
Update 2008:
City Council
Dolly Sandoval
Orrin Mahoney
Kris Wang
Gilbert Wong
Mark Santoro
Planning Commission
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
David Kaneda
Jessica Rose
Paul Brophy
Page 29 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
1-40
Staff
David Knapp, City Manager
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director
Ciddy Wordell, City Plawter (Retired)
Aki Honda Snelln~g, Senior Planner
Piu Ghosh, Assistant Plam~er
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 Cow~cil 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 loti~er inside corner of the 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 C7dinance Number Descri tion i
March 3, 1997 CC 7 753 Text and Map: City Center Area J
chan es
December, 1997 CC 1769 Text: Single-Family Residences
Allowed on Certain Pro erties
July 6, 1998 CC 1786 Text: Exception Process for
Develo ment Standards
June 19, 2000 00-192 8z 00-193 Ma Ci Canter Area chan es
December XX, 2008 CC XXXX Text and Map: Conformity to
General Plan, Flexible side yard
setbacks, consolidate sections
and u date numbers
Page 30 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
1-41
Exhibit B
February 3, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 6
Council agreed that more information was needed about the issue of constant noise and
whether it should be addressed in the municipal code. In this situation there was little
recourse since the noise levels were below those currently allowed, but the issue could be
re-examined during the use permit review. Staff noted that Cupertino's noise levels were
comparable with other cities and no other city addressed the issue of constant noise. Staff
recommended that input be obtained from both businesses and neighbors, since lowering
allowable levels could create non-conforming situations.
Council agreed that staff should report back to Council in a month on this issue.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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. (Postponed from January
20).
The City Clerk distributed the following items at the meeting:
• a letter from Darrel Lum, Feb. 2, 2009, with suggestions for the Heart of the City
Specific Plan
• A handout from Darrel Lum titled Attachment 1, Heart of the City Landscape at
the Oaks
• A handout from Darrel Lum titled Attachment 2, Heart of the City Specific
Plan/Library
• A handout of the staff PowerPoint presentation
• A copy of the city report from the Grand Boulevard Committee dated November
6, 1991
Senior Planner Aki Honda Snelling presented the staff report. She said that on December
16, 2008, Council reviewed the updated version of the Heart of the City, accepted
comments from the public and directed staff to prepare a map of the Heart of the City
Plan area showing the land uses by type and percentages. Council also directed staff to
clarify miscellaneous items in the draft Conceptual Plan. For tonight's meeting staff had
prepared a map based on the current boundaries and had clarified several items within the
Conceptual Plan.
The following addressed the Council concerning the Heart of the City Plan: Jennifer
Griffin, Tom Hugunin, Keith Murphy and Virginia Tamblyn. These speakers supported
the Heart of the City Plan and urged Council to make good decisions for the city's future.
Change was good but they supported keeping the basic layout of the city. They also
strongly supported the protection of the trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard as well as
the full public rights-of-way_ They believed the Heart of the City Plan, while needing
some modification, was a reasonable plan.
Mayor Mahoney read one of the letters that had been submitted by Darrel Lum. In part
Mr. Lum's letter stated that the Heart of the City Plan dated Feb. 3, 2009, was primarily a
~ - 42
February 3, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 7
landscape plan and lacked the original policy framework of overall goals, policies and
strategies. In addition Mr. Lum stated that the original Heart of the City Specific Plan
should be updated to reflect the changes adopted in the 2005 General Plan and should
continue to be in the form of a specific plan.
Council discussed several issues, including definition of a conceptual plan vs. a specific
plan, tree protection, conformity with the General Plan, zoning, boundaries (including the
suggestion of expanding the boundaries as part of the General Plan amendment process)
and format of plan. Mayor Mahoney suggested making the Heart of the City Plan
consistent with the current General Plan, knowing that there would be changes made in
the future, or making the Heart of the City Plan match what Council thought they were
going to have.
Interim City Attorney Mark Hynes concurred with the Mayor's comment, stating that
Council could create a draft that was consistent with the current General Plan, with the
idea that was where Council thought things were headed, and with the understanding that
Council would be doing this in conjunction with future amendment of the General Plan.
Council could draft a working document while working on the General Plan amendments.
Any applications received before any such amendments were approved would be subject
to the current General Plan and adopted Heart of the City Plan.
Coii~.n~unity Development Director Steve Piasecki suggested adopting a Heart of the City
Plan with boundaries as defined in the current plan, with an expanded azea to be reviewed
when General Plan amendments were discussed in six months.
Council reviewed the document before them and made the following changes:
Introduction: change 250 acres to 552 acres
• Policy Framework: 1. Should read: Require shared parking arrangements in the
Crossroads area in mixed use developments; 2. Correct to state streetscape plan;
3. Delete; 5. Should read: Plans for the new projects should include pedestrian and
bicycle pathways, incorporating the City's existing network; 6. Delete; and
• Eliminate section Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 in the Policy Framework as recommended by
the Planning Commission.
• streetscape Design: staff will redraft wording regarding trees particularly as
related to retail visibility -city may adjust requirements on a case by case basis
• Development Standards and Design Guidelines: delete fourth paragraph;
• Development Standards: 1) delete the statement - "Drive through uses are
discouraged"; 2) add wording to section A.3 on height regarding noise mitigation;
3) concurred with highlighted sections and on page ] 8 staff to develop wording
for #2 concerning residential/existing residential uses;
• Application Requirements and Approval Authority -concurred with wording and
on page 25 change the last word `recommended' to `allowed'.
Council agreed that the following sections would be brought back for additional
discussion: page 12 item 3; all of page 13, page 14 section C.l.b; page 16 section B.1;
1-43
February 3, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 8
and all of page 19. Council further directed staff to prepare acolor-coded map regarding
zoning for Council's review.
Wong moved and Sandoval seconded to continue this item for 2 months to a televised
study session with special advertising done in the Cupertino Courier. The motion carried
unanimously.
RECESS
The Council was in recess from 9:50 p.m. to 10:03 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
14. Consider Anulication Nos. MCA-2008-04 (EA-2008-09), City of Cupertino, Citywide:
Wireless Communication Facilities.
a) Negative declaration
b) Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19-108-Wireless Communications
Facilities, regarding additional siting options, clarifying review criteria and
streamlining some of the minor review processes.
Conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 09-2038: "An ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino amending chapter 19.108: Wireless
Communications Facilities, of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the
expansion of potential site locations, adding design and siting review criteria and
miscellaneous technical changes".
The City Clerk distributed the following items at the meeting:
• A copy of the staff PowerPoint presentation.
• A color-coded map of wireless communication facilities
• An email from Santa Clara County Sheriff Capt. Terry Calderone supporting the
ordinance
Senior Planner Colin Jung gave the staff report, and explained that the updated map
Council had received included proposed wireless locations in residential planned
development areas. He also handed out letters from Gail Brownell, Praud Consari and
Seth Ferry, CEO of Joint Venture Silicon Valley in support of the ordinance amendments.
Mr. Jung noted that the amendments included the expansion of potential site locations,
adding to the design and siting criteria and miscellaneous technical changes. He also
noted that in 1997 the Wireless Communications Ordinance was adopted and in 2003 the
Wireless Facilities Master Plan was adopted. In 2007 the Technology, Information, and
Communications Commission (TICC) conducted a survey on cell phone coverage and
antennae in the City, and in 2007 Council directed the TICC to work with staff on
regulations to address cell phone coverage issues. The Planning Commission held public
hearings on the draft ordinance, and it was unanimously approved by the Planning
~ - 44
CfTY OF
CIJPERT11V0
Agenda Item No. { `>>
Application: SPA-2008-01
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Exhib7t C
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408)777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
SUMMARY
Connnnunity Development Departnnent
Agenda Date: February 3, 2009
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 in 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 Plaiuzing Commission. The Conceptual Plan also distinguished
between the recommended changes that the Council expressed support for and items
that the Council identified as requiring additional discussion from. the December 2='d
City Council meeting.
The Council also heard from members of the public who requested that the 35-foot
setback and double tree-lazed 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-writing the Heart of the
City Specific Plan.
As a result of the meeting, the Coui~cil 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 the 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. T1ze type of
1-45
SPA-2008-01
Heart of the City Specific Plan Update February 3, 2009
Pale 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_
'Tlne 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 included, the total retail and office uses by acres and building
square feet are approximately 70% and 71% of the land uses, respectively_ Tlne adjusted
Heart of the City land use boundary map (includuzg hatched areas) shows that
commercial use is approximately 49% of the land uses by acres and 44% of the land uses
by buildnng square feet. Witln office, the retail and office uses would be approximately
62% of the land uses by acres and 66% of the hind uses by buildung square feet. The
followiung pie charts show in light pick the percentages of commercial and in dark pink
the percentages of office land uses by acres and building square feet in both maps:
Current HOC boundary HOC Boundary w/hatched areas
Land Use by Acres Land Use by Building SqF Land Use by Acr es Land Use try Building Sq Ft
0.65".: 99'f6 °~''~~
- _ a Y. Y'
io:as/o.~+_ee
:~ cr
1J9°5 2CJ )S
3945
-- A
0.62: 1' ~. ... 0.331
:YPAO~}i, -
1i-05: io IS, ~~ ~ :e ~..
yp S3'a _ ,
1 t<'_c
Current Land Use
P.es identia 1
t~QtX Ed L15e
Com mercial
_ Parcels Solely Used for Parking Lot-Surface
Serz~ce Station
Office
PublicrQuasi-PubliciOpen Space
` Vacant
There are a total of 402 residential units within the current Heart of the City bowndaries
wind 875 residential waits within the adjusted map. Tlne existing available residential
allocation for future development witlniun 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)
1-46~
SPA-2008-01
Heart of the City Specific Plan Update February 3, 2009
Paee 3
CHANGES TO DRAFT CONCEPTUAL PLAN
T'he Council directed staff to clarify the following items within the Conceptual Plan (See
Exhibit A). These are addressed below:
1. References to Specific Plazz: References to "Specific Plan" have been eliminated.
2. Defizzition of Sfi•eetscape Element: The Streetscape Element is described uz the
Streetscape Design section of the Conceptual Plan. The underlying principles of
the Streetscape Element are defused in the Streetscape Desigiz Principles section.
3. Streetscape Exceptio~zs for Narrow Driveways on Retail Properties: Couizcil needs to
discuss whether to remove or retain the following language: "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." This is fouizd at the end of the
Central and East Stevens Creek Boulevard Desigi2 Concept paragraphs (See page
8 of the plan). A concern was raised that allowing for such exceptions may
weaken the 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 Renovation 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 existing streetscape, building 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
original Heart of the City Specific Plan adopted in 1995. Staff recommends
removing this language since it does not appear to modify the intent of the
sentence.
6. DeveZop~nent Standards:
a. Front setbacks: Reference has been corrected to "see section 1A1.040(D)",
rather than (E) for the required Boulevard Landscape Easement.
b. Corner parkizzg Zots not permitted: Couizcil requested clarification on this
language that does not permit corner parking lots. Staff suggests
modifying the language to read, "Corner parking lots are discouraged."
c. Mizzimunz 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 coizsidered. It was also suggested that the
minimum rear yard setback be reduced to 17 feet if uninhabitable building
elements, such as chunneys, may encroach up to three feet into a required
setback. Staff suggests retaining the existing language because only the
uninhabitable building elements are permitted to project into the setbacks,
aild the 20 foot setback is only a minimum setback; Couizcil could require
greater setbacks for any development project in the P zone.
i - a73
SPA-2008-01
Heart of the City Specific Plan Update
Paee 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. Drop off Areas: Council remarked that this language is confusing because if
street parking is not permitted along Stevervs 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 and Walls: Council requested clarification on maximum and
minimum wall heights. Staff suggests adding language to clarify that
sound walls taller than eight (8) feet may be allowed wheal commercial and
residential uses share a property line, subject to approval as part of a
development plan.
i. Building Desigzz: Council asked whether a prescriptive terracuzg setback
should be incorporated. Staff suggests retaining 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. Otlzer Applicable Site De-velopnzent Regulations in the R-I zoning district:
Council asked if this was necessary to retain uz the plan. Staff suggests
retaining this language as it reiterates that the development standards in
the R-1 ordinance apply to these single-family residential properties in the
Heart of the City boundary, u1 addition to the land use, building height
and setback requirements.
k. Application Requirements and 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 Planning Commission or City Council
is the approval authority for development projects through a Use Permit
application.
1 - 484
SPA-2008-01
Heart of the City Specific Plan Update
Page 5
February 3, 2009
1. PZant 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. Foulttai~zs: Council needs to consider whether fountains should be
recommended in hardscape areas per the existing language uz the plan.
Other mu-tor spelllllg aizd editing errors have been corrected iu1 the draft per Council
direction.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Plaru~er
Aki Honda Snelluzg, AICP
Reviewed by:
_Gai~-Chao
City Planner
'~~,
Approved by:,
~'
_ Steve Piaseckir
Commtuzity Development Director
~~.~~ Q
David W. Kizapp
City Manager
Attachments
ExluUit A:AUhreviated Heart of the City Conceptual Plait with recon~niended changes by the Plaruvng
Conmussion
Exhihit B: Matrix of Plaruziazg Continzission reconunendations
Exhibit C: Heart of the City Lard Use Maps
Exhihit D: Mitlutes of Decemher 16, 2008 City Council meeting
Exhibit E: DecemUer 16, 2008 CotuZCil report without attachments
Exhihit F: General Plan A~>ailaUle Allocations TaUle for Heart of the City
1 - 49_
Attachments
Attachments from the February 3, 2009 City
Council meeting can be provided upon request by
calling Aki Snelling, Senior Planner, at (408) 777-
3313 or by email at akis@cupertino.or~
Attachments are also available on the City's website
by clicking on "Public Records" on the top right
hand corner of the home page. You may access the
City Council folder that contains City Council
Agenda Packets. The Heart of the City report packet
can be accessed in the 02-03-09 folder of the 2009 CC
Packets.
1 - 50
EXHIBITS
BEGIN
HERE
~~~i~i~
cG ~-7~Oq
# ~
!-~ vvte nd ~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CUPERTINO
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
DATE: Apri17, 2009 ~J~
FROM: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development ~'"
RE: Item 1: SPA-2008-01 -Amendments to the Heart of the City Specific Plan
SUMMARY
Staff was recently made aware of errors found and clarifications needed in the draft Heart of the
City Conceptual Plan based upon comments received from members of the City Council. As a
result, staff has prepared this memo to outline changes that have been made in the plan in
response to these comments.
Additionally, staff has outlined items in which members of the Council requested additional
clarification that did not require changes to the plan. These are listed as supplemental
clarifications.
DISCUSSION
Changes in the draft~lan due to Council comments
^ Land use description of the Heart of the City boundary map on Page 5 of the draft plan.
The following changes have been made:
^ West Stevens Creek Boulevard: "Mixed Commercial/Residential" replaces
"Commercial" as a Supporting Use to align language with the General Plan.
Staff added a locational description as a clarification for residential to be above
the ground level or behind Primary Uses to emphasize that residential is
considered a Supporting Use.
^ Crossroads Area: Errors have been corrected to include the correct Crossroads
Area description as a "Commercial Shopping District" that "includes Whole
Foods, Target, Crossroads Shopping Center, and Marina Foods." "Commercial
Office replaces Limited Office as a Secondary Use and "Limited Residential"
is added as a Supporting Use to align language with the General Plan. Staff
added a locational description as a clarification for residential to be above the
ground level or behind Primary Uses to emphasize that residential is considered
a Supporting Use.
Central Stevens Creek Boulevard: Removed "Neighborhood" from the district
description that is now identified as "Connecting Commercial District sub-area."
~.~
Replaced "Neighborhood Commercial" with "Commercial/Commercial Office'
~ as the Primary Use. Replaced "Supporting Commercial" with "Commercial
~~, . .Office above the ground level." Replaced "Limited Residential" with
"Residential/ Residential Mixed Use. Listing of uses were replaced to align
language with the General Plan.
^ City Center: Added "Hotel, Public Facilities, Commercial Retail" to the Primary
Uses listed. Listing of uses were added to align language with the General Plan.
^ East Stevens Creek Boulevard: Added "Commercial Office' to the list of
Primary Uses to align language with the General Plan. Replaced "Limited
Residential" with "Residential/Residential Mixed Use." Listing of uses were
replaced to align language with the General Plan.
Heart of the City boundary map changes include:
^ Aligning the boundary line between the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard and
East Stevens Creek Boulevard districts with Portal Avenue to coincide with the
map boundaries.
^ Including the west side of South De Anza Boulevard.
^ Corresponding the land use descriptions in the draft plan with the map.
^ Streetscape Plan. The Streetscape Plan on Page 10 of the draft plan will be adjusted
according to Council direction. This plan is the draft streetscape plan that was prepared
by an outside consultant last year in conjunction with the update. 'The City will need the
consultant to adjust the final map according to Council direction.
^ Office description on Page 13 of the draft plan. Replace "modern' with "well-designed"
to de-emphasize a particular architectural style along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
^ Roof-top mechanical equipment. Section 1.01.030 (3) on Page 16 of the draft plan was
modified to clarify mechanical equipment and utility structure screening and noise
buffering requirements.
^ R-1 standards in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Include the existing R-1 map into
the draft plan to indicate which properties are subject to the Single-Family Residential
Development Standards on Page 21. Remove section 1.02.20 "Land Use." Add language
to reference that these properties would be subject to Chapter 19.28, Residential Single-
Family (R-1) zones.
^ South Vallco Master Plan Residential Density. Added into the Permitted Uses section on
Page 151anguage that clarifies the residential density of the South Vallco Master Plan
area is 35 units/ acre.
^ Glenbrook Apartments. This area is not currently within the Heart of the City boundary
map that was approved by the 2005 General Plan. However, the newly created
boundary map has incorporated this apartment complex in accordance with the
previous Heart of the City boundary map pre-dating the 2005 General Plan.
^ City Center area reference in the Streetscape Design. Removed "including the City
Center Area' from the streetscape requirements at the bottom of Page 7 of the draft plan
in accordance with the existing Heart of the City Specific Plan reference that all
2
properties with frontage exclusively on S. De Anza Boulevard and Town Center
developments are not required to install Heart of the City streetscape features. However,
the S. De Anza Boulevard Area is currently subject to the architectural and design
guidelines.
Crossroads Area Streetscape Requirements. Staff added streetscape standards on Page 8
of the draft plan in accordance with the Crossroads Streetscape plan to provide
standards for this area. The draft plan currently says "Refer to the Crossroads Area
Streetscape Plan for details." The Council may use this as a starting point for discussion
or may remove the language all together.
Street Furnishings. Staff added language regarding street furnishings based upon
Council comments from the February 3rd Council meeting. Staff recommends that the
Council review the language for discussion.
^ Sustainability. The Council may consider adding language into the draft plan to
incorporate sustainability/green building principles. The following is language from
the draft R-1 ordinance:
"The City of Cupertino is committed to sustainable planning that integrates and
balances environmental decisions with economic considerations and recognizes
the symbiotic relationship between the natural environment, the community and
the economy. This commitment to envirommental stewardship, social
responsibility and economic vitality of our community can be realized in all
design projects, from single-family residences to large commercial properties,
through green building measures.
Green Building is defined as an integrated framework of design, construction,
operations and demolition practices that encompass the environmental,
economic and social impacts of buildings. Green building practices recognize the
interdependence of the natural and built environments and seek to minimize the
use of energy, water, and other natural resources and provide a healthy,
productive indoor environment.
Section 5, Environmental Resources/Sustainability of the City of Cupertino's
General Plan, presents essential components of a green building design and
planning process. These elements create a framework for evaluating green
building measures applicable to the construction principles, including but not
limited to:
• Site planning
• Energy efficiency
• Material efficiency
• Water conservation
Specific Plan vs. Conceptual Plan. Consider differences between Specific Plan
requirements and a Conceptual Plan. State law requires specific contents in a Specific
Plan. State law establishes minimum requirements for a Specific Plan such as the
distribution, location and extent of land uses; standards and criteria by which
development proceeds; infrastructure required to support said development; and finally
a program of implementation measures and financing measures needed to do all of the
above.
Supplemental Clarifications
^ Map of existing uses. For clarification purposes, the previously presented maps from
the February 3ra meeting showing the existing uses is not meant to be incorporated into
the Heart of the City Conceptual Plan. These maps were presented for reference
purposes only.
Red highlighted policies Nos. 4 and 5 on Page 4 of the draft plan. Both are taken directly
from language in General Plan Policy 2-29 under "Development Activities" and
"Development Intensity."
R-1 Clarifications. There are currently properties in the east Stevens Creek Blvd. section
of the Heart of the City plan that are zoned for commercial office and residential mixed
uses, but are currently occupied as single-family residential properties. The intent is that
as these properties redevelop, they can merge and comply with the commercial office
and residential mixed use zoning. This does not apply to the properties subject to the R-
1standards.
Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner
Approved by: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
~~ ~{-7-09
~~ ~~
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CUpERTINC
__ _ __ ..~
Heart of the City
Conceptual Plan
,' ~ ~ `-
,~. ,`
__ .
„~
., , ,,,
a _ _ ~r_
Blue highlight -Accepted changes by City Council (February 3, 20Q9~
Red highlight -Further discussion requested by City Council (February 3, 2009)
Purple highlight -Changes proposed by staff
Page 1 of 30
Date: Apri17, 2009
TaUle of Contents
Policy Framework ........................................................................................................................ 3
Streetscape Design ....................................................................................................................... 7
Development Standards and Design Guidelines .................................................................. 13
Development Standards ............................................................................................................15
Application Requirements and Approval Authority ........................................................... 22
Exception Process for Development Standards ..................................................................... 22
Design Guidelines ...................................................................................................................... 24
Site Improvements And Landscaping Guidelines ................................................................ 26
Appendix A -General Plan Policies related to the Heart of the City Plan Area .............. 28
Appendix B - Acknowledgeinents .......................................................................................... 29
Page 2 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
Introduction
Overview
The Heart of the City ` .-.~~ t i ~; ~ ~ ~ .~~Plan provides specific development guidance
for c-~e-e€ 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 ~:~ ;; °~ .~•„ ;`~'• ;~ ' 1~,~: Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor in a maruzer that creates
a greater sense of place and community identity in Cupertino. The overall goal is to
develop a Heart of the City, comprisuzg a collection of apedestrian-inclusive gathering
places that will create ~ positive and memorable experiences for residents and visitors
u1 ~ Cupertino.
The boundaries of the Heart of the City area are set by the General Plan. Currently, the
boundaries of the Heart of the City area encompass approximately 2~0 acres. Hot~-eyer,
the boundaries may be subject to change with General Plan amendments affectill~ this
area. Therefore, any properties that are incorporated into the boundaries of the Heart of
the City area as a result of General Plan amendments are subject to the Heart of the City
Conce~~tual Plan.
The plan includes a boundary map that provides expanded boundaries beyond the
current Heart of the Cite boundaries in the General Plan and overlaps ~~-ith other
~~ecific plan areas in the City ~~°hich are not in conflict ~~-ith the Heart of the Cite-
Conceptual Plan.
Policy Framework
Develop a Heart of the City that provides a variety of Land use opportunities of well
planned and designed commercial, affice and residential development, enhanced
activity nodes, and safe and efficient circulation and access far all modes of
transportation bet`veen activity centers that help focus and support activity in the
centers.
Policies
L 1Zequire shared parking arrangements in the Crossroads area in mixed use
developments with overall parking standards. =ed~ee~ te-r-e~c~--~~e~
~ b
2. Proposed developments shall be expected to continue the i.mplementatian of
the City's streetscape plan.
3. Development applicants are encouraged to submit commercial, affice,
residential or mixture of uses. Regardless of proposed land use, high quality
site planning, architectural design, and on-site landscaping is expected.
4. Subdivision of commercial parcels is discouraged.
Page 3 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
~. rlans ror the nerti~ protects snoula include pedestrian and bicVeie pathavaVS,
incorporating the City's existing net-~~ork.
6. Ti. „ !~: F ~ L.., T 1 .7 ~ ,-. ,] T ~ ., ~ ., ~ 1.: 1 ., a1. L,. T'l A
i._... _~.. i__~y' uiiui.[ ua.~zTTT-1=c '~CtC'~'A'[i2TTi'QZI2-~'CTLIT[.,Z~
R" ,Tl. ..,-T t.. +1,~ ~E.,.... ,-;~t, 1:~.-.;~~ ~L,..k .+,, 1..;,.Tz~~SzrQri-c- ,a,„-,,~a;t>,-,
Note: Planning C01111nisslon recommended eliTllinatiT2g t)ze following:
_. -- __ _..r..._.. . __. .. .a ._ _..... ~. _"_ ~,,,~....-.. .,. ~.........~.. , ~.........,~~ .,,..,.
,~rT f.>-,„T T ;+,>,a ; rl,,,,+; ..7 ., 7 i„-,,.,,,7 /D., f;,.,, ~
_. .,
7
_ _ _
r /
+
D r
4. ResideT2tiad or office developments sl2all be coTisidered i.Ti raid-block parcels.
Parcels o11 O1` heal' intersections shall ltave a neighborhood coT2lniercial
coinpoileT2t. (Policy)
~. A7ixed coiTUnercial aT2d residential development may be allowed if the residential
knits provide aT1 incentive to develop retail uses, if the developnleT2t is zc~ell
designed, fittanctally beTlef2Ctal t0 Cupel•t1110, provides C0111111Zf111ty an1e112tieS a12d
is pedesfi'ian-Qriel2ted. (Policy)
The 2005 General Plan contains the policies that govern the following development
aspects within the Plan area:
1. Specific Areas & Subareas within 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. Buildung Heights.
These are attached as Appendix A to this document.
The map on Page 6 outlines the boundaries for the Heart of the City and the underlying
land uses allowed by the General Plan based upon the neighborhood centers identified
in the Heart of the City area. Tlne neap identifies primary, secondary and suUUOrtin~
ases permitted iln these neighborhood centers, and also desimnates district names to
each of these centers to furtiner clarify the overall development Goals for each district.
Page 4 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
I1~e map includes:
A. West Stevens Creek Boulevard ffrom Hiah~vay 85 to Stellina Road}
Identified as the Educational/Public/Park District
Includes De Anza Colle6e, the Oaks Shop~~in~ Center, City Sports Center and the
Glenbrook A~?artments
Primary Use: Quasi-Public/Public Facilities
Supporting Use: )!-fixed Commercial/Residential
Residential inav be located above the ground level and behind
Primar~% Uses
B. Crossroads Area (from StellinQ Road to De Anza Boulevard)
Identified. as the Commercial Sho~pin~ District
Includes Whole Foods, Tar6~et, Crossroads Shoppila Center, and Marisa Foods
Primary Use: Conunercial/Retail
Secondary Use: Commercial Office above the ground level
Su~portila Use: Limited Residential
Residential may be located above the ground level and behind
Primary Uses
C. Central Stevens Creek Boulevard (from I3e Anza Boulevard east to Perimeter
Road/Portal Avenue}
1. Coiulectil6 Commercial District sub-area that includes Stevens Creek Boulevard
bet~~~een De Anza Boulevard and Perimeter Road/Portal Avenue
Priznarv Use: Commercial/Commercial Office
Secondary Use: Office above around level
Sup~Ortllla Use: Residential/Residential Mixed Use
2. City Center sub-area that includes the east side of S. De Anza Boulevard bet~~-een
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Pacifica Avenue
Primary Use: Office/Residential/Hotel/Public Facilities/Commercial Retail/
Mixed Uses
D. East Stevens Creek Boulevard (from Perimeter Road to eastern City limits}
Identified as the Red Tonal Commercial District
Includes Cupertino Square Mall, the Marketplace Shoppin~a Center, Portal P laza
Shopping Center
Primary Use: Retail/Conunercial/Commercial Office
Secondary Use: Office above ground level
Supporting Use: Residential/Residential Mixed Use
Page 5 of 30
Date: Apri17, 2009
Streetscape Design
Background and Purpose
The Streetscape Element r~--~=:~-_ ~~~~~:-~ r~-r=~=~ implements community design goals
contained in the 1993 General Plan, design concepts subsequently developed and
revised in the 1993 "Heart of the Cify" Design Charette, and any new policies and
concepts identified in 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 1}a~-links the street's major activity centers with a
continuous landscaped parkway as a principal objective.
The Streetscape Element complements the Conceptual Plan's Land Use Element Uy
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 Guidelines. Together, these three Plan Elements combine to promote an
attractive, mixed-use boulevard, consistent with 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 corridor. It allows for
flexibility i11 terms of phasing, financing, and design modifications iz1 order to address
the needs of the City and Conceptual Plan Area property owners and Uusinesses.
Streetscape Design Principles
The Streetscape Element has four underlying 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, Planthzg Strips and Buffering Trees and Shrubs.
3) Allow for Flexibility in the Design of Streetscape Improvements to Address
Access and VisiUility 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 Steve~zs Creek Boulevard,
Crossroads, Central Stevetzs Creek Boulevard ; ~T~: a~~~n ~'-~~r~^~~ and East
Stevens Creek Boulevard. See the Concept Plan on the following page.
Page 7 of 30
Date: Apri17, 2009
A continuous curbside planting strip and a continuous row 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 u1 the
subareas and/or the predomilant 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
the existing Deodar cedars at De Anza College without needing 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 - n~-tThe Crossroads area S#~eetse~e~k~r-€$r a~+.,;i,. ~n,;` ~„~..,,.,,.,
extends from Stellizg Road to De Anza Boulevard. The plantilg theme is to follow the
Crossroads Area Streetscape Plan which involves ilstallin~ a 20-foot wide sidewalk that
includes afive-foot wide tree well tovlcorporate existing street trees `where possible
and plant ne~v street trees at 25 feet on center ~~>ith pedestrian-scaled street furniture.
Tl ~e t~~pe of tree is determined on a case-by-case basis by the City. This approach is
intended to create an active, pedestrian-oriented shoUpin~ district that is
~~redomilantly commercial and allo~~-s for outdoor dining opportunities adjacent to
buildilgs along Ste~~ens Creek Boulevard. IIZ the future, the Crossroads Area
Streetscape Plan is anticipated to be developed and adovted by the City.
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 Ue 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, h, ~ iii
llld\ ~C 17_.l~t'I"' \ti lut'I _I_ c~~lll_ fOr ~iE'C'_- 011 d ~ ~ ~'-~~`~~-~~~~ hd~:~ !I1 ~~'~~:dl ~n~c ~ \V~~Z~'1"~ Trees
~}1~scure '
i;= retail visibility.
East Stevens Creek Boulevard -The East Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea extends from
Perimeter Road to the City boundary adjacent to Tantau Avenue. T1ze planting theme is
an "Ash Grove." It features a r~' 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 in and extends the tree plantings that presently
exist along the street. It also combines with the "Oak Grove" in the West Stevens Creek
Page 8 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
Boulevard subarea to frame the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea. Both will
have a shady, somewhat rural visual character. Trees should be planted i11 rows on Uoth
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
dT1VeWayS, the ~lt~~ nld1~ ~t_lI1~IC~~r ~11t~E'I- ~~~dLITZ~' fOI- ~tI-~t5 x)11 d Ld~~-L~~--Last' l~d~l~ 111
~L~e~ldl ~d~e~ ~1here trE'eS ObSCUre rrr. ~c~c~~r,~~.i'~ ._~-~aT-r:=t-r=~i"~~ ::-i-~'"' "l. c-~'r~..`,- , _~: z
:~~-:',` ,'. ._ `~~' :~ :+ ,~?,_~,.;,~ retail ~~~~~t~~l;t~ If a double row of mature ashes is already
established along a commercial retail frontage, neither row of trees should be removed.
Note: Retain list of streetscave trees
Page 9 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
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. In 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. The frontage improvements recommended should be improved as part of
renovations to existing developments and properties, and/or required along with a
wider landscape easement if redevelopment of a property occurs. ~h~ Ciro- I~,~.a;~ ailc~~~~~~
l-di`1~. i:.!~~ fiI"C'n1 the tI-t~Iltd~;E llat~I'C~~'Ch1~'llt I"<_~;U1?"_i..~'p.i~ ~`hi ;; ~:i~~-by-Cds2 baSls that
may include one of the folloi~ ink or a variation. of the follo~, ing:
.~
o a - ~ a ~
o a - -
-
, _
1) 1Nrde Landscape Easenre~it rc~ith Pla~lti~Io Strip -This condition is the model for the rest
of the street. It contails a 10 feet planting strip and a 10 foot landscape easement
adjacent to the side~~-alk. It reflects City requirements for frontage landscaping that
hate been ill place for the past t~~~elve years and as such characterizes most of the
ne~v development along the street. Existing trees in these areas, ho~~-ever, rarer?
form consistent rows along the street. Additional trees should be added to create a
double ro~~~ of trees at a spacing consistent with the streetscape desiglZ. Existing trees
of the recommended tree species should not be removed if spaced closer than the
streetscape design. Over the long term ~~~hen redevelopment of properties occurs,
the ~~~ide landscape easement with planting strip ~~°ill be implemented on all To~~-n
Center and East Gateway frontage properties.
2) Cw•2~,ide 61~a1k ~~itlt La~td~cape Ease~~iellt - A curbside planting strip up to 10 feet in
~~-idth and a double row of trees can be established under this condition. Ho~~-ever,
because the ~~~idth of the easement area varies, the second row of trees may need to
be offset from the first ro~v.
3) Wide Curbside 1-'Valk ~c~ithouf Landscape Fa~enrenf - Isz this condition the entire curbside
right-of-~~~ay is paved as a side~~~alk. Levels of pedestrian activity along the street
generally don't demand a walk this ~a'ide, and a curbside planting strip
approximately 6 feet ~~-ide should be established by removing the curbside portion
of the ~~~alk.
4) Curbside Walk without Landscape Easement - I11 this condition, a monolithic curb,
gutter and side~~°alk exists with a relatively narrow planting area bet~~-een the
side~~~alk and adjacent buildings and/or parking areas. There is no landscape
easement adjacent to the right-of-~vay, and there is only 10 feet ~~-ithiz the right-of-
1~~';~V'. T'_ ~,ltlc'''ll~`I~t i}~. ~iI'E~~~C.,I~C~ ~~,i,i .'tit lll, ~ -'t- 1 -.'P~~,]ii~„l~ ~I,~ 1~~ atI ,I- ~+
Page 11 of 30
Date: Apri17, 2009
the walk and plantuzg area needs to be reversed. A ~ feet curbside planting strip and
a 5 feet side~~-alk should Ue estaUlished within the right-of-~~~ay. Trees should Ue
located in adjacent parking lots as feasible to establish a double row.
Street Furnishings
~'V~11en frontage improvements of the Streetscape Element are required, the Citv may
require proiects to provide street furnishings that may include Uenches, trash
receptacles, side~~-alk lighting and the like. The City twill determine the location, amount
and type of street furnishuZgs required of proiects on a case-Uv-case Uasis.
Page 12 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Background
The Development Standards and Design Guidelines 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, enhance property values, and ensure
that both private investment and public activity continues to be attracted to the Stevens
Creek Boulevard corridor.
The "Parkurbia" concept promotes a "green" city in a park-like setting, acknowledges
Cupertino's agricultural past, and envisions Stevens Creek Boulevard as a landscaped
parkway linking major centers of cultural, office, and retail use. However, Stevens
Creek Boulevard must also accommodate a variety of development types outside of the
activity nodes around intersections, 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 Cupertino is most on display along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The corridor
is the central element of Cupertino's "public realm," where much of its public life occurs.
Yet the corridor's bodge-podge appearance contributes little to the overall character of
the community and is at odds with the orderly suU-urban character of its
neighborhoods and Uusiness parks. Land uses, building forms, and landscaping vary
from one property to the next. i~-~~ C~~h,~rn~ ~-~ ~:.~: Uuildings, ~ee~~ ,,, ~~-ell-
desi~zed offices, old and new shopping centers, parks, parking lots, gas stations,
condominiums and apartments all "do their own thing," independent of one another.
~-L. 11 -, - _.,:-~.,~~--~}E`~-F~-rrra~r^-`cr`cTri-ci-'~-iir~ ~ I ~~-'r~ E:-I-L -~Yi~i~~~~-1~~-~=v'. S~~~m~
e~-~ ~~~. ,_ ~~}i-~~'-1 ~3~-C~ _~_-~=i=`i~-iTr'=?;~ ,-7 C-~i=c`C~=r~z~i-ti~ ~$S~-~==..-~~-~"..
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
"parkway" design approach as a means of both brilging visual order to the street and
reflecting the physical characteristics of the rest of the community.
The goals of the Standards and Guidelines are:
1) Accommodate a continuous parkway /street-tree planting scheme that facilitates
pedestrian activity, yet maintail the visibility and access needed for successful
commercial retail businesses.
2) Promote visual compatibility Uetween commercial, office, and residential
development.
Page 13 of 30
Date: Apri17, 2009
~llo~~- commercial, office and residential development flexibility to meet
different needs in terms of building form and site and frontage orientation.
Page 14 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
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.
1.01.020 Permitted Uses
i~70te: ~1Gi11112tig COn11t1t5S10t1 i'eCOl1t172e11G~eG~ e112ti112Qt121g the following section:
1.Commercial - As specified in the Citv's General Commercial (CG) Zoning district
with the fallowing Iocational restrictions:
E. 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 allowed on the Stevens Creek Boulevard street frontage
of buildings.
F. These uses maybe 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 depth to accommodate
tenants.
~. 1~esidential - at a maximum den~itti- of t«~enty fig-e (Z~} a?pits per acre, except that in
the South Vallca Master Plan area the density is thirty five (35} units per acre. far
mixed residential and commercial de~-elopmenfs this Shall be net density,
excluding parking and/or Land areas devoted to the commercial portion of the
development.
The following is an illustration of how net density is calculated:
Grass Iot = 1 acre (43,560 sq. ft)
Commercial building area = 8,000 sq. ft.
Surface parking area for commercial area = 6,120 sq. ft. (40 uni-size
spaces ~ 1/250 sa. ft.)
Allowance for outdoor open/landscaping area (10°0 of commercial
building and parking area) = 1,412 sq. ft.
Total area for commercial portion of development = 15,532 sa. ft.
Remainder area = 28,028 sq. ft. = 0.643 acres
Units allowable on remainder area = 0.6-13 ' 25 = 16 units
3. Office Over Retail
4. Other Conditional Uses - as specified in the Cit~~'s General Commercial (CG)
Zoning district.
Note: Platuiitig Cotnttiission recotntriendec~ adr~ziig the follazoitig:
Page 15 of 30
Date: Apri17, 2009
1. O ice uses
2. A cor~zbinatioli of office, retail and/or residential use whether as ~rart of a si~1
yuilding or in separate structures
3. Drive through uses are discorrra~~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 bulk 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 the City standards except for the Crossroads area. See
Crossroads Streetscape Plan for details.
3. Mechanical equipment and utility structures:
a. Rooftop mechanical equi~~ment may exceed height limitations if they
are enclosed, centrally located on the roof and not t-isible from ad}acent
streets.
b. Shall be screened from public view.
c. Shall be provided with measures ~~~here possible with reasonable
efforts to buffer noise from adiacent residential uses.
B. Front Setbacks
1. Minimum Setback -for new development shall be nine (9) feet from the
required Boulevard Landscape Easement; see section 1.01.040 i,~i~ ~ ice'
New development shall be defused 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 i~.,~~.,
~~ r',~'1 ~~~,rk ;~t.~ ~:jrt_ ~Zi~, ~, ~ ~~-~;~~~~; +-~~- __. :_?~~; miizimum 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 building, or ten (10) feet, whichever
is greater on lots 150 feet or wider
Page 16 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
b. 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 properties.
~1%hen adjacent properties are ioilltl~- developed as then may occur isz a
shopping center the setbacks bet~~-een buildings may be reduced to zero
~~-hen it promotes pedestrian access.
2. Minimum Rear Setback -for ne~~- development along deg-eloped or zoned
residential properties the rear setback shall be equal to one and one-half
(I.5) times the heir ht of the building_~~-ith a minimum setback of 20 feet.
3. Lnu~Ilabitable buildu1g elements -such as chinulevs and projecting ea~~es
may encroach up to three (3) feet in to a required setback.
4. I~Zixed Use Be~-elo~~ments -may reduce the minimum side and rear
setL~acks bet~~~een onsite buildings ~~~ithil~ a common master elan in
accordance ~~~ith an a~~pro~~ed de~~elopment plan.
D. Building Orientation -The main building entrance to all buildings shall be
located on the front building facade, a fronting building comer, or a side-
facing 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 main building
entrance; i.e., pedestrian access to builduzg entrances shall not require
walking 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 be one (1) two-way curb cut
or two (2) one-way curb cuts on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
:~~~~~1t1:U' `1 ~_U~'- ~~lt~ :~ ~~t '~.~~~'~A1~e~7 UL~C~Il ', t'V~1~`, d1~~1 ht
1 It
b. Ramping driveways -shall be located beyond the Uack of sidewalk,
with a maximum grade of twenty percent (20%) and adequate sight
distance.
c. DrivewaySetbacks_:~ ~ir:~ t ,,_~., .-..~t .:~~ , ~ ,i,.;r~,~ shallbe:
Page 17 of 30
Date: Apri17, 2009
(i) A minimum of five (5) feet from adjoiZing properties and
(ii) T11ree (3) feet from adjacent buildings.
- t ~ ~, t.
e. Service Access -shall be from rear parking areas. Service access
should avoid locatilg next to residential areas whenever possible.
B. Parking
Location of Surface Lots -The preferred Ideation of surface lots shall be
to the side andlor rear of buildinss. Other parkins arrangements ~ti~ill
be considered if necessary for the successful operation of the business.
Subsurface/deck parking is allowed provided it is adequately screened
from Stevens Creek Boulevard or adjacent residential. developments.
,,, .
~ ~ ~
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 sidewalk 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 two 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 eating area.
b. Plazas and courtyards shall include outdoor seating. Such areas shall
be integrated 'alto the project site design and/or situated i1 the
parkway landscape easement.
2. For Residential Development -
a. Common, usable outdoor space shall be provided for all multi unit
buildu1gs. A minimum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet shall be
provided for each unit excluding required setback areas; see Design
Guidelines.
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
Page 18 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
or deck attached to the unit, not less than six (6) feet clear in any
dimension.
D. Landscaping and Screening
1. Parkway Landscape Easement -All new development shall establish an
easement twenty six (26) feet in 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 in 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 minimum 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 opening.
Parking area lot trees within the view corridor may also be cleared to
allow for unobstructed views of buildings and signs in 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 within and adjacent to the
fence or wall with evergreen trees planted at a minimum spacing 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 within required curbside planting
strips.
4. Screen Fences and Walls - i'~~i-_~~ fi,~~ r.r~.~< ~~ ~,~all 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 in
height.
Where a commercial and residential property share a common property
line, the sound wall separating the uses shall have a minimum height of
eight (8) feet. ~i,~,~ -,~ ~,-, - _~,_ti~ ~:-~ t=~~~l~r - n ~i::'.~_ ~ :~~~~::~~
5. Plant Materials -See "Site Improvements and Landscaping" section.
Page 19 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
E. Building Design
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 residentially
developed parcels shall be stepped back or terraced or have adequate
setback so that privacy is maintained. Buildings requiring terracing shall
have a 1.x:1 setback to height ratio.
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 in visibility associated with the parkway frontage improvements:
1. Maximum BuilduZg-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 20 of 30
Date: Apri17, 2009
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 bet~~~een Stevens Creek Boulevard fronting development
and single-family neighborhoods in the vitality of Tantau, Judy, Bret and Stern
Avenues. Standards apply to existazg lots 10,000 square feet or less u1 area and 22~ feet
or more in distance from Step°ens Creek Boulevard.
1.02.20 Land Use
A. Permitted Uses
L Single-Family Residential- at a density range of 1-5 units per acre.
2. Other permitted uses az the R-1 sazgle-family residential zonalg 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 allo~~-ed a, the R-1 single-family residential zoning
district.
1.02. ~0 Building Height and Setbacks
1. Building heights and setbacks are as allo~~-ed in the R-1 single-family
residential zoning district.
1.02.0 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 sho~~-n u1 the figure.
Page 21 of 30
Date: Apri17, 2009
Application Requirements and Approval Authority
A. Prior to the erection of a ne~~~ builduzo or structure in the Plan Area, or prior to the
enlargement or modification of an existing building, structure or site (includuZg
landscaping and lighting) ilz the Plan Area, the applicant for a building permit must
obtain a use hermit in a maiuzer consistent t~~ith the requirements specified in
Chapter 19.L-I of the Cupertuzo Municipal Code.
If the building square footat e is less than five thousand square feet, the Plazulirzg
Commission may grant a conditional use permit. If the buildin~~ square footage is
fig°e thousand square feet or greater, the conditional use permit may only be issued
by the City Council upon recomn ~endation of the Plaiuling Commission.
B. 1\linor architectural modifications, including chances in materials and colors, shall
be reviel~~ed by the Director of Community Development as specified u1 Chapter
19.132 or 2.90 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. If an application is diverted to the
Desig~~ Revie~~~ Committee or the Plaiu1i11g Commission, the application ~~~ill be
a~~endized for a Design IZevie~~~ Committee or Planning; Commission meeting as an
architectural_ and site a~~ulication.
Exception Process for Development Standards
In order to provide design flexibility u1 situations when small lot size, unusually shaped
parcels, or unique surrounding 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 uztensity or change permitted land uses.
A. An exception for development standards can be approved if the final approval
authority for a project makes all of the 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 in
the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety.
3. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian
or vehicular traffic.
4. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services
are available to serve the development.
5. The proposed development requires an exception, which involves the least
modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in
this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel.
Page 22 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
B. An application for exception must be submitted on a form as prescribed by the
Director of Community Development. The application shall be accompanied by a fee
prescribed by City Council resolution, no part of which shall be refundable, to the
applicant. Upon receipt of an application for an exception, the Director shall issue a
Notice of PuUlic Hearing before the Planning Commission for an exception under
this chapter in the same mariner as provided in section 19.120.060 (relating to zoning
changes). After a public hearing, and consideration of the application in conjunction
with the mandatory findings contained i11 subsection A above, the Planning
Commission shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application for an
exception. The decision of the Plaruling Commission may be appealed to the City
Council as provided in Section 19.136.060.
C. An exception which has not been used within two years following the effective date
thereof, shall become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period
shall specifically Ue prescribed Uy 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 23 of 30
Date: Apri17, 2009
Design Guidelines
2.01.010 Description
The Design Guidelines promote buildings that assume some of the communication
functions of signs.
A. Building Increment -Long facades should Ue divided into shorter segments
or modules and should be separated by major changes in the buildu1g 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 varyilg 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
have a base; a clear pattern of openings and surface features; a prominent
main entrance; and an attractive, visually interesting roofline. The building
should convey quality materials.
E. Windows -are an important element of facade composition and an indicator
of over all building quality:
1. Window Openings -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 wildow
frame or from the exterior wall surface to add relief to building 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.
Page 24 of 30
Date: Apri17, 2009
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 in 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
buildings, 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 u1 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 ;~t~t~~,_,,~
-.;!1.~.,-~. ,for guidelines.
Page 25 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
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 iZdicated.
A. Paving Materials -recommended for pedestrian surfaces are listed below. In
general, a maximum of two materials should be combined in a single
application:
1. Stone -such as slate or granite.
2. Brick pavers.
3. Concrete unit pavers.
4. Poured-in-place concrete -with any of the following treatments: integral
pigment color; special aggregate; special scoring pattern; ornamental
insets, such as tile; pattern stamped. All concrete walks should Ue tinted
to reduce glare.
B. Plant Materials And Landscape Treatments -Used on properties adjacent to
the right-of-way 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 fuiutional 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 26 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
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. Native and water-wise plantings - should be used with drip
irri ate ion systems for on-site landscape areas in develot~ments.
3. Surface Parking Lots - utilize a significant amount of site area and should
be designed as an integral feature of the overall site development plan.
a. Parking Lots -Planting should be consistent with the standards
outlined in the parking 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
parking 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. rEnces -Chain link, barbed jvire and razor wire fencing are not allowed.
Page 27 of 30
Date: Apri17, 2009
Appendix A -General Plan Policies related to the Heart
of the City Plan Area
Page 28 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
Appendix B -Acknowledgements
1995:
City Council
Wally Dean, Mayor
John Bautista
Don Burnett
Barb Koppel
Lauralee Sorensen
P1aruling Commission
David Doyle, Chairperson
Paul V. Roberts, Vice Chairperson
Donna Austin
Andrea Harris
Orrn1 Mahoney
Staff
Donald Brown, City Manager
Robert S. Cowan, AICP, Director of Community Development
Ciddy Wordell, AICP, City P1aruler
Coli1 Jung, AICP, Associate Planner/Project Manager
Michele Bjurman, AICP, Planner II
Vera Gil, Planner II
Anu Natarajan, Planning Intern
Yvorule Kelley, Administrative Secretary
Pam Eggers, Administrative Clerk
Bert Viskovich, P.E., Director of Public Works
Glerul 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
Orrin Mahoney
Kris Wang
Gilbert Wong
Mark Santoro
Plaruling Commission
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
David Kaneda
Jessica Rose
Paul Brophy
Page 29 of 30
Date: April 7, 2009
Staff
David Knapp, City Manager
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner (Retired)
Aki Honda Sne11u1g, Senior Plaruler
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, amendulents to the Heart of the City Specific Plan will result in a page revision date
in the lower inside corner of the changed page. Types of changes may include page-numbering, minor
typographical or cosmetic changes or policy and text changes. Substantive changes will be noted u1 the
table below, in addition to the page revision dates.
Date Orduzance Number Descri tion
March 3, 1997 CC 1753 Text and Map: City Center Area
chan es
December, 1997 CC 1769 Text: Single-Family Residences
Allowed on Certain Pro erties
July 6, 1998 CC 1786 Text: Exception Process for
Develo meat Standards
June 19, 2000 00-192 & 00-193 Ma : Cit Center Area chan es
December XX, 2008 CC XXXX Text and Map: Conformity to
General Plan, Flexible side yard
setbacks, consolidate sections
and u date numbers
Page 30 of 30
Date: Apri17, 2009
Specific Plan
A. Overview
The specific plan is just a step below the general plan in the land use
approval hierarchy and is used for the systematic implementation of the
general plan for particular areas. Gov't Code § 65450. Zonings, subdivi-
sion, public works projects and development agreements all must be con-
sistent tivith the adopted specific plan. Gov't Code §§ 65455, 65867.5. It is
important for the developer to check with the city planning or community
development department whether or not a specific plan has been adopted
covering the property.
PRACTICE TIP
A property owner should always check to see if there is a specific plan cov-
eringthe property since it will govern development.
B. Contents
A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which
specify all of the follotiving in detail:
The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including
open space, within the area covered by the plan.
The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major
components of public and private transportation, se`vage, water,
drainage, solid tivaste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities
proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed
to support the land uses described in the plan.
O Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and stan-
dards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural re-
sources, where applicable.
A program of implementation measures including regulations, pro-
- grams, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to
carry out paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) above.
The specific plan must include a statement of the relationship of the
specific plan to the general plan. Gov't Code § 65451.
~ 25
CURTiN"S CALIFORNIA LAND USE AND PLANNING LAW
The specific plan may address any other
subjects which, in the judgment of the plannuig
agency, are necessary or desirable for implemen-
tation of the general plan. Gov't Code § 65452.
C. Adoption
The procedure for adoption of a specific
plan is basically the same as for a general plan
except that it may be amended as often as neces-
sary. Also a specific plan may be adopted by or-
dinance or resolution. The adoption of a spe-
cific plan, like a general plan, is a legislative act.
Yost v. Thon'aas, 3 6 Cal. 3 d S 61 (1984). Pursuant
to Gov't Code § 65456, cities can impose a spe-
cific plan fee upon persons seeking governmen-
tal approvals which are required to be consistent
with the specific plan. These fees can defray the
cost of preparation of the specific plan.
Specific plans, like general plans, must be
consistent `vith a county Airport Land Use Plan
adopted pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 21675.
See chapter 2, section B.8 for further discussion.
Revision Act of 1993, Pub. Res. Code § 21156-
21159.9 (use of Master Environmental Impact
Report Process applicable to specific plan adop-
tions); discussion in chapter 6 (California Envi-
ronmental Quality Act (CEQA)).
For a discussion of the use of the specific
plans, see Governor's Office of Planning and
Research, Specific Plans in the Golden State (1989).
E. Judicial Review
Since adoption of a specific plan is a leg-
islative act, judicial review is limited to an
examination of the proceedings before the city
to determine whether its action was arbitrary
or capricious, or entirely lacking in eviden-
tiary support, or whether it has failed to follow
the procedures and give the notices required
by law. Mitchell v. County of Orange, 16510 5.
App. 3d 1185 (1985); Civ. Proc. Code §
This "arbitrary and capricious" test also applies
to challenges to a specific plan's conformance
to a general plan. Id.; see also Ka~vaoka v. City
of Arroyo Grande, 17 F.3d 122.7 (1994) (holding
that a general plan's requirement that a specific
plan be prepared before land was converted to
residential use was not arbitrary, and holding
that requiring payment of a fee for preparation
of a specific plan was not unconstitutional).Any
lawsuit brought to challenge the adoption or
amendment of a specific plan must be brought
within 90 days after the city council's decision.
(Gov't Code § 65009).
D. Interplay With CEQA
To assist and encourage cities and de65457
ers to use specific plans, Gov't Code §
with certain exceptions, exempts from further
CEQA requirements residential development
projects if they are undertaken to implement
and are consistent with a specific plan for which
an EIR has been certified. See also Dills, Allen,
Sher California Environmental Quality Act
26 ~
w~sT ~--~R~ssR~~ns ~~N~n~-c
f
""' - ~
_ -- , ~ ~ i C _ ~ - - - _._ .
Connecting Commercial
a~srw~.. - .•T.~ .z-a
District
~n~ - -
Eduatio
Public/Park District
Primary:
fluasi-Public, Public Facilities
SupPOrtin~: .~~\~\
Commercial
S#~oppin~ District _'
-~;
Primary: -'
Commercial/Retail :-:
Secondary:
Commercial Office above
the ground level
Supporting
-~~
Limited residential f above
and behind primary uses
S_Oe Anza Blvd,
Special Area: All properties with
frontasso vscrlnciuoly nn ~ (lo Anna
_ i,
Stevens Creek Blvd. -
.;~~:
Primary: - _
Commercial &
Commercial Office
Secondary:
Office _f above the ground
IeveU
Supporting:
Residential/Residential
Mixed Use
Subarea: CITY CENTER
...~ _ .r, _ • . _ . ,..
t
t
~M`
`\
~O~
cc./~--7-oq ~
Linda Lagergren
From: virginia TAMBLYN [vtamcupt@sbc131obal.net]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:23 AM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Dolly ~>andoval
Cc: Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro
Subject: Heart of the City Plan Section #1.0'1.030 A 3. c.
Dear Members of the Cupertino City Council,
This letter addresses "Rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures on developments adjacent to
residential areas."
Section # 1.01.030 A. 3. c. reads "Shall be provided with measures where possible with reasonable efforts to
buffer noise from adjacent resident uses." This statement is not strict enough. I can speak from experience.
might add that , as yet, I have not noticed a decrease in they noise behind my home.
In the state of Oregon compressors must be enclosed in rooms, as per my son-in-law who is a dentist. He said
that is not true in California. Compressors should not be ~~laced on the roof. They should be required to be in
an enclosed room with appropriate air flow.
I noticed that Peets Coffee, on Stevens Creek, seems to have an enclosed compressor.
The residents should have more protection from the equipment of commercial centers adjacent to their homes.
The term "reasonable efforts to buffer noise" is not accept;~ble.
Please consider this in your planning.
Sincerely yours,
Virginia Tamblyn
19721 Bixby Dr.
vtamcubtn,sbcelobal.net
408-253-2278
~1~-la~
~-~ ~
Linda Lagergren
From: Ned & Rusty Britt [nrbritt@comcasi:.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:14 AM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Dolly :iandoval; Mark Santoro; Gilbert Wong
Subject: Updates to HOC plan
Attachments: Ltr to City Council.doc; ATT00001.1itm
Mr. Mayor and other members of the council.
A business trip prevents me from attending the Council meeting tonight. Please accept and read the attached letter
regarding public input on the proposed updates to HOC plan. My letter is embedded into this entail and also
attached as a MS Word file incase the format gets scrambled by the entail.
---- Ned Britt
To: Orrin Mahoney, Mayor
Kris Wang, Vice Mayor
Dolly Sandoval
Mark Santoro
Gilbert Wong
From: E. J. "Ned" Britt, for Concerned Citizens of Cupertino
Re: Agenda Item # 1 for April 7, 2009 City Coun~;,il Meeting
Heart of the City Specific plan Amendments and Update
Application: SPA 2008-O1
The Concerned Citizens of Cupertino are alarmed. about the proposed actions on the Heart of the
City plan. We have reviewed the Staff Report on the Draft Heart of the City Conceptual Plan, as
well as the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The current versions of these documents lack clarity.
There are many cross-references between them -- and also to the Crossroads Streetscape Plan.
Indeed, there may even be some self-referential loops. Layered on top of this complexity is
another problem, because documents are marked up with 3 sets of highlighted additions,
deletions, and staff-recommended changes. As a result, it is difficult for a member of the public
to get a concise picture of the proposed updates/amendments. Action should be postponed until
the ambiguities are cleared up, and the combined effects of the interlocking subsections of the
HOC plan are explained to the public.
Nevertheless, the staff report, etc., contains proposed specifications for some HOC areas that
concern us. For example:
1. Building heights of 45 ft.
2. Sidewalks of 20 ft.
3. Supporting Use -Residential over and behind.
I want to remind you of the situation that caused its to organize CCC in 2003. At that time the
Council and Planning staff put forth a plan to evolve the Crossroads area of Stevens Creek Blvd
into a sort of "urban canyon", with tall (45 ft.) commercial buildings close to the street (next to a
20 ft. sidewalk), and with residential apartments/condominiums on top of the stores or behind
them. Of course, this proposal sparked outrage among the residents, and we formed CCC to
oppose it. We showed up in the Council meeting:; with "Save Our City" white Tee shirts, and
told the Council that we must preserve an environment with trees where we can see the
mountains and sky. The Council backed down from the Crossroads plan at that time and told us
that they agreed with us.
However, the community outrage was exacerbated by construction of the very large, and out-of-
character, Montebello Apartments plus other planned high-density developments. This led to
three ballot initiatives for architectural standards, and later two referenda against changing
zoning from commercial to residential uses. The :initiatives were nearly successful, despite
questionable practices of seated Council members campaigning against them, and untrue claims
by the opposition to scare residents. The referenda did pass with a large majority of the vote,
because by that time the community had become ~ictivated and residents are aware that they
must be vigilant. Cupertino residents now understand that their Council is likely to give in to
pressure to destroy the suburban character of Cupertino, and efforts by developers and housing
special interests who want to build high density, which would cause worse traffic and damage
our schools.
The proposed updates/amendments to the HOC p~~rtion of the General Plan seem to be a
disguised effort to subtly entitle some type of "urban canyon" development along Stevens Creek
Blvd. Please be aware that the residents do not want that to happen, and we will oppose it with
all means at our disposal: including referenda, initiatives, or recall.
We urge the Council to reject any portions of the HOC plan(s), which contain explicit, or
implicit, intentions to build more tall structures ar-d/or buildings close to the street. The
community has clearly spoken that they do not w~int any conversion of commercial space to
residential. The Crossroads Area is the commercial center of Cupertino, and it should remain as
such. The HOC plan should be updated to ackno~Nledge the existing residential development
along the length of Stevens Creek Blvd., but the flan should also clearly state that there would
be no more loss of commercial space to residenti~~l development.
Thank you for your attention and your service to Cupertino.
~ ~
C~~. r
Edward J. "Ned" Britt, Ph.D.
President of Concerned Citizens of Cupertino
From Julia Kinst (juliak@cupertino.org)
Julia Kinst
t,~~ ~ l
From: Keithddl527 @ aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 1:32 PM
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Heart of The City Specific Plan & Cross Roads Specific Plan
Dear City Council members,
Regarding:
Agenda Item 1, Application: SPA 2008-01, Agenda Date: March 4, 2009
Application SPA-2008-01 was originally requested by the City Council and city staff to update the Heart of the City
Specific Plan, to review original language, and to remove any conflicts that this HOC Specific Plan might have
with our General Plan and its greater mandates.
Conflicts of language might require modification of the HOC Specific Plan, and that is being reviewed by our
Planning Commission and city staffers, with our resident's half hearted participation and input, due to
a disconnect caused by the long process and excessive drafts. This process was started on December 18, 2007
as described in the application summary; agenda item #36 dated December 18, 2007, several hundred draft
pages have been written, with no sight in end, with little ability of our residents to follow those changes, let alone
understand the ramifications which they legislatively propose.
On October 21, 2008 the City Council directed the Planning Staff to eliminate all language in the Specific Plan
that is already in the General Plan - a simple and modest goal, one might have hoped at the time.
As a result, the currently Proposed draft of the Heart of the City Conceptual Plan dated February 3, 2009, has
relegated the HOC Specific Plan to a lack luster landscape plan with little administrative authority, leaving to much
to the imaginations of developers and land owners to devise what they desire, with little direction in the way of
master planning, as was perhaps the original intent of the HOC Specific Plan, as was perhaps the will and
guidance of our residents.
What has happened to the administrative guidance which the HOC Specific plan once offered to developers and
land owners, and then to our community at large, who supported the original HOC Specific Plar, as per our prior
participation at public hearings and meetings?
Please reconsider the HOC Specific Plan's guiding statement: "The Heart of the City Conceptual Plan provides
specilic guidance for one of the most important commercial corridors in the City of Cupertino."
The currently proposed conceptual plan which you will review tonight lacks many of the original specific
plan's goals and then it's strategies on how to successfully achieve them - a master plan perhaps, much like the
Vallco Master plan which was recently passed, and it was achieved with renewed public participation, as public
outreach was fostered by our insightful city council - we need more public participation in our community's
development, not less.
The Heart of the City Specific Plan was changed by city staff during the 2005 General Plan with little public
awareness. The unfortunate history of the HOC Specific Plan changes has been tiredly discussed at prior public
hearings, as required for the current review process, and comments have been sent by email by our residents to
you, our City Council members, so I will not repeat those many issues in great detail again, but I do wish to
remind the City Council and our City Staff that the poor performance of the HOC Specific Plan was mostly due to
administrative neglect and lack of enforcement, as apposed to city staffer's staunch claims of poor wording or
perceived intellectual conflicts which the Specific Plan might have had in conflict with the General Plan - lack of
enforcement is surely to blame, and this is due to the lack of any cohesive development vision for our community,
nothing else.
From Julia Kinst (juliak@cupertino.org)
To review just one instance of administrative neglect, my father, age 89, is still looking for street furniture, a
bench, as the majority of street furniture currently found on Stevens Creek Blvd is owned by VTA. Many newly
approved residential developments will be coming online soon, and with past residential projects already built,
which were approved with overlooked mitigation -missed opportunities - by our city staff planning
Commissioners, and then our City council, these projects have not added to auser-friendly, walk able street
design, but rather to the absence of design, which has left the current landmark of hodge podge mitigation which
is Stevens Creek Blvd.
I wonder what all new seniors who will buy and live in these newly approved senior residential developments will
actually find in the way of auser-friendly walkable friendly streetscape on Stevens Creek Blvd, and perhaps in the
HOC plan area as a whole?
I would urge the City Council to reject any portions of the currently drafted HOC plan, which contain explicit, or
implicit, intentions to build more tall structures and/or buildings close to the street.
I am greatly concerned by the renewed interest in the Cross Roads Specific Plan, which was overwhelmingly
rejected by the residents in our community, why having this vampire of a plan sneak back in and suck the
remaining life and vigor out of the HOC Specific Plan, this is just another slap in the face to your anemic
constituents, who are tired of what happens late at night at city Hall, or in the early afternoon at 5:00 pm when
most residents work and don't expect they are being bite once again in their sore necks.
Our community, your constituents, have elegantly communicated their development concerns in recent years,
please recall the past city ballot measures, ABC, and then two successful referendums, D & E, which clearly
relayed the development concerns of the majority of our residents who are apposed to conversion of commercial
space to residential at the expense of our city's character and our community's right to self determination; your
fellow residents wish to foster development which is truly guided, verses, being let loose upon them by poor
mitigation due to a lack of a community development vision and inattentive administration by their appointed
representatives.
The majority of your constituents are apposed to building heights of 45 ft.+, buildings pushed up to sidewalks,
residential housing built over and behind commercial in Specific/Conceptual plan areas, please consider and
reflect on recent comments made by Cupertino planning commissioners, Cupertino city staff, realtors, developers,
land owners, business owners, and residents -- all who have expressed great apprehension for continued mixed
use developments of the style which was approved in Cupertino in past years, as they are a failed concept and in
need of a total rethink.
The Crossroads Area is one of Cupertino's leading commercial centers, perhaps it is the flag ship of these city
centers.
Yes, the HOC Specific Plan should be updated to acknowledge the new residential development along the entire
length and breadth of Stevens Creek Blvd., as the HOC Specific Plan should strike a much desired balance
between commercial space and residential development, which is supported by your fellow residents, yet the City
Council should avoid turning control over to developers and land owners for them to decide our city's
development fate; our city's future is not theirs alone to decide -- your constituents are surely known to you as
well, in both voice and deed, why concerns about land owner`s and developer's reluctance to implement the
Heart of the City mitigation should not be the lone test and then implied failure of the HOC Specific Plan, but
rather the proof it requires your renewed full support and it must contain SPECIFIC and meaningful mitigation
legislation, not just a wishy-washy pile of bureaucratic landscaping speak ease, giving yet another bypass to our
local developers and land owners, by bureaucratically disconnecting community oversight of the HOC Specific
Plan, which approval of a HOC Conceptual Plan will surely allow.
Thank you,
Keith Murphy
CARe and CCC member and supporter
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in lust 2 easy steps!