The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSearchable Packet 07-12-2011 Table of Contents 1 . Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 draft minutes of 6-28-2011 Draft minutes of 6/28/2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2� limited review of the Single Family Residential (R1) Zone Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. Draft Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2. Planning Commission Subcommittee report on process improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3. Limited R1 review questionnaire from the May 24, 2011 workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4. Tally of workshop attendee responses on the limited R1 review handout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5. Comments and questions from the limited R1 review workshop discussion on May 24, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6. Proposed R1 Ordinance text amendments for readability and consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7. Revised Two Story Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 8. Additional information on two-story design review, noticing, story poles, and R1-20/single-family residential Iots.................................70 9. Map of sloped single-family residential lots. . . . . . . . . . . 75 10. Existing General Plan policies related to devleopment on sloped lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 11. Memo from Cotton, Shires, and Associates regarding geotechnical constraints of sloped single- family residential lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 12. Existing RHS fencing requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 13. R1 Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 3 Director's Report � Director's Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 RF Report for 6191 Bollinger Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 News Articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 1 AGENDA C U P� FtT I�'+� C� CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Community Hall Tuesday, July 12, 2011 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Subject: draft minutes of 6-28-2011 Recominended Action: approve draft ininutes Pa�e: 4 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Coiiunission on any inatter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) mulutes. In inost cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions witll respect to a matter not on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING 2. Subiect: lunited review of tlle Single Family Residential (R1) Zone Recommended Action: approval or denial of MCA-2011-03 and EA-2011-50 Description: Application: MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Applicant: Cit�� of Cupertino Location: citvwide Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28, Single Family Residential (R1) Zones, for a linlited review of the requirements for sloped single-fainily lots, the two-story design review process, public noticing and story poles Postponecl fi�om tlle Jime 28, 2011 Plnnning Commission rrieeting Tentatiz�e City Coilncil meeting dczte: August 2, 2011 Pa�e: 6 2 Tuesday, July 12, 2011 OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Commission Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners Economic Development Committee Meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3. Sub�L: Director's Report Reconunended Action: Receive report Pa�e: 114 ADJOURNMENT If yolr challejige the actiof� of'the Plaf��if�g Comnziss�ioy� i�z co�n•t, yo�r nzay be I�nzited to �a�s�if�g onlv those is�s�7aes vozr ot• s�onzeoy�e e1s�e rais�ed at the pzrblic hecrt•ing des�ct•ibed i� this� crgenda, o�• ir� ��t•itte� cor�°es�oszdes2ce delive�°ed to the Citv of C at, o�°�i ior to, the�zrblic hearif�g. Please f�ote that Planning C�ohan�issioy� policy is to allo�� an applicas�lt aj�d gr�ozrps to speak for 10 h�iy��rtes ar�d individ�rals� to speak for 3 nzirzlrtes�. In conlpliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Materials related to an itein on this agenda subinitted to the Planning Departrnent after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the P1aiuling Departrnent located at 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business llours. For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the iteins on t11e agenda, contact the P1aiuling Departrnent at (408) 777-3308 or plaiuling@cupertino.org. 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 9�014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. June 28, 2011 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planiung Coininission ineeting of June 28, 2011 �z-as called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Coininunit�- Hall, 10350 Toire Avenue, Cupertino, CA., bv Chaiiperson Winnie Lee. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Winiue Lee Vice Chairperson: Mart�- Miller Coinmissioner: Paul Broph�- Coininissioner. Clinton Bro��nle�- Coininissioner: Don Sun Staff present: Cit�- Planner: Gai Chao APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of June l�J, 2011 Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Sun, and carried 5-0-0 to approve the June 14, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING 2. MCA-20ll-03, EA-2011-OS Limited revie��- of the Single F�mi1�- Residential (Rl) City of Cupertino Zone: Municipal Code Amendinent to Chapter 1928, for a liinited revie��- of the requireinents for sloped single-fa�nil�T lots, the t��-o-stoiy design revie�v process, public notici�ig and story poles. Tentative C'ity C'ouncil dcrte: Aa,gust 2, 2011 Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Brownley, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to postpone Application MCA-20ll-03, EA-2011-05, to allow staff more time to clarify issues relative to the application. CONSENT CALENDAR None OLD BUSINESS None 4 Cupertino Plannin� Cominission 2 June 28, 2011 NEW BUSINESS None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE • Chair Lee reported that the cominittee voted on the Negative Declaration for the R1 itein. HOUSING COMMISSION: No ineeting. MAYOR'S MONTHLY MEETING: No ineeting. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: No ineetinb. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Written report. Adiournment: The meeting �vas adjoui7ied to the nei regular Planning Commission meeting schedi�led for Jul�� 12, 2011 at 6:�� p.in. Respectfiall�- Subinitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretan- 5 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPEPTINO, CA 9501�-3255 (-�08) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • ��lannin�@cupertino.or� CUPEFiTIN+a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 Agenda Date: Tuly 12, 2011 Application: MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: Citywide APPLICATION SUMMARY: Municipal Code Anlendnlent to Chapter 19.28, Single Fanuly Residential Zones, for a linuted review of tlle requirenlents for sloped single-fanuly residential lots, tlle two-story design review process, public noticing and story poles. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that t11e Plaruling Conmlission: 1. Peconlnlend to the City Cow�cil, amendments to Chapter 19.28, Suzgle-Family Pesidential Zones related to: • Two-story desib z review process • Public noticulg requirenlents • Story pole requirenlents • Standards for lots with slopes Staff recomnlends fllat the Planning Conu7ussion take straw votes for eac11 of fllese items before conll�ululg t11en1 into a final reconlmendation for the Council. T11e Planning Comnussion postponed this itenl fronl its June 28, 2011 meeting to allow staff additional tinle to revise the staff report to clarify some recent questions and discrepancies. The followulg revised staff report is intended to replace the report dated June 28, 2011. BACKGROUND On February 15, 2011, when reviewulg the City's Development Pernut Process Review project, the City Council initiated a limited review of tlle Single Fanuly Residential (R1) Ordinance related to fl1e two- story design review process, public noticing, and story poles based on conlnlents provided by the Planning Coninlission subcomnuttee on February 14, 2011 (Attachment 2). On April 6, 2010, fl1e Council had approved t11e review of standards of lots sloped between 15% and 30% u1 flze Single-Fanuly Residential (R1) zone as part of the FY 2010-11 work progranl. Su1ce both projects required a review of the Single-Fanlily Residential (R1) zone, the two projects have been combuled. 6 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 Corrlmimity Wo��ksliop A citywide coninlunity workshop was 11e1d to get coninlents fronl residents, builders and arcllitects. On May 17, 2011, citywide notices were nlailed out to property owners, builders and arcllitects to announce the coinmunity worksllop on May 24, 2011. Fifteen residents and developers/architects, as well as all five Planning Conlmissioners attended the workshop. The workshop provided the attendees infornlation on the key topics being reviewed and the opportunity to discuss ordinance options in order to streanlline the develo�ment process. Workshop attendees were also asked to fill out a questionnaire (Attachment 3) on t11e potential ordinance anlendment options and provide cotlunents. See Attachment 4 for a tally of fl1e attendee responses and coninlents and Attachnlent 5 for a sunlmary of conlments and questions from the workshop discussion. DISCUSSION Imp�roz�ing Rer�r�c�hility, Consistenc�, c�nc� E ffectiz�eness In order to inlprove consistency between past ordulance revisions and iinprove readability of the existing ordinance, staff has revised the ordinance (Attachnlent 6) to: • Inlplenlent the use of tables to reduce repetition and o�timize readability. The Sign Ordinance is an exanlple of where this was done. • T11e existing Two-Story Design Principles, which are an appendix to the ordinance, have been revised to make thenl nlore user-friendly (see Attacllment 7). Staff would like to note that the refornlatted version does not include anv anlendnlents to the ordinance. It nlerely reformats it into a nlore user-friendly document. The final draft with all of the anlendments will be presented to the City Council for consideration. Single-Famil� Orc�inance Histo�� T11e Single-Fanlily Residential Ordulance was enacted uz 1971 and has undergone a nunlber of changes in receilt years. Here are some key points related to fl1e ordinailce anlendments being discussed in this report (for greater detail regarding the ordinance amendments, see Attachment 8): • Beb nning uz 1999, the City initiated a two-story design review process and noticuzg procedures for sulgle-fanuly residential plarululg projects. • Also beguznuzg in 1999, the City applied Pesidential Hillside (P`HS) standards to suzgle-fanuly residential lots with slopes 30% or b eater. • In 2007, the City revised the ordulance to only apply select hillside standards to 18 sloped sulgle- fanuly residential lots u1 a specific geographical area. • Since 2005, story poles have been required for all two-story projects. Options for Ordinc�nce Amendments Based on experience wifll fl1e single-fanlily residential review process, analysis, public comments received during the public workshop as well as previous comnlents at the Development Pernut Process workshops, staff 11as put together options for each of t11e four issues under consideration. Eac11 section includes a brief discussion of the options; advantages and disadvantages of eac11; public coi�unents received; and other pertinent policy inlplications. It should be noted that keepulg the current ordinance is provided as an option in all the discussions. As noted earlier, staff reconinlends that the Planning Comnussion take straw votes on each section �rior to making a final recommendation to the City Council. Corripa}�ison z��ith Neigllboring Conrniilnities Staff also looked at sinular processes in six neighboring conlnlunities. These conlnlunities ulclude Mountauz View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Los Gatos, Palo Alto and San Jose. These conlnlunities were chosen because they all have a nlix of conlmercial and residential zones as opposed to conlmunities 7 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 wllose only focus is residential developnlent. Each section below also has a discussion of 11ow otller conlinunities approach t11e review process. City Two-Story Noticing Noticing Story Poles Maximum Total Design Radius Materials FAR Review San Jose No -- -- -- 45%, up to 65% wifl� planning approval Santa Clara No -- -- -- 45 % Sunnyvale Yes 200 feet Mailed notice, -- 45% or 3,600 site sign square feet, w11ic11ever is nlore restrictive; or nlore with public hearinQ Palo Alto Yes Adjacent Mailed notice, -- 45% site si Z Los Gatos Yes Adjacent and Mailed notice X Based on lot across the size, generally street 35-40 % Mountauz View No -- -- -- Based on lot size, generally 40-50 % I. Single-Family Residential Two-Story Design Review Currently, all two-story projects require pl�lning applications and are reviewed at staff level for conformance to the Single-Family Residential Ordinance development standards and two-story guidelines through a two-story planning pernlit. Each project is also assessed to ensure a reasonable level of visual conlpatibility with fl�e neighborhood. Projects with second to first floor ratios of 45% or less have less restrictive requirements while projects wit11 second to first floor ratios greater t11an 45% require compliance wifll nlore stringent two-story design principles as well as the City Architectural Consultant review. All two-story projects require neigllbor notification with a two-week public conlment period. There is a two-week appeal period after the Commwlity Development Director's decision is nlade. Design Reviez�� Dise�ission Based on experieilce with single-fanuly residential design review, t11e two issues that appear to be of greatest concern to neigllbors are visual inlpacts related to larger second stories and privacy impacts of second story wuldows and balcoilies. Experience with fl1e desigil review process sllows that neigllbors are nlost concerned when homes are proposed with larger second stories (above 45% second to first story ratio) t11an with those that propose snlaller second stories. Second story windows t11at are proposed close to neigllborulg homes also typically generate comments froin neighbors. When second story wuldows have larger side setbacks (15 feet and greater), there is more space to plant privacy planting and address privacy issues. A review of neigllboring comnlunities shows that about half of them do not require design review of two-story honles, �nThile the ofl�er half do. 8 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 Most of the public coninlents received at the worksllops appeared to be nuxed with a larger percentage of the puUlic favoring the current process. However, if the Commission wishes to focus on issues that typically appear to be of most concern to the public, the following reconinlendations and options could be considered. Options fo�� Design Rez�iew: 1. Pequire desi�l review only for: a. Honles wifll second stories larger than 45% of fl1e first story; and/or homes t11at propose second story windows with less t11an a 15-foot setback fronl the property line (windows wit11 sill 1leights of greater t11an five feet fronl the finished second floor; obscured, non-openable windows; windows with pernlanent, exterior louvers up to five feet above the finished floor; and/ or skylights would not be required to go through a review). All other two-story projects would not be required to subnut a�lanning a�plication or notify the neigllbors. T'hey could apply directly for a buildulg pernut but would be reviewed at this stage to eilsure that they conlplied with the design standards and guidelules in fl1e ordinance. 2. Penlove review process entirely - under this option, flzere would be no desib review or public notification and applicants would directly apply for a building pernut. 3. Keep existing design review requirements for all two-story pernuts. Note: Unde�� the ci��t�ent o��c�inance, Mino�� Resic�entic�l Permits c�re ��equit�ecl for: • Seeonc� stor� clecics u�itli z�ieu�s into the sicle c�nd/or rec�a� yc�rc�s of neigliboring properties. • Extensions of non-eonforming one-story bitilc�ing z��«Il lines; one-story additions ene�roc�ehing no more tlic�n 10 feet into the ��e�� setback. • One-stor� projects u�itll a gable end of c� ��oof enclosing an c�ttic space projecting outside tyie bi�ilcling enz�elope zuitll a zuc�ll 1leight of 17 feet, 1 inch to 20 feet. • Pnssiz�e o�� actiz�e solar stritctures tyTrzt reqitire z�a��iation fi�om the setback or heigllt restrictions. I f Options 1or 2 z��ere to be adopted, then rrlinor one-stor� projects z��oulc� haz�e niore stringent reviez�� than « tu�o-stor� project u�ith second to first stor� ratios less th«n or ec�ital to 45%. While st«ff is not sitiggesting c�menc�ing this, we thoitght tllis u�c�s an issite tlle Planning Comniission might want to consic�er. Pros of Design Pez�iez�� • Ensures t11at a project is architecturally consistent. • Ensures that the project is compatible with the surroundulg neigllborllood. • Opportunity for public notification, conlments, and appeals. Cons of Design Rez�iew • Prolongs the approval process for applicants. • Additional tinle nleans more cost to the applicailts. • Occasionally issues brought up by a neigllbor for one project may not be t11e sanle as a neighbor for anofller project. Son1e applicants feel that $Zis is not consistent for each project. • Does not allow a large variety in design - staff beliez�es tlic�t u�ith tlle o��din��nce noz�� alloz��ing larger seconc� stories tliere is nmple room for vnriec� designs. Pitiblic Conmients from t12e zuorkshop • 57% of attendees felt the e�sting process sllould renlain. • 71% of workshop attendees opposed elin�lating design review but keeping public noticing. • 79% of workshop attendees opposed renlovulg design review altogether. 9 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 • Mixed conmlents related to how the existing process is too complex with nuninlal public benefit and how the existing process works well and should not be changed. Otlie�� consic�erntions While overall, the planning review time and process are shortened by elinunating the design review and the two-story plaruzing application, staff will still be required to work with the applicants at the Uuilduzg pernlit stage to ensure full project conlpliance wifll the developnlent standards and two-story design b idelules prescribed by t11e Single-Fanlily Residential Ordinance. Consequently, building pernut plan check tinle and cost for two-story honles will likely ulcrease by about 35%. This will still result in a net reduction in cost for two-story 1lomes t11at do not have to subnut a planning application. II. Public Noticing Noticing Pa�ii�s Every single-fanuly residential plarululg pernut currently requires public noticulg. Two-Story Permits for homes over 35% total floor area ratio (FAR) and/or Exception projects require 300-foot noticing. Two-Story Pernlits for honles under 35% total FAP and/or Muzor Pesidential Pernut projects require adjacent and across the street noticulg. An estimate of the typical number of property owners that are notified withu1300 feet of a project are as follows: • Projects in P1-5 and P1-6 zone (5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots) - 50-65 property owners. • Projects in P1-7.5 zone (7,500 square foot lots) - 45-50 property owners. • Projects u1 P1-10 zone (10,000 square foot lots) - 40-45 property owners. • Projects in R1-20 zone (20,000 square foot lots) - 30 property owners. Typically, five to eight property owilers are notified in adjacent/ across the street noticulg. Noticing Mc�teric�ls Mailed notices are sent for every project. Eleven by 17-inch plan sets are sent for all Two-Story Permit and Minor Residential Pernut projects. For Exception projects, plan sets are sent to adjacent property owners only. Notice boards or site sigils, which contaul the pertulent project infornlation as well as a color perspective or black and white elevation, are required for all Two-Story Permit projects and remain onsite durulg the two-week notice period and two-week appeal period. Noticing Discitssion Currently, there appears to be an ulconsistency with fllresholds for design review and noticing. W11ile design review is required for all two-story 11on1es, there is a higller threshold for homes with larger two stories (over 45% of second story to first story ratio). However, tlle noticing requirenlents are for projects with a total FAR of over 35%. Total FAR appears to be less of a concern than the size of the second story and privacy issues. For example, there is currently no �lanning permit review for large one-story honles (up to 45% FAR) and we don't typically get complaints about suc11 homes. In order to address which projects should get additional noticulg (i.e. focusing on prinlary conmlunity concenl of larger two stories), it would be nlore appropriate to relate noticing requirements to issues that appear to be of greatest concern to the public, i.e. larger second stories and wuldows on t11e second story, as discussed in the previous section. Pegarding the radius of noticing, a typical planning application requires nlailing notices and plan sets to about 40-65 neighbors. Staff typically only gets comnlents from people who are directly adjaceilt to the project or those who live across the street fronl a project. The current process already requires site si�zs with a color perspective or black and white elevation of fl1e project to be posted at t11e site. In conlparing requirenlents for other cities, two out of the tllree cities tllat 11ave design review only 10 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 require noticing of adjacent neighbors and those who live across the street. In addition, none of the reviewed cities mail plan sets. Public comments at the workshop were nlostly in favor of keeping the existing process. However, if the Planning Conlnussion wishes to focus noticing on neighbors who typically e�ress concerns, reduced noticuzg could be considered since the site sign would contulue to infornl all neighbors who could possibly be affected by the project. Noticing Options 1. Radius - a. Require only adjacent and across t11e street noticing for all projects. b. Require 300-foot noticing for projects with greater than 45% second story to first story ratio and/ or projects that propose second story windows closer than 15 feet fronl the property lu1e. All other projects requiring review will have adjacent and across the street noticing. c. Keep existitlg radius requirements. 2. Plan sets - a. Sei1d site plan aild elevations to adjacent and across the street neighbors and require a site sigil. b. No plan sets sent and only require a site sign. c. Keep plan set nlailing requirenlents. It should be noted that for projects where the planning process is eliminated entirely, there will be no notification requirements. P�ros of noticing • Neighbors get to review, coninlent, and have relevant concerns addressed on a project. Cons of noticing • Cost and tinle associated witll the notification process (notification costs are typically between $100 and $150). • Son1e applicants have expressed concerns of 11avu1g plan sets sent to 60 neighbors sulce flley can now see the entire layout of the interior of their honle. • Most questions to staff are from people who cannot read architectural plans and need additional help. • Notifyulg and sendulg plan sets to 40-65 neighbors is not necessary sulce nlost coninlents come fronl those who are adjacent and live across the street. • There may be nlore efficient ways of notifying the neighborhood (i.e. site sign and project infornlation). • Applicants note that t11e process is not consistent fronl one project to the other since neigllbor complaints vary. Pi�blic comments from tl�e u�orkshop • 85 % of workshop attendees felt that that keeping the 300-foot noticing radius was appropriate. • 85% of attendees disagreed with cllanging all noticing requirements to only adjacent and across the street. • 62% of workshop attendees felt that fl1e existing process was appropriate. • 69% of workshop attendees disagreed with only notifying adjacent neighbors. • 77% disagreed with only 1laving a site sign and nlailed notices only. • Son1e felt that the noticing radius should be ulcreased. 11 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 III. Story Poles Story poles are currently required for all two-story projects, even for niuzor additions. They are required to l�e in place for the two-week public conlnlent period and two-week appeal period. They are required to be installed by a licensed contractor and certified by a contractor, architect, or engineer to ensure accuracy. Story Pole Disci�ssion The installation of story poles generally ranges from $1,500-$4,000 depending on the complexity of flze project and surveying requirenlents. Most applicants 11ave conlnlented that story pole requirenlents are costly and damage roofs of existing honles (if fl1e applicant later decides not to build). W11ile story poles do announce a project, conlments received by staff indicate that they do not provide an accurate reflection of the architecture of the proposed 11on1es. In fact, when staff receives conlnlents fronl the public, t11ey tend to be conlplaints fllat tlle story poles do not accurately depict the future design of a honle. A nlajority of the public felt that story pole requirements were not necessary. However, some did indicate that it helped announce a project in t11e neighborhood. The site sign requirenlent does fllat as well. A review of other jurisdictions showed that only one out of the three cities that require desib � review of second-story homes require story poles. A color perspective on the site sign would provide a more accurate depiction of the desib of a home. If the Planning Coninlission wishes to focus on requirements that best depict the design of a home, it may wish to consider renloving the story pole requirements and requiring a color perspective or a three- dimensional photo sinlulation on the site sign instead. Story Pole Options 1. Penlove the requirenlent for story poles ��d: a. Require a color perspective oi1 the site sib ; or b. Require a three-dimensional photo sinlulation on the site sign. 2. Keep existing story pole and site sib requirements. Pros o{story poles • Would announce the project and provide neighbors with a sense of the siting and nlaximunl heigllt of the project. Cons of stor� poles • Does not give an accurate depiction of what the house will look like. • Creates safety concerns to neighborulg properties or people on-site durulg inclement weather and applicants have to bear the burden of the additional costs to reinstall them. • Additional cost to applicants without a comnlensurate benefit. • Installation nlaterials nlay be wasted after they are removed from the site. • If the project is not a full rebuild, t11e ulstallation of story poles nlay danlage e�sting roofs and structures creating nlore cost to repair. Pitblic con�mlents • 58% of workshop attendees did not want to keep t11e existing requirenlents. • 66% of attendees did not want to give an o�tion of story poles or three-dimensional plloto- sinlulation. • Son1e felt that the three-dinlensional photo-sinlulations provide a better visual resource than story poles. • Mixed comments related to those who felt they were valuable to the existing neighborhood while 12 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 otllers felt that flley did not properly serve their purpose. IV. Standards for Sloped Single-Family Lots The requirements for lots with slopes of 15% or greater has been discussed and amended several times. See Attachment 8 for additional details on these requirenlents. The current requirements for sloped lots were approved u1 2007. Eighteen sloped single-family residential lots generally located south of Lu1da Vista Drive, south and west of Santa Teresa and Terrace Drive, west of Terra Bella Drive, and nortll of Lindy Lane, have additional requirenlents ranguzg fronl gradulg linutations to special fencing requirenleilts. These lots were selected nlainly because they were perceived to be larger lots with hillside characteristics. It should be noted fllat the ordinance currently addresses development on slopes of over 30% by requiring additional review through a Hillside Exception; sinular to what is required for lots in the Pesidential Hillside (RHS) zone, Chapter 19.40. As part of fllis project, the Council wailted to review w11efl1er additional requirenlents should apply to all single-family residential lots wifll slopes of between 15% and 29% (the 18 lots nlentioned above would be included). No sulgle fainily residential parcels or areas are being considered for rezoning. The proposed additional requirements would apply to all single family residential lots with restrictions imposed on certain slope characteristics that exist now or are created in the future. Annlysis In the previous staff report, staff had approxinlated 389 sulgle fanlily residential lots (see nlap on Attachnlent 9) in the City with slopes of 15% or greater with the City's Geographical Information Systenl (GIS) digital elevation nlodel. It sllould be noted t11at this nunlber was for illustrative purposes only and was not intended to be a specific cowlt as fllere is likely to be nlore sloped residentiallots throughout the City. T11e City's Consulting Geologist provided an analysis of sloped parcels to categorize the lots, and assess whicll geologic/geotechnical and physical characteristics were of concern. Based on this analysis, the sloped lots can be characterized into two types—toe-of-hill lots and enlbankment/flood plaul lots. Generally, toe-of-hill lots slope up towards the hillside at the rear of their property while embankment lots slope down towards a creek or other feature to the rear of flleir property. There are essentially two nlajor concerns related to developnlent on sloped single-fanuly residential lots — structural safety and visual/ aesthetics. Structural safety is addressed for all projects by the Planning, Building, and Public Works Departments during buildulg permit plan review and inspections. Soils/ geoteclulical reports are required for all hillside developnlent in the buildulg plan review phase. In addition, geologic and/or geotechnical reports with peer review are required for development within geollazard zones. The ordinance and subsequent planning process helps to address visual, aesthetic, and grading inlpacts - all of wllich are noted in our General Plan Policies 2-48, 2-52, 5-10 through 5-12, and 5- 19 through 5-23 (Attachnlent 10). In order to deternune which regulatioils would be appropriate to address these issues, staff looked at fl�e follo�nJuzg items: 1. At what point does slope become a concern? 2. Are any other geological characteristics a concern? 3. Which regulations should be applied to sloped lots in order to reduce visual, aesthetic and environmental impacts? 13 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 The following discussion 1lighlights fl1e analysis and reconlnlendations related to the above issues. Slo�es and Setback Standards The City's Consulting Geologist notes that slope may start to become an issue when homes are built on average slopes of 20% or greater (see Attac11n1ent 11). However, t11e Geologist also notes that building on e�stulg flat pads (as long as the geologic/geotechnical issues are addressed) is not a concern even if fl1e average slope of fl1e lot is 20% or greater. Regardulg setbacks, t11e Geologist felt that it would be best to keep a 25-foot setback froin slopes of 20% and greater. He noted however, that for sonle lots, it would nlake building difficult and that geological and/or geotechnical review would be able to take care of structural issues. He did note that any visual/aesthetic concerns could be addressed by requiring additional review for excessive grading. Gradin� Under the current ordinance, gradulg for the 18 sloped single-fanuly residential lots is linlited to 2,500 cubic yards. Grading above 2,500 cubic yards requires Planning Coninlission review and is consistent with the Residential Hillside (RHS) ordinance. The intent is to avoid excessive gradulg as well as t11e resulting visual inlpacts of homes oillots with natural slopes. Based on a discussion with the City Geologist and staff engineers in flze Public Works and Building Departnlents, staff notes that the 2,500 cuUic yard limit is adequate for nlost sulgle-fanuly honles. A large truck can carry up to 10 cubic yards; tllerefore, 2,500 cubic yards would equal 250 truckloads of dirt. Staff believes that any additional b ading should require additional review to linut graduzg and visual inlpacts. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Second Story Requirements The current ordinance allows the sloped single-fanuly residential lots to be build up to 45 % total FAR on the flat portion of the lot. However, honles larger than 4,500 square feet and located off the flat pad require Plaiuzuzg Conlmission review. Based on staff analysis, the majority of the lots with average slopes of 20%-30% uz the City range fronl a size of 5,000 to 75,000 square feet. The option of applyuzg a suzgle house size linutation will not be appropriate to address visual impacts on lots of such varyulg sizes. A nlore appropriate criterion to address visual inlpacts would be t11e FAR, which would vary based on the size of the lot. Based on this, staff recommends additional Planning Comnussion review for honles with over 35% FAR While a house size on larger lots is quite large, staff notes that there are only two lots over an acre, most of which have been already recently developed. Also, the screening and setback opportunities offered by the larger lot would likely be adequate to address visual or privacy issues. T11e second story and balcony requirements for t11e 18 sloped single-family residential lots are currently consistent with the Residential Hillside zone, which does not 11ave a specified review process for second stories and balconies. T11e RHS Ordinance does not linut the size of second stories, and at t11e tinle of t11e 2007 ordinance amendments for the 18 sloped single-family lots, second stories in the oflzer R1-zoned properties were linuted to 45% second story to first story ratio. The current Single-Fanuly Pesidential Ordinance does not have that linutation any more, provided that there is additional review and the design criteria are being rnet. As noted above, the special requirernents referrulg to RHS zones 11ave only applied to fl1e 18 specified sloped single-fanuly residential lots and not to ofller sloped sulgle-fanuly residential lots. Staff tllerefore believes that the Sulgle--Family Residential Ordinance requirenlents would be adequate and sllould apply to all sloped lots wit11 slopes of 20% or greater. Currently any developnlents over 500 square feet located on sloped lots over 30% would require �� 14 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 exception approval fronl the City. Fencuzg Pequirenlents Fenculg requirenlents for the 18 sloped sulgle-family residential lots are sinular to those u1 the RHS zone. The requirements have a linutatioil on the amount of yard area that can be fenced with solid board fencuzg and also encourages open fencing in order to preserve views to fl1e hillsides. Many of the sloped lots in the City are smaller and do not sllare t11e sanle characteristics as the hillside properties that are currently under tllese regulations. Therefore, staff recomnlends t11at only fences that are widely visible to public view and create inlpacts on the visual character of an area (for exainple, blocks public views to the western hills or an open space preserve) be required to maintain t11e special fencing requirements. This is consistent with General Plan Policy 2-53. All other sloped lots would have fencing requirements similar to lots u1 the Single-Family Residential zone (no restrictions on fence nlaterial). Based on the discussion above, staff is reconlnlending consideration of the following options. Staff additioilally notes fllat the reconlnlendations are generally u1 keeping wifll t11e nlajority opinions of the public at the workshop. Options for Sloped Single-Fc�niily Resiclential Lots 1. Slopes - Require additional review for hoines built on lots with average slopes of between 20% and 29%. Builduzgs on existing pads with slopes lower th�� 20% sllould not require additional review. As nlentioned previously in the report, any developnlents over 500 square feet located on lots wifll slopes of 30% or greater would need to comply with the additional review and an exce�tion approval fronl the City. 2. Gradulg - Continue to require Planning Conlnussion review for projects that propose gradulg of over 2,500 cubic yards. 3. FAR and Second Story requirenlents - Keep the sanle as for other Single-Family Residential lots. However, honles with an FAR of greater than 35% would require Planning Conlniission review. Staff believes that additional review for increased grading and FAR will address issues related to visual and environmental impacts. 4. Fenculg requirenlents - San1e as for other Single-Fanlily Residential lots. However, fences that are widely visible to public view and create impacts on the visual character of an area (for example, blocks public views to the western hills or an open space preserve) be would have fencing requirements sinular to that i�1 the RHS zone Section 19.40.080A.2. & B. (limited solid board fenculg, unlinlited open fenculg- see Attac11n1ent 12). 5. Tree renloval and retaining wall requirements - Renlove current requirenlents for the allowance of certain protected tree renlovals and retaining wall screening. Staff believes that the tree removal requirements should be the same for all Single-Family Residential lots. The Protected Tree Ordinance (Chapter 14.18) currently protects species of a certaul dianleter such as Oaks, Deodar Cedars, and Bay Laurels; and trees that were required to be protected as �art of an earlier approval. Also, staff believes tllat all retainulg walls (regardless of tlle district they are built u1) should be screened with landscaping to reduce visual inlpacts. Staff will review placing tllis requirenlent elsewhere in the zoning ordinance to apply to all retaululg walls. 6. After furtller review, the paragraph regarding l�uilding/roof fornls and colors is not included for consideration at fllis tin1e. 7. Keep existing requirenlents uz either of the above categories. Pt�os • Gradulg restrictions would allow additional review in order to reduce visual and aestlletic inlpacts. • Would allow the public and Planning Conlnussion to ensure that excess grading is done properly 15 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 fronl a visual and environnlental standpoint. As noted earlier, a large truck can carry up to 10 cubic yards, and 2,500 cubic yards would equa1250 truckloads of dirt. • FAR linlitations would reduce potential visual inlpacts of buildings on slopes. Stc�ff notes thc�t «c�clition«1 rez�iez�� fo�� increc�sec� gt�«c�ing c�nd c�esign ��ez�iew zuoi�ld adaress tliis issue. • Pernuttulg larger second stories would allow for more varied desiglls. • Larger second stories on sloped lots would allow buildulgs to fit ulto flze natural slope and reduce excessive grading. • Opei1 fencing requirements would reduce the potential visual inlpacts associated wifll solid board fencing on highly visible upslope portions of lots. Cons • Setbacks from slopes could potentially make certain lots difficult to build on - Geologic/geotechnical ree�iairenients zuould m�zke it sr�fe and grc�ding limitr�tions zuould �address z�isl.{c�l imp�aets. • Additional review for increased grading would delay the review process for applicants. • Larger second stories could create greater visual unpacts. Str�ff notes tliat c�esign review for Ic�rge second stories (aboz�e 45 % seconcl to first floor ��r�tio) would adc�ress ty2is issue. Public coniments • 42% of flze workshop attendees felt fllat there should be setback standards fronl steep slopes. • 67% of the workshop attendees felt that there sllould be additional review for buildings built on slopes as opposed to flat pads. • 50% of the workshop attendees felt t11at there sllould be 1ligher review for grading beyond t11e existing quantity linlits. • 58% of the workshop attendees felt that there should not be additional FAR restrictions. • 50% of the workshop attendees felt that second floor area sllould be linlited to 45% or nlore wit11 adctitional architectural review criteria required for second stories t11at are larger. Tliis is t1�e case in tl�e ci�r��ent P1 ordinc�nce, pa��tici�lc�rly if design reviez�� for lr�rger seconc� stories is prese��z�ec�. • 50% of $Ze workshop attendees felt that $Zere should be open fencing requirenlents for lots near hillsides. Enz�ironmentc�l Assessment On June 16, 2011, fl1e Environnlental Review Conlnuttee recommended that a negative declaration fronl fl1e California Environnlental Quality Act (CEQA) be adopted since none of the potential ordinance anlendnlent options would have sib ificant adverse environmental inlpacts. T11e Negative Declaration will be brought to the City Council for approval along with t11e ordinance anlendnlents. Neit Steps The Planning Comnussion coninlents and reconinlendations will be forwarded to City Council in August for consideration of potential ordinance amendnlents. Prepared by: George Schroeder, Assistant Planner Prepared l�y: Gary Chao, City Planner Peviewed Uy: Approved by: /s/Gary Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava City Plaiuzer Conlnlunity Developnlent Director 16 MCA-2011-03, EA-2011-05 Liinited Single Family Residential Ordinance Review (Revised) July 12, 2011 ATTACHMENTS Attachnlent 1 Draft Resolution Attachnlent 2 Planning Coninlission Subconinlittee report on process inlprovenlents Attachment 3 Linlited R1 review questionnaire fronl the May 24, 2011 workshop Attachment 4 Tally of workshop attendee responses on flze linuted R1 review handout Attaclunent 5 Conlnlents and questions fronl the limited P1 review workshop discussion on May 24, 2011 Attadlnlent 6 Proposed P1 ordinance text anlendnlents for readability and consistency Attachnlent 7 Pevised Two-Story Desi�z Principles for projects with second to first floor ratios greater than 45 % Attachnlent 8 Additional information on two-story design review, noticing, story poles, and R1- 20/ sulgle-fanuly residential sloped lots Attachment 9 Map of sloped sulgle-fanuly residential lots Attachnlent 10 Existing General Plan policies related to developnlent on sloped lots Attachnlent 11 Memo from Cotton, Shires, and Associates regarding geotechnical constraints of sloped single-fanuly residential lots Attachnlent 12 Existing RHS fenculg requirenlents Attachment 13 Existulg R1 Ordulance �;: � Plunnin� � PDREPORT � p�� 3IGA r��port� � 2011 � z� 5 3ICA-2011-03 E,�-2011-0� ,'-12-2011. c�oc 17 Aitachment 1 MCA-2011-03 CITY OF CUPEPTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPEPTINO PECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPPOVE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 19.28, SINGLE-FAMILY PESIDENTIAL ZONES, TO IMPPOVE PEADABILITY AND CONSISTENCY, THE TWO-STOPY DESIGN PEVIEW PPOCESS, PUBLIC NOTICING PEQUIPEMENTS, STOPY POLE PEQUIPEMENTS, AND STANDAPDS FOP SLOPED SINGLE-FAMILY PESIDENITAL LOTS The Planning Conmlission reconlnlends approval of the proposed anlendnlents to the City of Cupertino Mwlicipal Code as shown below: 1. Peadability and consistency inlprovements. 2. Two-story design review process. 3. Public noticing requirements. 4. Story pole requirenlents. 5. Standards for sloped single-fanuly residential lots. PASSED AND APPROVED this 28th day of Jtuze 2011, at a Regular Meetulg of the Planning Conlnussioil of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONEP�S: NOES: COMMISSIONEP�S: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONEP�S: ABSENT: COMMISSIONEP�S: ATTEST: APPPOVED: Aarti Shrivastava Winnie Lee, Chair Director of Conlmunity Developnlent Planning Conlnussion 18 Aitac�imer�t - � �' � � �.�� f _ � �� °'� � � � �� I-� ''� �'lanning Commissior� Subcommi�tee Report vn Process Improvements �,.,��,��.�., �. the approval of the Planzking Cammission„ Plan.r�ing Cozzaznission C�air Winnie Lee and �ce Chair Marty Miller �ormed a subcommittee to meet with staff for the purpose nf identifying and recommending efficiency innprc�vements to the current permit approval process. The effnrt is nat yet complete. Howe��er, a request was made of the subcommittee to provide a report on efforts to date for the Fe�ruary 15� Cauncil hearin�;. This report is in response to that request. i . Ta date, the subcornmittee focused mostiy on rc;sidential permitting. Based on connm,ents from past residential applicax�ts this report propases ways in which the efficiency of Cupertino's permit approval process can be substantially improved. These improvernents are intended to reduce processing time, staff costs, and project approval costs witbout reducing : important noticir�g alerts to neighbors. The City, the staff, and the applicant will all bcnefit. A more e�ficient and business friendly process wiIl help the City attract desirable businesses and needed de�eloprnent to Cupertino, This will ultimately irnprove the City's finances as desirable businesses are attracted to the City and zazore retail dollars are spent here. At the last Process Workshop, a participant tes�ified that a business owner, who ariginally planned to locat� in Cupertino, switched to Sunnyvale instead because aFthe difficulty in abtaining the necessazy perrnits from Cupertino. A more ef�'icient process will reduce staff time .�nd cost spent warking on issues that add little value ta the process or the end result. Finally, a znore efficient �rocess will reduce uncez�tainty and business risk leading to lower project costs and better rappnrt with the business community. Sonne proposed changes anly r�quire a rriodific.�tion to the current process. Others require a modification to an Ordinance, inciuding the Rl Ordinance as we11. While some may be concerned about revisiting the R1 Ordinarice, it has been opened �p successfully in a limited way twice in tk�e past 3 years. Recommendec� changes to the R1 and the BMR program wili have an innmediate positive itnpact. Please givE, it serious cansideration. A iisi of changes and additians recommended t�� date i�nclude the foIlowing: 1. Provide comprehe�esive dacumentatia�n of the entire process writ#en frmm the applicant's point of view, including e�ramples of filled in farms, detaile�i requirements, and expected deliveral�ies for�each step. The current process is not fully documentecL It is complex and daunting to first tinne applicants, requiring a great deal of persona.l interaction with the staff. The lack of : docurz�ez�tation on the camplete pracess res��l�s in lots of questions and sometimes inconsistent inCerpretation by members of the staff leading to furtk�er canfusion. The applicant must contend with requiarements frorn Public Works, Pla�ning and ' Building, In some cases these r�quirements appear #o overlap or conflict. For example, the Building Department reviews site imprcivetnent plans that were already approved as part of the �'inal Map approval, requiring atlditional sets of plans ta da so. Fehruary 14, 26i 1 Planning Cammissi��n Subcommittee Report Page l 19 _ _ _ _ 2. Aliow �urc paralfel processQng aexd reduce sequential p�ocessing where possible. There are many different tasks that znust b� caz�npleted by the applican� an the way to obta�ining a building permit. The cuz�ent prnaess requires many of these tasks to be cnr�apleted in sequence. This is true even wlien there are no interdependencies. For exazx�ple, architectucal approval is nat given until aft�r Final Map a�proval is achieved. Yet these two activities are nat, or should ncrt, b� interdependent and can be completed � separately. Allowing more parallel processing will reduce prncessing #ime. Staff approvals that can be delayed until latE.r in the pracess should be conditioned and � delayed. For exarr►ple, final appruval of landscaping plans cnuld be delayed and conditioned on the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. ELiminat� nnnecessary and redu�dant steps. � As an example, requirit�g an evaluation of ti�ees that are either inside a building �ootprint, or requested for removal by the Public Works Department because they interfere with � - required site improvements seems unnecessary. �. Elinainate ataff review of architecture. In most cases, homes in Cupertino are desi�;ned by licensed �rchitects. �n thase instances where they ar� not, ttaey could be reviewed by the City's architect, or a� independent architect chosen by tk�e applicant. Large and praminent project� should continue ta be reviewed by the City's architect. However, staff in general does nflt have architectural training, Consequent�y, staff comments tend to include personal preferences and biases. Some architectural mandates and design critexia lead tn conforimity and the pallet af the Czty becomes very duli as a result. Far example, limitations on the size of the second story led ta the proliFeration ofthe "weddin.g cake" design across the City. By comparison, Mountain View does not do architectural re�iew on any single famiiy homes. Yet, Cupertino's two story hornes cio not cxhibit an.y better architecture than Mountain View's. Tlte section of the R1 Ordinance permittin�; second stories with square footage greater t�an 45% ofthe �irst story is partzcularly anerous. �our sided architectural review is required and staff re�iews these hoznes at great length arid in great detail. The amoun.t of zelief that staff expects is especially challenging for srrialler lots where space and flexibility is limited. Mee�ing staff's exterior relief requireix�ents pften r�sults ir� poor interior functionality of the home itself. Yet, after considerable time and expense az� architectural details, privacy landscapi�g requirements essentially hide the sides and rear yard from neighborl�o�d view. Staff has also xequired that a tree be planted in the cR,nter of the frant yard to obscure the . architecture from the street. A better apprc�ach is needed. � , Febrvary 14, 2011 Planning Commission Subc4mmittee Report Page 2 2� ' 5. Elibninate requirements tha�t add ver�� lit�le in value in comparisan to tl�eir cost in tinne anc� dollars. Staff requires tl�at story poles outlining the ;;econd floor are placed in exactly �he location that tk�e walls and corners they represezat wi ll be built. Staff also requires that the poies de�ne corners and roof elements in great de:taiL These requirement� axe very expensive to implement. They require an engineering survey and a time cansuming cnnstruction process. �� The poles stay up for about b weeks and arE: then torn down and disposed o£ But, the level of detail that they represent is nearly i:m�aassible to visualize in practice. Because they only outline second story elements, the:y have the patential to give a misleading : � impression o#'the actual size of the hozxae. Also required are renderings that are muc�a rnore effective in giving residents ari appreciation of what will actually be built. Whiie renderings are very effective, story poles are very eostiy and add little value, T'hey should be elirninated. When new Ordinance ruies ar� recommended, a cost benefit analysis should be perfarmed and �ieir impact on existing rules should be evaluated before formal approval. 6. Staff requirements for la�dscaping stiould be reviewed by the Pla�ning Commissio� and City Coue�ciN and m�dified. Staffcurrently zequires ihat the entire parcel t�e iandscaped befare a Certi�icate of Occupancy is g,iven unless the applicant ca�i unequivacaily demonstrate that 25D0 square feet af landscaping will never be exceeded. As an alternative, staff will accept the pasting of ara expensive bond ta cover hype�thetical landscaping cnsts. Tkus requirem�nt cannot be found anywhere in the Landscap�� Water Efficiency Qrdinance. In �act, the j Landscape Water Efficiency C�ecklist statE:s that if no landscaping is being propased, then nathing m�ore need be done by the app{icant. In most case�, a buiider wiil landscape the i.ront yard for curb appeal, but not landscape _ the backyard. Even when the backyard is i;�dscaped, the landscaping is minimal and as inexpensive as pa�sible. Backyard landsca:pang is a loss leader far a builder because new horne buyers typiaally want to design ihe backyazd landscaping personally. Even if the builder puts landscaping it�, it is usually re�Flaced within a short period of time. Staff s landscape requirements are very expensive and are not an effective soluti�n to insuring adherence to the Landscape Water Efficiency �rdinance. 7, Eliminate unnecessary requirements for copies of architectural and engimeering � pl�ns. As an example, a separate and full set of plans are required far a minor exception. This is true even though the minor exception plan set is no different than the plan set required for the horx�e itself. If the new Permitting sofii�rare enables the suhmittaI of plans electronically, it will address this issue. Hawever, until that sofiware is implemented, uruiecessary paper generation requirements should be �liminated. Cebruary �4, 2011 1'lanning Commissian Subcommittee Report Page 3 21 8. Review and �adi�'y �ees and tt�e fee structure Fees should be based, as rnuch as possible, �n Planner time spent. For large projects that xeqraire more time than a bencl�ark project, additional fees should be charged an a time at�d materials basis to ensure cost recovery. Curre�ntly, Cupertino does not charge for Einne spent with potential applicants until they ; fill out an application and make an actual st�bmittal. The City should answ�r pxeliminary �, �uestions without charge. However, if an applicant wants staff ta review a preliminary site plan, or design, and give tr�eaningful feE�dbaek, Couneil could consider charging a madest fee for tl�at set vice. San Jose follows a similar process and offers several upfront , fee o tions for reliminary reviews. P P , Once Council approves changes to the cux permitting process, individual fees should � be reduced or incxeased as appropriate. Consider collecting z�apact fees at the issuance o�' a Certificat� of Occupancy, or Close of Escrow, instead of when the buiiding pez�rnit is issued. Buildi�gs do not have an impact : an the City until after t�ey are built. Con�equent�y, it doesn't cost the City an}rthing to delay the fee coilectinn until after construction is co�xaplete. However, in the current econoranic envirar�ment, obtaining construction loans is very c�allenging. Because izxxpact fees a�re a signi�icarit expense, delaying their callection until later in the project will reduce loaza requirements and inake obtainv�g a construction loan easier. 9. Review the BMR. program and reduce, eliminate, or offer an in lieu fee op�tion. The BMR program is not the most effective: way to provide affordable housing and has been subject to abuse. It is a very expensive program and the burden of that expense is completely borne by the land owner, builder, and buyers of tY�e homes on a particular site. � Yet it is a City wide benefit. In the cu�rent econ�rnic enviranment, costly BMR programs have stopped projects from mavi�ig fo:rward in Bay Ar�a eities. Mountain View has an aFfordable hausing prograin which perrnits the builder to pay an in lieu fee instead o£ building the units if the difference between the market sales price ar�d �ie affordable sales price is great�r than a t��reshold amount. Conszder evaluating this progrann for implementation ir� Cupertino. The Matrix Report and the Comrnuz�ifiy Warkshops were helpful in identifyirzg areas of opportunity to imprave the appIication permitting process. This report, as a supplez�nent to those effarts, has briefly outlined progress to date on identifyir►g additional oppartunities for proc�ss improvement. Thc c�ar�rent process is not well understaod and consequently leads to confitsian, tirne wasted, and less thazx optimal results. It is our recommendation that the Couneil aliow the subeammittee's review prac��ss ta eantinue to completion. Winnie Lee, Platuiing Commission Chair ' Marty Miller, Planning Commission Vice Chaiz , I I February 14, 201 I Planning Commission 5ubcommittee Repart Page 4 22 ' Aitachment 3 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 Two Story Design Review � _ �� =r � :. Ob�ective: Evaluate whetller the R1 Two-Story Design Review _ �� process should be streanilined. � � a �� ` �', �'� � � k� �_ _ , , i :. � �: re � . �� ar 1�1'E �" — 1. <_ 45% second to first story ratio: ��u■� :�o�� ""'°'� 1�°"u"' 4��:: �n� • Keep existing process - Two-Story Permit, City staff design �""""i �� IP' �� - review, and noticing �--��- - _ _ __ � __ ° � -- _ -- - _ �r�� Yes ❑ No ❑ • No design review, but keep the Two Permit and Two house with design review public noticing process Yes ❑ No ❑ • No design review (apply for building permit) � -. k` � � � , ..: °u Yes ❑ No ❑ � � �Ir� ��=- -= � � '�w ,'� . � :`'� ,� �,..� . ,..�. . , e � 2. > 45% second to first story ratio - � :.�� • Keep existing process- T�ro-Story Permit, City staff design .�"� ��'� � review, architectural consultant review, and noticulg ��,—_� ,�� ;. Yes ❑ No ❑ . � Two-story house without design review • Keep existing process but simplify design principles by illustrating examples of conunon architectural styles Yes ❑ No ❑ ' �" �" � �ol � � � �.�-1'� .___— • No design review, but keep Two-Story Permit and public �> �� : i 1 1� �k �_��" � � -�,■ noticing process _ �-� �, , i � Yes ❑ No ❑ �}� � l � i � :, � .� ; _ • No design review (apply for building permit) -= �.-- -_ � - _ _'� � ^ � -�� _ Yes ❑ No ❑ _ �` '� � � F� � �� ; � >45% 2nd to 1 st fl. ratio with design review Comments: 23 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 Noticing 4 � 1' �s J '4 �",� . �- Ob�ective: Evaluate noticing area and material for R1 projects. � '� m� � �� ,�� _ �'�� fi��.� '- .` �� 1. Noticing radius: � � �� ,�,'�'� • Keep existing radii of 300' (for 2-story and Exceptions) �� °°' ;�-,,, _ `��,�°'� �,� � ,. ., Yes ❑ No ❑ �� E Y � �� a� C: �.�, ,y�.: :.,,, -. , � ��, J � , � . _.. . r {� :�z �r q� • Ad'acent onlv and across the street �� ` � Yes ❑ No ❑ ? � �~ �, , � , ,� �� "`,�,��+"��' >� �. 5 r � � � � 4��J T� a:�a. . .�a��:��".r,�.. ��. .��afuv � . . f„ Notice board for two-story house 2. Noticing inaterial: • Keep existing process of mailing notices and 11" x 17" plan sets Yes ❑ No ❑ • Send notices and only site plan and elevations to adjacent property owners and across the street Yes ❑ No ❑ • Send notices onlv and llave onsite notice board Yes ❑ No ❑ • No mailed notice, only onsite notice board Yes ❑ No ❑ Comments: Story Poles � � ', ' Ob�ective: Evaluate whether story poles should be required. � �� `"�`: � � �� r� � 1. Keep the existing requirenlents to install story poles for all ,'� � �� two-story projects � �� N �� -� " ��1 - Yes ❑ No ❑ � � �� .` ,��,w�,,¢�.� M �� : � � � a�. ��• �,�� ,�. Y � r , �� a � ., 2. Remove the requirements ��`i`� �, �$ �` T y � � ��. a f�'�`� -�� I ' 1 _... . � Yes ❑ No ❑ � . "� . -_ - � � � _:� � -- --_ Story poles for new two home 3. Option of story poles or 3D photo simulation Yes ❑ No ❑ Comments: 24 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 R1-20/R1 Sloped Lots � . �.°'"� ,�� y ; ��` �� ^ � ` ,��'- � , Ob�ective: Evaluate whether tllere should be different standards �� '� « �� °�'`�� `�� :�� for R1-201ots and R1 slo ed lots. � �� ' � � �� p �� , - . � *� � 1. Should special regulations [19.28.050 (C) of the R1 Ordinance] `�` r`' � �• .,� #�� apply to all R1-zoned lots with slopes >_ 15% to <_ 30%? �� - �; � � '� �� .�.�� - �. ,. . • 389 affected lots — categorized as "Toe of Hill" and ,�� ._� "Embankment/Flood Plain' lots; 184 (47%) Toe of Hill, 205 � ; � •y�'- `�" -� � � " (53%) Embankment --�-�"`-� Yes ❑ No ❑ Embankment/Flood Plain Lot 2. Development near Steep Slopes- Should there be setback � � � P standards for development near slopes >_ 15%? �" �=�. �''�� - �_-_��., � � � Yes❑ No❑ ��'�"' - .,�� , g p l � � � B il in ff Fl P- h 1 il in ff h fl r ir -�� 3. u d g o at ad S ou d bu d g o t e at pad equ e �--,.- additional review? '� � � , � _. , _ _ . _ ,� ,�,�.v ...�._., Yes ❑ No ❑ ' � ��.. _ - � � 4. Grading- Currently, projects with grading quantities >2,500 �`' " Toe of Hill lot cubic yards require Plaiuling Commission review and a nlaximunl of 2,000 sq. ft. area is allowed to be graded for the �� °��= ��. ��.n � y :� �� buildulg pad. S1lould additional gradulg continue to require �:s �� k ro# �'�, �� ,�,,� higher review? ` � � ' . �` ' � � �. t � � ,. � ,� � ��.q ��4 �� ,��, � �� Yes ❑ No ❑ �� `'�� . �" _ � �� ' . � m .;.�v� ,, 5. FAR Restrictions- Should tllere be different FAR restrictions �' - . for building on the flat portion of the lot and off? � - � � .. i " . -_,,� Yes ❑ No ❑ � ' 6. Second Floor Area- Should 211�� Floor Area follow existing R1- View downslope of R1-2o lots 20 (unlimited) OR regular R1 (45% or more if additional architectural criteria is met)? � . Yes ❑ No ❑ � �' � � �� , � �6 � c .� � � £ ;� � � �'� 7. Fencing- Should there be open fencing requirenlents for lots �` ��'' ��- '�� ,� �� .� that abut RHS-zoned properties (similar to R1-20), i.e. toe of �• � -•� �'�� ;��,,� . ��, hill lots? �� ,.��. ��, � ' �� ,,��;_� � r �.�� r Yes ❑ No ❑ ;� _ � Comments: � View of R1-20 lots from valley floor 25 Aitachment 4 Tally of May 24, 2011 worlcshop attendee responses on the limited R1 review handout Two Stor Peview 1. <_ 45% second to first story ratio: • Keep existing process - Two-Story Permit, City staff design review, and noticitlg 8 (57%) Yes 6 (43%) No • No design review, Uut keep the Two-Story Pernut and public noticing process 4 (29%) Yes 10 (71%) No • No desi�z review (apply for Uuilduzg pernut) 3 (21%) Yes 11 (79%) No 2. > 45% second to first story ratio - • Keep existulg process- Two-Story Pernut, City staff design review, arcllitectural consultant review, and noticing 8 (57%) Yes 6 (43%) No • Keep existulg process Uut sinlplify desib principles by illustrating exanlples of conlnlon architectural styles 5 (36%) Yes 9 (64%) No • No design review, but keep Two-Story Permit and public noticing process 3 (21%) Yes 11 (79%) No • No desi�z review (apply for builduzg pernut) 3 (21%) Yes 11 (79%) No Conrnients: • I believe if a project is satisfyulg the guideliiles, tllen the staff can approve without aily further review • There should not be any design regulations except for setbacks. We should bring more different designs into the City instead. All residential 11on1es look similar. Each house should look unique. • Design review process needed. • Please leave everything the way it is. The process works very well now and doesn't need to be changed. Neigllbors wifll snlall lots are at risk if the R1 Ordinance for two-story design review process is changed. Small lot neighborlloods are at risk if story poles are eliniinated. Small lots are at risk if neighborllood noticing is elimuzated. • No option is perfect, all need to nlodify. Need review, but need to sinlplify. • Please keep the existulg rules. • Keep the existing standards and review. • Use conimon sense when reviewulg architectural style. Noticuz� �one questiorulaire was not filled out for $Zis section 1. Noticing radius: • Keep existing radii of 300' (for 2-story and Exceptions) 11 (85%) Yes 2 (15%) No • Adjacent only and across the street 2 (15%) Yes 11 (85%) No 26 2. Noticing material: • Keep existuzg process of mailulg notices and 11" x 17" plan sets 8 (62%) Yes 5 (38%) No • Send notices and only site plan and elevations to adjacent property owners and across the street 4 (31%) Yes 9 (69%) No • Send notices only and have onsite notice board 3 (23%) Yes 10 (77%) No • No mailed notice, only onsite notice board 1 (8%) Yes 12 (92%) No Comnlents: • Larger radius than 300 feet would be good. • Use the website for all details. • Keep the existing noticing procedures. • Existing process wastes paper and plans sllould be available online. Stor *two questionnaires were not filled out for this section L Keep the existing requiremeilts to install story poles for all two-story projects 5 (42%) Yes 7 (58%) No 2. Penlove the requirenlents 6 (50%) Yes 6 (50%) No 3. Option of story poles or 3D photo sinlulation 4 (33%) Yes 8 (66%) No Conzments: • Must have a 3D photosimulation and wi$1 a street elevation between neigllbor • Maybe add the 3D photosimulation to story poles for window placenlent, etc. • Please leave story poles alone. They work well now. • It would be great to add the 3D photosimulation along with the story poles. • Use technology to its fullest- 3D photosimulation • Story poles do not properly uzdicate or describe the true situation and style of the project. Also cost of installation is expensive. R1-20/R1 Sloped Lots *two questionnaires were not filled out for this section 1. Should special regulations [19.28.050 (C) of the R1 Ordinance] apply to all R1-zoned lots wiflz slopes >_ 15% to <_ 30%? 5(42%) Yes 5(42%) No 2(16%) No Response 2. Development near Steep Slopes- Should fllere be setback standards for development near slopes >_ 15%? 5(42%) Yes 4(33%) No 3(25%) No Response 3. Building off F'lat Pad- Should Uuilding off the flat pad require additional review? 27 8 (67%) Yes 4 (33%) No 4. Grading- Currently, projects with grading quantities >2,500 cubic yards require Planning Commission review and a nlaxinlum of 2,000 sq. ft. area is allowed to be graded for the building pad. Should additional gradulg continue to require higher review? 5(42%) Yes 6(50%) No 1(8%) No Response 5. FAR Restrictions- Should there be different FAR restrictions for building on the flat portion of the lot and off? 4(33%) Yes 7(58%) No 1(8%) No Response 6. Second Floor Area- Should 211i Floor Area follow existuzg P1-20 (unlimited) OR regular R1 (45% or more if additional architectural criteria is met)? 5(42%) Unlimited 6(50%) Limited 1(8%) No Response 7. Fencing- Should tllere be open fencing requirenlents for lots that abut RHS-zoned properties (sinular to R1- 20), i.e. toe of hill lots? 6(50%) Yes 5(42%) No 1(8%) No Response Comments: • Don't change anything. • Please keep t11u1gs t11e way they are. We have gone over these issues nlany times. Let's keep what we 11ave. • Do not change the rules that people have spent so nluch tinle on before. Do not re-ulvent the wheel. 28 Aitachment 5 Comments and Questions from Limited R1 Review Workshop Discussion on May 24, 2011 General Conrntents • P1 rules don't apply to all lots • Leave the existulg R1 Ordinance the way it is • Upon annexation, residents were pronused flzat Cupertino would have codes to prevent larger homes • Cupertino �nTebsite a good resource and should have nlore resources and plan sets available to the public • R1 should not be relaxed • Don't build honles fl�at adversely inlpact street trees Qitiestions • Whose voices carry weight? Residents? Architects? Two-Stor,�gn Review Conrnients • Cupertino needs to inlprove upon 2-story design review to make it less conlplex; currently it is difficult to read. The process/regulations should be like Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Woodside. Qitiestions • Whose aesthetics are we designing to? • Aesthetics- who is the judge? What is the process for challen�ing those decisions? Noticuz� Comments • Existing process of send plan sets and notices works well • Noticing radius should be greater than 300 feet • 2 weeks does ilot seem like a loilg enougll notice period Storv Poles Comments • Honleowners who erect story poles end up damaging roofs regardless w11et11er t11ey build or not • Story poles needed on hillside lots • Story poles are onerous. They look too boxy, the wind blows thenl down, and they dori t work in inost cases. Feel that 3D perspectives are n1uc11 better. • Story poles have been a benefit to neighbors. They work well in sn1a11 neighborhoods and provide good visual estimation of what a house will look like. Story poles let �eople know exactly what they are getting. • Story poles and 3D photosinls should l�e required, with a nlininlum of story poles • Should renlove story poles — waste of nloney and tinle and do not tell the story • Story poles are a b eat visual cue to a new project, lets neighbors lalow what house will look like Slo�ed Single-Fanlilv Residential Lots Questions • How does slope percentage translate to slope degree? • Is there a City database on t11e slope of lots? 29 Aitachment 6 CHAPTER 1y.2�: SIIVGLE-FAIVIILY RESIDEIVTIAL (R1) ZONES 19.28.010 Purposes. 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. 19.28.030 Pernutted and Conditional Uses. 1928.040 Pernuts Required. 19.28.050 Zoning Districts Establislled. 19.28.060 Developnlent Pegulations (Site). 19.28.070 Development Regulations (Building). 19.28.080 Eicher (P1-e) Developnlent Regulations 1928.090 Developinent Regulations-(R1-a). 19.28.100 Two Story Desib z Guideluzes 19.28.110 Landscape Pequirenlents. 19.28.120 Pernutted Yard Encroachments. 19.28.130 Muzor Pesidential Permits. 19.28.140 Two-Story Pesidential Perniit. 19.28.150 Exceptions. 19.28.150 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.010 Purposes. R-1 single-family residence districts are ultended to create, preserve and enllance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to: A. Enllance the identity of residential neighborhoods; 30 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance B. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to uzdividual residential parcels; C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures witllin residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the predonunantly low-intensity setting in tlle community. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, §1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. No building, structure or land shall be used, and no builcling or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R-1 single-fanuly residence district other than u1 conformance with the provisions of this chapter and otller applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, §1(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A(part), 1992) 19.28.030 Permitted and Conditional Uses. TaUle 19.28.030 sets forth t11e Pernlitted and Conditional uses uz the Suzgle-Fanlily Pesidential District. Permitted A. Sin�le-famil use; B. A second dwelling unit confornling to the provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapter 19.82, except for tllose second dwelli�lQ tulits requirinQ a coilditional use pernlit; C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to pernlitted uses and otherwise confornling with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title; D. Home occupations in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.92; E. Horticulture, Qardenuza, and arowina of food products. F. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency or departnlent with six or less residents, not includinQ $Ze provider, provider famil or staff; G. Sn1all-fan�il da care 11ome; H. The keeping of a maximum of four adult household pets, provided that no nlore than two adult dogs or cats nlay be kept on the site; I. Utilit facilities essential to rovision of utilit services to the nei borhood but excludin� business offices, construction or 31 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Permitted stora e ards, maintenance facilities, or corporation �ards; J. Large-fanuly day care homes, which meet the parking criteria contained u1 Chapter 19100 and which are at least three hundred feet fronl any other large-fanuly day care honle. The Director of Conlnlunity Developnlent or his/her designee shall adn�listrativel approve lar�e da care honles to ensure conlpliance wit11 the parkinQ and proainlit requirements; K. Conore�ate residence wit11 ten or less residents; L. Transitional housin and supportive housin�. Conditional A. Issued by the Director of Commwlit Developnlent: 1. Tenlporar uses, sub�ect to reQulations establislled b Chapter 19.124; 2. Large-family day care honle, which otherwise does not nleet the criteria for a pernlitted use. The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided b Section 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code; 3. Buildings or structures w11ic11 ulcorporate solar design features fllat require variations fronl setbacks upoil a deternunation by fl1e Director that suc11 desib 1 feature or features will not result u1 privacy inlpacts, slladowing, intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surroundul� area; 4. Second dwellul units wllich require a conditional use pernut pursuant to C1lapter 19.84; 5. Hon1e occu ations re uiruz a conditional use ernut ursuant to Cha ter 19.92 of this title. B. Issued b the PlanninQ Comnussion: 1. Two-story structures in an area designated for a one-story linutation pursuant to Section 19.28.070 H(2) of this chapter, provided that the Plaruzuzg Commission deternlines that flze structure or structures will not result in privacy inlpacts, slladowin�, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse inlpacts to the surroundinQ area; 2. Grou care activities with eater than six ersons; 3. Residential care facilities that fall into the following categories: a. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by t11e State, County agency or departnlent and has six or less residents, not uzcluding flze providers, provider fanlily or staff; b. Facility that has the appropriate State, Cowlty agency or department license and seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a niinimunl distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; 32 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Conditional c. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by tlle State, County agency or departnlent and has seven or greater residents, not ulcluding the provider fanuly or staff, is a mininlunl distance of five hw�dred feet from tlle property boundary of anotller residential care facility; 4. Congregate residence with eleven or inore residents, whicll is a nlinimunl distance of one thousand feet fronl the boundary of another congregate residence and has a nlininlunl of seventy-five square feet of usable rear yard area per occupant. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, §1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1688, §3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, E�. A(part), 1992) 19.28.040 Permits Required. Table 19.28.040 sets forth the discretionary planning permits required for development in the R1 zone. Type of Project Discretionary permit Approval authority required prior to building permit application One-story project that does not require exception or variance fronl the requireinents None Adnlin. of fllis ordinance One-story project with building area that encroaches no nlore than 10 feet into the Minor Residential Pernut Adnlin. re uired rear ard setback One-story project with an extension of no more than 15 feet along one existing side ard nonconfornunQ buildinQ wall line One-story project with a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space projecting outside the buildinQ envelope wit11 a wall hei 11t of 17 feet, 1 ulch to 20 feet New or expanded second story deck or balcony with views into neighboring residential side or rear ards Any active or passive solar structure that requires variation from the setback or hei ht restrictions of this chapter, provided that provided that no such structure sllall 33 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Type of Project Discretionary permit Approval authority required prior to building permit application ulfrinae upon solar easenlents or ad�oinin propert owners Two-stor addition or new two-stor home Pesidential Desib z Peview Adnluz. Two-stor addition, new two-stor honle, and/or second stor deck uz fl�e P1-a zone (Two-Story Permit) DPC Two-stor pro�ect u1 an P1 zoninQ district with an "i' suffix Use Permit PC One or two-story project in the R1-20 zone located off the flat pad exceeding slopes of Architectural and Site 10% and producin� floor area exceedin� 4,500 of total house size Approval One or two-story project u1 the R1-20 zone where proposed flat yard area (excluding driveways) exceeds 2,000 square feet or t11e cut plus fill of the site exceeds 2,500 cubic ards Two-story project requesting an exception fronl the second story wall 1leight Exception Adnlin. reQulation One or two-story project requestuzg an exception fronl sections 19.28.060, 19.28.070, Exception DPC and/ or 19.28.120 One or two-stor pro�ect requestin� a variance fronl section 19.28.130 Variance PC Development on Slopes > 30% (area areater than 500 square feet) Hillside Exception PC Encroachment of a porch post no more than two (2) feet into the front setback in an Director's Minor Admin. R1-a zone Modification Encroachment of a porch platfornl and roof overllang no nlore than five (5) feet into t11e front setback in an R1-a zone 19.28.050 Zoning Districts Established. TaUle 19.28.050 sets forth the zonuzg districts established. Zonin Desi nation Zonin Definition R1-X Sin le Famil Residential District- Minimum lot area corres �onds to the number (multi lied b 1,000 s uare feet) R1-Xi Single Fanuly Residential District Restricted to One Story (not to exceed 18 feet high)- [nuninlum lot area corres onds to flze nunlber (nlulti lied b 1,000 s uare feet) recedin� the 'i s n1bo1] R1-Xe Sin�le Fanul Residential Eichler District [niininlunl lot area corres �onds to the nunlber (multi �lied b 1,000 34 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance square feet) precedulQ the 'e' s nlbol] R1-a Sin�le Famil Residential District with Senu-Rural Characteristics-10,000 square foot nlininlum lot area 19.28.060 Development Regulations (Site). Table 19.28.060 sets fortll the site developnlent regulations in the Single-Fanuly Residential District. R1-5 R1-6, 7.5, 8,10, R1-20 R1-Xe R1-a etc. A. Mininlunl 5,000 the nunlber 20,000 the nunlber x1,000 10,000 net lot area (uz x1,000 square feet)� B. Muzimunl 50 60 75 lot width (uz feet, at the front setUack line) C. Maxinlum site �radin� L Total (in - 2,500 cubic yards maxinlum - cubic yards, (Projects that exceed this need cut plus fill)� additional approval per section 19.28.040) 2. Flat yard - 2,000 square feet (Projects that - area, exceed this need additional approval excluding per section 19.28.040) driveways (in square feet) D. Fencing See Chapter 16.28 (Fence 1. Solid board- 5,000 square foot site See Chapter 16.28 (Fence Ordinance) Ordinance) area (excluding principal buildulg) 2. Open fencing- (composed of materials which result in a 35 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, 7.5, 8,10, R1-20 R1-Xe R1-a etc. nunimunl of 75 % visual transparency) unrestricted, except t11at suc11 fencing over 3 feet in height nlay not be constructed withul the front yard setback E. Retaii�ing - Retaululg walls u1 excess of 5 feet - wall screening shall be screened wiflllandscape nlaterials or faced with decorative nlaterials such as split-faced block, river rock, or similar materials subject to the approval of the Director of Community Developnlent F. Trees - 1. No specimen size trees nlay be - renloved without a pernut as provided for uz the Protected Tree Ordulance, Chapter 14.18 of this code. Native trees should be ultegrated uzto the site desib to the b eatest extent possible. 2. Up to two protected trees with a dianleter less than 18 inches may be removed to acconlnlodate a building pad subject to approval of the Director of Conlnlunity Development. 3. Penloval of protected trees exceedulg 18 inches or renloval of nlore than two protected trees 36 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, 7.5, 8,10, R1-20 R1-Xe R1-a etc. require approval of a tree renloval permit by the Planning Coi7unission in accordance wit11 the Protected Tree Ordinance. G. Developnleilt regulations C- F fronl fllis table apply. Linlited to 500 square feet. Developnlent greater fllan 500 square feet Development requires a Hillside Exception per section 19.28.030. on slopes >_ 30% H. See Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance Landscaping plans are Landscaping required for all additions or new honles. The purpose of the landscapu�g is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building fornls from tlle street and adjacent properties. Generally, the landscaping nlay include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice wit11 vines on fences. � Lots, which contaulless area than required by its zonulg designation, but not less $Zan 5,000 square feet, nlay nevertheless be used as building sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this title are fulfilled. � The 2,500 cubic yards includes gradulg for fl1e buildulg pad, yard areas, driveway, and all other areas requirulg grading, but does not include basements. T11e graded area is linuted to the builduzg pad area to t11e greatest extent possible. Gradulg quantities for multiple driveways are divided equally anlong the participatuzg lots, e.g. t�nTo lots sharuzg a drive�nTay will divide fl�e driveway grading quantity in half. The divided sllare will be charged against fl1e grading quantity allowed for that lot developnlent. 37 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance � All cut and fill areas shall be rounded to follow the natural contours and planted with landscaping that meets the following requirenlents: i. A licensed landscape architect shall review gradulg plans and, u1 consultation with the applicant and City Eilgineer, submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to screen cut and fill slopes. ii. A licensed landscape arcllitect shall prepare a tree plantulg plan for t11e site which will screen grading areas, and residential structures, to the greatest possible extent, as well as to reintroduce trees on barren slopes wllich were denuded by prior agricultural activities. iii. Landscape improvenlents shall meet the requirenlents as established in $Ze Landscape Ordinance, Chapter 14.15 of this code. iv. Landscape improvements shall be installed prior to final occupancy unless such installation is impracticable, in which case, the applicant s11a11 post a bond, cash, or otller security to ensure ulstallation witlluz an 18-tnontll period fronl occupancy. All suc111andscape areas shall be properly nlaiiltained. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 2011, 2007; Ord. 2000, 2007; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635, § 1(part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A(part), 1992) 19.28.070 Development Regulations (Building). TaUle 19.28.070 sets forth the building development regulations in the Single-Family Residential District. R1-5 R1-6, R1-7.5, 8,10, etc. R1-20 A. Maximum lot 1. 45% of fl1e net lot area. coverage 2. An additional 5% is allowed for roof overhangs, �atios, porches, and other similar features not enclosed on b walls on at least three (3) sides B. Maxinlunl floor area 45% of fl1e net lot area 1. 45% of flze net lot area for developnlent proposed ratio on the existing flat pad portion, defined as pad areas equal to or less than 10% slope, of any lot. 2. Buildings or additions off the flat pad �1d �roduculg floor area exceeding 4,500 square feet of total house size require additional review per section 19.28.030 38 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, R1-7.5, 8,10, etc. R1-20 3. Additions witllin an existing building envelope are pernutted provided fllat t11e total FAR of t11e existing building and addition does not exceed 45%. C. Maximunl floor area 1. 45% of fl1e existing or proposed first floor area, or None established, provided total FAP does not ratio, 2�� to 1st floor 750 square feet, whichever is greater. exceed 45%. 2. The Director of Conlmunity Development may grant approval to the second floor to first floor ratio greater than 45% provided that the following design principles are met: a. An identifiable architectural style shall be provided; b. Design features, proportions and details shall be consistent wit11 the architectural style selected; c. Visual relief deemed to be appropriate by the Director of Conlnlunity Development sllall be provided; d. Materials shall be of high quality; e. Ensure appropriate building nlass and scale; f. Design wifll arcllitectural integrity on all sides of fl�e structure; and g. The design shall reflect syninletry, proportion and balance. h. The °City of Cupertino Two Story Design Prulciples" are attached hereto as Appendix A and incor�orated herein by this reference. D. Interior areas 1. S11a11 be double-counted as floor area; 39 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, R1-7.5, 8,10, etc. R1-20 (nleasured fronl the 2. If flze house is a two-story 1louse, this area will cowlt as second story floor area; and floor to t11e top of roof 3. If t11e house is a one-story house, this area will cowlt as first floor area. rafters) with 1leights > 16 feet E. Minimunl first floor setbacks 1. Front ard a. Mulimum 20 feet setback b. Side entering 15 feet. No nlore than two (2) 15 foot setl�acks sllall occur side by side. garage with curved drivewa c. T11ree-car garage For projects with three-car garages oriented to fl1e public rigllt of way, the wall plane of fl1e third space shall be setback a nlinimunl of two (2) feet from the wall lane of t11e otller two (2) s aces. 2. Side yard - For lots that have more than two side yards, the setback shall be consistent for all side yards between t11e front property line and rear propert lule a. Iilterior lot 5 feet 15 feet conlbuled (no side yard setback shall be less fl1ai15 feet) 3. Corner lot a. Interior Side 5 feet b. Street Side 12 feet 4. Rear yard a. 20 feet. b. May be reduced to 10 feet, with a Minor Residential Pernut, subject to section 19.28.130, if, after the reduction, t11e useable rear yard is not less fllan 20 tinles the lot width as measured from the front setback line. F. Minimum second floor setbacks 1. Front vard 25 feet 2. Side ard 40 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, R1-7.5, 8,10, etc. R1-20 a. Interior Lot 25 feet conlbined (no side ard setback shall be less t11an 10 feet) 3. Corner lot 25 feet combined side ard setback (no side ard setback shall be less th�110 feet) a.Interior Side 10 feet but ilot less than 20 feet fronl the rear ro ert liile of an ad�acent sinQle famil dwellinQ b.Street Side 12 feet 4. Flag lot 20 feet from any property line 5. Rear ard 25 feet 6. Setback surcharge a. 10 feet b. Must be added in whole or any conlbination to the second floor front and/ or side yard setback requirenlents. c. Does not appl to honles wifll second floor to first floor ratios areater than 45%. I. Minimum second stor deck setbacks. See section 19.28.040 for permits required. 1. Side ard 15 feet 2. Rear ard 20 feet G. Basements 1. Nunlber, size, and Shall be the n�limunl required by t11e Califonlia Building Code for egress, 1ig11t, and ventilation, except voluine of that in t11e case of a single-story 1louse with a basenlent, one lightwell nlay be up to 10 feet wide and 10 li�htwells feet lon�. 2. Mininlum setback for li htwell retaulul� wall a. Side ard 5 feet b. Rear ard 10 feet 3. Li�htwell railulQs Maxin1un111eiQ11t of 3 feet. T11e fence sllall be located itlunediatel ad�acent to the 1i�11twe11 4. Liglltwell Lightwells that are visible fronl a public street sllall be screened by landscaping. screenulQ 5. Root barrier The perimeter of the basement and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated and/ or reinforced wiflz the nleasures nlost effective root barrier measures as determined b t11e Director of Coninlwlit Developnlent. H. Maxinlunl hei ht 1. Buildin�s 28 feet 41 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, R1-7.5, 8,10, etc. R1-20 2. Zoning Districts Limited to one story(not to exceed 18 feet) with 'Y' suffix * 3. First floor buildulg a. T11e nlaxinlunl exterior wall 11eig11t and building height on single-story structures and single-story envelope sections of two-story structures nlust fit into the building envelope defined by: i. Defined by a 10 foot high vertical line from natural grade nleasured at the property line; and ri. A 25 degree roof line angle projected inward at the 10 foot high lule referenced above; b. Notwithstanding the builduzg envelope, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space tnay have a nlaximunl wall heigllt of 17 feet to fl1e peak of fl1e roof as nleasured fronl natural grade, or up to 20 feet wifll a Minor Residential Permit. 4. Second story a. 50% of the total perimeter length of the second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights b eater exposed wall than six (6) feet; heights b. Shall have a nzinunum two (2) foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall; and c. The overlap s11a11 be structural and shall be offset a nlinimum of four (4) feet fronl the first story exterior wall plane. d. This regulation does not apply to homes with second floor to first floor ratios greater than 45%. e. T11e Director of Comnlwlity Developnlent nlay approve an exception to this regulation based on t11e fuzdings uz section 1928.140. 5. Entry feature 14 feet fronl natural grade to top of plate hei�ht I. Solar Desi�n The setback and 11ei 11t restrictions provided in t11is cllapter n1a be varied for a structure utilized for 42 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, R1-7.5, 8,10, etc. R1-20 passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easenlents or adjoining property owners. Variation fronl the setback or height restrictions of this cllapter nlay be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Pernut subject to section 1928.130 �- Pertains to all buildulgs in a desib ated area as prescribed by the City Council by affixulg the designation "i' to the zoning district sytnbol. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord. 1754, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A(part), 1992) 19.28.080 Eicher (R1 Development Regulations R1-e single-fanuly residence "Eichler districts" protect a consistent architectural fornl through the establishnlent of district site development regulations. Nothing in these regulations is ultended to preclude a harnlonious two-story honle or second story addition. Table 19.28.080 sets forth the building developnlent regulations in flze R1-e district. R1-Xe A. Maximunl lot coverage 1. 45% of the net lot area. 2. An additional 5% is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches, and other sinlilar features not enclosed b walls on at least three (3) sides B. Maainlunl floor area ratio 45% of the net lot area C. Maxinlunl floor area ratio, 2�� to 1st 1. 45% of the existing or proposed first floor area, or 750 square feet, whichever is greater. floor 2. The Director of Comnlwlity Development nlay grant approval to t11e second floor to first floor ratio greater than 45% provided that the following design principles are n1et: a. An identifiable architectural style shall be provided; b. Design features, proportions and details shall be consistent with flze architectural style selected; c. Visual relief deemed to be appropriate b the Director of Comnlwlit Development 43 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-Xe shall be provided; d. Materials shall be of high quality; e. Ensure appropriate building nlass and scale; f. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure; and g. The desib shall reflect syninletry, proportion and balance. h. Tl1e °City of Cupertino Two Story Design Principles" are attached hereto as an Appendix and incorporated hereul by this reference. D. Interior areas with heights > 16 feet 1. Measured from the floor to the top of the roof rafters, and shall be double-counted as floor area; 2. If the house is a two-story house, this area will count as second story floor area; and 3. If the house is a one-story 1louse, this area will count as first floor area. E. Minimunl setbacks First floor Second floor 1. Front ard a. Minimunl setback 20 feet 25 feet b. Side entering garage with 15 feet. No more t11an two (2) 15 foot - curved drivewa setbacks shall occur side b side. c. Three-car Garage For projects with three-car garages oriented - to the public right of way, the wall plane of the third space shall be setback a niininlum of two (2) feet fronl fl1e wall plane of the other two (2) spaces. 2. Side ard a. Interior Lot 15 feet conlbuled (no side yard setback shall 25 feet combined (no side yard setback s11a11 be less than 5 feet) be less fllan 10 feet) b. Corner lot - 25 feet conlbined side vard setback i. Street Side 12 feet 12 feet ii. Interior Side 5 feet 10 feet and nlust not be less t11an 20 feet fronl 44 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-Xe the rear property 1u1e of an adjacent single fanul dwellin� c. Fla� lot - 20 feet 3. Rear yard a. 20 feet. 25 feet b. May be reduced to 10 feet, With a Minor Residential Pernut, subject to section 19.28.120, if, after t11e reduction, t11e useable rear yard is not less than 20 tinles the lot wid$1 as nleasured fronl the front setback line. 4. Surcharge setback - a. 10 feet b. Setback distance added u1 whole or any conlbination to the second floor front and/or side yard setback requirements. c. This regulation does not apply for 1lomes second floor to first floor ratios greater than 45%. 5. Second Stor Decks - See section 1928.030 for pernlits required. a. Side ard - 15 feet b. Rear ard - 20 feet F. Basenlents (su� est cllanaes as in table above) 1. Nunlber, size, and volume of The mmlber, size, and volunle of lightwells and basenlent windows and doors shall be the lightwells nuninlunl required Uy the California Building Code for egress, light, and ventilation, except that u1 the case of a single-story house with a basement, one lightwell may be up to 10 feet wide and 10 feet lon�. 2. Mininluin setback for liahtwell retaululQ walls a. Side vard 5 feet b. Rear ard 10 feet 3. LiQhtwell railulas 3 feet and shall be located inullediatel ad�acent to the li�htwell 45 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-Xe 4. Li�lltwell landscapin� Li htwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened b landscapinQ. 5. Lightwell retaining wall root T11e peritneter of the basenlent and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated and/ or barrier nleasures reinforced with the most effective root barrier nleasures as deternuned by the Director of Conlmunit Developnlent. G. Maxin1un111eiQ11t (su est chan es as in Table above) 1. Total Uuildin� heiQht 28 feet 2. First floor building envelope a. The nlaxinlunl exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into the building envelope defined by: i. A 10 foot high vertical line fronl natural grade nleasured at the property line; and ii. A 25 degree roof line angle projected inward at the 10 foot high line referenced above; b. Notwithstanding the building envelope, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space nlay have a maxinlum wall height of 17 feet to t11e peak of t11e roof as nleasured fronl natural grade, or up to 20 feet with a Minor Residential Permit. 3. Second story e�osed wall a. 50% of the total perinleter length of the second story walls shall not have ex�osed wall heights heights greater than six (6) feet; b. S11a11 have a miilinlunl two (2) foot hig11 overlap of fl1e adjoining first story roof against the second story wall; and c. The overlap s11a11 be structural and shall be offset a minimuin of four (4) feet from the first story exterior wall plane. d. This regulation does not apply for honles with second floor to first floor ratios greater than 45%. e. T11e Director of Comnlunity Developnlent nlay approve an exception to this regulation based on the findin�s in section 19.28.140. 4. Entr feature hei ht See Two Stor Desi z Guidelines, Section 19.28.090 H. Solar Desiml The setback and heiQht restrictions rovided in this c11a �ter ma be varied for a structure 46 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-Xe utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no suc11 struct�ire shall ulfringe upon solar easements or ad�oinin� propert owners. I. Buildin� desi z requirenlents 1. Entr features facin� the street Inte�rated with fl1e roofline of t11e house 2. Maximunl roof slope 3:12 (rise over rw�) 3. Wood siding on walls faculg a Shall incorporate vertical grooves, up to 6 inches apart public street (not includulg t11e QaT1Qe C�OOT� 4. BuildinQ desiQn The buildinQ desian shall incor�orate strai�ht architectural lines, rather than curved lines 5. First floor elevation No more t11an 12 inches above the existulQ arade 6. Exterior walls adjacent to side Shall not exceed 9 feet in height, measured from $Ze top of the floor to the top of the wall vards plate (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, §1 (part), 2000) 19.28.090 Development Regulations-(R1-a). R1-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural setting u1 neighborhoods with large lots. Table 19.28.090 sets forth the building developmeilt regulations in the R1-a district. R1-al A. Maximum lot coverage 1. 45% of the net lot area. 2. An additional 5% is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches, and other sinular features not enclosed on b walls on at least three (3) sides B. Maxinlunl total floor area ratio (includulg all 45% of t11e net lot area str�.ict�ires and floors on the lot) C. Maximunl floor area ratio, 211�� to 1St floor? 1. 40% of fl�e existing or proposed first floor area, except as follows: a. A second floor nlay be at least 750 square feet u1 area b. In no case s11all a second floor be nlore than 1,000 square feet in area D. Interior areas with heights > 16 feet 1. Measured from fl1e floor to the top of the roof rafters, and shall be double- counted as floor area; 47 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-al 2. If the house is a two-story 1louse, this area will count as second story floor area; and 3. If the house is a one-stor house, this area will cow�t as first floor area. E. Miniinum setbacks (measured from propert line) First floor Second floor 1. Front ard a. Minimum setback 30 feet 30 feet b. Side enterulg garage with curved 15 feet. No tnore than two (2) 15 foot - drivewa setbacks s11all occur side b side. c. T11ree-Car Garage For projects with three-car garages oriented to the public right of way, the wall plane of the third space shall be setback a mulimum of two (2) feet from the wall plane of the other two (2) spaces. 2. Side Yard a. Interior lot 10 feet both sides 35 feet combined (no side yard setback shall be less fllan 15 feet) b. Corner lot 25 feet coinbuled side ard setl�ack i. Street side 12 feet 12 feet ii. Interior side 5 feet 10 feet and nlust ilot be less than 20 feet fronl t11e rear property line of an ad�acent sinale fanul dwellin c.Flaa lot - 20 feet from an propert line 3. Rear yard 20 feet 40 feet F. Second stor desiQn reQulations 1. 211� to 1St floor wall plane The second stor shall not cantilever over a first stor wall plane 2. Front-facina wall plane(s) The front-facin� wall plane(s) of the second stor nlust be offset a nzininlunl of 48 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-al three (3) feet from the first story wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid a two storv wall plane on the front elevation. G. Front Yard Paving 1. No nlore than 50% of the front yard setback area may be covered with a conlbination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. 2. No more than 40% of the front yard setback area nlay be covered with an inlpervious surface such as concrete or asphalt. H. Basenlents 1. Number, size, and volunle of 1ig11twells The nunlber, size, and volunle of lightwells and baseinent windows and doors shall be the nlininlunl required by the California Building Code for egress, light, and ventilation, except that in the case of a single-story house with a basement, one liQhtwell n1a be up to 10 feet wide and 10 feet lon�. 2. Mininlum setbacks for li�htwell retainina walls a. Side Yard 5 feet b.Rear ard 10 feet 3. Li�htwell railulQs 3 feet and shall be located inlmediatel ad�acent to the li�htwell 4. Li�lltwell landscapin� Li�htwells t11at are visible fronl a public street s11a11 be screened b landscapul . 5. Lightwell retaining wall root barrier The perinleter of the basenlent and all 1ig11twell retauzuzg walls shall be treated nleasures aild/ or reulforced with the nlost effective root barrier nleasures as determiiled by the Director of Communit Developnlent. I. Maximunl hei�ht (nleasured from natl.iral orade, not includin fireplace chinine s, antennae, or other appurtenances) 1. Total Uuildin� 11eiQht 28 feet 2. First floor buildulg envelope a. The nlaxinlunl exterior wall height and l�uilding height on single-story structures and suzgle-story sections of two-story structures must fit ulto the building envelope defuled by: i. A 12 foot high vertical line from natural grade and located 10 feet fronl property lines; and ii. A 25 degree roof lule angle projected inward at fl1e 12 foot high line referenced above 3. Second stor e�osed wall hei�hts a. 50% of the total perinleter len�$1 of the second stor walls shall not have 49 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-al exposed wall heights greater than six (6) feet; b. Shall have a nunimum two (2) foot high overla� of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall; and c. The overlap s11all be structural and s11all be offset a minimunl of four (4) feet fronl tlle first story exterior wall plane. d. The Director of Commtuzity Development nlay approve an exception to fllis regulation based on the findings in section 19.28.140. 4. Entr feature hei ht See Two Stor Desi z Guidelines, Section 19.28.090. J. Second story deck nunimum setbacks (nleasured fronl property 1u1e and nlay only be located on the front and rear of the house) See section 19.28.030 for ernuts re uired. 1. Side ard 15 feet 2. Rear ard 20 feet K. Solar Design The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infruzQe upon solar easenlents or ad�oululQ propert owners. �Variation fronl the R1 and R1-a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of t11e Cupertino Municipal Code in t11e R1-a district. Notwifllstanding the above, a request for reasonable acconinlodation may be nlade by any person with a disability, w11en the strict application of the provisions in this section, act as a barrier to fair housulg opportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50. (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.100 Two Story Design Guidelines Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing 1louse, shall be generally consistent wifll t11e adopted sulgle-fanuly residential guidelines. The Director of Community Development sllall review the project and sllall deternline fllat fl1e itenls u1 Table 19.28.100 below are inet prior to design approval: 50 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, 7.5, 8,10, etc.; R1-20 R1-Xel R1-a A. Neighborhood The mass and bulk of tlle design should be reasonably conlpatible with the predoininant neighborllood pattern. New Conlpatibility construction should not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neigllborhood pattern in ternls of building and forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights Proportionalit B. Higher volunle The desib should use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to acllieve higher volunle interior spaces uzterior s aces C. Curb cut There should not be a three-car wide drivewa curb cut D. Garage width No nlore than 50% of the front elevation of a house should consist 1. Maxinlunl of 25 feet wide on front elevation of garage area 2. Additional garage spaces should be provided tllrough t11e use of a tandenl garage or a detached accessor structure at the rear of the propert E. Exposed Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls should be avoided since it can increase the a�parent mass of the second second story story walls F. Side setback T11e current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in t11e neighborhood should be nlaintained and garage orientation pattern G. Window, door, When possible, doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned wit11 one anofller vertically and horizontally and architectural and syirunetrical in nunlber, size and placenlent. elenlent alimlment H. Porclles (A porch differs fronl an entry elenlent, which 11as a proportionately greater 1leigllt than its widtll) 1. Front Porches are encouraged a. Traditional, open porches are encouraged porches b. When viewed fronl the street, a porch should appear proportionately greater i�1 width than in height 2. Posts - Structural supports nlust be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive 51 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5 R1-6, 7.5, 8,10, etc.; R1-20 R1-Xel R1-a 3. Colunins The use of large colunzns or pillars is discouraged 4. Eave 11eig11t T11e eave 11eig11t for a front porcll should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical sulgle-story elements in flze neighborllood 5. Detailing Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elenlents I. Garage setback Living area should be closer to tlle street, while garages should be set back more. to livuzQ area J. Second story All second story roofs should have at least a one-foot overhang roof overhan� K. Second story 1. Should be fixed and obscured to a height of six (6) windows on the feet above the secoild floor; side elevations 2. S1lould 11ave pernlanent exterior louvers to a height of six (6) feet above the second floor; or 3. Should have sill heights of five (5) feet or greater to nutiQate ultrusion into a neiQhbor's privac L. Second story L Should have building wall offsets at least every 24 wall heights feet, with a nluzinlum four (4) foot depth and 10 foot greater t11an six width. (6) feet from finish floor 2. The offsets should conlprise the full height of the wall plane. M. Entry feature 14 feet fronl natural grade to plate. heiQht �Refer to t11e Eichler Design Handbook- Fairgrove Neighborhood for two-story 11on1es in t11e R1-Xe zone 52 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance � The R1-a guidelines shall be used in conjunction with the City's Sulgle Family Residential Design Guidelines. In cases where there nlay be conflict between the two sets of guidelines, this Section shall take precedence. Nonconfornlance with the guidelines shall be considered acceptable oi11y if the applicant shows that fllere are no adverse inlpacts fronl fl1e proposed project. 19.28.110 Landscape Requirements. To nlitigate privacy impacts and the visual nlass and bulk of new two-story honles and additions, tree and/ or shrub planting is required. The ultent of this section is to provide substantial screening within three years of planting. A. Ap�licability. These requirenlents shall apply to new two-story homes, second-story decks, two-story additions, modifications to the existing second-story decks ��d/or new wuzdows on existing two-story honles that ulcrease privacy inlpacts on neighboring residents. 1. These requirenlents s11a11 not apply to: a. Skylights b. Windows with sills inore than 5 feet above the finislled second floor c. Obscured, non-openable wuldows d. Windows wi$1 pernlanent exterior louvers to a height of 6 feet above the second floor; e. Non-operable windows with obscure glass to a 1leight of 6 feet above the second floor; f. Windows with a sill height of 5 feet minimunl above t11e fuzished second floor; and g. W11ei1 waivers have been obtained by all affected property owilers B. Plantulg Plan. Proposals for a new two-story honles, second-story decks, two-story additions, inodifications to the existing second- story decks, and/or new windows on existing two-story hoines shall be accompanied by a planting plan which identifies the location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees or shrubs to nleet the requirements u1 Table 19.28.110 below. C. PlantinQ Requirements- Table 19.28110 R1-5,R1-6, 7.5, 8,10, etc.; R1-a R1-Xe; R1-20 1. Front yard tree a. The tree shall be 24 ulch-box or lar�er, with a mininlunl heiQllt of six (6) feet. b. In front of new second stories u1 the front yard Placed to wllere views fron12�� story windows across t11e street are setback area. partiall miti ated. 2. Privacy a. New trees and/ or shrubs are required on the applicant's property in an area bounded by a thirty-degree angle on each PlantinQ i side window �an1b. 53 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance R1-5,R1-6, 7.5, 8,10, etc.; R1-a R1-Xe; R1-20 b. T11e Planning Division shall nlaintain a list of allowed privacy planting trees and shrubs. The list includes allowed plant species, mininlunl size of trees and shrubs, e�ected canopy or spread size, and planting distance between trees. c. The trees and/ or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy pernlit. d. Mulinlunl height - See City list. d. Muzinlunl height - 12 feet. e. Mininlum setback of trees from property line -�/� of the spread noted on the City list. 3. Waivers a. New trees or shrubs are not required to replace existing front or privacy trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified Arborist or Licensed Landscape Arcllitect verifies that the existing trees/ shrubs have the cllaracteristics of privacy planting species, subject to approval by the Director or Conlmunity Developnlent. b. Affected property owner(s) may choose to allow privacy plantulg on tlleir own property. In such cases, t11e applicant tnust plant t11e privacy screening prior to issuance of a building permit. c. The privacy mitigation ineasures nlay be nlodified in any way wit11 a signed waiver statenlent fronl the affected property owner. Modifications can include chanQes to the number of sllrubs or trees, their species or location. 4. Covenant T11e property owner shall record a covenant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office that requires the retention of all privacy plantulg, or use of existulg vegetation as privacy planting, prior to receiving a final building ulspection from the Buildin� Division. This re lation does not appl to situations descriUed u� subsection (C)(3)(U) of this section. 5. Maultenance Tl1e required plants shall be nlaintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessar to ield a rowth rate e�ected for a particular species. 6. Replacenlent Where required planting is retnoved or dies it nlust be replaced within tllirty days with privacy tree(s) of sinular size as the tree(s) beul replaced, wlless it is detern�led to be infeasible b fl1e Director of Conununit Developnleilt. iIn addition to the privacy planting requirenlents, the following is required for all side and rear yard-facing second story windows in the P1-Xe zone: A, Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height of 6 feet above flze second floor; or B. Obscure glass to a heigllt of 6 feet above the second floor; or 54 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance C. Have a window sill height of 5 feet n�limum above t11e finished second floor (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.120 Permitted Yard Encroachments. Table 19.28.120 sets forth the permitted yard encroachnlents in the Single-Family Residential district. Permitted Yard Encroachments A. Extension of a Legal L Where a building legally constructed according to existulg yard and setback regulations at $Ze time Non-conforn�lg Wall of construction, encroaches upon present required yards and setbacks, one encroachulg side yard Plane for structures setback may be extended along its existing building lines if t11e addition receives a Minor Residential not located within a Pernut and conforms to the following: promulent ridgeline site line a. The extensioil or addition may not furtller encroach ulto aily required setback aild the height of the existing non-confornung wall and t11e extended wall may not be ulcreased. b. The maximum lengtll of the extensioil is 15 feet.� c. T11e extension of any wall plane of a first-story addition is not pernutted to be within fllree (3) feet of any property line. d. Onl one such extension is pernutted for the life of such buildin�. 2. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to allow fl�e further extension of an encroac11n1ent by any buildulg, which is fl1e result of the b anting of a variance or exception, either before or after such property l�ecome part of t11e City. 3. This section does not appl to attached accessor structures such as attached carports.� B. Arcllitectural Features a. May extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding tllree feet. b. No architectural feature, or combulation thereof, whether a portion of a principal or accessory structure, ma extend closer than three feet to an propertv line. C. Porch post in fl1e R1-a Posts for porches are allowed to encroach two (2) feet into the required front setback� See section zone 1928.040 for pernlit requirenlents. D. Low, open fenculg for Allowed to encroach two (2) feet ulto the required front setback area. porches in t11e R1-a zone 55 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance E. Porc11 platform and May encroach five (5) feet into the required front setback� See section 19.28.040 for permit requirenlents. roof over11�1Q F. Accessory Structures As allowed by Chapter 19.80, Accessory Structures (including attaclled patio covers) 1 Does not apply in the P1-a zone � Does not apply to non-Rl-a properties (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, E�1. A(part), 1992) 19.28.130 Minor Residential Permits. Projects that require a Minor Residential Permit shall be reviewed in accordance with this section. The purpose of this process is to provide affected neighbors wit11 an opportunity to coninlent on new development that could have significant itnpacts on tlleir property or the neighborhood as a wllole. Table 1928.130 sets forfll the requirenlents for Minor Residential Permits in the Sulgle-Fanuly Residential district. Minor Residential Permits A. Written notice and plan set 1. Upon receipt of a conlplete application, a notice sllall be sent by first class nlail to all affected owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessinent toll) 2. The notice s11a11 ulvite public conlment by a determined action date and shall include a copy of the development plans, 11 inches b 17 inches in size. B. Mailina radius Ad�acent to fl1e sub�ect propert , includin properties across a public or private street C. Public coninlent period Two weeks D. Decision/findings 1. The Director of Conlmunity Developmeilt shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The pernut can be approved only upon nlakulg all of the following findings: a. The project is consistent with the Cupertulo General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordulances and the purposes of this title. b. The arantin� of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrinlental or in�urious to propert 56 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Minor Residential Permits or improvenlents in the viculity, and will not be detrimental to t11e public health, safety or welfare. c. The proposed �roject is harnloilious u1 scale and design with the general neighborhood. d. Adverse visual impacts on adjoululg properties 11ave been reasonably nutigated. E. Notice of action The City Council, Planning Commission, applicant and any menlber of the public that conlnlented on the pro �ect shall be notified of the action b first class n1ai1 or electronic n1ai1 F. Appeal Period 1. Two weeks G. Appeal Authorit PlaiululQ Conmussion H. Expiration 1. Unless a buildulg pernlit is filed and accepted by t11e City (fees paid and coiltrol nunlber issued) within one year of fl1e Minor Residential Permit approval, said approval s11a11 beconle null and void unless a longer tinle period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval 2. In the event t11at the building pernut expires for any reason, the Minor Residential Pernlit sllall become null and void. I. Extension The Director of Conlnlunity Developnlent nlay grant a one-year extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Minor Residential Permit is filed before t11e expiration date and substantive �ustification for the extension is rovided J. Concurrent Applications At the discretion of the Director of Community Developnlent a Minor Residential Pernut can be �rocessed concurrentl with other discretionar applications (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.140 Two Residential Permit. Two-story additions or two-story new homes require a Two-Story Pesidential Pernut uz accordance with this section. Two-story projects with a floor area ratio under 35% shall require a Level I Two-Story Residential Permit, while a two-story project with a floor area ratio over 35% s11a11 require a Level II Two-Story Residential Pernlit. Table 19.28.140 sets forfll the requirements for Two-Story Residential Pernuts in tlle Single-Fanuly Residential district. 57 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Two-Story Permit with total FAR <35% Two-Story Permit with total FAR > Two-Story Permit in the R1-a (Level I) 35% (Level II) zone A. Written notice and 1. Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all affected owners of record of plan set real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) 2. T11e notice shall invite public comnlent by a determuled action date and shall ulclude a copy of the developnlent plans, 11 inclles b 17 ulches in size. B. Mailing radius Adjacent to the subject property, Withu1300 feet of the subject property including properties across a public or private street C. Posted notice 1. T11e applicant shall ulstall a public ilotice u1 the front yard of the subject site that is clearly visible fronl the public street. T11e notice shall be a weafllerproof sign, at least two (2) feet tall and tllree (3) feet wide firn�ly attached to a five (5) foot tall post. The notice shall renlain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the following: a. T11e exact address of the property, if known, or the location of fl1e property, if the address is not known. b. A brief description of the proposed project, the coilteilt of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City; c. City contact infornlation for public inquiries; d. A deadline for the submission of public conlnlents, which s11all be at least fourteen days after the date t11e notice is posted; A black and wllite orthographic rendering of the front of the house (for Level I projects) or color perspective rendering (for Level II and R1-a projects), at least 11 ulches by 17 inches u1 size. The City shall approve the illustration or renderinQ prior to postulQ. D. Stor poles Required E. Public commeilt Two weeks period 58 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Two-Story Permit with total FAR <35% Two-Story Permit with total FAR > Two-Story Permit in the R1-a (Level I) 35% (Level II) zone E. Decision/findings 1. After t11e advertised deadline for public conlments, the Director of 1. T11e Desib 1 Review Comnlunity Developnlent shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the Comnuttee nlay approve a application. T11e pernut can be approved only upon makulg all of the following design review application for fuzdings: two-story development only upon making all of the findings a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable below: specific plans, zoning ordinance and the �urposes of this title. a. The project is consistent wifll b. The granting of the pernlit will not result u1 a conditioil that is detrinlental or fl1e Cupertino General Plan uljurious to property or inlprovements u1 the vicinity, and will not be and Title 19 of t11e Cupertulo detrinlental to flze public healfll, safety or welfare. Municipal Code c. The proposed project is 11arn1onious in scale and design wifll the general b. The granting of this pernlit neighborhood. will not result in detrinlental or injurious conditions to the d. Adverse visual itnpacts on adjoining properties 11ave been reasonably property or improvenlents in nutigated. fl1e vicinity, or to the public health, safety, or welfare c. T11e project is generally conlpatible wit11 the established pattenl of building fornls, buildulg nlaterials, and designs of homes in the ileigllborllood d. The project is generally conlpatible with the City's single-fanuly residential design guidelines and the 59 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Two-Story Permit with total FAR <35% Two-Story Permit with total FAR > Two-Story Permit in the R1-a (Level I) 35% (Level II) zone guidelules in this chapter and any inconsistencies 11ave been found to not result in inlpacts on neighbors e. Significant adverse visual and privacy inlpacts as viewed frotn adjoining properties 11ave been nutigated to the nlaximunl extent ossible F. Notice of Action The City Council, Plarululg Commission, applicant and any menlber of the public t11at comnlented on the project shall be notified of the action b first class nlail or electronic mail G. Appeal Period 1. Two weeks 2. Any interested party may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136 H. A eal Authorit Plannin� Commission I. Expiration 1. Unless a l�uilding pernlit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) wifllin one year of the Two-Story Perinit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer tiine period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval. 2. In the event that $Ze building pernut expires for anv reason, the Two-Story Permit shall beconle null and void. J. Extension The Director of Conlmunity Development nlay grant a one-year extension, witllout a pul�lic notice, if an application for a Minor Modification to the Two-Story Pern�it is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for t11e extension is rovided. K. Concurrent At the discretion of the Director of Coninlunity Developnlent, a Two-Story Pernlit can be processed concurrently A lications wifll other discretionar a lications. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 60 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance 19.28.150 Exceptions. A. W11ere results inconsistent with the purpose and ultent of fllis cllapter result fronl the strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to section 19.28.070, 19.28.080 and 19.28.110 inay be granted as provided in this section. Table 19.28.150 sets forth the requirenlents for Exceptions ii1 the Sulgle-Family Residential district. Design Review Committee Exceptionsl Director of Community Development Exceptionsl A. Written notice and plan set 1. Upon receipt of a conlplete application, fl1e 1. Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice Comnlunity Development Departnlent shall set shall be sent by first class nlail to all affected a time and place for a public hearing before the owners of record of real property (as shown in the Design Review Conimittee and send a notice by last tax assessment toll) first class nlail to all owners of record of real property (as sllown in the last tax assessnlent 2. T11e notice shall invite public conunent by a toll) deternuned action date and shall include a copy of the developnlent plans, 11 inclles by 17 inches in 2. Properties t11at are adjacent to t11e subject site, size. inchiding those across a public or private street, shall receive an 11 ulch by 17 inch copy of $Ze �lai1 set with the public notice. B. Mailin radius 300 feet C. Public conlment period - Two weeks D. Decision/fulduzgs 1. The Design Peview Conunittee nlay grant 1. The Director of Conunw�ity Developnlent nlay exceptions fronl t11e prescriptive desib b ant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulations descril�ed in Section 19.28.070, regulation described u1 Section 19.28.070 H(4) except 19.28.070 H(4) and Section 1928.090 upon making all of the following findings: upon nlaking all of the followulg findulgs: a. The project fulfills the intent of the visible a. The literal enforcement of this chapter will second-story wall height regulation in that the result in restrictions ulconsistent wifll fl1e nunlber of two-story wall planes and the spirit and intent of fllis chapter. anlouilt of visible secoild stor wall area is 61 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance Design Review Committee Exceptionsl Director of Community Development Exceptionsl reduced to the maxinlum extent possible. b. The proposed developnlent will not be uljurious to �roperty or improvements in b. The exception to be granted is one that will the area, nor be detrinlental to the public require t11e least tnodification of the prescribed safety, health and welfare. desigil regulation and fl1e nlinimunl variance t11at will accomplisll the purpose. c. T11e exception to be granted is one that will require tlle least nlodification of t11e c. The proposed exception will not result in prescribed design regulation and the significant visual impact as viewed fronl nunimtml variance fllat will acconlplish the abuttulg properties. purpose. d. The proposed exception will not result in si�zificant visual inlpact as viewed fronl abuttina properties. E. Notice of action The City Council, Planning Conmlission, applicant and any menlber of the public that comnlented on the pro �ect shall be notified of the action b first class n1ai1 or electronic nlail F. Appeal Period 1. Two weeks 2. An interested art � ma a eal fl1e action ursuant to Cha ter 19.136 G. Appeal Authorit PlailninQ Coninlission H. Expiration 1. Unless a building pernlit is filed and accepted by t11e City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Exception approval, said approval shall beconle null and void unless a longer tinle period was specifically prescribed by flze conditions of approval 2. In the event that the buildulg permit expires for any reason, the Exception s11a11 beconle null and void. I. Extension T11e Director of Conlmunity Development nlay grant a one-year extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Exception is filed before flze expiration date and substantive �ustification for the extension is rovided J. Concurrent Applications At flze discretion of the Director of Community Development, an Exception can be processed concurrentl with other discretionar applications 62 Draft Pefornlatted R1 Ordinance � Notwithstanding the requiremeilts of this section, a request for reasonable acconinlodation nlay be made by any person with a disability, when fl�e strict application of the provisions in this chapter, act as a barrier to fair housuzg opportw�ities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50. (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.150 Interpretation by the Planning Director. In R1 zoiles, fl1e Director of Conununity Developnlent shall be enlpowered to make reasonable ulterpretations of fl1e regulations and provisions of $Zis chapter consistent with the legislative intent thereof. Persons aggrieved by an interpretation of t11e cllapter by the Director of Comnlunity Developinent nlay petition the Planning Conunission in writing for review of the interpretation. 63 Aitachment 7 TWO STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES APPENDIXA Introduction '- �"�,„� � � � �' � < -M�,� �, �-`' � ,� -�- ��`�� :" Cupertinds neighborhoods have developed over a period of ,' "� � ,,, ,��- � � ' ` .'� � decades with varying architectural sryles. Homeowners and build- ��'` ��" r. =� � !„ ers are allowed design flexibiliry if their design conforms to the �"` '�- = Y� __-�� following design principles. Two story homes with a second story �� ; �� - �� to first floor ratio greater than 45% are allowed when they offset '- �� ' � �� ' �� •� -_'�"� '� _ �� i� LII� � � the buildin massin with desi ns that encom ass hi her uali �'" �� `� g g g p g g ry �� : architectural features and materials. � � � �� I 1 1 � � �� '� Design Principles ° I� *�-� � � � � � �� ; lhese design principles help integrate new homes and additions �— , °'� � �� . � �,� �� to existing homes with existing neighborhoods by providing a � ,�'�"�� " � � �� framewark far the review and approval process. Where possible, '"� �� "� �� ,�k[ additional details and examples have been provided. Conditions -�' - —� � not covered by these examples will be evaluated on a case-by-cases basis. 1. Provide an identifiable architectural style. Attractive Distinguishing Architectural Features homes are designed by using elements from one con- lhere are a wide range of architectural sryles in Cupertino. sistent theme. It is best to work with your designer to However, there are a few that have been most preferred in recent identify and carry out one style around the entire house. years. Annotated illustrations outlining some of the distinguish- 2. Design features, proportions and details to be consistent ing features for five of the most common sryles are included on with architectural style. the following pages: 3. Provide facade articulation. The following techniques '�'ts and Crafts offer ways to mitigate the bulk of larger homes in smaller • Mediterranean scale neighborhoods and the impact of two-story tall . Spanish Eclectic walls on adjacent neighbors and the streetscape. • Second floor setbacks • Italian Villa • Horizontal and vertical wall plane changes • French Country • Pop outs • Bay windows • Chimneys • Wide overhangs with projecting brackets • Juliet balconies Resources • Belly bands 1he following resources may be useful to homeowners, builders, • Window boxes and pot shelves and design professionals in understanding the special qualities of • Landscaped trellises and lattices specific house sryles. • Projecring window trim • A Field Guide to American Homes • Materials and colar changes Virginia & Lee McAlester • Inset balconies Alfred A. Knopf 2000 • Applied decararive features • 1he Abrams Guide to American House Sryles • Recessed garage doars Wilkin Margan • Recessed windows Harry N. Abrams, Inc 2004 • Window trim • Tall trees to break up views of long walls • House Sryles in America James C. Massey 4. Use high quality materials. Penquin Studio 1996 5. Ensure massing and scale appropriate to the architectural • Celebrating the American Home style. Joanne Kellar Bouknight 6. Design with architectural integrity of forms, materials The Taunton Press 2005 and details on all sides of the structure. • The Distinctive Home, A Vision of Timeless Design 7. Provide sytnmetry, proportions and balance consistent Jeremiah Eck with the architectural style. The Taunton Press 2005 64 � Af�TS AfVD CRAFTS STYLE APPENI�I�A Distinguishing Features � �� ,F r, .. - Arts and Crafts Sryle homes are characterized by �� - .� �'� � � gently pitched broad roof gables with wide eave ��- � �`� -�� IIV ��II ,;� -�� ;. _ ,--, , _ �,�� a� � � �8` � � overhangs. 1he visual impact of second floar spaces �- '� = "' �� _' � � , -_ :- � �� ull Ihi � �� is often minimized by incarpararing the living �° �� ' _ � -.-� _ -�i. ��ti��; space into the roof form, and urilizing gable ar shed � �_ ��`�'� �� -�� • ,��> ` �� ,. ; dormers for light and interior volume. Generously � . � ��.�� _ �� ul�i�.. --_ . sized entry parches with distinctive columns and � _ __ column bases are common, as is the abundance of - � �_ � wood details. • �� ' �� .e� � =i 1. Generous and slightly elevated entry porch � � I � � � � "�� "� �� .,, A, � F I! ` � _ 2. Large tapered ar square wood columns � � � � � � � �`�� . e , � � � — - �'_' � .� ,�, 3. Stone, brick, shingle, or wood paneled column ; �� -'�" �" �—= � �, R"� � �� '�� base � � 1 � �.,;�'?�. � � �.�'�b �Y . � ,;, � � 4. Wood parch railing � �� '�` _ ��, 5. Gabled roof ends 6. Expressed wood beam 7. Decarative wood brackets :, �r;; ;: �, �� 8. Wide wood window frames with divided light -� � " �.... Q � pan� � : � v_ � � � � -- ; � � - ; 9. Exposed rafter tails � :;�� : � T+�� - �'� � � ` � ;'� " �`' j _ � �,� � � , M3 �"Y � A - � �� PI �� fqi 10. Decararive Arts and Craft carriage light �� 11. Gable and shed dormers � f �� _ � �;__ I � , `� �� " � �` �_ r �- ,� � ,..�. -_- �� .. 12. Shingle and/ar wood siding occasionally with a �� • � s' � { li�, .� „ small amount of stucco '�, �' '� �� . � � ' � , ,,� ' ._ * 13. Composition or simulated wood shake roof ��'� �� . � . � �� ,. , �� a�:,� , b �` �.� ��. shingles �� , �� uie,iR� � �,�_ � —� � :� 14. Interestin able end window, atric vent, and/ � �� g g � ,. ��b " � �� s>, '�:�"�.��`��' � �'°�=- or wood details :`.� '`��"`� �� :�� -- ` �` � � `° .�-. w• �N�`�. _ �-� ,...,..�.:. 15. Bay windows with base trim and brackets 16. Ancillary structures with matching forms, materials, and details 2 65 MEDITERRANEAN STYLE APPENDIXA Distinguishing Features Mediterranean Sryle homes are characterized by low-pitched hip roofs, rypically covered in tile. � ��- Roof overhangs are generally wide, and often are :'��' � �� ;�' .rr _— .: t _�� _— — , - ,�� t > accentuated by decararive brackets. Windows are � Er ''�-- � .. . 1...> �,�. --'� . y � Q � rypically deep set from the exterior wall surface, and '° � � � �� _ '" i � � , .� : upper story windows are smaller and less elabarate �<� -,�, �;��' � �" ° E � , > �.� � than ground floor windows. Selected windows and � �, O = �� doars often have arched head shapes, and entries are "��a �� ,' f ��'��,� ` accentuated by deep recesses and flanking columns '� p., ' � l�� ` �� +`x "� F � �"� '' � _ � , ' '��,�'" ��*' ,� .. attached to the wall, but are generally subdued. '� �'�" ��"'` �'�` + � � � ' � ' ` � ' � � Facades are often s metrical. �� y ` � �� ` � � �� r��F� '', �` - - - � �� ` �i 1 � .. r '� �T�� .� ; r 1. Low pitched roof with heavy textured tiles ;;� �� ,�, �� _ , � � ,,�¢ �. �; �� y; � � i ��: � r� 2. Wide roof overhangs for sun shading, often u'%� ��e � � � � , + _ �' } �` � ; `��.� f � with decarative brackets �d' �' },� � � '�„�� `� � � ,`=" � � "- ,,,; ?' � � '� z� ;`,� ' y '�, ,:,, . �`,:3�'S,�� € � � 3. Stucco or stone walls � � ��'� '`� � � � . . . 4. Deep set windows and entries, sometimes with arched heads and/or windows accentuated with � 7 *-- � surroundin trim ,� � k`?J � •ly �'� g =`� - . � , i � , �.� �; '� � � ; 5. Decorative metal carriage lights and railings ��_ �" ,:� � '�'.� �' �� - � f �s ,� y g., Y`'�, � r � % �. 6. Often symmetrical massing and window layout q , ;« ---- � '- �,�.;�"� �r,n �''"' � � v ..�; 3 r � ��F�""��','� -2z 7. Upper floor windows smaller and less elabarate � � - � „ �!�� ; �� 1. �" �' � �� . �# � �� ,.� . . � � �� "" �,,, s y y,� ��,; 8. Supplemental sun shading at selected windows � � �..�� ; ; � 9. Distinctive chimney shapes and caps � � � � . _ ' `�`� �`= � `' - .�„�'' 10. Small balconies with decarative railings and � '�� '�� ' = � �' �� brackets � - . � � � � � ` �� n 11. Decorative columns and details _ _ � � � � j� � ; ` d 12. Decorative shutters � � � � -� � �� ,f.;'' :. Q . �� l'� ��■: �� ■ �■■ r � ! �:�,e � �;�:�� ` i� ■ i ■ , �':� �,, � � ,:,; ■ i !!!_� �� - {� -- — - —� : �. _ -� ,� �-�', , Il�ll� ..� ,:� . _ -- , ._------�.__.� .� __ � � �: -- � �s� .�.�:� � �� }�� . --- ,�m , � �� Y:� , ; ;, _� � � �� 66 3 SPANISH ECLECTIC STYLE APPENI�IXA Distinguishing Features Spanish Eclectic Sryle homes are characterized by � � low-pitched gable and hip roofs, rypically covered in w � � �� • �, . �r red tiles. Roof overhangs may be wide with decara- �� tive brackets or minimal with curved molding at � the wall/roof juncture. Windows are rypically deep � � ��----�-� set from the exterior wall surface, and usually have '�� _ ,�v""� ��: „� . �. � �, ��I I '� �.� � '�.� projecting molding at their heads and sills. Selected . � � �� `��i�� = � ,, � ,. �:� � � O� � .: windows and doars often have arched head shapes, �� ' - : - � �� and entries are accentuated by deep recesses and �� r�� '�' �� heavy wood doars. Facades are generally informal � � � �'� �t� -?� � �� ,: �� <� -� and as mmetrical in their massin . �'�- � Q � �� ` Y g _ _ _ ,�, '� `� �� " i , , _ 1. Low pitched roofs with heavy textured red � �> � i��; . _ . riles - overhangs may be large with decararive � brackets ar very small with curved moulding at the wall/roof juncture 2. Stucco walls � � ,. � ' �, � a. g . � . 3. Recessed entry doar - often with arched head �` �� • ' . x,� � ,m,�_. 4. Deep set windows, sometimes with arched ' a„ �� '� � �� - � � �'� �� heads �' � �� " � e , � � � � f�'� ��f _ , ,�� 'r'' P � �� ; � i� 5. Informal and asymmetrical building forms � � . : �� , �' ' ' ,� � �F ��'�� - ��■ � �� 6. Distinctive upper level balconies with metal or .�.��'�' �� " � '� �; �;�� >. � lO � F � � ,� � � wood details � _ �� ^ �- a ° ._� �, r � � � �;..�x� � �,,��+a `Y �,� "��?� A�". 7. Wood window shutters ti � �� - � -,} «..�{ � . . �`,y .- � �� 8. Projecting window head and sill trim „,�� ' � x � �� '�" � � �.� ,; 4 , 9. Decarative tile and metal details Y� " ��+��' �'�, �%,,�� :: � , � ��` � ; �� ,: 10. Distinctive chimney shapes and caps � e � �� ; �r`��, � �,� � � _ � � 11. Second floor overhangs with wood beam and �� - � �' � : � �� z ,__ � r` t�;� bracket supparts ��- 12. Casement windows with divided lights 4 67 ITALIAN VILLA STYLE APPENDIXA Distinguishing Features ... = Italian Villa Sryle homes are characterized in the � � � ��: . z �. Bay Area a wide variery of forms and details drawn � � _ � �. � �� r ,� � � � �'�. � � from a variery of common Italian sryles. lhey are � � � �„ � � ;, � �r� ��'�� x �✓�+` � 4�.. . \ f K ^' frequently formal in their facade design, and often � ti- �� " ��, �� , �� --` symmetrical with accentuated windows and entries. ,�� '�'` � ' `- _ _, � -� _i ��.� � '' � jy�t � �='�� j � `,,"� � f ' ; Typically, they are uniformly two-staries in height "�'�t �'��': �_ ___ ��'ti ^�' �' - �. � � ' - .. �:` yd '. with low pitched hipped roofs. ; � �� ' � - - �._ � _,,,�s`"'' :, � f ; , AS• ,� Q �-��...�. z � s. 1. Low pitched hip roof �•`{ �� c��, � s � � i�: !�' '- , ,i , �4.v �i�s ' :s�� , � ','� h ..,ti.�ir` 2. Wide roof eaves, often with formal supparring '� � �. .�.; '� �' � � brackets '�:� , �, O �'"?' a �� '�s .:� � T � T , , � � 3. Symmetrical ar asymmetrical front facade win- � l �' �� = �',� � `�� .�, + = ' �4� � « r�.� - ,„ : • . . r dow patterns well-arganized around a project � t�''�:� _��.��`'kk� �E�' � W _, � � +' � �� ing formal entry with Italianate columns -� a �r �, � � � � - � '"� � � � • ��. �� w, �.w� :f�� : .�� :;,�:, .. '". :; �� .� c��.l_.;� 4. Tall first floor windows ; �'„�,� ��,� � « �"' _ t �' w ` +� , ;,-." ::••� �..t �• �z: ��c �� , , ` ii'�'. x .'r�r�� -,`- ' 5. Deep set windows in grouped patterns ?�+� � �� t^�„ass�� _ �': �, i'$:�.� � ,. �. = r.c . s;. --.>..,. ' �':� ►r.:.�. ,:..�. . � . � . �, 6. Arched window heads and/ar accentuated trim �-�.� ;,, ,, above the windows 7. Projecting or recessed entries with Italianate columns and/or trim 8. Projecting window heads, jambs and sills 9. Bold cast stone balustrades � �,, t t' , 10. Articulated belt and trim courses � �' �, ��; ?'- yy�� _��;A.. ._�, � , 4 T � I �'� T�� • � � _�. �� t 1 � ..�,�,• "'�.a*, �r ` . , "�C � �� ,'� t t � . � � -- �, a , p r � � ,� �;. •� �°' �r� z ' - � ' � 3 ��, a .- �� .. f -, . � � ' � �'i`' f�' '�r , �^. ,'ti� _ _ . � :'� 'r � J r i a� �°'�'�"' 'y ' � � '� '�'' ` �' Y � 3 ` � °�a � �� ,,-' I � , } � � d�! •�`� , i.' , ^ Y L :�� . Y�� ' , �. Y: , I I � , ..if� � `� �� :_ 1 �'� a S : . � . . -:� �.:�� .:"�..� �—�� , 68 5 FRENCH COUNTRY STYLE APPENDI�A Distinguishing Features "' � �y� �" � French Country Sryle homes are characterized by � �� a � �,� � -��-d��' � �_�� steeply pitched roofs with eaves commonly flared �� s t�r �,�� \_, � �- \ � \ �_, � • a w r - �� \ ��. upward at roof-wall junctions. lhey may be sym- �� '� �` � '�a `�� . �.q-. _ metrical in form and facade arganization, but are ��', ,� ;'� , �, _; mare rypically asymmetrical. Some variations include ��,��,, " -�� a round tower with a hi h, conical roof. Individual � �� g ��R �,�� r� j�^'u;,,. �� . homes exhibit a wide variery in form and detailing, ��",� ,��'�' � �'� �`�` ', _� 9�i �� but are united b y the stron g roof form. Roofs are �� l� � i i '� Q P V �t.�_� y��'+� '' commonly covered with slate, tile ar other rough-tex- n'��, I�f�l9� �`'-', "` � �x .�'� • ��III �I � tured materials. Roof dormers are common. Entries ' �'a��;; �� r , �� t�� , . _ w •, are often deep-set from the home's front wall. �"� <�''"a � �� 1_:•'r�� r' c �� ■��■ �� ; ' , , i:i � `-°F�V'" ",�„ �, � y J � � .:� � 1. Gable and hip roof forms with medium to steep ��°� ,� �� l "�, �� ,=�� . .:,A ��,F,•, �., �IIII ' pitch ,`�o �,;�� '� 4 + � � �-;w � i #. � � � 2. Closed eaves �� - � �-�� .�� 3. Stucco, stone, ar brick walls "�, II �,�.�� . �.:� ' ° 4. Recessed entry vesribule with decararive mould- e� •= r�. � �,� _ -� ��`�` _ ing ar projecting gable - � � ^°'��"�_ 5. Articulated entry details 6. Casement windows with divided lights - often recessed 7. Second floar overhangs with wood beam and � - -- decorative supports ; � � �` � L _ _ � �� -` 8. Planter boxes, shutters, and other decarative = — "� details � s� � � 1�� ! � I _ �r 9. Disrincrive chimney shapes and caps � � , 10. Gabled dormers �� '°� �' • � 11. Bay windows with metal roofs �,— -� �� ;� ,;;:;, � � � x _ � �■■a �I� � �I■■u ['�1 �1�� ii �� R�N l� � �� ' � �� ° � �Y�iil �r _ _ � ., . — � _ � k ; ' � r�-- 4 s �h. � `�+� ��i�� .R r � , r ��,;., r)j.r� v � t �u , • ` � , � � ;' � N A 2 ~6 �� I¢��° 4 •_ � � . ' " � t =' '� . ,�y . .. � � rF . „�•:'.. .. :... ... . . 6 69 Aitachment 8 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 Additional Information on Two Story Design Review B acicground: • Prior to 1999, the City did not require design review for two-story projects. • In Septenlber 1999, fl1e City Council approved amendnlents to the R1 Ordulance for prescriptive regulations related to two-story wall heights and entry feature heights. • In April 2000, the City Council approved anlendnlents to t11e R1 Ordinance to shift two-story design review to fl1e Desi�1 Peview Conlnuttee (DPC) for homes with total floor area ratios > 35% FAP. • In February 2001, the City Council approved ameildnleilts to the R1 Ordulance to include two-story design guidelines. Two-story proposals not generally consistent were deferred to t11e DRC. • In May 2005, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance to ulclude additional two-story design guidelines for regular R1 and R1-a zones and defer design review to City staff for all two-story projects (except in the R1-a zone which are reviewed by the DRC) not requesting exceptions. • In Apri12009, the City Council approved anlendnlents to the R1 Ordulance to allow City staff to consider second to first floor ratios greater t11an 45% provided t11at certain design principles are n1et. Detailed examples of the desib principles were included as an appendix to t11e ordulance. Existing Two-Sto ,i T Design Review Process: • Residential Design Review (Two-Story Pernut) plani�ing approval by City staff o Second to first floor ratio >45% projects require review by City's architectural advisor • Two-story projects uz P1-a zone require approval fronl the DPC Existin Desi n Guidelines rinci les: 'Znd t0 Z st floor <_ 45%: 21ta to 1�t floor >45°/o Second stories in R1-a Architectural Style -- Provide an identifiable -- architectural st le Consistency with Style Desib 1 features, -- proportions, and details -- shall be consistent with the architectural st le Architectural Integrity Desib 1 wit11 architectural -- uztegrity on all sides of -- the structure Visual Relief Visual relief deemed to -- be appropriate by the -- Cit shall be provided Exterior Materials -- Hiah qualitv nlaterials -- Symmetry, Proportion, Shall reflect synlnletry, and Balance -- proportion, and balance -- Mass and Bullc/Scale The nlass and bulk, and Ensure appropriate nlass The nlass and bulk, and scale of the design should and scale scale of the design should be reasonabl conlpatible be reasonabl conlpatible 1 70 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 211a to 1yt floor <_ 45%: 21ta to 1�t floor >45°/o Second stories in R1-a with the predonunailt with the predonlulailt neigllborllood pattern in neigllborllood pattern in ternls of building fornls, ternls of building fornls, roof pitches, eave heights, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry ridge heights, and entry feature hei�hts feature hei�hts Entry Feature Height Entry features should not -- be higller than 14' fronl natural grade to top of plate Porches Porches are encouraQed Interior Space Volume The desimz shall use vaulted ceiluzas rather th�� hiQh exterior walls Curb Cut There shall not be a 3-car wide driveway curb cut Garage Width on Front No nlore than 50% of the front elevation sllould • Max. width of 2-car Elevation consist of garage area garage is 25' • Additional garage spaces should be provided through flze use of a tandenl or rear detaclled �ara�e Garage Setback to Living area should be closer to the street while garages should be setback more Livin Area Side Setback and Garage The current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood Orientation Pattern should be maultained. Second Story Walls Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls All second story wall should be avoided heights >6', as nleasured fronl the 21�� story fulished floor, should have building wall offsets at least every 24', with a nuninnml4' depth and 10' width Second-story windows Wuzdows on the side should be fixed and: • Obscured to a height of 6' aUove the 211i� fl. -- • S1lould 11ave perinanent exterior louvers to a 1leight of 6' above the 2�� fl. Or should have sill hei hts of >_ 5 Window, door, Doors, windows and architectural elenlents should be aligned wit11 one anotller architectural alignmenf verticall and horizontall and s ninletrical in nunlber, size, and placenlent. Roof Eave Overhang All second stor roofs should have at least a one-foot overhan� Additional Information on Noticing Bacicground for Two-Story and R1 ExcepHon Projects: 71 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 • Prior to 1999, the City did not have noticing procedures for two-story and P1 exception projects. • In Septenlber 1999, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordinance to require written noticing to property owners adjacent to and across the street fronl two-story and P1 exception projects. • In February 2001, the City Council approved anlendnlents to the R1 Ordinance to require written noticing to owners within 300 feet of two-story and R1 exception projects. • In May 2005, the City Council approved anlendnlents to the P1 Ordinance to require notice boards uz front of the property and 11"x17" plans to be nlailed to affected property owners for all two-story projects. In addition, separate noticulg radius and notice board requirenlents were created for two-story projects with <35% FAR (Level I) and projects with >35% FAR (Level II). Existin Re uirements for R1 Pro'ects: Two-Story Two-Story Minor R1 Exception Projects with Projects with Residential Projects Total FAR <35% Total FAR > 35% Projects (Level I) (Level II) Mailed Notice and 11" x 17" Yes Yes Yes Yes, but plans plan set only sent to property owners adjacent to and across the street from the pro �ect Mailing radius To property To property To property To property owners adjacent to owners within owners adjacent owners within and across t11e 300' of the project to and across the 300' of the street from the street from the project pro �ect pro �ect 2'x3'x5'weatherproof notice Exact address of Exact address of board content t11e property, t11e property, description of t11e description of the project, City project, City contact contact information for infornlation for public inquiries, public inquiries, --- deadline for deadline for subnlission of subnlission of public conunents, public comments, and an 11" x 17" and an 11" x 17" blacic and white color perspective orthographic rendering of the rendering of fl�e front of the front of the house. house. Two Week Conlnlent Period Yes Yes Yes No Two Week Appeal Period Yes Yes Yes Yes 72 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 Additional Information on Story Poles Background: • In May 2005, fl1e City Council approved anlendnlents to the R1 Ordinance to require story poles for all two-story projects. Existing Requirements: • Story poles are required for all two-story projects (the City also requires a black & white or color perspective on the notice board). 0 2 foot high plastic snow fenculg is required where the roof ineets the wall and along roof ridges. o Required to be uz place when through 2-week public coninlent period and fllrough 2-week appeal period. o Required to ulstalled by a licensed contractor and certified by a contractor, architect, or enb 1eer. • Other cities that require story poles- Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills Additional Information on R1-20/R1 Sloped Lots "'q 'i -10 =. Background: R�- �`,, , : -� • Prior to 1993, the Cit � had linuted �olicies and �uideluzes ,' �� J�`�`� 5 �- b � � � �,. � regulating properties located u1 the hillside area. �� '� �, �� A1-43��'� Fi'�.2Q � �� o T�r�e�c G �, _ .._a �� i � • The General Plan of 1993 incorporated more extensive ��;--=--_�i °� � ti - --� � J developnlent standards ultended to nlininuze negative ___ 1', ; , � F '� ° � � � u:5i +� 1 zxysa �' i - impacts on hillside resources. I�1 fllat sanle year, the �� ; ' a�� s ' ' i W Residential Hillside (RHS) Zoning District was revised with �uo; 'x'�' � '=�39', 119M1 a set of conlprellensive 1lillside developnlent regulations. � 1_2� �, �` q�R� - �p `'` xi�s� • In Septenlber 1999, t11e City Council ap�roved anlendments R�I - 1(� R�s � to the R1 Ordinance applying hillside standards to buildulgs �.4p c proposed on portions of P1 lots with slopes of 30% or _,.��'°� c��,�.�� `� greater. Existing R1-20 lots shown in shaded area • In February 2005, the City Council approved anlendments to the R1 Ordinance applyulg hillside standards to R1 lots with an average slope of 15 % of greater. • In May 2007, the City Council approved anlendnlents to fl1e R1 Ordulance applying hillside standards to R11ots located west of t11e 10% hillside slope line as defined in the General Plan, in addition to lots wit11 an average slope of 15 % or greater. • In October 2007, the City Council approved amendments to the R1 Ordulance to only apply select 1lillside standards to R1 lots in a specific geograpllic area at the toe of the Cupertino hillside (R1-20). 73 City of Cupertino Limited Single Family Ordinance Review Workshop May 24, 201 1 Existing Standards for sloped lots zoned R1-20: R1-20 standards Grading Lunited to 2,000 s.f. pad area, 2,500 cubic yards, cut plus fill. Additional grading requires Planning Coninlission (PC) approval. • All cut and fill areas are required to be rounded to follow natural contours and planted with landscaping that nleets RHS requirements. • A licensed landscape architect is required to submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and screen out cut ��d fill slo es. F'loor area ratio Linlited to 45% of the flat pad portion, buildings located off flat pad require PC a �roval 211�� Floor Area Unlimited provided total FAP is not exceeded 2��a F1oor and Balcony No separate process Review Process Retaining walls >5' required to be screened or faced wifl� decorative materials Fencing Open fencing wzlitluted, provided not 1ligher than 3' in front yard; solid board fencing linuted to a 5,000 s.f. site area (excluduz� house). Protected Tree Removal Up to 2 protected trees allowed to be reinoved for t11e building pad. Additional removals require PC approval Other Standards in the Other developnlent standards in P1 apply except for FAP restrictions and 211�� Floor R1 Ordinance Area 74 Aitachment 10 Existing General Plan Policies related to Development on Slo�ed Lots Policy2-48: Hillside Developr�ieirt Staridards Establish building and developnlent standards for the hillsides that ensure hillside protection. Strategies: 1. Ordulance Regulations and Developnlent Approvals. Apply ordinance regulations and develo�ment approvals t11at linut developnlent on ridgelines, hazardous geological areas and steep slopes. Control colors and tnaterials, and nlininuze the illunlination of outdoor lightulg. Reduce visible building nlass through such nleans as stepping structures down $Ze hillside, following the natural contours, and lu7uting the 1leight and nlass of the wall plane faculg the valley floor. Policy 2-52: Rural Iniproveriient Standards i�i Hillside Areas Require rural improveinent standards in hillside areas to preserve t11e rural character of the 1lillsides. Strategies: 1. Mass Grading in New Construction. Follow natural land contour and avoid mass grading in new construction, especially in flood hazard or hillside areas. Grading large, flat areas shall be avoided. 2. Retaining Significant Trees. Retain significant specimen trees, especially when they grow in groves or clusters, and integrate them ulto the developed site. The Montebello foothills at the soutll and west boundaries of the valley floor are a scenic backdrop to the City, adding to its sense of scale and variety of color. It's inlpossible to guarantee an unobstructed view of $Ze hills from any vantage point, but people should be able to see the foothills froin public gatherulg places. Polic� 5-10: La�idscapirrg Near Natural Vegetatio�i Enlphasize drought tolerant and pest resistant native and non-invasive, nonnative, drougllt tolerant plants and ground covers when landscaping properties near natural vegetation, particularly for control of erosion fronl disturbance to the natural terrain. Polic� 5-11: Nc�turnl Arec� Protectiori Preserve and enhance the existing natural vegetation, landscape features and open space when new developnlent is proposed. Strategy Native Plants. Encourage drought tolerant native and drought tolerant, nonulvasive, non-native plants and trees, and nunimize lawn area u1 the hillsides. Polic� 5-12: Hillside Property Fericirig Confule fencing on 1lillside property to the area around a building, rather than around an entire site, to allow for nugration of wild aninlals. Polic� 5-19: Natural Water Bodies c�rad Drainage S�sterris Require that site design respect t11e natural topography and drainages to flze extent practicable to reduce the anlount of grading necessary and limit disturbance to natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused by development including roads, higllways, and bridges. 76 Polic� 5-20: Reductiori of Impervious Sisrfaces Mininuze storm water flow and erosion iinpacts resulting froin developinent. Strategies 1. Change City codes to include a fornlula regulating how inuch paved surface is allowable on each lot. T11is would include driveways and patios installed at the time of building or remodeling. 2. Encourage the use of non-inlpervious nlaterials for walkways and driveways. If used in a City or quasi-public area, mobility and access for handicapped should always take precedent. 3. Minimize impervious surface areas, minimizing directly-connected impervious surfaces, nlaximizing onsite infiltration and using on-site retaining facilities. 4. Encourage volwlteer organizations to help restore and clean the creek beds. Policy 5-21: Pollutio�z a�id Flow Iyripacts Prior to nlaking land use decisions, estinlate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting fronl projected future development to avoid surface and groundwater quality iinpacts. Strateg� Best Managenlent Practices. Require incorporation of structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to nutigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and flows. Polici� 5-22: Conipact Developntent Awa� frorri Serisitive Areas Where such measures do not conflict with o$Zer mwlicipal purposes or goals, encourage, via zoning ordinances, compact development located away from creeks, wetlands, and other sensitive areas. Policy 5-23: Coriforrrinrice witli Wc�terslied-Based Plaririi�ig arid Zoning Encourage developtnent projects to follow waterslled-based planning and zoning by exat1�1u1g the project uz fl�e context of the entire watershed area. 77 Aitachment 11 �QTTO�, �HIRES AND .t��S�CIATES, II�IC. CONSULTING Et�1GINEEI�S f1 iVD GEQLOGI �� TQ: Ge�rge Se��raeder, City of Cup�ertillo I�T�ONt� Ted �ayre, Cotton, �1lires and Associafes, Ii�c. t , f� f __ �r �, r. SUT3]�E�CT: City Q!uestions Reg�u�ii�ig Geot�chalical Cons��`aints DAT�: Jui�e 2, 2011 Q 1: Are t�lere diflereilt geo�ogiclgeoteclinical eoticer�ls for Toe of I-Ti11 I.�ots ��ersus L Lots? Reply: Genei�al�}° �nlbank��ent Lots 1��e i�el�ti��e�y le��el f��oni l�uilclin� ai•e�s «�itt� ��er•Y Stce13 ��nd higll slopes to«��rd tl�e back ��ortions of the ��roperty. �ur geatcef�ulical coz�cern is ]i�l�itec3 t� pi•oposecl si�niticant const��l�ctaon �rcross the steep �ac[< slc�pes� t�ncl pr��ased �:�nstructioii ��ithir� app��oximately 25 feet af tlie tQp of tlle stee� slopes. In contrast, tlle `I'ae oT Hill Lots ge��ei•ally I�ave a greater• ��ercentage of mo�te��afely steep tc� stee�3 slol�es (greater tli�.n 15 �erceilt). Our geateclulic�tl ccancern for these lots ii�clucles l�rapos�d gradii�g or significai�t co�istr�lctioi� on slo��es g��e�te�' tl��ti 20 percei�t. �i� additiozi, ��•�posed const�•�lctioz� s��o��lc� ac�dz•ess at�y nlappe�[ Geolc�gic H�lza�•c� Zones. Q2: T'Y•o�a� a geolc�gic/geotecl�nical standpoint, sl7ould th��•e be diife�•ei�t F�R restrietioi�s for l�uilding on tl�e flat partion of the lat aild �off? Reply: Fo►• il�t partir�i�s €�f lots �«��y i'i�oii� ste�p slopes, we do ilot ht�ve ��eotec�ln�c�l i•easoi� to restrict FAR as Ioi1g as i�esulti�l� ine��ea�es in ti��ateY• �•uiYO�f ai•e proper��r cc,�ltf��llecC. Foi� `�ery steep ��ortic�ns c�f lats (over a0 perceiit), ti��e agr•ee il�at geotecluiical risiss a�•e le�z�e�•ed [�y lii��itin� tfie alla4�ed sc�«are foot�x�e r�f cicvelol�inent/�i•aclin� disturb��nce. For moc�er�tcly steep slolae ��•�as ii� the i•ange of 10 to 30 pec•c�9it, t�iei•e a�•e ��el�ti�,�ely st�i�ci�1•ci beotechiiical desi�i� nleast�Y•e� to �chieve project aiiri slope Stal�ilit}�. t�s loiYg as design ineasures ar� based on ai� �dec�uatc geotecl�lical illvesti�aiio�� a►id ��eer revie�hreci, then ti�e do �YO� ha��e gcoteclulical i�easo�ls to re�irici PAR o�2 slapes less th�n af�proximate[y 3�} �aerc�ent. We natc tl�at tllere are �ote�ltiaf aestl�etic reaso�ls to lin�it gradi�►g oi� naoderately steep slopes. hlorEhern Ca[iEornia [7ffice Central California �ffice 330 �jil��.ge La�ie b-11i lloytcs�vn Roaci Los C;atos, C�Z 95[)30-7218 5an Andreas, CA 952=49 �)6�0 (�Ob) 354-�5€2 • Fax (�6b} 35�-1852 (ZO)} 73G-�42�2 + Pax (209) 736-1212 www.coE�on�$ires.cont Q3: 5lu�i�lei therc be setb�el� stanc�ards loa• devGlc�ptnent near slc�pes? Reply: ��'e s�i�gest eonsicieratic��1 0l an a�proximate 25-foot setl�acic for clevelopme�it r��i• 3Q°/Q or gre�iez• slopes exceeding 10 feet in lieigl�t. Developnle��t r��itl�it� th� setbacic (if �ilo�ved) shc��ld be su�po�•ted l�y a gec�t�ch�lieal investigat�on addressi�lg slo��e stabilit�� a�1d �e peer revie��ec�. Q�: Shoulc3 curreilt gradii�g allo«�ai�ces of 2,50(} c��bic yards and 2,O�J0 sqtl��e Feet far the bu�lclii�g pac� area be reev�liitrtcct? Re�aly: '`��e do nat l�av�; �eotecl�nical oi�jectio�ls to tl�cse exi�tin�; bi•acling jimits �oz• R1-20 I lots. �'o�� smaller lots, ��otefrti�l reductio�� of g��adin� allo«Tances seems to be lar�;cly an �esthetic issue (if alierations of slopes �re�ter th�i� 70°,/o are limited to sma�l ai•e�s ar closely ev�ltil�ted b�� rec�uireci geotec�ulical investi�;atio��). QS: Sl�olllcl there l�e stricter grading restrictioits an actual slapes? Re�ly: Coi�str��ctio�� on slo��es greatei• than 3U% is restrieteci to sm�ll nr�as anci tliis is consistetlt �vitli geotecl�nical coiiccrns. ro�• slope �retis it� tlie range of 1 Q to 3Q perce�lt, tlz�re are �•�lati��;ly stai�xdat•cl g€:atechilicai desig�i i��easui�es to acl�ieve siope st�bilit}�. Har�rever, �i•oposeci sigk�iiicai�t grac�ing oi slo}�es exceedi�lg 20 l�ei•cent s1�oLild bc l�aseci an �dequa�e geotecl»Yic�l investig��tion tl�at is ��eei� revic�veci. Q6: 4�P11at are tlle critical coi��ponents to acic�ress i�1 the �eologic ai�d geokecl��iczl re�3orts? Re�ly: Sectian 19.��.100 c�f the City RHS 4rciinance pro�,/ides minim�l �utdaiice i•egt�rdiz�� prepar�tioil oT tecl�niGal reports. One of th� best set af guicielines «=e have idcntified to ci�.te is p�stect on the City of Cal�t�asas �vel�si�e ei�titled "Nlanual for the I're�ara�ic�zi af Uealogic and Geotech�lic�l Re�orts", 11�I�i•ch 2010 (53 pgs). T��e City of San L�iego also h�s a go�d sct o�' guic�c:litles that is av�ilable on tlieir ��ebsite. �7: I3o elisting I�1-?� lots �I�ve clifferent geatechtlic�l characteristics th�t� otl�er Rl lots with 15 to 30 �erc�nt slapes? IZe��1�F: From a�ec�teclinical perspecti��e, cieli��eated I�.1-20 lots llave essenti�ily siiililar slo�e canstraints to atl�er RI lats d��ith 15 to 3� �ercent Slopes. �l�ile vc�lumes of alla��v�cl �racling ��i;�it be sealecl cto��i� tQ better fit smaller Rl iats, we do iiot lia�re �c;otechnic�l reasoils to tt•eat tlzes� t�i�a lr�t types ciifferently. Q8� flre t�lere c�tllea� geolo�;iclgeot�cl�i7ical cc,ncerns fQr lots witl� 15 tc� 30 l�crcent slol�es th�t slioul�l �e reg��lated`? 79 COTTON, �HIR�S AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I�.eply; B��eci c�n eurrent C'ity Gcohazai•cl 1VIa�s, �ve elo not h�z�le a geotccl�nical i�asis to reeal��il�enc� aciditic�nal 1��11side re�ulatior�. If' t11e Ci#�� Izaci a ii��p prepa�•ec[ cle�ineati�ig tlie dist�•il��gtio�� of e�istii�� lai�dslicies iil t�le hill are�s, fhe�� e ��oulci recoi�line�lcl adtlrtiac�al �est�•icti�ns associatcd �vith are�s ofinapped laneisli�les. Grolui�l tl�at l��s failed in the ��st l�y lai7dslidin� ]�as a�►'eater �ote�ltial tc� f�il iri t�lc ii�ttn�e b�r l�ncislidin�;. g� �OTT�N, �HIit�.� AI'{TD �4.SS�CIATES, INC. Aitachment 12 Existing RHS Fence Requireinents 19.40.080 Fencing. All provisions of this section nlay be deviated from upon an exception granted by fl1e Plannulg Comnussion in accordance with Section 19.40.140 All fences u1 an RHS zoning district shall be governed by the followulg regulations: A. Solid board fencing shall: 1. Not be limited on lots of less than tllirty tllousand square feet net area; 2. Be linuted to a five fllousand square foot area (excluding the prulcipal building) for lots exceeding tllirty thousand square feet in net lot area. B. Open fencing (coinposed of materials whicll result in a minimuin of seventy-five percent visual transparency) shall be wlrestricted except that such fencing over three feet in height nlay not be constructed within the front yard setback. (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) 81 Aitachment 13 19o2�.Q10 C � 19.2�a �II�GIl�-�AIe�Y �SIDEl�T�I, �1) Z�I�S Section 19.28.O1Q Purposes. 19e28.030 Perr�aitted U�es. 19.25.020 Applicability of regulations. The following uses are permitted in the R-1 19.2�.030 Permitted uses. single-family residence district: 19.28.040 Conditional uses. A. Single-family use; 19.28.050 Develogment regutations (site). B. A second dwelling unit conforming to the 19.28.060 Development regulations (building), provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapter 19.28.070 Landscape requirements. 19.82, except for those second dwelling units requiring a 19,28.080 Permitted yard encroachments. conditional use permit; 19.28.090 Minor residential permit. C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily 19.28.100 'I�o-story residential permit. incidental to permitted uses and atherwise conforming with - 19.28.110 Exceptions. the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title; 19.2�.120 Development regulations-Eichler D. Hoine occupations in accordance with the (RZ-e). provisions of Chapter 19.92; 19.28.130 Develapment regulations-(Rl-a). E. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food 19.28.140 Interpretation by the Pla.nn.ing products. Director. F. Itesidential care facility that is licensed by the - appropriate State, Caunty agency or department with si� or '= less residents, not including the provider, provider family or 19o2�.O1.0 i�az�poses. staff; R-1 single-family residence districts are intended to G. Small-family day care home; - create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached H. The keeping of a maximum of four adult d.wellings in order to: h�usehold pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs A. Enhance the identiry of residential neighborhoods; or cats may be kept on the site; B. Ensure provision of light, aix and a reasonable I. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility level of privacy to individual residential parcels; services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices, C. Ensure a reasonabie level of compatibility in scale construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or of structures within residential neighborhoods; corporation yards; D, Reinforcethepredorninantlylow-intensitysetting J. Large-family day care homes, which meet the in the community. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and wluch are (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (gart), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1(part), at�least three hundred feet from any other large-family day 2000; Ord. 1534, (part), 1994; Ord. 1601, Exh. A(part), care home. The Director af Community Development or 1992) his/her desi�ee shatl administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and 1�>2�.�2� A,pplicai�ilaty of IZeg�latio�s. proximity requirements; No building, structure or land shall be used, and no K. Congregate residence with ten or less residents; building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally L. 'Transitional housing and supportive housing. altered or enlarged in an R-1 single-family residence district (�rd. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; �rd. other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter 1454, (part}, 2005; Qrd. 1860, § 1(part), 2000; Ord. 1�34, and other applicable pravisions of this title. (Ord. 2039, (part), 1999; Qrd. 16�8, § 3(part), 1995; Qrd. 1657, (part), (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1�60, § 1(part), 1994; �rd. 1601, �xh. A(part), 1992) 2000; Qrd. 1834, (part), 1499; Ord. 1601, E�. A(part), 1992) �ola s-2s 8�s 19.2�e040 Cupertuao - Z� ° g 30 19.2,8>D�O C��d°ata��al LTs��o 4. �ongregate residence with eleven or more The following uses may be conditionally allowed in tiie residents, vrlucl� is a miuimum distance of one thousand feet R-1 single-family residence district, subject to the issuance from the boundary of another congregate residence and has of a conditianal use permit: a m;n,mum of seventy-�ive square feet of usable rear yard A. Issued by the Director of Community area per occupant. (E�rd. 2039, (part), 2009; �rd. 1954, development: (part}, 2005; Ord. 1�60, § 1(part), 2000; �rd, 1834, (part), l. Temporaryuses, subjecttoregulations establisbed 1999; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 168�, § 3(part), 1995; by Chapter 19,124; Ord, 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 161�p (part), 1993; f?rd. 2. I.arge-family day care home, which othez�vise 1601, Exh. A(part), 1492) � does not meet the criteria for a permitted use. The canditional use permit shall be processed as provided by 19.2�D�50 I)e�elop�aeffit Re�tati�� (Sf�e)a Sectian 15.97.46(3) of the 5tate of Califomia Health and A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. Safery Code; 1. Lot area shall correspond to the number 3. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar (multiplied by one thousand square feet) fallowing the R-1 design features that require variations from setbacks upon a zoning symbol. Examples are as follows: detemvnation by the Director that such design feature or features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, Zo�� Sym�mg Nu�aber ° u�a I,�t �m.rea �a intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrounding Square Neet area; , 4. Second dwelling units wh'rch require a conditional RI 5 5,000 use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84; R1 6 6,0�0 5. �-Iome occupations requiring a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 14.92 of this title. �l 7.5 7,500 B. Issued by the Plauuing Cammission: Rl 10 10,000 l. Two-story structures in an area designated for a Rl 20 20,000 one-story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6) of ===- this chapter, provided that the Piauning Commission 2. Lots, which confain less area than required by -_ _ determines that the structure or structures will not result in subsection A(1) of this seetion, but not less than five privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or thousand sqaare feet, may nevertheless be used as building other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; sites, provided that aIl other applicable requirements of this 2. Group care activities . with greater than six title are fulfilled. persons; B. Lot Width. The miuimum lot width is sixty feet 3. Residential care facilities that fall into the measured at the front-yard setback line excegt in the R1-5 following categories: district where the minimum lot width is fifLy feet. a. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by C. Development on Froperties with Hillside the State, Counry agency or department and has six or less Characteristics. residents, not including the providers, provider family or l. Buildings proposed on properties generalIy staff; located south of Linda Vista Drive, south and west of Santa b. Facility that has the appropriate State, County Teresa and Terrace Drive, west of Terra BeIIa Drive and agency or depar[ment license and seven or greater residents, north of Lindy Lane (see map below) zoned R1-20 that have not including the provider fa.mily or staff, is a minimum an average slop� �qual to or greater thas� fifteen percent are � distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of developed in accordance with the following site development another residential care facility; standards: , c, Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has seven or i greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance oP five hundred feet from the . � property boundary of another residential care facility; I 2009 s-2o 83 31 Sin�le�F'a�ily �tesidential (lZl) Zon�s 19>2�.050 �•.� uP�nk � �� `-; 4,500 square feet of total house size, require approval from `�� - I-� -�—�� the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.134 ' ' '°w I ��w�sv��^;�;�"; of the Cupertino Municipal Code. �� ,, �; �`, ��; � iii. Additions within an existing build'mg envelope are �~` � ` �,� t oA > �s �� perinitted provided that the total FAR of the existing f��._;� �t building and addition does not exceed 45 %. �_ �,� �` �� c. Second Floor ,�ea and Balcony. The second ., ��-: floor and balcony rPView process shall be consistent with the `� �\'� requirements froui the Residential F3illside Zoning District _ T;,\ � ,� -;` �, ��,; �� { r � (Chapter 19.40). The amount of second floor area is not ° %^� limited provided the total floor area does not exc�ed the . � NS-21 >� ti� ��+�� R„ ��' allowed floor area ratio. � RHS 19It\ G— ..-�� ,' ,. i t� RH � �^� � Rws ,;a n �� d. Retaining Wall 5creening. I�etaining walls in excess of five feet shall be screened with landscape materials or faced with decorative materials such as split-faced block, a. Site Grading. river rock or similar materials subject to the approval of the i. All site grading is limited to a cumulative total of Director of Communiry Development. two thousand five hundred cubic yards, cut plus fill. The e. Fencing. two thousand five hundred cubic yards includes grading for i. Solid board fencing is limited to a fiv�e thousand building pad, yard areas, driveway and all other areas square foot site area (excluding the principal building). requiring grading, but does not include basements. The ii. Open fencing (composed of materials which result graded area is limited to the building pad area to the greatest in a minimum of seventy-five percent visual transparency) extent possible. Grading quantities for multiple driveways shall be unrestricted except that such fencing over three feet are divided equally among the participating lots, e.g., two in height may not be constructed within the front yard lots sharing a driveway will divide the driveway grading setback. (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) quantiry in half. The divided share will be charged against f. Tree Protection. Up to two protected trees with a the grading quantity allowed for that lot development. A diameter less than l� inches may be removed to maxim2un of two thousand square feet of flat yard area, accommodate a building pad subject to appraval of the excluding driveways, may be graded. Director of Communiry Development. Removal of protected ii. All cut and fill areas are rounded to follow the trees exceeding 18 inches or remo�al of more than two natural contours and planted with landscaping which meets protected trees requires approval of a tree removal permit by the requirements in Section 19.4�.050G. the Planning Commission in accordance with the Tree iii. r� licensed landscape archit�ct shall review Ordinance. grading plans and, in consultation with the applzcant and the 2. No structure or improvements shall occur on City Engineer, submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to slopes of thiriy percent or greater unless an exception is screen out and fill slopes. b anted in accordance with Section 19.40.140, unless no iv. If the flat yard area (exciuding driveways) more than five hundred square feet of development, exceeds 2,000 square feet or the cut plus fill of the site including grading and structures, occurs on an area with a exceeds 2,500 cubic yards, the applicanf is required to slope of thirty percent or greater. obtain a 5ite and Architectural approval from the Planning D. An application ior building permits filed and Commission. accepted by the Community Development Department (fees b. Floor Area. paid arad p�rmit number iss�ae�} s�r� or before October 2, i. The maximum floor area ratio is forty-five 2007 may proceed with application processing under percent of the net lot area for development proposed on the ordinances in effect at that tune. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; existing flat pad portion, defined as pad areas equal to or Ord. 2011, 2007; �rd. 2OOQ, 2007; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; less than 10% slope, of any lot. Ord. 1��6, (part) 2Q01; Ord. 186�, (part), 2001; Ord. Formula: A= 0.45 B: where A= maximum 1�60, § 1(part), 2000; Urd. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord, 163�, ' allowable house size and B= net lot area. § 1(part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A(part), 1992) ' ii. �uildings or additions located off of the flat pad exceeding slopes of 10 % and producing floor area exceeding 2009 5-20 84 19.2�.060 Cupertu�o - �o�g 32 19.28.060 I9evelopment ltegialations (�uileliri�). a. The mass and bulk of the design is reasonably 1�. Lot Coverage. 'The maximum lot coverage is compatible with the predorninant neighborhood pattem. New forty-five percent of the net lot area. An addifronal five construction shall not be disproportionately larger than, or percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof a�erhangs, out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of patios, parches and other similar features not substantially building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, enclosed by exterior walis. and entry feature heights; B. Floor Area Ratio. The objective of the floor area b. 'The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for square high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the a There shall nat be a three-car wide driveway curb � residential development standards and guidelines in this cut. ordinance in determining whether the mass and scale of the d. No more than fifty percent of the front elevation project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. of a house should consist of garage area. 1. The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on e. Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls a lot is forty-five percent, should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of 2. The maa�imum floor area of a second story is the second story. forty-five percent of the e�cisting or proposed first story floor f. The current pattem of side setback and garage area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is orientation in the neighborhood shouid be maintained. greater. g. When possible, doors, windows and architectural a. The Director of Community Development may elements should be aligned with one another vertically and grant approval to a second floor to first floor ratio greater horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and than 45 % provided that the following design principles are placement. met: h. I'orches are encouraged. i. An identifiable architectural style shall be i. Living area should be closer to the street, while provided; garages shouid be set back more. ii. Design features, proportions and details shall be j. All second story roofs should have at least a consistent with the architectural sryle selected; one-foot overhang. iii. Visual relief deemed to be appropriate by the D. Setback-First Story. Director of Community Development shall be provided; l. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is iv. Materials shall be of high quality; twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the - v. Ensure appropriate buiiding mass and scale; setback is a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no vi. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of more than two such f'ifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by the structure; and side. vii. The design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and 2. Side Yard. The combination of the two side yard balance. setbacks shall be fifteen feet, except that no side yard The "City of Cupertino Two Story Design Principles" setback may be less than five feet. are attached hereto as an Appendix and incorporated herein a. For a corner lot, the minimum side-yard setback by this reference, on the street side of the lot is twelve feet. The other side 3. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, yard setback shall be no less than five feet. measured from the floor. to the top of the roof-rafters, have b, For interior lots in the R1-5 district, the side yard the mass and buik of a two-story house and are counted as setbacks are five feet on both sides. floor area. c. For lots that have more than two side yards, the a. If the house is a two-story house, this azea will setback shall be consistent for ali side yards between the count as second story floor area; otherwise, the area will front properry line and the rear property line. count as first floor area. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is C. Design Guidelines. twenty feet. ; 1. Any new tv✓o-story house, or second-story a. With a Minor Residential Pemut, subject to addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent Section 19.28.090, the rear setback may be reduced to ten with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less Director of Community Development shall review the than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front project and shall deter�ine that the following items are nzet setback line. prior to design approval: . 2009 S-20 85 33 Sa��le-Fa�ly ltesidential (1�1) Z�nes 19.2�.Q60 4. Garage. The front face of a garage in an Rl a. The maximum exterior wall height and building district shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from a height on single-story structures and single-story sections of street properry line. two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined a. For projects with three-car garages oriented to by: the public right-of-way, the wall piane of the third space i. A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade shall be set back a minimum af two feet from the wall plane measured at the property line; of the other two spaces. ii. A twenty-five-degree roof line angle projected E. 5etback-Second Story. inward at the 2en-foot high line referenced in subsection 1. Front and Rear Yards. The minimum front and G(2)(a)(1) of this section. rear setbacks are twenty-five feet. b. Pdotwithstanding the building envelope in 2. Side Yard. The combination of the side setbacks subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof shall be twenty five feet, except that no second-story side enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of setback may be less than ten feet, seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from a. In the case of a flag lot, the minunum setback is natural grade, or up to twenty feet with a Minor Residential twenty feet from any property line. Permit. b. In the case of a corner lot, a minunum of twelve 3. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the feet from a street side property line and twenty feet from total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have any rear property line of a single-family dwellmg. exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a 3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet minunum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first stary shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front roof against the second story wall. The overlap shall be and side-yard setback requirements specified in this section. structural and shall be offset a minunum of four feet from a. This regulation does not apply for homes with the first story exterior wall plane. second flo�r to first floor ratio greater than 45 %. a. The Director of Community Development may F. Basements. , approve an exception to this regulation based on the famdings 1. The number, size and volume of lightwells and in Section 19.2�.110 D. basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required b. This regulation does not apply for homes with by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and second floor to first floor ratio greater than 45 %. ventilation, except that i.n the case of a single-story house 4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry with a baseuient, one lightwell may be up to ten feet wide feature height is fourteen feet measured from natural grade and up to ten feet long. to the plate. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wail may be 5. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council : located within a required setback area, except as follows: may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be a. The minimum side setback for a lightv✓ell limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) b affixin an "i" desi nation to the R1 zonin district. retaining wall is five feet; y g 8 S b. The minunum rear setback for a lightwell H. 5econd Story Decks. All new or expanded second retaining wall is ten feet. story decks with views into neighboring residential side or 3. I.ightwells that are visible from a public street rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject shall be screened by landscaping. to Section 19.2�.090, in order to protect the privacy of ' 4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than adjoining properties. The goal of the pemut requirement is three feet in height and shali be located immediately not to require complete visual pratection but to address adjacent to the lightwell. privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing S. The perimeter of the basement and all lightweli the construction and use of ��utdoor deck. This section retaining wa11s shall be treated and/or reinforced with the applies to second-story decks, patios, baiconies, or any other most effective root barrier measures, as detemuned by the sunilar unenclosed features. ', Director of Communiry Development. 1. .4 second-story deck or patio may encroach three ' G. Height. feet into the front setback for the principal dwelling. l. M�imum Building Height. The height of any 2. The minimum side-yard setback is fifteen feet. ' princigal dwelling in an Rl zone shall not exceed 3. The muumum rear-yard setback is twenry feet. , twenry-eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrietions antennae or other appurtenances. provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure 2. Building Envelope (One Story). utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no ' 2009 5-20 ' 86 19,2�,060 Cupertino - Zo�a� 34 such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or changes to the nuznber of shrubs or trees, their species or adjoining property owners. Any solar structure that requires location. variation from the setback or height restrictions of this C. Front-Yard Tree Planting. Applicants for nev✓ chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor two-story homes and two-story additions must plant a tree in Residential Permit subject to Section 19.2�.090. (Ord. 2039, front of new second stories in the front yard setback area. (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), The tree shall be 24 inch-box or larger, with a minimum 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1(part), 2000; height of six feet. The Di�ector of Communiry Development Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1�0� (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 can waive this front-yard tree if there is a coaflict with § l, 199�; Ord. 17�4, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; eJCisting mature tree canopies on-site or in the public Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. right-of-way. 1601, Exh. A(part), 1992) D. Species List. The Planning Division shall maintain a list of allowed privacy planting trees and shrubs. 19.2�.074 Landseape Itequireinents. The list includes allowed plant species, minimum size of To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and bulk of new two-story homes and additions, tree and/or planting distance between trees. shrub planting is required. The intent of this section is to E. Covenant. The property owner shall record a provide substantial screening within three years of the covenant with the Santa Clara County Recorders Office that planting. requires the retention of all privacy planting, or use of A. Applicability. 'I'his requirement shall apply to new existing vegetation as privacy planting, prior to receiving a two-story homes, second-story decks, two-story additions, final building inspection from the Building Division. T'his or modifications to the existing second-story decks or regulation does not apply to situations described in existing windows on existing two-story homes that increase subsection B(1)(b) of this section. privacy unpacts on neighboring residents. Skylights, F. Maintenance. The required plants shall be windows with sills more than five feet above the finished maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes second floor, windows with permanent, exterior louvers up irrigation, fertilization and pnining as necessary to yield a to six feet above the finished second floor, and obscured, growth rate expected for a particular species. non- apenable windows are not required to provide privacy G. Replacement. Where requiredplanting is removed protection planning. or dies it must be replaced within thirty days with privacy B. Privacy Planting Plan. Proposals for a new tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it two-story house or a second story addition shall be is determined to be infeasible by the Director of Community accompanied by a privacy planting plan which identif'ies the Development. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), location, species and canopy diameter of e�sting and 2005) proposed trees or shrubs. 1. New trees or shrubs are required on the 19.2�.0$0 Pernaitted Yard Enca°oacl�ents. appiicant's property to screen views from second-story A. Where a building legally constructed according to windows. The area where planting is required is bounded by existing yard and setback regulations at the time of a thirty-degree angle on each side window jamb. The trees construction, encroaches upon present required yards and or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a fmal setbacks, one encroaching side yard setback may be occupancy permit. extended along its existing building lines if the addition a. New tree or shrubs are not required to repiace zeceives a Minor Residential Permit and canforms to the existing trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified following: Arborist or Licenses Landscape Architect verifies that the l. The extension or additzora may not further existing trees/shrubs have the characteristics of privacy encroach into any required setback and the height of the planting species, subject To approval by the Director or existing non-conforming wall and the extended wall may not Community Development. be increased. b. Affected property owner(s) may choose to allow 2. The maximum length of the extension is fifteen privacy planting on their own property. In such cases, the feet. applicant must plant the privacy screening prior to issuance 3. The extension of any wall plane of a first-story of a building permit. addition is not permitted to be within three feet of any 2. Waiver. Thes� privacy mitigation measures may pzoperty line. be modified in any way with a signed waiver statement from 4. Only one such extension is permitted for the life the affected property owner. Modifications can include of such building. ' 2009 5-20 87 35 S�gle��a�il� It�sidenta�l �tl� ��a�s 19.2�.0�0 S. This section appiies to the first story only and Planni.ng Commission will make the final action on the shall not be construed to allow the fiurther extension oP an appeal. encroachment by any building, which is the result of the D. Expiratian of a I4�inor Residential Permit. Unless granting of a variance or exception, either before or after a building permit is filed and accepted by the Ciry (fees paid ' such property become part of the �iry. and control number issued) within one year of the Minor B. Architecturai featvres (not inclad.ing patio covers) Residential Permit approval, said approval shall become null may extead into a required yard a distance not exceeding and void unless a longer time period was specificaily three feet, providecl that no architectural feature or prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or the building pemut expires for any reason, the Ivlinor auxiliary structure, may extend closer than ttiree feet to any Residential Permit shall become null and void. The Director property line. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), of Community �evelopment may grant a one-year extension 2005; Ord. 18�6, (part), 2001; Ord. 186�, (part), 2001; without a public notice if an application for a Minor Ord. 1860, § 1(part), 2000; Ord. 1�34, (part), 1999; �rd. Modi�ication to the Pvlinor Residential Permit is filed before 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 161�, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, the expiration date and substantive justi�ication for the ,. E�. A(part), 1992) eztension is provided. E. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the 19.2R.Q90 ' or Residential Per�#so I?irector of Community Development a Minor Residential Projects that require a Minor Residential Permit shall �ermit can be processed concurrently with other be reviewed in accordance with this sectian. The purpose of discretionary agplications. (Ord. 8039, (part), 2009; Ord. this process is to provide affected neighbars with an 1954, (part), 2005) opportunity to comment on new development that could have significant impacts on their property or the neighborhood as 19.28.1Q0 TFTVfD°SCOY'�` ��S1CI�II�1� P2iffiE� a whole. Two-story additions ar two-story new homes require a A. Notice of l�pplication. Upon receipt of a complete '�o-Story Residential Permit in accordance with this application, a notice shall be sent Uy fzrst class mail to all section. Two-story projects with a fioor area ratio under " owners of record of real property (as shown in the last t� 35 % shall require a Level I Two-5tory Residential Permit, assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subject properiy, while a two-story project with a floor area ratio over 35 % including properties across a public or private street. The shall require a Level II Two-Story Residential Pernut. notice shall invite public comment by a detemuned action A. IVotice of Application (Level I). Upon receipt of date and shall include a copy of the development plans, a complete application, a notice sha11 be sent by first class eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in B. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public ihe last tax assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subject comments, ttze Director of Community Development shall property, including properties across a public or private approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The street. The notice shall invite public comment by a permit can be appzoved only upon making all of the determ�ned action date and shall include a copy of the following findings: development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino size. General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall instali a public ordinances and the purposes of this title. notice in the front yard of the subject site that is cleariy 2. The granting of the permit wi11 not result in a visible from the public street. The notice shall be a condition that is detrimental or injurzous to property or weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall ar�d three feet wide improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to fim�ly attached to a five-fo�t tall post. �'he notice shall the public health, safety or welfare. remain in place until an action has been taken on the 3. The praposed project is harmonious in scale and application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall design with the general neighborhood. cantain the following: 4. �.dverse visual impacts on adjoining praperties a. The exact address of the properry, if known, or have been reasonably mitigated. the location of the property, if the address is not known, C. �lotice of I-�ction. The Ciry �ouncil, Planviug b. A� brief description of the proposed project, the Commission, applicant and any member of the public that content of which shall be at the sole discretion af the City; commented on the pzoject shall be notified of the action by c. City contact information for public inquiries; first class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may appeal the action pursuant to Chagter 19.136, except that the 2009 5-20 88 19.2�.1Q0 Cuperti�a� � �o ° g 36 d. A deadlin� for the submission of public Community I3evelopment may grant a one-year extension, - comments, which shatl be at least fourteen days after the without a public notice, if an applicadon for a Minor date the notice is posted; Modific�tion to the Two-Stozy Permit is filed before the e. A black and u�hite art�ographic rendering of the expiration date and substantive justificatian far the extension front of the house, at least eleven inches by seventeen inches is provided. 9n size. The City shall approve the illustration or rendering C�. . Cancurrent Applications. At the discretion of the prior to posting. Director of Coxnmunity Development, a TwaStory Permit $. Notice of Applicatian (L.evel II). Ugon receipt af can be processed concurrently with other discretionary a coazplete application, a notice shall be sent by first cTass applications. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Qrd. 1954, (part), mail to ail owners of record of real property (as shown in 2005) the last tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the subject property. The notice shall invite public 19>2$.110 �xceptimns. comment by a determined action date and shall include a A. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and copy of the development plans, eleven inches by seventeen intent of this chapter result from the strict application of the inches in size. provisions hereaf, exceptions to section 19.2�.060, 1. 1 osted Notice. The applican.t shall install a public 19.28.070 and 19.28.120 may be granted as provided in this notice consistent with subsection A(1) of tlus section, except section. that a colored perspect'rve rendering shall be required instead 1. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete of a black and white orthographic rendering. applicatian, the Community I3evelopment Deparbnent sball C. Story Poles. Story poles are required for any set a time and place for a public hearing before the Design Two-Story Residential Permit. Review Committee and send a notice by first class mail to D. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last comments, the Directar of Commvnity Development shaii tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the a�prove, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The subject properry. Properties thai are adjacent to the subject permit can be approved only upon making all of the site, including those across a public or private street, shall following findings: receive a reduced scale copy �f the plan set with the public - l. The groject is consistent with the Cupertino n�tice. General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning 2. Becision. After closing the public hearing, the ordinance and the purposes of ttus title, decision-maker shall approve, conditionally approve, or 2. The granting of the permit will not result in a deny the application based on the findings in this section. condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or Any interested party can appeal the decision pursuant to improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to Chapter 19.136. the public health, safety or welfare. 3. Expiration of an Exception. Untess a building 3, The proposed project is harmoruous in scale and permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and design with the general neighborhoad. cor�trol number issued) within one year of tbe Exception 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoin.ing properties approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a have been reasonably mitigated. longer time period was specifically prescribed by the E. Notice of Action. The City Council, PlaLUU.ug conditions �f approval. In the event that the buitding permit Commission, applicant and any member of the public that expires for any reason, the Exception shall become null and carrunented on the project shall be notified of the action by void. The Director of Community Development may grant ' : first class mail or electronic mait. Any interested party may a one-year extension, without a nublic notice, if an ' appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the application for a Minor Modification to the Exception is ' Plauning Commi.ssion will make the fmal action on the filed before the expiration date and substantive justification ' ; appeal, for the extension is provided. ' F. Expiration of a Two-Story Permit. Unless a 4. Findings for ApprovaL building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid a. Issued by the D'uector of Community ` ' and control number issued) within one year of the T�evelopment, 'I'he Director of Community Development � Two-Story Fernut approval, said approval shall become null may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulation ' ' and �roid uniess a longer time period was specifically described in Section 19.2�.060 G(4} upon making all of the � ' prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that following findings: � , the building permit expires for any reason, the Two-Story i. The project fulfilIs the intent of the visible � ' Permit shall become null and void. 'I'he I�irector of second-story wall height regulation in that the number of = I .:= i -_i i i z,o10 �-2s j 89 I _ _ i 37 Single-�+' ° y Iiesid�a�tiai (It1) Z�snes 19.2�.110 - two-story wall planes and tlie amount of visihle second story 4. 'I'he building design shall incorporate straight wall area is reduced to the maximum extent possible. architectural lines, rather than curved lines. ii. The exception to be granted is one that will 5. 5ec�ion I9.28.060 �(4) is considered a b ideline require the least m.odification of the prescribed design in the Rl-e district. regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplisl� 6. The first floor shall be no more than twelve the purpose. inches above the eusting grade. iii. The proposed exception will not result in 7. Exterior walls located adjacent to side yards shall significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. not e�ceed nine feet in height measured from the top of the b. Issued by the Design Review �ommittee. The floor fo the tap of the wail plate. Design Review Committee may grant exceptions from the C. Frivacy Protection Requirements. prescriptive design regulations described in Section l. Side and Rear Yard Facing Second Floor 19.2�.a60, except 19.2�.060 G(4) and Section 19.2�.130 Vdindows. In additi�n to other privacy protection upon mak�ng all af the follawing findings: requirements in Section 19.2�.070, the following is required i. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result for all second story windows: in restrictions inconsistent witb. the spirit and intent of this a. Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height chapter. of six feet above the second floor; or u. The proposed development will not be injurious b. Obscure glass to a height of si� feet above the to property or improvements in the area, nor be detrimental second floor; or to the public safery, health and welfare. c. Have a window sill height of �ve feet Luinimum iii. TYze exception to be granted is one that will above the second floor. (Ord. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. require the least modification of the prescribed design 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 20�1; Ord. 1860, § 1 regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish (part), 2000) the pvrpose. iv. The proposed exception will not result in 29.2�.130 I3eY�l�p�nent �ie�ulatiorts-(Rl-a), s btrni�icant visual impact as viewed from abutting graperties. R1-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural B, Notwithstanding the above, a request for setting in neighborhoods with large lots. Regulations found reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties a disability, when the strict application of the provisions in zaned Rl-a. In the event of a conflict between other this chapter, act as a barrier to fair housing apportunities, regulatians in this chapter and this section, this sectian shall gursuant to Chapter 19.50. (Ord. 2056, (par[), 2010; Ord. prevail. 2039, (part), 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2�05) A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The mi.nimum lot size is ten thousand square feet. 19.2�.120 Develapmemt Regulati�a�s-�ichl�r B. I.ot Width. 'The niinimum lot width is (R1�e). seventy-�ve feet measured at tt�e front-yard setback Iine. Rl-e single-fam.iIy residence "Eichler districts" protect C. 5econd 5tory Area. A second floor shall be no a consistent architeetural form through the establishment of more than forLy percent of the first floor, except as follows: district site development regulations. Regulations faund in 1. A second floor may be at ieast seven hundred the other sections of this chapter si�all apply to properties square feet in area. zaned Rl-e. In the event of a conflict between other � 2. In no case shall a secand floor he more than one regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall tilousand one hundred square feet in area. prevail. Nothing in these regulations is intended to preclude D. Setback - First Story. a harmonious two-story home or second story additi�n. . 1. �ront Yard. The �n9ni=,,um front yard setback is P,. Setback-First Story. � thirry feet. 1. The m inim� front yard setback is twenty feet. 2. 5ide Yard. Tt�e nlinimum side yard setback is ten B. Building Design Requirements. feet. 1. Entry features faeing the street are integrated with 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is the roof line of the house. twenty feet. 2. The maxi.mum zoof slope is three-tatweIve (rise E. Setback - Second Story. over run). 1. �'ront Yard. The miniuium front yard setback is 3. Wood ox other siding material located on walls thirty feet, facing a publie street (not including the garage doar) shall 2. Side Yard. The combined side yard setbacks sha11 incorporate vertical grooves, up to si�c inches apart. be tl�irty-five feet, with a minimum of fifteen feet. 2010 5-25 90 p9.2�e130 ��perta�o - Zo ' � 3� 3. Rear �'ard. The minimutn reag yard setback is should have sill heights af five feet or greater to mitigate -=. forty feet. intnasion into a neighbar's privacy. 4. The setback suxcharge in Sectioa 19.23.060 E(3) 2. � All second story wall heights greater than six does not apply in this district. feet, as measured from the secand stary finished floor, F. Second-stary Regulations. should have building wall offsets at least every twenty-four 1. Second stary decks shall confarm to the feet, Wit113 minlmum four-foot depth aud ten-foat width. second-story building setbacks, and may be located on the The offsets shovld comprise the full height of the wall plane. frant and rear only. 3. 5ection 19.2�.060 G(4) is considered a guideline 2. 'The second-story shal7 not cantilever over a in the R1-a district. � first-story wall plane. 4. Garages. The maximum width flf a garage on the 3. The front-facing wall plane(s) af the second-story frant elevation should be twenty-five feet, which will must be offset a minimum of three feet from the first-story accommodate a two-car garage. ,4dditional gazage spaces wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid a should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a two-story wall plane on the frant elevation. detached accessory stracture at the rear of the properiy. G. Front Yard Paving. No more than fifty percent of L. Permitted Yard Encroachments. tiie front yard setback area may be covered with a 1. Where a principal building Iegally constructed combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. l�TO according to existing yard and setback regulations at the more than forry percent of the front yard setback area may time of construction encroaches, upon present required be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or yards, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended asphalt. along its existing building line. H. Heights. The maximum exterior wall height and a. The extension or addition may not further building height on single-stary structvres and single-story encroach into any required setback and the height of the sections of two-story structures must fit into a building existing non-confQrming wall and the extended wall may not envelope defined by: be increased. 1. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured from b. In no case shall any wall plane of a first-story natural grade and located ten feet from groperty lines; addition be placed cioser than three feet to any property line. 2. A twenry-five degree roof line angle projected c. This section does nQt apply to attached accessory -.. . inward at the twel�e-foot high line referenced in subsection structures such as attached carports. H(2)(1) of this section. d. This section applies to the first story only and I. Variation from the R1 and Rl-a regulations shall shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an require a Variance pursuant to . Chapter 19.124 of the encroachment by any building, which is the result of the Cupertino Municipal Code in the Rl-a district, granting of a variance or exception, either before or after Notwithstanding the above, a request for reasonable such gr�perty become part of the City. accommodation may be made by any person with a 2. Architectural features (not including patio covers) disability, when the strict application of the provisions in may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding this section, act as a barrier to fair housing opporhuiities, three feet, provided that no architectural feature or . pursuant to Chapter 19.50. combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or J. Design Review. All iwo-story development shall auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any require discretianary review based on Section 19.28.100, properiy line. except that the Design Review Committee shall approve oz 3. �ront Porch. Traditional, open porches are deny the project at a public hearing based on the findings in encouraged in this zone. Vdhen viewerl frorn the street, a subsection N(1) of this section, porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in K. Design Guidelines, The guidelines in this section height. A p�rch differs from an entry element, which has a shall be used in conjunction with the City's Single Family proportionately greater height than its width. Use of ihis Residential I)esign Guidelines. In cases where there may be yard encroachment provision shall require the approval of conflict between the two sets of guidelznes, this Section shall the Director of Community I�evelopment. take precedence. l�Tonconformance with the guidelines shall a. Pasts. Vertical structural supports, such as posts, be cansidered acceptable only if the applicant shows that for porches are . allowed to encroach two feet into the ther.e are no adverse impacts from the proposed project, required front setback. Structural supports must be desia ed l. Second-stary windows. Windows on tl�e side such that the agpearance is not obtrusive or massive. elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of six b. Columns. The use of Iarge columns or pillars is feet above the second flomr, should have permanent exterior discouraged. - louvers to a height of s� feet above the second flooz or - 2010 s-2� 91 39 ��a�l�e� ' y �tesidential (IZ1) �o�aes 19.28e130 -"�:.:.-" c. Fencing. I.ow, open fencing for porches are e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback viewed from adjoining properties have been mitigated ta the area. mar.imum extent possible. d. Eave Height. The eave height for a front porch (ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 2039, (part), 2004; Ord. : should not be sigruficantly taller than the eave height of 1954, (part), 20a5) rypical single-story el�ments in the neighborhood. e. Detailing. Parch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements. � f. The porch platform and roof averhang may encroach �ve feet into the required front setback. M. Landscaping. 1. Landscaping plans are required for all additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms from the street and adjacent pr�perties. Specific measures are not prescribed. Generally, the Iandscaping may : include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines on fences. 2. Landscaping plans for two-story development shall include specific mitigations for impacts from mass, bullc and privacy intrusion as required in Section 19.28.070 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that: a, Privacy planting shall have a niiuimum setback from the property line equivalent to one-quarter of the -=-_ sgread noted on the City 1ist. -- -:: b. Privacy trees shall have a nunimum height of twelve feet at the time of planting. c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views from second-story windows across the street to neighboring homes are partiaiiy mitigated. d. The Director may waive the front yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing conflict with existing mature trees. N. Design Review Findings. l. Findings. The Design Review Committee may approve a design review application for two-story development only upon making all of the findings below: a. The project is cansistent with the Cupertino � General Plan and Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. b. The granting of this pemut will not result in detrimental or injurious conditions to properry. or improvements in the vicuuty, or to the public heaIth, safety or welfare. c. '�he project is generally compatible with the - established pattern of building forms, building materials and designs of homes in the neighborhood. d. The projecC is consistent with the City's single-family residential design guidelines and the guidelines in this chapter and any inconsistencies have been found to not result in impacts on neighbors. 2010 5-25 92 19e2.�.140 C�ap�rti�o m Zo °� 40 �9.2�.�40 ��a°p�°etat�o�z by ��ae Pl ° g --=:-: - �3ar�ct�a°. In Rl zanes, the I?irector of Commtuuty Development shall be empowered to make reasonable interpretatians of the reguiations and provisions of this chapter consistent with the legislat�ve intent thereof, Persons aggrieved by an �nterpretation of the chapter by the D�rector of Community �evelopment may petition the Planning Commission in v✓riting for review of the interprEtation. (Ord. 2039, (part), � ' 2009; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1560, § 1(part), 20D0; Ord. 1�34, (part), 1999; Ord. 180�, (part}, 1999; Ord. 1601, E�. A (part), 1992) . � � I � I � I 2010 5-25 � 93 41 Sing)e-Famil�� Residential (R1) Zooes Appendis: A � Appendix A: Cits of Cupertino T�i�o Stor�� Design Principles INTRODUCTIQN • �' '' Cupertino's nei�hborhoods have developed or�er a period of decades _ �,�. � with ��ar}�ing architectural sqrles. Recent zoning regulations that were �=•�� , s�' intended to soften the mass and bulk of tuo scor}� homes force prescribed �" . -- �- .� .. _. setbacks and offsets resultine in the construction of a similar, "��,�eddinQ �_ �' -- _ — - - - �._ _.. cake" stple of home in tbe City. �------� `� Now, homeo��ners and builders are allo�a ed �reater design flezibility �' �� - -- if their design canforms to the follo«�ing design principles. Two story homes _.`_.__ , : ___ with a secontl story to first floor ra�io �reater than 4� % are allo�� ed when -- . -'�- -� =- they offset the Uuilding massine ��ith desi�ns that encompass higher quality �._-.__.:��" architectural features and materials. • simplel oa„ •,qrc;hitec.ural De[ail • Gronped «�indows • Recessul Guaee DESIGN PRInCIPLES These desian principles help inteQrate ne�� homes and additions to existing homes with existina neighborhoods by pro� iding a framework for �� a�._.. the revie�a� and approval process. R�here possible, additional details and _ i: examples ha��e been provided. Conditio�is not corered by these examples �' ��,!,�- `"`�:z.��.. will be evaluated on a ease-by-cases basis. � ! �[ :�_ ,_ , Ga _.:_ 1�' -; .. - 'r��.,-" --� • Simple 1 onv • 1�9utcnals vatiet�' • Grouped ��iudo�a s � S� mmztrical ��indoN�s 1. Provide an identifiable architectural st}rle. Attractive homes are designed by usine elements from one consistent theme. It is best to u�ork ,,�, �.�,�� _—= -r.� � �� :u.. with }�our designer to identify and carry out one sryle around the entire � �' � . � � _, .._ . '� ��: , '� house. �� The following pictures illustrate traditional and Mediterranean � i -- �.. -�_ �/ �"' y homes with success in identifying a single sry1e. Additional resources for �� ,,,��-�-;„;,�� `� �i- information on home styles are ]isted in "Architectural Sryle". � : w � a. � ��, � .� 2. Design features. proportions and details to be consistent ti�.�ith 1 �,,- � � � �� architectural sty1e. For assistance in understandin; architectura] sCyles and ___ `�"��`(�� • �� -- _ _ � � i details, refer to the sources in the side bar "Architectura] St��le". `- ---_-�� - --_---. • Strone iirst floor fom� • �u�lientie details • Materials l ariet� • Recessed C'rar-a�e r ,�.,�� !� z��- c :-: _,:.. : =:., . .. .. _. .. ____.._ -_ . _---� I � � � � �� t i� � i ; I '�-.� � L � � - — � t � �=� �.. �;� _ _ rl.=„a .. .- .. $�. "�[ �_ _ �� ,sy v .. _ y,., } �Y �� , � E � "�� I111 il:lllliliifl IlfiilMf�411$__.� q �f? �' ��E � � I � F � '� a — r' — °" 3 ^ s��.�i�� - �._. y �. _l __ _ • ' � y � , '�. . • Promu�ent entrv • F'irst floor roof eave • Uaried roof fom�s • R'�11 defiued entn' • Varied roof heial�ts m S�'mmetrica] �a-indo��s ° Arclutaetural details • One-ston' fornt ?O10 5-2� 94 Appendiz A Cupertino - Zaning 42 ,,., f i a , 6 � ^ ``< . ` w ;� , .. �� ..'.,. . • . . . - i r., �" f c �E � �P'�. � t-: �. — � � f g `" " I � _ �ti- ��a : , ._ , 3 — _� R i � - a:,. ` r-��_.�- _ _ -- �� '� ...,,,� a"K,� � N&pti_ ;i'Ti iCl� � �t� Il �� ii�`%�Il�lll ��` '� � � �� c - '�� IIIIIII�III �u1IIIH - • Prominent porch • Rec essed earage • SimpJe form� ` Prominent poroh • Simple roof fonns • Chnani�.ed v,nndoti� s � Vciricd fmnt ��•al] Plenes '«'�od sidin� w�—�,'"�,� _ .� ._ \ �a > � .ti �� __ �� _: � _ _ . � �.-�� e'\. t ' � � 4 �OY.�. dl : - ... � ' ` .._ � � ��-�:� I� t� � ; - i� �, - , . __ `� - _..� �r f� _ _ - __ , � � .� - -- , _ .- . --. . _ _. .�. -?,- ,�:. ; . ._., __ _. . .. J�. _ _.� � 1'rominent porc.h • Simplc roof fotms • Autheniic d�tails � Szcond ston ha]com • S;mple huildin_ iorm� • ��vod sidinQ • Ch�anized �iindo��•s • Arclutect��ral dcLiil .��.��`�'� � Yf ""�� '. � �� •+j �1''� `� m � � �� {�� :,, �� - ��,t. �y i` _ . . -.�',-� . ...�� : � .�. i't�� .,.r,��.+ �•- .,,� . � ^'+`� , Y. � wve mNZ �.`b. . _, � =,��R. , �,v. .� � �� : �' E � �� ' � _ _ � :, , ��`��-- � �. _ ��'��. .�.� , _ -_ .,, �l _ _� �„ v - �.-�-- . • Simple build�n� f o-ns ° Lxrse porch • Simple buildin� fonn ° Full u idth �x�rch • Recessed eara�e ° C?r�avized �+�u�dou�s • Simple roof 1'orm • Or��i'v. °d �3 indn»,�s . . � ; , ' —� I ' � - - � � . � Y_ �I , - l % . .� : l�` __"-"Y _.�.�....�p,. N:•-,,i� � 'y F A w ,� ,. r � � �� ` � � . � L .� �1 �� - �� _ � . �- .:� . , _ , - � ��; � ■ � �.�''`� _ �� '. `' �"= - ■ 6 �irw� �fli� 1 �� M .-' �.y '�Y �. S 4 . � 9�'iFi+' F � '.' ��`. - 1U � i ' �+ I : � ` � � I '�,° y ' � � �-4+ ..r:.+> y; , ,; •. _ - - #�-�. ;k {'�'�� _ _4'rs.a.. � ._w��r:z :� 4 _. � + �y�,.°�-q' �' ^`<�', I ��'__ =- - _ � • ;2.�...�s ° 1 ro.nu�ent Eillir ° 1�ont ft,cadt d�q,tli ° Arohitecmral detai] ° ��'ide =oof o�•crhan�s • 1�4atenal cariation � Varied heiehl and bulk ° Recessed s�agz � Promineni ent�1° I 2010 $-25 95 42A Single-Famil`� Residential (R1) Zones Appendi�: A 2.1 Architectural Details. Each architectural style has • Vdindow size and proportion should be de��eloped with its own unique details [hat add human scale appropriate to tbe proposed architectural and s�isual interest. Their use will ensure a consistency of st}1e. scale and design authenticiry. • R�indoa� styles should be consistent. • Use decorative elements and details that are • Use grouped windo�a=s in combinations of typica] of the archicectura] style selected. E.g. two or more where they are typical of the use Spanish Style details on a Spanish St} le home architeccura] style. and not a Ranch Style home . — _ _— _ _ • Select wall sidine, trun and roofing materials that a�;� �� ' are suitable to the architectural st}le selected. �� '� ��A�'�, ,. g • Visually definitive windo�� trim is highll' �'��. '� ' ��. �, desirable for both wood siding and stucco ;"�� 9 4 �� `; �;,:. structures. E '!� ■ , ._. � •t • Use of natural trim materials for projectir.g trim �' �`� .;,;,�,,,� around windows and doors is desirable. Ii ,� `�`°� � i1ti15 ��p x �� simula[ed material is used, materia] ihat can be ' �� ;��.-' `:��,��° � ,� painted or covered with a smootb stucco finish � _- - should be used. ! ��"— '� • � -- va" � — 2.2 Porches and Entries. Porches and entr}� features Grouped �e•indo��s should be proportional and appropriate io architectural st��le: • Select columns that are traditional [o the • Relate and alisn the location of windo�a�s on architectural stple of the house. TaY.e care in second floors to those on the first floor, if � selectinQ columns with an appropriate u�idth to possible. Placement should not appear heioht ratio for tbe st}�le. haphazard. • Except for a very few styles. the columns should have appropriate caps and bases �vith proportions ARCHITECTURAL STYLE typica] of the sryle. These principles are not intended to establish or dictate • Provide a well proportioned beam between the a specific stple. Wbile a wide range of architectural styles is column caps and the roof. Size and detai] the acceptable, there is an ezpectation that any specific st5�le beam so that it looks ]ike a con��incing structural selected �a�il] be carried out with an integrit}� of forms and � member. details that are consistent with that style. • Railinos shou]d be constructed of materials The followina resources ma}� be useful to homeowners. � suitable to �he architectural style. Homes �a�ith builders, and design professionals in understanding the predominanUy stucco and stone exteriors may special qualicies of specific house styles. have meta] or precast stone railings otheru�ise • A Field Guide �o American Homes railings should be constructed of wood. Provide Virainia & Lee A�cAlester both top and bottom rails «�itb the bottom rai] .Alfred A. Knopf 2000 raised above the porch floor le��e] for wood and • The Abrams Guide to American House Stples me[a] railinas. A�ilkin n4organ Harry N. Abrams, Inc 2004 Note: All porches should be functiona] �aith a � House Styles in America minimum depth of 6 feet. James C. A�assey Penquin Studio 1996 2.3 Balconies. • CelebratinQ the American Home • Large second floor decks sbould be supported on Joanne Kellar Boukniaht appropriately sized and proportional columns. The Taunton Press 2005 • Balcon}� railinas should be designed as discussed • The Distinctive Home, A Vision of Timeless for porch railings. Desi^n Jeremiah Eck 2.4 \�'indo�cs Size and Pattern. Each architectnral The Taunton Press 200� style has a rypical pattern of �vindows that shnuld be carried out �hrou�hout } aur design. 2010 S-25 96 Appendiz A Cupertino - Zaning 42B 2.5 Detail A4aterials InstaIlation Guides. • Recessed garaee doors • Openings in wa11s should be constructed as s Recessed «�indows if they were constructed of tbe �raditional � VJindo�� trim material for the style. For example, provide d Tall trees to break up vien�s of lonQ ��alls substantia] �arall space above arches in � smcco and stone walls. Traditionally. ��all - r, I space aUove the arcb was necessary to setback �r- structurall} span the opening. -� �.� rr` ,. rr� �u ;: • Treat synthetic stone as one would design � r � «Jith real stone (e.g., normal coursina for " w' Ba - v load-bearin� «�alls with sienificant remrns !`• ,�,,,,� window " � � . . - Pop out at u=indows and corners to avoid a pasted-on [ .n m�u - � �t� ��P6En�6s :seineiiiiiiiti �ook�. � ��` 1 �� -, � • Openin�s in walls faced with stone. rea] or �`��°. s}�nthetic, sbould ha��e defined lintels or � �`�`�� "'w - - -_ _ _..t-`— ,.=� headers aboee the opening except in A�ission or Spanish st}�Ies. Lintels or _---_ - _ — __ - headers may e stone, ric or wood 3S ^ / Subslantiai suits che st} �le of Lhe h0use. Chimney /' \ �root overhang t - � • Make materials and color changes at inside �� corners rather tban outside corners co avoid :� �� a pas[ed on look. � � , -_ �'raorcn ��.� ' : , -_ : - y :. VeRical —� � We�� -u�-�� fia�� wau� plane � r -. �v�� ; a . � R change ''� �� 1 � Irsside 1 �� Inside '�� --:�� .. ' � �` ° � � �" - - �� ' x �� . . .: : ., . . ;: . - .: Dutside - I �''�`=�'�'�.. '� � � Outside ._.. .. � Change materials Not at and colors a4 outside I � � � inside comers eorners I Architectural detaii � Inset b leony 3. Facade Articulation. � � � �� ' � �� g v • c-; 3.1 i'isual Relief Techniqves. Tl�e followino � techniques offer ways to miti�ate the bulk of larger homes ■> � ��'� Ba �vindow in smaller scale neishborhoods and tt�e impact of n� o-stor} Y � Horizontal plane tall walls on adiacent neighbors and the streetscapc. and mare��ais �na�y�s __ , • Second floor setbacks �""y • Horizontal and i�ertical wall plane changes • Pop outs • Bay windows • Recessed windows �� Chimneps � �� • «�ide overhangs with projectin� bracheu a �' _. �� A j • Juliet balconies �� '��'''�., � • Belly bands � � ' F: f� • ��,�indow boaes and pot sheh�es �,:s E _� � H� • Landscaped trellises and lattices � F � '� • Projecting �;�indo�� trim ,� � • A�aterials and color changes R' ' Trellis ``� -'`"'�- • Inset balconies l� , �- �_�„ • Applied decorati��e fea�ures � �. =.�.�_, � �ae}� 97 42C Single-Famit� Residential (R1) 2ones Appendi?� A 0.rchrtectural detail �� ,� Deep 1 � . .. recessed _. � +��' pi�hrtectural detaii Y `ti�_ � windota� �� •� �_ � - Juliet •_ �� "� .� �� . � , �� _ �. \ y� � '� '.. balconY �� _ ,...�. _ ,�� * r �" r -� � � Fporizontsl � Porch '.Recessed .�r � windows ""� ��"��?•�- ��'- ��"�S and vertical Recessed _ and " .�.� " wafl plane �� garage doors window tnm � � � affsets ��..�. � � � ___�_ � .�. , ... ..a..�.. .. L 'r- - -.-- _ , ,a�., .�,�., ��r �' 3i 'Ro�l� Y �`— n Y y Recessed windows' � Architectural detail k ��i : . �� : .� � y � --L��. Architectur�, p' � ��tletail � %'i:' _ � � ` � Window ¢ �� '� �� .. , �' � - ~�box ' y ffe: a �r�.► � t'� -'.. .,� . _ .. ,.,. ., f! . . � ,. ,,,. � � � � :. : � �� . �, �. - - . � � —� '-�.; Recessed and h t��' f� �� , ��=x � � : �� split garage y , 1 � �' ��, .�� L � doors I� Prominent � ��III 1�� ` �.�..,�Materials � _ - - �^- - "�` entry chanoe -� _ ----- -�---- . _ .. rc itectura � ��detail - I �Recessed windows � ��. � � �. Su6stantial � and architectural detail �� roof overhang � ' ��. , r '� _ '� �' � y � � � . � � _ _' �-` r � _ s � � ' !.� '�`- " •-, __ _ --------�� ` � . i� , �- Bzy window = T � ' � V. .. -:.-.- - r � e � Vertical � -. " - i � C �- ��, �� wall : nn ��;. .iti�Set4ad< plane �� - - Materials change . "� garaae change - �� and belly band `" � �-"--- ---* - ,r� z,r . : _._ . .__ ..._ . �,,�� -��'_ � � Architec� � Architectural "� � �- � � !I '` _ detail and ��ge � `' � � window trim � roof overhang ' `T� - �, a� ILR� ll�r � ' " . � �i Pol i � } �- � � .n � � ` � �� ! '_ ,.: '-� " - �; °`i� � q Shelf � - — . .. _.. .. n .s - - L ` ��. '` �_ � � � :.t � � -°-�:-'w.:� i�— � Belly i � _ f. �' �� Rj -�- bandl - - �� - - � ,'-� Trim , 8elly � �c�', �r� �:r � v -._ band - � f� �'j �—,> Chimney � Porch k �� i Materials change —s�.=-� �s �i �:�� ■ �i R �i6 �,'.. �—�:�._�—'�+ ._ I 2010 S-25 98 Appendix A Cupertino - Zoning 42D 3.2 Defined Entr�� Feature. Entrp features should be TRADITIOI�AL DETAILS definitive and appropriate both in terms of scale and desiQn Architectural details will be expected to follov,� craditional to the style of che house. standards. Three reference resources �hat can help are the • Covered porches are suongl}� encouraeed. followin�: Especially in neiehborhoods ��ith a predominance • Traditional Construction Patterns: of one-story homes, a porch v�-ith a roof at the Desi�n £� Detail Ru1es of ThumU first floor �e�ill help to inteQrate tl�e ne`�� taller Stephen A. Mouzon house into its surroundin�s. h4cGraa-Hill 2004 � Get Your House Rieht: 3.3 5imple Forms. Architectural Elements to Use and Avoid Traditional architectural st��les usually ha��e relati`�el}� n4arianne Cusato, Ben Pentreath, simple floor plans and roof forms (See ezamples on the Richard Sammons, and Leon Krier following pages). Sterlin� Publishin� 20Q8 • De��elop plans and elevations togetl�er. • Architectura] Graphic Standards for Residentiai • Complex floor plans require complicated buildine Construction: The Architect's and Builder's masses and roof forms ��hich sianificantly Guide to Desi;n Planning and Construction inerease tt�e cost of construction. Details (RamseS�/Sleeper .Architectural Graphic Standards Series) 3.4 BaS� wiodo« s. Bay �� indows help add context and The Aruerican Institute of Architects John «� iley articulation to the house, however the followin� should be & Sons 2003 considered when designing bap windo��s� � Avoid ��erp large bay u�indows that compete ��itb 4. Design �i ith architectural integrit}� on aIl sides the eniry as the focal point of the house. of the house. • Bay windo��s should be desiened u�ith a base • Attention to detail and arcbitecrural consistency element to the ground or t��ith supportine Urackets shall be maintained on all elevations of the house. at the base for first floor «�indows. For second • A��oid "false front" architecture with attractive floor ba}� �a�indo�+s, supporting corbels or street facades and stripped do��n facades facin� brackets are encouraged. Sloped roofs should be, neiehbors on the second floor. used and covered «-ith a materia] that matches the roof materia] or �a�ith metal. • Avoid usina �a�all �. Use high quaiity� materials. Traditional materials hetween the individua] windov,�s of tbe materials. such as R�ood and stone, are decirable, and bay window unless the windo�� is large. stronely encouraged. If s��nthetic material is used, it must Generally, bay ��indows look best when rhe closel5� resemble authentic materials. windows are close together and separated Uj ��,�ood jambs that match wood sills and heads as 6. Sustainabiiitp. The Ciry of Cupertino is shown in the example. committed to sustainable plannine that inte�rates and balances environmenta] decisions with economic - considerations and recosnizes the symbiotic relationship t � ,�-'� � bet��een the natural environment, the community and [he ' Different roaf `'� � economy. This commitment to environmenta] stewardship, r. material ?1f ' socia] responsiUility and economic vitaliry of our community � j`�� can be realized in all design projects, from sinRle fami]}° i __ 7'� residences to laree commercial properties, throu�h Qreen '' �- buildina measures. '�' ° ��± ■ Green building is defined as an integrated framework �I �,�� i [�I �.,\., ;��;;.:' ' = Wood jambs, of design, construction, operations and demolition practices "- sills and heads ' that encompasses the en��ironmental, economic, and social — �� — `� impacts of buildin�s. Green buildin� practices recognize the - �' �� in�erdependence of the natural and built environments and _ �_�� - � � ;_� seek to minimize the use of energy, ��ater, and other natural . --- -- — -- __ __ _. ---- —'— — resources and provide a healthy, productive indoor = W� Strong base environment. ��;' support ,.., I '-------- _ ' . 2010 S-25 99 42E Single-F'affiiIy Resideeatial (R1} Zones ?.ppend'ax A , G.l �reen Bnilding PrincipEes. New construction or additions to your home provides a wonderful opportunit}� to incorporate green building components. Green components can be healthier for you and the environment and save }�ou � monep over time. Section 5, Environmental Resources/Sustainabiliiy, of The City of Cupertino's General P1an presents essential components of a green building design and planning process. � These elements create a framework for evaluating green Uuilding measures applicable to the construction of two story residential design principles including but not limited to: • Site planning • Energy efficiency • Material efficie�ncy • Water conservation (Ord. 2039 (part), 2009) 2010 5-25 100 Caapertinc� - Zoning 42F 101 APPENDIX CITY OF CUPERTINO TWO STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES " � T ---- CUPERTINa =-�- s F = � �::. � . -�. , r . , �� ,ra � � -r� � INTRODUCTION �. -1 _ . . , a �,. � _�__ - _ _ �., Cupertino's neighUorhoods have developed over a psriod ` -- �fl►. N ._ ------- .-------__ - of decades ��vith varying architectural styles. Receiit zoning -�`�' �' _ regulations that were intended to soften the mass and bullc ' of t`��o story hoines force �rescribed setbacks and offsets : `� — resulting in the construction of a similar, "wedding cake" - � _ _� _ _ . --- -- - "� -" - f ; style of home in the City. -�- . _ _: -��, _ Now, hoineowners and builders are allowed greater design • Si�nple Fonn • Architcctural Detail flexibility if theu design confoniis to the follo��ving design • Grouped windows • Recessed Garage _ principles. Two story homes witli a second story to first $oor ratio greater than 45% are allowed when they offset � T � � the building massing with designs that encoinpass higher I; � quality architectural features and materials. �•' _ _ DESIGN PRINCIPLES � � ��-�_ } � s�k.. :� . ��:'-� -= y � These design principles help integrate new homes and ad- : - ditions to existing hoines with existing neighborhoods by , _.;�.,�., provid'uig a fi for the review and a�proval �rocess. �- " - � �w�� Where possible, additional details and examples ha�e been ' t - provided. Conditions not covered by these exainples will be • Simple Form • Materials variety • Grouped ��indows • Symmetrical windo«�s evaluated on a case-by-cases basis. .,��• � � '>"A9�` � -� �—�-.��':,•� � � � -�-�`�' �� F 3&:�a�'°`�'�*:_�� t � �'{ � _ � ' "= �` ro: �''�.� t: � � ' � 1. PROVIDE AN IDENTIFIABLE ARCHITECTUEtAL STI'LE � �� _ , �i' � "'r i�,�� ° � -� Attractive hoines are designed by using elements from one �''� +, ==� m �� a='�`� '� �-�- ,�,•�„�. ,�, ,_ consistent theine. It is best to work ��-�th your desi,�ner to � identify and carry out one style around the entire house. '' `��`_� The following pictures illustrate traditional and medittera �� . � � " li +; i '; �I. yu�ll./fl ]II. � nean homes with success in identifying a single style. Ad -= ��`; `` ; � y ,, ' ditional resources for information on hoine styles are listed - � �- - iIl tlle S1C�e 17Si Ori pSgO 3. • Strong first floor fonn • Autl�entic defa�ls • A7aterials variety • Recessed Garaee - --, I - i _ � �-�� , , �� i �� ' � � _ � � ua ��, �� i — � �_�i� -�f,: y � � 0.11H Yi .�.. ` `N F � - � � ��,'� �.� I _ °' _ I :.�!'. � _ _ �' 1 :-.`kk�ii�� ..c... __ __ — v—' � ., — . _ - I � ° �� -- pj � { j{{ � �_ �� ' } �7aaa !,� 111� ��{�� PII�� - - I�Y � � �� I - �. � - •' ' �"�� °�` � Fe�� 7 � :.r- �'a�� ""��,;: � - _� y . . - T� r r; �;�-�`� � � � = • Prominent entry • First floor roof eave °��aried roof forms • Well define.d entry • Varied roof heigl�ts • Sy�tunetrical w indo�vs • Architectural details • One-story form Adopted by Ciry Council on 3/17/09 Pna� 1 102 Ct�.arrFR 19.28 - APrErrD� A CITY OF CLTPERTLNO T1h'0 STORY DESIGN PRllJCIPLES . - . . � � � � � � .� .t;:;:,;_. � . ' � E �� j � � F � �... . _\..._` ' L _ I � \ , i� J � !'. .. ��. i ``# � � � ��0.'F�'t� �*"�,'��, f—:1 f ,� : �I i �� Y._:; � I � f�r r- d�+ � f �t � _ � : � � � f �;�„� - '�r� �.. r ' r �' � °'t` � � .�_: �<, a „ e _ y � = � r �.� m �i� ' r�� .t�� I� _ E�il��ill�IIIY��'�'�.t. �� i �..91'�(�� . r'Y � � :K� �'; �� 3: ♦ _ �.�; � I��G�G' lii i ilil'�IiIIIN ;�'' 3. • .. Y.. � '�. ._. , .. , _.,� \ �� y � _ ..aK�� . �1i . � ` ' . . _ • Proulinent porcl� ° Recessed gara�e • Simple forms • Prominent porcli • Simple roof fonns • Organized �vindo�vs • Varied front w-a11 Planes •«�ood siding -- - , .y- ' �t � , _ � � ^� �`� �' � - - �I � ' � ,j � . _ ,.� k�� ar`s' '- � " �A. -- I _ �� -- g _ ,`� �\ - ' ,` � :. �_ , � / ��Ff1.�� - � f_ - - �,� � C ��s^�,� I '► I I �.. — . `'r'� I /��--- — �:� � _ __ ..- ; � � �� r- T � i ��` ' -� J' �;�4, /� /\ � , �,t„T ,, .>: _ _�� , � . � �� _ _ , . -' _ ; a -m -- — --_ _ � - , ,-�� . ,�, . . � �. r=. v . - '_�� - : � � r. _ =�_ � �� - -• - . . �� _ . `h ,. � u..� �.— -. :. _ — �, � • Prominent porch • Simple roof forms m • Audientic details • Second story balcony • Simple building fonns •\T��ood siding • Orgauized �vindows • Architectural detail !� ' s . _ ,-x. � t='� � ' ` .ar - r .._ � - � - � . - . . �--'-- f�• � � . f• 'A��--,^' ..'. . # .0 �. ..�'si [ICa � !!�� F ' s — � . . _ �,�. �. ,� �'_ .�� .� ' � �' � .:' ; ,� �%. _— Y , , x �� ,� � �� I �- ��} �_�_- x`� i � fi � x�'�� -- -� . , F � - r ..:.-. __*� r, � � � 4 �- . . _ � -c ...'x= � , ''er�",F�� s . � � . , �: r. � , . � � �� s�� i '�. _ , ..�� e sm i '��' �' s : . �" ' e + „ � � � � '�_ �C! = Rf ct�1: � . .. `� '-t. �,,.� � � � ... _ ._ -„s�a � 4x � < :. y� : ) - � � x � � � J _...._ � } � .e� s�. y . .. �.� � �� ! � "�°6 . . . . _ �- . .� , :_., , £. T �"4 ' , ` � '. '. . .. " �t _ � � .,�i , I "_- . _ .: - � .� _ -..__ .."�.I . t.... �.... + , �� x :.. � � � � . ..._—� — `� I .... _ :.._. . ', ��- � � �J � I • Simple building forms • Large porch • 5imple Uuilding foml ° Fu11 �e idtll porcli • Recessed garage • Organized windows • Simple roof fonn • Organized �+�indows -; - � ��; --- __� � ,, _, � .- � �' �=� ° �� .�"�{'�' � �— � « � �--� � �- � �� ! �� / � �� ; { 1 � � � � --� 7 � � 1` ,Y" — \ l � ` 1 :=. t—r �...: �,.� - ■ � i �t�` t F�.� � � - IIIR _ _ ^f -�-, � ��, ■ k'E �; Illf '�� ■ R ■ � s � ¢�77� � IIIP r - y l �;�.' �e� � _ I� I:4. r �a �j e C �� - � � •-.�" ,. �� f � � ��+ .� , '� ! I �� ' ' Y. Y � . � �" . : j ,. � � � } .. � �{ 'yt} _ 'hxd'`"''�f :�<�`�'I � ��f 1 ��',. � ' r�:". $`^'` , r� 2 �9��,.N' ,._ ' "' _ '.� jj _ , . � . �f �r _� — • Promineut Entry ° Front facade depth ° Arcl�itectural detail ° Wide roof overhangs • A�aterial variation • Varied lieigl�t and bulk ° Recessed garaee • Prominent entry Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 �,�� Z 103 CH.APTLR I9.�H-APPEI��DLXA CIiY �F CiJPERTLNO TN%0 STORY DESIGN PR]NCTPLES �:,;_„ 2.4 Windows Size and Pattern _ 2. DESIG�1 F�ATUxES. P�toPOxTro�vs �•i� �ETa1LS To Each arclutectural style has a typical pattern of BE CONSISTENT WITH ARCHITECTURAL S'TYLE ��indows that should be caizied out thr0u�hout your design. For assistance in understanding arcl�itectural styles and • Window size and proportion sl�ould be appropri- details, refer to the sources in the side bar on tbe right ate to the proposed architectural stylc. and on page 6. • Window styles should be consistent. 2.1 Architectural Details • Use grouped «�indows in combinations of two or Each architectural style has developed ��rith its own more ��here they are typical of the arcl�itectural style. � unique details that add human scale and visual interest. � ��` `�� _ Tl�eir use will ensure a consistency of scale aud design ��*�� 1e " `�, � a authenticity. � ' � � , 'r`' ; � �'�'��. • Use decorative elements and details that are typical '/�� 1i �� ;� ofthe architectural style selected. E.g. use Spanisl� = _��'�' Style details on a Spavish Style hoine and not a Ranch � �''' - °.�� ' 1uQw � �� Stylehome. y �� 1�'! ��' ,�_ �� • Select wall siding, triin and roofing materials that f ,, �� ;: ,aia �� -��; � ,�,- . �: are suitable to the architectural style selected. -- -� ` • Visually definitive ��indow trim is highly desirable �^ �� for both ��vood siding and stucco structures. Grouped windows • Use of natural triin materials for projecting triin ' Relate and align the location of windo«s on around windows and doors is desirable. If simulated second floois to those on the first floor, if possible. material is used, material that can be painted or cov- Placement should not appear haphazard. ered ��ith a smooth stucco f nish should be used. 2.2 Porches and Entries ARCHITECTURAL STYLE Porches and entry features should be proportional and These principles are not intende.d to establish or dictate a appropriate to architectural style: specific style. ��Jhile a wide range of arcllite�ctural styles is • Select coluinus that are traditional to the architec- acceptable, there is an expectation tl�at any specif c style tural style of the house. Take care in selecting coluinns selected ��ill be caiTied out «�iUl an integriry of forn�s and with an appropriate width to height ratio for the style. details that are consistent ��itl� that style. • Except for a veiy few styles, the columns should The follo��inq resow�ces may be usefiil to homeowners, have appropriate caps aud bases with proportions typi- builders, and design professionals in understanding the cal of the style. specia] qualities of specific liouse styles. • Provide a well proportioned beam bet��een the • A Field Guide to American Homes column caps and the roof. Size and detail the beam so Virginia & Lee A�fcAlester that it looks like a convincing sh member. Alfred A. I{��opf 2000 • Railings should be coiZStructed of materials suitable . The Abrams Guide to American House Styles to the architectural style. Hoines with predominantly ��lkin A�orga�i stucco and stone exteriors may have inetal or precast Harry N. AUrams, Inc 2004 stone railings othen�vise railings should be constructed of wood. Provide both top and bottom rails with the '!�ouse Styles in An�erica bottoin rail raised above the porch floor level for ��ood .�ames C. Massey alld metal railings. Penquin Studio 1996 • Celebrating the Amea Home Note: All porches should be functional ��ith a mini- ,loanne Kellar Bouknight mum depth of 6 feet. The Taunton Press 200� 2.3 Balcolves • Tl�e Distinctive Home, A Vision of Timeless Design • Large second floor decks should be supported on Jeremiah �ck appropriately sized and propar coluiruis. The Taunton Press 2005 • Balcony rail'mgs should be designed as discussed for porch railings. Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 P�AGE 3 104 CH.4PTLR I I.ZH - APPENDLX A CITY' OF CUPERTTidO TR'0 STORY DESIGN PRII.CIPLES 2.5 Detail Materials Installation Guides • Openings in walls should be consh as if they were coustructe�d of the traditional inaterial for tl�e �� -- s le. For exam le rovide substantial wall s ace Second ffoor , ty P �P p setbacks above arches in stucco and stone «�alls. Traditionally, .. , , �r! e� � iii wall space abo� e the arch �� as necessary to sri �� , � A' , span the opening. ;j _ � ;� � : : . _;�, • Treat synthetic stone as one «�ould design «�ith real - g ndow �� stone (e.g., nonnal coursing for load-bearing walls - pop out ra m m �``�� - VVltll S1g1llf1Callt 1'eh1111S 2t «�1riC10\TJS 3I1C� C01712PS t0 �(� 6e q! UI u n e� n u n �r e■ ��_� ec re e� er n u ea e■ avoid a pasted-on look). ,� - � • Opeiungs in walls faced with stone, real or syn- °i�-._ thetic, should liave defuied lintels or headers above the __ �, � ��'` �'�' - opening except in Mission or Spanish styles. Lintels or - �� headers may be stone, brick or wood as suits the style of the house. — �� Substantial • Make materials and color changes at inside corners chimne � roaf overhang ±^ rather than outside coniers to avoid a pasted on look. y♦ � ��_ - ` � - -� � 11 ti =: , �. �—� Wa{I�� _. . ! I `� � _ : Parch Inside ` �"�� lnsrde uBfCICB� - _ -v � � ` Wall -� �. -�? � r , - '.� I - _ � - ~ lane � �-_` G � -?� � Oufside 4 . Outside p ST�1, �, � �� change � ' _k Change materials Not at <' rX and colors at outside ---- inside corners corners ' ' r i��i'��k 3. FACADE 1�RTICULATION � " � , Architectural '' :s� �: detail Inset balcony 3.1 Visual Relie£ Techniques - � �—�"�----� The following tecluiiques offer ��ays to mitigate the `� �'� �,,, �� bulk of larger homes in smaller scale neighborhoods �; � and the iinpact of t��o-story tall ��=alls on adjacent _ °`- _ . , . . -, neighbors and the streetscape. � i °`�� -�`�.�' L , M • 5econd floor setbacks • Horizontal and vertical wa11 plane changes eay window Horizontal plane • Pop outs and materials changes • Bay ��rindows �=' - • Cluillneys • Wide overhangs with projecting brackets . • Juliet balconies ,�, �_ Recessed windows � �� µ4 r . � ''� a, • Belly bands r ,,' `;�- ---°- ��,'� ,, .t �', . � Windo«� boxes and pot shelves � " ��=`� '! • Landscaped trellises aud lattices ! B -: , • Projecting window trim �'^ ,.� — ': -� ` �'" • Materials and color changes - �� • Inset balconies _ -,;.,� �= • Applied decorative featui -+ ' _ � • Recessed garage doors � ' T �`-' - • Recessed windows . rre��is _ � - = ��".° - . � • Window trim �� - -- • Tall trees to break up views of long walls Adopted by Ciry Council on 3/17/09 I'.acF � 105 CHAPTER 19. � H- APPEI�UIX A � C7TY OF CUPLRTWO 1 R'O STORY DESIGN PRINCIPLES � Architectural detail DeeP �. .�._ . recessed �`� Architectur•al detail I - v„ � ^ „� - _ � window .,-.� y� ,�.— �- - .. . . '°' . � ' ' � � LI t� , �� .' -- I ' y � oae � k ' � - �, ;� Juliet .'" �, � (' i; ; � _ - - x �? bafcony � m: � _ �- r ^��- � �: µ �, � � .R ir ... �.�' • "'� - Recessed " j. Hoe�izontal � " Porch ul..'� ��;; ' e � i ti+Fe9�l I»l.li�E��:�� i�d vertical Recessed � ,�,; ,. ; �vindows ' r r: �: �, p{ane 9arage doors' ' . - _ ,_:�- G � d atisets - - - window trim �: ' ` � _ � : r - __ '� �� : "m*y�(� Recessed windows � Architectural detail �, , z�►_ � .: . « t.: �r" ' . � �; � �r� Architectural �i - , ;� '�" � , i �detail f€: - � � _, ` .. `� �Window ^ '� - , : . boX ��, �' �� . � — � — s , . :�� ^ —�; �;' ; �:�:� •�' .. � � Recessed and �;: ��i �I' � �� ■� ., .... .... r -: ur `, � r� � _ �. split garage � � i .d � t }- : .. . - - �.�� doors � d� teria .�.' ., _ � _ � �„� :. _ -_-- "� �roryinent � i!1'u �Wla 9 Is _ �.. - � ent �` ` v�,:�,�_ chan e ' '�- �` � rc t ecture detail ` Recessed windows / ;' r „� ,-, Substantial i ".��. and architectural detail ' � roof overhang � i` � , t � 1 .?� � � , � � � . � � _ _ .� � ' � � :<. y . � � � _ .. . _ . . .�.....,. _-- , "°°= � � , . . � �. ` . . . . . . _ .;; � .�, , � _ . i , .;�' . -� � _ . , ��; %, ,�-- ,� — � i ♦-- Bay windowr �� - '�"".y� ,�� -, -_ �. -_._ ,� q �,� : � :. Vertical � �-� �' � 4 � ;s ��' `. ,�, _ _. , wall : u tt� n ' ,. ��• _ 3�a`�' r � . ... ... �., � Set back .. -- �� u `"�` ara e plane � r - ��-. Materials change g g change - ' _ �� and belly hand L1 f . �.._._. — �� " - f�rchitectural detail % Architectural "!' ! _.:_ � �':F��` � ` - � _ detail and : Large ` : _ `-= -``� _ � 6 window trim �, roof overhang % �-=� `� - '�.►".: Pot C � IM !!!ll° �!F': . -_�_ �'+'t ``' � f,., '� -- � ' [[[... a �� I I _ '�: �'-___ • �, f ",. _� -� ^,� / t shelf . _ - ��i: . � �:,_ � � . _ t' L j � � .: � � -''y �" �" — z`. : �:^ �` Belly 1 � �. � � � F�' �� _'"`" � band _ � _ - �- �� r� �,� �,. lti' �: ' . h � � . � _ � `, � , ° 3 '� , � - -=i ♦ Trim i Belly � f �' � � ';,� F! '' � T�..x._.. _`' 1 � � �-- �,=Chimney p PQreh �-�; • Materials change band, �� i€ �■ r_ - - "�.'` ";; C :�7.`+. —_ —_ — _ �.a�E � Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 106 CaaPrER 19.28 - �rsr.-nnc A CITY OF CL TWO S70RY DES1G'� PRP.CIPLES � 3.2 Defined Entry Feature eleinent to the ground or with supporting brackets at Entry features should be defiuitive and appropriate the base for first floor ��indo«�s. For second floor bay both in terms of scale and design to the style of the ��vindo«�s, supporting corbels or brackets are encour- house. aged. Sloped roofs should be used and covered with a � Covered porches are strongly encouraged. material that matches the roof material or with inetal. Especially in neighborhoods with a predoininance • Avoid usiu� wa11 � of one-story homes, a porch with a roof at the first materials beri��een �`� � , Qifferent roof '°� � floor will help to integrate the ne«, taller house ia�to the individual � '� material �,� its sun�oundings. windows of the bay �.�;;f 3.3 Simple Farms window unless the � window is large. °� ;/-� Traditional architectural styles usually have rela- Generally, bay � L f �� 1 I tively simple floor plans and roof fonns (See ex- windows look best E�� n�� ' � -- Wood }ambs, amples on pages 4 and 5). when the windows � __== siUs and heads = ; ___ • De��elop plans and elevations together. are close togetl�er � -_�"— • Complex floor plans require complicated build- and separated by �� --` �� ing inasses and roof foi7ns which si�nificantly «�ood jainbs that == �. �,�— _�� _ increase the cost of construction. inatch «�ood sills =- '' �! and heads as sho��n ' =,-_:= strong base 4 � 3.4 Ba �vindows �su ort =�'�� y in the exainple. p!'--.-- Bay windows help add context and articulation to the house, ho��rever tl�e following should Ue consid- - _ ered when designing bay ��indows: �. _ < - . :. , - - �:`: �� +�_.�� ° Avoid very large bay ��indows that coinpete �uith 4. DESIGN WITH ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRIT'Y ON the entiy as the focal poiut of the house. �-L SIDES oF THE xOUSE • Bay windo��as should be designed with a base • Attention to detail and arclutectural consistency shall be maintained on all elevatioi�s of the house. TRADITIONAL DETAILS • Avoid "false fronY' architecture with attractive Architectural details will be e�pected to street facades and stripped do��vn facades facing neigli- follow ti sta»dards. Tlu•ee refer- bors on the second flooi•. ence resources that can help are the fol- � 1�\�11� � � � y'' �.�� x��!'Araw t^w5�'-�ie'y:-„ g � f' .� '�`�.�� ,. �r +� • Traditional Construction Pattei De- 5. UsE xiGx Qu�.r� �'rE�tr�.s sign & Detail Rules of Thumb Traditional materials, such as wood and stone, are de- Stepl�en A. Mouzon sirable, and sh encouraged. If synthetic material McGraw-Hill 2004 is used, it inust closely resemUle authentic inaterials. • Get Your House Rigl�t: Architechiral Elements to Use and Avoid ��: ��::� < ,,:.° 3., :' Marianne Cusato, Ben Pentreath, Rich- 6 SUSTAINABILITY ard Sammons, and Leon I�-ier T1_�e City of Cupeitino is �or�nitted to sustainable Sterling Publishivg 2008 planning that integrates and balances enviroiunental • Architectural Graphic Standards foi decisions with econoinic considerations and i Residevtial Consti Tl�e Archi- nizes the symbiotic relationship betweeu the natural tect's and Builder's Guide to Design envirorunent, the coirununity and the economy. Tlus Plamling and Constt Details cominihnent to enviroimlental stewardship, social (Ramsey/Sleeper Architectui Grapl�ic responsibility and economic vitality of our co�nunity Sta�idards Series) can be realized in all design projects, from single fain- Thc Americaii Institute of Architects ily residences to large coirunercial properties, thtough Jolul Wiley & Sons 2003 green building measures. Green building is defined as an iiltegrated framework of design, construction, operations and demolition pi that encoizipasses the enviroinnental, eco- Adopted Uy City Council on 3/17/09 �:�cE 6 107 � CHAPTER 19.ZH - APPENDLY A CITY Of CUPERTII�'O TN'0 STORY DESIGN PRNCIPLES nonuc, 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 pro- vide a healthy, productive indoor environment. 6.1 Green �uilding Principles New construction or additions to your home provides a wonderful opportunity to incorporate green building components. Green com�onents can be healthier for you and the enviromnent and save you money over time. Section 5, Environmental Resources/Sustainability, of The City of Cupertino's General Plan presents essen- tial coin�onents of a green building design and plan- ning process. These elements create a fiamework for evaluating green building measures applicable to the construction of two story residential design principles including but not liinited to: � Site planning � � • Energy efficiency � Material efficiency • Water conservation �'AGE 7 Adopted by City Council on 3/17/09 108 �� ° � - 42 °bi� lo 3(B° �e .. .� :o lt! �i S�1� � , � � � �� A I 8 , ' � � � � � B . ` B � ' 0 B � ° � ' e B a J � i � • . 8 , 8 � � . . . � e ' . . . � B g a . � 0° � e e A . � � e ' e s o �° e , � ' e , � a e � I � 109 I?osument referred to in Chapter 19.2�.070D Land�cape 1VLitigation Measure§ PItI�Ir�CY SCIZEENII�G I1�IATEIZIt�LS I> NOI�-I�ECII7LTOiJ� TIZEES Plani-�ng Distanse� �ieight S�read M�cimum A. Cedrus Deodara—Deodara Cedar to 80' 40' Q ground 20' B. Melaleuca Linarifolia—Flaxleaf Paperbak 30' 12-15' 6' C. Pinus Helipensis—Aleppo Pine 40-60' 20-25' 10' D. Eucalyptus Polyanthemos—Silverdollar 20-60' 10-15' 5' E. Cirulamomom Camphora—Camphor 50' 50' 20' F. Arbutus Marina 40' 35' 15' G. Magnolia Grandiflora—Southern 80' 40' 20' Magnolia The minimum tree size shall be 24" box muiimum and a miniulum of 8' high planted height. See Page 2 of Appendix A for invumum planting distance from City street trees for planting in the front yard setback. II. NOI�-I�ECII�UOU� S�IR�(JBS A. Pittosporum Eugenoides 40' 20' 5' B. Pittosporum Tenuifolium 40' 20' 5' C. Pittosporum Crassifolium 25' 15-20' 8' D. PitEosporum Undulatum—Victorian Box 15-40' 15-40' 8' E. Cupressus Sempervirens—Italian Cypxess 60' 3-6' 5' F. Podocarpus Gracilior—Fern Pine 60' 20' 10' G. Privet Ligustrum— Glossy Privet 35-40' 20' 10' H. Laurus Nobilis — Grecian Laurel 15-40' 20' 10' I. Rhus Lancia—African Sumac 25' 20' 10' The minimum shrub size shall Ue 15-gaIIon minimum and a minimum of 6' high planted height. See Page 2 of Appendix A for minimum planting distance from City street trees for planting in the front yard setback. I�ote�: The Community Development Department may use other species than those listed above subject to approval. Applicant shall be required to submit adequate documentation in order for approval of other planting materials. Documentation shall include a letter from an I�lternationally Certified Arborist or Landscape Architect stating that the materials proposed will meek or exceed height, spread criteria and growth rate of listed materiaLs and that they are suitable for planting on the applicant's �roperfy. The goal is to provide a partial screening after three years' growth following planting. The purpose of this list is to give the mitii.n planting distance between the required street tree/shrub planting in front yard setUacks and the Cily street tree. 110 PLI-�IVTII�IG I�ISTANCE- CITY �'I'1tEET 'I'1ZEE �I'ItEAD IVtINIMUNI A. St. Mary 1Vlagnolia* 20' 10' B. Crape Myrtle 20' 1Q' C. Privot 20' 10' D. California Buckeye 20' 10' E. Birch 20' 10' F. Holly Oak 20' 10' G. Aristocrat Flowering Pear* 30' 15' H. Flowering Plum* 30' 15' I. Mayten 30' 15' J. Melaleuca 30' 15' K. Eastern Redbud* 30' 15' L. BrisUane Box� 40' 20' M. Liquid Amber 40' 20' N. Carob 40' 20' O. Geigera 40' 20' P. Rhus Lancia 40' 20' Q. Lirodendron 40' 20' R. Chinese Pistacio* 50' 25' S. Ginko* 50' 25' T. Chinese Hackberry* 50' 25' U. Elm 50' 25' V. Sycamore 50' 25' W. Mulberry 50' 25' X. Silk Tree 50' 25' Y. Raywood Ash 50' 25' Z. Medesto Ash 50' 25' I�A. Shammel Ash 50' 25' BB. Camphor 60' 30' CC. Zelkova 60' 30' �Denotes tree currently on street tree list. Other trees previously on list and may curren�ly exist as a street tree. (Ord.1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord.1834, (part},1999) 111 Document refer�esi to in Chapfier 19.28.070� (2) Itelease of 1'rivacy I'xotection NIeasures Single-Family Residential Ordinance Ordinance 19.28 (Single-Fam�ly) requires that after Sepfember 21, 199�, all new fwo-story additions or homes be required to complete privacy protection measures. Staff may grant a modification or deletion to this requirement if the adjacent affected property owners sign a release agreeing to modify or delete the requirement. Date Property Location Address I agree to waive or modify the privacy protection measures required of the Single-Fanuly Residential Ordinance as follows: Property Owner: Address: Phone: Signature: (Ord.1860, � 1 (part), 2000; Ord.1834, (part),1999) 112 I'rivacy Protection Planf�ng Affidavit Purpose: To assure the decision-makers and neighbors that the privacy protection planting has been installed according to the planting plan. Validation. An Internationally Certified Arborist or Licensed Landscape Architect shall certify the design and accuracy of the privacy protection planting. A reduced eleven by seventeen copy of the approved plantulg plan shall be attached. Submittal of this form shall be required prior to final inspection of the residence. Planting Certification: I certify that the privacy protection planting and irrigation is installed at: address and it is consistent in design, height and location with the landscape planting and irrigation plans drawn by: dated (atEached). Name Title Professional License # Date (Ord. 1868, (part), 2D01; Ord.1860, § 1(part), 20Q0; Ord.1834, (part),1999) 113 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPEPTINO, CA 9501�-3255 C�J p E RT �� 0 (�08) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 •��lannin�@cu��ertino.or� Subject: Report of the Community Development Director Plaiuling Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 The City Council met on July 5, 2011 and discussed the following item(s) of interest to the Planning Commission: 1. Cleo Avenue Project (Habitat for Humanitv) - City Council approved the project with the following changes: ➢ add a ninth parking space to t11e site plan for a parking ratio of 2.25 open stalls per dwelling in lieu of t11e required 2.8 stalls (garage and open) per dwelling; ➢ increase the side setback along tlie eastern edge from four feet to five feet; ➢ set the affordability terin for the project at 65 years; and ➢ add articulation to the buildings along the eastern and southern property lines or, as an alternative, add a landscape screen. Miscellaneous Items: 1. Grants for Stevens Creek Corridor Park P11ase 2 Proiect - On Tuesday June 28, the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors voted to award two grants to tlle Stevens Creel< Corridor Park Phase 2 project. The Board unaiumously supported awarding the City of Cupertino a$285,000 Trail and Open Space grant, and a$565,000 Environmental Enllancement Impleinentation grant. Public Works' efforts to secure these grants were outstanding. On Friday June 25, we subnlitted a new application for an Urban Greening grant for Stevens Creek Corridor P11ase 2. Awards will be decided u1 the early part of next year. In Septeinber another promising grant program will be available, the Habitat Conservation Fund Program. Stevens Creek Corridor Park Phase 2 creek restoration should be a good fit for this program. 2. Post-Construction Monitorulg at 6191 Bollinger Road - Attached is a report on tlie post- construction radio frequency (RF) energy inonitoring for the Clearwire facility located at 6191 Bollulger Road. The facility has been up and working sulce February 2011 and the nlonitoring indicates that the RF levels are within FCC guidelines. Upcoming Dates: July 14-28 Cinema at Sundown Aug 13-14,19-21, 26-28 Shakespeare in the Park, 7:30 pm, Memorial Parl< Amphitheater Aug 14 Distinguished & Emerging Artist Awards, 7:10 pin, Memorial Park Anlplutheater Enclosures: RF Report for 6191 Bollinger Road News Articles G: � Plarmirig � �artiS � Dir�>ctm�'s R��port � pd7-12-11.doc 114 [ f � [ CITY OP CUI'ERTINO 1Q300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Califor:n.ia 95014 {408) 777-3308 Ta Mayor and City Council Members Chairperson and Platu�ing Coxnmissioners I � Frorn: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Deve�opment � Prepared by; Colin Jung, ATCP, Senior Planr�er Date: June 33, 2011 Subject; Infoxmational I#ern: post-construction radio freq�xency energy monitaring #or a � Clearwire persanal wireless service facility located on a church rooftop at 6797 . Bollinger Road, File Na. DIR-201Q-Q5 ' � F BACKGROUND In 2010, the Director of CommtuZity Development approved a Clearwire personal wireless service facility screened on the rooftop af an existing church at 61918ollinger Road. On August i 3, 2010, the City Council dertied an appeal of the Director's decision, approving the project with condition requiring post-construction radio frequency (RF) energy testing at various intervals to ascertain t�at f-he facility vvas complying with federal safety standards for radio freq�e�cy energy exposuxe. The exposuxe standard for this type of facility ('WIMAX technoiogy axid others) is 1.00 rnilliwatt pex centimeter squared (mW/cm�). An initial RF stud�r pxepared zn conjunction with the project proposal calculated the estimafed RP' exposure using several worst �ase assurnptions. The projected maximum ground floor exposure is 0,0027 mW/cm? ox 0.27% of the rnaximum permissi6l� ex�osure lunit; the exposure at a hypothetical second floor of the closes� residence was estimated to be 0,001� mW/cm or 0.1�% of the maximum permissible exposure, The facility was comple�ed i.n Febxuary 2013. and powered up. � D�SCUSSION 'I'he RP consultant, Hammett & Edison, pxe�ared two new reports. 'I'I�e first testing �ras campleted on December 8, 20Z0 to measure ambient RF energ�r be�ore th.e CI.earwire facility was cample�ed (Attacment A}. There is an Existing personal r�vireless facility lacated across Bollinge� ;` Road in San rose on the shopping center raof. The se�ond repart is for RF monitoring canducted vn �'ebruary 11, 207.1 aftex the Clearv,rire facility was completed in early February and powered up (Attachmen� B), Bath reparts have already been maiied �o the ap�ellant, The results �fr the post canstruction repor� are summarized in Table 13�elow. [ , € � . � � � 1�15 � . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ ; k �zR-�oxo-o5 6191 Bollinger Road Post-Consi�ruction RF Monitorir�:g Report 1'age 2 Max, RF Expasure I'rojected Ambient Measured RF Maximum I,ocation Max. Conditions Exposure Permitted ` Hi hest Level Ex osure Grade Level O.Q027 Q.OQ036 0.00029 1.00 ' Poten#ia7 2nd Story Q.QQ14 Not measured 0.0013 (calculatecl.) 1.OQ Leve1 of Nearest Residence Table 1; Comparison af Prajected, Am�bient and Measured Radio Frequencp Energy of a Clearwire Personal Wixeless Ser�rice Facitity at b191 Bollinger Road {Measured in rnW/cmz) � The highest axnbient RF power exposiue xneasured on Dacember $, 201D occurred at the noxtheast corner of Miller Avenue and Bollinger Road (O,OOQ36 xx�W/cm The measured RF energy expoaure a# grac�e level while i�he Clearwire facility is operating ranged frorn 0,040013 Yo i � 0.00029 mW/cznz. The highest energy exposure was measured at the northwest corner of Milter , Avenue and Craig Drive ixi San Jose (0.00029 mW/cm A11 of the ambient and Clearwire RF energy exposure measarements are �ell below the federal safety standard of 1,OD mW/Cnt Reviewers shauld note that the measuremex�ts listed above are for di#fexent locations neax the anfennas. Reviewers can expect to see hour-to-ho�r and day-to-day fluctuatzons ix► the RF power outp�t due to the nuxnber of users aecessing �ie cell site faci�ties at any one time. ; Maximurr► R�' power output is a calculated #igure dexi�red by the co�s�xltant and based on the radio equipment used, worst case operational assumptions and distances from the antennas. � E The nearest residence is a ar►e-story duplex, so there is no 2nd story from which to rneasure the R� energy exposu�e. The co�sultant, Hammett & Edison, examined �he manufacf.urer's � ant�nna patEern data to :identify the larges� pathern difference tha# would apply far a higher ' elevation exposure for all zneasured locations. That anaiysis inc.reased the power density to ! O.Q013 zn.W/cmz, Yvhich is Q.�3% of the maxitrn�n permissible limit (Attaclirnent C}. CONCI.USI�N : Based on the post construction RP study, the approved Clearwire wireless facilit�r is operating within the allowable federal safety standards. T'he next znonitaxing periad will be six months after facility installation, or mid-August 2011. The applicant has been informed and staff will provide ana�her report once we receive the constxltan�s report. � Attachments: ' A) Hamrnett &�dison RF Report on Ambient Canditions on December 10, 2Q�Q. � B) Hamrnett & Edison RF Report on Past-Construction RF Monitoring on February 15, 201� " �` C} Harrunett & Edison �une � 0, 2011 SupplernentaI Sfatement to February 15, 2011 report G: \ Plan�ing\ PDREP�RT\ DIRreports\ DIIZ�2.010-05_Monitoring. doex 1 3 � � . � � - . . .... . . ..... ... 11�6 _ __. . _ .... __ ___ _ __ � (.�Pt� -� C��rv �,� rn � e�C C�� cns � � �� . � �� t p € ` Clearwire, LLC • Propnsed Base Station (5it� Na. CA-SFOO'140B) ' 619'I BoEl�nger Road • Cuper#ino, California � ATTACHME�T A � Statemer�t of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers �: ! The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Cansulting Engineers, has been retain�d by Clearwire, LLC, a r�vireless telecornmunications carrier, to e�aluate its bas� station (Site No, CA-SF00140�} propased to ', be located at 6191 Bollinger Road in Cupertino, Ca(ifornia, for compliance with appropriate guideIines limiting human expasure to radio frequency {"RF") electromagnetic fields, . i � Executive Summary I � Clearwire proposes to install three direotional panel antennas above the roof of the West � , Valley Presbyterian Church, lacated at 6191 Bollinger Road, Measurements have k�een ��! conducted of existing ambient exposure le�els in t�e vicinity under the existing conditions, ' � bafore construction. ' � Prevailing Exposure Standards � The U.S. Cor�gress requires that the F'ederal Commun.ications Cammission ("�CC") evaluate its � �` aatians for possible significant impact on the environment. A summary of the �CC's exposure iimi#s ' is shown in �'igure 1, These �imits apply for continuaus exposures and are intended ta provide a ' prudent margin of saf�ty for ail persons; regardless of age, ger�der, size, or health. The most restricti�e ' FCC limit fnr exposuras of unlimited duratian to radio frequency energy for severa! wirefess services are as fotlows; E ireless 5e ice Fre uane Band Occu ational Limit Public L3mit , � Microwave (Point-to-Pointj 5,000-80,000 MHz 5.00 mW/cm 1,00 mWlcm j BRS (Broadband Radio) 2,600 5.00 1,00 ' AWS (Advaneed Wireless) 2,1QQ 5,00 1.00 �' `: PCS (PersonaE Communicatinn) 1,950 5,00 1.Q0 �'i Cellular 870 2,90 0,58 I; � SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) 855 2,85 Q.57 � 70Q MHz 700 2,35 0,47 ' � [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1,00 0,20 , i : General �acility Requirements ; ; Antennas for base station use ar� d�signed to concentrate their �nergy toward tl�e horizon, with very little ener�y wasted toward the slcy ar the ground. Along with the low porrver af such facilities, this 3 means that it is generally not possible for exposrxre conditians to approach the FCC limits without , being physicatly very near the antennas. '� � , � 1 � � ' � i � " " ��'� HAMMETT & EDI50N, INC, � �' 'p , �. �;..�,*,� ;<.�� co�s[��r�cMt�uiN��ts CWOl40S96M Y��i :�:�;��:�:� s��N i=a,�NC�scn Page 1 of 3 E [ i € i I € . . _ . . 117 L G . � ' Clearwire, LLC - Proposed Base Station (Si�e No. CA-SF00140B) ' 6191 Bollinger Road • Cupertino, Galifornia ' Site Descriptior� � � # The site at the intersection of Bollinger Road and Miller Avenue in Cupertino was visited by the � I ` undersigned engineer during evening cnmmute hours on December 8, 2010, a non-haliday weelcday, : A light rain was failing and temperatures wexe about �6°F, The Clearwire antennas are ta be �nounted ', within a view screen enclosure above the west end of the peaked roof of the tnain building at the Wes� . Va11ey Presby#erian Church. No construction was �vident at the tima of the measuretnents, '� Reportedly located a6ove the Safeway supermarket across Bollinger Raad were base station antenna� far use by another wireless telecammunications carrier, j ; � � ' Measurement Results The measurement equipment used was a Wandel & Goltermann Type EMR-300 Radiation Meter wi�h Type 18 Isotropic Electric Field Frobe (Serial No, F-0434), The meter and probe were under current �, calibration by the manufacturar, Measurements were condUCted at variaus locations along Bollin�er � Road and Miller Avenue, as summarized in the table an Page 3. Measuraments were taEcen on the sidewallc, unless otherwise no#ed. Pawer density levels ranged frorn 0,000019 to 0.00436 mWlem�. I I � Conclusion ' Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professianal opinion that representative rr�easurements have been conducted oF ambient radio frequency exposure levels within 200 feet of the site at 6�91 Bollinger Raad in Cupertina, California, for the proposed Clearwire, LLC ! base station, ' � i . Authorshi� The undersigned a�thar of this statement is a quali�ied Professional Engineer, holding California � Registratian Nos. E�1302C and M-20676, which expire on ]une 30, 2�11, This work has been carried out under his direction, and af1 sta#errmer�ts are true and correct of } own lcnowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct, I' ��°��° �' �: ",q, . � v� �'� �'13028 �'� ' ' c � M•20678 Williatn F. Ham tt, P.E. Ea�. 6•30-2U1S 707/996-5204 ''' ,. Deaember 10, 2010 * �'�C� �'� � �i' `� �'c�rAw+� ,��' �ofi c�� '�� - HAMME'T'�' & EDISON, TNC, CWO140596M I CU�SIIL'i'ENG lii�It;1NIiJ.125 �_ �:. ... �< ..sAN r�rt�NC�[srx� Page 2 af 3 , . E � � I � , . .. 118 � . ' ` __ _ ... . _ _ _ __ _ _ _ i � � € € �? Clearwire, LLC • Propas�d Base StaEion (Site No. CA-SF001408) '� 6'19'I Ba[linger Raad • Cuper�ino, Cali#ornia ', Representati�e Measurements of Ambient R�' Power Density { Mcasurement Location Meastired Power f � on sidewalk unl ss noted Densi mWlcm ; .� Miller Avenue north af Baflinger � � NE corner of intersection 0.00036 ' aligned with narth sanctuary face 0,0043Q � at first tree in parlcing lot O,DOOId !' at second �ree in parlcing Eot 0,00427 at third �ree in parlcing lot 0,4002Q driveway for #951 0,40019 driveway for#957�-967 O,OOQ18 ` driveway for #973--9'75 0,40021 driveway for #983 0,00028 Bollinger Road west of Miller NW cornsr of intersection 0.�0030 '� � driveway for #6325-6727 0.000056 driveway for #6341-6339 0.000040 � dri�eway for #b379 0.�00019 ` driveway for #6376 O,p00�38 �� dri�veway far �#6336 {no number) 0,00�027 driveway for #6324 0,000034 . Miller A�enus south of Boilinger SW corn,er af intersection a.Q0019 . at bus stop bench 0,00021 aligneci with end of fence 0.00017 NW corner of Craig Drive O.OQ022 ; driveway far #1013 0.00020 on berm behind light pale Q.00012 south side of driveway for retail center 0,00013 on berm 15 ft south of marqu�e 0.00013 at bus stop bench 0.04Q22 Bollinger Road east af Miller � SE corner of intersection 0.04031 at water valve 4.OQ019 opposite first planter in parking lot O,OQ030 wast side first driveway 4.�Q012 at curb by bus stop O.OQ013 ' iniddle school marquee 0,00[}19 driveway �'or middle schoal 0.00018 � driveway for church 0.00423 � � � aligned with east sanct�aary face 0.04026 �!� � � MeasUrements talcen Deaember $, 201Q. See text, ' r , _.�� '' � HAMMETT & EDT50N, TNC, ' �.�� .��w=..; co�suu��NC�n�ciNx��S CW0140595M � �=z� :r�� '�; saN rR�a�ccst� Page 3 af 3 � ; E � � € � . . � � �.g � . . � � . _ : � € . . . � �CC Radio Frequency Protectinn Guide The U,S, Cangress required (1995 Telecorn Act) the Faderal Communications Commission {"FCC") to ado�t a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cusnulatively, have a significant impact on the environmen#. The FCC adapted the limits fram Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electrornagnatic Fields," published in 1986 by the j CongrassionalIy charCered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). � Separate lirnits apply for occupational and public exposure conditinns, vt+ith the iat��r limits g�nerally �ive times more restrictive. The mora recent standard, developed by t�ie Institute of Electrical an� Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSI/IEEE C95,1-2006, "Safety ' Levels with Respect to Human Exposure �o Radio Frequency EIectrornagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes simulax limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures fram a11 sources and are intended ta prnvid� a prudent margin o� safety for all persons, re�ardless of age, gender, size, or � health. 3 � As shovvn in the table and chart below, separate timits appiy far accupational and public exposure I I conditions, with the Iat�er limits (in italics and/or dashed} up to five times more restrictive: Frequencv _ Flectrama�netic Fields (Fis frec�uency of emission in MHz) - Applicable �lectric Magnetio Equivalant Far-Field Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (MHz) (Vlm) (Alm) {mW/cm 0,3 -- 1,34 614 G14 3,53 1.63 100 100 1,34— 3,0 614 823,8/f l.&3 2,19/f 100 18%f 3,0 — 30 1842/ f 813,8/f 4.89/ f 2,19/f 900/ f 18%J 30 — 3�R 61,4 27.5 Q.163 0.0729 1,0 0,2 30{1— 1,500 3.S4�f 1.59�f 1�f1106 '+ff/238 f/300 f/1500 � 1,500— 14�,000 137 (1.4 0,364 0,153 5,0 1.0 ' , � ��fl Occupatianat Exposure �� I00 � PCS N � �� 10 �� FM Cell a; q � � �y � �� a. �, 0.1 Public E'xposure 0. f 1 10 ] 00 10 l 0 1 p Frequenay (MHz) Higher levels are ailawed for short periods af time, s�ch tliat total exposure levels averaged over six or � thirty zninutes, far occupational or public setting;s, respeotively, do not exceed the li�nits, and higher Ievels also are allowed for exposures fo srnail areas, such that the spatially a�eraged leveis do nat exceed the lirnits. Hawever, naither Qf these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for prajecting �eld levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formttlas into a praprietary program tha# � calculates, at each Iocation on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individ�al radio sources. The pragram allovvs far the description of buiidings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMBTT & E�77TSON, TNC. FCC Guidelines � CONSCLLTING HNGIIVSHRS f . RAN PReWCLSCU Figure 1 .... .. _ .. . . . 120 .... � . �a�`'s� C�,.,.s'�rv e�ia� �-2,ve��S ! � D � : a2.� l�l � 1 ; Clearwire, L.LC • Base S�ation Na. CA-SJC0140B 6191 Bollinger Rnad • Cu�er#ino, Califarnia At�achmen� B � ! 5tatement a� Hammett & Edisan, lnc,, Consulting Engineers i � � l The �irm of Hamrnett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained by Clearwire, LLC, a ' wireless personal telecornmunications carrier, to evaluate its existing base station (Site No. CA- ' SJC014DB) located at 6191 Boilin�er Road in Cupertino, California, forr campliance with appropriate ' guidelines limiting human exposure to radia frequency ("RF") electromagnetia fields, � � ; Executi�e Summary i � � I C�earwira had install�d directional pane! antennas above �he raof of the West Va�ley Presbyterian Church located at 6141 Bollznger Road, All exposure levels under Ehe existing conditions for anyone in publicly accassible areas nearby were well below the federal s�andard, j F Pre�ailing Exposure S�andards � � The U.S. Cangress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"} evaluate its � actions for possible signi�cant impact on the environment. A summary of the FCC's exposure [imits ,`' is shawn in Figure I, These iimits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a ' prudent margin af safety for alI persot�s, r�gardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive ' rCC limit for exposures nf untimited duration to radio frequency energy far several wireless ser�ices � , ; are as follows; , ' � Wireless Service Fre uenc Band �ccu ational Limit Pu6lic I.imit ' Microwave (Point-to-Point) 5,000-80,0�0 MHz 5,00 mWlcm 1.D0 mWlcm � BRS {Broadt�and Radio) 2,6Q0 5.00 1.00 �� ; A WS (Ad�anced W ireless) 2,100 5.40 1.00 k PCS (Persanal Communication) 1,950 5.40 I.O� ; i. Cellular 870 2.90 D,58 SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) 85S 2.85 0.57 � 700 MHz 700 2,35 0.47 F : [most restrictive frequency range] 30-�300 1.00 0.20 ` General Facility Requiremen�s ' Antennas for base station use are designed to concentrate their energy toward tl7e harizon, with very littie energy wasted toward the slcy or the ground. Along with the low power af such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions tQ approaoh the FCC lir,�its without being physicaily very near the antannas. � ,. : f , ; i � �� 3" { =� ,5 s:n HAMME'IT & EDI50N, TNC. � �?:��,��',�;�N3-� PDJI. �„��f R *:.�= CU�SUl.1'lA€C ri1�1GlNiSL�RS � ��;: �:: �s?.a;-�r snt� ��iianrr.isc� Page 1 of �} ` � � . I l . . � .. � 121 �.. , ` r � Clearwire, LLC • Base Statian No. CA-SJC0140B 6'i91 Bollinger Road • Cupertino, California ; Site �escriptian i The site at the interssction of Ballinger Road and Mi11er Avenue tn Cupertino was visited by Mr. David Keily, a quali�ed field technician contracted by Hammett & Edison, Inc., during normal ; business hours an February 10, 2�11, a non-hotiday wee�cday, Clearwire had installed directional panei antennas within a new enclosure abave the pealc of the roof of the West Valley 1'resbyterian �, � Chr�rch, located at 5191 Ballinger Road. Access to the antennas vcr�s restricted by their maunting �y � lacation. Repoi�tedly located above tl�e Safeway supermarlcet acrass Bollinger Road were base s#ation � ' antennas for �se by another rwireless teEecommunications carrier, i � i Measurement Results The measuremen� equipment used was a Wandel & Galterrnann Type EMR-300 Radiation Meter with ' Type 18 Isotropic Electric Field Probe (Serial No. F-0034j. The meter and probe were under currenf � calibration by the manufacturer. Measurements were conducked at variaus looations along Bollinger � Road and Miller Avenue, as summarized in the tabie on Pa�;e 4. Measuremer�ts were taken on the sidewalk, unless otherwise noted. Power density leveis ranged from O.00OQ13 to 0.00029 mWlcm ' Compared with the measuraments faken several manths earlier, before the Ciearwire base station was constructed, th�re was no gen�ral increase in expos�are l�veis. The highesf level observed in the most recent visit was aver 3,000 times below the ailowable limit for exposures of unlimited d�ration. � Conclusion Based on #he information and analysis abo�ve, it is the �ndersigned's professional opinion that the ' Clearwire, LLC base station located at b191 BolIinger Road in Cupertino, California, as installed and operating at the time af the visit, complies with the FCC guidelines limiting public exposure ta radio frequency energy and, therefore, daes not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. � � � � : I i � � � , i ;;a `�',�°k��'��` a' HAIVIMET'F & EDISON, iNC. �:��;�_.. •;r,:.=�_; POJL ,;�� . °1 cor�sui:r'IiJG e�GtNtintts _ , � ;c. � . a,: �i� .. � ,_ + . _.t �.��.:.�rr< S,1hSI1tANC:ISf.'O Page 2 of 4 122 �� Clearwire, I.LC • Base Stafion Na. CA-SJC0I�OB 6'199 Bollinger Road � Cupertino, Californ�a E Authorship � The undersigned author of this statement is a qualifi�d Professional Enginaer, halding Califarnia � � Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which e�tpire an .Tune 30, 2011. This work has been carried � out under his direction, and all statements are teue and correct af his own lrnawledge except, wh�re ' noted, when data has 6een supplied by others, which data he belie�ves to be carrect. �' � ��,o��ss�o �` �' "'�,'� � � � S� E-13�8 � � ` r , c M William �'. Ham tt, P,E, �' tG �a�.8•30• � 7�71996-5200 Februaty 15, 2011 � � P�' � �,� �� p�1��`�� ! � �o�c�+��F° � i,. k I � I i � � r . ; - � �k I i � �; i""^��i HAMM£?T'I' & EDISON, INC, "'•-:: s ,-^ -�" CONSUL'l'WC GNC[NliF?I25 P07L �� f'uR;;��`:'��* snN 1�i�ANr.isc� Page 3 af 4 E € � i. _ � � . . ..,. 92�.. �....;: ... . _.. _ ` ` � E Clearwire, LLC • Base Sfation No. CA-5JC014flB � 6191 Bollinger Road • Cupertino, Califvrnia � � Representa�ive Measuremen#s of Arnbient RF Power Density � � � Measurad Potver Measured Power � Measuremant Locafion Density (mWlem Det�sity (mW/cm � on sidawa�3c uniess noted Decembar & 2Q10 Februa 1 l 2D11 � Miller Avenue north of Bollinger ' ' NE corner of intersection 0.4003� 0,00012 ' aligned with north sanctuary face O.00Q30 O,QOQd77 at �rst tree in parlcing lot D.QOQ16 0,004436 secon re in arlcin lot 0.00027 O.00UO29 �l at d t e p g � at third tree in parlcing iot O.Q0020 0.400D25 i � driveway for #9S 1 0.04019 0.400022 drivevvay for #957-967 0.00018 0.00009�9 driveway for #9�3-�975 OA0021 0.40Q10 ' driveway for #983 0.04028 O.Q0013 Ballinger Road west af Miller NW carner of intersection 0,00030 O.00OQ99 I �j. driveway for #6325-6727 0:000456 OA04051 '� dri�eway for #6341--6339 O.00Q040 O.00Q029 I'! , drivaway �or #5379 0.000019 0,000022 I' driveway far #6376 a.000038 0.000025 dri�eway for #6336 ?{no numbar) 4. nooa27 0.000013 driver�vay far #�324 0.000034 4.OQQ017 Miller Avenue south of Bollinger SW carner of intersection O,OOOI9 0.00017 ' ' at bus stop bench 0,00021 0.00020 ' ! aligned with end af fence 0.�0017 0,00019 ' � NW corner of Craig Drive � 0,00022 0.00029 ''. ciriveway for #1013 Q.OQ�20 0.0000�s ' �' 1 0 00412 D OOOQ 7 on berm beh�nd i ht a e 7 � . g p . , south side of drivewa For retail center 0,00013 a.00Q092 I �I; y on berm 1 S ft sauth of marquee O,OOQ13 0,00019 : at bus stap bench 0,00022 0.00013 I Bol[inger Road east of Miller SE corner of intersection 0.00431 0,00018 at water �+alve 0.00019 D.000077 . apposite first planter in parking lot 0,00430 6,00017 west sEde first driverr,ra�r Q,OOb12 O,�OQ038 � at curb by bus stop 0,00413 p,00p049 ' rniddle schaol marquee Q.0001�} O.00OOZ4 �!„ ; cEriveway for �niddle sahoal O.00Q1$ 0.000��2 driveway for church O,OOQ23 0.000049 { I � ali�ned with east sanctuary face Q,QQ026 0.00025 I ,, ;� r�~ n� HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. =t�' :r�� - � co�su�.7�tNc ��iN��KS POJL ��< i��'��:'..�: sn� s+it�,NCisco Page 4 of 4 . 124 . _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ . 3 I . " i , � FCC Radio �'requenCy Pratection Guide The U.S. Congress raq�ired (1996 Telecom Act} the Federal CotnrnunicaEions Commissian ("�CC"} ta adopt a na�ionwide human expasure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cutnulatively, have ` a significant im�act o:n the envi�anment, The F'CC adnpted tha limits from Report No. &5, "Biologieal � Et'fects and Exposure Criteria far Radiofrequency Electromagnetic �'ields," p�tblished in 1986 by the Cangressianally chartered National Council on Radiation Pratection and Measureriaents ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the 1att�r limits generally fi�e times more rest�ictive, The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electrnnics Engineers and appro�+ed as Arr�erican NaCianal Standard ANSI/�EE C95.1-2406, "�afety I.evels with Respect ta �Iuman Exposure to Radio Frequency Electramagnetic Fields, 3 1cHz to 30Q GHz," includes si�ilar lim.its. TY�ese Iimits apply �'or continuous exposures frozn a11 sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety far all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health, As shawn in the table and chart belo�rv, separate li�nits apply for occupational and public expasure conditions, with the lattar limits (in itadacs and/or dashed} up to five times mare restricti�e; � Frequency Electroma„�..n,etic Fields [f is frec��tencv of amission in MHzL Applicable �lectrio Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field Range Fie1d Strength Field Strength Pawer Density � (MT�z) (Vlm) (A/m) (mW/cm c 0.3 — 1,3�} fi1�4 614 1,63 I,b3 100 ]�14 1,34— 3.4 614 823.8/f 1,63 2.19/f 100 180/f 3.0 — 30 18421 f 823.8/f 4,89/ f 2.19/f 9�0/ t� I8%� 3�— 300 6�,4 27.5 O.lb3 0.07Z9 1.0 0,1 300— 1,500 3.S4�f 1,59�j� �f1106 �f/238 F/3�0 f/IS00 i 1 5�0-- 1p0 Qfl0 137 b1,9 0.354 D.1G3 5,0 1.0 , , 1000 Occupationai Exposure , 140 � PCS o � � �� , FM Cell �' A � 1 1 � ��.d�� " � � �. .� D,1 Public Exposure , a.� i �o tao to �a �0 �req�ency (MHz) � . . '� Hi her lev�ls are allo�red for short er�ods o#'time, such that total ex osure l�vals a�vexa ed over six ar � � � � � . . . , , , , . � r s c z el do not exaeed the limits and hi her thi minutes far acau atzonal or ublic settin s e e t v � , l� Y, � � rtY P P � le�els alsa are allowed for expQSUres to sma�l areas, sunh ihat the spatially a�veraged levels da not exceed the limits, Hawever, neither of these allowanoes is incorporated in the conservative calculation � farmulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technalogy Bulletin No, 55 (August 1997) for , prajecting �eld levels, Hammett & Edison has built those formulas intn a proprie#ary program that I calautates, at each 1oca�ion an an arbitrary rectangular grid, thc total expected power density fram any number of individt�al radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required tn obtain more accurate prajections, HAMMETT & EDISON INC. ` ' FCC Guidalines E � CONSUT.'3"iNG HNGINBB[t5 . SAN P1LiNC€5C0 FIg11IC I f I I I . _ . 125 � __ _ ___ __ _ __ . i � � I _ WILLIAMF. HAMM�'C"1', I',E. '��, � HAMMETT & EDISON INC. vnr��. ��uc�csau, n.�, � ` � CONSULTZNG �NGINEERS STANLIIY SALEK� P .B, � BR4AD�A5T �S WI1tELESS � 1ZoBBnT P. SMtTH, jrt. Rnln�r MnTHVR, P.�. KfiN7'A. SW351Ft�R ' �VE7TA PBTUKH � Ai�DIiEA I.. 90HL KHOA M.PHAN ROE�RT L, HAMMBTT, P,$. iszo-zaoz BIJWARD �D[SON, P.�. zszo-zaos SY E-MAIL COI.INJQCUPERTiNO,ORG A�4LGh�G`�� June 10, 2011 Mr, Colin Jung, AICP Senior Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 950I4-3202 Dear Colin: This is a follow up to our radio frequency measurement report, dated February 15, 201 l, far � . 1e ire irele s elec mm nications base station lacated at 6191 Bollin er Road in C arw s w s t o u � Cupertino (Site Nn, CA-S3CO I40B). The measured exposure le�vels were below the allowable limit anywhere at gro�nd in the �r surrounding neighborhoods. You have asked what the levels rnight be for a secand-flaor elevation in that area, so we have axarnined the manufacturer's pattern data for the antenna specified by Clearwire to identify the largest patt$rn difference that would apply for a higher ; elevation at any ofthose measured loca�ions. That analysis Yakes fhe highest power density reading on February 11, 2011, from 0.00429 mW/cm� ta O.OQ13 mW/am still almost 750 times below the atlowable limit. Please let me know if �here are any questions about this material, Sincerely yours, � � " �` 1 �' c William �, Hammett � .]P I � � Web; '1'vww.h-e.com • bhammetlCh-e.com i De�fvery: 470 Third Street West • Sonoma, California 95976 Telephone: 707�996-5200 San Prancisco • 274J559 5200 Dallas • 202/39fi-52�0 D,C, • 7U7�996-5280 �ax � � I I r . � 126 Format Dynamics :: CleanPrint :: http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_18332469?nclick che... Page 1 of 1 t��,��'CCUC,t� ��lt�� MercuryNews,com Cupertino voters to decide on 2 percent hotel tax increase in November By Matt Wilson Bay Area News Group Posted: 0612212D11 04:10:17 PM PDT Updated: 06/22/2011 04:10:17 PM PDT Traveling to Cupertino and looking to stay overnight in one of the city's hotels? You could be paying a few bucks more beginning in 2012 if Cupertino voters in November agree to a tax increase. Cupertino voters will be asked during the Nov. 8 municipal election if they would like to raise the city's transient occupancy tax paid by hotel guests from 10 to 12 percent. The Cupertino City Council voted to put the issue on the ballot by a 4-1 vote Tuesday night. The move is an attempt by the city to diversify its revenue sources and offset the loss of roughly $1 million in sales tax revenue the city expects when Hewlett-Packard packs up and leaves Cupertino for Palo Alto sometime in 2012. Along with room revenues, hotels collect the tax from hotel customers and then forward the tax to cities. The money goes into the city's general fund and is used to help maintain general city services. If approved, the tax increase could provide about ��,,� $450,000 in additional revenues per year to the ��{�_ ��(�'�'�i';� city, according to city staff. 1'�,, � , ,' i �.'11:1�� C��+C��1�11 �, �� ,� �� 1� � � � � �� '('11Y1 . � � - _►�� +5r�h � l-'r�_�[� lc��i ��° OH�r aML"f av3ila�15{0 dG ° � I'��'�'WV��I'�G�fTi/��lc'�� }{ �r call 1.�77.��.T1�3 I i I Print Powered Ry ��rr7��tDyr��mic�_ � http://www.mercurynews.com/fdcp?unique=1308871145175 6/23/20ll �� Format Dynamics :: C1eanPrint :: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_18342462?IADID=Search-www.mer... Page 1 of 1 �l�e,�le�cur,��'ew� MercuryNews,com ' Cupertino j.OW -income play area at the other end. � � housing project clears the Habitat for Humanity held neighborhood meetings in November 2008 and another on June 2 to planning commission familiarize Cleo Avenue neighbors within a 300-foot radius with the details of the project. Construction could begin in either October or By Matt Wilson November, according to Habitat officials. Families mwilson@community-newspapers.com are being selected to live in the homes. Posted: 06/23/2011 08:02:40 PM PDT Home construction assistance will come from Cupertino service clubs such as Rotary, Lions and A long awaited low-income housing project in Kiwanis. Similarly, local faith-based organizations Cupertino has cleared yet another hurdle and could and congregations will assist on a second home, break ground within the year. and the other two homes will be spearheaded by i Cisco Systems. The Cupertino Planning Commission unanimously gave permission to subdi�ide one-third of an acre Future residents are expected to help with the into four lots and two common areas for a single- construction of their homes. In May, the Cleo family residential development. The commission Avenue project was the beneficiary of the Rotary _ also granted a use permit to allow Habitat for Club of Cupertino's Golf Classic. Humanity to develop the four residences. Habitat for Humanity envisions a four-unit, small lot � single-family residential development on a �acant lot on the south side of Cleo Avenue. The triangle- 'i shaped project site is surrounded by vacant land and Highway 85 on the north and east sides, townhouses on the south and a single-family � residence to the west. i In August 2005, the city of Cupertino acquired the excess property on Cleo A�enue from the California Department of Transportation for $615,000 for i development of an affordable housing project. The I city used housing mitigation fees to purchase the property. � a { In December 2007, the city council agreed to ��.�1[l �1��' transfer the property to Habitat for Humanity Silicon ; Valley for the construction of four single-family �� '�'��`�� homes for low- to very low-income Cupertino � -, ''�� ,: ��1�+� �� households. � ^�"""` ��° �' � The site will be accessed by a 20-foot-wide ��1 �� driveway leading to an eight-car open parking Iot. Behind the parking lot and toward the rear of the _,�E � ,�.�� site, there will be four small, two-story, wood frame single-family residences. The proposed homes will � be clustered -'� ��'��'�� 1��'�E�Y� r�'� � around a pedestrian pathway that connects the a�� N�'� avsilae�e �C ! parking Iot at one end to a community garden and �7r�7f��]W��GQ�C�1�M�'��]� i�r ca�ll 1.�77.8�04,11 �� . � .. �.. � _-� _.___��:. � �... r�� Print Fowered By �FormatDynamic�'� � http://www.mercurynews.com/fdcp?unique=1309979126214 � 28 7/6/2011 With Another Lean Year Ahead, Council Passes Balanced Budget, Considers Hotel Tax Voters will decide on transient occupancy tax rate increase on Nov: 8. By Pam Marino, Thursday, June 23, 2091, G� PGG2Ti � O (�/.}�T �,� Expecting a continued slow economic recovery and bracing for the loss of $1 million in sales tax revenue from Hewlett Packard's move out of Cupertino next year, Tuesday the City Council passed the 2011-12 operating budget and voted to put a hotel tax increase on the November ballot. New Budget The Council passed a$66 million balanced budget for the upcoming year. To counter balance an expected four percent dip in revenues, nine city staff positions will be left unfilled, and maintenance will be deferred, among other measures, according to a staff report. Council members spent four hours listening to testimony from the public and going back and forth on whether to include or postpone specific projects in the budget. Some of the projects include: • $15,000 for the emergency preparedness group Alert SCC to promote sign-ups for the emergency contact system to parents of children in Cupertino schools. • $125,000 to fund six more library hours, bringing the total hours to 66 each week. • $30,000 for two new school crossing guards; locations to be determined. • $20,000 for a Permanente Creek water quality study, to determine possible effects of runoff from the Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant and Quarry. • $75,000 for plans to revamp a broken pond feature at Linda Vista Park. • $200, 000 for additional pavement projects for roads. • $50,000 for plans to revamp McClellan Ranch Park and the neighboring Simms property on McClellan Road. • $250,000 as a placeholder for a potential dog park. The council passed plans last year for a dog park on Mary Avenue by Highway 85, but it was later found that the site is contaminated by lead. Either another location will have to be found, or the approved site will have to be decontaminated, a costly process. � Transient Occupancy Tax � � The Council voted 4-1 ta put a plan to increase the transient occupancy tax from 10 to 12 percent on the � November general election ballot. ' If passed, Cupertino's tax would be equal to Campbell and Palo Alto, but below San Jose, which imposes a 14 percent tax. The tax on hotel rooms paid by guests is expected to generate $450,000 a year, according to city staff. That money will go into the general fund and be used for city services and improvements. According to a survey of likely voters commissioned by the city, more than 60 percent said they would support the tax increase. 129 Weighing heavily on the council was the loss of about $1 million in annual sales tax revenues from the move of HP headquarters to Palo Alto. The city's Fiscal Strategic Planning Committee recommended placing the tax on the ballot, as a way to make up for the loss. Should the tax pass on Nov. 8, it would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2012. Mayor Gilbert Wong wanted a unanimous vote, but member Kris Wang said she could not support the proposed tax this year out of concern for the effect of an increase on hotels and restaurants. She wanted to wait at least two years before revisiting the issue. "If we don't do this, next year is going to be really painful," Councilmember Orrin Mahoney said. Mahoney and the rest of the council majority said they did not believe occupancy rates would be hurt by a two percent increase. 130 c��e,�le�cur,� �'ew� MercuryNews The truth is, no matter how sophisticated our technology; no matter how easily we're able to make place irrelevant through FaceTime, Facebook, Cassidy StEVe' JObS Telepresence and Skype; iYs still in our nature to cling to memories and the physical manifestations ll1UVeS Ap�JlE f01"Ward of them. The barn, which had recently hosted HP barbecues, should stand at Apple or elsewhere as a with a nod to the past reminder of a time before the iPad. By Mike Cassidy � There is something particularly significant about the Mercury News Columnist Apple land, hemmed in by Homestead Road, Wolfe Road, Interstate 280 and Tantau Avenue in Posted: 06123l2011 11:25:53 AM PDT Cupertino. Its farming history goes back to the 19th century, when immigrants like the Orlandos and the Updated: 06/23/2011 05:05:52 PM PDT Glendennings settled there. By the late 20th century it became prime real estate for a new crop of When Steve Jobs presented his vision for Apple's ( companies, like Varian and then HP, that were AAPL) new corporate headquarters and mentioned capturing digital lightning in a bottle. he was taking the land around it back to its agricultural roots, David Magnoli could just see it. Even Jobs, as hard-nosed a businessman as they come, appeared to embrace the almost spiritual In fact, he had seen it -- about 40 years ago when draw of the property when he told the Cupertino City he was a kid romping through his great- Council this month about his plan to build a four- grandfather's ranch on the land where Apple now story, 3.1 million-square-foot building of curved plans to build its glimmering, circle-of-glass, home glass. office. "This land is kind of special to me," Jobs told "We'd go out there quite a bit, especially during the council members. He explained that Bill Hewlett, one summer," says Magnoli, 54, a San Jose general of his idols, offered him a summerjob at about the same time that Hewlett and David Packard were contractor. "We'd run around and play in the yard making an offer on the very land where Apple now and the barn and the garden and the garbage hole. plans to build. Jobs acknowledged the history of the They still had a garbage hole." property, and in a sense the history of the valley, when he told council members that Apple would I OK, a garbage hole is not in keeping with the Apple significantly increase the number of trees on the 1 CEO's vision for his legacy edifice, but when you're campus. "We'd like to plant a lot of trees," he said, 14 there isn't much that can beat it. "including some apricot orchards." Magnoli's great-grandfather Salvatore Orlando was The idea thrilled Magnoli, who called his mother, among the ranchers who worked the land that is Salvatore Orlando's granddaughter, to tell her of the now the 150 acres where Apple hopes to put 12,000 plan. '� workers. Salvatore's son John had a spread next door on what is now the Apple land. The "We spent a Iot of time at the ranch," Patti Magnoli- Glendenning family tended orchards on the land, Smith, 77, says. Orlando; who lived on the ranch where the historic Glendenning Barn still stands into his 90s, would pay the kids to pick his fruit. amid the corporate office buildings that belonged to Well, most of the time, Hewlett-Packard before Apple bought the land last year. "He died," Magnoli-Smith says, "and still owed me Now the property is due for a makeover. Apple has $6." , not said whether the bam will survi�e where it is or survive at all. But Cupertino City Councilman Orrin She remembers the fruit trees and the pepper trees Mahoney says he's talked to Apple officials about and the majestic palm -- now framed by office the 122-year-old barn, and he's confident the buildings, but once a punctuation point near the company will agree to preserve it and perhaps move end of the ranch's driveway. She remembers the love it off campus to a plac� the public can easily visit. of a grandfather, who stood in for a father who died too young. She even keeps the wooden posts from "The only issue is who'd pay for it," Mahoney says. her grandfather's front porch in her garden. And Though an Apple representative says the company she's saved a grinding wheel and pieces of farm . hasn't gotten down to that level of detail regarding equipment that her grandfather used. the barn, Mahoney says he believes Apple will come up with the money. "We're all a bunch of sentimental fools," Magnoli- Smith says. LeYs just say Apple, with $14 billion in annual profits, could swing it. And no question that would Then again, sometimes it's good to pause and be the right thing to do. remember before we resume hurtling headlong into whaYs coming next. 131 .� _ ._ � ��°_ : � . _ _ �_ �,�� l� •__ � .< �✓�� _ _: � .�� Amazon won't collect sales tax; cuts off California affiliates June 30, 2oii � I2: 22 pm Amazon.com has terminated its relationship with approximately 10,00o Internet business partners in ' California after Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law that requires out-of-state electronic retailers to collect sales tax on purchases from Golden State customers. The termination took effect Wednesday evening, hours after Brown took action on a bill that will produce an estimated $31� million a year in new state and local government tax revenues. Amazon said it canceled the contracts because it does not intend to comply with the new law. "This legislation is counterproductive and will not cause our retail business to collect sales tax for the state," said Paul Misener, Amazon's vice president of global public policy. Amazon did not say whether it planned to close a research lab in Cupertino that develops Kindle e-readers and offices of other related business entities that might make it liable to collect sales taxes under the new law. A company spokesman declined to say whether Amazon would file a lawsuit challenging California as it did in New York state, which passed a similar statute in 2008. The New York complaint, which was based on the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, failed in the trial court and is now being appealed. Meanwhile, another big Internet retailer, Salt Lake City-based Overstock.com, said Wednesday that it is ending "the services of its California-based Internet advertising affiliates." Overstock would not release the exact number of those affiliates but said that the total is in "the hundreds." Overstock predicted that the cancellation would not affect its business and revenues. "That effect may be small, as we have observed in these instances that the ad business terminated goes to advertisers in other states and the ad traffic to our site continues," the company said in a statement. "It is ', unfortunate that the bill targeted California business, but we believe the law is unconstitutional and �� necessitated this decision. There will be no other changes to the way we do business." '� California tax officials said they are beginning the process of drafting regulations and sending out notices of the new t� to out-of-state Internet sellers. Sellers are expected to immediately begin collecting the sales taxes and the first remittances are due in about three months. i -- Marc Lifsher I I I 132 �G�e,�le�cur,�,�ew� MercuryNews,com i Busy Cupertino Library � gets extended hours in city's new budget package Be�erly Lenihan, a Cupertino resident and president By Matt wi�son of the Rotary Club of Cupertino, echoed a little bit of mwilson@community-newspapers.com Thomas Jefferson in her support for the extra hours. Posted: 07l01 /2011 08:57:30 AM PDT "A thriving democracy depends on an educated i constituency, and I believe that we have many Longer operating hours are coming to the Cupertino people waiting for that library to open on Mondays Library thanks to the city's 2011-12 budget. The and Tuesdays," she said. city plans to help the Santa Clara County Library District fund the $125,000 needed to keep the The Cupertino Library remains the busiest in the library open an additional three hours on Mondays county library system with an astonishing level of and Tuesdays. traffic. Last year, the library circulated 3.3 million items and had an estimated 950,000 �isitors, Currently, the library opens at 1 p.m. on Mondays according to Fink. He estimates that the recently and Tuesdays. The new hours will be Monday concluded fiscal year saw 3.4 million items through Thursday from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. Friday and circulated. Saturday hours will be from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Sundays will be from noon to 6 p.m. Until only a few years ago, the city council struggled each year to find enough money to help keep the It remains unclear when the new hours will take library open a full seven days a week. The county effect. Cupertino community librarian Mark Fink told library funds six days, while Cupertino has in recent the Courier there are some details that first have to years picked up the tab on the remaining closed be worked out with the county library district and hours, usually Mondays. The funding pays for a the city. advertisement year's worth of staff wages and maintenance costs for the additional hours A group of library fans came to the city council's throughout the week. June 23 budget deliberations to voice support for the extra hours. Fink told the council during the Due to the library's popularity and high tra�c, Fink meeting that the library does surprisingly brisk told the council that if the city didn't provide any of business on Mondays. its annual additional funding, the county would still be committed to providing se�en-day service, albeit i "I should mention that Monday mornings are quite with reduced hours. i busy; we have a number of people returning materials that they have borrowed. Monday The city's total budget passed 4-1, with councilman mornings are usually the busiest times for our staff Barry Chang casting the lone dissenting vote. Other to get items back on the shelves," he said. "To me, budget highlights include replacing part of the c that means we have a lot of people coming to return ity's vehicle fleet at the cost of $735,000, full books, and if the library was open, they would also funding of such popular community events as Earth use the library on Monday and Tuesday mornings." Day, Cupertino Day and July Fourth celebrations, funding for the Euphrat Museum at De Anza College, Library-loving residents offered anecdotal evidence funding outreach projects for the AlertSCC that the library needs extra hours on Mondays and emergency notification service and allocating funds Tuesdays. for the Cupertino Historical Society and Deer Hollow Farm. The proposed budget also has a cost-of- Cupertino resident and prospective city council living increase for employees. candidate Donna Austin told the council she took � her grandchildren to play at the fountains near the The balanced budget is projected to remain I library on a Tuesday morning and counted the balanced four years into the future. The city also number of patrons who walked up to the library and continues to have plenty in reserves, with a fund of noticed the doors were closed. She estimates about $13.3 million. Total city revenue for 2011-12 somewhere between 300 and 400 people came to is expected to be $62,533,000, a decrease of about , the library even before it opened. 8 percent from the year prior, , "I got up to over 100 by 11:30 a.m. By 12:35 p.m., For more information on the Cupertino Library, visit people were lining up along the post and waiting," www•santaclaracountylib.org/cupertino. she said. "Those three hours were really important today." 133 �Cl� Q,�le�cu�,� �'eu�� MercuryNews,com Cities plot course for Stevens Creek Trail I By Diana Samuels Daily News Staff Writer Posted: 07l01/2011 10:36:35 PM PDT Updated: 07/02/2011 04:03:04 PM PDT As one of the last extensions of the Stevens Creek The study should have plenty of funding: The Los Trail in Mountain View begins to take shape, plans Altos City Council voted Tuesday to contribute to bring the pathway all the way to Cupertino are $� 2,500, and Cupertino allocated $10,000 earlier , also starting to come to fruition. this month. Mountain View is expected to contribute $5,000, and Grossman said the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail lans to ive $5,000, for a total of Los Altos, Sunnyvale and Cupertino recently pitched P 9 in funds for a"unified Stevens Creek trail $107,500. ' alternatives" study, and the Mountain View Ciry Council is expected to authorize a contribution on Sunnyvale spokesman John Pilger said that the Tuesday. The study will analyze potential routes security and privacy of homes along the trail -- a through Los Altos and Sunnyvale, with the objective major concern for residents who opposed it in the of connecting Mountain View's section to portions past -- will be a key issue as plans move forward. being built in Cupertino. "We're also looking at, when we look at specific Aaron Grossman, executive director of the Friends routes, what kinds of costs are involved," Pilger of Stevens Creek Trail, called the feasibility study "so said. "Is there a route, for example, that is fairly easy huge." from a construction standpoint, or are we going to have to build bridges and overpasses to go over "IYs really going to set the future route, both in other barriers." ' Sunnyvale and Los Altos, and will directly impact the Los Altos did its own trail stud a few ears a o, but connections to Mountain View and Cupertino, Y Y 9 Grossman said. only analyzed how it would bring the trail through 'I the city. The preferred route in that study went For decades, advocates have longed to see the trail along city streets, west on Fremont Road, south on follow Stevens Creek all the way from the Santa Cruz Grant Road, and then followed Foothill Expressway Mountains to the Mountain View bayshore. to Cupertino -- quite a distance from Stevens Creek. Mountain View's 4.75-mile stretch is now One major hurdle to building a more natural trail a roachin the Sunn vale border thanks to a along the creek is that some of the land it would PP 9 Y bridge being built over Highway 85 to Dale and have to cross is privately owned. While the trail will Heatherstone avenues. That $4.1 million project almost certainly have to traverse public streets or could be finished by year's end, according to other routes to skirt those private parcels, ' project manager Robert Kagiyama. Sunnyvale has more public property available on its side of the creek compared with Los Altos, officials , Mountain View has one more planned one-mile said. ' segment, which will bring the trail to Mountain View High School. However, that extension is expected to Much of the land around the creek in Sunnyvale is cost about $10 million and there is no money under the authority of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, said Los Altos Mayor Pro Tem Val allocated to build it. Kagiyama said the city plans to Carpenter. , apply for �arious grants and set aside money. Meanwhile, plans are moving forward to bring the "Now that Sunnyvale's in the game," she said, "I think ' trail through other cities. Sunnyvale, which because there's much more possibility of coming up with a of community opposition prohibited it from coming trail that makes sense." through the city until April 2009, has done little planning to date and will likely be a focus of the Email Diana Samuels at dsamuels@dailynewsgroup. study. The city has agreed to pay $75,000 of the com. alternatives study's estimated $100,000 cost, according to a May 31 city memorandum. 134