The URL can be used to link to this page

23. Residential Hillside (RHS) 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No...l3 Agenda Date Decernber 6, 2005 SUMMARY: Consider holding a hearing to amend the R1 ordinance regarding the Residential Hillside (RHS) standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve holding a hearing to amend the R1 ordinance regarding the Residential Hillside (RHS) standards. BACKGROUND: On February 1, 2005, the City Council approved comprehensive changes to the R1 ordinance. One of the modifications reduced the slope threshold for application of the hillside standards to lots zoned Rl. Prior to the changes, the Rl ordinance required that buildings proposed on a lot with slopes of thirty percent or greater rnust adhere to standards in the Residential Hillside ordinance, or the Rl zoning ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. With the changes, the Rl ordinance applied this requirernent to buildings proposed on properties with an average slope equal to or greater than fifteen percent (see Exhibit A). During the recent General Plan hearings, residents in the Lindy Lane area expressed concerns about these changes (see Exhibit B). Sorne residents supported the changes due to concerns about geological problems and sizes of homes. Others opposed the changes and felt that property owners had not been sufficiently notified. DISCUSSION: Due to the concerns expressed about these changes, staff recommends that the City Council approve holding hearings to consider amending the Rl ordinance. The pros and cons of the potential amendments would be presented at that time. The likely hearing date for the initial rneeting would be in February 2006. Staff believes that this a significant project that wiIl require substantial staff time, and ).3-/ Consider holding a hearing to amend the Rl ordinance regarding the Residential Hillside (RHS) standards December 6, 2005 Page 2 that projects currently in the work program, such as revising the sign ordinance and the Heart of the City Specific Plan, may need to be deferred until its cornpletion. The Council can take up the issue of which existing goals can be deferred in conjunction with your review of goal for next year. Enclosures: Exhibit A: Section from Ordinance 1954 regarding Developrnent Regulations Exhibit B: Letters of concern from Lindy Lane neighbors Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Approved by: ~ ~ Steve Pia ecki Director of Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager G:planning/ pdreportj ccjR1-RHS 12-06-05 ,;U-Á Ordinance No. 1954 EXHIBIT A ~~t¡'a+.€arç Caci+i-1y-t:1üt is not reqUJfcd to attain £\--\-\€-<C'R-s<.-"--B-y t~l: Stat~ ageH€-)-' or d:paFf'''€H-t--æ-1-à--B-a£-€<;VBf\--0P,,"-catcr fOcidenls, not inc1-HB·iHg·-the--\7f9-\ci~k'-!' fa-mily or ctë.ff is" n-1-i-Rffi_n di5tnncc of ftvc-lw.ftEl+ed fe:t froÆ!-tt;ß--¡m'\pcrly b:'LtRBafy . e+-aRøthcr residential carc :":.,eililY; &.-4. Congregate residence with eleven or more residents, which is a minimum distance of one thousand feet from the boundary of another congregate residence and has a minimum of seventy-five square feet of usable rear yard area per occupant. (Ord. 1860, § I (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, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.050 Sire-Development Regulations (Site ). A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. 1. Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the RlR-1- zoning symbol. Examples are as follows: Minimum Lot Area Zoning in Square Symbol Number Feet Rl i 5.000 R 1- R-1- 6 6,000 R 1 R-1- 7.5 7,500 R1R-1- 10 10,000 RlR-1- 20 20,000 +t1-ê-f!:inim,nn lot size in an R I zonois six thOLtSlll1€---s<~eeh 2. Lots, which contain less area than required by subsection A( 1) of this section. SÜ6ÈiøH---1--9~-+J~4--A--1-,-but not less than five thousand square feet, may nevertheless be used as building sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this title are fulfilled. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be sixty feet measured at the front-yard setback line,--,xcel1l in ¡hc Rl-5 district where the minimum lot width is fin" feel. C. Development on Froperlies ·with Hillside Characteristics. ·qE!j'>Øs-e-¡:"'1+1~-4y-l'''HK'-H·H,}F f'tr(~-¡:lk~~ +£~ß-})"l-af1-s--f':'~F--Hll--/~~v<'-ì'fìfì-rH-1..2,j+Î:-'þ}H}'-I~e&-a-l-s-+ì-hilik,,:¡vl-i:JÈ.'.:-"-{1..7t1{)g.¡:r.trk:f€-a+-!+1-føf-lftafi,tt:A-i:;+. &()-Fttft-1:1r--t"R-b3Fv,a,1s- -jh::¡H~;')-'{;:+~-E.'-f';e-f.4-0Fl-r2<2-t:-;--A-F€-H.-5-Vi'::¡1.{.:.l.t~--;:~,k·fJ-t-~·-a·F¿'----t~~ì4+tY:..f',21:e,2+H..-eF glee,!, er~¡'H±i-1--"e--i<+2H-14*o¡J.--eR-i-Rü--,-~+&-4e-\'€-I~)-pH·1t'-f1-1--r}1-a1'¡., ;hI. Buildings proposed on. Pfc)IJerties with an average slopc "'(lugl to or QTeater tl1an lÏilc(;n percent etHt-p8Ht811-ei'3 Jot ':.-¡th S!epCl' of1¡';,-tY-p<:-ff-&1C'1:1r grcat-ff-shall be developed in accordance with the site development and design standards specified in Sections 19.40.050 through 19.40.140 of the Residential Hillside ordinance, Chapter 19.40, or the EJR-+ zoning ordinance, Chapter 19.28, whichever specific regulation is more restrictive. 4 23-] EXHIBIT B Dear Mr. Mayor, Patrick Kwok and Cupertino City Council, members; Sandra James, Richard Lowenthal, Dolly Sandorval, Kris Wang and Director of Community Development, Steve Piasecki Sept. 8, 2005 My name is John James. I reside at 21852 Lindy Lane. This week north side Lindy Lane residences, John Knopp, Frank Sun and Mark Santora were walking up and down Lindy Lane collecting signatures on a petition requesting that the City change the R-I zoning laws removing the 15% slope formula added to protect hillsides that are zoned R-l. I saw about 10 to 12 signatures already on their petition sign up sheet. These gentlemen told my wife and I the reason we should be for the petition was that "the 15% slope formula would reduce our home values $100,000.00." We could not add on to our homes or do any extensive remodeling. Not passing this petition would hurt us financially. My wife and I felt coerced. I later checked with some of my other neighbors and essitentually got the same story. Some signed. My interpretation of the direction of this petition, if passed, will allow the petitioners to build multiple monster homes on their relatively small-subdivided lots. This sounds like preferential spot zoning to a small group of landowners on Lindy Lane and may be illegal. In my opinion, changing this part of the law would be of great economic benefit for the petitioners. It will allow them to build a monster house on a lot that has a slope GREATER then 15%. l3-~ This could be a huge SAFETY issue. Our Lindy Lane home was completely destroyed during the 1982-1983 heavy rains because of a mudslide. The Lindy Lane hillsides should be zoned correctly to RHS in the general plan is currently considering. In this area no monster homes should be allowed or excessive building coverage could cause mudslides. I will fax to any of you a copy of this petition if you request one. Please send me your fax number. Please respond, John E. James 21852 Lindy Lane Cupertino CA 95014 E-mail: tahoejej@comcast.net Phlfax:408-725-0280 ':2.]-) Page I on Ciddy Wordell From: Mohammed Hossain [sharminsalim@sbcglobaLnet] Monday, September 12, 2005 11:42 PM Ciddy Wordell; Steve Piasecki; Patrick Kwok2 City Council; glef@sbcglobaLnet; Bob Rodert; tahoejej@comcast.net; taysi3@aoLcom; Mohammed Hossain Subject: RE: Lindy Lane Petition - Possibly signed based on mis-information - No response from City Planning - PLEASE READ & RESPOND Sent: To: Cc: Dear Members of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Mr. Kilian- My name is Mohammed Hossain. I reside at 21882 Lindy lane. I like to point out that I completely agree with Sara Arzeno, John E. James and other concern citizen at Lindy Lane regarding the Hillside development. So, I strongly disagree with the planning Commission's recommendation to keep the Lindy Lane area zoned as residential. Because, it is Hillside, and there is history of mudslides in the area. The Lindy Lane hillsides should be zoned correctly to RHS in the general plan is currently considering. In this area, no monster homes should be allowed or excessive building coverage could cause mudslides. Regards, Mohammed Hossain 21882 Lindy Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 E-mail: sharminsalim@sbcolobaLnet Phone: 408-725-1448 Ciddy Wordell <CynthiaW@Cupertino.org>wrote: Hello Sara. I received your email today, and will respond to as many of the points as I am able. 1. Why has this piece of hillside escaped the appropriate hillside zoning? My understanding is that a couple of decades ago the City Council considered this area for the hillside designation in the General Plan, but did not take action to change it. In the 1993 General Plan, it was not brought up. In the current General Plan review, it was brought up, but the Planning Commission is recommending that there not be any change. They added wording to an existing policy on Hillside Development Standards (Policy 2-45, Strategy 2) that now states: Actual lot sizes and development areas will be determined through zoning ordinances, clustering, identification of significant natural features and oeolooical constraints. 2. Can the City clarify the information... is accurate or not? I think it's too difficult to respond to information Mr. Knopp said or might have said. Perhaps the best thing is for people to read the R-1 ordinance as it relates to slopes and let us know if you have any specific questions about the effect of the ordinance on your properties. 3. Oak tree removai - I responded to that earlier today. 4. City Council agendas - the City Council probably has three General Plan meetings left: September 14, 20.and October 4. At this writing, the hillside issue has not been specifically scheduled for a discussion item. However, September 20 is the best date for you to make any request you have related to General Plan hillside policies or land use designations. ;¿']-0 9/13/05 Page 2 of3 Ciddy Wordell -----Original Message----- From: Arzeno, Sara [mailto:Sara.Arzeno@cvt.comj sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 9:23 AM To: Bob Rodert¡ tahoejej@comcast.net; taysi3@aol.com; sharminsalim@sbcglobal.net; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET; Arzeno, Sara Cc: gief@sbcglobal.net; Ciddy Wordell; Patrick Kwok2; Charles Kilian; Steve Piasecki Subject: Lindy Lane Petition - Possibly signed based on mis-information - No response from City Planning - PLEASE READ & RESPOND Importance: High Dear Members of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Mr. Kilian - The situation on Lindy Lane continues to be difficult - once again - after silence from our city planning department and council members, I am writing to request some answers. Last Monday evening at dinner time, Mr. Knopp and Mr. Sun rang our doorbell to suggest that we sign a petition regarding a zoning change on Lindy Lane (I believe Mr. James has provided you with a copy of this petition.) I let Mr. Knopp and Mr. Sun know that we do not approve such a petition and that we want Hillside zoning to be put in effect - as it should have been all along. After discussing our views with these gentlemen - Mr. Knopp told me that if hillside zoning were approved, no one on our side of the street would be allowed to remodel/add on to our homes - and that if some sort of damage occurred in the future, structures such as swimming pools, etc. could not be rebuilt because the Hillside zoning would forbid such activities. He went on say that our properties would be de-valued if hillside zoning were to be approved. At this part of the conversation, I must say - I simply stared at Mr. Knopp because I did not believe any of these statements were true - in fact, I checked with a Planning Commissioner to confirm that Mr. Knopp had been most definitely mis-representing the facts. A number of us are now extremely concerned because _ after talking to several neighbors - apparently these gentlemen had told everyone the same mis-information - and more importantly - a number of people signed the petition based on this mis-information. Can the City please clarify why this small piece of hillside - unlike other areas similar to it's topography/geography - has escaped the appropriate hillside zoning? Can the City please clarify whether or not the information that Mr. Knopp and Mr. Sun have been telling people is accurate - or not? The City Council and Planning Commission need to consider our rights on this issue. We have been trying to get the Planning Commission to hear & respond to our concerns since May- and we were told to put our concerns in writing. Our first Lindy Lane Neighborhood Group emaii went out to Ciddy W. on June 1 sl. Our first meeting with the City wasn't until the beginning of July at which point Ciddy was in Italy for a month and Mr. Piasecki was only able to attend our meeting for 10 minutes because he had a previous engagement (this was shocking since a number of us had ieft work early and driven back to Cupertino specifically for this meeting). In the meantime, we have kept letters and concerns coming in - but no one in the Planning Department has even bothered to respond. We still have not received an answer about who/why have oak trees been removed and what has or - what will the City do about it? We still have no response concerning our very real worries about hillside stability (pis refer to city records to see mud slide history and building problems over the years) will the City please respond? Now - we have a petition that may have been signed under false pretenses - to further deveiop this area. For those of us uninitiated into City Government - when we see "The General Plan" on the City 23-7 9/13/05 Page 3 of3 Council Agenda· many of us do not realize that "Hillside Development" is part of this. I request that you please itemize the City Agendas so that Citizens will know what is really being discussed - so that we will be prepared to attend meetings that impact us and not let the hidden agenda unfold in our absence. A final note - many of us in this neighborhood voted for the current city administration the basis of it's purported "Hillside Protection" stance - this was apparently a mis· representation as well Although this does not represent the complete emaillist of the Lindy Lane Neighborhood Group. pis reply to all so we can forward to others in our group. Thank you. Sara Arzeno Manager, Medical Writing CV Therapeutics, Inc. (650) 384-8816 9/13/05 :J.-]-lf / / ....¡; -CBì1¡p" - '...,lJ S[P 1 2 2D05 June 4, 2005 Dear Cupertino City Council, Planning Commission, and Planning Staff, We the residents of Lindy Lane and Mt Crest object to the recent change in building requirements in our area. Specifically, we object to the change in the R 1 ordinance section 19.28.050 paragraph C whereby both the Rl and RSH rules are applied to buildings in our area with slope densities greater that 15%. According to the planning office, there are 27 homes affected by this change. We object to the change for two reasons, lack of proper notification, and lack of evidence that the proposed change is reasonable or required. In a Cupertino Planning Commission meeting held on January 26, 2005 there were II members from the affected group attending a meeting to discuss a proposed rezoning of our area from Rl to RSH. During that meeting the 15% slope change was mentioned by Peter Gilli from planning. None of the residents in that meeting had heard of the slope change, which had already been passed. We feel this change amounts to a rezoning under another name. Because the change is effectively a rezoning, and because the residents were not properly notified we feel it should be repealed. In addition, we have seen no credible evidence that such a change is warranted in our area. There are already rules in effect to ensure that structures built on slopped lots are safe. The January 26 meeting was called by the city planners to discuss a possible rezoning of the area around Lindy Lane and Mt Crest. We were told that the proposed changes would have "no negative effects". This is simply NOT true. Both the 15% slope change and the proposed rezoning have tremendous adverse effects on our property values. We the residents of those areas are strongly against this proposed rezoning. Such a rezoning was proposed by the city 10 years ago. During that time the city decided NOT to rezone the area. The city had reasons for the decision back then, and we see NO reason to change the zoning now. In summary, we the owners of the properties around Lindy Lane and Mt Crest strongly object to the change in the building rules requiring both Rl and RSH restrictions on lots with 15% slope densities. We are also against the proposed rezoning. We request that the city council repeal the change in the Rl ordinance section 19.28.050 paragraph C whereby both the Rl and RSH rules are applied to buildings with slope densities greater than 15% and reinstate the previous rule. We also request that the proposed rezoning of our area from Rl to RSH be dropped from the general plan. Thank you for your attention in this matter. ;lJ -1 ,:::,z.i,-,¡\Î(V'\ 'T',tli.LC: ¡-¡::: ¡,:LIC I :_!.\>jC¡ I_'" .~'f.L}-'--.i_-, ~~ 1/ -- ~ 6" I . /~ S \ Mol'! í'---Ù :L i 'D '",- L/[ N v'{ LWÇ ," "'I~// '1/J ,- ^ ') "',' . -" i) -::''':'~V)(J' ' II j /1/7 ÞJ )/} ('-:;? /1:;:] (/.::¡t~/ 0, IS'? ¿ L.L- /'fD- i..l;:.ýt;:".;1 ;;Z¡/Mj/:V?,::;,¿:,"'"'" f{/\!().. \¡\)¡:I/¡{) :21 :>5;,<-1/ ;-N'I u ¡ ,.ì·'¿~" =-- /.. ,....-î ../ I. ' ;- /. 1./ I 7/P:./,," I ( (: 'iJ11{' (."'V I r ¿JjJjó' / c --' '. ,'/ L- J (:?! I~/ !} J ,~').'" J... ''1:1 /"1) T ,.-;" / c; .i./:~~ j ...r~/::'-/ U L /..,1.']·'1/' ,"t.( r\i .7 ;,Ä' "....,~......"':../2::- I ¡---'V' \, / c::. I/2ß-? µØC--W¡C,(,£$.T:D~ R.;<:.~~ci / 11;2c, I St,v!A, Te~.y...Dr,-<- ./ ~ S'if~ -J/ri/ ?J ~ .--fi /~7f "2. I <J / e..¡rÞ"" "'- u.A,.- (/¡fr,'__[I/V-" Qlfc¡ V ~/ i 2..10'1 J tiV}d'f L~Y)c .P~./I){,- 22 t,^...J"D.A )" ~//, ;{ ?;Ç' -4f . / /- zzn -, ~"-' //.~-1/.L.--0 ... /i-X/t/V-/'----' CJ //"1 /' /,,/''''' <":~-:'~/ /' / (/ Print Name (,.f- if· l G-£.;1'¿'~P~(L~ 'X 1-'\ S u..~\ .41Q"k::. 5:""" fo/'o /7 '/ /-7 ' / /Ji///J;" t.-dY¡~',:+//4r /-<·f (l1'f#5'1 cf ,l!1a 1'1 ~ C(ct~ [r'h ~.I ( /J,... '-'/ -..., .£fr-~1...- >.- ¿. ¿...,.._?C::-:~ S~~ MI~ ,I)~,\./¡ Ü 1),4d \ . LVCII'/IC/ð v: D4CtéC¥.:' .:7õ h \4 ¡<IÆar? , -~-1 ('";. J-P r ~ r"I /I!-I IV c1-i- 5/,N21 ¡ 5 G,uy "B."::r Ie. ((ì,<:~e\\~ cJ;~'1C< \ \j Address S ¡ gnature r..,j'ij /..¿p ~¿ ~~ - , ~ 2./ F<'~ .L .......,...1 'r L~ 2-í ys- ~ C",ß., L~ '" M;.,z<;~ '/ / .// / ¿ / / ~7 / /". / --- ')0' ',/ --~ /IZe.,,· $r C/-¿Y;"- d-:- ;: / ~ P/Üc'/C-,/ / /1í ¿;. , (! II 2- C ( (viI- (V? "iV,,: [i1,.-v--- c:--- J~~ ~' . C-' . . ( - ....'. ' .' .- ~ 1/2 (j. '-/-- f)¡Jr. {, (íG)r LY. vA 'lIt "2,~/1/C-, . ,.- .~ ---.....~.-..: , '7 '7",,~' ,'.'.,¿ ~ /' o.-~.,--,- "'--:.II ;' /,r/., ,'_.... /- -' - - / /"_.,/ '--".I_~'-/ ~V ,'-' - . ~- < ~ 2-\ '\~"'1 ~~ \-N WJ~1- 'àk27'~ "'~ ¡J.cv/d /it-t.t 2..- I q J I ¿ Ih"j - ¿ ~ [12iO ~~f CÜN1 (~.RU'; ï ()[< . 22/{// ¿/--Vt:/.7 J 21125' L'nd'j L.....- '. -, -<-,--' // ,j-" " "...- ,. 2 '3-lV Jun 05 05 02:50p -- .~.- -" -.- . Print Name /'1 ~(J . ..-- '- Address signatu~ /12-<;'( ú-f~ ~"r ~- (',""~~ l t25S ~ c~e5í fL Cv ~.J'.C I I I I I , I i _¥:-wL -SL... p.l () ::2.3-11