Liang - Vallco Specific Plan - density, heights, setbacks and building planes

From: Liang C

Date: Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:11 PM
Subject: Vallco Specific Plan - density, heights, setbacks and building planes
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." planning@cupertino.org

[Please add this to Vallco EIR comment.]

Dear Councilmembers and Planning Commissoners:

Since the public was never given a chance to comment on Vallco Specific Plan, I assume that now is the chance to comment.

Cupertino should consider updating its Municipal Code to govern density, heights, setbacks and building planes for mixed use projects when it is next to lower density residential homes or apartments.

This is in fact suggested by the ABAG guidelines. But Cupertino General Plan or Municipal Code did not follow it.

Please consider adopting an ordinance to govern mixed use zoning, since many sites in Cupertino are already zoned for mixed use.

All parcels along Stevens Creek and all parcels along De Anza are all zoned for mixed use already. Therefore, it is important to regulation mixed use zoning since many more future projects will be mixed use projects.

 

Other cities use FAR (Floor-area-ratio) to define how dense a mixed use project could be. But Cupertino has no such standard. The only limit is height, which in some way encourages developers to fill up a mixed use site with cell block buildings to maximize their usable square footage and result in unattractive designs.

Nineteen800 is one such cell-block type building and Marina is another. The Hills at Vallco consists of many blocks of rectangular cell block buildings, which is found only in downtown of big metropolitan areas. Certainly The Hills at Vallco doesn't fit to be a downtown of a small suburban city like Cupertino.

I would suggest that

• Vallco Specific Plan to set a limit of FAR at 1.0. Such a limit would encourage more open space as the building height increases and more attractive design with staggered building heights.

I would suggest that Vallco Specific Plan follows similar guidelines used in Palo Alto Municipal Code for their mixed use zoning (called Planned Community Zoning or PC Zoning). Specifically,

• the maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of any R1, R2, or other residential zoning or P zoning with residential use shall be thirty-five feet. (The same standard as Palo Alto's)

• The minimum setback should be at least 10 feet and a solid wall or fence or landscaped buffer between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed and maintained along the common site line. (The same standard as Palo Alto's)

Palo Alto Muni Code 18.38 (Planned Community Zoning) contains:

18.38.150 Special requirements.

Sites abutting or having any portion located with one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1, R-2, RM, or any PC district permitting single-family development or multiple-family development shall be subject to the following additional height and yard requirements:

(a) Parking Facilities. The maximum height shall be equal to the height established in the most restrictive adjacent zone district.
(b) All Other Uses. The maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1, R-2, RM, or applicable PC district shall be thirty-five feet; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of an RM-4 or RM-5 district shall be fifty feet
(c) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or applicable PC district, a minimum interior yard of 10 feet shall be required, and a solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed and maintained along the common site line. Where a use in a PC district where the gross floor area, excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the interior yard shall be at least as restrictive as the interior yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line. The minimum interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen.
(d) On any portion of a site in the PC district which is opposite from a site in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or applicable PC district, and separated therefrom by a street, alley, creek, drainage facility or other open area, a minimum yard of 10 feet shall be required. Where a use in a PC district where the gross floor area, excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the minimum yard requirement shall be at least as restrictive as the yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district opposite such site line. The minimum yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding areas required for access to the site.
(e) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or any residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as allowed in this section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential district shall be imposed.

(Ord. 3683 §§ 12, 13, 1986: Ord. 3465 §§ 40, 44, 1983: Ord. 3418 §§ 2 and 3, 1983: Ord. 3130 §§ 11, 25(f), 1979: Ord. 3108 § 9,

Sincerely,

Liang Chao