Liang - Missing Objective Standards for P Zoning: Setback, Slope or Retail Percentage

From: Liang-Fang Chao

Date: Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:00 PM
Subject: Missing Objective Standards for P Zoning: Setback, Slope or Retail Percentage
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Paul, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners,

The 2017 pro-housing bills will allow by-right project approval based only on objective standards in the General Plan and Municipal Code. The newly proposed SB 827 will even up-zone certain areas, even in R1 zones, to allow high-rise buildings. However, the Municipal Code in Cupertino did not include sufficient objective standards that will provide the basic design standards.

As far as I know, there is no minimum setback standard or slope standard in non-artery streets.

For P zoning with multiple uses, there is no standard on the minimum percentage or maximum percentage of a certain use, as one can find in other city's General Plan. For example, Oaks has submitted a proposal with 0 retail space. This is because the P zoning did not require a minimum amount of retail space. The Municipal Code at the very least should require the existing retail space to be preserved. The Council can always give exception as needed, provided the developer offer other comparable benefits.

Below is some research done back in 2015. The Municipal Code of Palo Alto sets the height limit so that the height of a mixed use project cannot be higher than other surrounding neighborhoods within 150 feet. Similar standards should be adopted for P zoning.

P zoning in Cupertino is not well defined at all in Cupertino's Municipal Code. Please take some time to define objective standards so that the Council is in control of what projects are allowed.

Thank you for considering.

Liang

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Better Cupertino

Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:46 PM
Subject: Missing Policies on setback or buffers for mixed use projects next to residential zones or non-artery streets
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,

Cupertino is entering a new era with many mixed use projects and many buildings over 45 feet. Hamptons is already granted 75 feet; Cupertino Village has 60 feet; Oaks will request close to 100 feet; Vallco is probably looking at 130 feet. More will come with the new GPA application process which allow individual projects to request GPA to increase density, which has never been done before (even though it is allowed, but the previous Council never abused that right to amend general plans just to grant a project more density).

However, neither 2040 General Plan nor the previous General Plan have policies to protect other neighborhoods or non-artery streets from taller buildings or mixed use sites that will attempt to use up all available space for building mass. It is time to update the general plan to include policies that govern setback and buffers from residential neighbors or non-artery streets.

These policies on setbacks and buffers are essential. For example, Apple requested that the following to be added to Hamptons site: "Buildings located within 50 feet of the property lines abutting Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Ave. and Apple Campus 2 site shall not exceed 60 feet)." Apple employees need privacy on a lot of 175 acres which already has a large setback from its own property boundary. Other Cupertino property owners, commercial or residential, need the same privacy protection from taller buildings also. Yet, "Community Vision 2040" did not add any other policies to protect the rest of Cupertino property owners.

For example, condo owners from Metropolitan requested a 20 feet buffer/setback for Main Street projects. As a result, Main Street developer cut out a part of the park area to provide such buffer. Main Street ends up with o.55 acre park, instead of 0.75 acre as approved. Such negotiation won't need to take place if there are policies in the General Plan to set the minimum setback/buffer of mixed use projects when the site is borders residential zones or borders a local street with residential homes/condos. Policies should be in place so that mixed use projects developers have a set rule to follow. It shouldn't be negotiated project by project at the time when a development project is approved.

As an example, here is the requirement from Palo Alto's zoning code that specifically applies to mixed use zones:

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.

Sincerely,

BetterCupertino