1 Emi Sugiyama
From: Nagesh Vempaty <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2022 12:28 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Council Cc: Nagesh Vempaty; mohamed genidy; Emi Sugiyama
Subject: Please remove or change the grade restrictions in City of Cupertino's SB-9 Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Honorable Members of the City of Cupertino Planning Committee and the City Council,
I attended the City Planning Committee Meeting on SB‐9 on Oct 11, 2022 via Zoom and spoke during the SB‐9 session.
I want to bring your attention to the Grade Change Limitation for SB‐9 urban lot splits in the Ci ty of Cupertino.
The City Planning Department Proposed changes in the Grading section of the Ordinance copied below this email.
Briefly, The City Planning Department proposed in the draft ordinance to ' allow a 12” grade change on lots with slopes between 0 – 5%, 24 ” grade change on lots with slopes between 6 – 10% and require a peer reviewed grading and drainage plan to confirm that grading on all slopes exceeding 10% is limited to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate on‐site parking and living space.'
THIS WAS REJECTED IN THE MEETING IN FAVOR OF AL LOWING UPTO A MAXIMUM OF 12" GRADE CHANGE IN ALL SITUATIONS.
This will not work especially in RHS lots with a hill slope. The argument made was to reduce the impact to hills. I want to bring your attention to the fact that
there is already an onerous restriction of 2500 cu bic yards of cut and fill permitted in the unsplit lot, which now applies to the combined cut and fill of 2500 cubic yards
for the resulting two lots after a lot split. This is already very restrictive when two homes are to be built with a total lim it of 2500 cubic yards of cut and fill.
There is no need to make an additional restriction of a maximum of one foot on the grading allowed, as this restriction already protects the hills from excessive grading.
The current restriction of 6 six inches on grading was shown to be inade quate for a lot with 5% slope and a 20 foot deep garage.
The proposed change to the restriction of 12 inches on grading will be inadequate on lots with even a 6% slope.
For example, to build a 20 ft deep garage on a 6% slope lot requir es a 14.4 inch grade change. It is even higher on lots with steeper slopes.
The planning department correctly identified that one solution does not fit all and proposed a solution that scales to different situations,
at the same time minimizing the grade change.
The discussed notion of building on stil ts/pillars to eliminate grade change does not work as this results in a driveway with a steeper slope and a crawl space of more than 4feet depth, both of which are not permitted. This is illustrated in the attached diagram. And we are only talking about a garage, not even the re st of the living space. The average dimensions for living spaces are 40ftx30ft for a two story house and even larger elsewhere. 2 I recommend the City of Cupertino's Council and the Planning Committee to revisit this issue and change to the City Planning Department's proposal of
'allow a 12” grade change on lots with slopes between 0 – 5%, 24” grade change on lots with slopes between 6 – 10% and require a peer review ed grading and drainage plan to confirm that grading on all slopes exceeding 10% is limited to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate on‐site parking and living space.'
This accommodates more situations.
Adding 12” limit specifically on SB‐9 lot split while not applying it under regular zoning or eve n SB‐9 developments without lot split means it is NOT an objective measure and is inconsistent with existing ordinances. It appears it is used as a tool to disqualify lot splits under SB‐9 in R1/RHS zoning. The selective 12” limit appears to be tailored to circumvent SB‐9 and hen ce not consistent with state intent that SB‐9 applies to all R1/RHS zoning and rules should be objective and consistent with existing rules.
We currently own an RHS lot in Cupertino and our preliminary proposal for an SB‐9 lot split is blocked by this item in the City Ordi
nance. I am requesting the City's Planning Commission and the City Council to pay attention to these details and rectify these issues adequately in the upcoming revision in Dec 2022.
If we need a further discussion, please let me know when and where.
Thanks,
Nageshwara Rao Vempaty
Proposed section pag es 93‐95 of 235 in PC 10‐11‐2022 City if Cupertino AGENDA Planning Commision Document.
This proposal is workable for most sites.
E. Site Grading
1. Maximum
Grading
Quantity
a. Cumulative total of 2,500 cubic yards, cut plus fill.
Includes: grading for building pad, yard areas,
driveway and all other areas requiring g rading.
Excludes: basements
b. All cut and fill shall be rounded to contour with
natural contours and planted with landscaping
which meets the requirements in Section
19.40.050G
c. For each of the lots developed or created pursuant
3 to Government Code Sections 64411.7 and
65852.21, a cumulative total of 1,250 cubic yards,
cut plus fill (including grading for building pad,
yard areas, driveway, all other areas requiring
grading, and basements), except if the original lot
that was subdivided has already performed prior
PC 10‐11‐2022
93 of 235
Ordinan
ce No. XX‐XXX
grading, then the amount of grading that has
previously occurred shall be reduced from the
maximum grading quantity allowed cumulatively
on the two resulting lots.
d. For each of the lots developed or created pursuant
to Government Code Sections 64411.7 and
65852.21, unless required by th e City Engineer or
to meet Fire Code requirements, grading activity
on lots with an average slope of:
i. Less than five percent shall not result in a
change in grade elevation by more than 12‐
inches from existing natural grade.
ii. Between five and ten percent shall not
result in a ch ange in grade elevation by
more than 24‐inches from existing natural
grade.
iii. Ten percent or more shall result in a
change in elevation that is limited to the
minimum extent necessary to
accommodate on‐site parking and living
space, as demonstrated by a grading and
drainage plan prepared by a registered
civil e
ngineer, subject to third‐party peer
review, at the applicant’s cost.
In all cases, the following shall apply:
i. Change in grade elevation shall be limited
to the minimum extent necessary to ensure
adequate drainage and access as
demonstrated by a grading and drainage
plan p repared by a registered civil
engineer.
ii. Split level designs shall be used to avoid
additional change in grade elevation.
iii. Unless otherwise required by the City
Engineer, spoils shall be balanced on site
and shall match the existing grading and
drainage pattern of the site.
PC 10‐11‐2022
94 of 235
Ordinan
ce No. XX‐XXX