!5L'.^urv'dSJHii2c!piiI2j2g

County of Santa Clara
Environmental Resources Agency
Planning Office
County Governnient center, East Wing, 7th Floor
70 West Hedding street
San Jose, California 951 10-1705

(40S)299-5770 FAX (4-08) 288-91 98
wvvw.sccpianning.org

B/S Cliair

January 25, 2005

To:

BD of Supv.^

Clerk

Board of Supervisors

County Executive

y...

From: Michael M.Lopez,Interim Planning Directo
RE:

Referral Response Regarding Monster Homes of December 14,2004

(Off Agenda)

This memo is in response to a referral of December 14, 2004 from the Board of
Supervisors regarding the subject of "monster homes." The referral originated with a

request by Supervisor Liz Kniss of District 5, described in the attached traitsmittal.
The organization of this memorandum follows the series of questions listed in the

referral transmittal:
1.

Definitional Issues

2.

Building permit data from 1995 to 2004

3.

4.
5.

7

Surrounding Issues

Actions taken by County in the last ten years addressing "monster homes
Comparison table of each city's home size restrictions within the County

//.

In addition, the memo provides a brief overview of the existing high priority work plan
assignments and other pending projects assigned to the Plarming Office, to assist the
Board in assessing the prioritization of this referral and potential for additional work
regarding the subject matter.

1. Definitional Issues of "Monster Homes"

The term ^monster home'has no precise or universally recognized definition. It is a
colloquial term often used to describe single family residences built within existing
neighborhoods that are perceived to be significantly larger than existing homes in the
neighborhood or that critics believe have an inappropriate design for a particular
parcel, neighborhood, or community.It is most often used in a pejorative sense to
criticize the architectural style, mass, height or other physical draracteristics of the
individual homes in question. The term may also be used at times to refer to residences

built in new neighborhoods or subdivisions or in reference to the general phenomena of

infill redevelopment of existing residential lots. The ongoing replacement of older,
smaller homes with new larger homes is a nationwide phenomenon. Few cities have
not had some experience with it.
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado. Pete McHugh. James T. Beall, Jr:. Liz Kniss
County Executive: Peter Kutras, Jr.

Districts (f n HI IV

Any definition of "monster home" that might be proposed is inherently somewhat
subjective, based on the particular circumstances, tastes, and preferences of those

involved. A search performed of online dictionaries available on the Internet found no
entries under the term 'monster home/

Beyond the issues of size and scale, critics of "monster homes" often object to the

following aspects or features of the homes:

*

•

•
•

•

boxy, unimaginative massing and design suggestive of minimizing expense;

unbalanced proportions or inept use of architectural features or motifs;

any two-story homes in traditionally one-story neighborhoods;
choice of specific architectural styles, such as Mediterranean or English Tudor,in
areas where the preponderance of homes are of a different style; and
use of particular design elements, such as facades dominated by garage doors,
oversized entrjnvays and porches, colors, and window styles.

No definition of the term 'monster home'has been considered or adopted as part of a

Coxmty policy or ordinance. However, all zoning codes contain provisions that
effectively regulate or limit the size of residences in some way,such as height limits,
setbacks, and limits on the number of stories. Beyond these basic types of standards,
cities and counties may use a variety of regulations to limit house size,including:

•

•
•
•

floor area ratio (FAR), that limits size in relation to the area of the lot;

floor area limits, expressed in terms of an absolute maximum size;
lot coverage limits, restricting the percentage or amount of the lot that can be
covered by buildings; and,
siting regulations.

Setbacks, heightlimits, and limits on the number of stories apply in all County zoning
districts. The specific standards vary by district and lot size combining district, per
Chapter 3.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. There are also specific standards for flag lots of

less than 20,000 square feet. For further information,refer to the attached handout
"Development Standards for Residential Uses by Zoning District" for an overview of
residential development regulations(Attachment A). Additional explanation is
provided under part three of this memo.

2. Building Permit Data for Single Family Residences,1995 -2004

The referral requested information regarding the number of homes built in County
pockets in the last ten years that would qualify as "monster homes." Lacking a pre
defined basis of what would qualify as a "monster home," staff is obtaining and
compiling data for all building permits issued during 1995 to 2004 for new single family
residences in urban pockets to provide further information and basis for discussion by
the Board of Supervisors. The permit data is forthcoming in a tabular addendum.

3. Other Issues Relating to "Monster Homes"

The referral requested that staff address related or surrounding issues on the topic of
"monster homes." These might include existing County General Plan goals, strategies,
and policies, social trends and evolving lifestyles, privacy issues, property values and
property rights, and many others.

File; Monster Home Referral Response, 1/28/CS

2

3.1

General Plan-Related Issues

Existing,longstanding urban development policies of the General Plan require that each
urban pocket ultimatdy be annexed into its surrounding city,i.e., the city in whose
Urban Service Area the pocket is located (Part 4 of the General Plan, Urban
Unincorporated Area Issues and Policies).
The ftmdamental strategies and policies governing urban pockets or islands are to;
#1: Promote eventual annexation;

#2: Ensure conformity of development with cities' general plans; and,
#3: Provide services as efficiently and equitably as possible.

The General Plan supports the eventual annexation of all the urban pockets except those
areas of Stanford lands governed by intergovernmental agreements.It supports the

development of unincorporated lands wi^n those pockets that conforms to the type of

use and general density of development permitted tmder the applicable dty generd
plan. It also recommends that specific development standards be coirsidered for
general compatibility with city development standards.
3.2

Design Issues

Design characteristics of new construction are often a major factor in discussions of

"monster homes." In some cases, critics of larger replacement homes object more to

what they consider the lack of proper design or architectural character than the sheer

size of the home. Often the criticisms are combined.

The subject of architectural character or design further relates to the types of review
processes local governments may use to regulate new residential development.
Depending on the jurisdiction, such processes can vary greatly in terms of application
requirements, the cost to the applicant,the amount of time necessary to obtain
approvals, administrative costs to the jurisdiction,the use offormally appointed review

boards or commissions, the level of detail subject to architectural review and approval,
the development and use of formal guidelines as a basis for discretionary review,
staffing implications, types of apped processes, controversy potential, and impacts on
the general cost of housing, among other variables.
3.3

Maintenance of Housing Stock

'Housing stock'is a term used to refer to the entirety of housing within a jurisdiction.
Replacement and maintenance of aging or decrepit housing stock is a necessary aspect
of the evolution of urban areas and is generally desirable from the standpoint of the
public health, safety and welfare. The emerging challenge faced by all cities is one of
balancing the replacement of housing stock wim the goals of conserving neighborhood
character, encouraging quality design and construction, and maintaining proper

relationships to the land and natural environments.

File: Monster Home Referral Response,1/28/05

3

3.4

Social Trends in House Size

House size trends reflect changing lifestyles, individual prosperity, and economic
cycles. The average house size for working class families of tire 1940s to 1950s was
considerably smaller than today's. Contemporary homes have more bedrooms, and

much larger kitchen and dining spaces. Recreation rooms, bonus or family rooms, home

offices, and home theaters are also more common,as are larger closets and gener^

storage space. Master bedroom suites are now the norm,rather than the exception. Two
and three car garages reflect trends in increased vehicle ownership per household.

In general, where the market and regulations permit, owners and developers of custom

or speculative homes often seek to maximize the overall size of a house to accommodate

as many design features and rooms as modem day families may desire. That is not to
ignore the fact that in some areas of the country, there is a growing amount of interest
and professional literature concerning small house design, emphasizing economy and
efficiency of design.

3.5

Historical Significance

The replacement of older homes with newer,larger or "monster homes" may also
involve properties with historical significance. The properties often targeted for the

constmction of large replacement homes are those with older, smaller homes whose

floor plans and constmction aren't well suited to expansion or alteration. However,in

other cases, highly significant historical homes of excellent design and constmction may

be lost as a result. Qties and counties must evaluate the potential historical value of
older homes proposed for demolition under provisions of the California Environmental

Quality Act(CEQA).
3.6

Privacy Issues/Daylight Impacts

The constmction of large replacement homes that maximize the building footprint or
envelope(minimum setbacks and maximum height) are often criticized for directly
diminishing the privacy of neighboring properties. Critics often dte the example of
second story windows that provide a direct view of backyards, pools and spas. Other
concerns include the loss of daylight to neighboring homes and yards. Proponents of
those larger homes argue that as long as everyone has the same rights to develop,
personal preferences should take priority.

3.7

Property Rights

By statute and judicial mlings,local governments have the right to regulate land use,
residential development, and aesthetics. Nevertheless, any discussion of potential home

size regulations typically causes si^ficant controversy over property rights issues.
Some individuals take extreme positions on the subject and strenuously object to any
additional regulation of house size, on the basis that personal interests and preferences
should supersede public interests. Some express concerns about the extent of neighbor

involvement in determining specific aspects of design, while others believe that
community standards and expectations must play a role in balancing individual and
community interests, such as conserving neighborhood character.
Pile: Monster Home Referral Response,1/28/05

4

4. Actions taken by County in the last ten years addressing "monster homes"

The County has enacted a number of house size regulations in the recent past—some

within the last ten years—that address certain issues regarding "monster homes." For
example, the floor area ratio(FAR)regulations for the "-nl" Los Altos urban pockets
originated in 1992, and the "~n2" Burbank FAR originated in 1994. The Los Altos "-nl"
zoiung district established a 35% FAR for lots of 10,000 square feet or less, with floor
area capped at 5,700 square feet. The "-nl" regulations were modified in 1997 to
address the issue of underlying lots. The Burbank "-n2" district contains a 50% FAR
and was based on recommendations of the Burbank Community Council.

Neighborhood Preservation zoning districts establishing FAR restrictions for certain
Cupertino pockets were enacted in 1998 and 1999("-n3" and "-n4"). These were related
to programmatic efforts between the dty and County to promote annexation, and the
pockets to which these standards applied. Rancho Rinconada and Garden Gate, have
been subsequently annexed into the City of Cupertino. Those regulations established a

45% FAR and certain setbacks for second stories.

For flag lots less than 20,000 square feet in all urban residential zoning districts, the
Board of Supervisors adopted standards in 2001 that restricted height to one story and

21 feet.

The County also imposed house size limits on residences in the "-d2" Design Review
districtfor the Milpitas hillsides, in 1999. For lots less than 10 acres, floor area is limited
to 6,000 square feet. For lots 10 acres or greater, the limit is 8,000 square feet of floor
area. Part of the "-d2" district applies to imincorporated lands inside the current Urban
Service Area(USA)of Milpitas, and part applies to lands outside the USA.
In the process of establishing the "-dl" Design Review Zoning District for the west
valley hillsides during 1996-1997, there was extensive discussion regarding the
possibility of establishing a maximrun house size, but due to the level of controversy,
the Board of Supervisors elected not to indude such a standard in the regulations.
5, Comparison table of each dty^s home size restrictions within Santa Clara County

The referral requested a table comparing each dty's home size restrictions to the
County's. The attached table entitled "House Size Restriction Profile for Cities in Santa

Qara County" lists height restrictions, limits on nxunber of stories, lot coverage, and

floor area ratios or hmits based on lot size (Attachment C).

The standards of the cities vary greatly in terms of complexity. Some dties' standards
are straightforward and easily comprehended at first glance. However,others'

standards and formulas can be so complex that they cannot be summarized adequately
in tabular format. To convey the complexities inherentin some regulations, extensive
footnotes are induded to elaborate on regulations that have been simplified for

indusion in the table.

File: Monster Home Referral Response,1/28/05

5

Heights/Stories: The majority of dties have a single fixed height standard and limit on
the number of stories. Several allow some flexibility on height, depending on other

factors. One city allows marginally greater heights with marginal increases in setbacks.

Lot Coverage: Lot coverage standards are generally in the 35 to 45% range, but it is
important to note that the majority of dties that impose lot coverage regulations
proportionately reduce lot coverage as lot size increases.

Floor Area Ratios(FAR)/Limits: FARs are generally 35 to 50% for typical urban lot
patterns, which exhibit lot sizes from approximately 5,000 to 10,000 square feet. FAR

typically decreases as lot size increases.Some cities discourage floor area above a
certain percentage by imposing a discretionary review requirement.Some use FAR to
encourage one story design instead of two story design.

The vast majority of urban residential zoning districts within unincorporated islands
are subject to a 35 ft. height limit,2stories, no lot coverage limits except for those that

apply to accessory buildings, and no floor area ratio. Combining districts for "-nl,

tt //

n2/'and "-d2" impose floor area ratios or limits.
6. Existing Work Plan Priorities

The following table lists those workplan items identified as'legislative initiatives" in

the adopted workplan for the Planning Office. It indicates those that were existing
projects at the time the work plan was adopted in 2002 and those new initiatives
approved as having highest priority for the Planning Office.
i ’,

10-01
10-02

V;s

liXlS'i INC; l>ROJI;CrS (as of 2002)

Geologic Ordinance/Hazard Maps
Rezoiiings for Consistency w/

Completed

Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance

Completed

General Plan
10-03

Revision (and replace official zoning

Completed

maps with CIS ^ning maps)

10-04

10-05

10-07
10-08

Housing Element Update
Historic Preservation Ordinance

10-09

10-10

improvements
Completed
In progress

I’KOJliClS
i ; !
Lot Line Adjustment Ordinance

Completei

Habitat Conservation Plan

In progress

Revisions

Wind Ener^ Conservation Sy

Ordinance/Regulations

stems

Milpitas USA Retraction and General
Plan Amendments/Rezonings
DniF.KRi;n i^kojecis
Administrative Hearing Ordinance

File: Monster Home Referral Response, 1/28/05

review/corrections,
minor

I■X^I:KNALLYG1:NI•KA’H•;I)

10-06

Periodic need for

Completed

Annual reporting

requirement

(See note)

On hold; Early

2005 restart
Withdrawn

6

10-11

Sale of Alcohol in Neignbomood

Completed

Letters of Convenience and Necessity

Completed

Areas

1042

I STANFORD COMMUNITY

PLAN/GUP IMPLEMENTATION
10-13
10-14

10-15

Stanford OS/F Zoning District
Stanford SCA,Special Conservation
Area Zoning District
NEW PROJECTS-HIGII PRIORITY
Large Group Assembly Facilities
Study(LGAF)

Completed
On hold

Prerequisite study
necessary

Completed

Also addressed in

CVSP and Morgan

Fiill ULL studies

10-18

Williamson Act Policies and
Ordinances Review

In progress

10-20

Riparian Protection Policy and
Ordinance Study
Viewsheds and Greenbelt Study

In progress

Combined with
Water Collaborative

In progress

Overlaps with
CVSP and Morgan

10-19

Hill ULL studies

Note:Item 10-07, Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP),was originally identified as being
part of the Planning Office's work plan when the work plan was adopted. Since that
time, the primary responsibility for Coimty government participation has been shifted
to the Office of the County Executive, although Planning Office staff continue to be

involved on a regular basis.

From this overview the following major initiatives remain in process:
•

10-05, Historic Preservation Ordinance

•
•

10-09, Milpitas USA Retraction and General Plan Amendments/Rezonings
10-14, Stanford SCA,Special Conservation Area Zoning District

•

•
•

10-18, Williamson Act Policies and Ordinances Review

10-20, Riparian Protection Policy and Ordinance Study/Water Collaborative
10-19, Viewsheds and Greenbelt Study

Each of these projects has multiple dimensions and various aspects of implementation,
including the development of ordinance standards, procedures, and regulations. Each
requires or will require a significant amoimt of Planning Office project staff and/or
managerial staff involvement. All are in addition to ongoing mandatory functions of
the Planning Office, major projects and EIR-related work,and those completed work

plan items mat continue to require considerable ongoing follow-up worl^ such as the

reporting requirements concerning lot line adjustments, and various
corrections/clarifications to the revised Zoning Ordinance,
Conclusions

Note:The response to this referral could not be fully completed within the mandatory

45 day referrd response time period. Staff will produce a follow-up memorandum as

an addendum to mis memo that will contain the building permit research requested.

File: Monster Home Referral Response,1/28/05

7

any descriptive or explanatory information needed in relation to that research, and

further address the following:
•

identification of possible trends derived from building permit data;

•

proliferation of"-n" combining districts for each city or portions thereof, costs of
implementation, and controversy potential, etc.)
impact of any new legislative initiative to existing work plan and the ability of

•

staff resource and operational impacts of potentially developing additional zoning
regulations to achieve greater compatibility of standards with dty standards(such
as the issue of adding significant complexity to zoning regulations, possible

Planning Office and other County offices to deal effectively with multiple complex
and controversial issues at the same time (e.g.: Williamson Act policies and

•

practices)

relationship to urban development policies and more specifically, pocket

annexation goals and policies of the General Plan. Discuss LAFCO efforts to

promote annexations pursuant to SB 1266, which allows dties to annex pockets of

up to 150 acres without possibility of protest or elections. Articulate the need to

employ the most strategic and cost-effective ways to fadlitate island annexation in
light of limited resources),

Given the potential complexity and controversy assodated with any new legislative

initiative regarding regrdation of house size within urban pockets—induding extensive
community outreach and involvement in the hearing processes—the Board of
Supervisors will need to carefully consider the impact upon existing work plan
priorities. If the Board of Supervisors directs staff to commence work on a new
legislative initiative regarding house size regulations for urban pockets, that work effort
would displace or defer indefinitely at least one and probably several existing high
priority work plan items for the foreseeable future.
Attachments:

A. Development Standards for Residential uses by Zoning District- County of Santa
Clara (public service counter handout)

B.

Table -Building Permit Data for New Single Family Residences, 1995-2004, within

Urban Pockets[NOT AVAILABLE]

C. Table ~ House Size Restriction Profile for Qties in Santa Clara Coimty
D.

December 14,2004 Referral

CC: Jane Decker, Deputy County Executive

W.T. Chow,Director,Environmental Resources Agency

Phyllis Perez, Clerk of the Board

File: Monster Home Referral Response,1/28/05

8

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA - PLANNING OFFICE

70 W. Hedding St., San Jose, CA ,95110

(408) 299-5770 www.sccplanning.org

Development Standards for Residential Uses by Zoning District
(Accessory buildings and structures, see Section 4.20.020.)

(in net sq. ft., under 1 acre)

(in ft.)
Urban Base

Districts

(in gross acres, 1 acre or more)
Stories

Front

wassssmssssm

R1,R1E, R2.8
25

5

25

35

2

5000 S.f.

R3

20

10

15

45

4

NA

RHS

30

20

25

35

3

ItolOac.

R1S (Stanford)

25

5

25

35

2

ASA

ASA

ASA

ASA

ASA

ASA

ASA

ASA

ASA

ASA

Front

Side*

Rear

Height

Stories

A1 (in USA)

R1S - Multi-Family
R3S (Stanford)

(CityGP)
(See 2.30.04Q)

8 du/ac, max. (See 2.30.030)
15 du/ac, max. (See 2.30.030)

Lot Size Combining

Districts <Ch. 3,10)
-6

25

6

25

NA

NA

6000 S.f.

-8

25

8

25

NA

NA

8000 S.f.

-10

25

10

25

NA

NA

10,000 s.f.

30

15

25

NA

NA

■ 20,000 S.f.

-1 ac.

30

20

25

NA

NA

1 acre, gross

-2.5 ac.

30

30

30

NA

NA

2.5 acres

-5 ac.

30

30

30

NA

NA

5 acres

-10 ac.

30

30

30

NA

NA

10 acres

-20 ac.

30

30

30

NA

NA

20 acres

-40 ac.

30

30

30

NA

NA

40 acres

30

30

30

NA

NA

Formula

Front

Side*

Rear

Height

Stories

30

30

30

35

2

By Combining District

-20

-Is, -1.75s, -2.5s,
-5s. -5/20S, -20s

(See 3.10.040)

Rural & Special

Purpose Districts
A, A1
RR

30

30

3D

35

2

5 - 20 ac.

(See 2.20.040)

AR

30

30

30

35

3

160 ac.

(See 2.20.040)

HS

30

30

30

35

3

160 ac.

(See 2.20.040)

RS

30

30

30

35

2

20 ac.

(See 2.50.030)

ASA

ASA

ASA

ASA

ASA

160 ac.

(See 2.50.030)

OS/F (Stanford)
NOTES;

* 10' exterior side for corner iots, minimum, if standard is less than 10'

Density/min. lot size in AR and HS may also be determined by "20s" slope-density formula. See section noted.
See Reverse for Special Provisions and Exceptions

July 2004

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA - PUNNING OFFICE

70 W. Hedding St., San Jose, CA 95110

(408) 299-5770 www.sccpianning.org

Special Setback Exceptions, Section 4.20.110(C)(1):
• Minimum side yard for substandard lots of one (1) acre or less:’
Lot area

Min, side yard (ft,)

3,750 - 5,000

5

5,001 - 6.000

6

6,001 - 8,000

8

8,001 -10,000

10

10,001 -.20,000

15

20,001 -1 ac. Net

20

• Side setback reduction for tots larger than one (1) acre net and less than 150 ft. in width:
20% of lot width (Section 4.20.110(C)(2}}

' Rear setback reduction for any tot:
20% of lot depth (Section 4.20.110(C)(3))

• Setbacks established by a recorded subdivision map, Including building lines and envelopes,
supersede setbacks of the Zoning Ordinance if more restrictive (Section 4.20.110(C)(4)).

Certain architectural features, such as awnings, bay windows,oaves,chimneys, etc.:
May extend 30 inches into a required setback. See Section 4,20,110(A)(1).

Entrance decks,stairs that are uncovered and unenclosed may extend to a very limited extent
into a required yard setback, as set forth in Section 4.20.110(A)(2).

Other Combining Districts: "-n", “-d", "-sr" and "-h" combining zoning districts may contain height or other
special development regulations that supersede those of any other district. See Article 3.

HS Specified Substandard Subdivisions. For lots less than one acre in certain named HS subdivisions,
refer to the provisions of Section 2.20.070(A}, Rural Base Zoning Districts.

Height exceptions for architectural features,such as chimneys, railings, solar panels, etc.:
See 4.20.110(B) for additional height allowances, depending on structure.
Flag lots of less than 20,000 s.f. in urban residential zoning districts,
21 feet maximum height, one story allowed (Section 2.30.030(B)).

Minimum size for substandard lots in order to allow use as a residential building site, assuming ail other
applicable standards are met, is 3,750 s.f.(Section 4,20,040)

For a complete compilation of supplemental development standards,
refer to Chapter 4.20 of the Zoning Ordinance.

July 2004

House Size Restriction Profile for Cities in Santa Clara County
Definitions:

Although definitions for the following terms vary slightly with each city, generally the following apply:
Height: The Vertical distance from the grade to the highest point of the building.
Floor Area: The entire area of all floors, measured from the outer face of exterior walls. Basements are generally
excluded from floor area

Floor Area Ratio(FAR): The ratio of gross floor area to the net lot area.

Lot Coverage: The horizontal area covered by all buildings on any lot as computed from the outside dimensions
of each building,expressed as a percentage of the lot area.

.Tt-

Campbell

35

Cupertino

28

2.5

40

45 generally, Up to 50 with approval of a Site &
Architectural Review Permit

Not

45

45,second story is limited to 45% of first story

Specified
Gilroy

35

2

None

Los Altos

27

2

35

(Istory <=

None

35(net site area <= 11,000 sq. ft.)

< 35.‘(net site area >11,000 sq. ft.)

20’)
30

(2 stories or
1 story >
20’).
Los Altos

Hills
Los Gatos

27

Not

generally^

Specified

30

Not

None

40

Complex computation based on lot area and average
slope.^

35 to 15*(excluding garages)for lots ranging from
5000 to 30000 sq. feet,

Specified

10 to 3^ for garages for lots ranging from 5000 to
30000 sq.feet
< 35*for all structures (excluding garages up to 400 sq
feet) on lots <5000 square feet

Milpitas

30

Not

None^

None

Specified
Monte
Sereno

20 to 40^‘“

11

(overall

(as lot size

Maximum Area(gross)
3,300 to 6,600 sq.ft for single story

maximum^)

decreases)

3,000 sq.ft to 6,000 sq.ft for two story

25-30

2

ATTACHMENT C.

Morgan

30

2.5

Hill

»«

13

15 to 50

None

(as lot size

decreases)
Mountain
View

24

None

2

(1 story)

14

45 to 40(Base FAR)

Base FAR +(10% of Base FAR)for additions - require
discretionary review

28

(2 stories)
Palo Alto

IS

30

Not

= Maximum

45 for lots <=5000

Specified

FAR

< 45 for lots > 5000

IS

(1 stoiy)
35

(2 or more

stories)
San Jose

35

2.5

None

Santa

25

2

40

26

2

> 45 requires discretionary review

17

None

Clara

Saratoga

35 to 60‘®

(as lot size
decreases)

Sunnyvale
County

30

2]

35

2

22

2,3

45(1 story)
40(2 story)

Complex computation, which yields allowable floor

area'* of 2,400 sq. ft to 8000sq,ft. for lots ranging
from 5,000 sq. ft. to 200,000 sq. ft“

FAR > 45 or Gross Floor Area > 4,050 sq. ft. requires
Planning Commission Review

None

Only by combining districf®

'Floor Area is calculated by the formula 3,850 +{.10 X (net lot area - 11,000)}.

^ 32’ for primary dwellings subject to special requirements

^ Maximum Floor Area(MFA)= LUF X 6000 where average slope(S)<= 10%; MFA = LUF X {6,000 - 50(S40)} where S

>10% and < 30%; MFA = LUF X 5,000 where S >= 3C|%. LUF in the preceding formulae stands for Lot Unit Factor. The LUF =

net area of the lot or parcel for lots where tlie average slope is less than ten(10%)percent; for lots or parcels with average slopes
between ten(10%)percent and fifty-five(55%)percent, then: LUF = An [1-.02143(S-10)] where; (i) An = net area of the parcel

or lot(ii) S = average slope of the net area of the parcel or lot in percent.

^ The FAR values are calculated by using the formula: 0.35 - {(A-5)/25 X ,20} where A is the net lot area in thousands of square

feet (for example,7,500 square feet is written as 7.5.

^ The FAR values are calculated by using the formula; O.IO - {(A-5)/25 X ,07}, where A Is the net Jot area in thousands of square

feet(for example,7,500 square feet is written as 7.5.

^ The Far values are calculated using the formula:0.40 -{(A-2)/3 X .05}, where A is the net lot area in thousands of square feet

(for example,7,500 square feet is written as 7.5

^ The exception is one PUD,where lot coverage is 40

8

Different maximum height limits are specified for single and two stoiy structures which in turn vary by different single family
residential zones; maximum height for single story structures at required first floor setback is 14’ which can be increased by 1 foot
ATTAGHMF.NT C.

for each additional 1 foot of distance that portion of the building is from the required setback line to a maximum of 21 The
maximum height for two story structures at required second floor setback is 21’ which can be increased by 1 foot for each
additional 1 foot of distance that portion of the building is from the required setback line to a maximum of 25’in R-1-8 zone, to a
maximum of 27’ in R-1-20 zone, and can be increased by 1 foot for each additional 2 feet of distance that portion of the building is
from the required setback line to a maximum of 30’ in R-1-44 zone

° Maximum lot coverage varies in different single family residential zones; R-1-8: 40%,R-1-20: 30%,R-1-44: 20%
10

11

Maximum cannot exceed 20,000 sq. ft (for oversized lots)
Different Floor Areas(gross) are specified for single and two story main dwelling structures, which in turn vary by different

single family residential zones. In R-1-8 zone: Maximum size = 3,300 sq. ft. for single story and 3,000 sq. ft. for two story. The
size can be increased by.15 sq. ft. for each 1 sq. ft. the net lot size exceeds 10,000 sq ft. or minimum lot size required by slope
density formula; In R-1-20 zone: Maximum size = 4,950 sq. ft. for single story and 4,500 sq. ft. for two story. The size can be
increased by .050 sq. ft. for each I sq. ft. the net lot size exceeds 24,000 sq ft. or minimum lot size required by slope density
formula; in R-1-44 zone: Maximum size = 6,600 sq. ft.for single story and 6,000 sq. ft. for two story. The size can be increased by
.075 sq. ft. for each 1 sq. ft. the net lot size exceeds 44,000 sq ft. or minimum lot size required by slope density formula
12
In three single family zoning districts the maximum overall height of the dwelling is <= 17’
13
Maximum lot coverage varies in different single family zoning districts; R-1 7,000 & R-1 9,000:50%, RE-i 12,000 & RE-1
20,000:40%, RE-40,000: 30%,RE-100,000: 25%, and RE -10: 15%.
14

FAR = 45% for lots <= 5,000 sq. ft.;44% for lots 6,000 sq.ft.; 43% for lots 7,000 sq. ft.; 42% for lots 8,000 sq.ft.; 41% for lots

9,000 sq. ft.; 40% for lots => 10,000 sq, ft.; For other lot sizes FAR = 0.50-(O.OOOIX Lot Area)
15

16

33’ if the roof pitch is 12:12 or greater.

Floor Area is calculated by the formula: 2,250+ {0.30 X(lot area-5000)} for lots > 5000
There are three levels of discretionary review: Level I- Administrative review by Planning Directors, if a set of seven criteria are
met Level II- Public hearing with the planning Director if the criteria are not met. Level III-Hanning Commission hearing if the

17

decision at Level II is appealed.
13

Maximum lot coverage varies in different single family zoning districts; R-1-10,000: 60%;R-1-12,500: 55%; R-1-15,000: 50%;

R-1-20,000: 45%,R-1-40,000: 35%.
19

20

The allowable floor are is based upon the net site area and slope of the lot and the height of the structure to be constructed,
8,000 sq ft is the maximum allowable square footage for lots > 200,000 sq. ft.; maximum allowable square footage for lots <

5,000 sq. ft. is determined by Planning Commission.
2i
Height= 27’ in ‘nl’ neighborhood combining district
“3 stories allowed in RHS district in hillside areas.
23

FAR = 35% in ‘nl’ neighborhood combining district, and 50% in ‘n2’ neighborhood combining district.

ATTACHMENT C