The URL can be used to link to this page

17. Petition for Reconsideration 21947 Lindy Lane' CITY OF City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 C O P E RT! N O Fax. (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda item No. j? Agenda Date: November 18, 2008 Application: Petition Request for Reconsideration of the City Council's Decision denying an appeal of a Residential Design Approval for a new 4,491 square-foot, two- story, single-family residence with a basement. Applicant:. Chia-Ching Lin " Properfy Owner: Sheshaprasad Krichnapi.asa 8i Maluzi Minasandram Location: 21947 Lindy Laney APN 356-25-029 Petitioner. Seema Mittai 8z Sarvesh Mahesh APPLICATION SUMMARY Consider a petition for reconsideration of the City Council's decision denying an appeal of the Planning Commission approva[ of a residential design approval for a new 4,491 square-foot, two-story, single-family residence with a basement. RECOMIVIENI~ATION The Council has the following options: 1) Deny the petition for a Reconsideration H+~aring. Lf the City Council declines to grant the reconsideration hearing, then the appeal remauvs denied and the residential design review remains approved. 2) Grant the petition for a Reconsideration Hearing and do one of the following: a) Uphold the Appeal (i.e., deny the residential design approval); or b) Uphold the Appeal and modify the conditions of the residential design approval; or c) Deny the Appeal (i.e., approve the residential design approval) Staff is recommenduZg Option 1: denial of the IZecoi~sideration Hearing for the reasons stated in the staff report. ~~-~ Reconsideration of the Appeal of a Design Review l~TOVember 18, 2008 Approc>al for 21947 Lindy Lane, Cupertino Page 2 BACKGROUND The subject property is Lot 2 (middle lot) of a L6 acre, 3-lot subdivision on Lindy Lane, commonly known as the "Moxley Property (See aerial photo below)." The subdivision vas approved by the Plaiuzizg Commission on July 9, 2001. The fi1a1 map vas approved in 2004. The subdivision created three lots of approximately 20,000 square feet each. The zoniu~g on the property is R1-20 (20,000 square foot miitinzum lot size) and is generally governed by the R1 ordinance. )sz addition to the general Rl ordinance, the property is also subject to the special provisions contained within the R1 ordinance (Section 19.28.050 C also referred to as Ordinance 07-2011) adopted in September of 2007. This is because the subject properties, along with other properties in the area were determined by City Cotuzcil to hat>e hillside characteristics even though they were ~vithiZ the general Rl zoning district. The provisions of Section 19.28.050 C contain special restrictions regarding site grading, tZoor area, retaiulizg wall screeniZg, fencing, tree protection and other building ~~-z -, - --APP1?~NDIX ~ --- P12C~MTNT~N"1' RTI~ GT',r1~CNiJS Chap) er 19.40 of the Cupertino F.9u ni cip al Code n do pl cf by l6c Ci(y Council under Ordinance I C-74, Oclohcr 1 I, 1997 17-55 19 17FP IC fi=-~ .f.?1 G°S Y/ K :-'rcP -di.an i ry inf~,~/r=a«y.~.c_j~i ci~/5.'~i~,rk r~ --- :7 Lcm~-Y Fr,x n~TF°' Tirn~ I<_4-~nTif ic~t iOn I liur~.Y ion E'SS- ~-1:~7~ ::~~A OCrie4B 4 ice" ~,,~~~ ., ': ~ q~, F _~~~ ~ "~'~ ~~~s May 1;3, 200f3 Dear Resident, 4 Pag~.~a T '~~.'L../'L~ h-~.7.. rJPa R~su I Y is. ` O RECe i ved fVa t'ax ~~ _Comasiurrity Daavel:sg~r-cerit it7epar~f-r-~~rxt 10300 Toz-re Avenue Cupertino, California 95012- Phone (408) 777-3308 Fax (403) 777-3333 "f'he Cii_y of Cci#~ertino PlaiZ.iz_ing Division received an appZicaf~ori (file number R-2008-14- and RM-2_QOS-Z 6) for a Residential Design Review to construct anew, two-story 4,499 .--,quire .foo'r>=single family residence and a IVliszor Residential I-permit for a side facing second story balcony on the new residence, located at 27847 Lixtdy Lane. This - appIication requires staff approval and neighbors within 300 feet are notified with the opportunity to comment on the project. City staff believes that the project is compatible with homes in the neighborhood and intends to approve the project based on tie enclosed plains. Please contact me no later- than Wednesday, 194ay 28, 200f3 if you have arty questions or conceals that the City staff should take into consideration when rriaking ifs final decision on "Thtu•sday, IE~ay 2.9, 2008. The applicant and any neighbor that contacts me on or before Wednesday, IvIay 28, 2008 will receive a letter describuzg the action taken. Sincerely, Ca_~,~,\___ ._-, Colin Tung Senior FlazZZ-ier (408) 777-3257 colinj~cupertizlo.org Enclosures 21x17 plan set 17-56 IZeconsider_at;oaz o the Appeal of a l~~esil~n €y'view November 13, 2003 Approval fear ?_1947 Lindy Lane, Caapea-tiaao t'a~c 3 standards not found within other parts of the R7 zone; however, Section. 19.?_3.050 C does not include setback or height regulatia nls. These standards are contained in the general Rl ordinance. [n May 2003, the Conunxastity Development Department directed the applicant to erect story poles, and staff mailed a notice anal pJatxs to surrotu~ding property owners within a 300-foot radius, notifying them of the pending residential development. The R7 zoning ordinance allows the Department Director to approve a house less than 4,500 square feet in size, but given. the controversy of recent, past housing developnunt in the neighborhood, the Director deemed it necessary to solicit neighborhood input. Because of the level of concern about the project, staff continued to refine the design to address concerns, but elected to refer the project to the Plaazazi_ng Commission for approval because of the controversy and the likelihood of an appeal of the Director's decision. On July 22, 2003,_the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the architectural and site plans for the proposed 2-story hou ~e (E:xhibits B-3, C-3, and D-3 ). The petitioners, Mittal and Mahesh, subsegti_ently appealed the approval to the City Council The City Cotulcil heard the appeal on September 16, 2003 (1/xhibits I?-3, F-3, and G-3). The appellants contended that: 1. The project, as currently proposed., eras not compatible with the scale and design of the other residential uses in the neighborhood. 2. The project would have a severe, ad': ease impact on their property due to its incompatible mass and scale, resulting in: a. Significant obstruction to sunlight, daylight and air circulation for the passive solar design and enemy efficiency features, ~~>hich a.re. an integral part of the design of the appellant's house. b. Significant, adverse visual impact to the views from all of the appellant's living spaces on the first floor and outdoor patio areas. c. The mass and scale of the proposed structure and ~>ery deep excavations, in combination with its proximity to our property tine, may pose a potential threat to hillside sta ~ility, during construction and after completion. `I`he appeal request was denied on a 4-0-1 vote (Santoro absent) and the design, review approved with modified conditions (Exhib.t F-3). i~-~ J'~2COTiS1Cferc';_(1©Il Cif tlz i=ll. T?l'CQl 09 ~7 !.%(_°~ii g3'i 1~E'V YC:-W I4~OVC71"tbe l- ~8, 200 Ii+.pprnvai 3or 27_x'.•47 t,,ncf y k~..rne, ~,upc~rii~~co h~Z~~~c n _ ~~ £7ISCLISSIt?h7: I2ecc?x~r=.ideration Process - ---- ---- --- --- Recon sidr taticil i_~ a two-step process. I_'irst the City Council must make one or more findings that the reconsideration petition has sufficiently established, justifying reconsideration of a previous Council ~Iecision. Socondly, once such findi~lgs aro, made, the Council proceeds with a reconsideration 1_~earing, where, in light of the evidence presented in thc~ Petition, staff repox°ts, oral and written testimony at both the.,. original hearing and fhe reconsideration hearing, i1~e Council rn:zlces a decision regarding the application. Muiv_cipal Code Section 2.08.096 provides as follows: . . petition for reconsideration shall specify, xn deter iI, each and every groi-uzd for reconsidc-~ratioiz. Failure of a petition to specify any partictilar ground or grounds for cor~sideration preclxic.lcs chat particxzlar omitted groxxnd or grounds frombeinb raised or litigated in a ~-;i_~_li~~equc>ntjudicialproceedinz=. "flze zirot-mds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1.. An offer of new relevant evidence, which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, cocild_ not have bean produced at Suzy earlier city hearing. 2_. ~n offer of relevant evide-~~ce, ~vl ~ic1i was improperly excluded at any prior city l earing- 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded withoxxt, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 4. Proof of facts which denu~nstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing- 5- Proof of facts which demonstrate. that the City Council abused its discretion by: - a. Not proceeding in a manner required by 1a~~~; and/or b. Pendering a decision ~.~~hich was not si_ipportcd by findings of fact; and/or c. I2enderinL; adecision in which the findings of fact were not st~pportc~d by the evidence." One or more of the foregoing grounds for reconsideration must be found before reconsiderations is granted. If reconsideration is s~rantcd, a hearing on the application may be 11e1d concurrently (provided. that proper notice was given regarding thr application) on- set for a later date. If none of the grounds for reconsideration can be substantiated, the request for reconsideration must be denied. 17-4 4 Recotasideration of the Appeal of a Design I.eview Approval for 21947 Liridy Lane, Cuperfino Page 5 Novo nzber 1 8, 2003 Reconsideration Petition The City Attorney and Conununity Develol~t-Went Department staff Have reviewed the Reconsideration Petition (Exhibit A-)and offer- the following analysis based on the findings that must be made for the City Cotutcil to reconsider its earlier decision: 1. Offer of new relevant evidence, wIu ch in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could. not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. P ETI TIC ~N a) Petitioner did not have an opportunity to address moving the applicanCS residen cc forw~u~d by 6 feet. PIZOPOS>/D FINDING __ a) One of the major issues raised by Petitioners at the council hewing was the visual mass of the proposed building as viewed from their property. L;arly in the hearing process (which lasted in excess of one and a half 1-iours)~, Council member Wong raised the possibility of moving the proposed residence forward to Help miti=*ate the massing issue. The Petitioners had adequate opportunity to address this proposal during the process. At any rate, the Petitioner offers no new evidence, which would address this issue. b) Petitioners request for city review of shoring b) Actual constntction plans are addressed in plans and rainy season moratorium was not Cupertino at the building permit sta<~~ by the addressed in the city council discussion. City's Building Department with the consultation of the City Geologist. At any rate, _ Petitioners offer no new evidence, which would bear nn this issue. c) Petitioners offer to provide an appraisal to c) An appraisal regarding loss of value due to loss "quanti Cy the devaluation of [their property] due of crews is irrelevant, since city development [o loss of views" ordinances do not protect views. In addition, Petitioners have failed to show due dili Bence in not havins the appraisal prepared for the appeal Conclusion: Petitioners have failed to prow-de any ne~v, relevant,-evidence of any kind that was not considered at the appeal hearirg. 2. C}£fer of relevant evidence, which vas improperly excluded at any prior City hearing. PETITION PR OPOSED FINDING a) "Coning Code: Director's interpretation of Q~e a) Petitioner fails to show what relevant evidence new zoning ordinance is that RHS zoning was excluded. Rather, the Petition deals with a re~Tulations are not aZ~icable since the new lesal interpretation of which rules apply to 17-5 5 R~considerafion o1= tli~ Appeal of a l~esi~ n dZc~viesv Approval ft:r 2199-% ~ii/indy Lance, Cupertino Pa gc. 6 zontng ordmanec t~<~ulating the property ~~, in the 121 zoning district There is an exception, ]towever, when considering "second floor and balconies". The new zoning ordinance provides that such review is ~oyerned by Chapter 19.4-0 ~I:HS). `1'he problem is that there are no second floor and balcony regulations contained i^ the. 1z13S zone; there(-ore R1 standards should aPP1Y~ The; curt'ent application should not be appro~-ed since the second floor and balcony :areas do not comply 'with R1 standards. a.l) StafJ' erroneously cited the RT1S for the Pr~~~Position that the city does not regulate or protect private views. a.2) Under the standard R1 zone, a separate design review procedure is required. The applicant in the case should have ~*one through a schara[e revie~+~ }~mcess. a.3) P7annins Contntissiuner Miller stated that the R1 was irrelevant because there was a special ordinance. applicable to the. site. a.4) Reference to Ylanninn Commissioner Kaneda's comments, but nothing stated in petition. a.5) Ptannina Conunissioner Miller stated that "if it was under the 121 or under the RHS, we might be cony rr~ up ~~-ith a different result but it's not under either one of those rn-dinances_.." b) Stor}~ poles were nu slcading. Novet»bcr 18, ?.00 ; second stories andbulconies. llowe~c.r, nc~ application ~~~ou(d meet regular R1 standairds for second stories and balconies even if that standard were applicable. 1t should also be noted that Section 1938.050 C 1 (c) states the amount of second story floor area is ^ot limited provided that the total floor area dogs not exceed the allowed t7oor area ratio_ a. I) hlthough the 12T1S ordinance does not specifically regulate the subjo-ct property, staff was citing the RHS ordinance section for the ;~cneral proposition the City does not protect private. views. "There. is nothing iu the R1 code, ~a~hich contradicts this position. Tn order for the City to regulate private views with respect Lo t}~~c subject propert}~, there must be leg. al authorit}~ to do so contained in the 121 zone. I\TO .such authority exists. a.2) S'ection 19.28.050 C ~a~hich sped fie ally regulates this site does not require a separate review process. In fact, the second story and balcony portion of the application ware. reviewed as pant of the general application_ a3) What one Planning Commissioner stated durin, an earlier hearing, whethe-r correct or ineou-ect, is not relevant to reconsideration by the City Council. a.4) ~'/hat one Plannin~~ Commissioner stated during an curlier hearing, whether correct or incorrect, is not relevant to reconsideration by the City Council_ a.5) W'hat one Planning Conirnissioner stated during an earlier he-wring, ~i•hether correct or incon-ccl, is not relevant to recotaideration by the City Council. b) At both the Planning Connnission he.arins and City Council appeal, visual evidence ~e.a. plan set) was presented which demonstrated precise]} what the mass of the proposed residence was joins to be. Conclusion: Petitioners hat>e produced no rele~~ant e~~idence, which vas improperly excluded Uy the City Council. Rather, the Petitioner n-takes a con~roluted argument regarding the proper interpretation of the Muizicipal Zoning Code. 1 7 - 6 ~~ 2econ:_;icleration oL Lltc ~ppcal of 3 1?s>si¢;ra A_t-~vicw November 18, 20G3 pprov:tl Eox• 21gn.7 Lincly Lax~e, Cupertiato Pa~c 7 3. Proof of facts showirag that the Gity proceeded without or in c~cess of its jurisdiction. t'o.iclusion: Petitioners make no showing that .he City exceeded its jurisdiction, but simply argue that the City slxould have required a separate approval process for second stories and halconics as provided in the standard Rl zone. This was clearly not the intent of the specific ordinance governing the property. § 19.28.050 (~. 4. Proof of facts demonstrating that the L.ouncil failed to provide a_fair hearing. PL;TI:hION Pi:OPOSED FINDING 4a) No site visits were undertakeu by key officials. 4a) Due process does not require site visits. 4b) "I ,ate hour, Push for Time° 4b) Due process is no[ violated simply because the hom- was late. 1 he time provided for the hcarin~ was in excess of one and a halt hours. 4c) "Mitigation requested not addressed" - 4cj A review of the record demonstrates that the City Council did address mitigation. However, Petitioners request for showing construction drawings is improper. Such drawings will be submitted as part of the building permit process. Petitioners request For a reduction of the second story to I,lOO~square feet was considered by the _ Counei] and rejected. - Conclusion: Petitioner can point to no specific facts, which demonstrate lack of a fair hearing. 5. Proof of facts demonstrating that tfae Council abused its discretion by: a) Not proceeding in manner required by law b) Rendering a decision not supported by finding of fact c) Rendering a decision in which findings, were not supported by the evidence. PI~TI"I'ION' PROPOSED FII~TDING 1~ "1 he proposed residence is incompatible. l) The K1 ordinance establishes minimwn and maximum caps on development to which a property owner has reasonable flexibility to develop under. The City does not require all houses to be the same for the sake of compatibility, but exercises its discretion withi^ chose rc~ulations to achieve a reasonable level of compatibility. 17- 7 I2LCOnsiderafion of t!:e_ f~~peal o~ :~ 37esit~_i I:evi~~~^~ E~l~~~t's;^al I::>r ~J-J~7 Lis~t;y Lane, C.ttperiittr T'd~~(' c`_i "l) Coiu~ci[ ru~dc:c<I adecist--~n based upoa ^~i;ler-tdin~ story poles. 3) Cit}~ should protect our private view; ?) City should apply more rest ric[ive re ~~ul atio us Lice ausc the ^cw ordinance was irnpttrvidcntly adopted. ~) City improperly found that there was no solar impact on our house as a result of the proposed structure. 6) The proposed structure may be unsafe 7) Council inZpropcrly denied our appeal because stafF said [fiat the applicant already comprorrrised and made significant changes in the uri"ina] plan. S) Council improperly denied our appeal because of Lhc tindin~ that the applicant had already spe-nt months moditying his design. J) Council improperly denied our appeal because adverse- visual impacts have not been mit9~ated. 1 O. Loss of property values. NonelYtber 18, 2005 2) Petition i~ ~~.rgumr.niati~~. first, the pcutioners claim decision makers did not visit the rile, then claim the. story poles (decision makers allegedly did not sc:e) ~n>crc misleading. At. both the Planning Commission hearing and City Council appeal, visual evidence (e.g- plan set) was presented which demonstrated prcciscl}~ what the mass of the proposed residence was ~oina to be. 3) "Thera is nothing in any o1 the City's residential zoning ordinances, «~lneh protect vi c~i~s. ~) IrrcLevan t. 5) The City drew no conclusions with respect to the impact of shadows ou the es3siin~ house. It just made the point that the R I ordinance did not protect solar access io passive solar features of homes. In fact, the R1 ordinance states that solar e-y uipmcnt shall not infringe upon adjoining property o~3~ners. 6) The proposed structure will be subject to the City building codes and ~eotechniea] review that were used to approved the recent. surTOUnding structures. %) 'T'here is no evidence presented by Petitioners, which shows That the City Council dented their appeal for this reason. 8)-There is no evidence presented by Petitioners, which shows tha6 the City Council denied their appeal for This reason. 9) There is nothing in any of the City's residential zoning ordinances, «~hich protect views. The view fi-otn the neighbor's ground floor would be that of a i ~cessed one-story buildin_a that is about 35% lar_ser than the net _ahbor's own sc,cond story. Sind the structure in question is a second stor}~, Che applicant is required to plant privacy landscaping to screen views in CO his nei<_<hbor`s yards unless waived by the nei;hbor. I O. As ]ono as the application meets reasonable City standards, any allesed loss of property values to the next door propert}~ furnishes no basis for reconsideration. 17 - 8 8 I? ~s:onuicaer-atio~-a o,' azz ~ -"=.},t~e.~xl o£ .~- D Sta =E:~evie°.=. Approv.sl £or 2"l~:t'7 3,i.<<3y ~.~rarcr, C'tt}rc_t-titto Paf;e 9 i~.TO~°embc~r 18, 2008 Conclnsiort: lat revic~.~s~ing fire Petition of S:trvesh 1Vdaheslu ;zrad `~eema t4~Iittal to reconsider the Cotes:YCil's dccisic~n to deny tlt~ir apgte~l olt~jecting to fire gsl~rts for the construction of a single faanily name sttl~ratittcd .~y Citia-Ching Lin on Se~teirtl~er 16, 2008, uo relevant evidence or prooc'o#-facts tlt:.t stil~l~ort arty of ilte grounds for rcconsider~ttion as required ley Cul~er•tino I".'Iut*.icipal ~'ocae :ectiort 2.08.O~~Fi B l-5 hava~ 1leCat presented. Enclosures: City Council Resolution v~ith Findings in E~;hibit A. L:xhibit A-3: Petition for Reconsideration filed by Sarvesh Mahesh ~t Sc,ema Mittal Exhibit B-3: Planning Comrzzission Resolution. No. 6522 Exhibit C-3: PlaruZing Commission Meetin;~ Minutes dated July 22, 2008 R~ public written comments submitted at the ~nceting Exhibit D-3: Planning Commission Staff IZc~port dated. Jtily 22, 2008 Exhibit E-3: City Council Appeal Action Letter (ame-nded) Exhibit I~-3: City Council Meeting Minute... dated September 26, 2008 Exhibit G-3: City Council Appeal Staff Report dated September 16, 2008 Revised PIan Set ~1ritlt modifications appro•~ed by City Council at Appeal Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner SubtYritte~b ~,.,~;~ - Steve ~ias~ck~ Director, Community Development Approved by: ~~~-~'~- David W. Knapp City IVianager G:Ylazzzzizzg/I'D12EPORT/CC/7_008/DesiYzz £~r Site 12evieu> of 7.1947 Lindy Lazze recorzsidez-atiorz.rtoc - 17-8j \i ( F /~ JlL ~3 E.. / f ~ :::r, ~ }-per .. crrY cal, culyl~l:rrlvo ".1.0300 7:'orrc~ Avenue Gu_pexlino, CaLifox~iia 95014 c~T~.~sI~L,~I`r~~r~ 1~1~. A h.I;OLU' 'TO-Lvx i:?h 7'I [,? C1':1'Y r::'OUNCIL <.?t~ T13L3 CITY OF C[ IPL?R`1'INO D1~,NYING TI-313 't'L'1'1`3`iON OF S,?LLC.!1.~ ~~.41'1"lfti-L, f>>>;1) SARVLSII: NI/~_L-LESIi I~OR RECONSLDEKA'1'ION OF Pt `3 1~\L'I'I_OV~1L, CIS A 1ZF~ -CDlNI`IAL 1llLS1GN APPROVAL OI= SI`I'L-; A.ND r~RC111T1C`hUCLAL. L'C.A1Vi O[~ F~ PI20I?OSED 4,499 SQUARE-FOOL, TWO-STORY, SINCr[_I3--EAMIL"Y P F:SIDCNCF~ WITH 13 ASLMI~NT LOCATED AT 21947 LINDY LANE (SI it:;~I-1.'. 1{l2[51IN<~I'lJI2A 1SND I~11'sLNI MINASA2~r17I2_ANI RESiDENC[s} 1NIlereas, thr, E.ropcrty 1<no~.vn as 2794-7 Lindy Lance in Cupertino, California is owned by Shcsha Krisltn<.pura and NSalini Minasar~~dram (Rel3resentative Chia-Ching L.in) known collectively as the "!`~p1~Iic-ant" and W7-iercas, the Applicant has sought a1>}~rcivx-il from the City of its arcl?it~cturat and site plans prior to construction of a single family residence at the above location; and Whc~rcas, pursua~li to tl2e City's Cornmuxtity Developxi2ent Director's referral of the applicat=ion, the City I'lan;iing Conlnzission, at its meeting of July 22, ?_008, by a 4=0 vote (witl-x one comzlxissi_on~.r absent) approved the Applicant's plans; and W liereas, S^c~ina Ivlitf~.l any l Sarvesh Nlah<~sI x, the owners of a neighboring parcel, Known cols-ectively as the Petitioner, appealed the Plamzing Coi~zrxzissioii s approval of the Applicant's plans; and Whereas, the City Coui~cil, at its September 16, 2008 xTCeetzng, by a 4-O vote (with one Council member absent) denied Petitioner's appeal, approved t11e application and amended the plans to require that the proposed residence be moved forward by 6 feet and the castc~rly, Tower balcony be removed.; and Wlxereas, Petitioner petitioned the City Council for reconsideration of its decision under the provisions of Section 2.023.096 of the C_'ity's Ordinance Code; and Whereas, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties and the public at all luarings, including evidence presented at the November 18, 2008 reconsideration hearing. NOW 'i'f-IERFFORFF, I'I' 1S I-IEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: L 7'hc Petitioner's reconsideration petition is defective in that it does not offer proof of relevant facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096. i~-io Resolution No. Design Review Approval for 219<t 7 T indy Dane Novc:~:;ii~~.:. 1 8, 2008 Page 2 2- The Petitioner has made no offer of new relevant evidence that, in thcu :.~>-;~~-cise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at an earlier City hea3-in: (~~c>>_ Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 B(1 )]. 3. The City Council did not exclude an-,r evidence presented by Petitioner ~a axiy prior hearing {See Municipal Code Section :?.08.096 B(2)]. 4. The City Council has proceeded entirely within its jurisdiction rel;arclin~ Lhe application_ [See Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 B (3)]. 5. The Petitioner has failed to present any substantial evidence that the city ~=ouncil failed to provide a fair hearing. [See Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 13 (~I)]. 6. The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the City Cotu~cil abused its discretion regarding the approval of architectural and site: plans for the subject site [See Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 I3 (5)]. Spe~_ifically, the City Council. determines that: a. The City Council proceeded in a manner required by law. b. "I'he City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact. c. The Endings of fact related to the Cit;~ Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 7. The specific allegations contained in the Petition for Reconsideration are refuted by specific City Council responses, which are attached as Exhibit A to this Resolx.xtion and incorporated herein. 8. The Petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's determination of September 16, 2008 is DENIED 9. The City Council further finds that the Planning Commission's approval of the subject plans should be UPHELD because: a) The proposed residence is compatible with the neighborhood. It is 1,000 square feet smaller than the two abutting residences (including the Petitioner's residence.) Although the proposed residence will be larger than some of the other homes in the neighborhood there is a mixture of size and architectural styles within the area. The proposed residence was designed to bridge the design differences between older, ranch style homes and varied architecture of more recently constructed homes. Overall, the proposed residence creates an acceptable balance between the older and newer residences in the neighborhood. b) The proposal will not have a severe adverse impact on Petitioner's property. Compliance with the R1 building setbacks and building envelopes is by defix>ition providing adequate air and light to adjacent residential parcels. The building separations between the applicant's lot and Petitioner's uphill lot are generally greater than the minimum building setback with most of the proposed second i~-i1Z I=tiesolution No- L~esig~~ Revicrw ef~pprov~tl for 21 947 Lindy T anc i~~Iovcn7l;er 123, 2003 f'agc 3 story ~=rail length being 14 to 7'7 feet rat°nLy Ii'om the property li,xe an~:l ?_7-30 feet a~~~ay front Petitioner's residence wall. "The elevation of the second c) floor of the proposed residence is helow the elevation of the first floor of Petitioner's residence. "The view from. Petitioner's residence of the proposed residence is essentially Lhat oP'a recessed one-story dwelling. e) Tl'ic City does not regulate the protection of pri~>atc vie~t~s in hillside _;xcas ':Chc ls7 ordinance does not provide any specific authority for suci~x regulation. The subject plans provide that tl~te proposed residence occupies an elevation, which maintains a second story view for Petitioner's current residence. d) The solar design aspects of the applicable zo7ling ordin~.uice have teen misinterpreted by Petitioner. While the city ntay allow variances to setbacks and l~ieiglxt to accommodate passive or active solar equipnzcnt, no such xrodiiled structure shall infringe upon solar eascme,nts or ac~joiiling property owners. 'There are no solar access easements over tho subject property. e) The type of cut and fill proposed by the Applicant is not prohiL-iter_t by the R1 zoning ordinance. As a condition to being granted a building permit; Applicant will be required. (aud has already commenced) to conduct a thorough geotecl~mical investigation to ensur:; the construction oC a safe and stable building site thaf will be reviewed by the City Geologist. Both the upslopc and down-slope residences have similar retaining walls, rei.ainiug upslopc soils which have protected nei~~hboring properties. f) Hence, the Applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) '3'he proposal, at the proposed location, will not be deli-ime~utal to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) 'The proposal is consistent with the pux-poses o:C the General Plan and zoning ordinances, 3) The proposal will use materials, design elements, and simpli}led building forms that complement the existing and ncighboriug structures that make it hai~nonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood; 4) Adverse visual impacts oxt adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated in that the building pad was lowered 3 feet and the height of tine garage was reduced to reduce the height of the retaining wall and garage wall facing the down-slope residence. In additipxi the eastc:rl_y, lower lxalcony was replaced with a roof. The lowered pad. height also reduced the perceived heights of the proposed housing facing the upslopc residence such that the view Si-om upslopc is that of just a recessed, single story residence. A couple of roof pitches were also lowered to lessen tlxc height of the residence. The City does not regulate the protection of private views in hillside areas regardless of whether the hillsides ai-e in the P.>=IS or 121 zoning districts. The R1 ordinance does not provide any specific authority for such regulation. 17 - 12 3 Resolution i~:o. L~esi;~iz 1~eview Appro~~~a for 2 ] 9q- % Lindy Laue Novenlbcr 1_H, 2008 I'aJe 4 PASSED AND ALiOPTED at a regu_ ar meeting of the City Council of the Cify of Cupertino this day of_ _, 2008, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Cify Council AYI?S: NOES: AF3S l/NT: At3 STAIN: ATTEST Ai'PROVED: City Clerk M:ryor, Cify of Cupertino 17-~3 E~~fl_1! l-C' !'~ CITY ~'~?LJT~ICII, FIN17rlPIGS i1I~T iZl~,~;['S?1'~d:9z±, T(3 PyJ'Er£'i'7Qt~ ~'f~l~ SEC c~N`~b..I~+S~'.REO'~'lOi'1 1_IZ~3R^l__~~~,~!,iV"iA 1`dI`'I_"R:E~I,__',e ~.~=~32'STI+,Si~ I~~yE~.irl! ~s~I 1. Oifei- os new relEVant evidence, whicl~r in !I~e exercise of a-<~ast~rl:~~lc dill ~nc~e, could net have I.een prod~sced o-zt ally e<at-lier city lse<ai-ir~tf. P_E'I'I"l'IOi~l a) Petitioner did not have an opporiuaity to address moving the applicant's residence forward by E feet. b) Petitioners request For city review of shoring plans and rainy season moratorium was not addressed in the city council discussion. c) Petitioners offer to provide an appraisal to "quantify the devaluation of [their property] due to loss of views" FINDING _ a) One of the major issue.,; raised by Yetitioncrs at the council hearing was the visual mass of the proposed building as viewed ti-om their properly. F_.arly in the he ari nl; process (which lasted in excess of one and a half hours), Council member Wong raised the possibility of moving the proposed residence Forward to help mitigate, the massing issue. T'he Petitioners had adequate opportunity toaddress this prcuosrl during the process. At any rate, tire. Yetitiouer offers no new evidence, which would address this iss~_rc. b) Actual construction plans are addressed is Cupertino at the building permit stage by the City's Building I7ep._rtment with the consultation of.the City Geologist. AL any rata Yetitioncrs offer no new evidence, which would bear on this issue. c) An appraisal regarding loss otvaluc: due to loss of views is itreleva nt, since city develop inert ordinances do not protect viecF~s. In addition, Petitioners have failed to show due diligence in not having the appraisal prepared for the appeal -- haring. ---- Conclusion: Petitioners have failed to provide any new, relevant evidence of any kind that was not considered at tli~ appeal hearing. 2. ®ffer of relevant evidence, which ~vag impa•operly excluded at .:ny prier City hearing. PETITION _---- - FINDING a) Toning C'.ode: Director's interpretation of the a) Petitioner fails to show what relevant evidence new zoning ordinance is that I2~IS' zoning was excluded. Rather, the Yct9tion deals with a j 7 - 14 regulations are not applicable since the new zonins,~ ordinance: regulating the property is in the RI zoning district. There is an exception, however, when considering "second floor and balconies". The new zoning ordinance provides that such review is governed by Chapter 19.40 (RHS). The problem is that there are no second door and balcony regulations coutained in the RHS zone; therefore R1 standards should apply. "1'he can ent application should not be approved since [he second floor and balcony areas do not comply with RI. standards. a.l) Staff erroneously eitecl the 1ZHS for the proposition that the city does not regulate or protect private views. a.2) Uncler the standard Rl zone, a separate design review procedure is required. The applicant in the case should have gone through a separate review process. a.3) Planning Commissioner Miilcr stated that the R1 was irrelevant because there was a special ordinance applicable to @te site. a.4) Reference to Planning Commissioner K.aneda's comments, but nothing stated in petition. a.5) Plamting Commissioner Miller stated that "if it was under the R1 or under the RHS, we might be coming up with a different result, but it's not under either one of those ordinances..." b) Story poles were nusleadiatg- legal irttcrp retortion of which rules apply to second stories and balconies. However, the application would meet regular Rl standards for second stories and balconies even if that standard were applicable. It should also be noted that Section 19.23.050 C 1 (c) states the amount of second story floor area is not limited provided that the total floor area does not exceed the allowed floor area ratio. a.l) Although the RIIS ordinance ciocs not specifically regulate the subject property, staff was citing the RHS ordinance section for the general proposition the City does not protect private views. "There is nothing in the R1 code, which contradicts this position. In order for the City to regulate private views with respect to the subject property, there must be Icgal authority to do so contained in the R1 zone. Nc such authority exists. a.2) Section 19.28.050 C which specifically regulates this site does not require a separate review process. In fact, the second story and balcony portion of the application were reviewed as part of the general application. a3) What one Planning Commissioner stated during an earlier hearing, whether conect or incorrect, is not relevant to reconsideration by the City Council. a.4) What one Planning Corrtrrtissioner stated during nit earlier hearing, whether cot7ect or incorrect, is not relevant to reconsideration by the City Council. a.5) What one Planning Cornrrussioncr stated during an earlier hearing, whether correct or incorrect, is not relevant to reconsideration by the City Council. b) At both the Planning Comnussion hearing and City Council appeal, visual evidence (e.g. plan set) was presented which demonstrated precisely what the mass of the proposed residence was going to be. Conchi_sion: Petitioners have. produced no relevant evidence, which was improperly excluded by the City Council. Rather, the Petitioner makes a Zt~-ts cor_vo!uted argttrne>_zzt t~cgarc,_in~; the prt~pcr ir,t~spretation of the Municipal 7,oning Conic. 3. Proof of fzsci=: ~;I,t~.:°,'iia~ tlg.~R: the Cit'~ proc~ec,ed witteout or in ex~-ess of its ~p ~t-ise':iction. Costc~itz~iou: Petitioners rnak no sho~.ving that the City exceeded its jurisdiction, but simply argue that the City should h.,vc required a separate approval process for second stories and balconies as provi<led in the standard R1 zone. This was clearly not the intent of the specific ordinance governing tho property. ~ 19.23.050 C. 4. a'roof of facts ciernorzstrating thztt the ~'ourzcil Railed to provide a fait- Itcaritzg. Y F"C7= PION ?~'1i~~_~)NG 4a) l~ro site visits were uudertaken by key olficiais. ~ 4a) thie process does not require site visits. 4b) "Late hour, Rush for Time" 4c) "Miti~atiori rcquestecl not addressed" 4b) Due procoss is not violated simply because the hour was late. The time provided for tiie hcariii~ was is excess of one and ahalf hotu-s. 4c) A review of the record demonstrates that the City Council did address mitigation. IIowever, Petiitioncrs request for showing construction drawings is improper. Such drawings will be submitted as part of the building permit process. Petitioucrs request for a reduction of the second story to 1,100 square feet was considered by the .Council and rejected. Conclusion: Petitioner can point to no specific facts, which dernonstratc lack of a fair hearing. 5. Proof of frtcts den,otzstz-atizzg that t3i~ Council ahu;~ed its discretion h_y: a) Not proceeding iu manner reclniz-ed by law h) Rendering a decision not supported by finding of fact c) Rendering a decision in which fincliul~s were zzot supported by the evidence. P ETITiON 1) The proposed residence is incompatible FINDING 1) The R1 ordinance establishes minimum and maximum caps on development to which a property owner has reasonable ticxibility to develop under.. The City does not require all houses to be the same for the sake of compatibility, but exercises its discretion within those regulations to achieve a reasonable Level of 317 - 16 compatibility. 2) Council rendered a decision based upon urisleading story poles. 2) Petition is arg~unenta tive. First, the petitioners claim decision makers did not visit the site, th:;n claim the story poles (decision makers allegedly did not sec) were mislcadutg. At both the Ylaruring Conrnrission hearing and City Council appeal, visual evidciice (e-g. plan set) was presented which demonstrated precisely what the mass of the proposed residence was going to be. 3) City should protect our private views 4) City should apply nun'c restrictive regulations because the new ordinance was improvidently adopted. 5) City improperly found that there was no solar impact on our house as a result of the proposed structure. G) The proposed structure may be unsafe. 7J Council improperly denied our appeal because staff said that the applicant xlrcady comprornised and made significant changes i~r the original plan. 3) Council improperly denied our appeal because of the ending that the applicant had already spent months modifying his design. 9) Council improperly denied our appeal because. adverse visuat impacts have not been niitigatcd. 1 O. Loss of property values. 3) 7~here is nothing in tiny of the City's residential zoning ordinances, which protect views- 1) Inelcvant. S) "1'he City drew no conclusions wills respect to the impact of shadows on the existing house. It just made the point that the Kl ordinance did not protect solar access to passive solar features of homes. In tact, the Rl ordinance states that soltir equipment shall not inlringe upon adjoining properly owners. ti) "I'he proposed structure will be subject to the City building codes and geotechnical review that were used to approved the recent, surrounding stniciures. "') There is no evidence presented by Yctitioners, which shows that the City Council denied their t ppeal for this reason. £;) There is no evidence presented by Petitioners, which shows that the City Cow~cil denied their appeal Rn- this reason. 4J There is nothing in airy oFthe City's residential •zoning ordinances, which protect views. The view from the neighbor's ground floor worild be that of a recessed one-story building that is about 35% larger than the neighbor's own second story. Since the stnichu'e in question is a second story, the applicant is required to plant privacy landscaping to screen views into his neighbor's yards unless waived by the neighbor. 10. As long as the application meets reasonable City standards, any alleeed loss oFproperty values to the next door property furnishes no basis for reconsideration. 417 - 17 d~'u~dclxrsxoax: Ixt a•~~vieZ/ir.~~ t37e l'ct°~ti.oaa of S<ir-vesea Iq~Iahesh and Seema 1~/littal to rccornsider tlac C'or:rcil'_: dccisioia tc, decay thei-.• at>peal objcctin~; to the plans foc- the cosgszructiora of ax ;izal;ic f~nrxxily hoa.a<.. sut,cnatted by C'.aia-~hirag Lin on Septerratac:n- 16, 00.^x, rco re?want evisse~ace or praof of facts tla~xt support array of thi grounds fox- rc~c-onasidcratiorx as reclrria-F~d try ~'upertino IO~Iuaaicil?<nl ~C:ode Section 2.08.OJci ~ 1- 7x.xvc been hres;;rated. 5»-ia A ~. ~i fi N ; U~.. P ~ c...a 2~ Septern'~er ~©08 ~ SEP 2 9 2008 U petition ~ ~ --~ C7r teCOrlSl~eratiOtl: CUPFRTINO CITY CL}=RK Re: Aggroval by the City Council fcr 2'(947 Lind\~ lane App no. R=20013-'i4,_RM-2003-'16 (ICrishnagura and EV'iinasanc_irafz~ Residence) Filed by: Sarvesh iViahesh and See~~rta i1/iittat, Residents of 21949 Lindy Lane, C~_~pertino GA 9~0~~~ Dear City Council mernbers, We respectfully submit this petition for reconsideration, pc~r municipal ordinance code 2.08.096. The following factors have led to the unf~iir approval ofi t}~is project which, in effect, has resulted in toss of our property/ rights, loss in our property values and quality of life and lastly, has posed a risk to structural damage of our home and life safety of our family, and severely compromised the design of our brand new home. We believe that this was an unintended consequence of implementation of anew zoning in the area and has led to the zoning code being violated. 'i. As a first time test of the new zoninl3 ordirance, there has been lactic of clarity, confusion and misinterpretation of the applicable codes, along with their inherent purpose, design guidelines and requirements. 2. Plflisunders'cancting by the planning director, planning commitssion and most council members, of the adverse impact of the over scaled upper story mass, by not taP~ing the opportus~ity to visit the sire and viewing tltie story poles from our property. 3. l~isundervtanding of our passive solar impact and rights. 4. flliisunderstanding of the definition of the terms "mass and bulk" and "compatibility with neighborhood" from the Design Guidelines to mean compliance to allowable square footacle. Under the fundamental definitions of these terms in principles of architec;t¢.aral design, tFaey do not mean "square footage"_ 5. PJlisunderstood representation by staff and applicant to Commission and Council that adverse visual impact to ~~ur home h> d been mitigated by applicant. 6. Laclc of our concern for a geological, structural and life safety risk to our family by not only allowing up to 20' deep excavations 5' from our property line, which is unprecedented in any residential hillside, but not mandating city review of shoriing and rainy season moratorium. 17- 19 1 `9_ RtIG!•Vs=triC~~- b}r°' •`-.•~v11/ !?''$' 3vi~fC3ai~4~•se`;;`^_ S-E~';'.-SP-f.:S-~Cd~etiC~47 ~?Y :_~.`~"~r~ pOFt~'.~i ~~r rG~V"YBw 4ai I'f3r 5`..~ CaS~ SS`E"i.'. ia'^-:t ", r<"~ I:toJ .mil"d~ +31i-e: a`~°i<`~S ±.12"Id S~~~ES~FI `d1 {SrS. ^_ ~Jiol wtiocz of xw res>icront f.zrn'aFy's propcrcy rights c~~tt>cSd by tF`a•~ repe«der_i ::saa,3~;e ia-a zcsr~irac~ ~.~ge.l!G~i~-arcs, £.-a--re tirYac>s ia~ a si-zort spar3 of .~_5 yea:rs, l~~I FlIC3 e`a r~S ED2-'ers fl~~ rG3~c>'L t~i3 iJ3C ~`~"'1:1715 .-"'st ta....8 e-: z:a'!.~CZ_ ~. F-"s.staed Ciiy t::;.:~aarzciF Fa~~~rirtg ira tezo late la.~aal':a o.f tfie ~zir?hJ4a1'lla 1-a'rearra`sr~g, Y~'~"a:aC"a.£d'`Fl,'°. t:Ym`4•:=? a"45i" C%Li91:3§~i"r~"t;aL'!C"a, 2i1~3FySiS u6~ik~ i"~Y.10-~i~u CEt~'6;iSiOP2_ °F t~. Fe~isreg€~1-sF c..,;f 1:>r"i;r r prti r~od:~a--ts aa~opta.c~ lao~ 7F•ae cit~;~, Faez F:~ining to ir~Us:i,':~1"°J9~1~ ~a't,~eS<~:i`h:~ 5; ='1?1:?s \F--:illy 8..:3aC ~?~4:nn9r7] i:4q"-~r~~(y'C~J r;-d.~ E"-°IFA~aeaYli~- ~x G'i'E:_i F~'~. cl $2d `v;?::a1fr Q:~3 ir'9 t~3 tZC s:~Qa:.~'t_S at'_ •Ly ~~' irlCG'is[t~>c3tr~~t°3~a.~ ~~b -"%r~S~`~d'l s`:.~~[~F"1 •t~.?C~_ ~~'tt~r°1. § e`-`,veal"so„ F~os=.i&a1y Fr~ca.~ a of t[~E IacFt oi~ t'sr~o ane~1 lato F~oa.ts-- °! ~ _ ll;i~ ^a§'3d~r~~s~~~'~a':u r~:pre serat~a ior9 kay staff al-IC~ ~~?1~1ica~t fo C~oazla^nissiorl <:.ram.l C?au-alaail tllat at3~.`c:,t-s-•~ v«;r-al itllpact tsa o-ae F~orise f~aaa~ bce-l rzlitigatE:c3 Fay V~/c, have attacl~cd all the rele>vant e.:hibits and made rcFerences wherE~ possiblFa. Our petition will need to be under,>tood ~_.fter thoror~gi~ review of all attached ex_Y-ibits. Per the petition rules, the following are the grounds for reconsideration, listed under the required categories: =a- Well intentioned motion made to move the property forward by 6'. This has proved to be even further detrimental tc our irrfpact- We had no opportunity a tha stage of the hearing to apprise council of that. It was 30' that we had asked for eariier- b. Our request for city review of shoring plans and rainy season moratorium was not addressed in the motion. c. An integral part of our property rights and value are its views and thus our quality of life. /~ professional appraisal of our property is underway to quantify the devaluation of our property da.ae to loss c"F views. This is a view property. The report will be available in three weeks or so to furnish the fact that by changing the zoning multiple times over a period of 2.5 years, receiving no notification, wrongly interpreting the applicable ordinance 07-201 1 , not mitigating our adverse visual impact required by law via the ordinance, the city has caused a significant loss in our property value and our quality of life. A Cupertino resident and home owner's property rights have been violated. The new evidence will be the appraisal. 2_ ~~8~v~rr~~: ~v'c~~c~c~ irr~-apa°c~p:r~ly es';c;4~..s!~e~9 sic ~h~ previca~.ss E~ e a ~-i r~a ~ ; 2 ~~-zo This was the first fiest of this new ordinance. The following relevant evidence was improperly excluded from the following previous hearings thus rendering them unfair- a_~Oi~IING CODE (see E,ci~ibit 1): Leg~.l interpretation of the new Zoning ore#inance has made the finding that the applicable code for this proposed home is R1 -- (Chapter 19.28) -Section 19.28.01 O through 1 9.28.'140 with c~s~ ~~ ~.~a~fi 19_~gi.t3~t~2C (t3evpis~~sment Ree;ulations, Site] replaced by ttae Zor`Linci o~dir~ancc: ~7-2®11. The current RHS is NOT APPLICABLE to this home- Under this ordinance there is only one headi~_referred to the RHS and that is under 1 9.28.050C 1 c. Second F/oor Area and Balcony review />rocess sha// be consistent with the requirements from the Residential Hi//sic'e .Zoning District (Chapter 79-40). The amount of second f/oor area is not /imite~:/ provided the Iota/ f/oor area does not exceed tho a//owed floor area ratio- The RHS see Exhibit 2) has no such tit[ ~ or section on "Second Floor Area and Balcony Review Process". Therefore they only applicable code is R1 with section 1 9.28.050C substituted with this new ordinance 07-201 1 . No other chapters, as~ictes or cguideiines froe-ai the RHS cc_ade ~Ciaa~ster 1~.4fl) is a~saii'cabie to this pro-tact. Please note that this was confirmed verbally over the phone by Senior Planner on the project the day after tl-,e Planning G'ommissicn Hearing. II~ISTAP~ICES DURING REVIEW PROCESS AND HEARINGS: The following are some of the instances in the staff report;: and hearings where this fact was improperly excluded, misinterpreted or not clarified: a.1 EXhibit SA, pg 12-3, Staff Response: to Appeal item 2b, response- ".-..The city does not regulate-...section 19.40.050 ..-" Staff cited from this code but e~ccluded fo specify that this section of the code is not applicable to th@s prop~ertli. StafF continues to say "the city would cry=ate a very undesirable precedent to grant an adjacent property owner a right to .view through a neighbor's property." Staff excluded to state what is obvious, that in any developed hilly area of this density anywhere in the world ,they would not be abie to point out one si_ngie home that does not look over a neighbor to cget a valley or city tight view. ~~-zi Qn page 12-41, Colin Jung: again repeats tf'ie rer"erence to the city ordinance against views and privacy...~~-~arf o~~ t,P~e ~oc3e_is beac~.ca rc~~e~_~vncc~._ii~_Z~ F_~_~s<.~a lica~l~-~_r a.2 Exhibit t3A, Pubblic Nearing; (Planning3 Commission) ....pg12-33; under Colin Jung, senior planner, presented the Stai`f report:, Third bt.allet point: "they Uvere not required to do a design review application nor a permit for a second story balcony review... ..The aj~plicant p~.tt up story polEa anrJ neighbors within a 300 foot radius were noticed... ". ~tas'~-Failed to as~cl tt~ai: ~."a8s is raa~as-~?-i°~tor~+~,er tin ~=:'r ~rc.,in ~r~z:e vrhic~~ s~~ __,.ar_~( end ;iaiased the imor-c?rr~i ssior~ into l:~eliev_irr+c~that the appiic~e-at hail 6a~~ri ~xvL~rr ~r.at through this e~tr"a eaor~t P~ren thoraca"Fi the ®rdinarrce ciid rao# c9emaruci sue. a.3 E;:hibit 8A, Put~iic t-fearing; (Planning Gommission) ....pg12-37;Ciiair I~liiller: "Said that reference was made that it doesn't conform to the R1 ......but that is not relevant here... ..because there is a special ordinance that applies just to 15 properties on fihis slope and that is tf-ie ordinance we are required to go by....." ataff being tl-re ort9~r code e;~pc:rC a61~vv~d to~ea4e at tt~a2 point. e3:clale@ec~ the clarification that fihis ~ro~ect vdaa under- tf-r~ F2~ ordnance. "T'he excla.asion oa this Fact was a contributing factor that led to the Commissioners opinion that the R1 desicJn cauidelinrs were notes :at isc~~~te in tt7is case. a.4. Exhibit SA, Public Hearing; (Planning Gommission) ....pg12-42; Com I<<~neda Sufi €~eing the or~ly code e3;per~ ~llrawed to speak at ~:-~~at poini, excius~'.-~d she clarification ~1-aa# thi ~r~roie=ct v/=J under the F~'i/tai-2'cJ~'i~r~reyinae~+:c~~__~ci thcrP is no clause here tl"-rat s~a~es that Views are not protected. !-Lr_nd if ~I~r~at ~~e cit~r ar:~anted to t~av:c t~~aa a~ae~ac~aa.la ~~:~eFr wc~erl=:~ net-~d t~~ r~~~~.rvri~:e i~uE:i ordinance clearly stating that. a.~~ Exhibit 8A, Public Hearing; (Planning Commission) ....pg1?_-43; Chair t~lliller, first bullet point... ". _. ifi it was under the R1 ...., we might be coming up with a difr"erent result, but it's not under either...... .0.cgain, Chair was not apprised of the con'ect understanding of the applicable codes by staff, which would have allowed Co_ m miller to consider the ®esign Guideline impact of this proiect_ 4 ~~-z2 In summary, had their not been the exclusion of correct applicable code information during deliberation, Commissioners would have found the project incompatible in mass and scale; and that per section 19.28.100 D4_ "Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties h<rve not been mitigated". We vrere not allowed to speak but three staffi planner:: were present at the podium and chose not to make- clarifications on the correct code reference. ~~. STORY POLES: Staff failed to brief Planning Commission and City Council that the story poles were incomplete anu inaccurately represented. This vvas brought to staff's attention several times (in writing), but our request was ignored and we were told that the poles were correct. See Exhibit 11 to illustrate this issue....... showing the incomplete depiction of mass and scale of story poles, at the front, and at the side. The missing rooftops visible from our windows v~ere thus misled us to believe the true size of mass visible. As a result, the perceived upper story mass depicted was incomplete by 25% and therefore not truly represented to the entire neighborhood, Planning Commission and City Council, who has now approved the project of which they did not view a true street side representation and rooftop representations. ~_ ~~~oof cof facts showing that th'~ Gity ~roceed€d without or in excess or jurisdiction; a_ The process has failed to make the correct finding that per Section 19.28.1 00 D4 of the zoning code, "adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties Has been reasonably mitigated". 4_ Proof oi~ sects demonstrating the Gounoi9 faiic-:d to pe-ovieC~ a fain ~ue~rirrag; a. NO SITE VISITS UNDERTAKEN BY P!IOST KEY OFFICIALS. DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS. It was necess<~ry and prudent to maI<e a site visit to view the impact of the story poles from o~.ar side of the r~roperty, in order that a fair and educated decision be made. DuE~ to the complexity of the site, terrain, history of zoning issues, we repeatedly apprised the Planning Director, all Planning Commission members and all City Council members in writing to come by (See exhibit4), in order to make a fair and informed decision. It was made clear that a drive by from the street would not show the adverse impact of the oversized upper story mass and scale from our property. (See exhibits 4, pg1 through pg15) Multiple requests were m~.de in writing, email, phone and fax to the Planning director, Planning commissioners and Council members. No matter how experienced with reading drawings, the impact had to be visualized to be I~-23 understood by all officials. If indi_atry standarc;_s be used, in such a case a sits: visit needed to be undertaken prior to hearings. The Planning director, the- 1'tanning Gommissioners and two of the lour Cor.mcil members chose not to corne and as a result, the problem was difficult to comprehend. Two Council members came and it was apparent from their deliberations thai they were the only two who identified there was a problern and that the issue was not resolved or mitic~ated~_cot~ncil, as clearly stated in the closing arguments. Secs -=xhibit 9, Wef~r_.ast ofi Sep'(O, hearing. b. LATE HOUR__RUSH FOR TIME_ Our agenda item, which was no 12 on Sep 16, 200£3, was able to commence at midnight. Council members remarked several times about the late hour and how tired everyone was_ In a fair hearing, Council members would have been alert and fresh to handle the complexity of this subject. We too waited for five hours for our turn to come. The entire hearing was hurried and impatient. If council was exhausted, it would have been fair to postpone the agenda item so that it could be given it's fair share of due diligence and time. `JVe request the hearing be redone with site visits and enough time available to address the seriousness of our problem with accurate evidence available. c. MITIGATION REQUESTED AND NOT ADDRESSED: We clearly asked for two items of mitigation. First that shoring drawings be reviewed by the city and second, the upper story be reduced to 1 100 sf. Neither of the two items were part of the motion that was made. It was our appeal, we asked for it. We paid for it. [n a genuine effort to help us, one council member asked that the building be n~ioved forwarn by 6'. (probably based on having read our request at the Planning Commission where we stated that the if the building moved 30', rotated and dropped a few feet, would mitigate our impact without compromising the applicant's home design.) This 6' move has unintentionally turned out to be even more detrimental for us. We had no opportunity to speak. As a result our home has been compromised even further by this oversized upper story. ~. f~'roof of ~iacts ctcn~eonstrat~ng that the Co+<.encil aEaa.~scc! its ~iscd-etion by ~a~ not proceoe~dng in a rraanner ree~teirod by la~rv; The council made a decision to approve a project that violates the zoning code. fib) r-enctering a cfeciision not supported by findings of fact; anti/or And (see under (c)) ~~-za 6 {c) re~a~ie~-iti~ a e~i~~risi~e-a ire tn~E~ic:i~ tie ~i~aciir~~~ v~vee•e rtot s~ ~;~a~s~~t~~ may! ~~e ~~.~ici~race i. Council rendered a decision based on the finding that this project complies with all applicable zoning codes. See Exhibit 1. We have repeated/y presented the evidence that this ,project is incorn,~atib/e_ See 19.28.01GC v~here it is stated that " ensure a reasonab/e compatibi/ity in sca/e of structures" and see 19.28.060 C l a_ where "the mass and bulk "has to be "compatib/e with the predominant neighborhood pattern" and not be "disproportionate/y /arger_ _ ._ etc" We have repeated/y professiona//y exp/ained this to staff; who stipu.~ates that these clauses refer to the square footage of a home_ See E-xhibit 8B, pg 12-2 Staff Responses to Appeal , 1_ which states thatjust because the house is sma//er by 1000 square feez` it is compatib/e. Code is referring to perceived mass and bu/k_..and the huge upper story and vertica/ity of the home makes the house far more massive_ Staff admits that it has a 200% /arger upper story ratio and says this is al/owed by the zoning code_ V`t!e repeatedf/y presented professiona/ architectural interpretive evidence to council That the projec he.s to cornp4y t~,rith both-- numbers and guidelines. !f the guideline is more restriceive than the numbers, it prevai/s_ How can a home that has a 2®t3% /a~ ger upper story proportion than a/I 95 Fc°7/07-2®?9 homes, both adjoining brand new homes, and. thousands of surrounding Fi'/ zoned hornc~ be deemed compatible? We request the city to reconsider i#s decision. 2_ Council rendered a decision of compatible mass based on the evidence of story poles that represented only 75% of the overall vertical mass _See Exhibit 1 1 _ tNe have presented professiona! evidence that the story poles were income/ete and made the b~~i/ding appear 25% less massive on both floors to a/I, as well as on the roo.~top. We repeated/y brought this to staff's attention verba//y and in writing. .~Jow can a finding be based on inaccurate representatios~ of e1-~ mss aaad d~ui~? We request the city to reconsider its decision. 3. Council rendered a dental to our e~ppeal because the City does not protect views per the. RHS code. See Exl~ibitl _ And 2. We have proven that the RHS code is not app/icab/e_ See Exhibit SB, pg 12-3 Staff Responses to Appeal, 2b. Staff references a c/a use from a code that is not app/icab/e_ Staff a/so goes on to clarify that no upper story views wi// be obstructed_ Staff has not comprehended that our /over story obstruction impact is the crux of the prob/em. Perhaps by riot visiting the site and not c/ear/y understanding that on hi//sides the= size of the upper story of the downhi// home creates an adverse impact on /over story of the uphi// home, staff i~-zs has misunderstood the problem. See Exhibit 6C, Pg 5, 6, 7, 8, 3. The larger its size th;= more the negative impact on the uphill hor~~e. How can itre c-i~=,.r rn_~'-e a d~~c.ision thc:t vo.°untarily a6/ov~,rs this hour. an undr'e~ <,%~v<-~naag~e of .~ .~t3?~% 9arger a/~perstory, wb`aen the evin'er-rce has been prrasent~cJ that upper story sizes need to be compati~o/e to treat a,s/ fairly, r.^~,~arc~zless of arr9rat the zoning a/loartrs_ Hoag can c~.°~e oarat:-ner firs a ii:rce lot subdi~.siaion G,t the same tiraae, +.vith aIf owners of viee~-r properties, in a`he sa:~^e neighborhood, be Treated partia/iy so theN,r cv ra dra~.~ximizo t/reir viea~ars /. ecause the Gc~ning Ir/,e~t chan_3is7g anjitAli,~a a sp~'n o? 2.a y2ara? 'T'his is at the expense of destroying i (?'D% of our vie-;~,r~a, air bree;~e, daylight, sun0ic_,ht, passive solar from all the loe~~er f~'~sor living are~3s? /n ac1e./ition the ufrper story views are vevereiy necstc=~-/ by t0: e out of proportion incosnpatib®e Z.`a0C9 sq ft upper story roof°e' r,~'-~ request t6Fe city to reconsi~:Ter its decision. ~3_ Council rendered an unfair decision with the finding that all the project was required to comply with was the numbers per current zoning. The first test of the numeric aspects of this zoning has revealed that that the ramous/ of upper story size restriction creates incompatibility and severe adverse visas/ effects for the adjoining neighbor However, the more restrictive design guide/fines require this size to be reduced to make it incompatib/e. We have presented professions/ evidence that quick successive changes, reverses/s of zonings in a short period of 2.5 years, no notifications to the impacted residents, and creation of inconsistencies in numbers in the heart of prc vai/ing neighborhoods can be unfair to hrand new home owners. 7_oning changes occur increments/ly over long periods as of time as a gradual evolution, not dramatic changes over a short span of 2.5 }ears. /-foafr can one existing owner's property rights be complets/y disre,ncrded, v:.sdaen tha root cause was the changes to zoning? V°E!e recpuc~st the city to reconsider its decision. ~_ Council denied our appeal based on the finding that our home had no solar impact. But we presented professional solar analysis showing severe impact in the coldest part of winter E:chibit 6c, pg 90, 77; 72, 13, 14, >5, 76_ See Exhibits 7A and 7B. Council `s finding is not supported by the evidence we provided- Council's decision is not in compliance with tfae Sections of tine Cupertino general f'dan_ L'ie's request tine cify to reconsider its decision. ~. Council denied our appeal to protect our safety by the finding that we will be safe because of the following evidence provided by staff. See Exhibit 8b, pg 12-4, item 2c. "Both ups-ope and down slope residences have similar retaining walls". This fact is incorrect- The downhi// home has a 5' to// wa// at the property line- We, the uphi/! resident have a 6' high retaining wall 40' from the property line, but the app/icant has a 2D' deep excavation starting at 5' from our property line. See Exhibit 7C. This is g 17-26 u~recec9er,ted in any hillside home to have a two story deep excavation so close to an uphill home- Also, pfea:~e note no ,nrofessio®7a/ architectural services were us4>d to prepare this design. Proa`essionals are trained to nc~t crea~`e ris6ry structzares. 4~le fra=ve notified the city ov~^r and over regarding indemnification, 1`iecaus-e the risFts that we face a/=iect our life sar"c=x`y and severe .monetary rarraieications. The city did not revie~.+.r precedents of severa3 Balch cases in hi// ide areas besore ~rlaprovirlc~. zl~is project- (fur cdeot~chn~cal consaaltant has /a~~c/ Eo Per-Bona!/y t~ stia~y in rn~~rry suc:~ cases. The Cit~v ~eotechnical FevietRr needs to be dome at this wage of the project . We request the city to reconsider its decision. ~'. Council denied our appeal basec on a finding which stafF supported by the evidence that the applicant had already made significant changes to the design. Staff also said that the applicant had dropped the home 3' to mitigate our concern. See Staff F:eports. We would like to correct this evidence- Based on the p/ans we received, not asing/e change was made to the f/oor p/ans, roof p/ans, upper story size, f/oor to f/oor heights or location to the bui/ding. The builc'ing was dro,o,oed by 3' because it was violating the daylight plane requ/anon. The app/icant and staff are we!/ aware that this drop wou/d not mitigate our concern. No change to date has been made to mitigate our concerns- The on/y changes that were made were minor fagade modifications and minor shifting of retaining wa//s for the downhill neighbor ar~d for the pleasant experience of passers by. We are the only neighbor severe/y impacted 24/7_ Based on this evidence we request council tc- reconsider our apnea/_ 8_ Council denied our appeal based on the finding that the applicant had already spent months since t~tovember of last year modifying his design_ Staff and applicant both stated that in their presentations- We have presented evidence that an app/icant's own design time to meet regulations cannot be counted a;r part the de/ay caused by neighbors. The story po/es went up April 78 and from that day not asing/e change has been made to the floor p/an, roof plan, floor to floor heights or bui/ding location to mitigate our concerns. Basica//y, minor faced changes were made to p/ease passers by. Bas<=d on this evidence we request council to reconsider our ap,oeaJ. ~. Council denied our appeal because it made the finding that per the mandatory requirement in Section 9 9.28.9 UO D 4, our adverse visual impact had been mitigated, based on the evidence presented by staff in both-staff reports that mitigation was achieved because we could only see one story (upper) of the new building- Lie have presented evidence that we wou/d see double the size of this story, more fhan that seen by any neighbor within the near a,7d extended neighborhood, including i~ - 2~ l]G~ r2. /.?pf:.~~.".']"". fi,'~rry+ Ci~2a] t`/]lc.. ~".7~ CarF]iC7 x`:'tl.~D [~l'.~ by c?r3y f3~~'f!llltlO!]~ I~`` r~_c/l.sest the city r.'r:~ l~s,co!]sider o~_rr.~~,~z~c-~:J_ fi!). Council rendered a decision to deny our appeal even though we presented the evidence of similar precedents. A homc-' on Vai avenue was asked to be reduced in size even though it met the numbers, because it vvas incorr~patii~/e with the newer homes in ft-Te neighborhood. We too established that this upper story Incas incompatible and asked That it be reduced. I/I/e presented the fact that the city changed zoning several times because 15 neighbors petitioned o!! the basis ofloss~ro~ert~ va/ucs. See exhibit f~?, p~~ge c. S',~-! ~ ~c~ t ire fl:~z<P Si~~a~ir®c~ nt !]ea~h,f-~or9]e~raar su/~oo!-~t ~~~f~o r~raratec/ to arroiz~ sr~cf] a /al~.~ec-~c~~sat at a/A costs. ?"i`~e~, eF/er:? +.n/if®ilar~ to sign! ~etrti~:ns aesa,~aast this .~gsla0icartion, but tho ga~~a~i2ic s +.r»s srsc6] t/~.~$ i!]6tuc•!-ltia! p4rsoras got i!]vo9vec3 a!]d overrtigi-!t our aela~s~o!-t ~is~:I?,2~ rare~_ E~,'e r^~er.~~ trersteaz~ ul~t~airly b€~cause wo dlacY7 t Je sar!]e i!!a~-~act ir! ~ro~e.rtpo sr~alues as o1is~ t9]o 9 a resic4ealts -rv9]o ~etitione~~~ ~~:nr~ dot t/!e daEV rcve'rserJ. ~3alt oe,~r a~,oea! v,ras del;z6ee~_ ffl/` l~ee~uest tf]2 cit;~ try rccorasicter our ap•~^3ea/. In summary, we have incurred significant expenses in hiring professional geotechnical, solar and legal consultants along with severe loss of private practice income to put together facts and accurate evidence for your consideration. We again repeat that all that is required to meet the law in this case is upper story compatibility and• mitigation of our hillside risk which can easily be done on a paper design in a matter of days. We feel that in many ways thls v/as an unintended consequence of an afiterrlpt to implemerrt the first case under the new zoning. We rectuest Caunc86 to reconsider our appeal. S~ cerely your, Seema Mittal and Sarvesl~ Mapes Appelants and Residents of 21949 Lindy Lane, v Cupertino CA 95014 408 334 0827 _Cxhibits: Exhibit 1 -ordinance no 07-2011/R1 (as part of) Exhibit 2- Chapter 19.40_ RESIDENTIAL. HILLSIDE (RHS) ZONES EXH181T 3A First resident notification from city after story poles, May13,08 EXHIBIT 3B Planning Commission hearing notification EXHINIT 3C Planning Commission Decision notification, July 24, 08 10 i~-za EXHIBIT 3D Appeal by us to city Council dated July 2~i-, 03 EXHIBIT 3E Notice of Public Hearing for City Council. EXHIBIT 3F City Council Action Letter. EXHIBIT 4 -Relevant email correspondence with city officials, renumbered pages 1 through 15 XHIBIT 5A -May 28 Letter issued to Planning Director by Jeffrey Hare, Attorney at Law, stating our legal and professional architectural findings after our review of the story poles and the original set of plans received. EXHIBIT 5B - July21 letter issued to Planning Commissioners by Jeffrey I-care, A#torney at 1_aw stating our legal and professional architectural findings alter our review of the revised plans, prior to the Planning Commission Hearing. EXHIBIT 5C -Sep 15 letter issued to the> City Council members by Jeffrey Hare, Attorney at Law, stating our legal and professional architectural findings outlining the basis for our appeal. EXHIBIT 6A-Negative Impact report pn~pared by us and presented at the Planning Commission hearing, Pages 1 ~:hrough 22 EXHIBIT 6B -Applicant presentation for Planning Commission Hearing, July 2?_, 08. Pages 1 through 25 EXHIBIT 6C -Appellant (our) presentati~~n for the City Council Hearing., Sep 16, 08, Pages 1 through 25 EXI-iIBIT 7A- Letter from Leed certified Energy Consultant dated Jul'I7 for the Planning Commission hearing EXHIBIT 7B -Letter from Leed Certified Energy Consultant dated Sep 11, 08 for the City Council Hearing. EXHIBIT 7C -Letter from Geotechnical t:,onsultant dated Sep 1 1 , OS for the City Council Hearing. F_XHIBIT 8 -Staff report and Agenda (in<~ludes Planning Commission Hearing transcript) for our agenda item 12 for the Sep 16, City Council hearing. Pages 12- 1 through 12-22. Exhibit 9 - (Not available yet)- Minutes/ l-ranscript for City Council Hearing on Sep16, 08. WEBCAST AVAILABLE. EXHIBIT 1 O -Cupertino General Plan - environmental Resources / Sustainability E~<HIBIT 11 -incorrect depiction of building mass by incomplete story poles Professional graphic. Exhibit 12- Public hearing for reversal of :coning for 1 5 homes: ~~-zs 11 (y h'-D1=NA-itif_:1++, 2-~~. d37-?C)1I ~ll-T t?I~DICrT~I~I~i;I i}2±' ~t`IISi; G_`.Lll?I~Iti`I`li`1C~ I'.C`T' ~1C3€TNC;IZ '~l!%I-LNIIIi'~4 C:11+!~P`I'L.R 19.?v~'.O~C) ~3l? `I'1i't~ i1 y: a=INI(;T['~,.9~ CC:13i1.~ 1'iii0'GLI~ I{'~NrI-LIZ I.'_I~,:~IT~L,1\T`I'Il!3I~ IC3i'*IL;`~ (IZ.-I)~ 1~F.C~PiL~I»;i~ICs R1-~.O z:t~i'It;D PI~C~f'I~~I?.rL'Il,u' LTI~t~1~,Iit~Ili~~~ I.~t~t~.TI~,I? ;_iC)U'I'I3 ~}I+ TIIEt~ 3~Il~TI~t-1 ~:1-Jr1'~'i DR_TV Ei;~ 50I1~I-'I I .~'i~<'l Vvl~,~rP (~I+' 1'I:LL ~Ai*ZT,!~'LI~r,.I1~A AZ'~ll~ TI.I~I:~'s_C'I~ I~I27~TI{,, tiVi{,~,'I.' C31+ 1 ~~z`l, ,t I3EI1I,t~- I_~I'mI=S~T<; t^.Livs~ ~"dt~I2ri' ~LI:L~ 1,1CT:I~~' iT,?~~-;_ Tlil{: C'Ir['~' (;~3I1Nt,I-L~ OI? TFi++; CITY OIt Ci_Ti~:}1E2."l'3_~''aTt~ T70F.Gi OI2DAII`: A~`i Chapter 19.28.050 of t-he titunicipal Code of Cupertino is Hereby amended to read as follows: C. Development on Properties with- Hillside CLiaracteristi.cs. 1. Buildings proposed on properties generally located south of Linda Vista Drive, south ancI west of 5ant~i Teresa grid `I'cnacc Drive, west of 7'en-a Bella Drive and north of Lindy Lane (see map below) zoned R1-20 that have; an average slope equal to or greater than fifteen percent shall be developed in accordasice with the followinj site development standards: 17-30 Ordinance No. O'7-201 J. a. Site Car•ading. i. All site grading shall be limited to a cumulative total of two thousand five hundred cubic yards,-cut _plus fill. The two thousand five hundred cubic yards includes grading ibr building pad, yard areas, driveway and all other areas requiring gradi;zg, but does not include basements. -The graded area shall be limited tc the building pad area to the d -eatest extent possible. Grading quantities for multiple driveways shall be divided equally among the participating lots, e. g., two lots sharing a driveway will. divide the drivway grading quantity in half. The divided share will be charged against the grading quantity allowed for that lot development- A maximum of two thousand square fcet of flat yard area, excluding driveways, may be graded. ii. All cut and fill areas shall be -ounded to follow the natural contours and planted with landscaping which meets the requirements in Section 19.40.OSOG. iii. A licensed landscape architect shall review grading plans and, in consultation with the applicaz.t and the City Engineer, shall submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to screen out and fill slopes. iv. If the flat yard area (excluding; driveways) exceeds 2,000 square feet or the cut plus fill of the site exceeds 2,500 cubic yards, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Site and Architectural approval from the Planning Commission. b. I'loos Area. i. The maximum floor area ratic shall be forty-five percent of the net lqt area for development proposed on the existing flat pad portion, defined as pad areas equal to or less than 10% slope, of any lot. Forn~ula: A = 0.45 B: where A =maximum allowable house size and B =net lot arca. ii. Buildings or additions located off of the flat pad exceeding slopes of 10% and producing floor area exceeding 4,500 square feet of total house size, require approval from the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.1 34 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. iii. Additions within an existing building envelope are permitted provided that the total FAR of the exist: ng building and addition does not exceed 45%. 17-31 C?rdinance No. 07-2011 c. ~ecen.l _TC+'lour Area ,~rsid >t;~.zlc:3ny The second floor and balcony review process shall be consistent v~ith the requirements from the. Residential Hillside ~onirtg District (Chapter 19.40). The amount of second floor area is not limited provided th~:> f.otail floor area does not exceed the allowed -Hoot- area ratio. d. dZet:sinirtg',~Iail Scrceraixin Retaining w<i11s in excess of five feet shall be screened with landscape materials or faced with decorative materials such as split-faced block, river rock or similar materials subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development_ i_ Solid board fencing shall he limited to a five thousand square foot site area (excluding the principal building). ii. Open fencing (composed of materials which result in a mirrirr~urn of seventy-five percent visual transparency) shall he unrestricted except that such fencing over three foot in height may not be constructed within the front yard setback. (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) f. Tree Protection. Up to two protected trees with a diameter less than 18 inches may be removed to accorrtniodate a building p~:rd. subject to approval of the Director of Community Development. Removal of protected trees exceeding 18 inches or removal of more than two protected trees requires approval of a tre.c~ removal permit by the Phtnning Commission in accordance with. the Tree Ordinance. 1. No structure or improvements shall occur on slopes of thirty percent or ~ eater unless an exception is granted in accordance with Section 1.9.40.140, unless no more than five hundred square feet of developrrlent, including gradin g and structures, occurs on an area with a slope of thirty percent or greater. (Ord. 1886, (part), 2001_; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, ~ 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 163_5, § 1 (part), 1993; Ord. 1G01, Exli. A (part), 192) D- A_rr application for building permits filed and accepted by th'e Community Development Department (fees paid and permit number issued) on or before the effective date of Ordinance may proceed with application processing under the ordinances in effect at that time- 17-32 ~~rci_nruice No. 07-20I 1 Publication Clause 1'hc City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City witliuz 15 days after its adoption, in accordance with Governr~~nt Code Section 36933, and shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance anal shall c~.use this ordinance and her certification, together with proof of puhlication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council o[ this City. INT12ODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 18th day of September 2.007 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City .Council of the City of Cupertino tha 2nd day of October 2007, by the following vote: Voter Members. ~f the Cif Council Ayes: Wang, Sandoval, Lowenthal, Ma~ioney Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Kimberly Smith /s/ Kris Wang City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 17-33 ~~slc~~~_ ~-vtth ~.~?e a'r.~tY;i f ,`o'~.j-?1~ ~~€~p~=a ~rr~~~;:~1 -e~~l~-uin~ ~ao~el~giai :~~>< ~~~± :~ed~r~~r_aoll ,rit~i- U Ci€'SiLTZ711YI.~ c`1 13f~-5'c' YIe3:ti"~ i uZ3 c`a..fTC~l't1~I1 Ciif`x-I' L'?R S'~.2,3: S11+;GLE-Fr+.MIL~' RESII?Ir/i~ITIr1L (Rl)LONF;S S~ctiou I9.2ii.0IC) PllrpOSL'S. 19.28.020 Applicability of regulations. 19.23.030 Permitted uses. 19.7.5.040 Condition;-1 uses. 19.28.050 Development regulations (site). 19.'L8.C60 Development regulatic~as (building) 19.28.070 I lnciscane requirements. 19.28.080 Perurittcd yard encroachments. 19.?_8.090 Minor residential permit. 19.28.100 'Pwo-story residential permit. 19.28.110 Exceptions. 19.23. 120 Development regulations-Eichler (R 1-e). 19.28.130 Development regulations-(R1-a). 19.28. 140 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.010 Purposes. R-1 sin_~lc-family residence districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached d~.velliugs in order to: A. Enhance the identity of residential neiglrborhoods; B. F_nsure provision of light, air and a reasonable Ievel of privacy to individual residential parcels; C. Ensrre a reasonable level of compatibility ira scale of structtrres within residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the predomirrantly low-intensity setting iu the community; (Ord. 1954, (paz[j, 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1.999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19_28.020 Applicability of Regulations_ No building, structure- or lar7d shall be used, and no building or stnrcture slurp be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R--1 single-family residence district other than in conformance with tihe provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 7_000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.25.030 Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the R-1 single- {arni]y residence district: ~9.2;~. 01€~ A. Single-family use; B. J~ second dwelling unit conforming to the provisions, standards and procedures described iu Chapter 19.82, except for those second dwelling traits requiria~g a conditional use permit; . C. Accessory facilities and uses r_ustomarily incidental to permitted uses and other-wise conforming with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title; D, Rome occupations in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.92; E. I3orticulture, gardening, and growing of food products for consumption by occupan*s of the site; h. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency or department with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff; G. Small-family day care home; H. The keeping of a maximum of four adult household pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs or cats may be kept on the site; I. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but excluding business off-ices, construction or storage yards, main_enance facilities, or corporation yards; J. Large-family day care homes, which meet the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and which are at least three hundred feet from any other large-family day care home. 'The Director of Community Development or his/her designee shall admuustratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the .parking and proximity requirements; K. Congregate residence with ten or less residents. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part); 1999; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1601, 1'sxlr. A (part), 1992) 19.28.040 Conditional Uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the R-1 single-family residence district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: A. Issued by [he Director of Community Development: 1 . Temporary uses, subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.124; 2005 S-4 29 17 - 34 1.1.78.040 C~upertii~o - Zonia:g 30 2. Large-family day care home, which otherwise ,_ _,_ s not meet the criteria for a permitted use. The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by Section 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code; 3. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar design features that require variations from setbacks upon a determh~ation by the Director that such design feature or features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, int.nrsive noise or oilier adverse: impacts to the stirroc.tnding area; 4. Second dwelling units which require a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84; 5: Home occupations requiring a conditional use perzuit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title. B. Issued by the Plar,n;ng Conunission: 1 . Two-story structures in an area designated for a one-story ].imitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6) of ties chapter, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the structure or structures will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 2. Group care activities with greater than six persorLS; 3. Residential care facilities that fall into the " raving categories: a. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has six or less residents, not including the providers, provider family or staff- ~b. Facility that has the appropriate State, County agency or department license and seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a min;mum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary o{ another residential care facility; c. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; 4. Congregate residence with eleven or more residents, which is a m;n;mum 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. 1954, (part),.2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part), 1993; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1613, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) I9:2S.050 Development Regulations (Site). A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. 1. Lot area shall correspond to the number t_ ~tiplied by-one thousand square feet) following the R-1 zoning symbol. Examples are as follows: ?onirzg Symbol Nurirber 1Vlinimum Lot Area in Squ:rre Feet R1 ~ 5,000 R1 6 6,000 R1 7.5 7,500 R1 10 IO,000 R1 20 7_0,000 2. LOLS, which contain Iess area than required by subsection A<1) of this section, but not less than five thousand square feet, may nevertheIcss be used as building sites, provided that all other applicable requiremenu of this title are fulfilled. B . Lot Width. 7'he nuninruni lot width shall be sixty feet m ~asured at the front-yard setback line, except in the R1-5 district where the minimum lot width is fifty feet. C', Development on Propez-ties with Hillside Characteristics. 1 . Buildings proposed on properties with an average slope goal to or greater than fifteen percent shall be deveIo.~ed 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 R1 zoning ordinance, Chapter 19.28, whichever specific regulation is more restrictive. 2 No structure or, improvements shall occur on slopes of thirty percent or greater unless an exception is granted in accordance with Section 19.40.140, unless no more than five hundred square feet of development, including grading and structures, occurs on an area with a slope of thirty percent or greater. D. An application for building permits filed and accepted by the Community Development Department (fees paid and permit number issued) on or before March 1 , 2005 may proceed with application processing under ordinances in effect at [hat time. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886, (part}, :2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635, § 1 (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.(iG0 Development Regulations (Building). A. Lot Coverage. The maximum ]ot coverage shall be fom~-five percent of the net lot area. An additional five percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches and other similar features not substantially enclosed by exterior walls. B. Floor Area Ratio. The objective of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for square footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the residenial development standards and guidelines in this ordinance in determ;n;ng whether the mass and scale of the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 17-35 2005 S-4 31 :=intic-I<<unily Zesir_iential (Rl) Tones 19.2F.tlip l.. The rnaxvnurn floor are:=. ratio of all iruchrres on ~. iot shall 1>r: i'ori}'-five percent. 2. 1'lre rnaxir:rurn floor arc^ of a sccor:d story shall be for*.y-five percent of the existin~~ or prolrosed first story moor a-ea, or seven huudied fifty :;quaze feet, whici~ever is gr.°.at~r. _ 3. Interior are:.s wiilt hci~,hts above sixteen feet, rneasr;rcd from the floor to the toy of the rczof-rafters, have it5c mass and bulk of a two-story boost and shall be counted as floor area. a. If the house is a two-story house, this ::rea will count as second story floor area; onc~rwisc, flit area will count as first floor area. C, Desi ;n C;uidclincs, 1 . Any new two- story house, cr second-story addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent with the adopted sicigle-family resideut3a_ 1 guidelines. The Director of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that floe foilou~ing items arc met prior to design approval: ti. The mass and bulls of tare design ::hall be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in tenrvs of building forms, roof pitches, cave hei~> ts, ridge heights, and entry feature freights; b. Tire design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; c. 'T'here shall not be a three-car wide driveway curb. cut. d. No more than fifty percent of fire front elevation of a house should consist of garage area. c. Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of fire second story. f. The ewrent pattern of side setbael ~tnd gr.rage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained. g. .When possible, doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned with one anctuer vertically and horironWlly and syurrneL-ical in number, size and placement. h. Porches are encouraged. i. Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more- j. All second story roofs should have at Ieast a one- footovcrhang. D. Setback-First Story. 1. Front Yard. T'he minimtun front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the setback shall be a m;n;mum of fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side Yard. The combination of tine two side yard setbacks shall be i-ifteen feet, except that no side yard setback may be less than rive feet. 2005 S-4 a. For a corner lot, the minimum side-yard setback on the street side of the lot is rivelve feet. T'Yte other side yard setback sh:-t1I be no less than five feet. b. For interior lots in the RI-5 district, flee side yard setbacks ire five feet on both sides. c. For lots drat have more than two side yards, the se+.baci: shall be consistent for all side yards between the front property line and the rear property line. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. a. A~~itYt a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 14.?.B.G~G, fire rear setback may be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less than tv.~enty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line. 4. Garage. The front face of a garage in an R1 district shall be set back a minimum of t4venty feet from a street property line. a. For projects with three-car garages oriented to fire public right-of-way, the wall plane of the third space shall be set back a minimum of rivo feet from the wall plane of fire other two spaces. E. Setback-Second Story. 1. Front and Rear Yards. The minin~uru (rout and rear setbacks arc twenty-five feet. 2. Side Yard. The combination of the side setbacks shalt be twenty five feet, except that no second-story side setback may be less than ten feet. a. In the case of a flag lot, the minrrturn setback is twenty feet from any property line. b. In the case of a corner lot, a n,;n;murn of twelve feet from a street side property line and twenty feet from any rear property line of asingle-family dwelling, 3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front and side-yard setback requirements specified iu this section. F. Easements, 1. The number, size and volume of lightzvelis and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required by fire Uniform Funding Code for egress, light and ventilation, except that in the case of a single-story house with a basement, one lightwell may he up to ten feet wide and up to ten feet long. 2. No part of a ligh[well retaining wall may he Iocated within a required setback area, except as follows: a. The murimum side setback far a lightweIl retaining wall shall be five feet; b. The minimum. rear setback for a Iightwell retaining wall shall be ten feet. 3. L ightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping. 4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwell. 17-36 '_-:?.25.€)z"nD Cupertino -Zoning 32 5. The perimeter of the basement and all J.ightwell mining halls shall be treated and/or reinforced with the roost effective root barrier meas-~rreg, as determined by the irecior of Community Development. G. Height. 1. Ma.~drnum Building Height. The height of any ~,ri~~cipal dwelling in an R1 zone shall not exceed twenty- i;rht feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or other appurtenances. 2.. Building Envelope (One Story). a. The maximum exterior wall height and building h:iil;ht on single-story structures and single-story sections of v, o-story structures must fit into a buildutg envelope dcfined by: 1. A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line; 2. Atwenty-five-degree roof line angle projected n~.vard at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection =(2)(a)(1) of this section.- b. Notwitltstanding the building envelope in ~:ubsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to twenty feet with a Minor Residential Permit. 3. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from the first story exterior wall plane. a. The Director of Community Development may approve an exception to this regulation based on the findings in Section 19.28. 110 D. 4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry feature height shall be fourteen feet. 5. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by afFixing an "i" designation to the R1 zoning district. H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of the permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to .address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decl~.s, patios, balconies, or any other similaz unenclosed features. 1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three into the front setback for the principal dwelling. 2. The minimum side-yard setback shall be fifteen feet. ? . 'Z'hc minimum rear-yard setback shall be tu~erty feet. I. Solar Design. The setback and h iglu restrictions provided in this chapter xnay be varied for a stnucturc utilize:3 for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoinng property owners. Any solar structure that requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Permit subject to Section 19.28.090. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 7.999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord. ;.784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (par[), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh..4. (part), 1992) 19.28.D70 Landscape Requirements. To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and bulls of new two-story homes and additions, tree and/or shrub planting is required. The intent of this section is to provide substantial screening within three years of the planting. A.. Applicability. This requirement shall apply to new two-story homes, second-story decks, two-story additions, or modifications to the existing second-story decks or existing windows on existing two-story homes that increase privac.~ impacts on neighboring residents. Skylights, windows with sills more than five feet above the fuushed second floor, windows with permanent, exterior louvers up to six 'ect above the finished second floor, and obscured, non-operable windows are not required to provide privacy protect iOII planning, B. Privacy Planting Plan. Proposals for a new two- story house or a second story addition shall be accompanied by a privacy planting plan which identifies the location, specie: and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees or shrubs. 1 New trees or shrubs shall be required on the applicant's property to screen views from second-story windows. The area where planting is required is bounded by athirty-degree angle on each side window jamb. The trees or slrnrbs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit. a. New tree or shrubs are not required to replace existin-~ trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified Arbori>t or Licenses Landscape Architect verifies that the existing trees/shrubs. have the characteristics of privacy planting species, subject to approval by the Director or Community Development 17-37 2005 S-4 '_;:; r~rtrylc-1 :.ml:,~ x-a~sidct.t-ial ~.zZ 5-) ~~or,.es ?-9.75.070 b. Affected property owner(s) may choose to allotiv pz_.'acY Planting on their a4vn property. 1n such cases, the applicant must plant the privac}~ screening prior to issuance r,f a building permit. - 2. Waiver. These privacy mitigation measures may be rrtodified in any way with a signec2 waiver statement from the ::ffccted property owner. Modifications can include <:hanges to the number of shrubs or trees, their species or location. C. Front-Yard Tree Planting. Applicants for new two-story homes and two-story additions must plant a tree in front of new second stories in the front yard setback area. The tree shall be 24 inch-box or larger, with a minimum height of six feet. The Director of Community Development can waiver this front-yard free if there is a conflict with existing mattu-e tree canopies on-site or in the public right- c{-way. D. Species List, The Planning Division shall maintain a list of allowed privacy planting trees and shnrbs. 'arc list shall include allowed plant species, minimum size of trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and planting distance between trees. F. Covenant_ 'I`he property owner shall record a covenant witYr the Santa Clara County Recorders Office that requires the retention of all privacy planting, or use of existing vegetation as privacy planting, prior to receiving a final building inspection from the Euilding Division. This regulation does not apply to situations described in sabscction B(1)(b) of this section. F. Maintenance. The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a growth rate expected for a particular species. ' G. Replacement. Where required planting is removed or dies it must be replace-d within thirty da}~s vritlr privacy tree(s) of similar sire as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it is determined to be infeasible by the Director of Commumity Development. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2000 19.23.030 Permitted Yard Encroachments. A. Where a building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction, encroaches upon present required yards and setbacks, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing building lines if the addition receives a Minor Residential Permit and conforms to the following: 1. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required se*_back and the height of [he existing non-conforming wall and the extended wall may not be increased. 2. The maximum length of the extension is fifteen feet. 3. 'I3ie c:xtcnsion of any wall plane of a first-story addition is not permitted to be within three feet of any property line. ~l. Only one such extension shall he permitted for the life of ..uc[t building. 5. This section applies to the first story only and shall ne,t be coristrued to allow fire further extension of an encroac.larnent by any building, which is the result of the (;ranting of a variance or exception, either before or after such prol:crty become part of the City. B. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may e;acnd into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary stnrcriue, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. (Ord. 1954, (part), 20D5; Ord. 1836, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), ?_001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. IGiB, (pr_rt), 1993; Ord. 1ti01, L:xh. A (part), 199?_) I9.23.0°?0 RRinor Residential Permits. Projects that require .a Minor Residential Perrrrit shall be reviewed in accordance with this section. The purpose of this process is to provide affected neighbors with an opportunity to cormmeut on new development that. could have significant impacts on their property or the neighborhood as a whole. A. 2lotice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete application, a nonce shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as show-n in tile,last tax rise^smeut toll) that are adjacent to the subject property, including properties across a public or private street. The notice shall invite public couunent by a determined action date and shall include a copy of the development plans, eIcven inches by seventeen inches in size. B. Decision. After t]7e advertised deadline f'or public comments, the Duector of Community Development shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. 'i'lre permit can be approved only upon malting all of the following findings: L The .project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any .applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title. 2. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will. not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 3. T'he proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. 17-3II 2005 S ~9_Zr^,.Cz90 <~L:pertino -Zoning 34 C: I~3otice of Action, The City Council, Planning ._ _nm;ssion, applicant and any member of the public that cornrnr_nted on the project shall be notified of the action by i~rst class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may ~ppesil tltc action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the Planning Commission will make the final action on the ap.pnal. D. Expiration of a Minor Residential Permit. Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) wi[lrin one year of the Minor Residential Permit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer tune period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the Minor Residential Permit shall become null and void. The Duector o.'-' Conununity Development may grant aone-year extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor ?t~loriification to the Minor Residential Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. E. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the Director of Comnruniry Development a Minor Residential Permit can be processed concurrently with other discretionary applications.(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005} ''.8.100 Two-Story Residential Pez-znif. Two-story additions or two-story new homes require a Two-Story Residential Permit. in accordance with this section. Two-story .projects with a floor area ratio under 35 % shall require aLevel ITwo-Story Residential Permit, while atwo-story project with a floor area ratio over 35 sb~ 11 require aLevel IITwo-Story Residential Permit. A. Notice of Application (Level I). Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subject property, including properties across a public or private street "I1Ze notice shall invite public comment by a determined action date and shall include a copy of the development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in sire. 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public notice in the front yard of the subject site .that is clearly visible from the public street. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall and three feet wide firmly attached to a five-foot tall post. The notice shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the foIlowing: a. The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property, if the address is not known. b. A brief- description of the proposed project, the ~_ _.ent of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City; c. City contact information for public inquiries; d. A deadline for the submission of .public comments, which shall be at least fourteen days after the date the notice is posted; e. A black and white orthographic rendering of the front of the house, at least eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. The City shall approve the illustration or rendering prior to posting. B. Notice of Application (Level I>). Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the subject property. The notice shall invite public continent by a determined action date and shall include a copy of the development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. 1 Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public notice consistent with subsection A(1) of [his section, except that a colored perspective rendering shall be required instead of a black and white orthographic rendering. C. Story Poles. Story poles are required for any Two-Story Residential Permit. D . Decision. After the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director of Corrrrnunity Development shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The permit can be approved only upon malting all of the following findings: 1, The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, . any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. 2, The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the puf lie health, safety or welfare. 3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neig~rborhood. 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. F.. Notice of Acrion. The City Counci], Planning Cornm_ission, applicant and any member of the public that comnicnted on the project shall be notified of the action by first class mail or electronic mail. Any- interested party may appeal 'he action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the Plann;rg Cornrnission will make the final action on the appeal. ' F. Expiration of a Two-Story Permit. Unless a buildin;; permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Two- Story Permit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for any reason, the Two-Story Permit shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may grant aone-year extension, without a 17-39 ?005 5-4 35 Single-irarniIy?-*..•:side:attar (i~_1) 7~_z=-..rs - LJ.33.?Ot) public notice, iF an application for a Muzor Modification to the Two-Story Permit is filed before file expiration date anti substantive justification for the; extension is provided. G. Concurrent rlpplicat~ons. At the, discretion of the Iirector of Community Development, a Tvro-Story Permit r_an bey processed concurrently with other discretionary applications. (Ord. 1954, (part), 200,>) Ti9.2S.110 Exceptions~ Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from the strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to section 19.28.060, 19.23.070 acrd 19.28. 120 may be granted as provided in this section. A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Community Development Dcpartnzent shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the Design Review Committee and send a notice by first class mail to atl owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the subject pro~zerty. Properties that are adjacent to the stibject site, including those across a public or. private street, shall receive a reduced scale copy of the plan set with the public notice. B. Decision. After closing the public hearing, the decision-maker shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application based on the findings in this section. Any interested party can appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter I9.I36. C. Expiration of an Exception. iJnless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Exception approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval In the cver;t that the building permit expires for any reason, the Exception shall become null and void- 'fhe Director of Coznnzuuiiy Development may grant a one-year extension, without a public notice, if an application for a Minor Modification to the Exception is fried before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. D_ Findings for Approval. ' 1. Issued by the Du-ector of Commmnity Development. The Director of Conununity Development may grant exceptions fTOm the prescriptive design regulation described in Section 19.28.060 G{4) upon making all of the following findings: a. The project fulfills the intent of the visible second-story wall height regulation in that the number of two-story wall planes and the amount of visible second story wall area is reduced to the max3niurn extent possible. b. The except to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. 2005 s a c. 7'he proposed exception will not result in .^>ignificaczt vis-trot impact as vie~.vr_d from abutting properties. Z. Issued by tiro Design Review Committee. The I~esigzz Review Committee may grant exceptions front ttrc prescriptive dr_sign regulations described in Section 19.28"060, ca.ccpt 19.28.060 f,(4) and Section 19.28" 130 upon making all of fire follo~~~ing findint;t;: a. -The literal enforec:mcnt of this cizapter wi13 result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. b. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area, nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and v; elfare. c. TY!r_ cxcel_ition to be granted is one that will require fire least modification of the prescribed design regulation and the nZirrinmm variance drat will accomplish. the purpose. d. Thr proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting proprt-ties. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 1.9.28.120 ?~evelopm:-nt Regnlatioras-Ii:ichler (Rl-e) R1-e single-family residence "Eichler districts" protect a consistent architectural form through the establishment of district site development regulations. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned R1-e. In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this scr_tion shall prevail. Nothing in these regulations is intended to preclude a harmonious two-story home or second story addition. A. Setback-First Story. I. The minimum front yard setback is ttiventy feet. B. Building Design Requirements. 1 . Entry features facing tYzc street sh;.+11 be integrated with the roof line of the house. 2. The maximum roof slope shall be three-to-rivelve (rise over nm). 3. Wood or other siding material located on walls facing a public street (not including the garage door) shall incorporate vertical grooves, up to six inches apart. 4. The building design shall incorporate straight architectural lines, rather than curved lines. 5. Section 19.20.060 G(4) shall be considered a I,ruideline in the R1-e district. 6. The first floor shall be no more than twelve inches above the existing grade. 7. Exterior walls located adjacent to side yards shall not exceed nine feet in height measured from the top of the floor to the top of the wall plate. C_ Privacy Protection Requirements. 1. Side and Rear Yard Facing Second Floor Windows, In addition to other privacy protection requirements in Section 19.28.070, the following is required for all second story windows: i~-ao _~ .:%$,I2C> Cupertino - ~onht; 36 a. Cover windows with exterior louver's to a height six feet above the second floor; or b. Obscure glass to a height of six feet above the ;:econd floor; or c. Have a window sill height of five feet minimum ab~;ve the second floor. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1s'i~3, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000) I~.23.13f) Dcvelopnient Regulations-(Rl-a). R1-a districts arc intended to reinforce the semi-rural ~.:cttin~; in neighborhoods with large lots. Regulations found i~t ~?~c other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties ~:oned R1-a. In the event of a conflict between other rc;;utations in this chapter and this section, this section shall I-~: wail. A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The minimum lot size is ten thousand square feet. I3. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be seventy-five feet measured at the front-yard setback line. C. Second Story Area. A second floor shall be no ,wore than forty percent of the first floor, except as follows: 1. A second floor may be at least seven hundred square feet in area. 2. In no case shall a second floor be more than one tip-ousand one hundred square feet in area. D. Setback -First Story. 1. Front Yard. The m;n;mum front yard setback is warty feet. 2. Side Yard. The min;rrxum side yard setback is ten feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum reaz yard setback is twenty feet. E. Setback -Second Story. 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is '~t~irty feet. 2. Side Yard. The combined side yard setbacks shall be t}xirty-five feet, with a murimum of fifteen feet. 3. Rear Yard. 'fhc nxinimum rear yard setback is forty feet- 4. The setback surcharge in Section 19.28:060 E(3) does not apply in this district. F. Second-story Regulations. 1. Second story decks shall conform to the second- sro_ry building setbacks, and may be located on the front and rear only. 7.. The second-story shall not cantilever over a frst- story wall plane. 3. 'rhe front-facing wall plane(s) of the second-story must be offset a minimum of three feet from the fsst-story wall plane(s). Tlxc intent of this regulation is to avoid atwo- story wall plane on the front elevation. G_ Front Yard Paving. No more than fifty percent of front yard setback area may be covered with a combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. No 2005 S-4 more tlxan forty percent of the front yard setback area may be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or a sph a.. t. H. Heights. The maximum exterior wall height and building heigYtt on single-story structures and shngle-story scctio:zs of two-story strucnxres must fit into a building envelope defined by: ~.. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured from natural grade and located ten feet from property lines; h. A twenty-five degree roof line angle projected inward at the tv~elve-foot high lute referenced in subsection H(2)(7) of this section. I. Variation from the RI and R1-a regntlations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the Cuperino Municipal Code in the R1-a district. J. Design Review. All two-story development shall require discretionary review based on Section 19.28.100, except that the Design Review Committee shall approve or deny the project at a public hearing based on [he Endings in subsection N(1) of this section. I~. Design Guidelines. The guidelines in this section shall be used in conjunction with the City's Single Family Resideatial Design Guidelines. In cases where there may be conflict beriveen the two sets of guidelines, this Section shall take precedence. Nonconformance with the guidelines shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. 1 Second-story windows. Windows on the side elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of six feet above the second floor, should have permanent exterior louver:. to a height of six feet above the second floor or should have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor's privacy. 2. All second story wall heights greater than six feet, as measured from the second story finished floor, should tiave building wall offsets at least every twenty-four feet, with a minimum four-foot depth and ten-foot width. The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane. 3. Section 19.28.060 G(4) shall be considered a guideIirxe in the R1-a district. 4. Garages. T'he maximum width of a garage on the front elevation should be twenty-five feet, which will accomnxodate a two-caz garage. Additional garage spaces should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a detached accessory structure at the rear of the property. L. Permitted Yard Encroachments, 1. Where a principal building IegaIly constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction .encroaches, upon present required yards, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along it; existing building line. a_ The extension or addition may not further encroadt< into any required setback and the height of the existing non-conforming wall and the extended wall may not be increased. 17-41 3) ,`~:,,^r;lc:-1,~';:sniiy Residential (£21) Zones 39.^~,.13e? b. In no case shall any wall plane of a first-story addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line. c, This rscction does not apply [o attlacherl accessory sinrctures such as attached carports, d. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be constnred to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is the result of the iranting of a variance or exception, either before or after such property become part of [he City, 7_, Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a regrrircd yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any proncriy line. 3. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches are encouz-aged irr this zone. When viewed from the street, a Porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a proportiotvstely greater height than it.s width. Use of this yard encroachment provision shall require the approval of the Director of Community Development. a. Posts. Vertical structural supports, such as posts, for porches are allowed to encroach rivo feet into the required front setback. Structural supports must'be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive. b. Columns. The use of large columns or pillars is drSCOLlraged. c. Fencing. Low, open fencing for porches are Mowed to encroach two feet into fire rern,ired front setback area. d.. Eave Height, The cave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the cave height of typical single-story elements in the neighborhood. e. Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements. f. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback, M. Landscaping. 1. Landscaping plans shall be required for all additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of t~uilding forms from the street and adjacent properties. Specific measures are not prescribed. Generally, the landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines on fences. 2. Landscaping plans for rivo-story development shall inr_lude specific mitigations for impacts tiom.mass, bulk and privacy intrusion as required in Section ; 9.2n.070 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that a. Privacy planting shall have a n:inizrum setback from the property Iine equivalent to one-quarter of the spread noted on the City Iist. b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of t4velve feet at the time of planting. c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views from second-story windows across the street to neighboring homes are partial]y rrriiigated. d. The Director may waive the front yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing conflir_t with existing mature trees. N_ Design Review Findings. 1. Findings. i`he Design Review Conurrittec may approve a design review application for two-story development only upon making all of the findings below: a_ The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. b. The granting of this permit will not result in det7imental or injurious conditions to property or improvements in the vicinity, or to tyre public health, safety or welfare. c. The project is generally compatible with the established pattern of building forms, building materials and designs of homes in the neighborhood. d. The project i consistent witlt the City's siugle- family residential design guidelines and the guidelines in this chapter and any inconsistencies have been found to not result in impacts on neighbors. e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from adjoining properties have been rrutigated to the maxin7um extent possible. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005) 19.28.14'0 Interpretation by the i'tanning Director. Lz R1 zones, the Director of Community Development shall be empowered to make reasonable intezpretations of the regulations and provisions of thischapter consistent with the legislative intent tltereof_ Persons aggrieved by an interpretation of the chapter by the Director of Community Development may petition the Planning Commission in writing for review of the interpretation. (Ord. 3.954; (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1334, (part), 1599; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord, 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 2005 S~1 1 7 - 42 F a:ndscap e ~ltigati~~n Measures P1~I~J~C"i' SCItEENIIVC~. 2ViA'I"EIZIALS z_ r~or.T-~r=.clr~u~_tus ~x•IZ~.Es Planting Distance- Height Spread Maximum A. Cc drus Deodara-Deodara Cedar to 80' 40' Q ground 20' 13. I~deIaleuca I,inarifolia-FIaxleaf Paperbak 30' 12-15' 6' C. 1'inus I3eliperv;is--Aleppo Ping. 4d)-bG' 20-25' 10' D. 13ucalyptus Polyanthemos-Silvcrdollar 20-6G' 10-15' S' E: Cinnamomom Camphora-Camphor 50' 5G' 20' F. Arbutus Marina 40' 35' 15' G. Magnolia G randi£Iora-Soutllerrz 80' 40' 20' Ma~>nolia TTZe mix>in2um tree size shall be 24" box minimum and a a2ir>iu~uni of 8' hiol2 planted he=ight See Page 2 of Appendix A for minimum planting distance from :pity street trees for nIanting in the front yard setback. 1L NO1`T-DEC'II~LIOIJS Sf-31ZUB:~ A. Pittosporum Eugenoides 40' 20' S' B. Pittosporum Tenuifolium 40' _ 20' 5' C Pittospox-nm Crassifolium LS' 15-20' 8' D. PittosporumUndulatum-Victorian Box 15~}O' 1510' 8' E. Cupressus Sempervirens-Italian Cypress GO' 3-6' S' R Podocarpus Gracilior-Fern fine 60' 20' 10' G. Privet Ligustrum-Glossy Privet 35-40` 20' 10' H. Laurus Nobitis -Grecian Laurel 15 ~O' 20' 10' I. Rhus Lancia -African Sumac 2.5' 20' 10' T"he_ minimum shrub size shall be 15-gallon min;,T,um anc a aLini_muat of G' high planted height See Page 2 of Appendix A for minimum planting distance from .^ity street trees for planting in the front yard setback. I`dotes: The Community Development Deparislent may use otter species than those listed above subject to approval. Applicant shall be required to submit adequate documentation in order for approval of other planting materials. Documentation shaIl include a letter from an Internationally Certified Arborist or Landscape Architect stating that the materials proposed will meet or exceed height, spread criteria and growth rate of listed materials and that they are suitable for planting on the applicant's property, T'he goal is to provide a partial screening after three years' growth following pl~ulting. T'he purpose of this Iist is to give the mir~xnum planting clistance between the required street tree/shrub planting in front yard setbacks and the City street tree. 17-43 PLE1N'I'ING I7IST.AI~TCE- Ci`I'Y STRl3E`"C' "I"I; EE `I I~RE1~17 Is7INIZVILIIVL A. Wit. Mary Ivta~nolia` 7_O' 10' ~3. Crape Myrtle 7_0' 10' C.I'rvot 20' . 2 0' D. C'~Iifornia Buckeye 2.0' 10' F_. Bcch 20' 10' F. Holly O~,k 20' ~ 10' ~I. l~ristacr:~f 1lowcrin~, I'e3r" 30' 15' I3- I~lowerin;; Plum" :30' 15' I. Mexytcxi ~,O• 15, J. 1vf eIa lr Fuca 30' ~ 5, K- Fast<six Kedbud't 30' 15' L- L3risbane I>ox" 4.0' 20' 1vI. Liquid 1~mber 40' 20' N. Carob 4.O' ?_0' O. Geigera 40' 20' P. Rlxus Lancia 40' 20' C1, i_irodc~ndrorx 40' 20' It. L--hinese I'istac-io~ SO' 25, s. C,ixil:o* so' 2s' T. Chinese Hackberry* ti0' 25' U. Elm 50' 25' V. Sycamore 50' 25' ~ V. Mulberry SO' 25' :%. Silk Tree SO' 2.~ Y. R:~y-wood A_sh ~cp• ~, L. Medcsto fish 50' 25' AA. Sharnmel Ash SO' 25' BB. Car_.Zphor 60' 30' CC- ZeIkova 60' 30' "Denotes tree currently nn street tree list. Other trees previously on list and may currently e:cist as a street tree. (Ord. 1860, ~ 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1.P,34, (yazt), 1999) 1 7 - 44 1Zel~ ~sc~ of Privacy Protection Measzn-es Single-Faai.ily Residential Ordinance Ordinance 19.28 (Single-Family) r~qu_u-es 11iat after Sel~tembcr 21, 199F3, all new tv.>o-story addition: or homes be required to complete privacy protection measures. Staff may grant a modification or deletion to flits requirement if the adjacent affected property ovmers sign a release agreeu-i to modify or dc_Ieti_ tlic- requirement. Date Property L,ocaEion -- ----- - Address Z agree, to waive or xi~odify the privacy protection measures required of the Single-Fancily Residential . Ordinance as follows: Property Owner: fSddress: Phone: Signature• (Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord.. 1834, (lrirt), 2999) 17-45 - - .--_- - ;=~r.~~acS> f'.rotect~ori ~'Iani.7-n;; E3_f~.YrT~:vlt i'urpose: i.'o assure i-. ~e c. ~ e aion-n.-s-a.lcers sand. neiJ;huois that tt-ra privacy proteci.ion pIarzting has Veen installed according to file plaritn~; T~lan. Vali<3at-ion: An Interrlationa.Zly C:_erti.(ied Ai-i,orist or T icensed Landscape Architect sha11 certify the design ancZ accuracy of the p~it~acy p.otc ction pl~;iting. A ,-educed eleven Uy seventeen copy of the approved planting plan shall be :ttf i. I~e~d- ~~ubm;til.1 ~,f tI~is form. shall be r_e~iiirec3 prior to final inspection of the residence. PJa7itint; Certificat-ion: _ _ _.....~..~- ~.--.._.~_ I car6Sy that the privacy protection plarZting and u-rit_,ation is installed- ert address ---- - arid it is consistent in desi~,n, he:,,ht and location with the Iairdscape plant.in~ and irrigatican plans dra~~~n hy: -- --- ------ --- - - dated ___ ~;,tta~zea). Name Titla Professional License # Data (Ord. 1868, (past), 2001; Ord. 1.860, § I (part), 2000; Ord_ 183<?, (part), I99J) 17-46 .~.~. s':'..F.~ 5 (3 CHAP'TL:R 19.40: laF4'I-t~~'TIAI.. g37i.LSSt~~~ (R.2~~ ~Oi`d+~'= Section 19.40.01 O 19, 40.020 19.40.030 19.40.040 19.40.050 19.40.060 19.40.070 19.40.00 19.40.OS0 19.40.100 19.40.110 19.40,120 19.40.130 19.40.140 19,40,145 '~ Prior Purpose. Applicability of regulations. Permitted uses. Conditional uses_ Site development regulations. Building coverage, setbacks and height restrictions. Design standazds_ Fencing. Permitted yard encroachment. Geologic and soils report procedures. Private roads and driveways_ Solar design. Interpretation of pIann;ng director Exceptions For development of certain individual hillside lots. _ Applir_ability. history: Ord. 1601. G. Promote compatibility of colors and materials of structures acid the surrounding natural setting_ (Ord. 1634, (paz-t>, 1993) 19.40.62a Applicabilify of Regulations. No building or structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in a residential hillside (121-15) zone, otherwise than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary, structures which were legally construct:edprior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall be deemed legally conforming; provided, however, that any structural alteration, enlargement or remodeling of such existing structure shall either comply with the site developmeffi regulations (building coverage, setbacks, height restrictions and design standards) of this chapter or shall obtain an exception as provided in Section 19.40.14. O_ (Ord. 1725, (part), 1996; Ord_ 1634, (part), 1993) 19.40.030 Permitted 'zJses. The following uses shall be permitted in an RHS zoning district: A_ Single-family dwelling units with not more than one dwelling unit per lot; B_ A second dwelling unit which conforms to the procedure, standards and requirements of Chapter 19.84 of this code; C. Home occupations which conform to the procedure, standazds and requirements of Chapter 19.92 of this code; D. Accessory buildings which conform to the procedures, standards and requirements of Chapter 19.80 of this code; E_ Small-family day Gaze home; F_ Residential care facility with six or less residents not including the provider, provider family or staff, that has a license from the appropriate Stale, County agency or. department; G. The keeping of animals as follows: 1 _ Household pets limited [o one anirnat per three thousand square feet of lot area except: 19.40.010 Purpose. The purpose of the RHS zoning district is to regulate: development commP„s„rate with 'community goals, a:: described in the General Plan, to preserve tlae natural settinE; in the hillsides. This chapter utilizes perfor,,,ance standazd> and specific regulations to ensure that the utilization of lane'. for residential uses is balanced with the need to conserve: natural resources and protect life and property from natural hazards. Specifically, this chapter is intended to accomplish the following objectives: A_ FnY+anee the identity of residential neighborhoods; B_ Ensure the provision of light and air to individual residential parcels; C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility irr scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; D_ Maintain spatial relationship between structure;~ and within neighborhoods; E_ Reinforce the predominantly tow-intensity settle;; of the community; F. Maintain a balance between residential development and preservation of the natural hillside setting; Sj 17-47 i9.~J0.03:,a Crt•:z:rtino - :~nins 52 a. Adult dogs are limited to a m<.zirnam of t~.vo for lets Ies.; tt:an one ar_r.. and fo,ir for lots krcater Chart one ar_rc., • b. T'he nmub~r of gfJese, ducks, chicke:,s, raubits a.;ad other faun art-itxials are not limited on a site greater- ih:u: cue acre, 2. Small household pets, 3. L1sge aztimals, such as horses, coy=rs, shrup, and goats, Iimited as follows: a. 'Two large animals for the firsC forty thousands sq~rare feet of land area, except mules and donS_eys which require eighty thousand sgiLare feet for the first animal, b. One additional large aui_mal for each ri=; enty thousand square feet of land area, c. One additional large animal if said animal is raiser_1 fora 4H project, a project sponsored by recognized agriculnrrd organisation or a school project, 4. The required lo[ area for a Iarge ariirra~zl shall not b:: included in the required lot area for a household pet or vice versa, except that a maximum of tzvo household pets rcuiy be kept with large animals, 5_ All ani-orals must be kept and maintained in accord<'tnce with other Cupertino or Santa Clara County codes and ordinances, 6_ No animals 7sepf and maintained in an RHS caning district may be raised for commercial purposes, 7_ ~ Crop, tree or horticultural farming for personal u>e. I'rcduce grown on the site may be sold if the business activity is conducted in a manner consistent with the home cxcup3tlOn OrdlnanCe; H_ Lazge family day care home which meets the p.zrking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100, and which is at least three hundred feet from any other Large-family day care home: The DuL'ctor of Coznaitulity Development or hi_s/her designee shall administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and procimity requirements; Z. Congregate residence with ten or Less residents. (Ord. Y658, (part), 1995; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1634, (part), -1993) 19.40.(940 Conditionsil Uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the RHS zoning district subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: A. Issued by the Director of - Community Development: 1. Temporary uses subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.128 of this code, 2. Large-family day care home which otherwise does not meet the criteria for a perzuitted use. The conditional use permit shall be processed as. provided by Section 1597.46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Cade, 3. Tito ko-eping of any animal not ot,`if:r:vise pcrutittt.d i~t..Sxtion 19.4-0.0300, ;. Home cccupation_s that rem,ire a conditional rise: pC;rmit pursuant in C-'hapt!:.r 17.'~Y2 of this code, 5. Buildings or stxuctures •:~hich incorl-torate sol:ix desigxr features that require v.r-iatious from setbacl~s, upan a deternt;nation by the: Dircrtnr that the design feattuza or f: a-t~tics will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or intc:nsivf: nois~r, odor, or otlu:-r ssvtirsc im},ar;ts to Cho surrounding area., 6. Second dwelling urri is •.vhich require a conditional use pertitit pursran[ to Chapter 19.84 of this code, 7. Crop, tree, or horticultural farming for commercial purposes; B. Issued by the Planning Commission: 1. Limited commercial recreation. uses, each- as riding clubs and related stables azrd trails, golf courses, swimming and picnic grounds, ?_. Residential care facility, that is not required to obtain a license by the Sate, County agency or department and has six or Less residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff, 3. Residential care facility, that has the appropriate State, County agency or depar-tment Iicense and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider, provider fancily or staff, is a mirtimta-m distance of five hundred f.°t from the property boundary of another residential care facility, 4. Residential caze facility, that is not required ten obtain a pernut from the State, County agency or department license and has seven os greater residents, not including the provider; provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility and has a mirtirnum of seventy-five square feet of usable rear yard area gee occupant, 5. Congregate: residence ta~ith eleven or more residents, is a min;muin 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.- 1658, (part), 1995; Ord_ 1683, § 3 (part), 1995;. Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) 19.40.050 Site Developrneut Kegulations_ The following guidelines are a compilation of policies described in the General Plan and aze intended to govern the preparation of development plans in RHS zones. Ali provisions of this section, except subsections A, B and C, may be deviatt-d from upon an exception granted by flee Planning Commission in accordance with Sccaion 19.40.140. A. Dwelling Unit Density. 1 . T'he residential density for developmentwithin i ~ 48 5:3 ~esidentil I~Ciliside (RHS) Zones 19.40.450 1ZEZS zoning district shall be .determined by the General Plan, based Ttpoa slope density standards described therein. 2. Upon rcxordation of a subdivision map or gazcel map in an RHS zoning district, density credits derived fros. application of a slope density formula to a Iot or group o:= lots may not be transferred to property outside th.~. subdivision or parcel map boundary. B, Z,ot Area, 1. 7-fie minimum Iot area for a specific propert}~ shall correspond to the number following the I2I-1S zaninl; symbol (multiplied by one thousand squazc feet). Example:. are as follows: Zoning Syml:ol I'dumLcr Minimum Y.ot Area In Square ]G'~~t Ft_11S 20 20,C{SO RHS 40 40,000 RHS 80 80,000 RHS 120 120,000 RHS 180 180,000 RHS 200 200,000 Rl3S 400 400,000 ?_. For purposes of subdivision, the minimum tor. azea shall be the average lot area computation for a zerc~ percent slope gradient as cont~^.ined in Appendix E of they General Plan, unless clustered in accordance with Section 18.52,030 (Hillside Subdivisions). These lot sizes az~. approx;mately twelve thousand squaze feet for the Foothill Modified, twenty-one thousand square feet for the Foothil. 1/2 acre modified and tyro hundred eighteen thousand squaze; feat for the 5-20_ The m;n;mum lot size in a clustered subdivision is ten thousand square feet- Lots whicl~ potentially ase subdividable will be assigned a lot sizi~ number at the time of subdivision. 3. The m*;.nimum lot azea for legally-created,' developed lots, which are not subdividable, shall reflez;t the: existing lot size. C. Lot Width Minimum, The min;mum lot width in an RHS zoning district is seventy feet, measured at the front setback lice; provided, however, that there is no m;n;munl lot width for lots served by a private driveway and which do not adjoin a public street_ D. Development on Substandazd Lots- No structurt^e or improvements proposed on existing, vacant legal lots vi the Foothill Modified and Foothill Modified Half Acre slope: density designations of the General Plan which aria substandard in size, shall occur unless an exception i granted- E. Lots Adjoining Public Qpen Spaces. For lots adjacent to public open space preserves or pazks, the driveway and building shall be located in a **~a*~ner to be-set as far as feasible from the preserve or parts and designed in a manner to mirlimi~C impacts on the preserve or pazk_ F. Site Grading. 1 _ All site grading shall be limited to a cumulative total of two thousand five hundred cubic yards, cut plus fill. The two thousand five hundred cubic yards includes grading for building pad, yard areas, driveway and all other areas regn;ring grading, but does not include basements- The graded azea shall be ]imited [o [he building pad area to the greatest extent possible. Grading quantities for multiple driveways shall be divided equally among the participating lots, e.g., taro lots sharing a driveway will divide the driveway grading quantity in half. The divided shaze will be charged against the grading quantity allowed for that lot development. A max;mum of two thousand square feet of fiat yard area, excluding driveways, may be graded- All cut and fill azeas shall be rounded to follow the natural contours and planted with landscaping which meets the requirements in Section 19,40,OSOG. 2. A licensed landscape architect shall review grading plans and, in consultation with the applicant and [he City Engineer, shall submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to screen out and fill slopes. G. Landscaping~ 1 _ A licensed landscape azchitect shall prepaze a tree planting plan for the site which will screen grading azeas, and residential structures, to the greatest possible extent, as well as to reintroduce trees on barren slopes which were denuded by prior agricultural activities_ 2, Landscape improvement shall meet the requirements as established in the Xeriscape Landscaping Ordinance, Chapter 14.15 of this code. 3_ Landscape improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy unless such installation is impracticable, in which case, the applicant shall post a bond, cash or other security to insure installation within an eighteen-month period from occupancy. All such landscape areas shall be properly mainiainFVl. 4. No specimen sized trees may be removed without a permit as provided for in the Heritage and Specimen Tree Ordinance, Chapter 14,18 of this code. Native trees should be integrated into the site design to the greatest extent possible. H. Watercourse Protection. 1 _ Any watercourse identified in Figure 6-3 of the - Cupertino General Plan and its existing riparian vegetation must be shown on all development plans. 2. All new development, including structures, grading and clearing, must be set back at least fifty fc~t on lots which are less than one acre in size and one hundred 17-49 3_~i-v.t~5(? G`up`,rtino - i'.ozzi.n ; 54 t'e:,t on lots which are greater than one acre. The setback shall be znr_a~-uz'ed froze the tap of bantc of teat; watercourses or from existing riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. 11-ie ..=.etback from riparian vegetation v: iIl be measured from the dzip line perimeter_ i. Development Near Prazninent I2idgelines_ 1 _ 'f''c development of new, independent structures shall riot disrupt a fifteen F:ercent site Line from a pranriucnt ridg<: as identified iu Appc_ndix A. T7ie fifteen percent site lice shall be. measured from the top of ridge at the closest paint from the structure_ 2 _ Additions to legally existing homes located within the fifteen percent site line of a prominent ridgeline may not further encroach into the site Line, e. g. ,the addition rzzay not add height or buIlc which may increase the diszuption to the fifteen percc;nt ridgeline site Iine_ 3. Should these requirements become impractical, alte.-natives will be considered through the exception process_ J. Development on Slopes of Thirty Percent or Greater. 1. Site plans for all development propasals shall include topographical information az contour intervals not to exceed ten feet and a horizontal trap scale of one inch equals two hundred feet or larger. Areas where slopes ezcceerl thir'iy percent shall be identified on the site development plan_ 2. 1`do structure or improvements shall occur on .,tapes greater than thirty percent unless an exception is prant~d or unless no more than five hundred square feet of development, including grading and structures, occurs on au area with a slope greater than thirty percent. K. Trail Linkages. 1_ Among other items required to be idcntifed on tl-ae sites plan, the site plan shall identify trail lizrkages as shov.~zz in the General Plan Trail Plan, on and adjacent to the site_ 2. If a trail linkage, as shown in the General Plan frail Plan; is identified across a property being developed, no development shall take place within that area except if approved through the exception process. L_ Views and Privacy_ It is not the res-pozasibility of City Government to ensure the privacy protection of the building permit applicant or owners of surrounding properties that tray be affected by the structure under construction. However, the Director of Community Development may confer with the building permit applicant to discuss alternate means of preventing privacy intrusion and preserving views. (Ord. 1725, (part), 1996; Ord_ 1658, (part), 1995; Ord_ 1634, (part), 1993) 19.40.09 Branding Coverage, Setb,aclLS and Sleight ~estrictions_ All-provisions of this section may be deviated froth upon an exception granted by the Planning Cozirnii.ssion in accordance with Section 19.40.140_ A. Floor Area. l .a. For Iots with Icss than ten thousand square feet of net lot area the rrza~ximwn floor area ratio shall be forty-five percent of the net lot area. Formula: A = 0.45 B A = Ma:cimunt allowable house size. B =Net lot area_ b. For lots with more than ten thousand square feet of net lest area the maximum flcor area shall be four thousand five hundred square feet plus 59.59 square feet for every one thousand square foot over ten thousand sgrzare feet of net lot area. In all cases the maximum floor area shall not exceed six thousand five hundred square feet without an exception. Formula: A=((g3-IO,G~'J)/1,OG0)(Sz7.59)+4,SOi3 A =Maximum allowable house size prior [o instituting the maximum 6,500 square foot building size_ B =Net lot azea_ 2_ Lots Within Clustered Subdivisions Conta;niz,g Common Open Space_ Lots within clustered subdivisions in which land is reserved as corna~on open space, zzzay count a proportionate amount of the reserved private open space for calculating the allowable house size, except that no developable lot would be subject to greater than aforty-five- percent floor area ratio prior to slope consideration_ The average slope of a lot within a clustered subdivision shall h.:, calculated on ilia developable lot. 3. Slope Adjustment Criteria. For Lots with an average slope greater than ten percent, the allowable float area, prior to instituting the maximum six thousand five hundred square foot allowable building sin, shall be rc°duced by one and one-half percent for each percent of slope over ten percent. For lots with an average slope over thirty percent the allowable float area shall be rc°duced by a constant thirty gercent_ Formula: C A x (1-(1.5 x (D - O.1))) A = Maximum allowable house sin based on subsection 1 above prior to instituting the maximum 6,500 square foot building size. C = Ma.~um allowable building for lots -,with greater than 10°G average slags. D = Average percent slope of net lot area. ~ ~ - so 55 Rasidentitzl g3~ll>zde (RI3.S7 Zones 9.40_C6SB Ave. sIop~ Reduction 10 :a or less 03'0 11 n 1.5;~ 12 0 30`0 13 ;~ 4.5 ;g 14 ~ 6 ;~ 15`3'0 7,5 °b 16 ;~ 9 0 17 °,£ 10.5 1810 12~ 19 ~ 13.5 % 20% 15`35 21 0 16.535 22°~ IS 36 23 `~ 19.5 % 24 0 21 ,o 25;6 22.5 2630 24 .°~o 27 ~ 25.5 ~ 2 S p 27 ;~ 29 ;~ 28.5 ~ 30 °b or greater 30;6 B_ Setbacks-First Floor_ 1. Front Yard. The nLn;mum front yazd setback i:; twenty feet, except that if the grade excer.-ds twenty percen: within the first twenty feet from the street elevation, the: minimum front yard setbacY> may be ten feet. The driveway and garage must be designed to enable vehicles to pazk off street.. 2. Side Yard. -The minimum side yard setback i; ten feet, provided that a minimum of fifteen feet shall b:, provided on the street side of a comer lot. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum reaz Yazd setback shall be twenty feet. C. Setbacks-Second Floor. 1. Front Yard_ The m;n;rnum front yard setback shall be twenty-five feet. 2. Side Yard. The minimum side Yazd setback shall be fifteen feet. 3 _ Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback shall be twenty-five feet. 4. Downhill Elevation. The downhill elevation sha'1 be offset in the following manner: ac least seventy-five percent of the second story downhill facing wall plane shall be set back an average of seven and one-half feet and in no case Iess than five feat from the first story downhill wall plane. The remaining twenty-five percent may not exten~3 past the firs[ story wall plane. 5. Should the downhill contours not b.°. confned to one elevation, then the downhill offset shall be applicable to [he primary setback affected_ 6. A second story offset may be measured fmm the outside perimeter of the first-story roofed porches. The roof of the porch must match, in pitch and style, the roof of the main structure_ The porch must also be at least five feet in width and extend the length of the wall on which it is located. D. Setback-Habitable Third Floor. The minimum setbacks for a habitable third floor shall be the same as those for a second floor, except that the minimum side yard setback shall he twenty fe`t_ E. Height of Principal Buildings and Structures. 1 _ The maz;mum height of a principal building in an RHS zone shall be thirty foot (excluding chimneys, antennae, or other apptu-tenances). 2. Heights exceeding twenty feet shall be subject to the setbac'.~ regulations prescribed in Section 19.40.060D and E. 3. The maximum wall height on the downhill elevation shall be fifteen feet. (Ord_ 1725, (part?, 1996; Ord_ 1653, (part), 1995; Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) 19.40.070 Des-i~n Staadards_ All provisions of this section may be deviated from upon an exception granted by the Planning Coniniission in accordance with Section 19.40.140. A_ Building and Roof Forms. 1 _ The. building shall follow as closely as possible the primary natural contour of the lot. The main building mass shall be on the upslope side of the building and the rooF pitches shall trend downslope. 2. Ser_ond story dormers are permitted within the second story setbacks as long as they are minor in shape and size. 3. The downhill elevation of the main structure shall have a minimum of four offset building and roof elements_ These requirements aze intended to provide varied bullding forms to produce shadow patterns which reduce the impact of visual mass. 4. Wall planes exceeding one story or twenty feet is height, whichever is more restrictive, must contain architectural elements which provide relief and break up expansive wall planes. B. Colors. Exterior colors of all structures on the lot shall use natural earth tone andlor vegetation colors which complement the natural surroundings and shall not exceed a reflectivity value of sixty on a flat surface. Natural earth-tone and vegetation colors include natural hues of brown, green and shades of gray. C. Outdoor Ligh[ing_ All outdoor lighting shall by identified on the site development plan_ No high-intensity lights aze pvrmit[ed for tennis courts or other~~ec~~ational t.9.<"9.'t)'7t3 4:up~r-ccino ~ zor:ing s6 puiToses_ 141ov.n_teut-activated scx:urity lights, not to exceed o;lc hundred watts, are permitted but must he shielded to avoid all off-site intn~sion. Ali other lights mv„•-t be directed to meet the particular need_ (Ord. 172.5, (part), 1996; Ord_ iv34, (Part). 1993) Att provisions of this section- may be deviated from ut,on an exceptioix granted by the Planning Conmission in accarclanc:~. with Section 19.40.140. All fenc s in an RHS zoning district shall be gove~zted by the following red lations: A_ Solid board f~ztcing sl~a]/: 1. Not be liuu[ecl on lots of less than thirty thousand scluar:: feet net area; 2. Be linuted to a five thousand square foot area (excluding the pri~icipal building) for lots exceeding thirty thousand square feet in net Ic[ area_ B. Op<-n fencing (composed of materials which result iu a muumum of seventy-five percent visual transparency) shall bg: unrestricted except that such fencing over three feet in height may not be constructed within the front yard setharlr_ (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) 1'*.~!J.i39t3 i~er•mitted Yard Rncroacit.ment_ All provisions of this section may be deviated from upon an exception granted by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 19.40.140. A. Architrc:tural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three fc~t, provided, that no architectural feature: or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or accessory structure, may extend closer than three feat to any property line. F3_ Addi.tions to Existing Structures, Except for structures located within the prominent ridgeline site line, vriierc a sine-family dwelling legally constn3ctcd acGOrding to existing, yazd and setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches upon present required yards, one encroaching side of the existing structure may be extended along the existing building lines even when the existing first floor setbacks do not meet the requirements of this chapter. Only one such extension shall Ise permitted for [he life of such building. This applies to the first story only. This sextion shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment. by any builduzg which is the result of the granting of a variance, either before or after such building becomes part of the City. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any r quired setback; e.g., a single story may be extended along an existing five- foot side yard setback even though the other side yazd does not equal ten fc~t. However, in no case shall zny wall plane of a fast story addition be placed closer than three feet to a_ny property line, (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) 19.4a.1(,~ (~eola~c anti Soils Report lc'roceditres. A_ A geological report prepared by a ccrtiried engineering geologist and a soils report prepared by a registered civil engineer qualified in soils mechanir_s by the state shaill be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or structure which: 1. Is Iocatc;d on property in an RHS zoning district vihicit has be°n design•itcd by the General Plan to be vvit}iin a geological hazard area; and 2. Where an addition, alteration or repair of an existing building or structure include at least one of the followuig: a. The irnprovementa include increasing the occupancy capacity of the dwelling such as adding a bedroom or secondary unit, or b. The cost of the completed addition, alteration or repairs will, during any period of hvelve months, exceed twenty-five percent of the value of the ex-fisting improvements as determined by the building official based on current per foot value of the proposed structure to the exacting structure's value on a parcel of property. For the purposes of this section, the value of existing improvements shall be deemed to be the estimated cost to rebuild the improvements in kind, which value shall be determined by the building official_ B_ These reports shall be filed in conjuncrionwith a site development plan and, in addition to the requirements of Chapter 16.12 of this code, shall contain: 1. All pertinent data, interpretations and evaluations, based upon the most current professionally recognized soils and geologic data; 2. The siomificance of the interpretations and evaluations with respect to the actual development or implementation of the intended Iand use through identification of any significant geologic problems, critically expansive soils or other unstable soil conditions which if not corrected may lead to structural damage or aggravation of these geologic problems both on- and off-site; 3. Recommendations for corrective measures deemed necessary to prevent or sipniFicantly mitigate potential damages to the proposed project and adjacent properties or to ctherwise insure safe development of the property; 4. Recor*~mPndations for additional investigations that should be made to insure safe development of the property; S_ Any other information deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. C. No -building permit shall be issued for the construction of any building or structure on property which is subject to regulation under this section, unless the building and site plans incorporate the above-described corrective measures and unless the plans aze approved by the City Engineer_ (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) 17-52 57 Iyesidentiat hillside CRIl~ ?'.on,'s 19.4-`".12~ 7..9.40.110 Private 1~ossds and 1?rivc~vays. All provisions of this section may be deviated i'rom upon an exception grant~i by the Planning Coxxunission in accordance with Section 19.40.140. A. Pavement `~'~idth and Design. The pavement width and design for a private road or common driveway serving rivo to five lots and a single-lot driveway shall comply with development standards contained in the Hillsid- Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 13.52 of this code. B. Reciprocal IngresslEgress. An applicant i'or a building permit for a lot served by a private road or common driveway shall record an appropriate dce~9. restriction guaranteeing reciprocal ingress/egress easement to adjoining property owners who utilize the private road or common driveway for the primary access to their lot(s). C. P.c°ciprocal Maintenance Agreement. The applicant fora building germit for a lot served by a prva[r: road or common driveway shall record an appropriate deed restriction guaranteeing participation in a reciprocal maintenance agreement with other lot owners utilizing the private road or common driveway for primary .access. D. Gates_ Gates may be used to control access tc private roads and driveways provided that the design of the gate, including location, dimension and the locking devices, are approved by the Director of Community Developmen: after consultation with the Central Fire District. (Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) 19.40.120 Solar I3esi~a. The setback and height restrictions provided in this: chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solaz purposes; provided, that no such structure shay:. infringe upon solar access or property rights of adjoining property owners. Any solar structure which require, variation from the setback or height restrictions oY' thi:; chapter may be permitted uponvssuance of an exception b~~ the Planning Commission. (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) 19.4'D.130 Interpretation oP Planning Director. The Director of Corrimuniry Development shall b~ empowered to maze reasonable interpretations of th. regulations and provisions of this chapter, consistent wiUi the legislative intent thereof. Persons aggrieved by as interpretation of this chapter by the Director of Communir~ Development may petition the Planning Commission v2 writing for review of the interpretation. (Ord. 1634, (part; , 1993) 19.4A.140 Exception for Development of Certain Individual I3illside Lots_ A. With respect to a request for development of a legally created individual hillside lot which does not meet the development requirements contained in Sections 19.40.050D through Nl and 19.40.060. through 19.40.050 and 19.40.1 10 through 19.42, i20 of this chapter, the Planning Commission shall grant an exception to allow development if [he subject property casuiot be merged with adjacent property ptusuant to Government Code Sections 66451.10 -- 6~-451.21 and if the commission, based upon substantial evidence, makes all of the following findings: 1. The proposed development will not be injurious to propem~r or improvements in the area nor b~ detrimental to the public health and safety. 2. The proposed development will not create a haz_:rrdous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffc. 3. The proposed development has legal access to public strecas and public services are available to serve the development. 4. The proposed development requires an exception which involves the least modif cation of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the pazcel. 5. All alternative locations for development on the parcel have been considered and have been found to create greater environmental impacts than the location of the proposed development. 6. The proposed development does not consist of structures on or near known geological"or environmental hazards which have been determined by expert testimony to be vassal°e or hazardous to structures or persons residing therein. (See General Plan Policies 2-49.) 7. The proposed development includes grading and drainage plans which wi21 ensure that erosion and scarring of the hillsides caused by necessary construction of roads, housing sites, and improvements will be minimised. (See General Plan Policies 2-53, 2-54 and 2-57.) 8. The proposed development does not consist of structures which would disrupt the natural silhouette of ridgelines as viewed from established vantage goints on the valley floor unless either: a. The location of a structure on a ridgeline is necessary to avoid greater negative environmental impacts; or b. The structure could not otherwise be physically located on the pazcel and the size of the structure is the minimum which is necessary to allow for a reasonable use of the parcel. (See General Plan Policies 2-46, 2-47 and 2118.) 9. The proposed development consists of structures incorporating designs, colors, materials, and outdoor lighting which blend with the natural hillside environment and which are designed in such a manner as to reduce the effective visible mass, including buildingheigh[, as much as possible without creating other negative environmental impacts. (See General Plan Policies 2-4-6, 2-50, 2-51 and 2-52. ) 10. The proposed development is located on the parcel as far as possible from public open sp~ce~reserves ?*i.~iL'.1~-d3 C.:.I;ea-tino ~ i nf~iaa~ 58 or parks (if visible therefrom), riparian conzdors, and wildlife habiL•zts unless such location will create other, n.ore negative envirozuzient_-il impacts. (See General Pla.u Policies 2-55, 5-14 and 5-28.) I1. 'I`he proposed development includes alaudscal;:: plan which retains as many specimen trees :is possible, wlxic:h utilucs drought--t+~lerant native plant, and ground covers consistent with nearby vegetation, and which minimizes tavnx a_reas_ (See General Plan Policies 2-54, 5-15 and 5--16.) I2. The proposed development conFmes solid fencing to the areas near a structure rather than arotiurd the entire site. (See General Pian Policy 5-17.) 13. The proposed ck;veIopmeart is otherwise consistent v~ith the City's General Plan and with the purposes of tFris chapter as describul in Section 19.40.010. B. An application for exception must be submitted on a form as prescribed by fire Director of Community Development. The application shall be accompazried by a fea prescribed by City Council resolution, no part of which shall be refundable, to the applicant. Upon receipt of an application for an exception, the Director shall issue a Notice of Public Hearing before the Phnn;ng Comm;~sion for an exception under this chapter in the same manner as provided in Section 19.120.460 (relating to caning changes). After a public hearing, and consideration of the application in-conjunction with the mandatory fuadings contained in subsection A a`uove, the Phnn;ng COL1rr1755I0II shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application for an exception. The decision of the Planning Commission may be app.°aled to the City Council as provided in Section 19.136.460. C. An exception which has not been used within tVVo years following the effective date thereof', shall become null and void and of no effect rrrrless a shorter tune period shall s-peciFically be prescribed by [he conditions of such gernut or varianco_ An exceptiougerrrrit shall be de: med to have been "used" in the event of the erection of a structure or structures when srrfficien[ building activity has occurred and continues to occur in a diligent manner. D. In addition to any other remedies, the City Attorney is authori-zed to corrrsrence and maintain a civ;l action to enforce the provisions of this chapter or any conditions attached to the granting of any pcrnrit or exception granted under this chapter. (Ord. 1725, (part), 1996; Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) 19.40.145 Applicability. 'I2ris chapter shall apply to any permit filed after April 8, 1996, provided, ho~~ever, Phat an exception previously granted, and for which building permits are obtained two years after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, is exempt. (Ord. 1725, (part), 1996) i~-sa OITY OF ^~ ~ a^sa.~~'~.9 cu~~RT~¢~ao ~d~dl~J' ~®~>z-~ ~veBa~~ ~r~~-X77-cf:'~T~' I~~'lt1[~~ ~>~~, Pi,IC ~~ZI~~ NOTICI3 1S HEREBY GIVEN that the Cupertino Planning Commission will hold a public hea~--inl; on th€: matter described below. The public i s encouraged to attend and speak. If you are unable to attend, your comments are welcomed at ~lannin?n,cunertino.ore_ Emailed comments should be received by 4:00 pm on the day of the meeting. APPLICATIONNO.: R-2008-14,RM-2008-16 APPLICANT: Chia-Ching Lin (Krisl,napura Y~ Iviinasandram residence) LOCATION: 21947 Lindy Lane APN : 356-25-029 DESCR~?TION: Director's referral of a Residential Design Review for a new, two- story 4,491 square foo~ residence and a Minor Residential Permit for a side facing second story balcony on the new residence 1TEARINU DATE= -July 22, 200$ (meetir~g begins at 6:45 p_m_) ~DDRFSS: Council Chamber, Cot nmuriity Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue 7~ie agenda for this application will be available on the-Friday afternoon preceding the meeting ozi the City's website: www_cupert~no_org N®'~`~: .~~1v'I~T~9A 1~'1AY ~~ v~Ji3d~C'I' '~'® ~"H~~~ ~L'. dfiyoaa xre intex•ested in an item, o~- have cgresti~zix:,, please eaPl tZxe Pga;aaring Depa.rtrE>!egat at 40d-777-~36o prior to tie meeting slate to verily, ti'aat tlae item is still on the agenda. The bane dais- iten± sviil be heard dzra-in~ tZee meetinss cannot be predicted as ot6aer app)fi~tions Wray also be sclaedrrded for dascussiex><r at tZsis meetx><ng_ Please note that Pls~,ning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 1O minutes and individuals to speal: for 3 minutes. LE you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in ~nTr-itten correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing_ NOTE TO OWNERS OF RECORD: This notice is sent to owners of real property as shown on the Last tax assessment roll. Tenants are not necessarily notified. Steve Piasecki Community Development Department 17-57 z ~r°~~ ~. , t~ s~`~~ ' ~4v 6L ~?' ~+5~ t'!TY DF July 24, 2008 Clua-Ching Li11 45741 Chablis Court Fremont, Ca, 94539 E' 9 4 b~ i y -'~ ^,, r ~,--^~ Cx~ -'~ 10300 Torre. AvE~..t~ae CuperL~no, C1~ L~507-4 (408) 777-3308 FAX {4-08) 777-33?~3 Piiuzzi~Z~eToptneizfZ~eparttize3z -- SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION AC"PION LETTER - 2008 firchitecttZral and Sit_c Plans for a proposed residence at 21947 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA This ` Ietter col2firnls the decision of the Plaruling Comm;.~sion, given of the meeting of July 22, 2008 approving a Director's referral for"`°t-he approval of a Residential Design Permit for a new 4,499 square foot, tS-vo-story single family residence with a basement at 21947 Li11dy Lane, according tc~ Plaiuiing Coirtn~fission Resolution No. 6522. Please be aware that if this permit is not used within atwo-year period, i.t shall expire on July 22, 2010. Also, please note that an appeal of this decision can be made withilz 14 catendar days fzOn1 the date of this letter. 7f this happens, you will be notified of a public . hearing, which will be scheduled before the City Coul~cil_ Sincerely, t\ ~~~ Collin Jung Senior Planner Enclosure: Resolution No. 6522 Cc Sheshaprasad I<rishnapura 8s Ma11Tlj Minasandram, 201 Orchard Glen Court Mountain View, CA 94043 Sarvesh Mahesh 8~ Seenia Mittal, 21949 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA 95014 Jeffrey Hare, Attorney-at-Law, 501 Stockton Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Edward Chan, 21943 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA 95014 ZNilliani Guengerich, 2.1950 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA 95014 Ron Berti, 11406 Licrdy Place, Cupertino, CA 95014 Andrew Tend, 21932 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA 95014 Robert Rodert, 21912 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA 95014 . Sara Arzeno, 21902 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, C'A 95014 Luciano ds Cristina Dalle Ore, 22101 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA 95014 Frank Siu-~,21989ISndyLane, Cupertino, CA 95014 17-58 CITY OF CUP:L:RTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertuio, California 95014 RI3SOLU'TION NO. 6522 OP 'i'I_LE PLANNING COMMISSION OF "I'I-IE CI'I1' OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A P~:SIDEN'"IAL DF,SIGN PERMIT FOR A NE'/V 4,499 SQUARE FOO`L', 2-S TORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 21947 LINDY LANI3 SECTION I: PROTEC"I' DESCRIPTION Application No.: 200F3 Site and Architectural r'lans for a residence at 21947 Lindy Lane Applicant: Chia-ClZing Lin (Krishnapus•.z ~ Minasandram Residence Locaion: 21947 Lindy Lane SECTION II. FINDINGS WhIEREAS, public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedurai Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Pla~in.ii~g Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; aizd WHERE. ,the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements uz the vicinity, and. wll not be detrimental to the public Izealth, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, and zoning ordinance; 3. The proposal- will use materials, design elements and simplified building forms that compliment the existing and neighboruzg structures that make it harmonious in scale and design with tl~e general neighborhood; - 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated in that the building pad was lowered three feet end the height of the garage was reduced to reduce the height of the retai_iiing wall and garage wall facing the. downslope residence_ The lowered pad height also reduced the perceiveei height of the proposed house facing the upslope residence such that the view from upslope is that of just a recessed, single-story residence. " NOW, TI3EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, fact:,, exlcibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the architectural and site plans are hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beg-inr~iizg on page 2 thereof; and 17-59 I~esoluii_c>n 1'.Io_ 6522 2068 rlrclr. ~~ '_itc L'I an tcn- 21-917 1-indy Lasze July 22, 2003 "i'hat the subcoi~cIusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based grid contained in the l~tcblic Rearing ..record concerrtuzg the residential d.esi~n permit for 2_1947 Lindy L ane set fortis itz t1-1e Minutes of the P1ai~ct~in~; Cornmisr,ion m.eei.ing of July 22, 2003, and are incorpo3-ated by reference as though fully scat forth herein. SECTION III. _ CC~NI7ITIONS A_DMINISTI=REI7 13Y ~[`E3Iv' COMMUNITY DEV~LOPI`/ITiNT -- -- D13 -r'T. -- ---------- ~. 1', :i'I.'i~O €Tt?I7 I--AZC> F;s= A Approval is based on plan set titlecl: "New Residence for Sl~eshaprasad ICrishnapura ~ Ma.Iini Mulastrrtdram, 21947 Lindy Lane, Cupertuzo, CA 94043" consisting of 1.3 sheets labeled A-O ihroi-igh A-8, A1.1, C-"1, C-L rind L=1, dated-April 4, 2008,-except as amended by tine Coizditin~~; contained in this Resolution. 2. NOTT_CE OF~ I'EES~~I?A.-~ICA'i'F(:~I~7Sr RE;SEIZVATIONS O_P~ OTH~IZ_E~-ACTIQNS 7'1-re Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein nzay include certain fees, cledicafion requirements, reservation requi_rernents, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(4) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a . statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, gild other exactions. 1'ou are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period ir> which you nzay protest these fees, dedicatior>s, reservations, and other exactioztis, pursL~ant to Govern.Lizent Codc Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail - to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of- Sect-ion 66020, you will be legally barred from later challengiizg such exactions. 3_ GEOTBCF-INICAL, 1~E~7rh~~_ Prior to building perirLit approval, basement, reta-iiting walls, grading and drainage shall be evaluated. and designed by the applicasZt's geotechnical engineer and reviewed ..ind approved by the City Geologist and City. 4. "CfT~TSTF_?~.JC'I'I~31a1 I~1fAI~II~C~T^ti/lI?l~T'f' ICJ 1-~1~1 - In conjunction with the building permit review, the applicant shall submit a cor~struction management plan to address stagizlg of consfsuction materials, loaduig and unloading areas and parking for coastructiori vehicles. The Director. of Community Development shall review aizd approve that plan. --, 5. Y~.EPLAC~?l~~-E'1ti7T CAE` F?1'±.1~ CO1?>rST LINE ®~ FCC - The two dead coast live oaks shall be replaced with- two, new 36" box oaks prior to occupancy. " 6. EASTERLY DETAINING FiVAL,L SETBACF< The easterly retaining vraIl shall be sc t back eight (S) feet from the side property line uz . locations where privacy landscaping is required. i~-so Resolution No. 6522 2008 Arch. <~c Site Plas~s for 219<I7 Lindy Lane July 22, 2008 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOP"I'ED this 22nd day of July 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the foIIowing roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson 2/Ii1ler, Brophy, Kaneda, Rose NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMM-ISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Vice. Chair. Giefer ATTEST: / s / Steve I'iasecki Steve Piasecl:i Director of Community Development APPROVED: / s / Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chairperson Planning Commission ~~. G:Cuptnt/planning/Pdreport/Res/2008/under R-ZOOS-7: ~, IZM-2008-16 ras.dor 17-61 A r ~ _ ~~~~~t~ r, ~ C~~~~~1~ *~ ~`' ~~ %~~ i ~ , L ~ ~.~ ~. ~ ~s~r ~xfr ~~~~~c~f~~~ ~ rr~~x ``~~ ~ ~~~*~ ~~~~~ ~ ~.--v~n~ae AUG 6 2008 ~ •-LL ~ CUPERTIi~fO CITY CLERK - ~ I~~~~ 1 . ApPl~x}®r~'•Ia. ~_c.~~~ __~~~-_ ~t-r`f y~ ~.R-~--4 -( r~-F~~1S A'F Z)~ tr-~ z-1 r~ - - ~ 2. AF~i~lic~;z::(s) Teas..-~-~e: _-- C'>-'t t ~~ - ~ F° ~ ~ 1t~1~C1 Li S~(,_. ~ , cZ~ 9`~i r-{- ~ L/~1~ (~..1 . 3. =~4g~;ell~~t(s) 3~Tosray: _ ~~- ~=-~-=\''~1.~ ~ l~C-"~P~ci-- `iT ~~cC? ~I ~l-~ ~~~~-_'t-~ ~} AdeT;r~:s ~ .1 ~ L~~ L-3 ~~~ ~f~~ ~ «J ~~~--~ $~b G~ rj =~ [~ I t isTzoneTlura~er ~C,=~ri~3 C~c-1.-d.-- = 1-~~ '~~~~~' -~O`~?~'~ h. .tYle~:se ck3~~t> one: Al=ge.zt a decisio~2 of3-3irector of Corr~r~~re.Eaity Develagmeat Apis:a} a diGif;io:l of Director cif i~ublic Works ~'~~-l=~P'~1 a de~-isiQ:a o£Plan.-~iu<e C®zr.~,-~i~sion 5. Bate of cletE-rmiFZ~ticn of Birec:tsar or iiaailin of notices of Cify decision: ~: 5. basis iyf ~r~rsl: ~' v _~ ~ v,~~N -[° i ~ ~= t-~d~~ i ~~.e f c-i • 13 ~ ~ `T~-I ~ G-I T~~ ~ ~ G'.~t~ f' ~~ t 1 i0~~ ~ ~l /~ ~ Gl PPti~ G-£7 fl ~ 1 w ~ .•taC~~ ^a f'',P~~='~,'z-.t d-~{' "~ I ~ ~~_.-~-tom 1 o r!. ©~ -T~ ~ PLL,~.Nt~i 1 nlc- 1 ~ ~ j~ ~)_-~ ~-;~-'F'--T`l C~~ ~~t' ~ 7 ~~ f~`t Zt~ ~-'~ l ~t SV ®~ f~ ~ SignaCUre(s) ~TJ ~`-`~-~ ~~ Z3lease coEngl~ faraa, ine~ude agi.e~l fee of X156.00 ~y2zrct~ant to Res lotion No. 07-056 (~ 150.00 for massage agplic~_tion agpe~ls), and retvin to the af[~ttion of the City CIerk, . 1 d3 C30 Torre Av~ue, Cuper~r.ao, (40~) 777-3?_23. 17-62 ~- `'~ ~ ~ f2x ~~ p ~~,~~ °~''=' 10300 Tane Avenue ~~~~~_~ ~ = , Cuperti_rto, CA 95014 GETY OF (408} T77-3308 ~~ ~~a ~~ ~ ~ FAX (408} 777-3333 - rnrrcunz. J eve opmerzt epartzzzezzt July 24_, 2008 C=hia-Cl)_ialg Lin " 45741 Chablis Court Tremont, Ca. 94539 5l_JE3JE~T: PLANNING COI\~IIVIISSION AC:'1`ION LETT~.IZ - 20DS ArchitectzLraI and SiEe PIans for a proposed residence at 21947 Lands Lare, Cuysertmo, C13 This -letter coiifirnzs the decision of th= Planning Con-tnLission, .given at the meeting of July 22, 2008 approving a L;irector's referral for,~the approval of a Residential Design Permif for a new 4,49 square foot, two-story single family residence with a basement- at 27-947 Lindy Lane, according to Plallnirtg Comrr,icsion Resolution No_ 6522. Please be aware that i_f this permit is not-- used within a two-year period, it shall expire on July 22, 2010. Also, please note that an appeal of this d=vision can be 111c'lde within 14 calendar days from the date of this IetLer. Zf this happens, you will be notified of a public hearing, which will be scheduled before tltie City Council. Sincerely, Collin Jung Senior Planner Enclosure: Resolution No. 6522 Cc: SI-ieshaprasad KrisF2z~apura 8s Malini It4inasandra_nz, ZOl OrcSiard GIen Coii_rt, Mountain View, CA 94043 Sarvesl~ Mahesl~ ~ Seema Mittal, 219-?9 Lindy Lane, C~ezpertino, CA 95014 Jeffrey ua,-A, Attorney-at-Law, 501 Stockton Av~ue. Cupertino, CA 95014 Edward Claan, 21943 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA 95~J14 - WiIIiam Guengerich, 2I95D Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA 95014 Ron Semi, 12405 Lindy Place, Cupertino, CA 95Q14 Andrew Teng, 21432 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA 95[)14- - Robert Roderc, 21912 Lindy Lane, CuperC=rno, CA 4014 Sara Arzeno, 21902 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA 95C14 Luciano 8r Cristina DaIIe Ore, 22101 Lindy £~>_ne, Cuperti.-w, CA 45014 Frank Scary 21989 Lindy Line, Cupertino, CA 9501'= ~ 7 - s3 CITY OF CU I'El:'T'i1~T0 103010 Torre Avenue CupE~rtu2o, C:~1nfoZ~va 7:J014 ILE SOLLt .CIOI~l 1~I0. 6522 OIL T'ITE I'LAIVI~TING COI~~~IISSION OF T.L-~E CITY O'r' CUI'FR:7'INO APPP.OVII~TG A RESI:I~rI~FTTAI.. DESIGN 1'F.R3b7I I FOIL A I~IIG'T x,497 SOUARE FOOT, 'L-STORY SINGLE FAl\~fILY Rl~'SFL7iI~IC_E AT' ?_1747 LINDY Lf17~TE_? SI~CTION l: _PRO~TCT I3I~>Cl~'TION Application No.: 2008 Site and Arclzitcactz~ral Plans far a re:,idellce at 21747 Lindy Lax~e Applicas-~t: _ Chia-Ching L.in (I~rishnapuru ~~ i~Clinasandrazn Residence) Location: - 21347 Lindy Lane SFCI'ION 13: Firi~7DINGS WZ-Z[3REAS, public notices have been given in accc~rdaxzce with. the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planiri_i_i1g Comsizission has held one o-r more public hearings on this matter; and ~~trf-IEIZEAS, the applicant has m.ot the burdt=n of proof required to support said application; and h~~s satisfied the follocvirig requiremeTZts: 1. The proposal, at the propesed location, will nat b:~ detzirYZer~tal or inje:trious to propert-y or irrtprovements in the vicinity, and. w~Il not be detriniEntal to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. '17-te proposal is ~~onsistent with tl~e purposes o£ #his chapter, the General Plan, and zcsnii~g ordinance; 3. Thy proposal will use materials, design elenZenty and siznplificd building forms that compliment th.e existing. and neighboring struciZ-fires that make it harnzoiuous irz scale a_nd desia z with the general neighborhood; 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoznTng properties have been reasonably m'tigatied in that the building pad was Lowered three feet and the height of the garage zvas reduced to reduce the height of the retainuig wall a~zd garage wa71 facing the downslope residence. The lov:~ered paci height also reduced the perceived height of the proposed 12ouse facing the upslope residence such that the view £rom~upslope is that of just a recessed, single-story residence. NOW, TAI-EIZEI~ORE, FF ITRFSOLVED: That affer careful consideration of maps, facts, e~~hi-bits, testimony and other evidence submitted in This matter, the architectural and site plans are hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enizn~erated in this Resolution begiz~riing on page 2 thereof; and 17-64 P~esolution No. 6522 2iJd8 Arch S Sire L'lan:o fore ?:1947 Lindy L ane July 22, 2008 Pa62e 2 -_ --_._. - - ---__ That the subconclusiozzs upon which the finduZgs and conditions specified iuz this resolufion are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning the residential design permit for 21947 Lindy Lane set forth in the Ivli_tiu .es of the Planning ComnZission meeting of July 22, 2004, anal are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION ~III_ CO1~T17TTIC~NS ADNiII~TISTEP..,ED '3Y TI-3E COMNILJNI'I'3' DEVELOI'l~.~NT DEPT. - ----- - - Approval is based on plan set titled: "Nc-'w _i~esidence for Sheshaprasad Krishnapura cSs Malini Minasandram, 21947 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA 9-1043" consisting of 13 sheets labeled A-0 .through- A-8, A1.1, C-1, C-2 and h1, date_d_ _April 4, 2008_, except as amended by the Conditions cor~tai3zed in this Resolution_ 2. IvTO~YCI; O~ DES, 713~DICA'I'IGI'ETu, I'~E'S~.`PS~T.f~TL4~lmTS C3~ OTHELZ C"I'J<OILIS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Gov~rrunent Code Section 66020(4) (7-), these Conditions constitute v.~-ritEen notice of a stateuzent of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, _ reservations, and other exactions. You a_-e hereby furtlzor notified that the 90-day approval period in which you nzay protest tlZese fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to GovPrn-ment Cade Section 66020(a), has begun_ If you fail • to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with aL1 of the requirements of Section 66020, you wall. be legally barred from later cl-iallenging such exactions. 3_ GE®'I`EC~3NICAL IZ1EST1PGl~V Prior to ,building permit approval, basemesit, retain-ing walls, grading and drainage slim} be evaluated and designed by. tt~e applicant's geoteclin.ical engineer and reviewed and approved by the City Geologist and City. - 4. COT°~IST'LZ~.JC'7'YO~7 l3/~I?,TAGET~~I~7'i' PI~~:7- -. -- _ - - - _ -- Ln conjunction with the building permit review, the applicant shall` subasut a construction management plan to address staQ,iaZg of constYLiction materials, loading and unloading areas and parking for construction vehicles. The Director of Community Developmerzt shall review and. approve that plarn. 5. ~EI'LE~ CPIVI-~l~7'f' QP ~EAE~ CG1-SST LINE ®f-4I£S The two dead coast Live oaks shall be rep::aced with two, new 36" box oaks prior to occupaz~cy. 6. EASTERLY IZET~'iIl~IIIeTG ~1zZ,L SET$~.CfC The easterly retaining wall shall be set back: eight (8) feet from the side property line in locations whore privacy landscaping is regiaised_ i~-ss _ FZesoli~tion INTO. 6522 2008 Arc3i. ~~ S3'e 3-']J~zzs for 21947 Tau~cl3> Lane July ?2, 200~> Page 3 ~ - PASSED AN1.7 ADOP7.~D Ehis 22nd day of July 20Q8, at a Reg~xlar Meetilig of the Plani~_isig- Cominission of the City of Cupertino, Site of C~-zll.fomia, by the foIIowing roll call vote: AYf.~S: COM~VIFI75I0\TERS: Cliairpc=rson ~~iller, bx•opl~.y, £~anecla, Pose NOES: COM1vI:ISSIONT1ZS:l3on_e ABSTAIN: CO2vIIv1I~SIOl~iZ.S: none ABSENT: COMI~RISSIONEI~S: ~tTice Chair GiF,fer AZ'Z'EST: AI'PROVEI~: /s/ Steve I'iasecli Steve 1'iasecki T~irector of Comrn»ni ty Developrl-sent Ls11~!Iart~l~/IiIler _. Marty Miller, Chai~-p erson Planning Commission G:Cuptrct/plar¢Zing/Pdreport/P.e~/20D8/under R-2008-T~ RR~I-200E-T6 res_doc 17-66 6 ~i., ~~v_ ~, ~~`sv- ~~~ ~`_ _ _ ~~~'~~ ~"~i~9~ l.~i(3~ '1f'o~-a-~. ~'~~~Fada~ ~17~-'~~7-<CIf'7'Y (vv~~~. cs~pea-~ax~cs.®&'£~) _ NO"I'ICE IS HEP~,BY GNEN_ that the Cupertino_City_ Council w_ ill hold a public heari_ng__ on the matter described below" The public is cncc~uraged to attend acid speak. APPLICA"['ION NO": R-200b-14; RM-2033-16 APPLICANT: Chia-Ching Lin (Krishnapura ~ Minasa~~dram residence) LOCATION: 21947 Lindy Lane, APN 355-25-029 DESCRIPTION: Appeal of the Plam~ing Commission's decision to approve a Residential Design Review for a new 4,491 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with abasement-and a Minor Residential Permit for a side Facing, second-story balcony on the new residence. Z'he appellant is Seema, Mittal c4~ Sarvesh Mahesh. HEARING DATE: Tuesday, Septembe;• 16, 200 begirniing at 6:45 p"m. ADDRESS: Council Chamber, Community Hall., 10350 "Corre Avenue Agenda may be subject to change. If you are i~iterested in an item or have questions, please call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3:?23 prior to the meetin}~ date to verify that the item is still on the agenda. The time this item will be heard on the agenda cannot be predicted. For more information, agendas and packets are available for review on the Tlitu-sday afternoon prior to the meeting, and are also on the Internet at ww~v_cut~ertino.or~/3~ilda" NOTE TO OWNERS OF RECORD: Phis notice: is sent to owners of real property as shown on the last tax assessment roll. Tenants are not necessarily notified. Kimberly Smith City Clerk ~~-s~ k s~ '~}+ ` ~"~ r-.~:, ~ v e~_.:__ ~.~~ ._-_:. Se~~tembcr 24, 2008 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 1030D TORRE AVENUF_ • CUPERTINO, CA 95D14-3'L55 TELEPE-ZONE: (4DZ3) 777-3223 FAX: (40f3} 777-3366 Plerise see t-he attached amended action letter correcting the date of the Council meetin ; in which the Council took action (September 16). T1~e date of the oriel nal letter ~~~ill still count as the date the decision was.inailecl (Septc:inher 19). Sins;~ i-~ay, /l ~.~~i1~it_ ~U~--mil ~J v~ Grace Schmidt I~cputy City Clerk ec: Community ilevelopment Seema Mittal ~ Sarvesh Mahesh 219<i 9 Lindy i.ane Ctipcrtino, CA-J5014 Sheshaprasad Krishnapura 201 Orchard Glen Ct. iVtn. View, CA 91043 ~~-ss ,~> .. - ~. ~ ~~ ~ z, ,~sa~ ~~ ~~~~E~~~~~~ Scpteiuber 19, 2008 OFFfCE OF THE CI'r`f CLER!< CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVEi~UE - CUPERTIh10, CA 85014-3255 T[=LEPHOIVE: (408) 777-3223 ^ FAX:_ (40F3) 777-33F>G _ -- - Re: Considei•~ari appeal of the Plaiuiii~~-Coniinission's decision to appi`ove a Resdeiitial- Design Review for a new 4,491 square 10 ~t, two-story, single-family residence with a basement and a Minor Residential Permit fir a side facing, second-story balcony on the new residence, Application Nos: R-2003-I4, RM-2008-16, Chia-Clung Lin, 21947 Lindy Lane, (Krisluiapura ~ Minasandrana resic~cnce), APN 356-25-029. The appellant is Seema Mittal c'k Saivesh Mahesh. At its September 16, 2003 meeting, the Cupertino City denied the appeal and approved the application with the following modified conditions: Remove the lower balcony completely A ,Move the house for~xrard by 6 feet If you have- any questions please contact the community development department at (403) 777- 3303_ `Ibe conditions of the project are as follows unless modified above: SF_C"PION III. CONDITIONS ADMINISTI/RED 13Y T'I-lE COMMUNI'1"Y DEVELOPMENT DEPT. --- - _ _ _ _ -_ _- -- -__ ------ --- --- - 1. APPI.2OVEI} PRO.I~CT . Approval is based on plan set titled: "New Residence for Sheshaprasad Krishnapura ~ Malini Minasandrazn, 21947 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA 94043" consisting of 13 sheets labeled A-O through A-8, Al.l, C-1, C-2 and L-1, dated April 4, 2008, except as amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. NOTICE OF FEES DEI3ICATIO~dS, I2ESEIgVATIOI~IS OR OTI3ER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set .forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written izoticc of a statement of the aLnount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other 17-69 ':-2(:•O<~- i ~} Sentc:n~F~er 19,LQ08 cxa<:tiot~s. You are hereby further noti&ed tbat the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(x), has begun. If you fail to f1e a. protest within this 9C~-day period complyi_~xf~ u~it}z all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred franc latter c:hallcoging such exactions. - 3. <.zi? t_~''t_~_C1~-Ii~,'I€~_A_L_I~2_~_~,TI~~~ E'rior to b,_iilding pcrnzit approval, bascn~ent, retaining walls, grading and drainage shall be c_.valuated ~Zd desi€;ned by tl~e applicant's geotecluiictil engineer and reviewed and approved by the City Geologist a~~d City. ~-.`_ C°T141S1T~'stlQ_.'f'IC~1d 15~~L'd<!~C~.1Eli~Ial~R I'~d Al'~T _ Ii7 conjunction with the building permit review, the applicant shall submit a construction niarzageinent plait to address staguig of construction materials, loading and unloading areas grid parking for construction vchicles_ The Director of Conununity Development shall review and approve that plan. ~. QI+'.i'f,AC'EIiBI±.I~1T C)I~ T~1!:~._D C;C3AS T Y~I'JE OAY£~S ' Tl~e t~vo dead coast live oaks shall be replaced with two, new 36" box oaks prior to o c cLZp a.n cy. <1STI~.RT Y I~F+:TAIl`•Il~i'C3 ~.~ALil SETBACK The c;<:tsterly rc:tainillg wall shall be set back eight (8) feet from the side property line in locations where privacy landscaping is required. (''tease review conciai_ions carefully. If you. have any cquestions regardizag the conditions of approval, please contact t_he I7epaz-tment of Connnuslity 77evelopnient at 408-777-3308 for clarification. ~`ailua-e to uacorpex-ate conditions into your plan set wilt a-esaalt in delays at the t lava claeelring stzrl~e~ Ff development conditions a-egczire ta-ee preservations, do not clear the site until req.ri&-ed tree pa-otecfiau devices .aa•e installed. ~. The cond_itioazs of pa-oy'~ect appa•ov.tl set forth hereiaa anxy irsclude certain fees, dedicxtaost a•cquis:-enrents, reservation requis-enients,_ and other exactions. Pursuant to Governa~sent Code Section 660?_0(d)(1), these conditions constitute wa-itten notice of~a stateanent of the amount of sucfa fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. `~Iou are hereby further notified that the 90-day agiproval geriod in which you araay protest these fees, dedications, and other exactions, pursuant to CBovernn~ent Code Section 66020(x), has beguia. If you fail to. file a protest ~vithiga this 9'O-day period coxaaplyiaag ~vitl~ all of the requirements of erection 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging saach exactions. E1r:y interested person, irzcludirzg the applicarzt, prior to seeking jztdicial review of the city courzcil's decisiorz irz this rxatter, rztust first file a petition for reconsideratior: with the city clerk tvitlzirr tent days after the courzcil's decisiorz. Arty petition so filed rzzzzst comply wit/i matrzicipal ordinance"code y2.0~. ©9G. . »-~o R-2008-14 Septc~,sibc;r 19, :>_008 Sincerely, Grace Sc]imidt Deputy City Cleric cc: Community Development Seema Mittal ~ Sarvesl-i Maliesh 21949 Lindy Lat1e Cupertino, CA 95014- . , Sheshaprasad Krishnapura 201 Orchard Glen Ct. Mtn. View, CA 94-04.3 3 i~-~i F?age 1 of 1 ~~-, ~;, ~ t-~9 f ~' 1 ~~ 9 Frorc~: "Seema Mittel" <seemamncomcast.nrt To: "Colin Jung" <ColinJ@cupertino.org> Cc: "Marx Santoro" <rnarkkwesfishing a~yat2oo.corn>; "Sarvesh Mahesh" <sarvesh.mahesh@tavani.c<.~m%; ~riint;;ropt~~aol.corn=; <nellivasan@yahoo.com> Sent: Fi iday, April 18, 2008 '! 2:58 Pi~l! €iubject: Fv~: FP~OM SEEMA - Homeowner of 21 x)49 Lindy lino, I_-ot #'i , Moxley properies I ~I L:OiiFl, noticed that the orange netting fior a new residential is yning up for Lot;?, our adjoining lot. Surprisingly, the ownc-rs have not shown us any plans, which is usually file courtesy that is extended to impacted neighbors. v/ould like to know if there are any plans with ttie ciy that f can reviev/. And atso who is the planner assigned to this project? We; v,~ant to make sure that the r_ity planners and the owners cf lot~x2 are sensitive to the impact they vrill have to our home. White vre are reasonable and want them to have ih it dream home, we do not want all our views blocked off because of insensitivity of the ov~rnr.r ;-md designer. The lot is extremely deep and [ am sure there lie several e::cellent solutions in v~.~hich both Lot '{ and 2 ovrners can he happy. From th.^ partial Hefting that 1 can see so far, It looks like they are siting and over-seating their house so F_wc~ry sine-°fe ..riaWV we can get from our backyard, our bacScnatio, our family room, nook and kitchen is being blocked and taken over by them, posiibly even our upstairs masierbectroom. -this 4rrill not be acceptable to us and at this point in tirz-re I'rn not sure what our ~ fights will be in this rnaiter. E3ut we hope the city ~<~ifl ire sensitive to our concerns. Pls let me know when I can stop by to review the plans as this situation is very urgent for us. Thanks, Seema i~Jlittal 408 334 0827 17-72 5~2~2~~ I--i~c of 1 -~ ~- ~,~ ~a seems ftllitta! From: "Seems Mittal" <seemam@comcast.net> -r'o: "Colin Jung" <ColinJ@cupertino.org~ Cc: "Sarvesh Mahesh" <sarvesh.rnahesh@tava it.com> Sent: Monday, April 21 , 2008 9:28 AM Subject: trying to reach you - re Lindy Lane Lot 2 , ar_verse impacts on Lot 1 Colin, 1 am trying to reach you over the phone, Sut it says your vice mail is full. Please call me when you get this 408 334 0827 when you get this. Als, I had sent you an emal on Friday. Seems 9/2 712 0 0 8 P irre 1 of 1 1 ~=i ~L''a?['i3 cl ~~C~~.1 From: "Seema Mittal" <seemam(r7corncast.nr,t> Trs: "Colin Jung" <ColinJ~cupertino.org> Send: Tuesday, !\pril 22_, ?_008 5:07 PM Subject: Our conversation. Hi Colin, Thanks for calling me back. 1 will then await for the final plans from you. You have confirmed that the time period available to me to respond does not start until 1 receive the final plans. 1 was wondering, if you do stop by to see the story poles tomorrow, could this be at 11 am? 1 certainly would like you to walk through our " green " home to see the impact of this design. t v/iIl call you regarding this tomorrow.That way I can rrrake sure f am at home. Seema -Lot 1 i7-~a 5/2/2008 v° ~~ r F}~ ~ S ~ YSI ~ di~ l "t`%cl ~ .=rcm: "Seema Mittal" <seemam@comcastnet> '7'0. "Colin Jung" =Colin)@cupertino.org~ Senk: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 '10:08 AM Sut;jeck: 1=rorn Seema, 2'194.9 Lindy Lane -Lot 1 Fii Colin, Hope all is well and maybe you are now back at work. I tried calling yesterday, but your voice mail box was full Please let me know when you plan to visit the story poles- I_il<e I said earlier, the current design on lot #2 has extreme adverse impact on our property. In a nutshell, all our views are blocked from the main floor including the backyard and cottage, all the sun is blocked - esp in vrinter (cyrrenty we do not need to turn on heating in winter because of our solar gain), and our property value falls heavily as this becomes a no-view property and we paid a premium over Lot 2 and 3, for the views- I will be preparing a detailed adverse impact report for the city after I receive a set ofi plans from you If you feel that this is a matter that the planning director will be looking into -please feel free to invite him to my house. I leave that upto you. Ironically, I was working on getting this house published as it is a "green" principled home, which also blends the inside and outside and has a unique architecture , probably a sort of original in Cupertino. But because of the story poles, I have had to cancel the photographer's appoin':ment. I will also looking to you for some help from you as to the history of this new ordinance, when it vrent into effect etc, and why the upper story restriction has been removed, which is something every single home in Cupertino abides by no matter what the zoning (looks like thishome wi!I have 80%). Upon receiving the plans, I will also like to ascertain how a single pad design on a such a steep hill works and how the building heights are calculated. Thanks a lot, Seema 408 334 08?_7 17 - 75 9/27/2008 ~~"~~r l' 7. C_lt _~ 7 \ ~ ®`. 4~~~~ ': :~.~~3i'~i~a ~.~;'i~~:~ From: "Seema Mii'ral" <seemam@corncastnet> "G'o: "Colin Jung" ~ColinJ@cupertino.org> Sant: Friday, May 02, 2008 10:12 AM .3uc`~j:>_ct: Fw= Follow up after today's meeting at my house ----- Original Message -- =warn: S'eema Mitta1 T:: Colin .Jung- r ~srt: Friday, May 02, 2008 8:30 AM SuE.ject: Fw: Foilo4v up after today's meeting at my house I-1i Loiin, l-hanks for taking the time to visit my home today. 1 realh~ appreciate your time and patience in allowing me to hying you upto speed on the rather complicated history and backdrop of this project which presents a relevant perspective in it's review. As you can see, factors such as neighborhood content, history of price premiums, zoning change history and impacts on adjoining properties do throw a very diffierent tight on the design of homes in presfigious premium communities in the hills. The design is just not merely a factor of compliance with zoning regulations, but has several other factors that come into play, As you said, Cupertino does not enforce views and privacy, but I do expect the city wilt make a commitment towards the community and take into consideration the above factors which 1 will be pres-enfing clearly in my report after l receive the official notification/plans from you. I am very disappointed that to date the owners of Lot 2 and their architect have not visited our home from the inside to re_v_iew the impact ofi the design- tfi~ are trying to creato, despite having a long and positive prior relationship with us and well -understanding our view concerns from the time when we both purchased the properties in 2005.As a practicing architect for the last 20 years, with specialty in hillside design in pres5gious communities, in my design process I have my clients show design intent to even minutely impacted neighbors ~~~ell before the story poles go up. As I showed you today - we could have done the same concept and maximized our views by building higher up at the expense of blocking off the Gingrich's, but this is OUR neighborhood and the neighbors are our friends and realty appreciated this. We purchased this !ot 1 for the views and paid a high large premium over the lower two lots. We did our homeworl: well, basing our design on the approved designs on both l_ot 1 and Lott, for beautiful 5000 sf homes based on R1 zoning which was about to change on 1 March 2005. All our main living spaces on the first floor captured views over the lower homes. Lot 2 owners tried to buy th e lot prior to zoning change, but backed out as they did not feel there was enough time to make the changes they wished- Howeevr they came back and purchased the lot later in March 2005 after the zoning change to hillside overlay had been incorporated. The average slope being 29%, this change would allow only construction of a 3500 sf home on lot 2 and restrict their upper story to 1000 sf max. Knowing this, and that the new Lot 2 owners knew about our view concerns., and the illustration that a 5000sf home could be built without blocking our views and yet with views over lot 3 for themselves, we were secures about our decision and went ahead and invested in this propeerty to th fullest. You have seen these designs that 1 have referred too- Somewhere along the line, the city issued the new zoning ordinance for which 1 received no notification. As a result the Lot 2 owners have come back and designed a house by putting it a story higher than before in a location on the upper half of the slope and blocked off all our sun and views! The upper story is raises to the mid sill height of our upper floor and the upper story is 80% wheras today all homes in Cupertion are at 35% or 45% in the newer homes. We question the intent of this redesign and concept, as it ignores the neighborhood context in it's entirey .Lot 1 now is no longer THE VIEW LOT, lot 2 is!! They have chosen to do what we chose not to do to the Gingrich's. Ail neighbors who have visited my property from the inside after the story poles share my concern and many have offered to support us in this venture in whatever way they can. 9/~7/~L600 8 ~?~~,~..7 o:f 2 ~i~ ~~f 1 look forward to receiving the plans asap -but for me to c!e>arly understand the design and it's impact on our borne, they should inc{ude the following: 1 . Ail absolute floor levels, and pad levels, so I can comp.- re it to my ovm home 2. Roof line heights expresr,ed in ~bso_I_ute levels 3. Heights of all retaining wails with -fOW elevations, fhe .=..pace between adjoining ret walls. In most hillside communities heights of retaining walls are limited to 4' arn~l then a horizontal stagger of 3' before the next piece of ref wall. Where can I find these regulations? Or does Cupertino have none? 4. Evidence from a civil engineer that the cubic yards of di-t that will he displaced, including driveways, front yard etc., backyard tc:nacing if any etc falls within the permiittecl 2500 cubic feet. My quick calc seemed to show that this may be exceeding the limits - but I could be wrong, which is v/hy we need absolute levels on the site plan as wall. 5. Completion of uppe_r_story_picture _througFi Story poles: The story poles for the upper story are incomplete- The large area of covered balcony on tfie upper floor needs to be put up, without this the streetside vie~,v of the mass and volume of the house is not acurate, especially because the garages are elevated 10 feet above the level of the private road as you approach. So frorn that corner the apparent mass ofi the house at the max point as it steps up will be 38'!!I If I am v/rong it is because the drawing does not reflect absolute levels. do request that this information be on the plans that arc, issued to me and all the neighbors. Also, if you think Steve P will be involved in this effort, I would li;:a you to please forward this mail and my prior mails to him for the record. Also, please invites Steve to visi t the neighborhood and my home when he has a chance, because he might agree that the impact of this design has to be seen to be believed!!! Even photos do not do this justice. Lastly, even just having the story poles is a cause of stress, anxiety, disappointment, and psychological disturbance. At this time I have no grasp on how long they will remain up because first they need to be completed, than there is the notification with COMPLETE plans, then the appeal period!!! They rernind us every single moment of what we may lose in terms of view, sun, warmtl-, our lifefime's savings and my opportunity to publish my work on this "Green t-come" in Cupertino hills, which 1 put in so much to achieve. Please do bear with my long email Thanks a lot, Seema Mittel 408 334 0827 9/27y~Z 0~~ Z=ac;e 1 of I ~~ ~~ f=turn: "Seema M.ittal" <seemam@comcast.net~ 'r a: "Colin .1urg" ~ColinJ@cupertino.org> %c: "Sarvash Mahesh" <sarvesh.mahesh@tavant.cc;m> Sent: Tuesday, fviay 13, 2_008 4:30 PM Subject: Re: Status -Lindy Lane Colin, Thanks for the note. We will wait for the plans in th email. `fou are already wel! a4vare of our concerns on the design of this residence. We are surprised that staff finds this borne design_to be compatible with the adjoining homes in this neighborhood. As soon as I receive the plans we will complete and file our negative impact report to you. Per the R1 regulations. v.~e understand that the Director of Community Development does. need to get involved. Can you please explain how that will vdork? Do we need to contact him directl/? Please confirm that he has been cc'd on all the emails that ~.ve sent you. At Phis time we would like for him to w~llc through our home immediately, before the closing of this review period. Please advise. -t-hanks, Seema Mittel and Sarvesh IVlahesh Original Message --- From: Cglin_J_u_ng_ To: Seema Mittel Sant: Tuesday, Nlay 13, ?_003 3:42 PM Subject: RE: Status -Lindy Lane Seema: The public noticing/comment period for the resid:ntial design review of 2'1947 Lindy Lane starts tomorrow v.~ith the cornrnent period ending Wednesday, i~11ay 28, 2008. Written notice and the plan set will be in tomorrow's mail. The plans have not changed much since the last revision. Here is a PDF of the notice fetter. Colin Jung City of Cupertino -----Original Message----- Frr~m: Seema Mittel [mailtoaeemam@comcast.net] ~ara~: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 8:23 AM ~'a3: Colin Jung Seabjce't: Status -Lindy Lane Hi Colin, Please let me know when we can expect to receive the plans and the status of the project. Thanks Seema :Y~1 C1. L l~.l I ~, ~ ~~ ~i y jw Y f.: Seema Mittel From: "Seems Mittal" <secmarn@cbmcast_net> To: "Colin Jung" <ColinJ@cupertino.org> Cc: "Gary Chao" <GaryC@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:32 AM Subject: Re: Still trying to reach you- re: Lindy lane Great Colin - I will be there at ~Oam_to_morrow to clarify some items on the drawings. Gary, can I meet with you early next week -say Tuesday latest to clarify items on the history of the ordinance, since you were involved and knowledgeable on that. Again that will help with my response later due on Wednesay. Thanks a lot. Seems ----- Original Message ----- From_ Colin Junes To: Seems A/iittal Cc: G;3ry Chao Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:17 AM Subject: RE: Still trying to reach you- re: Lindy lane Seems: 1 am available tomorrow, Friday, betw.~een 1 O am and 12 noon, but Gary will be off tomorrow/. If you want to mec>f with bath of us, early next v/eek will work. Colin Jung City of Cupertino -----Original Message----- From: Seems Mittal [mailtoaeemam@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2005 9:36 AM To: Colin Jung; Gary Chao Cc: Sarvesh Mahesh Subject: Still trying to reach you- re: Lindy lane Colin, Gary: In order for me to put together my response for the 28th, I need your help_ You must have got a tot of my emails and voicemails all of this week. Colin's voicemail box is '`ulLOther neighbors have tried reaching you also. 1 know gary was out sick -and tried to respond to me even then_ I would like to clarify several items on the specific design me and some of the neighbors are reviewing and clarification on the ordinance and it's history_ Please let me know when I can come by or please call me on my cell_408 334 0827_ I need to do this before the weekend, else it will be difficult to prepare a reasonable and well informed response letter for the 28th. Thanks a lot for all your help, in advance. Seems 17-79 9/2 712 0 0 8 j,t=l=uzs t I3..i~nxt, f3,{.`.O Tt1rY ryT 1.:i\Y Twf<-:; r:=icn:il Coop ore cioa 501 ti',.od~ton A venue S.in )osc Colifornia 95126 'I-cL 4D8-279-3555 7';~--: 4o;i-279-5888 bhlaw~a~p acb dl_net STEVF, PIASLiCKI DiREQ"rOK OF COMV-i[JN LTY DC-_'V r-L07>M1=~7T Ct"I'Y OF CUPI'RTINO t0300'1~otur.~. nverrui-: C:UFGRT"1NO, CA 9014 I21;; C_~Ohtt~4 kiNT5 RL: I~ILSIIJ 6'NTI/~L 17asICN RCV n~:vV A47NOA I.Ztr:SLIJ F.i~I'!AI_ PEaMIT FOR J_t 947 LINDY Le\Dll3 K-2083-~ I_~} .titTU R1\Q ;?00<%t 6 Dear Mr. Piasecl~i: Mcty 28, 2008 Secma Mittel snd :; atvcsh Matcsh, o',vncrs of the property located at 21949 Lindy I_atrq Cupcr[inq have retained my law ofFice in connection to the pending applicaton for a Minor 1Zesidential Pct~nit and Residential Design Review for the adjoining property at 21947 Lind}• Lane (hercirtaficr the "Subj ec[ Parcel")_ Ms. AQittai and Ivir. Ma}tesh oppose the Application for the re~orrs set Lort}t hereto. While it is our undcrstandinG that the "decision" to be made on Thursday, May Z9, is not a hearing p~~r se, but instead is a staf-f-level rcvir`\v of the application, w•e also tuuicrstand that it would be appropriate to submit a summary of our issues and concerns with the proje-ct. It is our hopr_ chat a mutually salisfactorv solution that satisfies the letter and intent of the C:ity's ordinances and guidelines can be achievcd_ C32cI.~rcTwicl As you arc probably aware, my clients purehas ud the property at 21949 Lindy Lame in T~rlrxtta ry, ?005, after having conducted a lltorough and comprehensive review o£ the City of Cupertino zoning regulations, discussions with `.i tatT of the Co[nmunit}' llevclopm ent Dep arimant, as well as a studied review of tite approved plans Ior nol only their site, but t3ic adj accent site which is now ttre subject o£t}ais application for desi~ review. Ms. Mittel is a Ticensed flrclutect, and she took extraordinary measures to design her property not only to conform to the City's existing desiU standards, but also to 17-80 llcsi,tp Review Muv 28, 2008 Paste 2 incorporate energy efficient design elements t~ the ma_xunum extent possible. Spccif tally, Ms. Mittal designed the south eastern exposure to maximize use of passive sotar energy for both heating and lighting; as 'n~ell as cr eatzd a breezeway design for natural coaling, arrd took other slops [o significantly reduce overall dependence on the nsc of mechanical heating and cooling systems. The wmpieted design also included elements to take advantage of the wonderful ~icws of the lights of the valley floor, as well as the sunrises during all times of the yore. My clients proceeded with tyre construction of their home with the explicit undcrstrmding that zoning regulations implcm ented on Mar-t:h 1, 2005, imposing a residential hillside overlay on the R1 zonins dis[r-i ct in the hillside azr~ would limit the size oCany structure on the adjoi Wins property to around 3,500 sq. ft. and placing a 45% cap on the size of the upper floor (~u-ound 1,000 sq. ft.), thus preserving their views and privacy. On April 18, 2008, my clients saw the story poles that had been constnrcted for the subject parcel, and shortly thereafter, learned for [he f=us[ time that the City of Cupertino had adopted Ordinance 07-201 1, wuch amended Chapter 19.28 of the Municipal Code to relax Lhe restrictions on de~~clopment within a 1 5-lot area. The amendments, it turns out, allowed design plans that were drastically difTerent thaa Lhc previously approved plans for the subject parcel. 'I1~e new rlesi 6'n plans include a doubling of the second story area (from arounj 1,000 sq. ft. to over 2,500 sy. ft. ), and additional elements that will cause the proposed structure to exceed all n:asonable parameters of mass and scale for the parcel. These modifications drastically alter the previously approved design that was the basis of my clients' design_ The placement and orientation of the elevated portions of tho proposed strucriire ~~ilt effectively defeat Qrc passive solar design elements incorporated by my clients, arrd completely obstruct city light views from all living spaces, in direct contravention of the purpose and intent of the Orduiance. lonin~equlations The proposed development of the subject parcel appears to be inconsistent with the letter and intent o£the City's single-family residential development regulations. As set forth in Section 1 9.7.8.010, the purpose of the Single Family Kesidential (R1) zones is to "create, preserve and cnhauc;e areas suitable" for development in order to : A. Enhance the identity of residential :aeighhorhoods; )3.. Ensure provision of light, air artd a reasonable level of privacy ... C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; ll. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community. 17-81 i?rsi",~ K:ovicw May 7'h, ?COS I'ai}c _, Section 19.?.8.050, which was amended by Ordinance: 07-201 I in Oet.ober, 2:)07, ehgressly identi Fies the hillside area within which the subject parcel is located, and provides that any second floor arc:t and balcony "shall be consistent with the require[ttcnts from the Kesidential I-li llside (RHS) "Coning Distn ct (Chapter 19,40). "I-I:is Ordinance also provides that the purpose of the iiF IS coning district is to regulate development conunensutate with cotnntunity gouts as sci forth in the General Plan, :utd to ensure that utilization of land for residential uses is balance wiflr tttc deed to conserve tcatiiral ccsourocs and protect life and property fiom natuc-al hazards. "l~oward that obj cetvc, the propose of Lhe RHS regulations includes the following: A. Ensure Lhe provision of li`ht and air to individual residcnii ul parcels; C'. I"insure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential ncinhtrorhuods; D. Maintain a special relationship betw-ecn strucluns and within ncighbodxtod s; E. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting of the. community; P. Maintain a balance between resid nntial development and preservation of the natural hillside setting. Pursuant to Section 19.40.130, the Director of Commm~ity Development is empowered to mtrkc reasonable intctprctations of the regulations and provisions oCthc RiI5 Ordinance, "consistent wiflr the Se~islative intent fltircof_" (§19.40"130). In reviewing an application for a Minor Residential Permit, the Iirector can approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. Z he application can be approved only if the Dirc;caor makes all of the fol iow"ing findings: 1. T'hc project is consistent with the Cupertino General Tian, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title. 2. The granting of the permit will nut result in a condition that is detrimental or injtss"ious to property or impmvements in the vicinity, and will not be cicn~mcntal to the public health, safety or welfare-. 3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design wiflr the general nciglrborhood. 4. Advcr.;e visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. (§1923.090). 17-82 Deign E=evP<:v hQuy 2H, 200S Pan.4 V c~litions ol~Loninu (~rdinnnce My clients respectfully submit that flrc proposed development of the subject panel Located at 21947 Lindy Lane does not c;onfomr ~vitlt either the letter or the intent of the above-references provisions of the City's coning regulations. 1. Pn71ect creates significant and ad~~°rse impact to passive solar design Both the K 1 and r..S zoning ordinances expressly state that a fundamental purpose of the respective orduianccs is to ensure provision of light and air. As noted previously, the dwelling at 21949 Lindy Lane was deliberately designed by Ms. Mittel to maximise the potential for passive solar heating, and to maximize the use of nature] lightiu~ with the southern exposure. "I1te placement of the story poles made it suddenly apparent that the revised plans for the subject. parcel would sigui£icantty and adversely irnpact these features which were carefully designed in reliance on the previously- approved plans. Not only will the proposed project significantly reduce my clients' acce:;s to passive solar energy and natural ligtling, but their access to views of the lishts of the valley and to views of [ire sunrises during certain times of the year will he nhliteratc:d. Moreover, the mass depicted by the story poles do not include the elevated, second-story covered deck. Here, the Design Guidelines are fairly explicit, stating, in pertinent part, as follows: Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions pro~zded in this chapter may be var-ied for a structure utili~~d for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure, sha1I irr fringe anon solar eas_em ents or adioining nmperty owners. (§19.24.060(1~(F.mphasis added). - One need only review the proposed mass and scale of the proposed stnrcture to see iarmcdiately that it would severely impart the passive solar features so carefully and thouglrtfiilly incorporated in the design of the uphill property by Ms_ Mittal_ 2. Protect is nc~t harnionious in scale c-nd desis*n ~4~Lh the adioinin~ prooertics. There arc several in dicta of possible violations of the design guidelines that relate to the overall massing and scale of die proposed structure. For one, the City's ordinance provides a limitation of a maximum exterior tirall height measured from the natural rade measured at the property line, and a riven ty-£ve degree roof line angle measured from the ten-foot high line. (§ 19.23A60(G)(2)(a)). As seen in the diagrams distributed to the neighbors, the building envelope exceeds these restrictions by several feet, in some instances because the measurements were tal:cn from the finished pad, and not the natural eradc. Irr addition, the project includes a covczd, 500-square foot upper story deck that odds a significant amount of mass to the :second story that is not depicted by the story pglcs. 17-83 ih.ci~ Review May "L 9, 200P. rage 5 "fhc lower lot (Lot 3) has a 1200 sq. ft. uprr~r story. The upper loi (my clients' lot) has 1300 sq. ft. of upper story. The proposed project will have a 2,500 sq. ft. upper story mass (including the covered deck not depicted by the story pole,). I3ecausc of preciously imposui restri coons, the predominazrt size of the upper stories were limited to around 35°l0 of the Lower story mass. 3. Rot-<zininl,_WnLls_ar~r~ose_ej le~ss_t};;ur S feet froa-rsrpnc~line,_?nci potentially ihre atcn existing, suppo rq t triers for the ~hil~~rooert 1Zre proposed drawings depict e series of lightwell retaining ~va17s located Icss thru~ 5 feet from the property line - in violation o£ the minimum setback requirements. Section 19.28A60(F) speeiflcally states that the minimum side setback Car a lighrivell retaining wall shall be five feet Of equal concern to my clients, it is anticipated that the ii rstallation of chose retaining walls will require extensive digging and excavation in and around the area whore my clients placcci the support piers for their property. Scciion. 19.28.100(D), which sets forth the required findings for approval of a two-story residential pezzrrit; includes a finding that: The granting of the pcrniit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or inrprnve:neuts in tl..e vicinity, and will not be detrinren[rtl to the public hcrilth, safety or wclfeuc. (§ 19.28.100(D)(2)). here, the slope of the land approaches a 3U°ro grade. In addition to their conccm over the generous allowance that permits the homeowner the right to grade up to 2,500 cubic yards nn a lot that measures ]ess than one-half acre, my clients arc exlre;mely concerned that the trenching and grading necessary to locate the ]ighrivcll retaining walls this close to their property poses a serious risk of Failure of the hillside integrity. 4. )3asad on th~rOposed design_of the nroicct_the C~irector cannot mzil:c all of the necessary findin s required r5nder the Municipal Code. Section 19.28.090 sets fortlt the Yin<lings that the IJirector of Community Development mivst make -and must make all n f them - in order to appmvc an applicaii crt for a Minor Residential Permit As explained herein, the project is not consistent with the Cupertino General Piart, the zoning ordinances, and the stated purposes of'Ti tte 19. Approval of the pennil will very likely result in a condition that is deu-imental nr injurious to propcriy or improvements nn the adjoining lot, and in the event of major slope failure, could pose a real risk to the public Yrealth, safety and - wclfare. "the project, with its mass and scale, is clearly not harmonious with the other structures in the neighborhood, especially with a second story that is at ]east twice the st-te of the second story elements of the properties an either side, Furthermore, the adverse visual impacts, as wcU as tFrc aciversc: impacts nn the passive solar elements of the uphill propcriy, have not been reasonably mitigated. 17-84 Desii•n `?cvi~r.v May ~5, ?,OOR P: ~e C, COn clnStOn bfy cI Tents respcca fully therefore requc st that the proposed application be denied for the reasons set {Drib herein, and that the pxoj ect applicants be directed to return with an application that meets both the ]ctt er and intent of the City of Cupertino Cienerat Plan and zoning regulations. Reque_t for Ncxtice and C~fics of 7>ocuments. In addition, I rcxpiest ih,rt you places n-iy law ofCce on the distribution list for ali notices of any actions re(atecl to this matter. I-urtlrcr, I raqucst that I be provided with copies of any and all letters, c-mails and other doemnents which ha~~e been submitted in com~cction ~cit}r the pending application for tt c subject parcel. Respectfully submitted, 7ef y I3. Mare cc: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Charles Kilian, City Attomcy Clien±s 17-85 JL'FP12I~Y i.i..[~ARFi Attorney 2t L:aw A Pro fc s::ional Cox-tin ratio rt 501 Sco cldon Avr_nuc San Josc C:?lifo mi;i 95t2G Yet: 408-277-355 Fax: 408-279-SSFA J bylaw ~pnchclLnct July 21, 2005 Via Regular and E-mail ~:I d.1l F: P1-IZSON 1TJ611-1i.A-0n[ RS OF TN F_ C UP}~R TIVO PLANF'.ING COt.d A-i1SSLOK Cr-rv or• Curriz~~t rro 1 0300 "foaxe Avr;rluc Carr-.t:'t-tNO_ C:A 950 L4 Re. I:t~.sme.N~nAL D[-a1cN REavu_n•:~r;o MrNOr¢ ReS1~f3N~nn[. Pea}1rr'. [_c~i: 21947 L~NOV L,~r; r-, (R-'7.OOR-74 nNr~ I2.?~12_n[7 f;_l~ bear Chair and Menit;crs of the Planning Commission: This letter is submitted on behalf of my clients, Seema Mi(tal and Sarvesh Mahesh, ow-rtcrs of tJle propc:tCy located at 21940 Lindy Lxrn e, Cupertino, ~vhiclt is boated immediately adjacent to the prof..-~cr[y lvhich is the subject of your review. Ms. Mittal and Mr. Mahesh oppose the Application for the reasons set forth her ctn. 1 . "fhe pr_gj_cct_ does t}ot con Corm_tr~ the _zonin x~regulations that. wez'c iti cf~tect when life 3 _lot ___ suhctit ttii~~n ~~. i5 nn~in~ll.•_approti~ec3 oy Chc City _Cottncil. As noted in the Staff 12 eport, Lhc proposed development is Located in the middle lot ofa 3-lot suhdivi Sion ini[i a71y approved by the Planning Commission in 2001 and the City Cciuncil in 2004. My clients purchased the up}ull property (Let 1) at 21 949 Lindy Lane in or around Fcbtueuy, 2005_ Ms. Mittal, an Architect by profession, took painstaking care to review the zoning regulations then in effect, and dcsigncd her future home taking into accottnt the maximum param cters allowed for the doFV:i.hill property nn Lot 2. She specifically designed her f truily's homes to ta!ce full advantage of the beautiful views, mae itni-ze passive solar energy to n:duce reliance on mechanical heating and cooling systems, and urco rporated structural elements to ensure hillside £;cologic stability. Unfortunately, v.•hilc living n~i~ay from the propctTy during the construction phase, my clients were unaware of proposed changes io the zoning regulations, under which the current application has been submitted. Most signi ficently, the mews and scale of the proposed design will sen•e not only tq olil iterate the ti•onderful views of the valley that my clients-have enjoyed, but also will scrl•c to defeat the passive solar energy design of the structure itself. In additiorL the proposed placement and deli _n,n will require installation of a massive, retaining }n•all. that could possibly itu-eaten the geologic stability of my client's property_ "fhe cut and grading required for 17-86 Planning Cwn;nision July 27, 2003 Page 2 installation of the footing for this rn assive retaining wall ri glut at the setback line could undermine the sVUbility oh the under]yin~; bedrock which provides support for my clients' home. 2. The nronosed devloRment i5 inconsistent ice: iih th r_ ntxupo ,c _u_nd=nten[ of t17e Sin¢]e- Fam_le fZesidentx_+1~R-11. %oninc* retzeilatic,ns. CFuaptcr 1938 of the C;uperthio Municipal Go9c provides, in pertinent part, that the Putposc of establishing R-1 single-family zoning districts is intended to "create. preserve and enhaxtce areas suitrtl>Ic for detached d.vel}in gs in order Lo: A_ Enh:znce the idanti t}' of resid cotta] neighborhoods. B. Ensure provision. of light, air and a reason tble level of privacy to individual residential parcels, C. L•'asxve a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures ~~~iffiin residential neighborhoods; ll. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensitg setting in Lire community. The proposed development is inconsistent with the purpose and intent oCtt zis "Coning District for several reasons, as will be discussed below. P. critical clement of the: proposed design, xvs noted above, is that the upper story ~~~71 iufri nge upon the adj oinin,~ property owners passive solar dcsi r~u. Section I of the R-1 7.oning Ordinance states, in part, as follows: Solar Design. Thuc setback and height rest-fictions provided in this chapter may be varied fur a structure utilised for pas :five ur active solar purposes, provided that no such stn;cture shall infrin~ upon solar easements or adjuir~in _roocr[y o~yners. (¢ 19.28.060(I); emphasis added.) "fhe Staff Report cnrrectty notes that there arc: no solar casements (at p. 5), bnt does not address the point that the Zoning Ordinance c-xpressly prehihits any structure from infringing on solar easements or adioin in t= nro nerty o}cn ers. ;ere, the proposed design, as depic LCd by the story poles, will clearly infringe on the adjoining property, effectively defeating both the views and passive solar design so cturcfully ineorporatect into the design ul the uphill property. 17ie focus here is the fundamental purpose of the Toning Ordinance - to "ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures tvitlt re sidentisl neighborhoods." GVherc the proposed design of a new sh'uctrirc has the potential to adversely affect adjoining properties, the Zoning Ordinance provides Sor a process of review, turd u' lows adjoining neighbors the opportunity to comment on those features of the proposed design that could have significant impacts on thicir property. Therefore- even if the proposed design meets the specific, numeric maximum parameters set forth in the design guidelines, the Zoning Ordinance allows for further _ modifications to "ensure a reasonable level of cotnpatibitity" with the adjoining properties. I-Iere, slight modifications ttu the proposed dcsilm ~.vould allow the applicant fir11 bcnetit of their property, but would preserve most of the passive solar function of the uphill property design, as well as some of the views. It is exactly this type oP modification that is contemplated under the provisions of the Toning Ordinance in order to allow fora "reasonable level oi~compatibility." 17-87 July 7.7, 2c OL Par c 3 3. Yurtfi~r cic sl n nxxlifc;ttigns a;id?t~iti+~ation oP advc rvc inn~tecL_H tll he ranirircd bcfoI; ti r• }-cyut ~d fi idtngs_c~n tc mrde tq_a~pro q the"d>et rniL Section 1 J_23.100, "Ttvo-Story P.esidential Yermit," Billows the 1'lirector of Conmwnity TTevolohrnenL r.nd by the basis of this r..^.lcn~a~, the P7 analog Commission, tq "approt'o, co uditionaJ]y aitpruve"", or deny tite application. The permit cast be ttyprovcd only upon ma}_it~ :; 11 of the ft,llo~.~ug_tindings_ 1. The project is consistent xs~i7h the Cupct Lino Gcucrtl Plan, . ny applicable sp cci Ctc plans, ~cr>nin,~, t>rciinanccs, and the nurposcs of this till e_ 2.. 71tc g~.(ntino of [he permit will not rest~lr t~ a <x;n<iition 1h, t rs deiri~nent al_or initmou to yr_r~~E:r~ or m >~ovem t.ns In the vi cinit,[, aril will not be dctrim antal to the public health, safe Ly or ~r: cIfarc. 3. "L6c proposed projc: ct is hann9n_o ~>s tit ,cote anrI desitn wiCh the; gcn eral neighborhood. d. netvc.i c:.v~sral itnp:.t.cts c>ti__rclj oinin4~prc+~>, rtic_s_h,ty_c been rr_rls clnabl~~ rte iittt~atrd. (§ 19.23.100(D); crnphasis added. The <<"rotting Ordin:.tnce contc.mplaied that even ifa proposed rivo-story single-family home dsign nrct the numerical partunetcrs set forth in l6e Code, the Ci[y would have the authority to im k:osa com:ii lions and mitigation utcasures hclore approving 4te permit, in order [o en:;ure co;niaiatr cue and ctmsistency •~~ith the General Plait artd subclcntcnts, including Chc City's I,onutq Orals:?nc+c_ "]~hc required sandinfs above include a finding of consistency vvitTt the purposes of "1 iiic 7. J~; avoid any detrimental impacts on other property in the vicinity; that the proposed 79A4.020 Pttrp ns es. T1re pm poses of this title shall he to pro+noic mui pro tcct the pubic health, safely, peace, morals, comfort, ~~r nvenicn cc, and general wclfarq ire lulling the following more pmticularly spc cificd pu doses: A. To 6nther promote, and ac<-o mp(ish the objectives, policies, and pruerams of [he Cupertino General ['Ian; S, To protect the character and the social and economic stability of ar,"ricultu rat, resldenti ul, commercial, industrial and o[ttcr areas widtin 8tc Ciry; to assure lltc orderly and bcnc~ci a] development of such areas; r.d more particul crly, to lessen congestion and assure couvcuicnw of access to sc rurc :safety from IIm, hood and other da nr cc's; [n provide for aleyuate {fight, aiq sunlight and environmental am en3t ics, m promote and cn courage conserv xtinn of sem-ee resources to precen(overerowding of land :end undue conecn tra[ion of popufntion, to facilitarc the creation of a eon venient~ attractive and harmonious cam munity; to attain x desirable balance of resident:al and employment opp ot'mnitics; to tae ilimte the adcyuatc provision of trans portation, water, sewage. drain: sic h:cili[ics, schools. parks and other public dc-velopm eats ro protect the food supply; to cunsen~e property •/alues; to promote cffcient urban do:i,~n and ar; .en Bern eat; and to secure economy in govemntental expenditures; L. Tn mitig:ttc the negative impacts to public sa8:h• resulting teem the location of build fines, and the uses of buildings and of land, adjacent (o su ccts and highways while at t}te same tune facilitating esistint! or prospective nalTic movements throughout the C:it}•. 17-88 Planning Gym r.iissi mt )uly 2I, 2008 I'z ~,c 4 project be hznrrtoniotLS in scale and design, and to mitiga[e: visu:.il impacts on adjoining property. "fhe Codc requires that all of these findings must be made before a pcrnlit can be approJed. In addition, the 'Coning Ordin::mce specifically requires that no exceptions may be },ranted unless atl specified findings as sei forth in §19.28.110 be made. Most noteworthy among the required findings is that the "proposes exception _wil.l not rgsult_in Sign=ficazit ~~isual impact ns viewed from abuttin~Rroperties." Here, there is no question but Chat the proposed second story design, although permitted under the modified Ordinance th..t was adopted subsequent to the approval of this 3-lot subdivision, would have a sgnif4cant_~-isual impact as viewed from yls. Ivfittal and Mr. Mahesh's property. Ilnlcss Utc dc;ign is further modified, ~i~c subrn it that the failure to satisfy the requirements of this finding would, be sufficient grounds for denial of the proposed project. 4. Th~r~osed developrnent is not consiste ~t with t}ic rest uirerncnts_of the C__i ty_'s Residential Ilillside (I2H51 7~onin~ rc~ul ations. The City's Residential T-l inside 'Lowing regale ions were adopted to ensure that residential development in the hillside areas would be balanced with the need to conserve natural resources and pr<ltect life and property from natural hazard:;. "Towards this end, Che K[1S regulations are dcsi~ned, iu part, to: - C. L-nsurc a reasonable Icvel of compatibility in scale ot'structu res within residential neighborhoods; and U. Maintain spatial relationship bcrivecn structures and within neighborhoods. {§ 19.40.01 O). In addition, the RHS Coning Ordinance provir es, in pertinent part, as follows: 19.40.120 Solar Uesigrr_ The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes; provided, t}zat no such stnrcture shalt nfrinee upon solar access or proncrty rights of adjoiniisprooerty owners_ [._.] 1n ofltcr words, the RHS Zoning regal ations ca-pressly address and prohibit a structure from inSringing upon the solar access of adj outing property ovtaters. This provision is not limited to situations involving solar "casements," but is expressly applicable to dre "solar access" rights of adjoining property owners. Here, Ms. Mittai spe¢.fically designed her home in reasonable reliance upon the U~en-existing zoning standards in order to permit her to irtilize natural passive sot:rr energy. 7hc- RTiS Ordinance expressly states that the chapter is intended to "ensure a 17-89 Planning Comrnissiun July 21, :00'3 P:u;e 5 masonablc level of compati biIity in sc^le of s[ructures,° and to "maintain a spatial rel ationshin between strucuses and within neighborhoods" Allo~ti~in}*, the enlarged second story to the extent proposed by the adj ac cut property owner would defeat t_ic passive solar d.~sign element dcliberateIy into rporutcd by Ms. IlQittal when she de.eignod her home- . 5. Unusual Circumstances ~rec]uc_9e th e_Ci(v S use_ of a~~_gx?'inn_ t<~n,fcom rho requrcrrtents of the. Califom=a F_uvironntental GZ ali~Ar[ fair tElr 1c~jc_t- Neither the Staff Report nor the Uraft Rasalution makes any refF, n:n ce to compliance ~~-ith the reyuiremants under the California [?n~ ironmcnlal Quality Act ((_ L,Q/~) Ibr this proposed devcloprn ent oa hillside property_ The R1 P; :Zoning Ordv~ nice (C h:, ptcr 19-40) acknowlcdg. c.>; that the purpose rt.ud Sntent of the R3 tS Louin{; llistric[ is l~.r prey c r -c the n, total se LLinp in the Iullsides, and that the w cnsuce that the utilization ofl:md for residential uses is bal::need with the octet to conserve natural resources uud protect life and property front natural. hazards. the hillside Locaiio n, anuxmt of pradin c, required, and the prgject's inconsistency wiilt specified elements of the City's %oninl; regulations render it ineligible for eorisict oration for a oatcgoricel exemprion under CEQA. (14Y:a1. Code Reps- § 15300.:0_ Whereas a similar project located on flat lurid mzty qualify fir such an exemption, this prof eel's unique location on a lot with an approximately 2S /.grade slope could huge si~niiic a, tt, adverscimpacts on the stability oFthc hillside- "Lire impact of the altima[e dcsi}nt and placcrnent of the project structure could impact not only lire uphill properly, but the downhill px-op erly srnd the stability oFT-indy Lane itself, whic-;r provides vehicular access to a number of other residential properti cs in the area- 7-he Staff F2cport provides that the tern iniog wafts and setback regulations "will be re~; icwcd, along with The b~tic=tnant and foundation, by tt~c app(ic, ml's gcotcchnical en grocer turd the City`s geologist prior to buildint* permit approval.-- (at Page 4). [n ad~l ition, the Staff Report requites that a "construction management plan" ~*.-311 be n-quired as part of a building petit tit application. however, no additional der ail, sails studies, or other r~lcvara geologic intbrmation has been provided at this time by the applicant. The City has not requested un Lniti al Study-- tuts- Mittel Iras identiF cd the potential ad~~erse geological in-tpacts that could result iron] the extraordinary amount of gradinn_. that will be required, the placement of t}te: Proposed retai Hint, w:nlls, etrtd lire potential for destabilization of the sensitive hiltsidc environment 'the City's toning Ordinance specifies that one of the criicri.a for permit approval is that it will "not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or impro vements in the vicinity, rmct ~~-ill. not he dctrimc:ntal to the public health, safety or welfare. (§ 19.25.1 00(D)). We therefore submit that The Cily should require the applicant to prrpare and provide appropriate soils :irrd L,enlccltnical information, a consti-u r_tion management plan, and other urfonnation per the requirements under CEQA. "the }v llsidc location and nature of this project [ender it as an exception to the exenrp lions tine to iLte unusual cite=um stane~_s-in [l;is eras" and ttte City, as Lead Agency, Heels to comply with CEQA. Conciusiou 17-90 Yl;an nine Commission July Z 1, 200h Pee 6 Ms. Mittal went to gccat lent,ths to study existing zoning regulations and designed her home not only to he fully oompatiblc and consistent with the City's requirements, but also to take into account the eventual development of the. adjacent hillside lot per chose requirements. Ms. Mittal was well-ahead of the curve in her eff >rts to design a honk that vas "Green" before it became fashiona}>Iq incorporating unique passive: solar features and other elements to allow- it to fit into the hillside euvironnre nt- The changes in the City's zoning ordinance, while Glowing Qte much larger second story features that uow threaten to block her views of the valley floor, as well as defeat the passive solar features o£the home, still provide for a des, ce of discretion to ensure ultimate complian cc with the fimdamcntal purpose and intent of the City's regulations: compatibility with the s-unounding residential neig;lrborhood- Ms. 1vQittal has stated that the proposed buildis>g design for 21 9d7 Lindy Lanc might be suitable for a fia[ lot, but is inappropriate for a sloping hillside property with 29% grade. She is not saying that the adjacent property should not 1>e developed -- only drat the development should comply with the City's R-1 and RHS 'Coning ordinances. She has submitted information that shows this can be accomplished with some modest changes to the proposed project, and requests that the City give careful consideration to the feasible alit-rnatives she hzvs proposed. Otherwise, my clients have no alternative but to request that you dc~ the application as proposed. Thank you for youc consideration of our r:quest. Respectfully submitted, "_--.~ _ 1 ~~ .~~ i-~,~t,.~. `li Jeffrey )-3. 1-I arc cc: Charles Kilian, City Attorney Steve Piasecki, 17ireetor of Community D _vclopment Colin Jung, Senior Planner Clients 17-91 t J1-.r1~xI~Y T~. I3~xr, Attoracy a[ Law A Professional Cnr}ro ration 507 Stockton Avenue San Jose California 95126 Td: 4-08-7_7 `J-3555 I'a x. 4C7H-279->883 )bhlaw~t~pacbcll.n cc September 15, 2008 Via E-mail MAYOtz_ AND Mer,aeERS or 'nte CUPERTII~O CITY COUNCIL CITY OP CUPERTINO l ()~t)Q I~ORRF: AVENLIF CLtP[-.R~nNO, CA 95014 IZE: APPEAL OF Pt_A NNING COMMISSION DECISION CI"fY COUNCILIvIEF.'fRdO SEI''fEhdL3ER IG, 2003; AGENDA I"I-EM~f12 RF.S(DIN'1'1A1, IJ :~SIC3N IZGVIY\V AND MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERtvtIT R-2005-14 AND RM 2003-1 G (21947I,mnY LANI=.) A I'PELLAN"; S: SEen_tnMrl'I'A F_~,t~rl_ Sny[_Sil Mnti r_s ri Dear Mayor and Members of thr; Cupertino City Council.: This letter is submitted on behalf of my clients, Scema Mittel and Sarvesh Mahesh, appellants and owtrers of the property located at ?_ ] 949 Lindy Lane, Cupertino. They arc appealing fhc decision of the Planning Commission on July 22, 2008 for the Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit for the proper-fy located next door ai 2 t 947 Lindy Lane. The primary basis for this appeal is that the adverse visuak impacts to the adjoining property \vhich wi11 result from the proposed mass and scale of tine project's upper story have not been adequately mitigated. ]n addition, appellants contend that the proposed project is not harmonious i.n scale and design with the neighborhood, and the project is not consistent with the Cupertino General Plan or Lhe R-1 Zoning Ordinance. 'I'bis letter incorporates my earlier lc.ttcrs dated May 23, 2008, and Iuly 11, 2008, that were previously submitted to the City.t Introduction Planning Staff acknow'Icdges that the application for development of the property located at 21947 Lindy Lane is the first proposal turder the new ordinance (No. 07-201 I, adopted in [ Some issues raised in the ea[9 ier le [te['s have since. been addresse.rl by the City or the proj ee[ applicanq e.g., [hc retaining wall location has been moved back to the rcyuired 5-foot setback; and [he City ha; ide nti fled the CEQA exemption. However, since a copy of [he Iuly 21 letter does no[ appear to be in 2hc Council packet, a copy is attached for your reference. 17-92 rlu pe rtino Cily Corm cil Septemhcr I ~, 2008 Page 2 November, 2007), which revised ,S_'ection 19.28.050 of the R-} zoning ordinance. Appellants submit that the application of the modified develo,nnent regulations reveals -for perhaps the first time -certain inconsistencies with the underl yin6 purpose and intent of the CJ ity's zoning ordinance and regtrl ations. As detailed in earlier correspondence, Ms. Mittel and her husband purchased the uphill lot in early 2005. Ms: Mittel, a professional Architect, devotzd a considerable amount of time analy<.ing the applicable zoning regulations and giridelincs, and dcliberat~ly designed her home tau ng into account that som cloy the downhill Iot (Lot 2) would be sold and developed with another single fitmily home. Ms. Mittel desiCmed her home to take full advantage of the wonderful views of the valley floor, and incorpor~ ted sophisticated passive and active solar cnerL;y systems artd breezeway to minimize depen dente on mcchanieal heating and cooling systems. Unfo riunatcl y, because [hey were living off site during the construction, they received no notification of the pending changes to the Ordi. texnec. It was only when the story poles were installed on April 17, 2008, that Ms. 1Vd ittat and her husband first becan~e aware of the new ordinance, which effectively allowed her neighbor to double the mass and scale of [hc upper story portion of his building compared [o what heel been previously allowed under the code, and on which she had depended in the careful "green" design of her Ytomc. The Staff Report surnn~arizes and responds to several of the major areas of concern raised by the appellants. l~or the sake o£con venience, [his letter will address these issues in the order presorted in the Staff I2cport. - 1. The Project is not compatible with the scale and desisrn of of_6_er c-esidenfial uses in the neit~hborh ood. "hhe Staff Report highlights that the proposed house is 1,000 sq. ft. smaller than the two adjacent homes in the 3-lot subdivision on Lindy Larr e, but this is somewhat misleading. The Report acknowledges that the second story ofthe two other houses meet the 35% limit that was in cfreci when they were constnrctcd in 2005-06, znd that the second story of the proposed house wit} be 743% -- more than double -the size of the others. h~ addition, because the covered balcony (approximately 500 sq. ft.) and basement (approximately 2,000 sq. ft.) are not counted in the total PAR (floor area ratio), the total size of the stnrcture will measure almost 6.500 sg. ft., with an upper story more than twice the mass artd :aalc of the adjoining properties. As a consequence, ttre proposed building fair to satisfy the requirement under the City's Zoning Regulations that it be designed to "ensure n reasonable level of compatibility in scale of stntctrrres within residential neighborhoods." (§ 19.28.01 O(C), "Purpose."). In addition, the mass and scale of the proposed residence fails to comp)}- with the building design guidelines for new, two-story }rouses, which states, in part, as follo4vs: 'fhe mass and bulk of the design shall be reason aL~l~gm patiblc with the predominant neighborhood pattcrn_ New construction shall not be c3isnro~ortionately larger than, or qut of sco_Ic with the nei~hborhoctd_pattcrn in ternrs of building forms, roof pitches," etc. (§ 1 9.28.060(0); e»tyhasis added. 17-93 CupeG ino City Cou r. cil September 1 ~, 200£ 1'a~c 3 The Staff Report also acknowledges that the proposed house will be "larger than many of the older residences in the ncighhorhood." ~~'e submit that allowing an upper story that is more than tt diee the si za ant' •.%tle o£the adjoining properties would allow a stnrcture "disproportionately larger than, and o~ t pt_ ~eplc ~i•ith, the neighborhood pattern." Sust because the modi£ed -zontng regulation:; allow it does not me,tm that the City is required to approve it. in fact, the. City's %oning Regulations demand otherwise. Section 192.8.050 was niodif ed to provide specific developmeut regulations for properties located within the specitied I-u1L;ide area, but does not operate as a stand-alone zoning regulation. Nothing in Section 7 9.2S.U50 moth £tes, ctclatcs or supersedes the fundamental purpose of the Single-P an~ily R esidcntiat "Lone (R-I) regulations as set forth in Chapter 19.23, which, in relevant p<u t, states as follows: F3- Ensure grovison cif lieht,_air 2nd=reasonzil_~le Iey~el_gfsri~•acv to individual residential parcels; C. ia>sure a reasonable level of cgn~patibility in sc_ile of structures within residential nci}hbnrhoods. (emyhasi.r added). Moreover, as set forth emphatically in Section 19.28.020, "Applicability of hegulations:" No buildini~., structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R-1 single-family residence district othc_r than in ccnfo ern aztec with the _ revisions of this chapter and ot}_i=r adlplicablc. ~rg~isions of this title. (§19.28.020, enzyk asis tzdder~. "I-he 2007 modification of Chapter 19.28 did not eliminate the general requirements under that Chapter, or under Tit]e 19 itself. As we previously noted in a letter to the Planning Commission, Section 1928.100, "Two-Story Residential Permit," allows the llirector of Community Development, and by the basis of this referral, the Planning Commission, to "approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application- "I~hc permit can be approved only ut?nn making all of the following Sind_n~s: I. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances, and the purposes of this title. 2. The granting of the permit will not-result in a condition that is detrimental or incurious to property_ or improvements in_the vicnity_, and ti<•ill not he detrimental to the public health, safety or wclTara. 3. "I-h:: proposed project is hatn~onious in scale and desis~n with the genera( neighborhood. 4. Adverse visual impacts on adioinin~ t>ro~ erties have been reasonably miti3ated. 17-94 Cupertino City Caur. cil September l5, 2008 Page 4 (§ 19.28.100(D); emphasis adder!). Tlterefore, the Zoning Ordinance expressly pra/ides that the City must make all of the foregoing findings before approving a rivo-story project, and further, the City has the authority to impose conditions that will ensure compliance and consistency with the General Plan and the purposes of'I'itle 192. - In addition, the Zoning Ordinance specifically requires that no exceptions may be granted unless all specified findings as set forth in §1923.:70 be made. Most noteworthy among [he required findings is that tkte "proposed exception will_npt._result in__5ignific=urt_yisual in~_rct_ s viewed from abuttin _prop~rtics." I Jere, there. is no question but that the proposed second story design will have a significant and adverse vis}}a1 intnact us viewed frorn Nfs. Mittal and Mr. Mahesh's property- Unless t2te design is forth ct modified, we submit that the failure to satisfy tlrc requirements of This finding arc su fficicn[ grounds for denial of the proposed project. 2 a. 'fhe Probe ct will crca tc a si<: rrificant obstruction to ann _Ilarr is nassive solar design features- Curiously, the Staff Report declares that "the City may rdlow variances to setback and height to accommodate passive or active solar equipment or house design, but no such modified structure shall infringe upon adjoining property o~~,ners." Here, a critical objection to the proposed design, as noted above, is that the upper :dory will infringe upon the adjoining property owner's passive solar design. Section I of iheR-1 Zoning Ordinance states, in part, as follows: Solar llesign_ The setback and height resn:-coons provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such stru ctlire shall infringe upon solar gas<mlcnts or a_r1oininn prgper~gwners. (§I9.28.0G0(I); emphasis added.) 1'he Staff Report correctly notes that there are no solar easements (at p. 5), but dots not address the point that the Zoning Ordinance expressly prohibits any structure from infringing on solar easements or adjoining property owners. In en accompanying letter, appellant's solar energy consultant, Smita Gupta, notes that based o ~ a detailed solar anal}'sis, the proposed structure will result in "significant loss of solar access in the winter mornings," with maximum shading of up to 60% in some months. In addition to increasing the demand for mechanical heating systems, the loss of daylight will increase the need for arti£ci al lighting in the main living area to the overall detriment of the energy-sz,ving systems designed by Ms. Mittal. ~ Included am ono [he s ecific ur oses delineated in 1 7.0.1.020 arc [he following oh"ectives: "to P P P § J provide far adequate lighyairysunlieht and environmental amenities; m promote and encourage conservation of scarce resources; to prevent overerowdinr Qf land and undue eonca ~.ntration of popttla[ion, to facilitate the creation of a cbnvenien[, attractive and hazmonious community; ... la <on _c rve_i>rgpcrty_yalues; to promote efFcient urban desinn and arrangement; ..." (emph<zris udder. ~ - -- 17-95 Cup ec[iuo Cicy Oouncl .'cpt~mber I5, L('.OR . ogc 5 Ilerc:, tiic issue is not the ctistanca between the buildings, ur the elevation of the proposed structure, but the mass and srtlc of Lhc upper story. All That we request is chat the second story be limited to a similar percentage of the first floor a.rca in a simiim' proportion to the adjoining properties, in order to allo~i- i[ to be, "hannonioue; in scale and design" with the adjoining properties. 'i'bis would not only reduce fife direct impact on Ms. Miital's passive solar design, but world also ensure that the "adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties [had] been reasonably mitigated." (§ ] 9.23.100; required Fndins £or approval o£two-story residential permits.) 26. `.'roject will h:+y_c an adverse visnrl inr n_+ct and restrict the views of the uphill pr~I ci##[. Staff states that the City "does not regulerta the protection of private property views in hillside areas," citing §1J.40A50(L), Section 19.04.020, H~hieh sets fo rt2r the Yurposcs of'hitlc 19, includes among the particulariy specified purposes, fire objective of providing for "adequate 1i~t_a_r, vui i~zh[ and enyrgnnr evitat a~neniti~s; ... to prevent ove;~cro~~~ding of land and undue concentration of population, .., to consen~e property values; to promote efficient urban design and Arran gecn cn L; ._..' (fFmyhusic added. Clcarl}', these "prrrticul arty specified purposes" of "£itle 19 are intended to achieve results consistent witl~+ the presc.rvation of privacy and views, even if not dirc:cily regulated. or guar.~.ntccd under the City's ordinances. More-over, as noted above, the City must fad that"adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties" have been reasonably mitigated Lo approve atwo-story residcntfal permit. (§79.28.100(D)(4 )). Appellant does not seek r;or demand Fu 11 protection of her' views and access to light and air. Shc recognizes Lhat some portion of her views and solar access would be affected by a subsequent development of the> adjoining parcel, but did not anticipate a whoiesale abandonment of the upper story limits under which her house was built. Appel lent does not ask the City to guar:urtcc her views, only to reasonably mitigate the adverse visual inrpacis as required under the Code. 2c. 'the mass and scale of the overall stru ctu rc and its proximity (o the nroperty iinei n oses ~nten tial th reef to fiitlside stability, both durin:r construction and after CO III n i Cf+O R. 7 he proposed proj cct will inch+de a basement measuring almost 2,000 sq, ft. in size, that will require. au approximately 20-fcot vertical excavation starting at a point £ve (5) feet downhill of appellant's property line. Appcllarrt':; gcoiec:tuiica] consultant has reviewed the relevant puns and geot<~clrnical reports, as well as applicant's gcotech nical report, and recommends that the City mandate the temporary shoring system be engineered and reviewed by the City, and constructed betbrc the proposed excavation takes place, for the safety and protection of the construction workers as well as the protection of appcllan is property emd existing structure. We therefore request that the Cit}~ impose, as a further condition of approval, that the applicant be required to submit plans and calculations a fully engineered shoring system for 17-96 Cupertino City Council Scptcm Ucr I5, 20U~ Page 6 review by the City, and that the shoring system be ir>stallcd prior to issuance of any building pcmzits. CONCLUSIOt7 Ms. Mittal, as a professional Architect, tod: reasonable measures not only to design her home in a way that did not adversely affect arty of her neibhbors, but also to incorporate "green energy" elements That were ahead of her time- 1n particular, she desifined her home to accommodate what she reasonably anticipated ti•ould be a two-story residential sinxchxre on the do~vnslope property that would meet the rcquirenu:nts under the: City's Toning regulations - h~txnronious in mass and scale with the ofher home; in the neighborhood, and that any adverse impacts ~i•ould be reasonably rnitigatcd. "I'he application before you is the first undo: the revised ordinance, and therefore presents - for the Frst time -some of ttre challenbes and inconsi steneies that might not have been apparent when adopted in 2007. 'I'hc impacts of the proposed design are severe and would permanently and adversely affect Ms. Mitial's carefiilly designed horn e. At The same time, we note that these issues can be i'airly easily resolved, and simply ask that the City to impose the conditions described herein so as to allow construction of a house that is harmoxtious with the adjoining properties. IZespectflxlly suomitted, i ~~_ t_-. Jef-trey 13. Hare Attachment: Leticr to Planning Commission dated July 21, 2008 cc: Steve Piasecki, llirecton of Community De~•elopment Clients 17-97 Ca f~N ti 5 _ap {Y A .u -.. !''6.{?. P. {' ~-~. •h ~., _~R~ r _„-~ C 4 _ I _ ~`_ _ ` "i ° ~ S J „ V'~ ~ L~c ~;:~ ~i 1} ~` - u:~-~ ~ ~ ff ~f7~ ~ - F ~` ! A ~'~ R a ~,~..xa ~~ ~.-~a ~ ~ ~y~. F ~ ~-~~, C ~i ti ~d R ~ ~ ~:~ v ® ~ ~ ~~~..~ ~ir'a`~ ® ~ ` _-tea ~~ _ ~~~ E .~~ a, 9 (. J ~a Gr ~:~ ~.~~ ~ ~, _, ~'~..~ -_~ i ~~ ~ ~ ~ E~ ~ ___~ I ~~ ova ~ ~~ ~:~ ''~ ~~ _ ,. ~~ ti "~M"p ~ , d.9 a~ ~, -.) ~~f ~~ ~=~~ ~9 ~~ ~~ ~ __~ ~~ 17-98 J (h) F ~- S ~_.i=^F~ L_ Utl {/, ~f _ `a ' ~~~ _~ ~~ ~ul ~~s ~~ ~~ ~n ~. ~_~ ~ ~ ._ ,~ ~..-__ t ~ l ~:. r`® ~ ~ ~ C-~ f ~~~ ~~ ~_ ~RP~~` ~~~ ~~ k ~~ ~, ^~- yP ~i W'1 _R3P m_ u~_.~ ~ E_~:__ .4. "J l H '._.: ~a ~' ~W l ~~. ~F ~~1 ~Y sj ; i r a~~i cF rE:.;y c.a-c^ ~ ~~ ~ ~.=a a-.r~ .., G ~` ®re ~ .~ a--~~_~ ~--`~ osv.-, } ~ ..` e~ cW:~ass 1 6' t, FS_4:~9 _~ tw":..~ .~ei~i ~~ ~. -~ ~ ~'~= ~~~ ~~ ~a~s~ a ~ a ~:.~>~~ ss® ~~~ ~~ ~ r, ~' of ~~_] I' t_y t ~~` ~y, Cl J ~~5 rf _~j a c--,_.rfl ~r,-- ._-, _ --~~ <. ~ -_ ~. ,~ ~ "'Y 7 !3 L ~ SI u .~ :a a ~ ~-~ h`j ~1~ a a e~_.c~ J ~_ 6Y f~va ~'€ y ® 1.1 m ~~ ~: ~e ~- ~ ~Y"`„ e~~ ~- i~-ioo ~ ~ ~I~~X~~SS1V~~ ~~~Y~-~ ~ $ ~ I ~ r ; y~ ~ 1 c, .~.~~ tr `v'at ~.i~1 :1 V ~+ t~v ~.J d 470 ----------- ,~-~~fi~u _lLandslide --------------- ----------------------- ~F~, 460 ------------------------- ------r Fes-`"; I-1=(=fi-T ~-{_=~- rP,O?ERiY L!"1E 2P;^5 i a ~ 4~3 450------------ 4~~-----~-"'r-----~'---- a4o --- --- -zao ~: ~~.-_ -m; ~ ~? ----~-~- I-~.~-------~~------ ~~~~~ , ,.. ___ ---=---- 420 V '~ 3~S IdE6T II 1 _ p, ----------------------- '~ r i ~ ---- ..^ ----- ~ i ~, , ----------410_--------- ,. ~~~ V O Proposal has 12' tall,-100' long continuous retaining v~~all, ~' ~~ ~m ~~° ~#®~e~~ty line, followed by another 0' tall. wall after 3' for the basement ~~ STABILITY of hill and neighboring properties AT ST~vI~~. Our solid bedrock will be much higher than and too close to this retaining wall excavation. (19.28,100.D. 2. The granting of the permit will not resr~lt in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public heslth, safety or welfare.) 4 i ~ _ ,~ ~ ~ T-y ® -{ h~ ~ i ~ ,ux ~ >~ ~1` "~ ~ `~ _._,.....~ r ~, ~ ~. ,,,,~,,, , , ~; , -~., 7~ ~ ruc~ Maas ~d~; ~~ ,, ~ ~ ~~ ~,,., ~', - y ~:~ i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ r~~ ~ ~y ~ \, ~~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ I'' 6 "i~o ~~A ~ y~:p l 1 ~ 1 iii k. ~ ~ /.. ~ a ~ ld~lll .-~.. _ l..- i \ \\ I •`~' ~ ~ ~~ u, ~ ~.~ \ ~ aGl~e ~i A ~ I ~ ~ i I W d ~a ~ `~ p ~ ~ h ~.,;:.._~ .......... ~~~~~ ~~'~ ~ ~ ~w~~ . ~, . ~~~ ~ ~~i ~ r ~9G FLAB X500 ~F ~~~ ~~A~'~~J (Ours is 5700 sf},1300 cubic °~ of grading proposed plus 700 cubic yards for the baser~ent (2000 1 ~T,~~? on a half acre parcel. (i.r;dustrt~ 1'li!':side standard is i 00~ c~~'~ic yard per acre ,cut=fill}. Plot 2 is ~~~ the industry' standardgg ~ g~~ ~ ° E °~ tl~ ~hO R'a. ~~E~..i,u,'~ j r~?'4P € nia°'''Pp ~+il 5w: ~ ~, 1~ P1~~ ~~", °'y'. ~~~ ~ (1500 cubic ~a~~ ~~ ~ ~~.,c~~ io~c~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~. e ~,;,~,aP ~~ ~:,..~~ ~.. ~,~. N ~Y LL/W ~I JL 1fNI1 p~gq/J~~, !yy{!/.~~, ~.{J@^ ~") ,{/T 0 ~ `\` ~ ~ F y u 1 ~6~LY~.~L 1L / ~,/ ~ I6. , ~ Si.~ ius~ny slo's tPe ever X30 Iel( pap.' r.,,,. ~ ,., e~ vi dnL...'.,,a s,. ....., TCP GF RC 'ussvp Irn sl.^,el rainy , sib?e o,~] prlvm doler.~.i~e9 by ~ m ~' BD^~R L CaLING ~ ~uifdln~ ae~l~n ~lon~s on a ~~la log- no~~ on a ~% ~ra~e log. ~~~o I~~go largo Ala e~~.. oo~ nog r~~ollo~~~ ~I~o I~illslo con~o~~r~lrl o (i~.40.0i0, f, ~ai~~ai"~ a baia,~tc~ beiVF/aca ~as,~:':°y~ a,~i ~~"&~~=~`c,~~~Wrg ~p;~~ ~~ ~:sc;~vaic p cr the nafu~ai biiiside se~~in~9J _. o ....:as a"escribe~i,~ ~,~c ~'cra,~i~r ~ia~~, 4c_~r~v~~~~e ~6~~ ~~~"~~;~.isc~i~g d~ iom~, n9~=a``s~as V 0 W r- !1_.,-- [`,1 a ,~ .., :.~ }.-- .: ,.~ --4 ~,~~ 3i .-. ~1 `..% CL ~_-~):~ ~~.~. ~~d ~,,..~~ a~ ~.`~? ~~ r ~a r- f A° ~~ ~~ ~~ N==om 4 ecy:-.ms-!1 ~. ~' ~°'' 1 d+ -. _~, R~~ ~.,~ _9 ~~_ _~ ~!~ ~~ ~~ .~~ 1 i_,?j 4 .,. _~\\nn h.~„! fie. ~a ~s~ ~~J c--=:~ ~''~, ~-~~, V e.~~a 9 ~L~ ~~,~ p.~ ~~ ~~ e ~ ~~~ ~~. f~ ~' ~'~ ~~7 9 \~~ ~~~°°yy~ 17 - 104 ~ w cv o ~~y~ ~ , 2a Ia~~ a~. ~~,a~e; ~~~~~ ~~a~~,a ~ t,~~ ~~~ g~~ ~~-,r ~- ,. e :_~ oi~~o~i ~1oos ~ ~~o~A~~d~~~~~ ~e~~ g~~j ,~N~~~a~i~~ ~, elo~o~ts ~ ~~~~o ~~°o~~~ ~o~~~~e ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~EP~~~~so ('1 s ¢e aa ~ ~ pp a V O N .:`: ~i la ~~s'NJ~~u-. tiJ~l~ S,lb~~~~~~s~e~a ~~itl ~'w~`~~tca~4~~~ ~t; ~fi~w.ufu c'Z,L 1~d ~'xr~n~ .<~ ~~'~.d..,., <~~:~ :".,T.. _F~V, 9 '1 4 C~,°~,~~,9~,1~._J'~~6~u~r 5y_~~~ ~~'2~/.~v~¢~ .i~.,N3t~~~~ IJ~~~~f1-F ~V Mgr 3 u 0 '~~~~S ~~~a~ ,i~ ~E ~.~;~~ ~.~la ~.".~rc~ v~'~~ ,.v ~3A:i~y; ~r~~l ~~. ~9f i'.s~ i~~L3~:s ~v 4d 4~.9V 11 ~ {V ~~~6~~VfNL 11 I.`~ ~~aa.'u ~VS,.~l~i3~ ~.Sd~.~~A ~E~~9 9~(, p ~~~.~~LPa.J4n~~.~1 Zvi ~7~~ ~ ~ ~~h 3 lv'@,.6 ~C%~7~1.~ .6® ~ ~~~ ~a~I~~vLi~~~ ~~ ~_ ~~ ,"~~ 9 i '~ i, 0 ~ ,-ter '.. a., ~:,,~ J •.. r sp ~ ' . l ~ ~ k ~'' c~/ ~ ~ ~y, 7' n~ 0 ______________II_y______/___u__ ~i/~~_i}^rt~v _______________ 'V ed~~l~ I LI {+~ aN V1WV~.lO ,L-,i=,C~~E ~3~b~'> ' 1 1 ~',r I~'~I xcs_ ... „ ~~I -------''' -- - - r- -lk+~LIII.a:~~iLL~ - -----~:_l~: n~___ _~___~____________________~ P:' ___ .,.. ,.M7 ___________________ I _1 / D' -~rrr~--= ~ ,~ -- __ .N ________~ ~~*n r.:voua ~~~H --------------------- ~;, Tj m 4 „ ~'+ ^\ _ r h~ b ,. .~ ¢.9 Ws ~ ..,.,3 c ... w t ~ c~ .....a _ Yrz,, ~" o r , ~ ~~'1 ~N i ~ ~ ^ ~. ,:1 n v sQP' ~ q ~r ~ n ~ M ~ Lt'.j ~' j Ecrfl ~,.~va~ ~B a.9 ~ is .~ c.7 "c ~4~ ~.~, 4 ~ ~,y ¢ {gt' ~ a 1 ~~'ad' ..i b. ~r p .,Y,I r rti ^. 1 E c .:~` ~~' ~~~ ~ J ~~ 4~, ~~1'e~. 41 s:' b O r ~~l ~ e~~~ ~-L ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~~i~~~~~ ~ P~G:\.i'.i~'V Vs ~;~..~ ads tii~a~~f~ ~ tV iii.: ~1, I~ FmeElementsofPassiveSalarDesign v ~ ~ *-+ I gyp~p'"--11 /~'"{ i icy! {[{[ ~ S "~ ~^ {" ~l~ ~ ,, .. 0~1 1/i~ ~E i ~ le ~ ~/d V O (D SUiiilil?f Sun ',yln;Cf s,~~I i,mrtml 1 n - ~~n ~~~~~~ ~~~~li cc rr~ ~i J~ r~~~~fi~a~ ~rl~° as ~ ~_ o5~fa~~c,~ I ~y /' , s r l~vv ~ si~~ ey, i,a ~~~ ~~~ St.S?t ldv ~ 9 J' c~i15~1~1i2 ~er~~~ ~tS ~'ryf~ C~~~~ ~eG ~~ ~,~rrl ~ iuii ~r~ uur 9i~~~v ~91~ ~ Vai ~~~_c, ~°~ `„+V ~ I ftt I~~ . ° ~~ ~ ~~~ iOSS ~(~ ~~e ya C~re~;r? ~~s Nl rc'~v~~.e~v '~~ charade; istic ~~ Loss C$ 'JI~VruS ~f v9;! !Ji gY ~^?~~~{r~~ I Yr t y~ ~ ~r^;^3'~ l "`~ 9`^p ~ S F t' /'j' ~~jy~~` p '~1 ~.:5 vJ ~YJI i~'~: ~' ` ~_''!~~ S f~'.t,i~o ly, iJ ~; 4rv:~ ~ :iv~iV3~ ~~I~'!I~ ~VU1u ~~N' ~',n~'^ r `,' 6`~~,.1~~ V i~ 1 ~/~`l Vfai ig^i ~1 -E ~.,~ Y/i Viii ~i f~o~~ i ~~ ~tlv~"~~, 1,~~0,,~ ~~,r~ li~~o, ever~~~F~. ,~ ~ ~5.28.i~~.J~.~r ,~GIVBCSB L/~'SG"~~?t~~~Jc~C~S L!1 ~~'lult7l~iy~'??f~J',;."C~~~,~i ~'[/C2S"2wSe~'1Gwi~~li:!~lyat$C~. J O :,~ Ik~~ f !mot ~;~' ~ u f~ i ~`~p11I k^,~ rx'`"'~ I f i '~ ~., f y ~.. ~ '.~ ~,~ a ~ ~` ~ ! o lj \., ~~~J~~ ~ „_/~~ Imo.: ~'~. ~i ~ ~~ ~`;' f~ ~ l' ~I ~~ Will no more see the s~nriso, city iigh~~s, snout ca~~sv ~b~o~rizains or Indian prayer~~o rising sin a~sonrisoo V ... 14 N •y~~ .. .... _. ....., ~ r~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~@@~ yg ~~~ yg a ~r~' ~ ~ ~ * ~~ 999 i ii r / _ /~ r ~. ~. ~'i i ~ LLL~~~ _~' ~ _~- ._,_ _~ i li ~ ~ t1 a ~~~~ fr i~ ~ ~ j cl ?.~:O~i ~../ ~~~~~ o~~ 5 -w~.. i' ~ r {~! ~?I~ t i~~J fi 6~p G ~ ,~ y,,, r a +~'p+'~ ~4x{ 5~~~~~r~G ~ r~. c ~ ~ r .~ 7~oGR~S ry 9 Av 6:~ dy "+' W %PP A a'X~'rwirM ( P jH ~~ It i4 p fr ,a 4 y w 7 ~ ~ t ~~~~r~'y~ I ~, ~ of ~'~ ~,,,,~ ~ a F '~ ~' r k f rI ~>. ~ 'S ~'~ 4. r n Y r "~~ n ~~~ ~ ~ r ~ A '4 , jY r 1 t \~ 6r ~ d~ ~ 1R ~d~'''~b,w try A+ + ~ r ~urrlj { iy ~ n ;~ " T~ (7 ~y ~;Jy~, 6 y'~ w ~t'~y~^~M t ~ 1 ~ l'"` "/~1 t ~ ~#" $ prm'~"{~r ~y~T~~ Yk her ~~ .~ ~, ~ .~ I r a ~~ mt x si ~ P'~ ~ d;, ~ d Ifr p r ' ~ ~~ ~. _ ~ ~~9 iP C Nv! 3~ ~d~x ~, i i d c~ r+e~ ~7 ,*r7 t'~ ~'~ur pI` , P ` ~"" ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~rd'6r f~ Vt c ~' API ~ r~r {f ~7 ~,n~ b~ ~°"~^~ P1~ 4 „~ s (a; V.ia ~~ ~ r .~, „, ~. w ~ a f ~~ (f(n ~ 1! S ,a,y?t~ q. y '`:J `~ Ii ~l ~~ '~.? /rl `~~ ~ ~:~~ d~il~1 ?/~, 1YY cs`lh`r;If ~i,,i r~~ a ~~ -l' I v ,. .~ ' ~! I l , _ ® .~ .~ .,.. ~°u"~~~~.~~~~ a~i ;l tl/~le~'~~a ~. ?.' tt ~.. ..,~i E- ~ ~~?~~4J p~ ~~ ~gg~A,.l).,t ~'"~~~~} ~~" a"- 9 ~ -~~~," BCY~~s ~. (~9.28.~OO.D.~ Ac~~rer~e ~~>~5~~.'1i~:N^c~s ~r a:ljcirlry;~rc,^-~Y'~~,;-. ,.. i r: ~..~ ti...: ~~w ~ ~~v ~ v4 ~.~iu reW„~r~31 iii,~~ ~w:~u',) V A c ~ 'i*" Q +J ~~~ Lot 1 and Lot 2 purchased in FeblMar 2005.On 1 Mar 2005, in order to protect the hillside area, the city implements RHS overlay on R1 properties with greater than 15% slope. Lot 1 priced premium over Lot 2 because of views. r We purchased the property to ensure we can build green, capture city lights views, preser~re property values in the beautiful hillside area and enjoy our neighbors and neighborhood. ~~ Lot 2 could build a only 3500 sf home including a ma x 1000 sf upper stony. Lot 2 owners purchased this property rznowinq this. ~~ Lot 2 owners met us in 2005 and were well aware of our concern for our views. ~= A 1000 sf upper story on their half acre lot could block views very partially. Original approved plans maintained a rocf line to preserve our views. . ~~ Unknown to us, while we were ur;der construction, i5 residents led by councilman Santoro opposed the March 2005 zoningg. It adversely affected croperty values by rendering the larger lots non-subdividable, allotived smaller homes, asked for greater set backs . C~ :~ ~inr+a tnro Inlnro ~ inrlor r+nn~ tr. tnt;nn nnrl vnr•ir;inrv ~nr ,~,;~,~, ~.,^ ~~,.+ro~ M M +v +r v+v u+iuvi vvi w~i uvUVn ullu IvVlull ll~. IUI uVVUy - tiVG FIG'J O.J i4i~OIVG69 pitlH IIV'IYIiV,QlIV9: from the city. First we heard of this was in the fall of 2007, by when the new ordinance had passed. The city reversed it's original ordinance to PR®T~C~' R~O~~RT~ U~~LJ~S for 15 residentswho appealed the RHS overlay as is. The new ordinance has no restriction on heights or staggering cf retaining walls, allows 2500 cubic yard of grading excluding basement on a'/a acre lot, has 5' min setbacks and ee~ao=.~es a1e upper stork restriction size in a R1 neighboYhao~. It has no provision to make the building contours. We built responsibly -leaving larger than required setbacks, respecting the geology, no disruption to neighbors ~~~iews or privacy, horizontal scale to home design to blend with ire hills, natural siding accent materials to respond to the natural setting. The basis e' design ar9~ rules channel ~cr a~ astir E,,.~ h~~a'~~~;~ ~ ~ z^,,r+} rl ,,~{ , ~,,~~ .~-°We-have°veny~little ~neighbor~ recd sappori~because the neighbors do not I.~~a~ ~ io-~ecN~J~ ~ the V appropriateness ofthis new ordinance. N This is the first home to tit ties nee,:, `' , dinanc~e and the shop iccrn,rgs are zr~s.; ent. ~~~ ., r i i o ~ ~~,~~~~~~~~~ oe o tai ~~0~4 ~p ~~~~e - ~~ ~;z ;~ ~~~ ~.~ ~~,~ ~~ ~ ~ . p m ~ aG p ~11 F~'a ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~J ~ ~ Psi Y F~r^^ ~ ~' -~ s ~ 47 ~ u. 6i ~ ~'~~ N m m ~ d ~.>: ~ :7 ~,. ~~ ~ ~ ~r~ U:l'i,' ~a,~~ ~ a~@ 3 ~a ar ~ f qualita~~ie~o is~~~o otl~ a~~ coo ~~a~o; ~~~~~~ i~ ~~ ~ k~ i~3 ; ~c W with tho ~~erahho~hoo~, h~o~o~~~ ° G R ~R ~ ° ~~ ~ p ~ i ~ ~.,~ Say ~' b ~ ~ ~ 9r; ..~ ~.~. d a.a e ~i -, e ai t ro~e~~~vo ~i~o ~ #~ ~ o~~$~~", } ~~ V i ~ Y tl i€~R..~ j¢~~ ,~~ ~,.~_,.;~~d 1 0~ ~ i; tld ~ ~ 4i 3tY ~ p : f tl ~ -. q„fY F i~r~leot~d o ~ ~~~~.~ ~~~~~ _~~~ ~~ ~ S u..,~ ~~a ~ ~ ,~ s.~~ ggr,A~~~~~~: 3s~. `..-' ` ", 'yy n Eck ,'~ n =m ~'Or 3' W. c~ ~A1 A1111 1 iY k~~n! ~ tli pd V `I 1 ~ 8 ®3 1 9 1 d 1 I ~ ~ o ~A~ ~ 3 ~ ~° ; ~ ~ ~n F ~`dVt~tl®19C~,J'+J! o~ ~~g@""~y~~ ~rF~Sp~~Jgp~ (~~~ .9.~~ '~ s ~ i~ V ~~ ~~ ~ I M! i QaI ~d ~ ~ ~ W.~ y~.,~ a,•R, ;r'-~ 'G r r ~ ''~: ^"l ~ r~~ " F q ~p,1'gyt~,a~~ ~a ~ 1~" '~..~f:• a ~„1 ` ~ ~ Y l I ~ YV `Ju `•..i~ i Sd' ~ y L . _w ~~~.~ ~ ~~ 67~ t.~jk~ ~~ ~l~ iJj~~~ r ~)~°~{6,~8 ~ °',l:i 3` s? r~gr °,P°?! il to ,.~ ~ .a~ . V u 1 a `k o J Y 6~J +~rL n . ~,r '6, n ~ ~ ,:: ~ 'ea L'~a ~. c~ V .= C, ~~ i ~ ~ kI I, -EXlSTI~!G IDEA ~~ Many MAl~°~'simple solutions exist to address These issues. This is only ore option, Loolclnq fior~~ard #o see a beaul7~l, corrr~aflble borne on Lot ~. Would request ~ESIr~R ~E~JlE~n~ C~Jl1Il~VIl~"!'E"~ to review the project. J V A ~ A m D 20 SUGGESTED IDEA / ~ © m o ~~ ~f I{ { fj ~ ",~/{'~~~~' t III ~~/~,r~{~J~~ ~ ~~ EI 11 .L 'd/'Y .LX t/ ~ .ii (1 ________________ <7~ ,,' ' _"_ __________ 1 _ ___ ____ --------------~------------------ M~ Ic~~~i nt 1i %~^u j _ L~ i ------------- I _a I~~ ~ --- =-- ~ i 1~ - _i'_~ 1 ~.~ _ ----------- ------ 'rnh~~~_ ~ - ~,. - - -' j I-'-X1_,,4'-~'"' j.,-`i-}I ~I~--- ~ ~ I-~--,=' ----- 4225 ~~ c ~ i.31+. ;' I I "'h _,___~.__ ~ Ti I Pi I~ ~ i ____________________________ on ~ ~t a. -'~ r ~~ ~~ __~~~ ~C~ _I _ I~ 1 ~ `5 ---------- ~i r 81 .~ ~ -__~~--- ------------°-5jE-- ~ I UIEVUS FAR A!L J 0 0 9 ~ 8 " j 0 ' ~ y i © a ~;_1'~i.~ © ~,'L ~a..i' ~v'j.ihs! ,~~.s'~a I .:, l! _. ~.` ~ ~ J V (D The adjustrler:tsJcpt!o1s shcv~n o:1 previous slid ~ r,°;~~e ~,~e aoi `'j`ig ~cG~.vMses: y° ~. Geoloc~~y; l~@Sp0s1Sa ~C ~i`~"~ Ar'otectiort Cf adiiiSiC?~1~~"ii°' vy ~~'~a~t ~ ~~ X300- OOcuoic ya ds) re~~~~~~s~€~ ~a, ~ ,~,~n.~ ~.~ 3~ i ~ ~e~.~ 2 0 A.. Reduce ~ ~adi~~ y , sf) by pulling building forward to setback line. (5~~~~ ~~ ~ ~iL~L~ ~.~~ b. Space to Stagger upper rot wall into t~~~~JO 4' ~^~~als. (S~~°~E ~~'' aid ~"~~ ~~~.Lg c. Eliminates lov~~er rot ~:vall ccmpietely and reduces u~ ~~:~ ret'ri~U:N i~r w~,i 3'. ~S, .. ~,. ~' ~ ~~i~~j ~~. 4~SSS ~n~ ~t'Sle; ~,~"±~+g ¢~€~°4r?~ r6~?aa. rlC~"§I°<` ~.~; A. Better row house feel from street. ~. B. Reduce upper story to possibly 1300 sf -eliminate 22' ta!I living rcom which is double counted -(~ save 500 sf of living) area and relocate dowi stairs for your use, C. Flowing Green spaces 3. PCC~`CtiCP1 CI ~~IC'~i~a9 I~SSSi~~° S3iS° ~°~Sig~1, ~:1.~in°W~~ps ~o'i~~'~~s~" ~E1C &~' ~,a"~? ~'~~€~~; A. Respects Existing homes as EXISTIP-G CONCITIO~. B. No overlooking balconies and windows.. ~~ C. Establishes second finished floor at 432' to look at vie~1,~s over LOT 3 . ~~~'e ail then have views. At least we can have viewslpassiveldaylight solar in one ~"a~~~~1 onl~;r restored - FAMILY ROOM. -~ D. We will save partial property values. ~7 .• "y y : i "cam. ~rr ~;, q ~ t~ ~ ~~~ fL~ C, ! ~,, ~ i~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ J '~ ~ ~ " i ~"; ~~ Vii;, s ~..,~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ 4, ~ lr f ~ ~ l~ ~ r p "~ ~J ~ ~.,..nn~ G7 1 L~S'~1 ~ td Y d i~ ~;' w t s v. ~.; v r \4 ~~-.., ~ p v~,, ?~q `4. ~,,~,~j Pia ~' ;,~, ~~ n 4`, , ~t~l~r' end u'' Cu~er~inc~ City r tanning Con;,~as~i~.~~~ ~ Sert ~r ~y r^ H.;~ nri ~1h.'~ ~ ',~ ya r ~ ~` ~~ ~,, ~: a ,'i ~, C ~t~' fn;~^ ~,` .~ a e ~`~,f ~a _*rr; 712212~~p ~~~W ~~ ,~ 0 0 design poets firlo ®r~iinanco no ~~c~~tio~1S cd~ti~~ ' ~~~ :~Y1~ tip, ~~~~~~~Y ~~ ~~ ~on1 reensive Leo Tec~nic~~i re~~~ie~~~ o~~ fii ke ioA~ ~¢n~is b~~iiin constr~~~~i~~~~ s~~v~~~ ~r®~ose~ design , bass ~li~ o~tbe design is fide l®;es~~ co~ared 60 easfi ~efi side neigi sbors ~~~°d® d ~ ~%~ n V N ~9 ~,II~~p~~ i~~a ~o. ~C~ 9 9i~1~ 9~ ~I I`~ ~~~. ~~ ~~~~ ° ~~plica~lfis diiigen~~i~~~~~~or c since o~'~~,~o des~g-n fib.e bc!~sc ~~~ r~COr~~~~1~~~~y~~onS~~o~11~n~S ~m"~~ ~~~s~~~~~~~ S~~in~y a a~ c®r~erin ~ ~biic toobac~c are ddro~se~i ~~~ '~N~~~oF~~ ~~s~ ng g~ d ~~®fi~e or~iin~nco efiailed ia~~sc~ ~e in addresses aii ~ so~i ~bors ~~ri@~ac~~ ~~ac~ua~ o~°~~ors ~~ u' ~~~ to "~ ~cgafi~~~o i~~;~~c~ c~~o~ s s~ ~~~16z~ ~~ ~ ~ ~re.: ~ is V0./1~ {~.~~rw~.a N ~~ii0li~~+`~ -, u ,~, ~_ o~ s~~~P "~P~ 712212008 ~oozrzzrl N N r f; C ~. '~ ~ Rte`, /'l'~~y;~ '~', .~ 9 ~ Ff~ ~~i I] ~ "u u ~. J J ~ ~ f V 800ZlZZ!l ~ ~ a ~~ , ~ ~~ \` kq ~ ~ ~'' I~~'"~k~ ~~ ~"' p'~,~"'3 j~'^` `~".\AI ~'# h! tl i ~ C;7~ ~~~) ~ Ytl f ~'s ~ ~'^~ r ~~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ ` ~ti 4 ~r q ~~ ~ *~..^~~ lI 6V ~~~tll ~~ G ~ I~ ~~~ ~ a..,_,'~ ~f ~ x111 i ',~„ ~~ I`'~ ~u,"'~.,i ~.~ .i'~ ~ ~~!" °~. ~' V N A ~~ ~ n~ 71LL;2 w wr~va.r..~n. ~~.. _~_ J 9 800ZIZZII N N t` ~T~ ai~~ `-~I v d~~~ I tii~l un w I u~:] ~ nas' i~ fSlttl L'I l l l 14k1f I IV)I I II M1II'I i \UI 14JJ:1 l I~IM~ f ~,-vcnll,{ 41N,,IX~,11{. ;~~Y4,. i~L d r isnut ~ I nw: nsr. n7 nrfi nr~. 1 nr. nu: I nrz I 1 I _L_ ~ Irr. _ ~ _ br.+qva p,~al ~.~.~ r.q. o~.e,l p~V9!'+v vw nY .--^,Ir61 t ol~ n:~, no-, no-, nr.. nn; ray rc~ ~ n~~Y~:;r~rYSn m, n ~ --~i-IG14: tk~6 t'+K, , Y _ ~``-t}_ ~ ~~ 1 ~ pwrri ~`' 1 §LL I r , ,, IV . ~"ti++c-, ~ti ~, p~ I - '` ~ ~ '- III -- r cm ~~~. r ~~. I ,~Jx'k ~ r, . irriwcaFi; - ..~ ~ ~~. tik U~- ~ ~'T L ~ ~ !d 1 If :~~~ ralY. fl4 ~ ~+6Y '.41;°~d>,4 fVu'iBdhd.?11 ~ wJ IP~;aru u Adn ~ ~ P~10 4±I] A Y! 745!:'-7 II~ .L~ ~~~~~~ta~~ 4 ® a s Vii, ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ - p~ ~ ~, i "',",L' ; ~ Y~~ (~, crJ e~,n ~c~~ ~J lr~d `~9 ~ ~ ^.~ ~~ ~'~ 6d' ~~~ ~,..,1 0 ~ it ~, ,~. ~~a, u~ ,~~, ~~ ~ ~ ~,:. rv., a., , .,,,.:~ ,,, , - ~~ <<~~ :,AY„ ~ I k \~''i! I 1~ ~i / -,, ~ ~.. ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~,~" ~ C ~, a r.:/ ~~~~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~~r'N l ~'~ ~ j, l y Ur';: ~i ! ~I~ ~ ~ ll ~, ~ ~ J~ i~,' ~ by ~,~, .\ \ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~` ~ "° t~1 ~ u ~' ...,N>,~n ~ ~ :~ ~p~. lug', -I ~'~.~~~.~~~ '~~i~ i , ,,y y \ uv rw ii ~4 ( `~,~II NY ~~ ~ ~~~\i rL)u1,W alAM1'1 .14~^ \ + 13 `~~~~ ~ r ~uu Y ~uwwNd'10 r u, Lr~wa+rv ~ itA • 4 ~Y 2 ~ V - V / ~ i~~ ~ l l ~ <i'`~~ n~nw„w i, ,. ~ ~I~iL '~ ~ ;r , ~~ ` I ~~ i yr - , ,. , 1,,. . ; G',r%~ ~,,, ~,.. +y~~i/ /' ~ 1~~, I~ I pplI ~~rJr ~` ~ / I ` d M1~^rJ~`~~ !/!r F +r ~j ~ ~ ~1d ~ ~~"~ 4t n~ ,n~~~ t ~ 7 ti 1~F ~ }- ~~° `, ,, ~`` , ( ~ ,~1,~~ ~I ~'", r /,.r~ ~ ~~ /fit li ~~ii': „i ~ "~ ~ ~ ri ,,,~ ;,~ ~A,~ \~ 1rmVY4Pl ~1f1 '. ~ ~~ ,... r ~i~ / m.m{ (~ ~q , \~ F//~*{1 i ~, ~".. ~~ ~ .,, u s.r:•,n....~wiw. ,_ , , , ~ ~ ~wo.~,,a~~„ ~ ~.,~.~r... ,~ wY ~. ~~ vu.bin+v4m "vw`~.r'lu~:u•rw ,~~r,rv,.y n)HU "Y la~4Vry'IIWW'Y~n,uT'v'Y,rfryf.'r'v~..i 1 ~~~ l 1',6~. u'. _ ... ~ ,'~J1,~ _. L'a C~n ~I I0~ era of o r 4 "~ II '~, ~ ,~'~ ' N e ~'_ ., v ~~~ w ~ IIIL.~ Jj ~~,`~I~ `N ~Yiu L (~ a pr^ , ~ 4q~q [aci. Ft"a ~~~ ~ly~ I" ~ ~ Y ~ S ~l ~ ~ p •;; u 8ooz~zziz a ~~. ~r r.' 1 ~ f, - ~~~ a~ ~ `M~~ ;x.15;, g'~~q~n ~~~~~~ ~ 4 N r 6 f ~ ~ C ,., x ., ti ~. ~„fi ., ,. :: ~I ~.~~~~~ . ~ ,~ ^^""~~~~ i ~ +, ~Y v~mi ;,~~ `"~WnB ti ~!" gg"J Y ~ Y~~~ }F~y~~. , a 1 .,,A..;~ _ .. ~'S~<<~ ~ ~'~ Mj~ ~ E ~ ~ ti ~, ~~~i ~} ~' y 5' ~ ~ ~Syi~l fir' ~ 7~7~NN,{{ ~ tl~ ~ ~ h 9 Q li + ~ V~ ~~ y` r . - b{ Y'"` Y 1~ ~ "~at~~.., ~ wry «T n ~~~ ~~OZiZZII OJ r i < < ~, t ~~ \ ,q ~ oL ~~ ;~ :,, y~~.. ~ w {~ 7 i~1 ~ ~ ~~;:! ~J ~~ ~ /~~. /, ., ' ;; ~'#~ SHI. Y.'>'Hy ~y l?~ T )~~ ~-,, ¢ "~ a , h ,. ` ~ G~ ' 7 ~4 1' 4 4~r d?4 .. -:: ~ ... ~~ s" ` ..,1~~, gooz~zzil m N '~+3+~Y ~?.4 4 f'w ..~ 3~7.JJ ".k~SrJ.~.~V YtuJl~Al t~ k 7!F *„ +~~ 9 ~~~ @ d i- Y i;r: ?Jj tpr, °'..... ~ ^~;, ~. ;A , 4 ~` '` ~~~L/Z~It 0 M r ~ ° " t o ~ 1',pf ~ ~ "~ ` i ~ ~" ~ ~ i .f nr ~~ ~ ?CYO ~~r ~'~ ~ t. r A i'~r+r~4 `v'~ g~~P;`~a~v~~ ~~.+~~,~ ~I\r"1~~c~11~ ~~ ~~~i~~~c~~.;~~ ~r~~~,y~Q~ ~c ti~~ m .~ orn~reh~nsive ~~technicai stuff ~~~~~-'-~ ~ the Icy finds ~r®~ose~i ~si~n ~~ b~ii~in c~nst~~~~~~~ic~~ s~~~table e~c~: - ~~e~r ~eotechn~c~~ in~~estiga~ioo v~fath ~ new, bores ~~ ~~ ~et~ining v~~~lis, '~ ~~ b~i~~iin ~~~ -- ~~11s ~s ~4 ~ ~C~~°it~~~'~ ~~~ ~oio~~~ ~, C~~m~vhn~~~i~ ~~'~~~~,,'~;~ ~'~ ~~ ~~r the sub~i~isior~ ~~~~-20~~~ - ~8~~16,f :l~ ~h~ ~ G~~an~~~9 :.5~ ~ILf~~~ ~~~,d~ ~',1 ~~t41~~ ~~%:9€~~p~l~w~~~~ phi P,~"~~~,hv~~a~~~3 --' --~ - ~ ---- _.. - ~ - - - -- - v v a into 1 ~' high ret~ioing d,~ails - Proposed ret~i~ir~~? v~a~i heights ire ~~u~eiE ~eio~j~~ .'~~,~v un ~~~ ~~~ri ~iabiiit~ ~ir~it m hlaes~ side.l0' ~~rg height o~Jer 100' ier~t!~ (12' rn~„ fir ~~'..5'} E1st s~~e: ~.2' ~;vg height over 156' lengfi~ ~ ,5,7~' ~ ~ ~~x fir 23,''~ ~ ~ ""?'!~ ~, na n i r~ .~ rm q , ~'"!q q-on a s ,~ -~ r ~ ~ T,, ~ °.-, r- n ~ r - Pro~o.~~,d ~~~~~~~d~~ ~r9~~i~s ~~~, ~<-v~~~ ~~s.,~:=, k,..~:rr ~~o~ ~.~~~,~~~ `~V~N ~9 ~8\ ~~ ~~1J0 i~ ~'V'vV v 1if4 ~~.~~.1Y~i ;~d ~ ~o''v]. X19 f~ li.t~ v © IlVesfi re~ainin~ ~w~fi from ~ro~~ri~l lire: 55' from 5', ~9~' rc~;~ ~'; '~ ~.5' ~'~ ~7' ® ~Eesf retaining ~~~;I fir©m ~roper~y line:133' ~f 6', 23' ~~ ~~' V W 712212008 ~ {^- M ~ l ~ '~ 13 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~,"'~ ~~ a, rg";~ r`r'l ~ ~1 f~ tr"4 fy(r'~1 ~, ~ ~ d ~~1 ~d ~, ~ ~ ,~ I~ ~ d n v 1~ ' i Cam ~ W w '~' ~ 3 i a r_ r ~ 1~ r~ . ,-~ ~~ ~ q ,yam ,,.~ ~ ~ r~ ~ r' r>~ r ~a (,~,~) ~~lt, . ~1,"ry ~j~_,„ nlry'Y 1I {?pPly,~~pq,{S ~ 3~ ~/ ``: iy , `,i l{y~ ' l *., 4~~ ^~~ ~ffi~ ~ ; `~/ "rte W 6! ':a 9 u ~/ ~ `~'~ ~ ,7 _~vs~ `tC:~' I .ri' . ~,, ~ ~ ,., ~ 4 ~ r fl- ~9~5~ G~~fi Gt e~, ~L~O S~~=i i e;~~~c~l~~lcco~~! ~9Q~~ ~uFt v~ .~_ ~` ~°o ~D00~ 5~6=~ Terr~:c~l~alcorn ,~ a.~. -------- ~~9 ~ -------------------------------------- __=r .. - ~, ~,, ,ae ~ A {Pp ~_6~~ h~f ~• --,- ,..r~y ~_________-"_y-567-i 190 _c ____ ____________ ___ -------""------""---' PI;Jf ~i~ }' LhC~,I ----_-_- ~,. ~ AJ y'~, ~ i ..fir J i' ~{ 1 ` ~~ ~Y ~ i ~ ~?I ~ ~v` _-----~s]- I 7.`m r ~ I~ I ii I I { i t 449 drP ~ i"_ ~ --fir ~,--'' i' _I Vr ~ --- ,' L~T~ ~ m r~-,~,...b~ ~ i I s-'' ..--------------- 4 ~I --------------- ------- - ~ ~ -~r ~ ~ ~__ _, _~ r ~" _ , ----°-- -~ r ~~ ~,~~~~~~~~ ~~ I i~-~--- ~ ~ ~' 4 ---------------- - 4,w a c ~ -------- ~~ __ u J .u; `~ ~~ r ~"~ ,,,n ~ _ ~t~s b _ I- i I 42P7 .!f,"~ "~".,, ~ ~ yr.. 179` _ _ __~:~_~-__.--L-'-- - ---- --------'-"-_'_----=~-~ ~1~ I' ~ ,~ ~~-+ I ^cJ]r~~~l~ JI I _ ~ I ~,6 it .i'~i I , •~ .-,-iii 9~1 .~ -~---- _.-- Ql.~i _-__-_---__.-__.__-_._--- .~;iV. ~.-__-___ ______________~.--------_.-._ I y ------------ RM ----------------------- t ~- ~ ~ tJ 3~J ~ ~ .,~., I. ;. 61AP~r _ ,,r :, ______________~,, V JJ ~~ ICJ SCALEI 3/32`=1'-d" ~~N`~~firl''t ----------------------------°__~ '3 712212~,g ~_ ~ V ~ Ak`YJLW~~.147 n~-~I'r~i~~E ~~~~~5 i--ay ------------ i i L_~r~ ------------ I ~ -P~ -----------~ i I--G'Y ------~f--- I f- I ~ I ~6 Gtr a ~} nUf~i6Nd 800~1Z~Il M~ t` % 3'"JLY~ -- ------ - 9DtH~l~' L~}~1 sz~ p . ~ - OlV I~ Plt ~~ tl 6 ____ _~ ---°----- 6W ---°----- 0~ -----------065 ---------- 6[t i~ 9nt...n r~ri~sr r ~.r+~~ v e n nC~`rio_ i..`~i0 T ~_~~ ~;~ ~~i ~~ ~~~~a ~~~~ ~,,~ ~~C ~.~ ~~~r~a ~~C. ,~~~~~' puts fao~s }sL Sono ~.~ 9~~b ~o~,o (~~~@~ ~o o~@@ ?~0~~~~)'~~~~~ ~~ ~na@n @~@~~~ ~~ ~u@~~~Y~ uo~rv~ ~~u~oin o~~ ~OO~y, puG ~o~~~ ~~~~~, ~~~~~~o~ AW~+~Id I r I!!~ ;1A"~ p ~ C Y~Yf~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~u~~~> ~ ~~ ~, ,~ ~~~~'l ~° a°"~~,~~ '~.;i ate' ~~'03 ~ui~~ii~~ C~~iG ~~°~ ~`~ ~~ (l.os Gatos VUeeidv Times -1111012004) ------- ~ ------- am FRIkr~~ICH~4 ~~ ~uil~i~g Pad ~I~ (Paid on 314!2005 ~~rith additional $ to Seiler covering soft costs) {~o _ ------~-------------- ,90-- ___ ~~ Pf~N~1' llll:-q PWP~ifY ,~ a,~ ,6~ ~ ~~~t~,; ~ ,~~ ~hrol ~,a~ 31512005) ,,~ , ~ t~~•,r_~C.~r ~ fir'! !~ FI~13 f ~ I C ------- ~__yl t-- ------^~``---- ~, n _t-- 1' ~'~ ~ -------"-- i I ~~ l ----------------- `i"--i n t o?a V W a SC~LE~ 3132'=C'-0" ~E~'~io'l~ 7122/208 15 J Ij ~ 1 R ~^ G J w A diagram sho3~ring hour the Sun moves through the sky on the Semmersolslice. (Person ntdD° PJ latitiule} The source of 9his material is V1lindows to the Universe, nt httP;tiwww.wlndows.uear,edu,` at the University Corpor,5on for 7~22~2~~a Atmospheric Research (UCAR}. ~ fie Regents of the Unlvorsity of Niichlgan. {The latitude of Cui!eitino i7 37,32~i~i. } ,~ A diagram showing how the Sun moves through the slay on She Minter solstice, (Person of ~D° N laiihitle (Itansas} n~OZIZZII LY !7 {~ ' ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ` ~ is ~... ~'*~ ~ ~ ~°1 v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^.~iJ ;~ ~ ~u ~° ~`~ ~.~. s ~ SSA ~;.~ y ~ ~ a~ 800ZIZZII M r ~~~ ~~!~~ ~:,.' 4~.. ,,'. ^v-~L"~~ ~~ ~ G . 8 ~tJ ~jg~j~~JI{ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~yt~ e ~ ,~~. w a n I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ter'' ea v A~~4 ~ IJ ~ u F=. ~ .~ s ~ ~ ~ i~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 1~ ~ . . a m n ~U ~p~ d- m MG9~J"~ ~ ~~~~~ LCatl 14,i~".~r°~~`~1ar Li 9~~ i~~'~~~~ - ~ Removed 80% of stones - 5 new oai~ tr ees pianted, 1 mcr; - Lowered both turrets propGSea - Replaced concrete balustrades -Detailed landscape pion with wrought iron - Signi~icant number o new plants -- Changed roof fio slate rile selected from city reCGmr~~en~ied - Material board showing options foliage types _ Chia gas fio plants to provide - Mixed pavers with concrete far faster growing shrubs driveway o ~~~ign ~pdt~~ - Detailed grading analysis -Reduced height of the house from - Cross section of 3 houses showing relationships ofi 1Sc and 453 ft to 450 f~ eleva~ion 2nd floors along with setbacks -Created articulated wall on west ~~ ~~taining ~~~af i~ -side Addressed garage volume - .Reduced height to below 6 feet _ Entry height restriction - Additional geotechnical analysis _ One story building envelop with ne~~~ bores validated proposed design -Extra parking dote per ordinance - Retainer ~4~ee paid for city geologist when, no street parl~~i~g exis~s revi°ws w - Grading ~ drainage plan updates 19 712212C ~~~ ~~ ~~~ m Design ~e~~s fii~ no e~cce~~~ions e orainance ~ oi~~_ coe~lc~oi~~~~ ~~~i~h Comprehensive e®R~'ecr;ica! re~~`i~i~4f o~~ 1i;j~~ !~~ ~i~~~As proposed desi- building cons~~~Auc~io~~ © bass uli~ o~ she design easy es~ silo neighbor m building loca~io~~ is i~r~~~in~ ~h~ cud ~ ~'~ifl ® Applicants since l~o0r' diligen~l~v~oriced v~i~h cifi~~ senior plan~~ers )7 ~o design the house ® All rccornrncnda~ionslcorncnfis aro~~~ ~~l ~,'~~d~i~~~jl ~t~ ~~, covering public ~reedhaclc are addressecp i~~~~~~~~~~~a ~ i~e~pi~~g to fibs or~li~anco 0 V W s~i~a9o is the lowest compared ~o a~~ fibs lo~ves~__~~~ .onion. o~ ~~he lo~~ 712212008 ~ 20 Detailed landscape plan ~dd~~esses ~~ii 4~~~~~~n's ~'~s~' ~~~°ac 8 pia ~ /per, A ~ t~"'1, ~,P~~n~ '~ 8 ~i~'~'0n ~~'G `~('~~ A~°j~p~}e r~'~!~''~ t~ ,pR' \. i~lro-~°~i~~~ p"~'' (~ s °s ~~~~ pp~ m.~ ~w ~ ~ II lid' 41 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J) 1j ~ ~I~ i~! ~ a'1 ^~'~ ~"i~ mn ~.m ~r~~q p^n, I iq^i ~ y P ~ n u'Y'I. ~ i.. ~^tC~ li ~jl ° ¢~ ~ ~ r'. I ! I j ~~ ~r1 n' S-+~a``~ 7 ,! '~ ~~ v;1ll ~r~ 1~., 14~Ib%I~n'~lolbi~~Wi~°' f~1M..~°~I ~~,~i~ nn flu,~,?+ N wn I~~JU,aL~ab~o8fi~ 11 t l'v a G.~ sfior~ homes, 2nd sfio~~ deci~s... {~~F~ ~ flew i rees or shrubs shad be required on fih~ ~ppiicanfis ~ro~urf, fio screen views from 2nd sfiory windows. The area ~~~here pianfiinq is r~q~!ired is bounded b~ a 30 d~gree'angle on each side ~~indowjamb. ~he'erees or J A shrubs shalt be planfied prior fio issuance o~~ a fiinai occupa,~cy pe°mifi. 0 7/221208 22 V A 712212008 f r;'-' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ i~c ~~~~~~ 2~ 4' Y f ® ~ C~i~ 1 ~~ ~ ~~ V A N 712212008 ~ ~C~ ~~ h ~ 7'" ~'i r h ~ ~ r° 4~ " f ~,f.. ~~. M~ ~ R~l'~'n ~rM,~7."k,~m~',rd(^kv~ I~ ~{ ~^nr~$a v~r ~,' 3X~~'p„d`~~'NI M 7 iw w ~ Wt~ u ( yPA ~~ }D rrr~~af r~` ~ v ~ d ~ r jty 4'~ ~~ u~ii p ~ ~~ ~ 'a ~ C ~ ~, a~ w ~~~ f{~~~/~ ~+r`el"j~n"~ ~~7rr~`wi~~ ~ ~ w -~ iii d ~a ~y~~~ 5 "~',~~~~~~Ik`~; ~ . /, A '~ r G g ~ ~ i ~ 1 p.~~~ (+. ~~f r,~y^~ ~ ~ 9z... rSg i [ a ~ :,-4 vu~f 'r~~, r'~C~ kr ~ ,,~~+~ f~k`tl ~ ,, ~ ~~ ~ tit ~ " ~~i- ~ ~~ '~ ~ it .r ~¢~' yw~(i r r ~7,iva 1 .~ ,., r k~y'. Sri ~~~y1 7 ~i ~'~ h ~'ll41" ~ ~ l~(~~1 f ~ v~ i! ~~ e~~ I ~ ~ ~,.~,:., r~ m)! ~ V ~.. 'fir` n~ tk7 /~ t~~ttc`i/~nPali, 7~~ri~i~J~fir ~r~urlU}li r °~~4~y ~r ~ t r r rwZ~r r ~+ ~M t -~ 4 a i r,. '~,,7 i ~ ~ guar rlt~}i M1 ~~~ rr~` a i ti r~ l ~. ~ ~'h`*. 1 i~ ~~" i , ~ ~w 7i S y ~,r~~ ry a ~ ~" r,+,q+~ ~ u l~ ~`jt A ~~~, ~;~~ ~; ~l~y~~rri ~,K' ~r ~~x~r~~4r~~i ~ ur~~~ ti ~r a~ ~ ~ r~ ~k~ ~'~~ r jt ~ ~ ~~~m w? !'S ~7 i.al ~ Boa„' r y ~ ~ ~~ >. t~ ~SvJ 5.~. '~~7 1~~ / ~ 7 fl~~, n~. M ~I~, .~ ~, i~ t t' a .7 7y1 kL x~' ~ Erlr~ ~~ik~., 75~ ~ ~~ ~~,` ~~ r ~3t ~7~'ir~~,ri a~' ~~ - ~ ~a ~~ ~ r 4 r ~ e 9~ o i i S; tdi~'S' ~''~ uY hj~, SA1i.~ ~r1~I~3Y~~,:i1 SNP J'b[~~V~~~Y~ 1 "h 1 ~ , ~~ ai*~ ~,~d ~r ~'"~, 4k r nut ,~ ' x~n n ~~' v.' k ~ ti~~ ~ ~, ~., c r 4~ ~ ~r ~ i ~ ~ ~'~ G~~~'~~ `I~•i~y~~ ~:.µ; t~"1 ~,a,~ , ~ ;yx4>v$ ka,~ r ~„~„ r~ tl ~ ~~" ~~° M p~. i ~~, v c f N 't~ rr ~~ G°:v~'ril ~ r ~ K ~'"~ ci ~,,{k~'~@g~rry',irF ~ kit Pf ~7 ~p rl,~ 't~f ~, ~~r"Cay~ t ~ r~1 ~:pY,l~jl 1~ ~~ q rl~ r y,.~ ~~~r~ fi~ ~ ~. c'tMa~ NF` - ~ ~ >j,~,'(p JCN ~+p1~f Q~~~ ~~ y 4 ' t~ ~~ ~ , r~^ rr ~ iir r99''XJ ~ ~ ~~,~ ~~~„ w"r X r ~~ ~ ~ ~ t, ~ ! fl its' { ~, ~y ~ ~} ~ ;i, ~, ~ fi~ ~ , a ,, ;i',~ +~ ~ ~, ~~ ,~ y ~ ~~~~ r ~~ G (ai ~,yR inn! ~~ ~ } ' ,tl~~,ti~~ ~,y' a1~ i'9{r ~~`~`- ~ ~;rpv ~' {Ti _ ~ r r ry, 'r ,~ { ~ ~ r~,r ~ xxk~.„,,.~~ r.. ~7~K~ 41 ~ v ,r ~. ~ ~ ~~. ~i'd Y' ~`r^wr icy ~~Y;r r,~"7h~ jx~~ ~ ly krey7 ~. iA.~rt fi 4.r_ _. 6ta~ x.,fµk +~'! 4'~..dr Y i r1 C~* if } ti ~~' ~ oY,o1i~' ~9M+~y Y"i ~r ~ ~' r ~ 4 i 6r ~, e4 \ir U 7',i 7 X ~~i. i WMY I~,I,x ~ l ~ `~ 9X ~ " , I~a4' bi~ ~~~~ tip r~ ~ ~, r~ ~, .~, e,, ~ ` '.'4~ :~ ~ k~ ~l rr~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ '.~ N ~ , r7 i i:, ~,v...r::5...t-~w`•+ . end ,r,~h t n u~,c~J ~t ~~ ~ m I~ 800ZI~Z/l a "'' ~im~i~' ' ~~ !i~}~m h~ ~.~ '~YS~~~,~ i ~~ ~ pia t 4u Ly2 ~,r ~4' ~ F ~7f ~~'~} ~ :~~., ' ii . i~ "° ~ ro ~ `~k ~~~ ~" M 5 ~~ ~i y ~Xrv7~Fi.~ ~.~' ti ~~4~Sk ~u~ ~~ I ++Y^ s. ~ m p C' ~Z ~~oz~zzr! W ~~.i apt ~~~ ~~~e g st ~~~ .,_;~ ~~~ ~y, 74 ~~, ,~' , I I {,ir l~{ pJi~, 1~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ Q 9~ F~ . i ' ^ F a, ` Sa ~ , r .. ~`,~ipl, !~v ~ i 4 ?'G~i ,_ __ ___ i `s I~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~~~ ~ ? u ~,., ~~ (~~_~ .~ (. f t i h , €I 1 /~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 J ~ ~ 4 ~.~ N1,y family and ! are the uphill neighbors ar~d apj~,;e$l~~~€~~~sn uil~d our dream hone and moved in oven ~~e~~raigo, u~Le I~. Arch: Univ of 11llinnesota (19~~) ~-~ Professional ~icersed Practising Architect sine 1 1!1C{f`CE"iC1~!^~ JiS.I. ~'0*1s^'1P'tf:~R^nwsr.v~~nln ~w~ ti~I,... ~ ;$ ._. v~.~i~i i~,~ r ~ ~ 11~J1 I IG~7/ I GI I lVUCI~ 19 I tl 9~ ~~> ~i ~C ~~ 25~- Hillside homes ~ all permits and cit ~ a~ rov~nls f ~ pp ~-~ Hillside i~ome expert ~d~o a~~e ~~ec~~ ~ce~r ~~~e aye a~~i~ n~~~ ~~~ ~'~'o A 9~ incom atible u er p pp story SIZE ~o oe reduced `. '!. Geotechnical risk to be addressed, V A U7 4 A PEU I~~~ ~R~~ e -~ A~~,LIFEST~"LE I~EII-IE~RHOQD PREMIUM VIED PROPERTIES ~~~ UNIQUE SMALL P®C~EIS i~~~ CUPERTIC -~f O.f5 - 2.5 ACHE L®T S ~: We will mOStl~ copare 3 Mo~;ley lo~~ V A m 2 _. 3 DIFFERED ~ ~~ r ~ , ~ ZII~S APP~IASL~, Imp ~,5 ~A~ ®S ~~ar 15 lobs ) ~~ ~~ PRE - (1 MAR 1 MAR 2005. OCT2007-Ord 07-2011 ~;~ Current 2005} ~~ J~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~,~~~~~ ~~ RHS s i 1 Allowable 45% FAR Slope reduction 45% of net lot on flat paa' ,;Slop` e far ~ FAR reduced ° I'~~ reduction 45 /° of net lot -max 4500 ~. X500 SF for ~.ot~ >4500 thru Ping Comm ~~'i F;aR ~~ reduced ? ~ rte- ~, , ~ , € I InnAr efnni ' ?F°/ ('~ I !11111GG "GC; r`r_ i rnnirn ~; ~ ; i^ ~ tY~, ~ .,rr.,~ ~~„~y restriction ..~~~.~~ wuv~.it FLOOR -rviuvi ~ uu,,.4~ FLOOR - ~ 100 SF~ ~~"a'Pi~ °~ ~ ,i d r ,~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~» ~ ~~' ~~ ~~ ~ '' ^~'a .~ ~~IVOne r~ ~ I; ~ ~ Design. R~ R~I~~~S R~ I~, Rr~S ~urdelines ~ ~ LI ~; Santoro Home Shesha- basis ®f Shesha ~asas of desagn ~3 a Chen Home purchase l: Mittal Home iVlittal Assumption ~ . ~' that Sesha wiJ be ~ designed based on ~r~~~~~;a ' this __ ~F, II V - A J 3 _. ___I _ I~~C a ~a~d~ Lot size H~If acre H~If aore _, _....._ _ . _.w.~ e:~.... t Upper Story % 35% o~a lo~~er floor 35% of lower floor ~~ ~,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ 'Upper Story 1300 1100 ~ ~ d ~ 4. 4 ~.r y ~j tW ~ _~` ~" Soze ' ~~ ,~ Allo~~~~le BAR ~ X500 5500 ~r~ ~~ i ~ v v'~ ~r _ W SES!~NA UPPER-STORE'' ~iiASS IS `~ ~~°~o of ADJO{NINC ~E~~` I aO{~E AVE-RAGE ~% LARGER THAN UPPER STOP,EY % RESTRIOTION -~ THIS IS THE ONLY ~~ASS AND SCALE THAT WE ARE O~JF_CTING TO (~~ J .youu_will see_on the next slide) ~~ DOES N4~' BEET ZONING DESIGN GUIDELINES. `"`:`" ."aer i ,<ar e- a 4 it ~1AI~ILI~ LEST ~ ®Y SIZE rS AI~~ T~ ~AT IUTATTE I ~ 170 1300 SF~~~...,~-~ "~o ------------------ 400 -------- ---X918-5~-PROaa~n LiIdF-~ P¢p3fLU; I „Lt~l ~ I- ------- ,t a ff'rd"~ 4G0 --------------------------------95G 140 -------- li_----. FR~PEiI' ~1E Ty 11 cn~ 4-1~0-5_F----'--..... r~AO li i I i Tal!ll~~ili~~~ -- I' 1~d i ~g~ ~~n ~ ''t I fly _ ~ "` r Uni cw~rr m i nci I ~~ ~~ ~ ~ f ;~,~~r'` `~ ~I I i Ili ~.~.L_~;~I .~..'_,.I~B~~ I,Il~ui;~, Illy ~,I E ---_. - - _ I I~ I II - -- i 1 iia -- _~ _ _.- - ia,um,i. i, lno ~~ EACH LOWERSTORY ~GO~<S !N T 0 THE D0~'NNI~L NFI~~fB~r~'S UPPER STORY; AND,~,LSO BELOW THE LINE OF SI~I-IT ~F ~ CIF uF~ li+_L NEIGHBOR. BUT THIS: IS iN Of~E QIRECTION - ~0",IIlf LET US L~~~e,~T THE~~iLENGTH OF FACA®E I~1Pl~CT ~Ys, r ~ ~~ ~, ~ c-rO~l~P -1918 ~~- r~ ~~ r, ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ , ~'~, HUB ~ ~SI~Lc ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~~~ ~:~~ ~~~~~~ ~©©~ J N O 6 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I.I.. `I' i~~ ~'~"~, ~il ~~ J L: G ti - ~~ iI t'. i ~ ~4'uw"~ ~JUCED ViSi~~~ r R~ ., . . UPPER STORY -1 ? 00 SF FT ~t~g ~, V 7~0" exterior aemenf plaster (3 coats) over metal lath, 2 layer grade "~" buP~ding poper ply,~rood, 2z studs ezteriar doll 14~~'ad' .6 ~l~a~e~d"ry~~~A'~ AD VEP~E VISL:gI_ I~;'P,<',C i G?'~H, i L" RE DUG~D Ai~':7 !i'.1 vU~D 3L OL' `~`;' !_;^ ~,~m ~~ ~-~r_~ ~w ~_o °a k~ ~~A~ ~~~ c 1~~~ l (f } F9 V P ~i '~ ' J G a-a ' ~{ J~ eA{ L'" ~> +~Y ~i i ~-= ~~ ~.. F~j~ J ~ p4g -~- 4 f_ D'F3 CCISQ:1 {~ ~ F pp f~~~ Y ~~ ~~ r~ ~~ ~ - "~ ~~ - ~m~ -~ ~ __ 6"' ~~H7 dl ~~ _s -a _~ ~~) -ya `~(~ n'.-~,l `~ 6a~. f 1 ~-~~ a ~,_~ ~' ~~R _~ ~ `~ ~ ~¢ F.~... ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 3 ~~ ~ ~~fl ~`~~ ~. n ~~ ~: w~w f :_:aa LL& '~~~ ~~ ///` ~ (1 __~'~\ C ~__ -~ ~~ _ {~ ~~ ~~ - __ ~ l ~~ ~~a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ...~ ~ ~ ,~-,52 { • j ~ ~ tl Y Y ~ ~ ~ 4~f Y ~ ~ Y ~ Y 1L~ ~I u ' `~' ~'" 1 ~ `Y a ~~ ,~~ V N W ~ ,~ ~_.__~ ~Q ~x , „ m ~~ W ~ "~ p's~u j+ ;~.~~ ~~~ rti ~ '`~'6'~§~~(z ~~ G~~~'~~~'~a 9a` ~, ram, rr'^` a ~~ `1~ '~41 ~` ,~` ,, ~~t.v , ~~ ~ ~. t' ~~' `a,~ u ~ 4, ~~ ~rY ~' ~, J ~ ~ ,. r',; ', ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~, ~ o ~ ~ ,'~ '~,iu~. ~,,, } I' '~ 6 i I i~~ 't ., t roy,~, Y~ ~q ~~~d 4 ,, ~r~ y~~t~ JI l~~,~ ,1~ MV'~ '' ~~,~~r~d~ H ~i r ~4 ~ ,t ~'i%I b l'II %1~ ~~ ~®~ ~p~ X rn.4 C ~~~,~ Y r~, C~j ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~; ~ ~ ~~, Y7 n l, y ~~ ~. ~~~ ~ 4 I tIV4,1 4~~ ~ I I I (~ ti I dim l l 7 i ~~ ~ ~~ ~ W \w~u 00+ o~~~n~ o~ ~~~or ~oo~ ~S Vial ~~Po~ ~ upper 9 1~' ~t '~~ ~ ~' ! ''~~" C ~ 1 r7 i ~ k" ;~ ; ~~ ~ [ i D~ F i t ~ti ^+ F y q~ , J ~ y ~ ~ ~ q r ~ d t1ti V 11 d ~ k Y ~ 11~; ~ a ~ "M ~ r r ~, q, t 0 3' h ~~m~~dti ' ~ m ° , h ~ `~ w ~ u A ~" -4'~pi~'u '~. ~ i 4~ . ~ ~ Vd ~.~ i ~kk'~, -_ i ! ~ ~ } ~+4 C~: ~+ + ~. y ~~ rtr Y ti s i4a~ ~~ ~ "~ ~! z ' i i ~ ~r s ~~ T ~ ~ 1 ~i ~~'t ~"a ~ ~ +~~ lt, ~, ~yb~Y t y ~y~+,~ ~. X45 "* ~+,~ b"""`°~ar~ ~ ~ "'~~,.a""'u~~b~ 7r vl ~n~, ~"~~ ~, ii .ywlhri' 1'~' ~' r~ ~~'., ~F mrr',~~~~~1e ~ q +~ ~r ~ ~y + ~ '~ ~ 1 P 1 kf y ~ ~ r A + it. !~ ~, ih~+ l~ ti .~ ~ f" y +! n s ;+~ ~ ~~ ~+ + tl y i~ 1 ~ it ~ +~ ~~ ~ _ l ~ ~" ~~ ''~'~,~ i~~~~lh ! h 5 ~ ~ w~ s ~ u { ~ k ~ tl4 7 V ~J ~ ~ta a silaL ~ 4k' 1 ~h ~. I ~' ~ 1! ~ 1 + T k x a ~ d ~ a ~ i~ ~ fi¢ ~ r ~, ~ '~~ t w MM tl `fi di o- i, *+ r "d ra+ ~~ ~~a$ y t i~ i 7i ~0 ~~ ~ ~''. Y Q~ ~y"~'^hl V y r~+ a ~ '~,j~ ~ 14 ~ ~, t yG i~ 1' vx ~~ a+th +I f~ i~ r~ ~~~ ~t~`` 1 ¢ r ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ d C 1 ~ylt ~ ~~ ~~~~ n; ~ ~+ / Y r ~~~ ~ ~tirl~~~~ r r I ~J /+ ,~ ~/)I' ~e1 ~~ ~ ~ ~, { ~`H~h vr~4 ~n~{ e(^ ~. °y ~ti~~,l 4 h'k Y ~ 't, ~ ~. P/ // t ~ yd~r bwa ~' ~ ~X~ ~~~ ~ 1~ ~ q,R~ll~ ~'yl+" ~~7~ a ~~ `~/ ~ ll ~w ~ Wd a ~~ c !a v ~~~ ~i ~ ~ q ~I ~ ~+Ay ~ ry ~ .kyg +6 i ~ ~n R ~5'~1t4 P ~ of a ~ v~~~~kl e ~ `S"` ~ '~ p M fah PY ° ~ ~ f /4~~ ~' A wl' + ~/~ ~ ~ " n , ~~' y~*4 F~ 't, kr l~ ~E ~ ! ~ P v ,i i Jyt ,; s t ' ~t ~y ~ s ~ i ~ ~ y~ + I+It+ + ~ t~ ~! k ' +, +~.*~ ~ u'_ ~ 1 Y r w! ~ ~ k ~ ~ h ~ i 'i ~ i °. ~ P ~ ` n~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pox ~ ` ~`,~ rn"s't,~ al ~~ •, + 1 ~I ~ ! j t , L. 11! ~ 1 ~ ~ e ° .,.! 1 \ ~' g` 1 `. C ~µM pF l I)Y b+~y~7,'q' ! ,, III ~~ r ! "r ~ m.~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~;t ~ x ~ ~~t~ti i, F ~~~ ~..f,Y~~1~1,4f1'F.k, J , ~ ~;r~ tl 4 ~ ~~ , j~ ii ~ ~, M ~ v~ .. ~ '. rx ~~ I ~ , ~ S ~ di ~ v,,, °~W° Ry t ~ '~ ty '' =~ '4, Oyu f ~ v e 5 ~. ~ - i } z. I ~ ~ Y .,,~ a w ~ r a .~ ~ ~ 9" t' Ir i ~~ t a ~ ~. .. ~ ` ~ I ~ !"~s`"m sr ".x+ Y ~ ''~ Via' ( '~?V E~ Y ~l. hn ', b~ j ~S<, x i ~ ~~ ~~ t J I ,~~:~ ~y~ hTh,4W ' ~f ~~ ~ 1i ? d i I e '~' ~+ n r r art oT ~~ Y ~I ~ 1 /ta 1,4v' e r ~ .Y ~,f ~ Jr ~ ~ ~ ,` yak i+ '~'~'"~` ~ o ~~ ~. ~ ~ .+,+ ~ ~1t m `~I~ y, ~' :~ ~~ ~! '~ ~ i 1 ~ .. s ~ .1 ~ n . ~ ~ ~'~ 7' ' Ji Q t I i ti n ~ f k ~. ~ ~ ~ .~._ t _.r~!"" _~_u.+~~_...~ _ r 6P`~.~ ~' _., ~~'n ~ ^mµ7 ~, . 1 ~> ~ ~~ ~ (';~ ~j + , I ~~~ 1. . I ,~ J ~~ ,{ r ,~ ~, ; ~ ~1,: ~, a 1 r~l~ ~ ~ I. I. \J ~J ~ ~ ~ ~'u e~ 4 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ lam./ V ~ " ~ L' ~~:~ f I ~ ~~J ;r~~ ~'J }"~ Y~ ~~ ~~'i ~. a V ~ _ - _ ___ .__ ._. .'~ ~\ ~aj'~ ~~ Tf f °i' J m ., O tOTE~~a-I i~,~~ 16 _--i_ __ ~° J ~- -=~-9----------- ~ I ~r v..;~,rc wt III ~ ~ 1 Via. ~~ i ll,~ ~.5?~ ~ III N?S',° ~ I ~_r .:M _. izT I ~ ^ uc A~ ~ 77 SCALE~~ 1/4"=1'-0" ~~~'A',~Q~',~-~ ~' ~` GPrcA' __y~. _ _____~_~___ t-"____.f ~-- Da 9g ~~ H 'use has been designed way too close for comfort, when there is so much room 20 cliff 5' from prop line -~ Hil'I completely fattened out,1500 cubic yard of dirt transported away, -~ Uphill property at risk ~ W~ want condition ofapproval -Shoring drawings be engineered and be part of city ap~roval, city is allowing this -you have to indemnify this nsh . I__ __. _ roe c~ eocr I ----,' - c,,yJ~Gr ~I z~,o ~ I gp49 C ~= u ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ k ~EfQY°i! ~~ ~ 1 NI~iY HOf~~ -zoning was RELAXED to u holdlimprove property values for ~ 5 appelants ~~ ~~ ~~' ~ . V N collectively care aboutthe environment and ®nergy ues as in the Cupertino General Plan is CONC~~JS;' ;~l (bfvo as5s WHAT ARC WE AS6~l~G ~Or~: -~ 1. Upper-story size reduction to be compatible as shown -~ 2. Condition of approval regarding shoring engineering and city, rainy season moratorium. Life safi/ty risk to be indemnified by the city. ~~ WAY: ,~ Council is the decision maker ~~ Our property rights are equally important-The rules should treat us all fairly Paper design change for applicant -New Home and real quality of fife destruction for us., we cannot rebuild. our house ~~ W~ would have built a completely different house - if eve had no upper story ~s- _~: , r~au i~ttuii. ~~ No cost, grading impact onapplicant -professionally reviewed r~~ T e numbers have been met -but the design guidelines have NOT been .met ~~~ averse energy impact - let us align with Cupt General Plan and the global energy crisis Le~'t Cupertino know - Vve are about community and neighborhood ~,d Y~UR ZONING CHANGES CREATED TINS HARDSHIP ~pl~ US - PL EASE DO NOT WALK AWAY SAYING 66 99 J m W 19 J A 1. Up~ er story changes incur design costs 1. Takes only 2 wee6cs - offer'o draw plans I for free, how can we rebuild ours 2. Lav er lower floor will increase grading 2. No - ~u~e pad already avaiiabie when j mill is flattened; grading is high because the hill is bein g flattened end 3, Incrl ease construction costs 3. No - per sq ft new construction averages out; we ALL have larger lower stories 4. Sta~ f says -Many design changes to 4.Only minor tweaks to appease passers I appear e neighbors by -rock removed, turret roof slope marginally tweaked. House was dropped 3' to comply with daylight plane violation and g tall ret wall at Chen's property 5. Staf f says -our adverse impact is 5. NO!!!PLANS UNCHANGED ROOF mitiga ed , DESIGN UNCHANGED, CEILING HEIGHTS UNCHANGED, DUILDING NOT ~®1lED 20 III ; I~AD SI~~ 75 a ruci~ loads ELT ~P~ ~,0 ~' P P~P~ED (Ours is X700 si). OUR REQUESTED CHANGE DOES NOT INCREASE THIS r~AD Approx 1300 cubic yard of grading proposed plus 700 cubic ,~ar~s far th basement (2000 TOTAL) on a ~~alf acre parcel. Vllithin zoni6~g r egs. ~'i..6 c~~i~i~~~a~r~_.~.~ ~'r~~~~tl~i'~~~~ ~(2~~~m ~ ~~~W°~~r~;~ci-~J ~~ ~;' ~ ~ r~~,~i~i~~e . ri~er~ a~~~~~r~ ~ri~iiie m W ® ~ `~ VISUAL CI~IAGES SO I=A /' ie,aaoy dale the Doer X10 I¢!t paper ~ TO ~~ Gas A or eG~ol d¢lermined by owner Tuscany iron steel milu~9 /- d'7i ~~~~r~„,, ~efy';e and pattern delermined 6y cv~:Y Architectural pillar deiermined ~ by owner vrveon un ~ ~ 1 /~ ( ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ II~ III ~_ ~ ;~lilo~ill~ _~ I i I r ~_.- ~ I ~ d I ~~_-_~.m,~~, " i rl ~ i I II I i ~1. ~ I I I Ili rT~ a~r- +~. ~ i i i I i it ~i ~, ~ 'r(w~tlrl l~~li ~ I h ~ ~ J----- -- -----'-~-------~c-r~,~lr -;~- I I - ----------------- - -~---- -~ ------ T t L--A^chlbclural decoro;ed ,lone veneer ~' ! ~ pall rn & cc'or daierr'^¢d v 0 o y cnra^ ! I ~~~ ~ ~ I ------ n1 w/ 9' cciling haig; l n , a e,. ; C.B~C, IS07 Tcble 1S ~B ~I or equal ire style d coa fa be celermined Ey owner ArcpllceWrcl deccratee stone veneer SCRLC: i/4"=1'-0"./ I I paltem k co!aar delermined by owner ;, r __ _...~ h~----- ~-- -Architecleral p;.m' delermined - hr owoe; n:rNri LFCMIY L'M, ~\ `~ I .-\ 1 •.\/ ltii - 1 -----_-~~J. 1 ~~ ~~~ Cy,, I j 111' .. ~~'_ I ~__~__~Q._ __ ~''-~',~ 22 -> r: Sp~~ ~P6~S~Y SASS S0 THE i/ISUAL IB~PACT - NiITIGATIOC~ ~d~~~ k 17 - 169 tI7 n~ F c, c i l ,o'. i t o , u p ,, i~ ~= g in .~ i 1~ n r.. Hwy v, zoos Dear Planning Commission Members= 1have provided consultation on PV and passive solar aspects of the Mittel /MahesFr residence (21949 Lindy Lone, Cupertino}_ In the Cupertino climate whir..h is relatively mild with higher heating degree days than cooling it is prudent Lo design buildings that would have passive solar heating as far as passible to minimize the energy use. And the residence has been designed to use the solar power generated by the PV panels to offset the energy use during summer with the passive solar aspects taking over in the winter months to take advantage of the east solar access (since west exposure is Fimited by the topography} and it is important to preserve that. I have toured the site with the story poles and reviewed the latest plans and sections of the site (21947 Lindy Lane) and would recommend that the structure be restrir_ted in height to no more than Z feet above the lowest point nn the windows along the passive solar fa 4ade, as well as sited at least 26 feet away to minimize the loss in solar access which is beneficial to offsetting the heating load in the winter months_ Additionally the daylight availability also offsets the need for artificial lighting in the main living area and any loss in that will a€so be detrimental to the energy use in the residence. Moreover, the sun angles being lower in the east and winter months, offer a deeper penetration into the living space_ Both at the state and global level the importance of conserving energy towards mitigating the climate change impacts has become a high priority_ And energy efficiency in the built environment is considered a first order task in the loading order adopted In the Integrated Energy Policy of the State_ Tire responsible public agencies in the state have adopted an aggressive goal of achieving net zero energy use in the new residential sector by 2020 and the beriiding energy efficiency standards will drive towards the goal_ Aiso, green building standards such as the tFED rating system; consider more weight for Sow energy use in buildings, w#rich is best achieved by passive solar design strategies_ In light of these global wncems the Gty should send the right message in its support for the environment and stale policy of reducing energy use in the built environment, while reviewing The neigh boring'construction for allowable heigtrt and set back related to siring within the parcel and co n•_rider the potential adverse impacts on the energy use of tfte Mitca!_E fM3hestt residence in its resolution_ 1 wiEl be finable to attend the hearing scheduled for July Z2, 2008 and request this letter be considered in lieu. 1 am an architect try education with a Mas-tern in building Science dealing in biodimatic design, detailed simulation and analysis for energy effiuency and have been involved with energy analysis in the 4uilt environment for over Z0 years now, both in the policy and standards devetopment as weft as consulting rote_ 1 am crirrentiy an Energ}r Specialist at the CalPFornia Energy Commission in the Buildings and Apptiance_s Off'ece that sets the Building Energy Efnciency Standards (Title 24} and consulted for this project in personal capacity. Sincerely, _ ~~-x- Smite Gupta Energy Specialist LEED rm Accredited Professional 17 - 170 1 8 G o' S o n li i l l f~ r F o l s o m C A 9 5 6 3 0 P h o n e 9 1 0- 9 4 7- 3 $ 0 4 f rn v i l s m r t o g u p t ~r 7 3 C~ g m a i l c o m September 11, 2008 Dear City Council members: 1 have provided consultation on the photovoltaic system and passive solar aspects of the Mittal /Mahesh residence 01949 Lindy Lane, Cupertino). In the Cupertino climate which is relatively mild with higher heating degree days than cooling it is prudent to design buildings that would have passive solar heating as far as possible to minimize the energy use. And the residence has been designed to take advantage of the east and south solar access and it is important to preserve that. 1 have toured the site and reviewed the impact of the story poles (21947 Lindy Lane) sited in the adjacent parcel. 1 have additionally.run detailed solar analysis on the potential impact to the east fapade using the proposed building dimensions and location and found significant loss of solar access in the winter mornings which is cru~:ial to providing heat to the internal thermal mass for benefit during the rest of the day. The average percentage of hours shaded by the proposed neighboring structure in winter are estirnated to be 6-7%, with a maximum shading of 60% in some months- This has significant impact on the benefit of solar access which is useful in offsetting the heating load in the winter months. I/Iore detailed monthly numbers and averages will be presented at the hearing on the matter. Additionally the daylight availability also offsets the need for artificial lighting in the main living area and any loss in that will also be detrimental to the overall energy use in the residence. In light of these solar losses that the Mittal/Mahesh residence would suffer, I would highly recommend that the neighboring structure be either: a. restricted in height to further minimize' projection above the floor level of the Mittal/Mahesh residence, or b. the long vertical wall created by the approx 70` long. facade be reduced as much as possible to minimize the obstruction to the Mittal Mahesh east faced solar access, or - --c---the-tra if di n g -fazes ci e- b e -rnave d-fu rth~raw ay~at-i oast-another-5 `j-thins-iTrcreas i n g- t IT -- distance between the two buildings or ~~-~~i d. be sited elsewhere on this half acre property so as to least obstruct the east facade in question. Both at the state and global level the importance of conserving energy towards mitigating the climate change impacts has become a high priority. And energy efficiency in the -built environment is considered a first order task in the loading order adopted in the Integrated Energy Policy of the State. The responsible public agencies in the state have adopted an aggressive goal of acFiieving net zero ener-gy use in the new residential sector by 2020 and the building energy efficiency standards will drive towards the goal. Also, green building standards such as the LEER rating system; consider more weight for low energy use in buildings, which is best achieved by passive solar design strategies. In light of these global concerns the City should send the right message in its support for the environment and state policy of reducing energy use in the built environment, while reviewing the neighboring construction for allowable Freight and set back related to siting within the parcel and consider the potential adverse impacts on the energy use of the Mittal /Mahesh residence in its resolution. I will be unable to attend the hearing scheduled for Sept 16, 2008 and request this letter be considered in lieu. I present this letter in the capacity of an energy consultant on this project. I am an architect by education with a Masters in Building Science dealing in bioclimatic design, detailed simulation and analysis for energy efficiency and have been involved with energy analysis in the built environment for over 10 years how, both in the policy and standards development as well as consulting role. i am currently an Energy Specialist at the California Energy Commission in the Buildings and Appliances Office that sets the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and consulted for this project privately. Sincerely, Smita Gupta Energy Specialist LEED T"' Accredited Professional 17-172 s<~ t... ~~ l .. .~,~ ~~~ ©Geotechnical rsGeoenviromental Special Inspection --- .~ --- -- vENG/t1/EEI4S - - ---- f September 11, 2008 BAGG Job No_ MITlA-01-00 Seema Mittal 21949 Lindy Lane Cupertino, California 95014 TEMPORARY SHORING FOR THE SLIPPORT OF A PROPOSED ZO FOOT CUT Proposed Residence 2.1947 Lindy Lane Cupertino, California Ms. Mittal This- letter presents the results of our geotechnical review and consultation concerning the construction of a residence downhill of your house in Cupertino, California. As we understand, a new house will be constructed at 21947 Lindy Lane, which may impact the stability and integrity of your residence located at 21949 Lindy Lane in Cupertino. The following documents were received for this review and consultation: Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation tithed "Moxley Subdivision, 21949 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California," prepared- by Pacific Geotechnical Engineering, and dated May 3, 2001. Plans title "The Krishnapura's New Residence, 21947 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California," Prepared by Chia-Ching Lin, and dated April 4, 2008. Preliminary Update Geotechnical Investigation titled "Proposed 2-Story; Single Family Structure with Basement, 21947 _iridy Lane, Cupertino, California," prepared by Wayne Ting & Associates, Inc., and dated July 9, 2008. As reviewed, Sheet A-8 of the referenced plans shows a cross section of the existing house and the proposed residence to be located vertically ~>ome 20 feet below your property. The proposed construction will require an approximately 20-foot-high (stepped 12' and 8') vertical ~~ ___excavation horizontal) as close as 5 feet downhill of_youur property line. The Preliminary ___ Update Geotechnical Investigation recommended the following: www.baggengine ers.com >- phone: 650.852.9133 ~- fax: 650.852.9138 ~ info@baggengineers.com 847 VJest Maude Avenue, Sunnyvale, California 94085-2911 ~7 _'173 Seema Mittal September 12, 200 6AGG Job No. MITTA-01-00 Page 2 "Before the proposed excavation for west retaining wall and basement is excavated, WTAI recommends a temporary shoring system be constructed along the proposed west property Tine, for the safety of the construction workers and the protection of the neighbor's existing structure." We essentially agree with this recommendation and are of the opinion that the shoring plans for asoldier- pier and lagging wall should be included with or accompany the structural plans. It is critical that the shoring is constructed be ore any excavation is made below the existing residence. Moreover, any such shoring must be designed to limit the movement of the top of the shoring to no more than '/< inch. As such, removable shoring system would not be appropriate for the noted excavation, as it may impact the structural integrity of the backyard, the house, and other improvements existing above the proposed excavation. Again, we stress the fact that a lateral movement at the top of the shoring system is undesirable and the system must be designed with this limitation in mind. Also we would like to emphasize that the shoring and excavation be perfonlled outside the rainy reason moratorium. There are utility trenches located near the property line and during the raining season the utility gravel backfill will collect seepage and deliver the water to the top of the proposed excavation. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact us, should you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, BAGG EiVGItVEERS ,;,oFESSro~v /~<, '9! ~~ ~r G~ G~ ~iC~~~ ~` ~., 3 a ~ EX_ P 11 27 3 1 /69 Bruce Gaviglio ego so°v _-- ~. rECH~* Sr. Geotechnical Etiet, ,eoE'`'~4 BEG/J V Z/sd Distribution: 6 copies addressee ~^ v,EN`~ G/NEER~S~ -ice ~` J ~ ,- CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: no applications (see Discussion, first paragraph) Agenda Date: July 22, 2008 Applicant: Chia-Ching Lin Property Location: 21947 Lindy Lane, API~7 356-25-029 APPLICATION SUMMARY: J Director's referral of architectural and site plans for a new, two-story 4,499 square-foot single-family residence with basement RECOMMENDATION No recoiiz>7iendation 1'12OJECT DATA: Lot Area: 20,473 square feet Existing Zoning: R1-20 (Single-Family Residential, nZin?rntmz lot size 20,000 sq_ ft.) Basement Area: 1;977 sq. ft. - First Floor Area: 2,040 sq. ft. (w/ o garage) Garage Area: 541 sq. ft. Second Floor Area: 1,918 sq_. ft. Total Floor-Area (w/o basement): 4,499 sq. ft. Total Floor Area (w/ basement): 6,476 sq. ft. (basement not countable toward building azea) Maximum Floor Area: 5,500 Sc[_ ft. (not FA_R-based, restricted by property covenant) Floor Area Ratio: 22%. Proposed Minimum Required (Max:r*~um Lirzut of 2r1d Floor to 1st Floor 1st Story Front.Setback: 1st Story Side Setbacks: 1st Story Rear Setback: 2nd Story Front Setback:- 2nd Story Side Setbacks: 2nd Story Rear. Setback: Grading Quantity (cubic yards) Cut and fzi1, basement graditzg ea-cluded. On-Site Parking: 74.3 io not limited, (but FAR< 45 %) 56'- 4" 20' 9', 14'- 11" combination of 15', no side less than 5' 80'- 9" 20' 56'- ~'" 25' 10'- 4", 3:<.'-6" combination of 25', no side less than 10' 90' 25' 1,268 (2,500) 2 enclosed 2 enclosed 4+ unenclosed 4 unenclosed The applicant (Chia-Ching Lin) is proposi~zg to construct a 4,499 square-foot, two-story residence with- basement on a 20,473 square foot lot located along the north side of Lindy Laize_ The immediate neighborhood is predominately older, ranch style, one to 1 Z - 175 Arch. Plains for 21947 Lundy La3ze July 22, ?_008 Page 2 two story homes. Newer dv.>ellings are all larger, ttvo-story bonzes with a variety of architectural styles and building finishes. Most of the honu~s in this northerly Lindy Lane- area are on Lots of 20,000 square feet or more. The neighborhood has asemi-rural character without any side~•valks or street lights. The neighborhood of homes on the south side of Lindy L~uze are also largely, ranch style, t~vo-story dwelluzgs with a more suburban character because of the regimentation of 10,000 square foot lots along the toe of the slope and larger lots upslopc. ,_ I3istorV The property is Lot 2 (middle lot) of a 1.6-acre, 3-lot subdivision on Lindy Lane, corrtrnonly known as the "Moxley Property", that was approved by the Planning Conu~ission=on July 9, 2001. In 2004, the City Council subsequently approved the final map and subdivision improvement plans. The subdivision created. tluee lots of slightly over 20,000 square feet each In that same year, the Planning Commission expressed concern about the size of the houses that could be built on the three lots, and discussed the possibility of rezozlirzg the property from its current R1-20 designation to Residential I-Iillside. Ln lieu of the rezoning, Mr. Moxley agreed to a covenant to Iimitthe size of all structw-es to 5,500 square feet on each lot. The tluee lots were subsequently sold to different property oK~zers. 'I1ze owners of Lots 1 and 3 (21949 and 21943 Lindy Lane) were issued building permits for rqughly 5,500 square foot homes in 2005 before generally more restrictive R1 zoning ordinance amendments went into effect. Thus, none of the newer homes on Lindy Lane: 21949, 21.943 and the adjoinirzg 21951 (building permit issued in 2003) had discretionary single- f-anuly design review because all fell below the planning permit tlu-esholds u~ effect at the time. The construction of each house has been contz oversial with some neighbors.. As a result of site preparation for Lot -'#2 conducted by the subdivider, five specimen size oaks were removed from Lot #2-four approved for removal, one not. The replacement requirement in the tentative map was one-for-one with the replacement being a 36" box oak. The five new oaks were plantedui- 2007 and are showrr on the plan set. DISCUSSION Neis?hborhood Concerns In May 2008, the applicant erected story poles and staff mailed anot-ice and plans to surrounding proper-ty owners witlun a 300 feet radius, notifying tlrem of the pending ---rosi~I~~tial-development-sec-a3zse--0f-tl~~le~>Pl ~f ~nucern ahn_ut_fhe nroje~_staff -_- continued to refine the design with the applicant and try to address neighbor concenzs. i~-~~s Arc1i. Plans for 21947 Lindy Lane July 22, 2008 T?a-~~e 3. Fecause of the past history of controversy and tl~e enclosed submitted comments (l~xhibit A), the Director elected to refer the plans to the PlaruZing Coni-mission for review and decision. Staff has received letters,-mails and telephone calls from nine neighbors with one email of support. The neighborhood concerns are surruiiarized below: -:- Protect redwood trees on property. (Note: '2lrere are no redwood tf~ees on this property) P> Address coizstruction impacts on the neighborhood. -a Relocate house to protect valley views of house on upper lot (Lot #1). o- A stepped founcjation would conform better to the slope of the land, rather than, the cut aizd fill that creates a flat pad. - Not fond of stone exterior for the entrances. -% Privacy protection plan should include tl -e front yard to screen views of the house from the south side of Lundy Lane ~~nd Lindy Place. :- Discrepancies in the location of the easterly sideyard reta;n;ng wall and the overall wall height is too tall. :- The proposed house appears to be inconsistent with the letter and intent of the R1 zoning ordinance, which is to enhance the identity of residential neighbors; ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy; ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within neighborhoods; and reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community: Second floor and balcony shall be consist=_nt with the requirements from the Residential Hillside (RI IS) zoning distzicf . •`.• Project creates significant and adverse impact to passive solar design and natural lightuZg. :• Project will block views of the valley, anc_ sunrise views (f~-onz the first floor) during certain tizzies of the year. ~: Project encroaches unto the required one-story building envelope, which is measured from natural grade, not finished grade. -.`° The mass. of the second story is much larger than the second story mass of the adjacent residences azzd is not compatible.. -. Retaining wails are proposed less than 5 ."eet from the property lute and potentially threaten existing support piers for the uphill property. . Please refer to exhibit A for additional details on the neighbors' concerns. Neighborhood Compatibility One of the principal purposes of the R1 OrdinasLCe is to ensure a reasonable level of _ compatibility in scale of structures within a residential neighborhood. This is basically achieved by having developments adhere to a set of specific development parameters (i:e., maximum lot cot~erage, floor area ratio, building height, second floor to ground floor ratio, builduzg setback, building envelope) to curtail development intensity to a i~-i~~ Arch. Plazzs for 21947 L uzd5r L.~u~c' July 22, 2_008 Page 4, level generally accepted by the community. Typically the City has allowed new homes to be maximized within the approved framework of the R1 Ordinance provided that the design azzd the style of the home are coiZSistent asld/or coirLpliment the neighborhood. Buildiu~g permits were issued in 2005 for the Lot 1 (upslope) and Lot 3 (doznn~slope) homes. both owners elected. to build up to the maximum, which is 5,500 square feet and their second-stories were linuted to 35% of the first story, which were the zoning rules uz effect at the time of construction. The zoning regulations for this area changed in No~zember 2007 and the owner of Lot 2 has elected to build a smaller house (4,500 square feet), set it back from the front driveway, and build a larger second story (74.3% of the first floor), which is allowed by the new zoniizg amendments. The applicant Izas modified the design to eliminate its previously heavy appearance and tc~ achieve greater neighborhood coLnpatibility between the older, smaller ranch-style homes and the newer, larger homes of mostly European and modern architectural styles. The concrete file roof was changed to a lighter slate or clay file roof. The roof veneer was removed from the turrets and entrance and liiiiit2d to just the base of the house. Tlvck balcony balustrades were replaced with the tI-~inner iron-steel railings. The applicant will also be adding fenestrations to the windgws to break up overall window sizes. Overall staff believes the applicants will be creating an acceptable balance betvreen the older and newer residences iui the neighborhood. Retairung Wa11 Height ~ Location The applicant has lowered the building pad three feet to reduce the height of the retaining wall Facing the downslope property to 6 feet or under. Reta;n;ng walls meet property laze setback regulations and will be reviewed, along with the basement and foundation, by th.e applic:ant's geotecluzical engineer and the City'"s geologist prior to building permit approval. Lowering the building pad, raises the height of the upslope retaining wall by three feet, but that wall is not visible to the upslope property owner. The R-Z ordinance requires retainng walls in excess of five feet.to be screened with landscaping or faced with docoratiye materials. Construction Activities A construction management plan should be required as part of a building permit application. Construction activities must meet the City noise ordinance and required construction hours. The applicant will address this at the hearing. 7~lzt aizd Air, Obstruction of Passive Solar House Design and Obstruction of Views Compliance with the R-1 buulding setbacks and building envelopes is by definition providing adequate air and light to adjacent residentia~arcels_ Building separations _ between Lot 2 and Lot 1 (upslope) is even generally greater than the minimum building setbacks with most of the proposed second story waIl length 14 to 17 feet away from the property line and 27-30 feet away from the upslope residence wall. In reviewing Sheet ~~-ins flrch. I'Iai~s for 21'347 Luzcly Lane July 22, 2008 Pa4?~ 5 A-8, the elevation of the second floor of the proposed residence is below the elevation of the fast £l.oor of the L of 1 (upslope:) residence. The view from the Lot 1 residence is essentially that of a recessed one-story dwelling. The solar desigiz aspects of the R1 zoning ordinance have been misinterpreted by the neighbors (Exhibit 73). While the City may allow variances to setback and height to acconunodate passive or active solar equipment or house design, no such modified structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. There are no solar easements on the properties. The City does not regulate the protection of ~~iews in hillside areas (Exhibit C: CMC section 19.40.050(L)). As the plans are propo=ed the Lot 2 house occupies a sruddle elevation that mau2tains or creates a second s :ory view for each of the three adjacent lots. There are no viewshed easements on thc~ properties. _Privacy Protection The project is screened from Leidy°Lane by the presence of the mature trees downslope from the property and the existing house on I.ot 3. The project will be required to adhere to the required privacy protection staridards outlined in the Rl Ordinance, which iuzclude screeni_iig of second story winc.ow and balcony views into adjacent side aild rear yards. Landscape screeiing was not required for rear yard views because the rear yard property owner is at a grade elevation above the second floor of the proposed house. The ordinance allows adjacent property owners to waive or modify those landscaping requirements in writing in the event that privacy landscaping is not wanted. Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Corrunurtity Development ' El~TCL,OSI.IRES Model Resolution for approval Model Resolution for denial (available at hearing) Exhibit A: Neighbor comments Exlbit B: Excerpt from solar provisions of R._ Ordinance Exhibit C: Excerpt fz om Views and Privacy provisions of RHS Ordina~zce Plan Set H:CuptNt/Plasu~ing/Pdreport/pcRaports/20D7/2007 Arch PIans 21947 Lindy Lane.doc 1 7 - '179 ~V ~~ ,;~ ~ CI iY OF ~t~~~~~~-~~ Clty Of C71 ~7 er tln(~ 10300'rorre Avenue Cupext%uio, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax; (408) '777-3333 Cornmrsnity Development Departrrient SIJMMAI~~' Agerida Itcin Z`-lo. I Agenda Date: Seytember T6, 2008 Application: Appeal of Planning Cornzrussion decision (no applications) t`~ppli.cant: Chia-Cling Lin ?rvner: Shesha Krishziapura and Malini Minasandr anz Location: ?_1947 Lindy Lane - l~ppellants: Seema Mittal 8r Sarvesh Mahesh AI';E'Z.ZCATIOI~7 SUII~I_T14A12Y - Consider aiz appeal of the Planiizig Commission approval of architectural acid site plains far a proposed 4,499 square-foot, two-story, single-fa-mi_ly residence with-basement in a R2=20 zoning district. - - - IYF:C~MMI;IiTDATI01~ TIiE: Cptuzcil has the options to either: a) Uphold the Plaru-~is1g Coniiiiission`s decision (i.e. deny the appeal); or b) Uphold the appeal; or c) Uphold the appeal with modifications. Can July 22, 2008, the 1'laTUUng Corriariission reviesn=ed and approved on a 4-0 vote (Giefer absent) f-hc architectural and site plans far a proposed 4,-499 square-foot, two- story; single-fairuly residence with basement in a R1-20 zoning district (Exhibit 8-1, C-1 ~ D-1). - T}ic-~ property is within the Leidy Lane az=ea that was rezoned by the Cify Councih in October 2007. 'This is the first new residence that fins been reviewed by the Cify since the zoning ordinance took effect. ~ - l7ISCL7SSIC?N: Revzew Pt-omss: The size of the new residence falls bcylow the threslzohd for discretionary design review by the City and under normal-circumstances such a residea~ce would be approved with just a building permit. Because of the past history of controversy ovq~ _ iso as-~ Appeal of ResideniYal l~esi_gn t~pproval for 2197 Lindy Lanc September 16, 2008 Page 2 new developments in this area, staff directed the applicant to erect story poles, and staff mailed notices and plans for the pending development to surrounding property ounzers within 300 feet. ~ Because of the level of cor.cenl about the project, staff continYxed to refine the design with the applicant acid tr:y to address neighbor concerns. I3ased on the subirEittc.d corrus-tents and past controversy over development, the Director of Community Development elected to refer the plans to the Planning Con~7»ission foi review azd decision. Environmental Re-aiezc~: Staff found the proj_ct categorically exempted from the provisions of the Califoi-nia Enviroiunentat Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332: 71z-Fill Developrnen.t Projects. Staff notes that the applicant has commissioned a geologist to conduct necessary geotechnical investigations for the development of the property that will bereviewed by the City Geologist at -the building permit stagc~'of development. Sueli geoteclznical studies grid City review were also requited of both the upslope and dow.nslope properties during building permit plan che~cle. Tile development of these two residences were also categorically exempted from, environmental review. Appeal: The adjacent upslope neighbors, Seema M~.ttal and Sarveslt Mahesh, residing at 21949 Lindy Lane, are appealing the Pla.ni-iii.g Comr+~ission s decision. for the followslg reasoizs (Exhibit A-1): 1.. The project, as ctarrently proposed, 's not compatible with the scale and design of the other residential uses in the net€,hborhood. 2. The project will have a severe, advc>rse in2pact on my property due to its iiicompatible mass and scale, resulting in: a. Significant obstruction to sur:Iight, daylight and air circulation for the passive solar design artd energy efficiency features, which are azz integral part of the design of niy hou::e. U. Sigizificaizt, adverse visual impact to tLze views Eton}. aII our living spaces on the first floor and outdoor patio areas. c. "The mass and scale of the structure aiZCi very deep excavations, tux combination with its proxu'nity to our property line, may pose a potential threat to hillside stability, during construction and after completion. _ Stu~fResponses to Appeal: _ _ _ __ __ ___ . Each of the Appellant's assertions are listed below in boldface, followed by staff's - " response in iirzlics. - 1, The project, as ciurently proposed, is n.ot compatible with the scale and design o~ the other residential cases in the neighborhood. ~~ _ tai 12-~ Al~}~t'aI of Residents-~1 D~_sigsz lippro4al far 27.947 Lindy ~,asze SeptemUer Z 6, 2003 par~Fz `; - ZZesponse: The proposed 7zouse is 7,000 square feet smaller tlzax tFte tz<to abutting residences, but larger than rrtany of the older residences it2 the neighborhood. There are a rttixtxcre of arcliitecturaZ styles in the neighborhood. "J'he proposed 7zouse wn- s desigrzed to bridge the desigzz differences befzneen the older, razzeJz style houses atzd iFu varied archifecture of more recentZ~ built residences. C~veraZl, staff belir_oes the proposed house creates ati acceptable balance befzaeen the older arLd newer residezces irz tFte neigJzborizoad. `Z7ze t-u~a n._butfing lzonzes on Lindy Lrrrze cr~nstz'ctcted in 2005-06 hrtve secoizd stories t3zat are 35% of the first story, uzTzich were the zazzing regulations it2 effect at tFte tirrre of their constrzcctiozz. `17ze proposed house Tzas a proportionaZZy larger second stor7~ fFtat is 74.3 % of the first floor, - _ zalzicTz is aZlozoed by flee recent zoning rtrtzendnwnts for tJzis area. 23. 'lh:~ project will ha~Je a se~re~-s~, adverse iaz;past on xny property duE to its inconnpatible mass and scare, reszaliing in significant abstructzorz to sunlight, daylight aa-id air cu•cuiafian for the passive solar design oases energy efficiency feafnres, which - are aYi integral part of tlae desigaa of aaly house. Response: CotTZpliatzce with the R-7 building setbacks and building envelopes is by defztzition providing arlequafe air and tight to adjacent residenfial parcels. T3ze building separations befuzeen the applicant's Fot rzrzd the upslope Zot ure generally greater than the tzzinimurrz building setbacks zcJitlz most of the proposed second stoz•y wall length being 14 to 77 feet away froze tTze property Zitze and 27-30 feet away from t7te upslope r. esidence wa1i. In revzewirzg Slzeet A_ 8, the • eleaatiozz of the second floor of t7ie proposed residence is below the elevaKon of the first floor of the zapslope residence. T7ze view fi'onz flze upslope residence of the proposed residetzce is essentially flzai of a recessed orze-story dzc~elling. ~ - T/Vitlz regard to solar desig~z (as articztZaLed in the R7 zoning ordina.zzce), the City ntaz/ aZZozo .variances to setback and Izeiglzt to uccottutzodate pn._ssive or ucti•oe solar equipment or house rjest,~n, but na such nzodifed structure shttZ1 itzfringe upon adjoining property ounzers. 2b. The proJc ct will have a severe, a~averse impact oiz uzy propertyy due to its incompatible n-zass aaad scale, resfal#ii~g in siga~ificant, adverse visual impact to the views Exam aII oizr iiviiig spaces ail the first floor and outdoor patio areas: - Response: The City does. not regulate the protectiozz of private property viezUS in hillside areas (See Cupertino MutziciprzZ Code Section T 9.40._050(L)). Z he City would create a very utzr~esirabZe pz-ecederzt to grant an adjacent property owner a right to a view through a neighbor's properly. T7zere are no pt'ivate vies shed easements on the properties. As the plans are proposed t1u Izotcse occupies a middle elevation that maintains or creates a second sfanr--zsiew fzrr~zrclt-of-tTz~ tTn-~e arZjucerzt-lats~'rz~sZap~zaiicZd~e- ~ican~'s -r-o et-t aiz~ eloznnslope}. ~~ p p ~~-~sz 12-3 Appeal of Residential l~csid Approval foz- 21-947 Lindy Lane September T6, 2D03 Pale 4 2c. The project will have a severe, adverse impact oia my property due to its incompatible mass and scale, resultir><g in very deep excavations, in-combination with its proxiuuty to our property .Line, may pose.a potential tI-treat to hillside stability, during construction and after completion. - Resposzse: The type of cut and fIZ p,-oposed by the applicaz7f zs zzot pt-ohzbited by the R7 zonizzg ordizxance. The tapplicant is already conducfinZ; the geofechnicraZ investigations to eizsuz'e tZze creation ofa safe aril stable building site flint will be reviewed by the City Geologist at the buildizg permit stage of development. The Planning Conzmissiozz also znade geotechnicaI review a mandatori~ requiiezzzerzt a-f-its design approva.! of the residence. Soth upslope at2d downsZope residences Izave similar retaining walls retaznircg upsZape soils, so we know it lzas been done izz - tlzis area and tlzezJ are effective in creating stable buzldirzg sites. Enclosures Exhibit A-1: Appeal Form and Fina91 Exhibit B-T: Plai-ining Commission Resolution No. 6522 Exhibit C-1: Plan-Fiirig Commission staff report dated July 22, 2008 Exhibit D-3: Planriing Commission July 22, 2008 meeting n-uzzutes (draft) Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior PIaT,7,er Submitted by: Approved by: /s/ Steve Piasecl<i - , Steve Piaseclci David. W. I Hopp Director, Community Development City Manager G: PZanzxi~zglZ'DIZEPORTfCC~LODB/LZ947 Z.indy Liz Ap~eaZ.doc 17-'183 'f2-~ {r } -_ ~~'~ ~~~ ~G4~, v~ '! d`~~~E ~.'~ Ct-JPER~it~l~ Cif C~Li=RK 1 _ -- A-gpliGat~a~'-'~Ia_ . 2c~c~ ~ 3 ~i ~ ~~-~l t7 ~~~---C~-t ~--~'~s`7 S .~T 2_ l`i ~ 7 ~t~ 2- ~g~~sI1G~E~i~@) I~I:~ae: _~'.J~-1 t,~ -- ~-~°$,ti~c~ __L1 ~ -.. ~ 9~~ -7' !_rly5~~_t~~! _ 3. =A~ez1~t(s) 1`=Tassae: - . ~?~°-.~'~\~="~.,,~: _j~~ 1-t-`_"~'"},ti~2__. ~~~--~1E~~Y~-~ 1`-'~~~; _t-~~ r'~~F.3.r~s ? t °t ;-,~-~ U 1 {~{` C~`#' {_ ~1~1~ , ref' ~ ~~-' -Tl ~b t~ °I Sc~ 1 I'I~araa i~dumbea- T'-..a s ~-~3 "-~~-:~j1..#' -~O~'Z~`~ -~ ----- - AFape:31 a decision of L~ir~:...^~or o~ CQn-v:na=amity ~cvclopn~ent ~. - f~ggeal a decis?tsn of I~irez;tcs afPublic ~~~orks - ~ ~Ap~e~ atiecisic3n o£Pl~~an~L`04'c"fs7isEfilOi1 ,- S'. Efate o~ deteertz~:ri2atic~il 4~I~ireceoi ezs ~ailin~ of t~o~ic~; of GYt~ cFeeisfan: ~~ V L~ 2-~- f C~ cv _ ~ . - t.>>_ ~?~t~ -"T1 s-.Sc7 ~1VJ~[~t I~I~L G~~F~~~~ ~ ~ ~Y' ~'~1 ~S"~i ti-~ C ~._'~ 14~ Y~, o t~ ~E! tom'`` _ ~~,~ 2~aC~~j r C-~ 1~1 ~ L~l t i1(G--; -f~l--t ~ ~ rz-:-o P:-~~~-rY ~~ r_._~~~~-~3 ~-i- -;~-t~7 ~--~ t~~ F~l [~Y P.~a , G-V P ~X'=fi ~ o . . Sz~~natuse~s) _ ~ _ Please camEsleto ~rFETa include spise.~l £e~ of $l s6.Q[} Es~~uast to R ltttior~ No. 07-D56 - (~?50_@O £ar xriassage ap?~Iic~aticsn/a?sp~?s), ~d z-efurFZ'~€~ tine aLtcr~tian of t?~e amity C1eFk, - ?©3~O TOF£B ~IVC~L2F.''i C~Z~~-'r'I-f T"t C3~ l~~~u) ~)7~^322. - - 'I 7 - 'I 84 - 12-5 - Page 7 of I Colin Jong From: Grace Schmidt , Seat: -rl~ursday, August ~f4, 2008 8:23 AM To: Colin Jung cc: Traci Ca#on Su[~~ject: FW: Appeal reason -. from 21949 Lindy lane importance: High ------Original Message----- Frarrt: seemam@comcast,net [mailtoaeemam@camca~t_net] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, Z00H 5:46 PM To: Grace Schmidt Cc: seemam@comcast.net; sarvesh.mahesh@tavant.com Sub,yect: Appeal reason'- from 21949 Lindy lane Grace, Thanks for being patient_ I finally fpund an Internet place here in the wilderness that is working at SRlA3L's PACEtI! ' We will be putting together a more detail report later, but in summary the reasons are: 1_The project, as currently proposed, is not compatible with the scale and design.of fhe other residential - uses in the neight~orhood . ~ - 2.The project will have a severe adverse impact on my property due to its incompatible mass and scale, resulting in: - a_ Significant obstruction to sunlight, daylight and air circulation for the passive solar design and energy efficiency features, which are an integral part of the design of my house. b_ Significant adverse visual impact to the views from all our living spaces on the first floor and outdoor patio areas_ - c. The mass end scale of the structure and very del=p excavations, in combination with its proximity fo our property Iine, may pose a potential threat to Hillside stability, during construction and after coEnpletion. Please email./cal! me if you have questions. 1Ne return on Sunday. Also I would like to know the final date of the Hearing as Soon as it is final and also by when you need the- n-~aterial that will need to be circulated to the Council members prior to yfhe hea-ing. Please confirm that you Have recieved this mail -rH~nks ,-------- Seema ~ ~. ~~-gas 12-6 .~..~.~; ;i ~7..F Cl'I'Y Ok'~ CC3I'ER':I'I-INTO - ZQ3(10 Torre Avenue . Cuperizrio, Ca.liforrr~a 95024 - P`SSUI_LT'I'IC3N NO. 6522 OF `T~1~ I'LANI~lING COIvIl44I~lO~T OF T~~ CITY C?P CU'l~RTINC? API'ROVII~TC~ A I2~SIl~~I~•3'I'IAL DESIGN i'ERI~,h-i'I' I~'CaI~ A hI~W 4,x}-39 SQIJAR7 F©C~T, 2-S'FOF~Y SZT`sGT_~ FAi~ 1LY l~.~II~IiNC~I? A.`F 2194'7 i..II`~i }7Y LA3~8 SI;CTIC?NI. PILOTgC'I`I~~SC,I~iL~`I'lOI~ ~ . Applicatio~-t I~To.: 2003 Site and Architectural Flans for a resicicrtcc at 22947 Lindy -E,a~~e l~pp33caazt: Ch1.a.=-Cl~lz ~ L.iiZ (ICr-sftnaguxa ~ l~ic~asazldra~z Residence} Locaf~an: 2~9~7 Lindy 3'.,aiZ-e - - -- SI;CTIGN Ti: FINDLNGS VU-E-IER~A.S, public rLOfices have won given fire accordance with the I'rocedurai C?rcTirtance of the City of Cugertin.a, and the ~'lalirtTrfg Con~izissiofz I~as held aric-or mare public hoaz-ings ort this rtza-fifer; a~zd . W~i~T2FAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said appiication; and Iias satisfied the follo-t,viu2g r_egs»T-?r~elzts: 1. The proposal, at t$e proposed locatiar4 will rEOfi be detrin~enial or injurious to pzoperty or improvements in the ~riczzity, and. wiI1 not be detrinierital to the public health, sa~ety, general welfare, or conver~tence, . 2. 'Ihe proposal is consistent with the gurposes of i-his chapter, the General- Plar~, and zorLii~g ordT-~arce; 3. 'The graposal will- use materials, design elemer~tj and siariplifrecl building forms tI-~at corrLplizaeiZt flZ-~~ e, i`s[ing az~d neigl~baxing sisuctvres that ntalce it haxman;ous ire s+, ale and design witl-c the general neiglzborizood; _ - 4. Adverse visti.a-I impacfs oiz adjoining properties have been reasonably r~lt~gated in that - - the building pad was .lowered ths-Pe feet acid the height of tlz~ garage was reduced to reduce the height of the retaining vrall and garage wall facing ~`ze dav.~nslope residence. `t'he Iourer-ed pad height also reduced tie: p~rce3ved heiglzL- of fine proposed Izouse facing the upslope residence such tint the view frorrti-upslopa is that of just a recessed, sirigie-staory residence. NOSnT, `i'I-~~REI~C~i~, SE FI` RESC~L~TI F?_ `I`Itat after careful consideration of rig-aps, facts, eal-r-ibits, festinZOny ar~d oi-Iter evidence submitted in this math=_r, tb~ architect-urai and site plats are hereby approved subject to the . conditions which are enumerated iri this I.esal-c~tion bee n,~g oiZ gage 2 thereof; aszd i~-gas 12-7 ISesolEZtiosr No. 6~7_'L 2flD8 A.refr-. ~ Sites PIa~?s for 2297 Lizfdy E-.arae July 22, 2D08 i}fie 2 't'hat the subconclusions upon which the -findings anal conditio7-l5 specified in this resolution are basaci and cozitaiiZed in the public hearing record coizces~vng fhe residentiai desib i des-Sizi.L for 219~~ Uiuldy L.arLe set forE~i in the IvIiict~ttes of the Planning Con~missior~ meeting of Jv1y 22, 2005, ar~d are incorporated by reference as ihoirgh fully set forth hereisi_ Sl/C1ICZ*1 III.' CCDNDIT'IO1~lS AL`~RIt7I~iIsI'fi<~~T)_I3Y TIC COIVI1~f1IINI`7iY Dl/VELOL'Mp3~T 171J'F'T_ - - 1. ~k'i'1~4~~T-FTi7 P~~7F.CT 1~pproval is based can plan set titled: "Neer I-~esidence for 5heshaprasad Kz-isiucapura Ildalini Iii--iasa~dram, ~1c347 Lii~dy I-.arse, (-uperEirzo, CA c3~0-23" consis~~g of 13 sheets labelec'~ A-0 tlzrou~ A--B, A7.1, C-1, C-2 and I-.-Z, dated April ~, 200, except as an~anded by the Conditions contair-~ec~ in this IZesoluf3ori. 2. I~1~TT~~ f~F PEAS, ~7~E31C'A'~'14~1a7u, 1~1C~Et~.~TA'T~~IeIS QE2 ~TJ`3~E~ Ext'~C`~'f~?NS . The Conditions of Project Approval s st -forth hareuz may include certain fee>s, dedication r~>quiresnents, reservation reclzzirerl~tents, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code S~~etion 6602.((3(d} (1), these Conditions constit>rte wrtfie iz notice of a , statement of the arrzount of such fees, and a descript-ion of the dedications, - rc :nervations, and other e~cactior~s. You are Zrtereby ft?rtlzer notified that the 9©-day approval period in which yo-a nzay protest these fees, dedications; reservations, arLd other e.cactions, pursuarft to Govern-r+tent Code 5eetion 6~()20(a}, has begczn. if yon fail - ~ to file a protest t+vithin this 9Q-day period cosnpiying with. aii of the requirernerits of Section 66020, you will be 1E=gally barred f.~m iateF cLialtengixig such exactiorES. - 3. GE~'~`E~~IC1~~. I~E~T%~~FhT - - . ~_ Prior.to,building permit approvai, base-~r~ent, retaining walls, gracii.x-i_g and drainage sizall be evaluated acid designed by the applicant's geotechnical engineer and reviewed and approved by_ihe City Geolc>gist and City. - - 4.- -G~NS'3f'<~LTCTIEI~F I~~lAL~7AGFLl~I~3T P~;~~i~ -- -- - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - - £n rorijur~ci3vn witY~ the T~ciilcl-i-ng per~rit-. review, the applicarit shall: submit a_ coizstrucizozi nzanagerner~t plan to adds~~s sCagirtg of corisi~uction z~zaterials, Ioadir~g - and zirr-loading areas artd parlc~-tZg fog' cartstruction vehicles. -Tl_2e Director of Comz~T_zn-ity 1]evelopment shall revie~•v aicd approve that plan.. ~ .. - =E 5_ I~PIr.R.f~E"s1~Fi~'%" OF I~EA1D CC7A~'F L~~T~ ~AICS - The two dead coast live oaks sl~al-1 bo. replaced witl-i tsvo, rtiew 36" box oaics pz-ior to oc~Banc~r _-_- _ 6. Y~[1a-IT~~L~1'13v iL'i1i 231 V'S~ YV1'iJ~L ~~ll]A~1` ' -The easterly retaining v~all shall be set batik eight (8} feet from the side property line in locatiorus where privacy 7anclscaping is r~quired_ - i~-ia~ ~2-s Jar-z~Rr~ ~. I3[r~~ Attozney at 7 ~w ' A Yzofessional Corporation 501 Stocldoii Av~_ncic, San Jose CaliEi~ttva 95126 TaL- 408-279-3.555 1?a~: 4D8-279-5838 JbhlawQpacbc3l.ilet 14iay 2£~, 2dd8 STEVE FIASECKI 1~LREC'I'OR OF COIvSMT_1NITY 1JEVF:IAPR~LNT CI-I-Y OF CUPERTINO - 103d0 'I'OIUiE A.vI?N[J~ CrrrRTINO, CA 95014 Ri?: COM7vIENTS SLE: RESIDENTIAL I?ESIGN 12EVIEw MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR 219. 47 LLI~II~X I.A3~~E R-2408--14 AND Iii 2{708-16 bear 1VIr_ Piasecla: Seema Miftal and Ssrvesh Mahesh, owners of the property located at 21949 Lindy lane; Cupertino,.have~retained my law office in connection to the pending application for a Minor Residential 1;'ernut and Residential Design Review for the adjoining property at 21947 Lindy-Lane (herein-alter the "Subject Parcel")_ Ms. ivlittai anal Mr_ Mahesli oppose the Application for the reasons set forth herein. - - VJlZile it:is our understanding.thatthe "decision" to lie made on Thursday, Inlay ?9, is not a hearinggeF- se, but instead is a staff-level revicty of the application, we also zmderstartd that it would be appropriate to submit a summary of our issues and concerns with the project. It is-our hope that a mutually satisfactory solution that satisfies the letter and intent of the City's ordinances and guidelines can be achieved_ Background As you are probably awaT•e, niy clients purchased the property at 21949 Lindy 7 ane ui February, 2Od5, after having conducted a thorough gad comprehensive review of the City of Cupertino zoning regulations, discussions with Staff of the Corlainlmity Development Department, as well as a studied review of the approved pleas for not only their site, but the adjacent site which is now the subject of this application for design_,- review. - . -- --- -- - - Ms. Ivlittal is a licensed Architect, and she took extraordinary measures to design her property not aniy to conform to the City's existing design standards, but also to ~~-iaa 12-24 llcsi~n Review May 28,_2008 Page 2 incorporate energy efficiciit design elements to the maxiznuzn eiitent possible. Specifically, 1VIs_ Mittel d~signcd the sou£h eastezzz-exposure to ma~cim; ~e use of pasaive _ solar energy for both heating and lightitag, r:s well as created a breezeway design for natural cooling, and took. other steps to significantly rc:duc:e overall dependence on the use ofinechanicai heating anti cooling systems. Zhe completed design also inc{tided elements to take advantage of the wonderful views of the lights of the valley Boor, as well as the sunrises during all times of the year. My clieizts proceeded with the coz~slluctiozz of their home with the explicit understanding that zor~ing regulations implemented on March 1, 2005, imposing a residential hillside overlay on the R1 zoning district in the hillside area, would limit the ::ize of any stricture on the adjoining property to around 3,500 sq. il:. and placing a 45°/n cep on floc size: of the upper floor (arotu~d 1,000 sq. ft.), thus preservu2g their views and privacy. On April 18, 2048, my clients saw the story poles that had been constructed for the subject parcel, and shortly t}iereafter, learned for the $rst tithe that flze City of Cupertino had adopted Ordinance 07-201 1, which amended Chap#er 19.28 of the Municipal Code to relax the restrictions on {levelapznent wit}un a 15-lot area. fihe amendments, it turns out, allowed design pl;m,~ that were drastically different than the previously approved plazzs for the subject parcel. 'The new design plasLS include a doubling of the second story area (from around 1,000 sq. $. to over 2,500 sq. $.), and =additional elements that will cause the proposeds£ructure to exceed all reasonable - pa~m eters of mass and scale for the parcel. `Fhese modifications drastically alter the rpreviously-approved design that was the ba;; is of my clients' design. The placement and orientation of the elevated portions of the proposed structure will effectively defeat the "passive solar design elemienfis incorporated Ly my clients, an-d completely obstruct city light.views froth all living spaces, in direct contravention of the pzn~ose and intent of the Ordinance. Zoning Rc~ulations ' T1ie proposed development of the sutrject parcel appears to be izzconsistent with the letter and intent of the City's single-farrzity residential development regulations. As set forth in Section 19.28.010, the purpose oj.'the Single Fanuly Residential (Rl) zones is to "create, preserve and enhance areas suitable" for developrrient in_ order to =. A. ]nhance the identify of residential neighborhoods; . . 13. Ensure provision of light, -air and a reasonable 1eve1 of privacy _.. C. Ensure a reasonable level of con~patibilify in scale of structures vs>ithin __,_____ __ residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the con~rnunity. ~~i2~$~s TJC;51g1] T{EVIO~V ZYi 35/ 28, 20(JS Fage, 3 Section 19.28.050, wl~ic}i t~vas ame~trled by Ordinance 07-2011 in October, 2007, expressly identifies t1i-e luIlside area within ~~~bich the subject parcel is located, and "provides thaf any second floor area and l;alcony "shall be eansistcnt with the . requirements from the Residential Hillside (RHS) Zoning District (Chapter 19.40}. This C~rdinrznce also provides that the pumose of the RHS zoning district is to regulate deva~lopment coannaensurate tAtith community goals as set Earth iri the Creneral Plait, and to ensure t}tat utilization of land for residential uses is balance with the Head to conserve natural resources and protect Iite anal property from natttral hazards. Toward that objective, the purpose of the RFIS regtlations it2cludes the following: R. Fissure Elie provision of light and air to individual residential parcels; C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential net ~hborhoods; D. Maintain a special relationship bct~veett structures and wvitliin neighborhoods; • - E. Reinforce the predomit~antly low-intensity setting of the comniuttity; . . 1~. Maintain a balance befv,=evri-residential dcvelop~ent and preservation of the natural. hillside setting. Pursuant to Section 19.40.130, tYae Director of Cony-niunity Developzz3enf is empowered to make reasonable intFrpretations of the regulations aiid provisions of the _ - . -. Rl-iS Qrdinance, "consistent a=it~i t1~e le~sIativc intent thereof." (§ 19.40.130). In -. . rcvicuring atz applic-anon for a I~7inor Kesidential PE:t~ut, the Director can approve, candifionally approve, or deny the application. The application cats be approved only if. lire F-3i.rector znal; es all of t}~-e follativint; f7ndii~.gs: 1 _ The project i.s consistent with the Cupertino Gcnerai Plan, any applicable specific plays, zoning ordinances and- the purposes of this title. 2_ The gi ~•~nting of t'r~.e peiinit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the viciizity, anal v,Till not be detrunental to the public health, safety or welfare. 3. The proposed project is harci~oiuous in scale and design with the general neighborhood. 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. (§19.28.090). ~~-iso 12-zs Desi~r Revie~~ May 28, 2008 I'aae 4: Violations of7onin¢ Ordinance t'v~y clients respectfully submit that the proposed development of the subject parcel Iocatecl at 21947 Lindy Lane does not conform with either the letter or the intent of the above-references provisions oftlxe City"s zoning regulations. 1. Proiect creates si~rrif7cau_t and ac3vorse impact to passive solar design. - Both the Rl and R-€-IS zoning ord.i_uances ex~~ressly state flzat a fundamental purpose of the respective ordinances is to ensure provision of light and air_ As noted previously, the dwelling at 21949 Lindy La_le was deliberately designed by Ms. MitLal to n-Maximize the potential for passive solar he~:tuag, azid to rnaximi» the use ofnatural lighting with tlxe southern exposure. The placement of the story poles made it suddenly apparent that the revised plans for the s2ibje~t parcel would signifcarxtly and adversely impact-these features which were carefully desigred in reliance on the previously- . approved plans. Not only Fvill tlxe proposed project sig~i_ficantly reduce my clients' access to passive. solar energy and natural Lighting, but their access to vietius of the ligixts of the valley and to views of the sunrises during certain times of the year will be obliterated. Moreover, the mass depicted by the story poles do not include the elevated, second-story covered deck. - 1~ere, the Design- Guidelines are fairy y explicit, stating, in pertinent part, as follows: Solar Design: The setback anal height restrictions provided in this chapter IZlily be varied for a-structure-utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure s]~a11 infii_nge upon solar easements or cadioinin~ property owners {§19.28.06Q{I}(~mphasis added}. One need aixly review the proposed mass and scale of the proposed structure to see immediately that it would severely impart the passive solar features so carefully aad thoughtfully incorporated in the design of the uphill progeny by Ms. Mittel. 2. Proiect is not harmonious in scale and desi~x ~~vith the adioinira~nrnperties. There are several indicia of possible violations of the design guidelines that relaic to the overall massuig and scale of the proposed structure. For one, the City's ordinance provides a limitation of a ma imurn exterior wall height measured $or;, the natural grade measured at the property Line, and a twezxty-five degree roof lice angle measured from the ten-foot high line. {§ 19.28.060(G}{2){a)).. As seen in the diagrams distributed to the neighbors, the building envelope exceeds these restrictions by several feet, in some instances because the nzeasurenxents were taL~en from the finished pad, and not the natural g__rlde. In addztion, the project includes a coy Bred, SDO-square foot upper story deck that adds a sign3fzcant 2mount of mass to the second story that is.not depicted by the storv poles. »-psi ~z-z~ D~~sir~at I2eviety any 28, 2003 Y~ge The lo~~s=cr Iot (lot 3) hzzs a 120f) sq. ft. upper stony. The upper lot (nZy clients' lot} has 1300 scl. ft. of upper story. T}ze proposed project will have a 2,500 sq. f~. upper story mass (including the covered dc~Ic not depicted. by the story poles). Because of previously unposed restrictions, the predominant si•r_e of the zrppcr stories v.~erc limited to a.rorznd 35% of the; lower story nz-rss. 3. Retaiuin~ ~NulIs a1~e_prc>tZosed_ less than 5 feet fi-om pm~erty lirt~e~anal . potentiall~tl~ceaten existulQ su~port_piers fo_r tl~e uZ31iiI1. pz.g~cr~. The proposed drawings depict a series of lghtv~jell retairing walls located less than 5 feet fi-orn.the property lane - in violaiiozi of the zninimurn setbacl> requirements. Section I9.2~.060(1~) specit3caily states that the minin~usn side setback :Cora 1igh1~~.~ell retaining wail shall be five feet_ Of equal concezn to my clients, it is anticipated thaf the installation of these retaining walls will require e;ctensive diggin~~ and excavation in and around the area where zuy clients placed the support piers for their property_ Section 29.28_i00(D), which sets forth the required findings for approval of a to=o-story residential perni.it, includes a fiziding that: The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injuri-ous to property or irnpr_avenients in the vici~lity, acid will not be detrimental to the pubI~c health, safety or welfare. (§19.?_8.1.00(D)(2))_ I3ere; the slope of the land approaches a 30° o C;z~ade. In addition to their concern over the generous allowance that permits the homeowner-the rigIzt to grade up to 2,500 cubic yards on a lot that meas~ires Iess than one-half acre, rrzy clients are extremely concerned that the i~enching and grading necessary to locate the Iightwell retaining walls this close to their property--poses a serious risk of failure of the hillside i3itegrity_ 4. Based on the pr~osed design of the protect, the Director c-enFiot make all of tl?e n.ec`essary finding`s required z,nd~-r tl~e 1Vlunicinal Come. Section 19_?_8.09Q sets forth the findiags that the Director of Comrrzuuify Development mus# make -and must make all of them - in order to approve an applic<rtion fox a Minor Residcniial Pei~it. As explained herein, the project is not consistent v/itIa the Cupertino General Plan, the zoning ordinances, and the stated purposes.of Title I9. Approval of the permit will very likely result u~ a condition that is detrin~cntal or injwious to property or iirzprovements on the adjoiituig lot, and in the . event of major slope failure, could pose a real risk to the public health, safety and welfare. Tlie project, with its mass and scale, is clearly not harmonious with the other _ strnctitres i_n_the neiglzborhood_ especiaLl~with a seco_n_d story_that is at legst_twice the _ ,_._ sire of the second story elements of the properties on either side. Furfliern~ore, the adverse visual impacts, as well as the adverse impacts on the passive solar elements of tine uphill property, have not been reasonably mitigated. 17 - 192 12-28 Desio Review Zvlay-28, 2Q08 - Page 6 Canclusi on My clients respectCutly therefore rec, nest that the proposed application be denied for the reasons set forth herein, and that the project applicants be directed to retarn ~~ith an application that meets both the Setter and intent of the City of Cupertino General flan and zoning regulations. Request far Notice and Copies of Documents In addition, T request that you pIacc ny la«r office on the distribution List for all notices of any actions related to this matter. Further, I request that I be provided with copies of any and all. letters, e-zn-ails and other documents Gvhieh have been submitted in connection with the pending application for Ll~e subject parcel. RespectfxiIly submitted, Je ey I3. Hare oc: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Charles Kilian, City Attorney _ - Clients - - - 1 7 - '193 12-29 ,otot~ Junq From:. ronberti@comcast. net Senf: Monday, .July 74, 200F3 -10:00 mil-'I To: Cohn Jung SubJect: ?'f 947 Lindy Lane li i_ Colin 1 received a latter ?_ast creak from the Planning Depa.rtmant to the E£fcct that tircrc's a ?zearinq on 21..947 Lindy Lana on J"tr.1_y ?_2nd. Un ioritun~a t-~~1y, S z-r_i 1-l. be out o£ {=ocrn on {-h.t t_ day. _ :L assume that this is 1arc~aly a pro Sorma want, that the plans have largely bean-s-=igrred oft and validated as consistent. with city.policy. ' The or_a c~uas~tion 2 h.ava is that one ~aganda item addresses a-side fac i.ng second story t~alcon_y. t'm ct~rio~..a if the balcony {'aces sout7~.c~a.st or sout?'twest, which i;; the on1_y circt~mst?nc2 in which S really care. Yon may }:now that tYa_s new home. will 1oo}c dirc=_ctly at mine acme;;; t_he sma 11 Lindy Lane: valley. - F?erh.aps we could have a sl-tort di scus:; .i_o?'r Lk'r~.:~ s~~aek'? You czar e.~.:i.. l_ my cell (408) :~15-5]. J_l__ Looking forcya rd to h~ari n_g i-ro~t you. Ron 1-_3arti 11406-Lindy Place -- 17 - 194 12-30 19.2.4. n 6t1 Cupertino - `L:os,ing 5. The perimeter of the basement and all lightwell retaining t=raps shall b:, treated and/or reinforced with the most effective mot barrier measures, as determ;ned by the Dsc~ctor o€ Community Development. G. Height. 1. Max;nn,m luilding Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an R1r_ane shall not exceed twenty- ei~ht feet, noL including fireplace chifinneys, antetuiae or other appurtenances. 2. Building Envelope {One Story). a_ The maximum exterior iva11 height anti building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by. . 1. A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line; 2. A-twenty-rive-degree roof line- angle projected inward at the ten-foot high fir,:. refcrenceYl in subsection G(2)<a)(1} of this section. b. Notwithstanding the - building euvelopr in subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a root enclosing an attic space may have a rna x;rr,,,m wall height o£ sevetitaen feet to the peals of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to twenty feet with a Minor Residential Permit. ' - 3. Second Story Wall Heint,is. Fifty percent of the fatal 1x-rimek:r length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than siz feet, and shall have a m;,,;rrn „r~ two-foot high overlap of the adjoini~~ first story roof ab~~ainst the second story wall. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a m;n;,rn,m of four feet from the first story exterior wall plane: a. The Du-ector of Ccm,rm,n;ty Development may approve an exception to this regulation based on the f iudings in Section 19.28.110 D. . 4. Entry Feature Height. The maxirs~um entry feature heig}st shall be fourteen feet. 5_ ~ Areas Restricted to One Story: The City Council may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen fact} by affix=„g an "i° desigoatiQn to the RI zoning distric,-t. H_ Second Story Decks. AlI aew or expanded second story dec€cs'with views mto neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residerstial Perrnit, sn~ject to Section 19.28.090, Tit order to protect the privacy of - adjoiaing properties. The goal of the permit req,,;remem is not to require comgIete visual protection but to address privacy protection. to the greatest extent while still aTlawing _Lhe-enncl-rn rti (,n arul nee of an O„tdoai decli~'his section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any oilier similar unenclosed features. - 1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three feet into the front setback for the principal dwell' ~~~fl E 2. The m;r,;morn side-yard setback shad be fifteen fi ~;t. 3. Tl:e minimum rear-yard setback shall be twenty f~~:t. I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a strstc[ure utilized for passive or active solar parposes, provided Thai no such structure shaIl infringe" upon solar easements or adjoiningproperry owners. Arty solar structure that requires variation Trom the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed' only upon issuance of a Mincer Flesidential Permit. subject to Section 19.25.090. (Drd. 1954, (part), 2005; flrd. 1868, _ (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (gars), 2000; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: prd. 1808 (part}, 1999; C}rd: 1799 § 1, 1995; - Ord. 1784-, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part}, 1993; flrd_ 1635,. (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, :E~xh. A (part), 1992) --~ 19.28.470 Landscape Requirements. - To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and talk of new two-story homes .and addirions, tree and/or shrub planting is required. The intent of ibis section is to rrovide substantial screening ~vith;n three years of the planting. A. Applicab,73ty. This requirement shall aggIy to nccv t,~~o-story homes, second-story decks, two-story additions; c r modifications to the exisrir~ second-story decks or ezistimg windows on exi_ ;~,g two-story homes that increase privacy impacts on neighboring residents. Skylights, 4rindows with sills more than five feet above the finished second floor, winnows with permanent, exterior louvers up L7 six feet above the {'finished second floor, and obscured, r.on-openabie windows are not required to provide privacy grotcx:tion planing; B._ Privacy Planting Plan. Proposals for a new two- stary House or a second scary addition shall be accompanied t~y a privacy planting gIan which ideritifies .the location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees c r shrubs. 1. New trees or shrubs shall be required on the applicant's property to screen views. from second-story Frindows. The area Where planting is retlttired is bounded by a thirty-degree angle on each side window jamb. The tr~~s cY shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a t"maI crcupancy permit. a. New Tree or shrubs-are not required to replace existing trees or shrubs if an Zntet-nationaIIy Certified ~Lrborist or Licenses Landscape Architect verifies that the existing treeslshrubs have the characteristics. of privacy I.lanisno species, subject to approval by the Duector or C:omm,m;ty Development. 17-'195 12-31 ~i . _J `s 's~~; z~:~~~a: ~~~ ~~.:~in:Q - ~~in; ;eet on lots which ase gteate°r than vne acre. Tfae setback sfiall ~: tnrrastired from the. tnp of beak of the watercourses or f=ont existing ripariaa vegc;tation, whichever is greater. ,I ale s~tbacL- f-nrrl rip°~: ^.• yegotat;n~, vrill be r„~a Gui-ed from tlae clri}~ Haze p=~r-ime~=~-_ , 'k. Dcvelogm~ Near Prominent Ridgeline3. 1. T'Y~e develogrnent of nevi, ind~,•p~lzdent structures slu•,li-not c;~srxa?t a fifteen percent site line f~~na:a r•romit'~,t rid ~: as identiftecl in Ag~di~ A. The rfteen percent. situ Iiae shall br uv~as?ued front tae tap of ridge at the closest .part from tlae ssi-rzrEtare_ 2_ Ar3diti,3nsto1oge3lyezistinghnmeslaoates3viiG`±isa the fiitevaa g~rcent sites Iire of a pramincrtt ridgeline rrcay not frzrtc~e en~~ oaela into tfae site line, e. g. , the addition tir.-ty not yr_ld heist or b,zll~ .-vluch nzay irter~+~e tFse di..srt;rpton to tom. -- fifi`een percent ridgeline sit{:. 2i_ne_ 3. Should these regitiremenLS L:~ome iaagraciical, alternatives ~•iIl b° consiclurod tlii~}€igh the eacceptian larocess_ _ ' 3_ I3eveInpra~nt on SIop~ of Thirty l?eicent or ~srv:~t:r_ - 1. Sites plans for all deveIopna.:tit proposals shall include t~zgoe ragf, ire i iIIforn:atinq at contour intervals not to ezc~ecl ten Ever and a horizontal snag scale of one inch c°quals two livndre3 feet or larger. Ares -where slolses erce~3 tI7?rty percent shall b: iric;~ed o_-a tlae site: . deveIop~nt pZarr_ 2. No stiaactrcre or iniprovPrnAnoc ~~ occur on slag`s greater than tti"sty percen# anless mn excepiioa is ~a,-ated or unless no more than five band-red square feet of dr r ~iogmerat, including grad-in8 aucl stractnres, occurs on an zre~: wits a slogs greater than thirty percent_ l£. 'Nail Lines ' 1_ Among other iterrt3 required to ba identified on rise. site: plan, the site plea sly ~Il identify CY-ail Iinl~ages as shovrn in the General Plan Trail Place, on steel ad,}acent to the sPt::. 2. If a trail t,~e, as shown in the General Play E raft Plan, is idenrified across a property bcin= developed, ao dwelopntent shall tare place within that area except if arr,roved tt,rouah [he e~ccagtion process_ ` L_ Views and Privacy_ Yt is root the resgonsability of City Gnver~m: nt to ensure tho' privacy protection of tia~ I}ctilding g°rmst applieaaxt or owners of s,srou-icling g<-ogerties tisaK may be afieetecl by the . stsvcture unrier canstruc-tion_ I~owever, the Director of Cornn,,,r9ry U;:velopmeut may confer with the buildinn p..-emit applicznt - _._ -t4 d4ar~,cc_31YeI~3tE~ESr,c n~pS~Y~IIf1Ytg_=paY_H~y intn,cin~- andgreservin?vietvs. (t?rd_ 1725, (part), 1946; Grd. 1655, (Part), 1395; Ord. 1634, (part). 1493) 7~.4'~.1C-vim I~rafCrla~ G~uvc~~ge, S2flx~eIlss ~d I~ea~fat ' l~~rtri;cii¢rt~. ALi grovisians of this s~tion may ~ deviated Essen np~ra an e•cc~tion granted by the l?Iarnaing C;omntiaslaat in acenrdaace with. S~tion 19.40.140_ A. F'lc~or Area.. I .a. Far lots vritlt less than tea thousand srltiare €e~ o€ net Iot area the ma.~crrauas floor area ru~io shall b: forty-fivo g:~rceat of the net Iot~r~rea. ForEnLiz: A 0_45 P 1~ = 1'vlaxirnuaa3 allasvablr~ Iaotr~ size_ I3 I~7et lot area_ b_ IJ'ar.Iots gsritct- more Haan ten. [housazzcl square fit of net lot area the maximum floor area sIc3II b ~ fore thousand five: hundc-~. square ie~:t plus 59.59 square fc~t for esrery oue thssusaurl square feet over ten tlaousaad s~ara..rc: fzet of nt:x lot arc~?_ In all cases tl3e ytl3ximtarrr hoar aria slxall not e~cevd-si : thousavs3 Eve Insnndr~l square fit `vi.hout ~ exccp;ion. ~'nr~ula: A=C{S-1Qa,~2~)!1,€IQ~)(~9.~9)-E-d,~~ .4 = PvTaci~*n~ mllowabIa house size - prior to instituting t$e gnarsiirturl 6,500 square foot budding size. 13 l*7et Iot area. 2_ Lots Within Chas~red Subdivisions Containing ComrnonQpenSpace. Lots ivitlrinclustered subdivisions is v,•hicb Iand is reserved ss common op°a sp4ce, may count a-propartionate a,notTnt of the rc:.arved private open space for calculr.2iaig the allovrabl~ hour: size, except that no develc;p able lot vJOVId by subject to greater than aforty-€ive- percent floor area ratio prior to slope coasidPration_ The average slope of a Iot wittitn a clustered subdivision shall b° caidn]-steel on the d°veIc}pabla lot. 3_ Slope Adjnstrnezrt Criterra_ Por lots vrith zrt average singe ~-eabter than teas percent, the allowable floor area, Prior to instiWr'nv the maximum six .thousand five ltemdred squass foot allowable building size, shall be r~edvee~l by erne and one-half percent for each p..-scent o£ slope over ten percent. For lots with an average slope over thirty percept tlae allowable floor area shall be reduced lay a constant thirty ger'c~nt. Formula. A = T,~Ta~tir,-r„m, allowable house size. based on subs-coon 1 above ------ prior to_inSNfl,tin~ flr-~~3s,axirnLtr,tT - .--- 6,SQ0 square foal building siae_ C = Pvi?xirrr,~maIlovrablebuildina for Iots :vith ~eates than 10 0 , average slop:.. Li = Average ~rceizt slope of net lot azeH- 17 - 196 1 2 - 32 Cupertino Ylanrting Con~anission 2 7uly 22, 200$ I4~att Kaankar, L rtino resident: m Addressed the Plam ' Conulission rega•clin ; floor area ratio (FAR) of second to first floor discussed at the pn:vio Pl~taviing Commission meeting, and to-gad the Conirzlission to increase the gllowablc ratio second floor to first floor: He stated that he otivned t~~o properties in Cupeztino; one in Rat o Rinconada where he did not do second {loot because of the current rules, resulting in a~; cr root; bigger foundation, smaller backyard; eve.-rything opposite of the green building era es that one would like to see. On his 1VLont<i Vista property, he said he would prefer to go to a s end floor if the rules pernitted_ Jeranfifcr ~~rif~n, ?;2anclaa bzieaeonada n-esident: o Expressed ooncei~ that she felt the cw~etit R1 ordinance was eing piecemeaied into something it was not intended to be, particularly with the floor to area r~ 'a potentially going to 1 QO% for the sc:cand story_ She said it may be better to open the whole rdinance_ Some lots in Rancho Rinconada arc 5,000 sq. ft_ or under and there are atYter areas ' the city that have very sanall -lots and doutg anything more to increase the second story, sc.. up dangers for the neighbors. It may bc: be~.3er to open the RT from the hillside ordinance t floor to area ratio rather than piec~-meali; g this, ~vorIcing on it a litfle, and then winding up PI.13LiCl I~EIRING 2. -~'z~00°~^,-r"a,~r'~~,TO- - Direotor's refetTaI to the Planning Cotninission the Chia-Ching Din; 21947 apprcval of a Residential Desigia Review for a new Lindy Lane - (Irs-ishnapnra &~ 4,492 sq. ft., two-story single family residence with a iYliaaasandraan residence) basement and a Minor Residential Permit for a side frcin;~ second story balcony on the new residence_ - F'Tam~ing Conzrnissiort decision fzrzal urzless appealed. Bolin Jiang, ienior Planner, presented the staff report: ® Reviewed the Director's refen-aI of az-chit~ctural and site plans for atwo-story 4,499 sduare ' foot single-family residence on Lindy Lane, as outlined in the staff report. o I3e explained that the application was the first proposal under the new ordinance adopted u1 . November 2007, which is part of the R_I ordinance but applies specifically to the R1-20 • zoned properties which are largely located north of Lindy Lace. In that area the City adopted a set of hillside regulations. m ' He reviewed an aerial view of the property, a three lot subdivision. FIe pointed out that ' based on the RI--20 ordinance, given the size of the project, they did not meet the planating threshold for a dcvc2opment appiica.tion; they .were not rcquu-ed to do a design review perarait, nor a permit for the sc:c;and stogy balcony_ Because of staff's concerns with the. architecture, the history of recent controversy in this neigTiborhood, staff felt it .best to- conduc_ t this review in a manner that was similar to what we normally do in a two-story home in Rl zs~ned property. The applica it erected story poles and neighbors within a 300 - -- - -footrztd7nswere-noticod~nd-I~rovidcd-thorn-with-plgn sets'Piiorn~/cn-e-carrcerrrs£ra~th~-- - -- neighbors about the project .as presented and redesigns of the project resulted in a much betterprojcet than oazginallypresented. He reviewed the elevations and noted that the applicant had made modifications to the architecture of the project, creating a li,~later, more compatible-architectural form to the . ~7-is~ ' 12-33 CupertiE,o 1'Ianning C~c,nrnussion 7uly 22, 2008 e~_istin ~ honks and aldc-r.homes in ilie neighborhood- Staff feels that from an architectural standpoint, the proposed house is compatible with the residential neighborhood. 1-Ie reviewed the nei.l~h-Uors' concenis and the applicant's responses and rnodificatious made to address the caneerns, wluch ago. detailed in the-staffreport. . Staff has not made a recoxx~rrxeudation on tlic project, -but if the City Council decides to a-pprov~: the site and architectural plan, staff reconuxzends the two highlighted items which arc in.thc model resolution, the Iast tvro items in rod are additional items staff would like the Planning Commission to consider and add to the model resolution,. including repiaceai~c--nt of tc~~o mitigation Oalcs That are on tilt property. The other condition is that the setback. of the easterly retaining wall curx-ently is at 6 feet; they would like to increase it fo 8 feet because staff does iaot feel that the distance. bet~~t~een the wall and drainage Swale is wide enough to accommodate the privacy landscaping that needs to be planted in that location. © Asked staff-to explain thy; changes made to tlxe zoning ordinance in Novenibcr 20fl7. +[:olirz .7nng: Said what was created was a hybrid of RI ionu~g regulations and the hillside zonin,a regulations. '1`hcrc is a requirement to screen retaining walls; some things are transferred over like serer-Wing of retaining waIIs, the limitation on solid board fencing around a prapcrty; regrxirement for opc.~rr board fencing around the yards of prape~ty; there was some regulations regarding the removal of tz'ees, allowing up to two protected trees-to be removed if they are- ' under 18 inches if it is tvithui tl~e housing pac3; there were some protections put in that if it ' ivas on steeper slopes ~gr-catcr than 30`%, then a hillside exception would be required; but tFxe slope of this property is under th~_t. Sorne of the more interesting aspects of the ordinance related to the fact that the second floor of the residence was rxirlimited in terms of tyre square footage, There are limits to it, the Pr1R limit but that is basically the same; it doesn't say that specifically but is the same principle that is in the residential Hillside ordinance, There are some certain thresholds about review having to do with if it is on a flat pad and you go through one level of review and if it is not on it, you cari only build up to 4,500 before you come to the Planning Gonimission. 'Ihe grading quantity was the same, so it is similar but not exactly; if there is anything that comes up during the hearin~~ that you specifically want to stress, it would he easier to talk about specificity rather than generality about the ordinance- . ° Said that both oi"the homes 4vere -built not under the previous iteration, but the iteration before that; that particular itoratiou limited the second story to 35% of the first story, which is the biggest difference: The other difference with the previous iteration was that neither of those two hoxncs were required to go tlu-ough any type of public hearing or design re<<icw and both of them t~~ere ailowecl with Uuildurg permits because that is what the ordinance allowed at the time. A ttivo-stagy home that was Icss than a 35% FAR was allowed with a building permit. Corxa. ~32•optxy: ~ 7'l.e c;uestion about the other retairing wall would destabilize the slopes supporting their home; is there any response to that or is that- something that would be taken care of in the geotcchnical study. ---Colirr3ruug: - _ ® Regardless if it is a new permit or a building permit, whenever there is development situations in the hillside, all that must go to the city geologist; the applicant is recuired to hire a geotechnical engineer and they are going to be looking at not only the retaining walls, they are i~-~sa 12-34 Cupertino lIanning Commission 4 Suly 22, 2008 going to be loolcis~g at the basement walls; the pracling; the drainage and look at all that stuff It has to be reviewed not only by the citj> geologist, but also by community development staff. Steve Piaseclu: a Exp]ained #hat active solar is photo voltaic.=, where the sun is required to light up the photo voltaics and generate energy. Passive solar is the orientation of a house;. it allows solar to gain - access to the floor, walls, windows, so that t is homes caxi receive the heating. ~~ern. I~aned:a: ' ® Asked for the reason the 5,500 sq, ft. limited. square footage covenant was put in place. Steve $'iaseclci: a Said that when the three lot subdivision dime before the Planning Commission, there were concerns about House size and the appiicani: agreed to a restriction to the 5,500 square foot in Lieu of 45% on the 20,000 square foot lots. o Staff azistiuered Commissioners' questions about landscape mitigation for •~ll thx-ee houses, shared use of stoms drains and said the applicant would be required to pay a security depositor hook into the private storm drain that is in tl ~e Lindy Lane driveway. 5. >F{s-ishnapura, Applicant: ® Thanked staff for their cooperation in u•orki ag closely with them on the design. ® All recons2rzendatzans and cornulents front -Planning staff, and the public feedback. which has deemed to be the right fcedbaclc to address; have been fiilly addressed. Detailed landscape plan addresses ail neighbors' privacy; there are factual errors in the negative impact report submitted by the 20949 Lindy Lana residents and ure request upfront to have a sc°parate time.. forTeUuttal of the factual errors in the re:porE. ® He reported thaf aII staff fcscdback was add-essed including mass and bullq changing the roof to slate; use of mixed pavers in the drivewa.~; reduction of retaining wall height; landscape and privacy; reduction of the height of the house: from 453 feet to 450 feet. s ' 'The design meets the ordinance with no exceptions; comprehensive geotechltical review of the -lot finds proposed design and building construction suitable; mass and bulk of the desig~'is lowest compared to east and west side neighbors; building location is at the lowest slope portion of the lot limiting the cut and .fill; applicants diligently worked with the senior planners since Nov. 2007 to design Ilse house. o All reconlxnendatians or comments f ozn Plamiing staff covered public feedback or addressed by amendments to the: ordiisaisce, the dct~il~.d landscape plan addresses all neighbors' privacy. `l`he neigh. bor in the .front, the neighbor in the back and southwest direction, west north direction; they all have sent einails to the P13nning Dept. supporting the desigiz. Coua. 13ropliy: - a f~sked for a response to the staff suggestion that the setback for the east retaining wall be increased from 5 to S feet in order to accornsnodate privacy Landscaping; and the replacement of two mitigation Qal~s_ Apllicant: _ o _ Said he would~e wswi ling to increase the setback and replace the two mitigation C~alcs as suggested by staff a Said that the basement helps to hold the sta-ucture more geotecl~riically safe than the piers, and the construction-cost of the basement is similar in cost to tTse piers. 17 - 199 92-35 Cupertino Planning Con~inission Chair Miller opened- the public hearing. .Tiny?_2, 200&' .Ye :-ey :i ~";rre, :~ttorzaey represer>tlrzg o;rx9ez-s ai ZI}49 Lindy ~,~~~, F.ot 1: ® c~ppased to the project. ® Said the}~ were present because of the change in the ordinance_ The size and cubic: feet and n~easurenrents make fir interesting Wrap, but the real issue: is when the ordinance ~v~s changed, after tlrc uphill owners built their House, tl,c removal of Llre restric[icns on the second story allowed for ilre house on L.ot: 2 to have a touch larger area which iuzmediately affected the . -view and bloclcurg the :>olar access for the passive solar for the uphill property. Focus should 15e that the trpliili owner spcciftcally went in, reviewed the ordintuico, looked careiirlly at what was bevxb done, what t:ltc upstairs 35"/„ restrictic>tr ~~•ould do, and built the passive solar to take masimuxn advantage of what would be in place_ When Use ordinance changed and allowed for the Iarger unrestr~cic;d second story, this becanrc apparent when the story poles went up. ~~ You arc being asked to rrtake a decision with the resoIutian presented and to make certain iirrdings without the benefit of a stiafc reconrrnendation; staff calIin ; this as a case of first impression under the ordinancr:, but has iiot made zzrzy rccoxrunc:,rrdations for environmental review. Tinder CLQA, this is clearly an unusual circtzrrtstance, calling for at Ieast -some environmental review to look at scime of these in2pacts. The City has asked for further gaofechnical review because of Lhc: hillside. Whether or not the project confgnns to the Rl and RE3S zoning is a matter of some d.isl>uU~; in any respect the cio see that it does have an issue; with respect to the need for cuvircnmenial review. - • T'he impacts of the projecf arc not just: on the view and the passive solar; but as the design change. and configur-alions are going to go farw~rd, t}rerc: zz~ay be impacts on the hillside as well. The pIacemc:nt: of t17e ret<~irting wall is just the surface part, but it has to cut into the hedroclc that underlie , the uphill propci-ty_ - 't'he . uphill property ovmers are extremely eonoerned ~~~ith Lhis. - \~Te are here not to nbjecf to the building of a house on the: second lot, but simply cooking at what you have reaped. what you have so~~-rr in the. removal of a restriction fl-tat was put in place for the very specific reason of prote:c;ting sonic of the beautiful ti-iews of the valley floor to allow for some of these; rat}zcr shead of their tinge, the passive solar that the uphill property owner designed into the property. VJe ask tl}at you use your discretion to deny this and send it b:.ack until you Dave lrad a- chance to bet the environmental review_ S£c~~e ;'iaseclsi: Responded to the attorney's suggestion that more envis-onnrerrtal revietr vas needed before a decision wottld be reached. • Said the speaker did not refer to s section of CTQA that would be activated for environmental review; otu- reading of the categorical exemptions is that building a single faintly house is catcgarzcally etetnpt and does not require additional review. CI-zair Pdiiller: *~ The uphill neighbor is protected because the house carurot be built unless it passes ail titre necessary requirements from the geotechnical standpoint. Steve Piasecla: - °- ~aid~fte~pplicantis~rotected beaaus~tirc~ar~ ~ialtii3~~ the Fcor~so in corfomrarice, as v/e~l as the do«rzrhill; it is good connnon sense practice- ~ ~ -zoo 12-36 Cupertino Plaruting Commission b July 22, 2008 Seffrey Fiare: • Said he submitted a letter citing Section 1500.2 does address the issue of the use of the categorical exemption; there is no mentior. in the staff report of any categorical exemption, but the section also provides that an exception to the exemption under that provision if there is unusual circumstances which is our position here; which is cited iui the letter submitted. Steve Piasecld: m Said they have not found-any unusual circtnnstarccs, bust Section 1500.303 is new constriction or conversion of small stn~ctures, Class 3, specifically says "examples of this exemption include but are not limited-to one sing`c fazruIy residence or a second dwelling unit of residentiaE zone". Chair Miller: e Said that reference was made that it doesn't coatforni to ffie R1 and the 12H.S' ordinance, bLtt that is not relevant here, so I am not sure what we do u>ith that corninent because them is a special ordinance that applies just to l5 properties on this slope, and that is-the ordinance we are required to go by from the standpoint o£what ~'e are doing here tonight. .Yeffrey I-Iare: ® Deferred to the comments in the izNO letters he submitted to the findings that must be made and the fact that you must find the level of compatibility with the adjoining properties, the lack of any iiirpacis on the adjoining properties which we have detailed acid the fact that the project as it is currently proposed, will have these in-tpacts. You must make a finding that there are none of these in order.to find compatibility under those ordinances. I Think that the findings that are in the resolution before. you, the evidence that will be presented and has been-presented so far, shows that there is these impacts. They c.an be mitigated; but have not been done so to the degree that would satisfy us. I think that the finding of that, tl;c evidence will- show that a finding of no impacts on the adjoining property, no impacts on the passive solar, or airy impacts of that nature, are not supported Isere. With. all due respect, that is the finding. I summarized that in my letter to you dated yesterday July 21). o We would ask that you caiLSider this because I think there is a solution here; q,>e think that.the original ordinance was designed to Iirnit the upper story on_ these hillside areas for good reason; and we would like to see the opporunity for this to work out for everyone's benefit, to allow them to have a beautiful home on Lot 2 and to not create a situation with the larger upper story that creates a blockage of passi-~e solar and the views. S. Raghvendra, Cupertino resident: a In support of the project. ® Said that staff has held the applicants to a higher standard than required by the City laws; and made them go above and beyond by erect _ing the story poles, by having them take doves a number of elements the architect suggested. The applicants did so because they wanted to .make it a smooth process in meetilig the rules of the city. `Iles should give them a green light on the topic. - • Summarized that the applicant has followed all the rules set forth by the City and should be given ascent wi#hout further delay_ ~ej-I£vhli-@uperti~io-resident: --. _ ----- • Opposed to the project. • Said they were a neighborhood, brut he felt that it ~~>as presently just the `hood'; taking the `neighbor' out, which ha felt is wrong. Mitigations exist to the problem, the Planning Commission and Mayor's office is both the executive and the legislature; we don't v>airt to 17-zo1 12-37 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 S~tly 22, 2008 bring i~a the judiciary, we want to ii:t it as neighbors. o The City being the executive and legislator, should be responsible far responsible zoning. Why would 15 residents of+'~rperttno that arc hillside get a special zone.? Zt is a separate issue- but tlzc attorney brought up the point that if it changed midstream, it is an issue. ® Wlry do ~n>e call-tlzem hillsides? The reason we call ahem hillsides is that tl~~e lacy of gravity. does not change; that's what [Hake°~s ]t a hillside and if the law of g~~aviLy doesn't ch:utge, how can zoning change if gravity hasn't clraugc;d? It is on a 79% slope• to the conttnou eye, it looks unbu"ildable, and if you carve tiz;tt much of a hill ont, 2500 cubic ya>rds. In comparison, the potting soil bags {TOn7 the 1-Eomc Depot, that is one ctrhie :ioot, some bags have L«~o cubic feet, and we are tsllti-ing 53,000 cubio feet that are going to he taken eut of the hi]1 to make room for the house. 'I7ie house has a 2,000 square foot ba-seLnent, 2,000 square foot fir:;[ floor.- }tnd 2,000 square' foot second floor; it is nok a house, it is a box. That is where the I:I upper sfory going #0 3S% is important, because you don't want th~~ houses to he tnt~rers. A wall- up that slope and Ioolc at the property is very itnporYant before any decision='is made, and would request theft the 1'larrsting Commission at least do that before ma]t-ing a decision.. m Said he would vote to put sunshine back in this neighborhood. S:arvesh lb'1-azlaesh, 2.199 ~ ndy Lenart::: m Opposes the project Said they moved into their-bon>e one year ago, and when they desi~ red and built their home, the lot next door was an RIIS property and the maximtun allowable upstairs was 1,100 square feet. Since then the Taw changed arcl the special 15 houses have the privilege of designing under a different c:c>nsideration that the fee used for designing their house, ~'Jhile it izrereascs the value of'the other 14 homes, it serious]y jeopai'dizc-s our safely and quality of living. 7'he negative geo]ogical impacts; there is loss of privacy; views; qur_lity of life; passive solar and property value. ' The massive scale isn't'compatible• the current desig~t creates a. big hole next to our house; five feet from our prope=rty line, it creates a t~*to story deep basement; and it requires an 80 foot retaining wall which is between 10 and 1.2 feet high at different paints. All of this is 1,000 feet away £rorrr the IYLontc_t Vista fault at a very steep 29°i~ grade, ~sr7aich creates a high risk for landslides and earthquakes. t~ho indemnities that risl~? Betvreen. the tz~>o houses, if the second house was built the way it is proposed, there is going to be •r. thin sliver off the-hill there; if there were rains, eve might be neighbors too close fetr comfort. ~7ho says u e cannot move mountauis? ~~e der-ifinitely tried to move a hill here'. IL is 75 trczckloads that we are going to be. taking away from a lithe hillside, anal hopefully will pt.~t it somewhere where somebody has some use for it. Relative to the rrza.ss and scale of the upper story. The privacy; ciur living room is going to be looI<iug into one of the bedrooms of the proposed house. Seema 32agtrvextdrn: Said as an architect she has learned there always lies a good solution ~~ritit any problem; the. best way to Iook at it is there are marry options they sale make to the adjusirilents to the desitrrt - to initZgate their concerns. She mfened to the upper story mass of the current home and said - some of the things they could do is to reduce grading to reduce the height of retaining walls to center the house more parallel to flee contours ~-crhich is very fundamental hillside design; rotate it at first; now it is parallel to the contours and it is "moved away from their property line; the -- wig huge-ret<rimrrg-t, ail-hasztoc~"maved away~rid there~ts,Ch~ i~~po~tiusity~o spt~ z~ in~~vo separate walls which may be 4 feet and ~l feet. o There is so much excessive grading in the front; to set back the home, I Know it is a.greaC idea ' but eve could possibly move it forward and reduce a significant amount of grading (included in her report) and also at the back of the property where #lie house is exts;nding and "where the _ L t~-zo2 12-38 Cupertino Plartuii~g Commission Iuly 22, 2008.' yard is, it is steep. It would be good to protect that part and have the backyard pulled forward. These are comparative slides, ways to :rdju;t the fagade. Cnua. Brophy: Asked if' she had conversations with th:, o~Lners of Lot 2 during the process. 5ceina g~aghvendra: a Said she initially met with the owners of L.ot 2 in 2005; there was an approved desi~nz nn that tot for a bigger home; they contacted her and asked if she was willing to take the design and malcc some changes for them and submit it by the first 1vSarch 2005 deadline which was before the hillside overlay would come into play. ® T«ro of the items they wanted to change was to push the building back as in the current design; and they wanted to have really steep roofs. She brought to their attention not fn mare the roofs ally siccF~cr because the whole house was designed where they could see over it. 7`hey backed out from the deal, and decided to vc~ithdrav> because slae.did not have time to change the de~i~i in 2 weeks. She recommended they return to the original. architect ar~d have him make the modiFications, but they were aware that they were sa sensitive about their. views. ' Thcy met again on the lot before the May 2.9°'; and she submitted her objections because it zvas official. There vas a discussion aboutpassive solar in relation to the applicant's home. I0'Iatstagi Darjaruani, Cupertino resident: ® Said she believed everyone had the right to build their dream home, especially when a house is built in the hills of G~apertino, the responsibility that comes with that right, is building responsibly an the hillside and with concern for the existing homes. The Ivlittal's Koine is a grce°ri home, with solar ptuiels, eoncrete.tloors with radiant heating -and it has the strategically placed windows to garner the poc~>er of £ie sun and wind. The family room kitchen is a complete wall of windows which iAun~inates and wanes the home_ Iri front of the beautiful walls of windows aze the R=ells where the new home is Going to come up. If the plans are approved, the 1VlittaIs will lose the view they cherish. 1'he new home is probably designed to take in the vicvvs also because that is there right; however, is it not their responsibility to sham that rigltt with their neighbors, the ones ~3ho have been enjoying the view all along. Now . when they take away the Mittals access to the sun, there goes their passive solar dream home. I feel that a city that touts green building and claims that it is one of heir priorities should protest homeow-Hers who have: taken their advice. It is the right of the City to encourage the residen#s to build green and along with that right, I think the City has the responsibility to protect those homeowners who have done what tlse City wants them to do. I think this is especially important in a case such as this where access to sunlight is the key part of the design of the existing home. - - ' ~ The R1 ordinance states that its purpose is to ensure the provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels. Though the proposed home not only mitigates the air and the light, it will be built with windows that will look directly into the family room and flee family room is the heart of the home. Traditionally what the City does is _ they ask that you plant trees and privacy scri~ening; these are tall homes, and is it fair to ask the MittaIs to wait I O years for privacy or is it more reasonable to ask that some design changes be _____ ___._~p~0e_s~hat it-is try in com diancc. no~i y~ P ', y t>e quern~i~afcve aspects o e IZZ;~u~a2so with the qualitative aspects of RI, specifically with respect to light, air and privacy. ® Encouraged the new owners to work tvit7~ their neighbors to reach a compromise where everyone can enjoy the homes of their dreams. 17 - 203 12-39 Cupc:rtiino Planning Cornnzission 9 .7u1y 22., 200c3 t`7ifn I{oTrli, Cttl>ertino resident: ' ~~ Said she wanted. xo voice her opinion on the impact tha project is going to have on the i'irture of Cupertino hills and the: way that premium properties ~vi1l be sold in the future in C,uper-tino. ®- Said she was familiar with the two lots; and recalled ~*ihen the applicants were looking- for prggerty ur the hills wif}r ~~iews and the correct orientation .so they could build their green honk, "t"hey also wanted to be part of the; neighborhood and the prestigious community with. excellent schools. 't'hey looked at all available buildable lots with views in the area; and even looked at the lot in questiorr, Lot 2; but they dc:cidc~:ci tc> pay more for their lot which had a naturally existing pad; the second lot does not have a uatzarally building pad. After con.;=.tilting with experts, it was concluded that the lot is a beautiful one-hai£ acre Iot, with very steep slopes an'd lads any natural buildable pa.d.' It catz always be engi_necred with. extensive retaining- walls which would be extrcrnely costly. She said size was taken aback by what the story poles show; and has since Ioolccd at t12e pIazrs and she coneIuded that the story poles don't tell half the story.' o I?ue to the change in zoning, there is going to 1>e a huge house built on this lot; Maltesh and the P/Iittals star>d to Iose their views; the story poles are for neighbors to voice their reactions but the .city has to enforce: same nrles to saleguaz-d tl~e privacy and. views of the existing homeowners. I have not seen a precedent Iilce this in any of our neighboring cities like Saratog-a, I,as Altos Plills, etc_ and my colleagues feel the s~une way. Pcol~le buy honrc~S not only for schools, but for locations, views, orientations and sunlight. © Tlzc city lras a responsibility to be green and to protect these via the zoning code. If this project is approved as indicated lry the story poles, sloe. said sire would feel obligated to advise potential buyers that the City of Ctrpcrlinc> really does not care about adverse irrrpacts on adjoining properties and the quality of their properties ~~uili never be sectuz:. They are losing- a view lot. _ a Requested the Ylanzung Commissioners walk up the hill-to look.at what is going on there; they have a beautiful house. and have a right to build, but it 5hoitld-comply with the rules, and yet they should come to a mutual agreement ou that. _ Ire~s-in Lee, friend of a Ctaliertinn e'esident: ~ Opposes the project. 4> Express personal view, not professional. F~ Questioned why the proposed home had to be .built directly i.n front of the existing lhcime where it blocks all its vieti~rs, where'if the Ia_nd is Iarge enough it could be n?ovcd somet~,~here else. 'T`hey could enjoy the view o_f the h9ltside, yet not destroy someone else's view at flee same time. ® Said he has spent time at the existing home and enjoyed the view of the hills, and if the proposed- home is built, they will not have the same enjoyment. It is an in~porianY part of their social Iife, and is important to r~nderstand people's personal views and perspective on life. Anlcttr R~,zh eslt, S'on of 5eerna lgagltvendra: - ® Said dzat his favorite place in his home is the family room where Ise enjoys the view which will have Iost its chanr~ if the proposed home is built as shown by the story poles. Their home is a green home with solar panels that keep the home R~ann in the winter and cool irr the summer. If the panels are blocked flee heater and air conditioner will have to be utilized and will bririg dust into the home, causing allergies_ He said. lus school teaches saving energy 1 ecausc~flrc g-To-b~cnergy, crisr~ulif t-fie prol- m~~use is Iitiw~ own, t~zey i~zl not - be able to even store energy- during the winter. There is another way to build a House 'so everyone is happy; I am sure of it because it is such a big home. o He urged the neighbors and I'Ianning Conunission to consider his concerns and find a good effective answer for all. 1 7 - 204 t2-no Cupertino Pla~ining Commission 1 d July 22, 2008 Anu Y:trshneya, Cupertino resident: 0 8`" grade student, friend of Ankur IYlahesEy said she visits the home of her friend frequently and is interested in how the home is design ~d so that it is green and conserves energy. Said she aspired to bc. an architect anti ha /e homes that are good for the community and the environment. E, She said she knew tlaaf the Planning Comrission would xnalce fhe decision on the fate; of her friend's borne and said she hoped it did net have to lose any of its special and unique features. _ - 1Viratt Iianllcar, (idot 1rY~eseei/F^dx'itt('Ya corra:_tiercts x•ead?: Supported the project. 1'he applicant did not cliangc the rules ('~;on'ng rulcs~; he is just abiding by them. Ike has compromised in that lre did not l~uslr his plans io the Iinrits, even though.he could have. Ife is considerate of his neighbors. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Vona. D~anerla: ~ Aslccd if the comment made was cort'ect t7: at according to the previous ordinance, the second floor of this v/ould Izavc had to be I, lOd sq~:-are feet. Steve I'iaseclci: m The revised ordinance ;vas a result o i a very extensive process working with the neighborhood; many of the ideas came out of the neighborhood; one of those was that if uTe are going to treat this like a hillside area, perhaps we should give them the same flexibility that other hillside bonzes have in the RIIS district where they are not restz-ictcd by the 45%; they are allowed to have a larger second floc+r with flit rationale that you have a smaller footprint of the building overall. You don't force t1~e first floor to get bigger than- it may need to be otherwise. "I-lrat was a conscious decision that grew out of the neighborhood process; it v/as very extensive anal tools a long time. 'l}~~:-tally even in the valley floor, you are allowed to have 45% second floor to first floor r_ atio; e~~e;n that is tieing discussed as was brought up under C?raI Communications. Corra_ I3roghy: - a 1lsked hour consistent the C:iiy has been in the past regarding bloekine 's~iews of existing honks, which is the fiuzdamental issue. Colin-.Dung: ® "1'hc city ltas decided not to get uivolved in this on the basis of this one example, that the city has written in its olvn ordinances that we arc. not responsible for the views from properties. I want to caution you about this; but I think it would set a bad precedent if you grant a property o~~=ner aright to. have a viev,/ througtr so neone else's property; unless there was- a view ' easement through that property that ~*/culd allow them to have that. It is not to say that the City hasn't had developments, where it was a Piaruted Development zoning where all the - bonzes were bunt at the same time where t1- e grading and the home cons-fraction was done to make sure that each home had its owu view, but it wasrZ't three different-homeowners building _- hoiiaes-b~sed-c~n a di~e`ren~ s~f regulafa`on:~ 7iase3 on a~ff`erent time~arne -hut was-done a~ at the same time tivith that specific aspect kept in mind. i ~ - zos t2-41 Cupertino I'7aruzing Coninlission 3 1. July 22, 20O$ 4_'hatr T,titller: ~ 1Zelafi~>e to grading, goiti_g.back a nunzber of years, before anyi.Itiiig was done R~ith that hillside, it ~~>trs just one steep slope from top to bottom, anal one ot~ the speakers mentioned that there was a natural pad at the top. Zt may have been graded at some point; either just prior to the subdivision or imri~cdiately afterwards. Is there any recollection oftl~at! . t~o[fizc.:+uYrg: Said th:_ti the area eves developed uz the County many years ago; and one of the tliinps that t~,~:: learn each time lots get subdivided or homes get built tzp there, thc-re is a lot of uneng-u~ecred fill ozz a ]r:t oi' those properties: I'~~oplc; have pushing dirt around there for decades; those pads t~~ere sit ati :;onze point, probably •~>iihau-t t17e proper pernzittin ;authority. E_'ttair i;Tiller (in ~zg3piii~ant}: Said th.it the uphill neighbor suggested rotating ycstar house and sliding it forward; have you considered that as an a}icrnativc? ~^.p p if ca~zt: r,~iavizzg the house is going to have a much snore deeper towering effect on my lowes# side of t}te ]louse; znovinU the house forward is going to move more dirt out of the particular Iot, it will not help izi any w~.ty. The tlzirci point is that the second floor view of the upper neighbor is not at ~~ll affected ut Amy Zvuy because the top of tl-ze roof is at 450; the finished :floor of the second 1~Foor is at 453 of the ugps~r neighbor, so its about 3 feet aboi~e the i-oofline, It would not at3'ect the-~>icw fi-om the existing house. Q'oyn. Kaneda: -The bib issue is the. viev~s, and as we have heard, the City doesn't protect views. The height of this building compared to the other buildings and what it blocks; if you look at tine one section that shows the three homes; the home finthest down the slope blocks the ~-ound floor view of this hom^~; this home v,>ill block the ground floor view of the home above, The home that is tiu-tliest down the slope does not block $Ze second Hoot` view of the home above. 0 Ile said the tuifoz'ttaiate problem is that the home at the top of the slope is designed to take advru7tage of the views fi-om the gn-ound floor, aztd he Celt that is where the problem is. ZLelative to solar access, he suggested rotating it slightly, but push it north, not soufl7_ Ttze further north you get the building, the better winter solar access you 4vi11 give the other. house; it gets steeper to the north and is problematic to do that. n "1'he, home could be much bigger; it is 1,fl00 square feet smaller than it could be. $e said he ~~>as concerned about the depth of the cut into the hill for the baseznent_ Cam. I3rop6y: Said he was concerned about the height of the building, and was open to being convinced. The applicant 1-~as attempted to deal with the objections of the neighbors; lie said he, was presently inclined to support approval with.the additional clauses that staff reconzzrzended at the beginning of the meeting. - Conc. moose: . Said that everyone was feeling some of the struggles on both sides of the property line; on one ---- ---- - an mot-rya-~vc~zrderfaf z7cperien~o-Have iourid a~o~to-~al~ie to build ski-a Tiig house oa; on the other hazed, she felt for the existing neighbor who also Just finished doing the same thing_ She said she ~~>as optimistic that the applicant ~~could have some good ideas on how to make it work out afte;-r hearing the honest input from the speakers. The house conforms to the ordinance as it stands today; them doesn't appear to be any place that allows them to change or 17 - 206 12-42 Cupertino E'lanning Commission T2 3uly 2?_, 2008 mandate; airy change to the proposed ~;i~-ucClire, other than reciueing the lt'r_ight slightly, but she - did-not sec any way to rrrttkc that happen. ® Said she agreed wi#h Coms. Kaneda arld L-3rophy; but rues not knowledgeable c-Hough about the. grading process and would rely on the city's geologist report and assumed that the- i-nfom~ation from that would be considered as they cle:cide to move forward_ Her wish was that it could work out for everybody, as they both l,.ave the right to have their dream homes. Chair R~iiller: a The; issues go back further flan just r>,>hat i; happeninb tonight; when the subdivision vas done it wa.s probably too aggressive a suhdivisi~n and. perhaps two houses might have tit better on this property than three.- C7nfortunatelr, w~ don't have the lu~cttry of doing that now, there are three Iots, each one of these owners h:3s tl~e right to develop their property and when v>e look at the ordictance, if it vas under the R1 or ruide:r the RIBS, we might he couung up with a ditferent result, but i#'s not uricler eitlacr one of those ordinances; it has its o«~n special ordinance. o Some people feel unfairly put upon becau..c: of the current ordu~ancc; however, that ordinan.cc u>as put in place because otlie.r people fe]t anfairly put upon and that «>as a compromise with a larger group of neighbors; it is diffict.tlt to make everyone feel comfortable atnd. reach some compromise that t~>orks for ever}>one, :Hid ~c wish we could. In.tltis case, it hasn't happened; those 15 neighbors in general were unhappy with that ordinance -that governs their development there, and they fozr ;ht against it. Soiree speakers said they got the benefits front. that ordinance, but in fact, they didn't fee.; t]tst way, and they opposed it and they lost out at the City Council Ievel. Hcrc at the Planning Commission level, we'did not sttppart the current ordinance that governs those 15 lots; we opposed it; but the City Council chose to take a different direction and they approved ~.>hat is in place nary and at this level ors job is to adhere; to the rules and to the ordinance. As everyone has said, the current proposal meets in every way the ordinance that is in place now an<i in a number of ways, is unlil~c some applications that we see, is actually coming in Icss Char, the maximum. requirements and the big one is the 5,500 square foot above ground requirement, which this applicant is coming in at only 4,500 square feet and the other f~vo neighbors are already 5,500, ~vlaich puts their- mass trt a lrighcr level than this house. - ' m Relative to grading, it is bard fo see that it's one slope, That this house is taking out more dirt than the others did; in fact the others proLabIy- took out at some lime more dirt just because they have a larger foofprint on the first floc.-. Said he was sensitive about the solar issue; however, it does seem like the neighbor with his expertise, has done an excellent job iti desigt.ing a house that requires_n~inin~al energy. The wall discussed is mostly the eastetz't wall anti his understanding of solar is the southern exposure is the most important one; the wesfcrn is the: second most important one; -and the easterly is the Ieast important ilre north does not co>_u3t at all, It doesn't seem like t12e solar, if there was any bloelcage at all to the: soIeir as?eets of it; it will be minink-tI in -Eerms of the energy savings that the neighbor is going to benefit isom_ The house does not have the overhang that protects -the- windov,>ed area when tdie sun is 1'tigfi in the sky during summer; it seems for a cumber of reasons that the passive solar is=_ues that u>era raised bore tonight, don't seem to be as important as some of the other issues. As the -other Conirrtissioners stated, tlrc most important issue to the u.philI neighbors is tl-te view,-and Cupertino does not have a position on views and does not protect view>s and it would ----- ---..__ -.-1]e~itniStalce fnr~~_to~LaTrPrPrler~tu~o-::n-herexonight_----_---------------- o For (hose reasons I support the application with the provisos that the screening of privacy of the #wo adjoining neighbors is done appropriately. ® The other issue is w-atc:r runoff both from the top lot and middle Iot to make sure they both tie into the storm drain system, so we don't exacerbate the situation in ter-tns of runoff. t~o~~ C~ipertino 1'Ianning Cotr~n~issicn 13 Tuly 22, 7_OQ8 i:![a[ion: I±-1nti; ,~ by C'ctn2. Lr^o1r12}>, s°co:atl Uy CGoaaa_ I~sined;a, to alrgrovc the -draft resoI'uiion, adding to i# Clause S: the replacement of the trr>o zuitigation Oalcs, and Clause 6: fo increase the setisaclc of flee east retaining wall froru S to 8 feet in na-der to accornnaodate a suifstble ps-ivacy landscape sc-a•eenirze;. (V"ote: 4-0-0; Com. Csie'er al}senf) T~di~lc°-::clcrl<=u~c.1-~ z=c~~s.--------- _ ------- -------- Updx~-cconvciiing the meeting, the agenda ~n>s~s moved to Item 4, Nesv Business. 4. r~riefira~:aa f"ou aetg 1'.',lea::c:ast rar~date prrc>ec~ss a:rad seFootiozi of 31<'Iannixars C'orrnsnissiori anernlaey- :titetid gi:clce2aaEdcr naa-.utis~g::. :3teve A'iaseclci: ~ . •~ Said that the T~ou~`i~~~~~s~ Lloinent update process had been Icicles-ed oif and E3ay Area Bconoxnics held 24 intervic~vs wi~llPote:nSial tote.-rested st-~lceholders. r'zra 1 enastnger, S3ay ~^AreF3 =±;c~~ <~ Pa'ovzded an overview of wla: to aftcnd tlu-ee focus group sc "1"tae housing element is one document used by local jur Iaousu2g should go. It tends t on a 7 to 9 year cycle. The c State does not require the h The hoxxsiaag element contaii~ an invcntoy of sites for ne housing. 'The essential ~proce nee=r residential development - they az-e sibmificant rehal~ilit foster youth, people ~-pith efts presented to the Plannirxg C approved, it is prc:scnted to (IIC:I~) for certification. Lf c done, it removers the city frc pursue some development px certified housuag element, be of what your hog-icing needs a types of housing and t~-arzsp futcare litigation. 7~iere is n going to came in and lorce the housing element process entailed. Asked one commissioner ssr us conducted over the next two to three months. ~f se n G mineral Plan elements required by the State; a primary ;dictio to identify- housing needs and to asc~itan where near ~ be upda tl every 5 to 7 years by late, although in California it is m-ent houses element planning period is from 2007 to 2014; the Busing elemen ~ to be approved and submit+.cd until Tune ?.009. > a needs assess nt, constraints analysis, goals and policies and N development. Z also includes a plan to accoxnsnodate-ncJ~v ss is t12at I3A1? goes t -ougla a procc ss of identifying-sites where could take place; identxf 'ng the housing needs; whether or not teen needs; are there nee for- senior housing, for emancipate-d liilitics; layin~~ out a progra >f actions that form the plan. Tt is ~riu3zission for approval ~aaid tc the City Council. Zx,'hen it _is he State IJepartmcnt of 73ausing tad Conzanxmity I?evelopment trtified, it certifies tEaat if is ui comp 'ance with State law; when ai any risk of being sued by an outsic party that may want to ~posal or have soave other advocacy age a in mind. F3aving a yond allowing you tlae opportunity of havi~ a frank discussion 'e, is a way for flee you to position the city to c pete for certain ~rlation infrastructure tiarads and also it avoids zc potential of autoniati.c regulatory process at the State Ievel ere HCD is ou to have a certified housing element; they can o deny g>oo _' - __ ,-_ v....... b ..~ .....~ ~.-. .. ..~~.~ ...~.... .~nr~..,... u.~ vi ~~ «/ 4 <: G114111 f threat of litigation. a Give.-n that wc: lti-xiovr there are a lqt o£ concerns' abut deyoJop~n~nt in Guge in particular tlte:e are eoncca-ns about maintaining the city's quality of life about schools, park - open space, tine impact of new housing developments could have for. good or bad of the city's future, what we arc doing with this time around with the housing element update process, is a t~-ZOs tz-aa Colin Jung h~Iay 2S, 2(30 Senior Planner r City of Cupei-ti_tio . -. _ dudcopy via Mail. 10300 Torre Avenue Cuper{ino, CA 95QI4 ~ - _ -" Dc~u- Co1ui: ~ . I a~n uniting to you regardir~ J the proposed residence at 21947 Lindy Lane. I live adjacent at 21943 Lindy Lane, winch is file Tact noiglibot_ Unfortcinately, Z am unable to approve the proposed drawings as submitted for the follotis ing reasons. i. TI~ere arc inaccuracies ar~d diserep.uzci:s on.#hc Location oftl2e retaining wall in i-clation to the property line on different pales 1_there may he. otlzer inconsistent depictions, btrt I only checked a few dimez~sions)_ 2_ The height and proximity of the proposed retaining wall is of extreme impact -more than - 10 feet as draws on the front elevatson and section az~cl only six feet away from the property li~ie 3. Privacy regarding the 2"d floor balcony and land:;cape screening that I:as been proposed In reviewing the drawings provided by the city- of Cupertino; T found that tllerc are inaccuracies in the distance between the property Brie and the proposed retaining wall closest to my property. It has boen represezifed as six feet on file Topo and C'rradin.g plan, but is reflected as eight or even ten feet on tl~e Elevations and Section, while i1-~e dimousion~~I setback sfill z~~zains at 14 feet 7/3 _ inch.. Thus, it looks like there are different ~vicths of the driveway (area bets>een retaining wall acrd garage. The scale used on tlse cross-suctions and the elevations provides additional di.s#:ancc depicting more ope2iness between the two prop ei-ties tli:3n ti~hat is planned to be built, which is misleading. Based on the dimensions on the tcpograplucal plans, there is sic feet bei4~>een the property line and the reta;ning wall, which cre~~tes a very taI_L retaining wall to be iii very close proximity to my property_ I have a concerri of'the location of retaining wall., where it is only si.Z Legit fi•om the property line and thus too close to my property. The walkway that I have adjacent to the propo~ ed project sits 'approximately six feet below the exposed base of the proposed retaizrinb wa11. 'Thus the retaininb wall s#~arts at apoint that is six feet above the grade of nay rear walkway. If w~~ add the six feet starting point, plus the ten feet retaining wall (that is only 6 feet away froTri the>_property line) plus an additional 25 feet ofl~ouse creates 41 feet of structure that is Just 15 feet a~~vay from the property line -(.see the attached diagram). With -this retaining wall so close to ray property, -this creates an extreme impact ou my property, where anyone who walks the wall~vay will have a towering structure above. them and there will be loss of sunlight along the rear of niy house_ ~r~t~zt of a's~id-tee'=o_~~z=tairrin~vsa~fi3~rc~a~it _ yen~ix_rev:~:s~p~liy?a~1c~r~-~~u'CCL-~~ut~i,~~~. _ wall ~'vith an inset of four feet for auotlier fear #oot retaining wall, and finally another four feet inset and then the ret~ini»g wall, so fhat the- re c;~n be planting arzd a stepped scale to the vertical element, not to mention the stepped loading- on the walks_ -The Iandscaning that is beizlg used to 1 7 - 2os 12-21 Pages. 1 of 1 GoEirt Jr.trs i=rom: xihrra sun ~xihuasun~yahoo,co[ni ~enl: Thursday, May Z2, `?OC}E3 70.43 1'I~i 7e~: Shesh~ i<arshnapur.->; Colin Jung Sut~jeci: F3uilding design T-~i Bolin, I'm the ~im:naccliate ac3jac:cait aieighbor of I~~~. She;slza Krislinepura nn I iJiri~r Dane. A-Eter reviewing His desig~i, I felt #:hat it coin-formed well to the current ordinance_ 'i`l~ereforc, we: don't have any obje.ctiorL, to tlic current de:sir~n. I hol~E= he ctur have leis dxr.a_tn I~ornc: bruit ~zs cfuicl:ly as possible. Franlc Sun 17-z1o 12-20 ~a C3~ii7 .J l.E I7 G,] .. - From; Sofa Rodent [brodert@corncast.nei] ~.. Sent= Tuesday, May 27, 2Dp8 92:20 PM _ To; Coffin Jung ~ubject; Re_ Respor:ses to }roar questions about the Two-Story Residentfaf Pemtit for 29947 !_indy Lane= R-2DOf3-94 & RM-2J08-~6 - The excel-lent Photograph clari=ies everyth~-ng, Colin. S'd for_gotten that ithcra's a t21i-rd lot= up thorn. That's goy-ng to one cozy 1~i21_sic3e when the rot 2 house is .%inishe_d! Thanks for the cle.ri.ficati.on. Bob Rodent 21917_ Lindy Ln_ - ~ ' Cup e rt i n o - - 257-?_607 Colin Tung zvrota: > Bob: > Attachac}. is an aerial photograph of the property. You may ]rnow it as Zot ~ 2 e*t the Noxley subciiv i.s i-on, the vacant lot next to the Mi tt als and across the dr ivaway :fro;-ci r'r a?-i,c Sun. St has story Holes on it that shou]_c1 ba visible once you walk a ways up tYaa driveway_ > There are two 3arge oaks at the rear of tk-ie property that are iinafiected by the developseent. There are-~a1so five recently planted oak trees on the lot that was rcc~,ire~ mitigation for previous tree removal on th_a property-- .four ir_ the rear a7_ong and a £iit1~. in the front. A11 should be on t}le landsca-_e plan. - > - > Colin Jung- ~ . > Senior Planner - ~ _ > City of Cupertino , > 908-777-3257 - - ' > c<R-2008-14~ Vicinity 2Sap. doc» _ - - 17-211 12-19 Y~[-fie ~ of?_ G~fira J~ing From: Luciano V_ L7allc> C1re []d alleore@gmait.corn} Sent: Wednesday, i'~fiay 2.8, 2008 5:22 PNf To: Gity of Gupertina l~Iai~nirig Dept.; Colin Jung Cc: 'G'risiina Palle Oro.' Sub3cct: Comments on proposed new residence rzt 21947 Lindy Line tear Mr_ Jung . Tt~esc are our comments regarding the new residence at 21947 Lindy Lane. 1. f=irst of all; we worald like to let you l:rrow tha# vre are very pleased with the prace~s of requirii,g story pole:; and neighbors notification. Although this process is more curnt?er:aome and ri-ray creels initial tensions, if handfed in an appropriate way, it israr [~c>re preferable than to present the community with ci fait-acccrrnpfi tivhicl> may result in Iong term resentment between neighbors. As you may understand, given recant history, a peaceful coexistence is by now of paramount Importance for us all. - 2. We also understand that the owners. hav~_ been in conversation ~ti~ith their neighbors .over the lone,} week- end regarding possible compromises which may result in alterations of the proposed plan. Since we are e>ctremely supportive of these discussions, v/a Frnd ourselves in the unenviable position of having to balance our need to ba conciliatory in our approach and feedback with our need to formally record our issues. As such, we will List them along with our stated desire that these issues be discussed in a constructive and infom~al process with the owners rather than through a formal process within City Hall. 3. (We understand th(s is being addressed) l-he front of fhe house does not seem to take into account the fact that ttie house is paced on a slope -the cut and fill approach appears to tE:sult in nesting a "flat land" house on-the sidr, of the hilt, which does not take-advantage of (and actually appears to fgt7i) fi~a topographical features of the fat, and alcd requires possibly higher retaining v~^alls than necessary. 4. We are not particularly fond of the stone exterior for the entranc=~. Wnile.we understand and-respect the fact that these are the ov/ner's choices, we ~arould tike to make sure that tt>is has not been an added requirement by the city which may not necessarily reflr:ct the av/ner's (or far that matfer the neighborhood) vrlshes. 5, i he privacy protection planting plan drawings are not completely clear- We would tike to confirm that there is a plan to hide the house from the side of the access road and from the residences c>n the south side of Lindy Lar7e and Lindy Place by deploying a screen as close as possible to the road. Given that tl-rare is a generous frontsetbacl<, the owners would still be able to preserve the-English style impression of the entrance ance past the privacy screen, while still protecting whatever is left of the rural character of the north side of Lindy Lane. 6. From the point of vie~r/ of compromises on size andlor scale, we would have no issues of supporting an expansion of the house up to 5,500 sq ;t. andlor irycsease of height of the two front turrets, as fang as privacy concerns are satisfied thro~rgh the use of appropriate screening and as long as the height and placement are cooriiinated v/ith the neighbors. We really appreciate the effort that you and the rest of the staff are investing in trying to get our community to --- -- `-WZSr -';i5g~tr[ar toward-a ~ac~rv-Y'flF So7uzr`ari--.----. - ------- -.---- - E3est Regards Luciano ~ Cristina Dalle Oro Luciano V. Dalle pre ~ 2210'1 Lindy Lane ~ Cupertino, Cf~ 950'14 U,S.A. ~ m. -r-1 (408} 9S2-4804 ~ h. +1 (408) 2`- 17 - 2~2 t2-~a Telephonic Carnments from Neighbor" concerning development plans for 21947 Z,iudy Dane. 1, Trom Andrew Tau 21937_ Lii7dy_L__ne: - Iie is canccrned al~ou.t the Lliree red4~~ood trees across from lus house and does not want to see them removed. He also does not want any cansizuct~on to be too a~oisy. 2_- Frnm 73111 Gtzerlf;ericl2. 7. 1950 l;inci}r Lane: Ilse said tho City should use its pa~v~.rs to place House so views from upper lot are not o1~st~-acted. 3, 7+roi_n__ Sara ~rlen_o, 21902 T ind~L_~ne_' She e:cl~ressed her cancc;iz~s with future coivsti-uction impacts on the neighborhood and said ti2ere should be a const;.-uct.'on inanagcment plan in place. I7. Golinj/S~TOrd Docs/i2-?oOS-14b.doc i 7f7~a ~7 Arch_ Plans for 213•{7 Lindy L ant ~ Jiz)y 22, 2008 Page 4- - Ieve1 generally accepted by the cnn~zzu~uty, Typically the City :has allowed new homes to be maxinzicc~d within thie approved. frarzle~~rork of the R1 Ordutance provided that.the do ,i€;zz and the style of the home are cozzsisient and/or compliment the neighborhood. , I~rzilding permits were issued uz 2005 for the T_,ot 1 (upslope) and Lot 3 (downslope) lion2es. 3oth owners elected to bullet up to tl~e ma_~cirnum, which is 5,500 square feet and their second-stories were Iimiteci {:0 35%~ o.f ttie first story, whicTz were th.e zonizi g rLiic~s ire ~ ffect at the time of cozvstnzctZOn. Tl1e zoi~ing regulations for this area cl~angeci in November 2007 and the r~wner of L of 2 has elected to build a srnaLler house (4,500 sclu~u-c feet), set it back f7-oxr,- the f-~-ort driveway, air+.I build a larger second story (74.3 of the fi.3'st flooi•7, t•vluch is allowed by -the neznT zoni~zg amendments. T[ze applicant Tzar nzociified the design to elinzi~zate its previously izeavy appearazlco and to ac?.iieve greater neighborhood carrmpat-i.bility betFVeen the older, sraaltc~r .r~uzclz-style hoz-nes acid the newer, Iarger. liozizes of mostly Z.us•opean and modern architectural styles_ The concrete file roof eras clanged to a lighter slate oi- clay file roof. The roof veneer •s.vas renZOVed fzam -the tzzrrets ai2d entrance and limited to just the base of the liouse_ '7-hick balcony balczstrt•ades wore re~Iaeed ~•uittt the thinner iroiZ-steel railuz gs_ Th.e applicant wiT1 also be adding fenestra.tio~zs to the wirtd.ozvs to break up overall window sizes. Overall staff believes •tlie applicants will be creating an acceptable balance l~etweezi the older azzd newer xesidences in the neighborhood. l~etainzz~ V~aI1 Height Br L ocatlon The a.p plicant has Iowered~the T~u_ildirlg pad three feet to reduce the height- of the retaining wa[1 facing the do~nrizslope property to 6 feet or under. Retaiu2hZg walls meet propi~rty liu~e setback regulations and will be reviewed, along with the basement and foundation; by the applicant's geotechnical eng-ineer and the City`s geologist prior tc3 build.ing.pennit approval. Lowering t1-ce buildin ;pad, raises the 1-zeight of the upslope retaining wall by three feet, but tY~t z~rall is not visible to the upslope property owner. The P~-1 ordinartice requires retaining walls in excess of five feet.to be screczied with landscaping or faced with decorative .materia?.s. Construction Activities constz-uctioiz maiZag emezzt plan should be required as part of a buihduzg permit application. Construction activities must meet the City noise ordinaz~ce anti required construction hours_ The applicant will adc_ii~ess this at the hearicig_ Li~12t and ~1ir Obstzuction of Passive Solar Howe Desi~-n and Obstruction bf Views Compliance with the R-1- building setbacks azzd building envelopes is by definition __ ______ providin~aci~cluate air and Iight to adiacent iesidenfia7 parcels. T3~i]cli_n~~P~ns-zi-af~ioszs_ _- .between Lot 2 and Lot 1 (upslope) is even generally greater than the minimum buildii~g setbacks with most- of the proposed second story wall lengL-h 14 to 17 feet away from the property Iiztie and 27-30 feet away from the upslope residence wall. In. reviewing Shoot 17 - 2'14 12-13 Arch., Plans for 2194'l E,iJZCiy t.asie Jrsly 22, 2008 Pzigc 5 1~-8, the elevation of f_he second floor o:E EIz~. proposed residence is below the elevation of the first floor of tho Lot 7_ (upslope) residence. The view frorsZ the I of 1 residence is essentially that of a recessed one-story dw~>lling. The solar c~esi~n aspects of the R7 mooning c,rdinaizce have been misinterpreted by the neighbors (exhibit U). While the City nay allow vari:-rlices to setlUack and height to accommodate passive or active solar cc~t.ril,anent or house desiT;ti, no such modified structtsrc shall infringe upon solar casements or adjoitaitz~; property o~,vners. TI1_erc ase no solar easements tan the properties. The City does not reguta_te the proter_tiean of views in hillside areas (Exhibit C: CivTC sectio7z 7.9.4O.Q50(L )). A„ the plans are proposed the Lot 7_ house occupies a zniddle elevation thaf niai_ntains car creates a second story view for each o.f the tliu~ee ~~-djacenf Iots. There are no viewslted easemcizts on `-he propr~rlies_ Privacy I'rotectian The project is screened frcam Lindy Lane by the preselzce of the mature trees downslope from the property and ttte existing house o_~z l_ of 3. 'The project will be required to adhere to the required privacy proiectic~n s tandards outlined in the R1 Ordinance, which include screercirtg of sc~cc~nd story window aril balcoiZy vie~~s into adjacent- side as?d rear yards, Landscapes sereertirtg was r~.ot required for rear yard views Uecavse the rear yard property owner is at a grade elevation above the sewn-d floor of the proposed house. The ordinance allot~vs adjacent property otivraers to waive or modify those Iandscaping requireszzenf-s in writing itt the event that privacy landscaping is not - wanted. 5ubaazitted by; Colin rung, 5c.nnr Plazirter , Appraved by: Steve Piaseclci, Director of Colruntuuty.Dc=_velopnteL~- ,_ ~~_ ENCY.fJSLT1ZES Model Resolution for approval . Nfodel Resolution for deiual (available at he wring) l;xhibit A: I~Teighbor comments 1xhibit l3: Excerpt :from solesi- provisions of R1 Ordinance F_zlzibit C: Fxcespt from Views and Privacy provisions of RI 7S Ordinance Plan Set PZ:CuptNt/PI:~rming/Pdreport/pcReporES/2007/20Ci7 ArcTi Plaits 219.27 Z-.indy T anc.doc 17 - 215 12-14 CiT'~' Ot< CUI? I :I:' I :INO _ 10300 Torre 11vet~ue Cupertino, Califonua 9014 12I~S-OLU'ITON NO. OI7 THr' I'LANNrNG C014~1-~Ll°L~IOl~? OF '1T-lam CITY 03? CU7'FRTiNO APPROVING A 121i~1]7i~.NT11~T, DESIGN PEIZM7T ~ OR ~1 I~II~~T 4,499 SQU:~IZE r'OOT, 2-STORY SIl~[C~LE I+AI~/II L`~' RFSIDs 1tTC~, 1°~T 21947 LLNDY Lr'1NI; S7C~T'IOl~i_~: I'RC~j1_.GT i7;~S~_IZIPTION /il>I~lication No.: 2007 resicl-ei~tial design perliiit Applicant: Ch;~a-Ching L in (F~r:ishnapura ~r t~lli~la5alzdras~t Residence) I.acalion: 2"E947Lindy Dane - ~~~IC'TIt7I~:f .I7: 1~ i N 7~s~ NGS WH~F<~.AB, public notices have been given in aeco~dance with flue Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, aizci the Piax~nng Coriuitissioiz fleas bald one or more public hem-ings on this matter; and tN7-LT'R£AS, th.. appli.cant has ~n-~c~t tine burden of proof required to supperE said applieati-on; and liar satisfied t3 ie follawiulg recluirerne7zis: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, w-i=11 not be defzimental or injurious to property or iin_proveLrc:nL-s in tYGe vicinity, and ~,ril1 not be cic.frirst~rtal to the public health, - safety, ge~~e~ al welfare, or convenieszce; ?-_. The= proposal is cc>ilsistent with the purposes o.f ibis chapter, the General Flan, and zoning orclin:~ncc:; 3. Th-e propos<~1 Znri11 use matoriaals, design eIe:a~:~~Zts and simplified building forms that corrrl~liment tl~_e cxisti~tg and j2eighboring sf ructiares; N01~V, 't F~L3RTT`OR1~, 1313 IT RL.SOL VI~.TJ: . That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testi_urony arzd other evidence submitted iri. Phis matter, the architectural aazd site plans arr_ hereby approved subject to the conditions S~Thiclz are enunZerated in this Resolution begu~rri_rrg on page 2 thereof; and That the subconelusions uppn which the findings and conditions specified uz this resolution are based and containedzn the public hearuzg record con.cernilzg the residenEial clesigii permit .for 21947- Ludy Lane. set forth. iit the Minutes of_tlre Planning Conim;~sion sneetirz~of -- -- ------ July 2.2_, 2008, and are incc~rpo-rated by reference, as tlzaugh fully set forth herein. SICZ'IOI~I III. CONDITIONS ADIVIINISTU:RFT~ 13Y TIi13 COIVII~4CJNITY D~:VILOI?_MENT D EI'~C'. - 17-216 ' 12-15 Resolution IVa_ 6490 f~SFi-20!l%--T2 Novenzb`r T3, 2t)07 Pa"ge 2 -- 1. APPROVED PRC~IECT _ Approval is based on plarz set Titled: "The ICri:~Iu~~pura's New F~esidence/21947 Lindy f aric/Cupertino, CA 95Q1~k" consistizig of Z3 shoets labeled A-0 through A-8; ~7-,;I, C- 1, C-2 ar>d L,-1 dated 4/4-/08, except as amended by the Conciitioi~.s cordained in this Resolution. 2_ ~TG~"I'iCE OP PZ,?S, I3L;'DI;CA'Z`IDI FSL_L~~~SE RVATI02~TS Ofd DTI--t_FR I:?~f~~'T~i:C3I~3u' The Condit-ions of Project- Appi~ov;_l set forth herein zrtay incluclc certain fees, dedicatio>z requirements, xeservation requirements, and other exactlons_ I'ui:suaztt to Government Code Sectioaz 66020(d) (1 ), these Conditions constitute ~v_ritten-notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, aiui a descrip-Sion of the dedicatiolvs, reservations, and other oxactioszs. ~'ott are hereby ftlrtI~er notified that t11e 90-day approval period iu1 which you may protest these fees, dedicatiolZS, reservations, anc3- other exactioi~s, pursuant to Goverzun~ ant Code Section 66020{a), has begcttl. If you fail to f-i7e a protest witlii-ri this 90-clay period complying w3tl~ all of tl~e recjtYiz•e7zic.rLts of Section 66020, you will be legaIly barred front Iater c11allengin.g such exactions. 3_ G~.S~'I`FCP3'I~,TICAi, RE~Tl~;'~4T Prior to building permit approval, b:-Bement, retaining walls, grading and drainage shall be evaluated aric3 desigYZed L-y the applicant's geotechnical engineer and review=ed and approved by the City Gcologlst and City. 4. CO?~TSTRICJCTIOI~T P/IANAGEII!!_,4?:1°~I'I' I'LAl°•7 Iii conJuncfion wiil~ the building permit review, the applicant shall submit a constTUCtion manageineni plait to adcLress staguzg of consflucEion materials, loading and lznloading areas and -parking for construction vehicles. Tlie Director of Community Development sltall reviezt~ and approve that plait, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22n~t day o£ July 2008, at a Regular Meetiin~; of flee Plazzning Corn_rriission of the City cif Cu-~ertino, State of California, by the followiizg roll call vote: AYES: CONf1VJZSSIONERS: NOES: COM-MISSIONEIZS: ABSTAIN: COMIVIISSIONER_S': ASSENT: COMivSISSIONERS: A`I"1 EST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki - R~Iarty IVIi1Ier, Chairperson Director of Con~tmunity Development Pla rtT,ing Coirznussion G_CuptnE/pIa-nnirig/Pdreport~Res~2007/2007 Arctz 3~ ;~ii~ Plans for 21947 I,isidy 7.ane approval.doc 17-217 12- 16 Reso7-~is.ozc itiTo_ c;5:~2 .t_ D~<^, ~A_rcF2_ c,~ S~.tc. ~~T_~~~-'_'or jI347 Lii~ciy i_.asze Jzzly 22, 2CX3$ - - I'~ ~ .3 PASSES _~1I~Ft~ ~1.~~C)L'TF~.}J the ~~na ~~<~.y chi Tiny 20E7~, a~ a Rc:~Tt~r Meet;aag of €I~e Plat~.rlin~ Corrrnussion or .i-ite Ci_fy of Clxpertinor State of Cali{ou-pia, by f'.~o fc~Ila~vii~~, rc~Il ea71 vote: f~.Y~3S: CC~I4~714~i 3~7It~I~~~_a.i:S: Ciiiz.lrE~erso.r~ iv17~Jer, ~s-opliJr, T_~<~1r ,, r _~3z Ro~>~_, I~7t~~S: Ct?t~~~ii417.`_:~IQIti?F~IL.~~: r~-o~~~ - f1B~s`:I'1'~I~T_ CC?Ti~ItY1I s;IC?L°~~l~w: rtos-~~:e A~:_t~NT: C<7Mi~~II~~:IC~1~Tf `~: Vice CZ-E,~ir a~~i['i.°._1~ / ~ St~v~ I?i.asocl-i--- .-^__ f s/ i~fTart~_Ii~Ii~I~r - _ Steve .Uiast~~~Ici 3t/laty h~Iillc~r, Cl~airper~-oi~ f7ircctar o£ Cou~si2ui-~ity- Uevelo}~n-~e~zt _ L~Lann3xl~ Coa~-lission -,. G:~Cu~fntfg~~riigag/P~reaoFZJResJ~~~jv~c?er~-?0~8-24, IvI-2aD8-76res.doc _ _ 17 -218 12-9 CIT`t CF CLIPTs'RTLItiTO - 1030fl Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Calif~arnia 95014 ~dY'AYZ'TM~:iVT OF CQIi441V1UNI'i'Y DT_:'C%ELQ1'ISZEP~IT l~~PfJI~T x'01-L1Vi Application: n[> applications (sea Discussion, first paragraph) Ageaida Iaate: Jidy 22, 2003 1~pplicaiit: Chia-Ching Lin Property ~ocatiorz: 21947 Lindy La-rte, AC'~T 356-25-029 AI'PI.ICA`1`I~3I~1 SgJt`+/dl~A_R~: ~ Director's referral- of architectural artid site plans for a new, two-stony 4,4~~9 square-foot single family residence with basement T~CGMIVI~I~I~ATi Oiv7 _ - I~To recomnlendafion PT~~JT;~'T I7ATli: Lot Axea: 20,473 square fE~et existing Zozi_i_ng: R1-20 (Single-I'aisiiIy Residential, ,,,;T,i,,,,um tot size 20,QOD sq. ft.} $asement Area: 1;977 sq. ft. First Floor Area: 2,040 sq. ft_ (wj o garage) - Garage Area: 541 sq. ft. - Second Floor Area: 1,918 sq. ft• `T'otal Floor Area (w/o basement): 4,45>9 sq. ft. Total Floor Area (w j basement): 6,476 sca . ft. (Uasemenf not counfabie toward building area) Maxiizlum Floor Area: 5,50'J scj, ft. (notFAT2-based, restricted by property covenant) Floor Area Ratio: 22% of 2nd Floor to 1St I~Ioor 15r Story Front Setback: 15E Stogy Side Setbacks: 1St Stony Rear. Setback: 2nd Story Front Setback: 2nd Story Side Setbacks: 2nd Story Rear Setback: Grading Quaxztity (cubic yards): Cut a~zd~~Ll, bczx~rze.TZt ~-uding excluded- On~ite Parking: Props>seci Miziirrxum Ilec~uired (2VlaximvmLiniit 74-3°k~ not limited, (but FAR< 45%) 56'- 4" 20' 9', 14'- 17." combination of 15', no side Iess than 5` 80'- 9" 20' 56'- 4" 25' - f.o'- 4", 32'-~,° combination of 25', no side Iess thazi 10' 90' 25' 1,268 - (2,500) 2 enclosed 2 enclosed ~ - 4+ unendosed 4 unendosed ' - -SACKGRGUND _ The applicant (CI~ia-Ching Lin) is proposing to construct a 4,499 square-foot, two-story residence ~*ith basement on a 20,473 square: foot lot located along the north side of Lindy Lane. The imr-nediate neighborhood is predominately older, rancFZ style, one to i~ -Z~s i2-~o Arch_ P7.ans for 2-L947 "~ ind_y Laze jYFly %2, 2008 Pa Q'e 2 two stony lzonzes. Newer dwellings are ail l~i_rger, C~vo-,story homes ~,vith a variefj> of architectural styles and building finishes. Most aftlie homes in this northerly L izzdy L~°zzze area are on lots of 20,000 squ.arc :feet or ~rzorc.. `The neiglibarhoc>d has ~~ semi-ru_ra1 character without any sidewalks or stzeet lighL~s. Z1~e ncighborh.ood of homes on the south side of Lindy 7.anc. are also largely, ranch style, two-story dzr>ellings with a more subczrban cl~aa•e~eter because of the re€;izr~entafion of 1.0,000 square foot lots orlon" the toe of tTte slope and larg car Lots upsl-c>1>e. 1=iLSt02 'The propei-ty is L of 2 (zr~iddle lot) of_-a 1_.6--acres, 3-lot sczUcl ivisioLZ on I.~i.ndy Lanr=, cornrnonly kno~-vn as the "Moxley Property'", that Vvas approved by flze PlazZZ~ing Cozrarizission on. July 9, `L001. In 2004, the Ciity_Coczncii subs~quezitly apF~rovc d the final snap anal subdivision inzprcaven~enC plans. 'I'IZe seibdizri.sion creatE..d throe Iots of slightly over 20,000 square feet c_ach. Izz that s~urie STe~s r, -Cho Plaruzillg Commissi.0i1 expressed coEZCerzz a1~atYt the size of the houses that could ba built on the three lots, and discussed the possibility of rezoning the property front its curren# R1-20 dc_signation to Reside..-z2tial I-3illsido. h-z lieu of the reLOning, IVIr. Mc»:1e5T agreed to a eovc>_z3ant to limit the size of all s't~~zctures to 5,500 square feet on each lat. `Tlze threo Lots ~-vere subsE:qucntly sold to different property owners. -The. owners of Lots 1 and 3 (21949 arid 21943 Lindy Lazne) were issued building permits for roughly 5,500 square foot homes in 2005 before generally more restrictive R1 zoning ordinaYtce amendments Went into effect.- T.Czus, stone of fhc newer han-zes on Lindy L ane: 21949, 21943 and the adjoining 21951 (building permit issued in 20103) lid discretionary single- family desigz~ review because ail fell beJovv the plansting perrzut thro:~holds uz effect at the t~nze. The cons#ruction of each house has been,controversi~zl with some neighbors. As a result of site preparation far Lot #2 conducted- lay the subdivider, five specimen size oaks were removed frorrt Lot #2-four approved for ren~-oval, one not. 'I`he replacement requirement in the tentative zzzap was one-for--one with the replacement being a 36" box oak. Z"he $ve new oaks were platZted in 2007 and are shown on the pIazi_ set. ~ISCL7~SIQ1~T - I~Tei~hborhood Conccz-ns Ln MMay 2008, the applicant erected story poles and staff mailed a notice and plans fo surrouz~ding property- o~~vrlers witlihz a 300 feet radius, notifying them of the pending _ -------3esidential~evelopnzc~nt.--f3~Eauso-off--the-level-t>f~once~~~l~ou~-tlie-pa-03ectTstaff----- con_finued to refine the desiU-ii with the applicant and try to address neighbor concerns. ~~-zzo 12-11 Arch. Plans for X1947 Lindy I_.ane - ~ July ?_2, ?008 P~sue 3 Because of thc~ past Iustc~ry of controversy ;end the encIc~sed submitted cot~?n2ents (L:xhil~it A), the Director elected to refer tl~~~ plazvs Eo fhe Plannii~g Comr~zission fo review aimed decision. Stiff has received letters,.~mails ~u~d telep}came calls frozzt :rune neighbors ~~ith one email of support. 'i~he neighborhood concerns are s7_intnzarized below: °v° Protect reci~.trood trees on property. (Note: There are na redwood t7-ees on this properi~) `o° llcldsess construction impacts on thc~ i-ceighboxhood. ~° Pelocaf:e: house to protect valley views of house on upper lot (Lot ;#1). e>°• ~ stepped foundation would cortforrn better Eo the slope of the Iand, rather-than, the cut and fill that creates a flat pact . ~ . °g' Not fond of store exterior for the entrance_ °- Privacy protection plan should iiichu de the front yard to screen views of the ° house from tl~e south side o£ Lindy Lane and LuZdy Place. °. Discrepastcies iiz the location of the easterly sideyard retainuzg wall and the overall wa31 licight r=s too tall. - °:° .The proposod house appears to be ircconsistent'vvitlz the letter aizd intent of the P1 zonurg ordinance, which is to enlcaizce the identity of residential neighbors; ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy; ensure a reasonable level of coriipatibility in scale of structures within neighborhoods; and'reiiiforce. the predominantly low-u2tensity setting in the concrrtunity. °~° Second fl.oos and balcony shall be ca~~.sistent with the require- meiz.ts fror~n the Residential Ilillsido (RI IS) zo>ung di,~frict_ °P> Project estates significant and ads>er=e impact fio passive solax design and r~3tural lighting. y,. °o Project will block views of the vane and sunrise views (f~•ortz t12e first floor} dL-wing certain Lrlles of the year. °,°a Project ene~~oach~s iizto fhe required one-story building envelope, which is izieasumd from natural grade, not finished grade. E~° The mass of the second. story is much. larger than the second story mass of the adjacent residences and is not co;~zpaL-zble. °a° Retainir2g walls are proposed less than 5 feet from the property line and potentially threaten existing support piers for the u-phiIl property. Please refer to exhibit 1~.for additional detai= s on the r~eighbors' concerns. Nei<,=hborhood Compatibility . One of the principal purposes of the IZ~ Ord;nance is to ensure a reasonable 1eve1 of compat-ibiIity iii scale of structures within a 7•esidential_n~~glib~s-ho~1.___7`lus~;G T~a~isall3, achieved by having developments adhere to a set of specific development parameters (i_e_, maximun> lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height-, second floor to ground floor ratio, building setback, building envelope) to curtail development int-errsitp to a 1 7 - 221 12 - 12 scrc;erl the vertical element is an Evergreen. Creepy°.r Vine, which at the specif ed size (per a lalxiscaper) c:a=n take four to eight years to fill in and soften the: ~>a1L If cinder-block is used, a split-f=ace block would.sof~en the wall and provide attaclunent for the vines, which wazilci bE preferred to just a cement vt>all-. "1'he privacy for o1u- property is at issale, since there is insufficient screening for tl~c° Douse. The concern. is the 2"`{ fCoor balcony will over look niy backyard_ Three 2S-foot Nigh sl~tubs (wbicli sire not called plat on the Iegead) are proposed as well it`s eWu 15-gallon plums, but the proposcrl 'Z°`~ door brilcony of my neighbor sits ~~,>ell above il2e sIu-ub and the pIusn anal thus they z~>ill look over these plantiu~gs azzc3 directly into my backyard_ l?ureher, vi speaking with a landscaper this hrub typically-conies in 15-gallon sie and typically stagy-L at 46 feet tall. 71~e landscaper 1i~rthEr stated that these. shnzbs grow approxisnatLly 1-2 feet ayeas-, which translates iszto IO to 2Q yeaa•s of growtl2 prior to reaching 25 :feet. I atn ope-n to reconimendatioris on how to alleviate our privacy issue. I z~et Yvitlz Shesha regarding these i>sues vzd he corrznzitteci that he would limit the retaining wall to less than six feet in height, but stated that that he u~ost likely would not be able to move 'the retaining wa11 fiu-eher away from the property lisle. Even with a six loot rc.t<tining wall, tI~err° is still a significant ziarro~uina aged because of the close proximity of the retainuzg wa11. ~e . would like to see the retaining wall move further away from the property lice and possibly step the retaining wall to elir»inate this crowdingltovaering affect_ I am willing to work with Shesha. If revised plans address my all of my concerns satisfactorily, I will with withdraw my objection and approve the revised plan. 7T you have any questions, please -feel la-ee to contact me at (408) 528-12.1 O_ Thaiilc you, - Edward Chan 21443 Lindy Lane 1 7 - zzz 12-22 - ~ - _- t _ I _ -. _ -~ _ _ __ _ - I =- F ~ - -- -- - -- - I~ -- - ~ ~ - _ - - _ - - I I-- - - - - - - - - - - - ~ -- -- -~ L_ - -- - ~-~ - -- - - - _ -- - --~ _ 1-- - - - - - -- - = L _I_ _ - -- - - - -- . - I--~ - j I --- - - _ - _ _ - I - - --- - ~ -- - i .. I ce ~ ~ ~ - (- ~ ~ - 1 - - - - -- - - - - - i ~ -- ~ _ ~ -= _ ~ ~ . - - --- - - I _ -- - -- --}- ~- _ - _- { -r - - ~ -- L- -~ - - - - - J - ~ i I_ - ~ I Z -~ - s __ _ ~ _ _ _ _~L-._ -- -- ---_ _. - ~ I I -- I -- -- - - I ~ _ . _ <_ ..... I _ - , ,_ ._ - I_ __ I _ I , -- ~ I - - I_ --- -- - __ - _r_ - -- -. - ~ .-- -- -- I - - - - - - I ---- - - -~ -- ms f- s- _ - - ' _ _ - ~-- - - - i , - ~ - _ - - - - - -- - --i__I ~~ -- -- I ~_.1 - - _ -- - - - ~ ~ --- , - - -1-I I -~.-- - --- - - - ~ - I _ ! ~ - I I _ - -~ - I - - - - -I - _ _~_ ___L ! _ ~ - - - -- - - ~ . - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - _(_ I = ~ i ~ _ I ~ - - - --I ~ -- =- - - - I - - ~- -- _ I - - I 1 I 1 7- 2 3 - ~~ _ I _ T _ _ 3 i ! I I I i- - s_1 Section z-= ~, iii ~ N,_ .~ ~ ~ ~ -< ~ia~`` ~~1~'~~T9~~ _ __ Ewh'onm vi GZl~. Sus2-il na 6111ty __ - Hous7ng 1 ~~ ~ ~~rcula [ion //J l f// tt~,icn ///t ~~nd use/ Ucrl n 5- I Introchrction 5-1 Planning Eor Sustainability S-3 Energy Conservation /Efficiency 5-7 Air Quality 5-10 Wildlife and Vegetation 5-13 Mineral Resources 5-15 Water Resources 5-21 Solid Waste 5-L3 ~Vastcwater 5-25 RCSOll1-Ce5 Sustainable plaLining and development accotntnodate the City's future changes while I EICOgn LLng that thG COInmlinl ty's C_nVLiOt1- mental resources are fragile, invahrable anal interrelated. Sust:Iinahlc plaruung integrates acrd bularxces environmental decisions with economic eclnsiderations and recoi;nizrs the symbiotic rclatiorvship between the natural enVirOnlllent, the COmmUSllty aI1d I'hC. 000IIO- tr)y. In the long te-nn, protecting and sustain- ing the City's viable ecological communities :-uld environmental resources will result in thE= protection of both the human and natural enviroxuncnts. P~.~i~1~VIYVG FC~R 5~,,.! aTAll~l~a~31LITY ty while. prE=servirig environmental resources. ~-n~~e= '~ ~1 _o ,,« CITY OF C%VPPRITNO GENERAL PLAN ?=Y~-6=;eii 1'lxnning for the location of land use act-ivities is one of r_he fundamental compo- ne.nis of sustainability. Suburban land u:re prac- tices isolate housing, retail ttses and employ- ment locations from one another, and scatter low-density development t11at becomes solely reliant on the automobile for access and trans- portation. This inefficient and unsustainable gro~~n-h pattern has resulted in loss of natural habitat and open space, deteriorating air and water quality, iricreased traffic congestion and a loss of a servse of community. Sustainahility requires a change from past land use-planning to a systetn r11at creates arLd maintains cornpe- tenr- and efficient community facilities, huLxlati scale neighborhoods and a sense of communi- 17 - 224 ~J-2 Ectvrnov:. c~N~rAr itr-.soc; tzcz•s/Sus7~n~N~ir_rrt T1re F_nvironmantal Resources/Sustain- ability element contains an inventory of the City's key envirorm~ental issues axed resouree_s, and it also includes policies for the efficient ttse and corvservation of these resources, ~t~s2air3a~6iixy Priracii~i2s "I he F'nvironrnental Resources/Sustain ability F.Iernetrt and implementation strategicis are based upon the following fundamental principle: Lurking- the linking of Rcsc~urce Man- agement and Economic Determinations when evaluating development projects Conservation/Efficiency- the protec- tion., intelligent use and reuse of renewable and nonrenewable resources o Reduction of Wash reuse, recycling and x~se reduction ® Resource Management- for the bone- fit of future generatiorvs Prevention/Mitigation of significirtt environmental irnpact_s a Restoration of impacted environmental resources Innovation in building tachnolog9cs, including dre substitution of materials e Community Participation -the compre- hervsive involvement of City govern- ment, city residents and the private sector e Education -preparation and dissemi- natiorr of educational materials The City's sustainable, envirorunental - resource program is based nn the perception a `""-. 1 r. .' ~ -_-'- --- - k _. ~ --- - - _ -- "'- ~- CITY OF CUx'ERTINO GSNF_RAL PLAN of the comxntrnity as a holistic system, where people arc. inescapably related to the com- munity's natural resources alzd other envi- ronmental conditions. These conditions not only include topography, air and water qual- ity, surface drainage, and open space, bcrt all otlrc.r forms of life.. ~,-. _ '~~._--fit ~ ~ j ~= sus:.r,rsv,~~,zr~ t:r~~^[=~ r,^~s i°.~~ <<a','1~cr ~..,- [;~= Pulley 5-7: Principhs ot` Su , ioint3 i~ili ty Incorpor.~re_ the prnciples of susrtin- ability into Cupc.rtino's planning and development sys tent. Strut. egi~s 1. Appoint a Task Force or Commission to develop an apllropr-iate comprehen- sive anxiual Sustain:thility and Resource Plan for the City. The mission for the T<-xsk Force/Cotnmitasion would be: a. write and keep current t-he anncxal T:icticrl Plan and measurement of City-wide programs to help achieve the Environmental RC'SOnrceS and Sustainability section of the General Plzen. b, Identify and evaluate resources, technologies, products and the life- cycle cost of ownership for each recox nmend cd. c.. Work with. City staff to evaluate the financial feasibility of the recour- mendatiorvs. 2. Implementation Programs. Adopt and 1 7 - 225 1~.N1iR GY C,O NSE RVArION~i~FFICIF_N CY ~-.3 implement energy policies and implo- ~~~,~~Ya£s~~' ~~~Ja~~~.~~~~~i~~~ ute.ntatiort progrlms that include the ~~tz'~~t~~'~4~I~~Y City's pleniLing and regulatory process. Cupertino ruliartcc: on the; u:;e of non- . 3. City-Wide Inventory. C conduct a City- renewable cnec~y sul:>plics has seriow enviroxt- widc sztstainability iLtvantory in order to 'ttenral consegttcnces. l~or our cotnuuatity to identify issues, opportunities and plan- L.c :;uststinahle, ir_ must reverse this si-rua tion. ning altcntat_i«cs. 11te City of Cupertino receives c°.1ect_ri- 4. Sustainable hnargy and tVater ~ al power froth Pacific Gas and F_lectric Conscrvat.ul Pl,ut. Prcparc• and it;aple_ (1'~:, SCE). Pl ~~E's power is derived froth s~.ev- ment a comprchensivice sustainability eral sourer°s such as wind turbines, hyclro- energy plan as t-r part of rho City's r=lc=ctric clams and nuclear generatiorx_ The C~encral Plan. phis pl:»z will specifically Association of 13ay Area Govc rtrrnents include rceomtucendutiorvs regarding: (AI3AG) power consortium provides die City with natural gas. In rha State of a. Rechtd-ion of enrrgy consumption. California and the San Pranci;:co Bay Area, approximately 95 percent of the residential b. Reduction of fossil fuels. Luzits arc heated by natural gas, the remain- . der by eleeiricit_y acrd propane. c. -Use of t:ene«~able energy resources whcnc:ver possible-. Sind the, sc_vere energy sllOrtagc.S of the 1J70's, which culmiuatcd in the critical d. Irnprova City-wide ware. usage and st~ttewidc c°lect~-ical power sltor[agcs of 2001, conservancy, Californians (a~td particularly Bay Area resi- dents) have become acutely aware of the need c'. Reduce water consumption by rite to reduce energy detnand for both dte. - - ------ - -~ - - ~- City. short :trLd long tc nn in order to achieve Overall enemy use a sttstainablc fixnrre. This was fixrther in the Bay Area f. Promote residential and business reinforced by the sevc xe blackouts in i15E' water reduction. the.Nortlleast Ii.S. and Canada in the Commercial 7 summer of 2003. The conriruxously ris- Kesidcntial 17 _S. Cornxnunity Gardens. hncourage corzt- Industrial 35 inp.; cost cif c°nergy procluctic>n, tof;ether munit - rrdens, which rovidc amore y g~ p with diminishing fossil fuel sources Trxrvsport:ation 31 Livable environment by controlling (non-renewahlc~ resources), has Other 10 physical factors such as temperature, 100 rec{uired public agencies to coctscrve, noise, aztd ollution. I' efficiently use and search for altcma_ Sources: YGfi~E, The Task Force./Conunission will work with rive enerhy re5oxtrces. PtarrnGig Resource Associa res Staff to keep the: Srisrainability Energy and Water Coxrsf'rvatJOn portion of d,e C:~enc_ral ~l~. El7'i96]~ ~!"32~ E:`~L8'l c'l$Q3P~j ~rCD P'"?SSeS Plan. current and ahrc sr_st of beneficial cost- affcctivc techtzologies. Urban areas in California, (including Cupertino) contain approximately 85 p~r- cent of the State ctf California's population. __ ___ s -. $ =~:~. ---- -- s 'v'~`t~ ~` CITY OF CLIPIRTTNO GF_NERAL PLAN , .«~-t 1 7 - 226 ~~~" ELNyIRONStEN"1'AI, 1L£SOURC£S~SUSTAINAT3n_ITY These urban communities are in the best. position, rhroriylr their pl:zrrriing and regula- tory processes to promote and implement effective energy conservation/efficiency sus- tainability programs. Cupertino has expressed its commitment ter these, programs in the fol- lowing ways: _ A Installed lighting and/or retrofitted energy efficient lights for all street lights and traffic control lights. © Retrofitted all overhead lights in City Offices. • Reduced lighting and equipment use where possible in all City facilities through staff training. • Acquired several electric vehicles. • Distributed conservation./efficiency information to architects, contractors and the general public. • Endorsed the "Draft Cotnpact for a Sustainable Bay Area" as promoted by the Bay Arca Alliance for Sustainable Development. "I11is "Compact" consti- tutes a commitment to take specific sreps toward a sustainable region. The Land Use Element and the Circulation Element commit to sustainabili- ty in the following areas: increased car pooling, flexible cvor'c schedules, use of bicycles, pedestrian pathways and telecomnruting. Support multi-modal public transit to reduce congestion, air and water quality pollu- tion and the significant costs of road construction.. Encourage reduc ed street width. Strengthen street tree protec- tion. (Sec Section 4 -Circulation) ill 't.. C':i i`6.c CU c~= LAS= Gi= E~GFY-aE:'3~5/!.r;=.i~L~_ E`. ,.._~:•=~r r Ir:LSC~~8Ci=5 i-~=~ Policy 5-.2: Conservation ©nd ~r`-i'icieni tlse of energy Resources Encourage the maximum feasible con- serv~ttion and. efficient use of electrical power and nanzral gas resources for new and existing nnsidences, businesses, it~drz_mial and public uses. Strategies 1. AIternate Energy Sources. Encourage the use of solar energy and otlrcr alter- nate, reneevable energy resources for all new and sigzzificantly renovated privare ,urd public buildings. lnsurc tltizt all homes Izave an acceptable balance of access to the sun and protection frotzz it. Promote new teclutologics, such as water- less water hearers to effec t this ch:tn~~c. Land Use Planning and Zoning: Z. Comprehensive Energy Management Provide energy efficient Higher density Plan. Prepare and implement a courpre- housing in proximity to employment hensive energy management plan for all centers and transportation corridors and iPPlicable. public facilities, equipment include mixed use development where and procurement and construction appropriate. (See Section 2 -Land Use) practices, • Transportation Planning: Consider 3. Consistency with State and Federal ~ _ ~ <: alternatives to the automobile such as Rc~,ulation. Review and evaluate appli- ~' ;-~ -~ --- , _ _ , "'-''°~ CITY OF CUP£AT'INO G£NEF2AL PLAN 1 7 - 227 cable City codes, ordin;-uu_es, and prcr ccdures For inclusion of local, state and federal policies and standards iIz<at pro- mote ih e: conservation and efficient use of energy :Ind for consistency with the goal of sustainability. Chrtnge those that will. promote encr~;y efficiency wirlrout ~t punitive effect, 4. ~:ncrgy S,{ticient J-,icplacanlcnts. Using life cycle cost ~arralysi:;, ident.iEy City assets for rc{?laeement with more energy efficient rcplacc~Ine.nts. 5. Tnceutive Prograur. Implem crrt an incentive pro~~rau~ r_o include such items as reduced permit fees for building projects that exceed title "L~{ requirc- ment_s_ PLCanaOrE` other incentives from rlae State, County and Federal Govemrnents for improving energy effi- ciency by posting in-Eonnation regarding incentive, rebate and tax credit pro- gnlrns otI the City's web sire, I_ct's make: lesarning about this easy and help those interested get started.! EI. Solar A_cee-ss Standards, Ervsurc com- pliance with the State of California Subdivision Mup Act solar eu:ccss stan- dards in order tr> maximize natetral hcat- ing and cooling opportunities for future residences- Encourage t11e inclusion of additional shade trees and landscaping for energy efficiency. 7. Educational Programs. Develop conservation%efficiency edu- cational programs serving all utility I1S ers. Provide edltcational niatcrials, semi- nar and staff training oa energy con- servatio~:I/efficiency for those who design, build and manage building f lcil ities, and for those who regulate building dcsi~~rr and construction. In partru:rsl-rip wit:11 De Anza College develop a "Sustz~inuble Building PraC tlCes" guide for Cupertino resi- dents aazd businesses. The Guide should include information regard- ing current rebates and subsidies to made 9tnplementir~-g a sustainable building nxue fu~acicially attractive with. references back to t11e C[tY, ;Mate, Federaland other web sites for up-ro-date infortnarion_ o Provide educatloa m~Itcriais, seminars and a ccrtificration progrtun for con- tractors and architects who have par- ticipated in "Sustainable Building" courses. 1\~tany of the cue-eiclllutns are currently available at De Anna College. As an incentive For partici- pating the "Sustainable Building" pro- gram flee City will maintain s "Stvstairrahla Builder/ Developer" page otr their current City website. "7"his page will not be an endorsement of the individual or ccnnpany Listed, but a_ reso~trcc~ center for the coanmunity. Establish and maintain ear Energy Information Center or Kiosk at City Hall where ireformation concerning energy issues, building standards, recycling and assistance is available. ~ Require residents aad businesses that a Provide in Correlational tnarerials and are rcmodclisrg to review and .sign as participate in energy conservation acknowledgment that they have worl~shops. reviewed the "Sustainable Building Practices" guide prior to permits being issued. FI~IERGY COAISc.'£iVAT[ON/)•.P FICILNCY ~CI1Y OF CUPPR"LINO GF_NErtAL PLAN S-5 & 'a'=: t ~~~ 1: A, --- ---- ~_ 17 - 228 S-U - ~ r. r ~ -- - '' . ~ -- n.. - E, _ -_-- F'.N VL20IV him N"I'AL- KLSO1SrtclFS~5U5; _H.INAI3IL~ L'Y' 7. Energy Cogeneration Systems Encourage the use of energy cogenenl- tion. systems tl;rough the provision of a- awareness program targeting t1-le larger commercial and industrial users anc public facilities. 8. Regulation of Building Design: Ensure designer, developers, applicants ar;d builders meet California Title 24 Energy Efficient Buildu;g Standards and encour- age architects, building dcsigrlers arld contractors to exceed "Title 24" require- lncnts for new projects through the pro- vision of incentives. Fncourage eitlIer passive solar heating and/or dark plaster interior with a cover for swimrningpools, cabarv~s and other related accessory use., where solar access is available. Encourage the use of altemative renew- able sources where feasible, and develop energy audits or subvention programs. 9. Use of Discretionary Development Permits (Use Permits): Require, as conditions of approval for new and ren- ovated projects, the provision of energy conservation/efficiency applications. 10. Encrbry Efficient Transportation Modes. Encourage altemative, energy efficient tr.;nsportxtion modes such as "clean" multi-modal public transit, car and ~ an- pooling, flesiblc work hour, and pedes- triarl_ and bicycle par_hs. Green Building. s "I-he planning, construction and .mslin- t:enance of buildings has an extraordinary effect on environmental resources. Buildings consume significant quantities of water, wood and energy. Nationally, buildings con- sume one-third of all nc~ energy and Lwo- C~I't'Y 01~ CCU I'£R"LTNO GaN£RaI. PLAN thirds of the electricity. Fifty percent of home energy eonsurned is used for heating and cooling. In addition, buildings area sig- nificant source of interior and exterior urban air quality problems and genet.;te large. quan- tities of waste and affect climate change. A "green" building is one ghat is designed, const:mcted, renovated and mairt- tainc-d in an ecological arrd resource efficient: rn.anner. Green buildings provide oppornrni- ties not only for corvservation and efficient. resource use, but also to create healthier stTllctures and long term, cost savings. `I1ae essential components of a green building design turd pl:;nning process include: ® Location - in proximity to public tran- sit, shopping and recreational facilities Site Placrr;ing -solar orientation, pro- tection of existing vegetation and use of ecologically appropriate landscaping Energy Efficiency -Exceeding State, Iirle 2~1 energy requirements, see Eneri;y section below; architectural design to mitigate heating, cooling and lighting loads ® ZVtaterial Efficiency -selection, substi- tution and reuse of sustainable con- StrtlcttOn IIlate Cla is Water Efficiency -employ water sav- ing design techniques and devices `' _~ . . \_ ~ri El?Cz'd CGTi\!: S'cf~2GJ'0€v C- P.6c5G E~fr6~ PF_E•FT G'~Ei:~L©6e~?G~5 1 7 - 229 r ~j AlA QIJALr 1'Y )= ~'s Po7i~y 5--3: Cit-ae.n Gr~iisl;-ng O~sign Set standards for the design and con- stntction of energy and resource con- serving/efficient building (Green Building Design). ti rra t~ r~ ies 1.. "Green Build i. n;~" Pro,:;ram. Prcparc and implement "Green Building" Starr lords for all major private and public groj ects that ensure reduction in energy consumption for new dcvelopntent thrcntgh site quid building design. 7_. BuildinY, etreri;y audits. Participate in artd encourage, building energy audits, whcce feasible, for eotnmercial, indus- trial and city facilities end convey to the business rmd industrial communities that energy conservation/efficicncy is, in. the long term, economically bone-fi- cial. PG6rE also offers energy evalua- tion tools and services free of charge. 3. "Green Buildings" Ev:xluation Guide. Prepare ;r "Green Buildings" evaluation guide. based upon rite above listed "essential components" for use by the city staff when reviev.~irg projects. d. Staff Training. 'Bain appropriate staff in rite design pcinciples, costs and belz- efits of energy conservation/efficient buildings arzd landscape design. "Green Buildings" Informational Seminars. Conduct and/or participate in "Green Builduzgs" informational scau- nars and «~arlcshops to include people involved in the design and constntction industry, land development, real estate sales, lending irvstit_utions, landscaping and design, the building maintenance industry smd prospective project appli- cants. l3/e rc~comrnenei modeling this program after the CFK~I- program. Yublie Comuzunication: Become a reg- ular feature article in the Cupertino Scene., do media outreach to the Courier and the Guide (:>an. Jose Mercury) tape rite Sustainable Btiildin~; and. other conservation courses, or setn- inars and broadcast them on the City Channel as well, and make thetas avail- sble at the Library. d~aC~ 6~~r`~~~~~' Air quality remaisvs a scriorvs hc~~lrhhaz- ard fo.- residents irr rite Bay Area Air- Basin. L'ven after three decades of efforts to clca nse the air-, air pollution. still causes va significant .unournt of discomfort, illness and sometimes death in the. region. Particularly vulnerable era children, the eldc^rly and. people with heart or Ituig problems. Sometimes healthy adults may experience breathing problems during periods of intense otttdc~or e_xe_rcise. Air pollu- tants may also have :uz adverse affect on vege- tation, animals and property. In addition, national or world-wide pollution issues, the depletion of the ozone layer and world-wide climatic changes pose serious challenges for _ _ comm~tnitic=s seekiizg a srtstainable future. ~~t 1 CITY OP CtTFF_RTINO GPNt°tLAL PLAN i_. x, r .~ 17-230 5-R "f~~• ~t ,; _ ~~ ICPiV7ti0N~1EN"I'~1L KF'S<~lIACF.S~~~TIS"S2.INA877.:"rY Air pollution potential is based upor_ tyre t<°ndency firr high pollutant concentra- tiotvs to develop at any given location. This. potential is dependent upon the amount o!~ pollutants emitted into the :air and the local atznospbcre's ability ty trant;porT. and dilut~_ that pollutuzt. Tb.e County's topogr.,.phy; prevailing wind pattern and frequeiat air inversions combine to catch and hold the pollutants that the urban area releases daily into t}IC air. Air pollution is cornposcd of a vast assort'rncnt of gases and particles that can be. grouped in three categories: particu- late matter, carbon monoxide and ozone. A large proportion of air pollution in Santa Clara County is autotnobilc related_ The existing dcvelopmcnt patterns, countywide, contribute to the further deteri- oration of air quality. For example, the major- ity of aSfordable housing for low to moderate employees is outside of the County or in adjoin ing cities. This rcquires employees to comrz7utc long distances daily to and from work which in turn increases air pollution countywide. Also, much of the Cirywidc res- idential areas are separated front comme, cial uses, which in trim requires residents to drive vehicles to complete err-ands.. This tends to increase air polhtr_ion within dre conunw~ity. Land use planning is beginning to change with tlaesc considerations in mired. Much progress has been made in rrton- itoring •~md reducing fiticd or "point sources" of pollution, such as factories and power plants. Follutiotr froth "non-point." or mobile. sources, such as motor vehicles, private prop- erty, etc., cont:itaues to prove an illusive c:aal- Ienge. As Santa Clara Cotmty continues to ba the population and employment growth center of the region, residents, employers and mtmicipalities must rake responsibility for die impacts of air pollution nn the quali- ty of life. Th.e policies and strategies identi- tied in the "Green Building" arced "L'ncrgy" portiot~s of this General Plan and those list- ed below are designed to improve air duality to a healthy and sustainable level. Fs_l:;is-,nal, Matt arnd 1recleral ~ls7n Y31nC~ Air quality stasldards are established by both the State Air Resources Board and the Federal I-dnvironmental Protection Agency air quality management agencies. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has the responsibility r,o create compliance stnatcgi.es, and monitor and enforce State and Federal standards in the nine cotmty Bay Area District. Bay Area air quality bas improved. significantly over the past 20 years of air quality planning and control efforts, in spite of substantial irrcrcascs in population, traffic and industrialization. S1-re last full Air Quality Flan was adopted in 1991 and there have been three updates sirzcc, including the last in December 2000, to assess compliance and adopt needed me=asures to meet those standards that are still nclt met in tlae Bay Area.. In L002, the District was designated as non-compliant only for State and Federal ozone standards arld for State particulate standards. Local government agencies are exfp ected t_o participate in adopting policies to support Distract, State and Federal air quality management plaruaing. Responsibilities of tl~e City While air quality is often regarded as a regional or state problem, it is important for local land use and growth decisions to sup- port improvcinents in air quality. The land use, circulation, energy and envirortnzental policies tl7~at comprise this General Plan will contribute to meeting BAAQMD and AIZB Air Quality improvement plarvs. -- ~ ~ ,. ,, a: `""" ~.ITY ON CVPHA'rINO GENF_RAL PLAN 1 7 - 231 :i"' . v` F. ~f-'.~'i -CY .,..~K ~ ~ .L['E-t' fem. `'r_: S f"r}It t'vSl f= Policy .S""'-~: ,4ir 1'r; llzr+ion .E: ~fects of f~?~urC~ef~loc,,~:~;t Minimi-<c the air quality impacts of new development projects and tl2c irnpar_rs affcctirzg new dcveloprnent. '1 trn i =gig i:_ s I . 7osic Air Contaminants. Review proj- ects for potential generation of toxic air contatnirLru~t-s at the time of approval and confer wit-h P~AAQMD on controls needed iF impacts arc uncertain. 7_. Z7ust Control. Require water applica- tion to non-polluting dust control measures during demolition and. the chrration oir the con truction period. 3. Planning L7e,cisions. Assess the poten- tial f<~r air pollution effects of future land tksc arid. transportation planning, and errsure that planning decisions srlpport rc~{iortal goals of improving air quality. •4. l;nvironmental F~evie~v. Evaluate the rclationslkip of sensitive receptors, such as convalescent hospitals and residcn- t-.ial uses, to pollution sources through the environmerual assessment of new dev e Iop meat. Polley 5-5: Air Po/lotion E7`7~eets of Existing C3r_~vc?o},men2 Minimize. the air quality impact-s of existing development. AIR r~UALITY i_ratsgics L. Public 7ducation Pro~rtrn. Establish a City~-vidc public education program rcgardirkg the iuapIicatiorvs of the Clean- Air r'~r,t and provide information on ways to reduce and control emissions; provide information about carpooling and resrrict:ing physic:ll activities on "Spare the Air" high-pollution days. 2. Home Occupations_ 13xpand rite allow- able booze occupations in rasidentialIy zoned properties to reduce the need to commute to work. 3. TreePlantinx;.lncrcascplantingoftrces on Cit~~~ pr<>pcrty and eacouragc the pracrica on private propert5c 4. Fuel-efficient Vehicles. Maintain City use of frrcl-efficient and low polluting velr ides. S_ `Y7orlc with County to monitor and influc°nce improvement of emissions and dust from the. I-Janson and Stevervs C're:-c~k Quarries on tfic West end of the City. ~~ ~~~'> Policy 5-6: Wa/!cing, Jogging and Bicycling Y Encourage ~i~allcing, jogging; and bicy- cling instead of driving icr the Cit}._ ~~~~ Policy s-7: Use oys ®g~en Fires and Fireplaces Discotsaga high pollution fireplace use. strategies 1 . BAA~MI7 Literature. Make available I3AAQMD life-rature on reducing pol- lution from fireplace use. 5-9 r SEr PoucT 4-3 IN TkiF_ CItiCULA t 1 ON ELEtv1 ENT ~' j tt -- ~=t < _ €.. .~•~ Cr-r-Y or CvrE.R~rrrvo GrrvanAr. Pr.Arr ~ +_- 1 7 - 232 ~-I.O___---_- Er:vtaoN~,+r~:crt'.vt_Rasot~RCr_s/Sus-t~~rNAnrtrrr 2. Installation of New Fireplaces. Pro- hibit the use of wood-burning fireplaces in new construction, e:ccept for Environmental Protection 1lgenc'i Certified Woodstovcs. Biodivcrsity, which includes a diversity of plaf~rs and animals found in nature, pro- vide:; the foundation for the ecosystems that are required to sustain life. The City's cur rent and continued health and prosperitt~ depends, in part, orr the ability of its natural resources to renew themselves. Cuperrino's wilcll ife and natural vegeta- tion resources are concentrated in the rela- tively undeveloped western- foothills and motmriins and along Stevens Creek, not on the valley floor_.Urbanization of the valley floor has rendered this environment i11-suit- ed to the needs of wildlife and native plants. Most of the native vegetation wa_s removed. by historic agricultural activities and the introduction ofnon-native grasses alzd crops. N:ftive vegetation was further reduced by the more recent construction of homes, busin~ss- cs, industries and infrastructure that supports ..- -~::..ls -- - - ~ -----. _ T~'~'u - '' -'"-' CI"rY OF CUPERTTNO GPNPRAL PLAN the community. Fire also t}treatens vegeta- tion and the anunals that depend on it for food and shelter. The loss of vegetation also meant a concomitant loss of wildlife habitat: that provided food, cover and shelter fc~r numerous wildlife species. Ripat:ian vegetation grows along; stream courses «rlrcre there is fertile soil and ample. waT.er. It often appears as a distinct band of vegc tatiorr when contrasted again:;t other uses. Such vegetation can be found along Stevens Creek, Pcrrn:mentc Creak, Rcg Hart Creek, Ilcney Creeek and a portion of C:rlab:rzas Creek. Common plants inclucle_ willow, California buckeye, Coast live oak, coyote brush, poison oak and California blackbcny. }Ziparian habitats arc consiclerccl among the most valuable habitats of wildlife because of the presence-: of water, lush vagata- tion and high insect populatiorvs. Less dis- ttfnc~d riparian areas support a wide variety of wildlife„ including amphibian, rcptilc_, bird and mammal species. ~rasslarlds Grassland habitats occur on the lower slopes of the western foothills attd at scat- tered locations at higher elevations in the Montebello Ridge system. Much of these areas were formerly used for pasture acrd arc largely composed of non-native grasses. Floret species occurring in this habitat include wild oat, clover, rya grass aitd vetch. During the spriizg season, displays of wild- flowers arc expected which may include California poppy, plantago and owl clover. Keptile and marnrnal species adapted to dry conditions are common. iIi this habitat. "I1rey include rite western fence lizard, west- 1 7 - 233 ~-~ Fa -dduousEo.asi }' crl ~_-.-__ mlr~~a _ ~ d..my ' `-~ _ ~- Faothlll ~ :rn~zl~~.d~ nxii.~~s FOr.o~tf Cha Parr 1 tYo/a/dl/anrl.~ ~ ~~ ~~~ J O F 1 1. r Gta ssi:u',d r' a .[ r }. ,t ~ C ~n FC '~zt 4`4 °a G P~tr,J Gra •u(and WILDLIFF_ ANU VEC F.TATION _~-11- Uegetrztion 5.._ ~ . --~ r-° ~ ~: i __l ~ ~ ~i - ~__ r `~_ t 1.~ \ r e~ ~~ J ~~ al 'i , _sa_~~raa r.~l I __- ,__ --_ I ~. -.._ ~ 1 ___._ `' ~ ien ., ~. -1 - Ao,.n - S.r Jar `~ras_ciznd -._ -_ ~ __ S , F ll 111 / ~uc•,iantl !` - - I LEGEND =_ ._- - - __- ~ ~-~,~-~ ~~ . __.___--__--~._ City t3ou ndary ;. _. `_ Urban Service l~rea boundary - - - \ Sphere of lnfl uence ~ I --- Go undary Ayreement I_!ne ~ i _ _ . Unin rorporated Areas a as tr.•.n~ - ~ _. t o _ 3oonr c - ~ ~ o d, , ,~,~R h cfnn-e 5-A. V.;;errztztln. ~ ~ . __.__.__ _ - i - -- -I~ cm tatrlesllake and the comrn on king snake. &=r_-c ti}~ill V~°u i.dP~e~ds ~s~d FfJ I'~'S~5 - Matlltnals include a vaziety of burrowing ~:hanrctcrv5tic of the woodland veget a- rodcnts, such as meadow mice and. California _ t:ion are scattered oak trees with ern under- ground squirrel. growth irI some cereals of plants and low shnlbs. Higher elevations in the Montebello Foothills E;7rs5h1and5 inch ule mixed hslydwood trees and evergreen, including redw<xxLs. Woodlands benefit 13rushlztnds are a scrubby, dense vegcza- wildlife as a food source, and as shelter, nest- tion type that often ir2tegrates wit11 wood- int; or cover; they help control erasion from land habit<It. This vegetation is often found foothill drainage basins; they reduce wind. on dry, rocky, steep slopes_ Dominant plant specdr;, increasing r_he oxygen in the atmos- spccies 9nclude coyote brusl~I, poison oak, phare and neutralizing certain pollutants. G'alifornia sage and ccanothus. Mule deer, brush rabbit, bobcat and coyote ur.ilize~ bnvsh- Woodlands provide visual relief from lands as part of a larger home range. the urbanized valley floor. The Montebello -- „` ~' r: - e: C .ITY ON CUP£R'ITNO GEN F_A4L ULAN G-~= ~ r ~, rt 17-234 S- L L YNVIRONMEN"PAZ. RE_SOURCb]S~SUSPAiNA;IILIrY Ridge system's eh-tensive tree cover gives sea- sonal color variation, variety of shape and definit=ion of hillside contours- Insect or seed eating birds and mammals arc common in the woodlands and are preyed upon by rap- tors and owls that also inhabit these areas. The larger mammals, deer coyote, etc., uti- lize these areas as wall }-+ r. -- -__ c f1Qi~-~.Y:t~^, iiS, E' S i=Ct L~ :[~f_. c ~;= RS IJUI,~..-.~ `~.rC Ott itG E~! .?f~9 ~' V~iGr ~.~L9t=~ G3 Bft;^-.Ft~'E\I €.cr. L'~t t i=G(~,!',± C'!ii?': 5 ~C= 'tizE SC9:~ u=is":Sr.2 L-- V.> Poliry 5-~: Puh/ic Praject Landscaping Encourage public arld quasi-public agen- cies to landscape their city area-projects near natZVe vegetation with appropriate native plants and drought tolerant, non- invasive, non-native plants. Strategy Development Plans. Review develop- ment plans for oppornuutie°s for tvs~ of native plants aild drought tolerant., non-invasive, non-native plants. ~,;'.'> Policy 5-9: Oeve/opment Near Sensitive Areas Encourage the chistering of new devel- opment away front sensitive areas such as riparian corridors, wildlife habitat and corridors, public open space pre- serves and ridgelines. New develop- ments in these areas milst have a har- monious landscaping plans approved prior to development. Strategy Riparian Corridor Protection. Require ripariari corridor protection through sr riparian corridor ordul;irtce and throui~h the development approval process. ~~~ Po/icy5-70. LandsrapingNeaa- ~.Intural Uegeta2ian 1?.rnphasize drought tolerant and pc~t- n~svstant native and non-invasive., non- nat:i.ve, drought tolerant plants and ground covers when landscaping prz~p- erties near natures( vegetation, parT_icu- - laxly for control of erosion from distur- bunce to tl le nat~lral terrain. ~'° Policy 5-7 7: Natures/.4recr Prateczi~zt Preserve and enhance the c~istini,= nat- ural vegetation, landscape futures and open space when new development is proposed. 5 tra tegy Native Plants. Encourage drought tol- cran.t native and drought tolenartt, non- invasive, non-native plants and trees, and minimize lawn area in the hillsides. ~f> Policy 5-72: Hal/side Property,rencing C:onfinc fencing ou hillside property to the area around a building, tither than arormd an entire site, t:o a11ow for uliiration of wild animals. °' P®Jiry 5-73: Recreation in Nature/ Areas Limit recreation in natural areas tc> activities compatible with preserving natural vegetation, such as hiking, llorseb~-ick riding, mountain biking and camping. - .<-~--- -' ''~"'`" CITY Of~ CUPERTZNO CENti.'t2AL Yi-AN t7-235 ivfrNr=r.,ar. Rsso~:R<.*.--:; 5-].3 ~~% PoTicy `;- ; ~ : Rc~err ~:-rtic~r2 ane3 VVi/dlifcr Trails 1-'rovide open space linkages wi $rirr tnd het..veen properties For both recrc, arional and 4aildLifc activities, urosr_ spe:cifieally fear the benefit of wildlife ch~r_ is tltreotcnerl, end.urgc red or dcs- ignuted as species of special concern. Ssrai~~y Require identification. of creeks :and «arer cou r:, c_s on site: plus and require that they be protect_cd from adjacent develops est. St-eta that trail eascrnc-nis for trail linkages tray he required if analysis deterrnities that they are needed. Longstanding extraction of mineral resou rccs in tare C~_tpcreino area has provided valuable construction materials to the region. Hi t-hc same time, the air quality, noise. and traffic impacts on t}u corns unity created by extr<tctiort ae:t.ivir_ies gtt:inies need to b:- addresscd_ 71re State of California, recognizing the value of preserving the. State's mineral deposits, in ordrr to ac}rie_ve a sustainable Fi]LUre~, enacted the Surface Minim; ^nd Reclamation flct of 19?5 (SMAILA). 'I 'he objective of SIv1AKA is to assis t_ local gov- emwents in conserving mineral deposits for future use. These mineral resource areas are shown in Figure 5-L3. "Phis map iclentifics natur.rl resource areas and requires that juris- dictions recognize thcrn and cnrphasize con- servation and developtnent of t}tese areas. Thera arc' mineral resource areas in the City's bound:-iry agreement areas acrd in the City limits_ Within Cupcrr_ino's boundary agrecrnent arc;rs there are two quarries, I-iansoa Perrnnnente an c3 Stevens Creek, which have br_cn dc~,ignared by the State as having mineral deposits of reg,iunal or state si~nificauce_ Since the quarries are in the unincorporated area, Santa Clara County has regulatory jurisdiction. The County's mineral resource policies arc directed toward prc:serc=ing existing resourcc are:vs and, u~hcrc feasible, clcsignatin~; new areas and expand- irrf~ existinn sites. 1X~idrin Cupertino's City Limits thexra arc classified mineral resource areas for which the States requires policies supporting prescrv~ation atnd extraction. Most of the crests aru already devclvped into resident:ittl and other uses. Gne area, the "Gravel Yit" is considered clepletc.d.. Thcsc areas, therE.forc, would not: benefit horn conservation. The areas that would benefit from eonservatinn are outside the. Ciry limits. <.;upertino's proposed policies reeog size the existence and por_cutial of the identified mineral resource areas. However, proposed policies reflect an underlying assuntf>tion the quarries should be "limited to their existing operations in terms of noise and traffic. For _ marry years, Cupertino residents have expressed concern about quarry pollution, __ c.- ni' t,, (` 4 `z T' i CITY OF CUPElt'PINO GENERAL PLAN ~="-"'-`~^'>r t 7 - 236 ~~_~_~~ Y~N VIPONSfE^.."rAI. }ZES<YURCFS~SUJ-T:4INAEIi-I"rY ~inerccZ Resources ~~- © L,=„~~. sn,~7~~ ~~ -- .., - ~„ -- 4~ 4~' v ca ~ ~ ~fn Lt • ~ ~ Cj ~ Urban/Suburban _ ~4 C Low Q nsriy `~®~y -„~~-1~! Unsuita6l - t ~~'r~~~ ( -yl ~ H illsrde a ~:~ for ~ ~ 1 •~ 7n compatrbie ra',~ Extraction ~9 ~, LLL ~~-` tY ittl ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,,,r.=a Extractio Ch" ~ t~ ~"7 to 1~ ~~ ~,~ ~--'-'U L ® ~-~ 8 ~~ i i s,,:,~. ct~° c_ LE-.GLNU 9 ~ L7 n , _ _ p f : _ ~ MRZ-2 Areas where adequate 0 ° o$ -'L \ I ~ information In dice ie5 That p .° ~ significant mineral deposits are . e.ee-a..... --- G - - ~ , ~ present, or where it Is Judged that - ,,.<,R. ~ ~ v.R n,>w a high likelihood for their - ° °~° ® - _ ... - - _. - - -'_. -_ _ Presence exist. © ~~ , ~,~,~„ ~ , MRZ-3 Areas con Wining mineral deposits the sfgnifican ce of whicfi cannot he evaluated from ~ available data. Unincorporated r'^~-m°-+ Mineral Resource Areas Area Outside the Sour=e: Scare of Cclif rnro Urban Service Area Resources Agency. Urban /Low tensity is Appropriate ~ DeponmenrofCOn::ervouc n. ~~ Hillside Boundary for Conservation i City Boundary and Future i - -.. -... - Extra<tion i - -~ - ~- ` - Urban Service Area Boundary ti - i ---°°--- sphere of Influence ----°------- Boundary Agreemc-ant L(ne '~ Unln<orpora [ed Areas 0 os t rw~ i ° 1 3000 3 UUFec( c ~~ Figure 5-I3. Mineral Resources. °~_ -~°° '°°°^'°'~• g ~` i - - - noise anti traffic. Cupertino officials 1t.ive -- st:atad at public hearings that rile operation ~ `~ ` controls and litnirs should be set. New areas could be accessed as long as current noise ~~ '~ E~~~c[ieY.~~ rc=_c~+~~ ~ rs~r=,fts itr/~~ n~et~erft~e and traffic levels are not exceeded and en.vi- CESFId[t~U Pt7G o°v 87ddP' c a s rr;FvQ [! c desv-~ez=v r.€t-c~~e ~~~. roruncntal concerns are met. U JET. `r u: - ~ ---- ---- ---- ---- F '- -= CrPY OF CUPI:ATINO GEN£FiAL PLAN 1 7 - 237 Policy s-75. Miner-aI Resource fl r.~trs Consider nc~v miner.31 re-source areas witlxin Cupertitzo's sphere of influence, but the ctunttlat_ive impact of existing; Auld proposed activity should not exceed present operations in terms of noise and traffic.- Wort: with S;rnta Clara County to assure that minim; operations outside the City limits are coltsistent wir_h the City's General Plan, that restoration platys .are adc- quatc, and that mining activity is not exrendcd into undisturbed lands with- out aclcquatc docrtalentation of eco- nomic purpose and environmental impacts and miti;~ations. 5"ira::egies 1. Traffic and Noise Studies. Perfoml traffic and noise studies if applications for increased mineral extraction activi- ties are proposed. _ 2. Joint Study Process. Establish a joinr_ study process in the sphere of influence and boundary agreement areas with Santa Clara County to reach agrecnient on futl.Irc land uses arxd mirxeral extrac- tion activities. ~= Policy 5-75: Mineral E;cYrsrction Co n tro/s ContTOl scenic restoration and noise pollution as wc11 as air and water pollu- tion in mineral extraction quarrying, processing and transportation ~.~ Po/icy5-17. /ncomPcrYibfe Land Uses Conserve mineral resource areas out- side the City. strategy New i7e;•>elopment_ When new devel- `'UArER IZF:~OiJRC1-S J~ ) 7 opment is proposed, do not allow incolttp;itihle bind uses in and arottncl identified mineral resource auras. Uses considered incompatible are high dansi- ty residential, lo~,v density residential with hii;h unit value, public facilities and industri~.rl and eomwereial rises ivitlr intensive hnpacts. E~" Pafdr:y a--7~: Rc ~"r~o~i~ rt at ®!d Q u nrric s Considor_ alit dcsi ra6ility of designating abandoned qualzics for pa=slut recre- ation t:o rehabilitate the land. 't i,7;"~i- a: tom„ Lr ~ "' `Vi'i ~„i u-~'C- lac The. City's sustainable Future is, isi p.rrt, dccpandent upon an adequate supply of clean water as well ;rs the affective m;:nageruc^nt cif natural watershed resourecs_ In addition to fundamental health anti sanitation, an ade- quate potable water supply provides signifi- cant public and private hc~nc-.fits such- as in i- g;:ttion, ecological lv-tbitat, recreation oppor- tunities and aestlletics_ In recent years water management en=phwsis has shifted away from supply side efforts such as rl le creation of darns and reser- voirs to water conserving and cffic icnc_y tecltnologie.s used in platrning, design and construction of sit<~s, buildings and land uses. 1'res2rvaYios~ ©f li+Ja~~rsFa~cls The Cupertino planning area h.:ts a very productive watershed lands, with abuzz- dant vegetation and heavy rainfall. This watcrslted is irnport<ftrtt to the City, the cotur- ty and the region as surface runoff flows into the stream corridors and storm drain systems and eventually terminates at the wildlife refuges and. environmentally sensitive areas CITY OP CUPPRTINO GSNErtAL PL-AN ~. T +:a _ _- _ -_1.;-c- t. ~. ~_ :~,:~_~- 1 7 - 238 • f?N~n tio~LLNT,~L RI_sovrcas~SLJSrAiNAZi trs~i-Y of the southern portion of Ssui Fnrncisco f3ay It is, therefore, cntcial tlLat the City's water- shed, including stream corridors, be protect- ed from pollutants, siltation, sedimentation erosion and loss of vegetation. i`4=4'i i ~ ~T, PS . ..1. C; i.-i ~: ~:;_Fs i I ice.- JL'° 1~_(~.i ct;E c-c=.c~~`~= ~'>- Poh"cy 5-79: rVaturnJ Vt/crter Sodies and L~7r-ainage 5ystzms Rcq~iirc= that site design respect the natural tol~og~raplty and drainages try the. exr~~nt practicable t:o reduce the amount of grading necessary and limit disturbance to natural water bodies alld natural drain:3ae systems caused by development including roads, high- ways, and bridges. ""' Poiicy5-2G: Reduction of/mpere~ious Surfaces Minirnie storm water flow arLd erosion impacts resulting from development. Strategies 1. Change City codes to include. a formula rcgLllating how much paved surface is a1low.ahle on each lot. Z"his would include cltiveways and patios installed at the tune of building or mmodeling. 2. Encourai,c- the use of non-impervious materials for walkways and driveways. If used in a City or quasi-public area, mobility and access for handicapped should always take precedent. 3. Minimize imperviots surFicc areas, min- imizing directly-connected impervious ~' 41: r, , ~,, - __ - -- _ ---- °"°°----- CITY OP CLJPPRTTNO GENFI2AL PLAN - surficcs, maximizing onsitc itrfilt2-ation and using on-site retaining facilities- dr. Encourage volunteer orgstnizations to help restore and clean the creek l;eds. ~;,~ Poiicy 5-27: PoJ/ution a;Id Flow /mpacts Prior to making land rue decisions, estimate increases in pollutant lords surd flows resulting from projected future development to avoid surface _ and gronndwat:er quality impacts. Strnt~gy Best S~•Ianagement Practices. Require incorporation of structural and non- st_ructttral Best Management Practices (I3MPs) to mitigate the projected incrc:vses in pollutant loads and flows. ' Policy5-22: CompactOaveiopment Away from Sensitive Areos Where such mezt_aures do not conflict with other municipal purposes or goals, encourage, via zonirtg orditlance_s, compact development located away from creeks, wcetlands, and other sensi- tive areas. Po/icy 5-23: Conformance wiith Vtlatershed-Raszd Planning and ~?onined- Encourage development projects to fol- low watershed-based planning atLd zon- ing, by examining th.e project irr the context of the entire watershed area. Gr©aaa~¢~ ~JaY~e i~~sf3ae-g~ Faeil9#i~s The Santa Clara Valley Groundwater sub-basin provides approximately lI~-Flf of the total water demands in Santa Clara County, 1 7 - 239 with an astiniated operating ca acit of - • p y ~ approsimately 350,000 acre-feet The Santa - t< ~~~ Cara. Valley \Y7.n~cr I~isnict is rite groundwa- ~ y ~ to n.-t:tntt.~;ement agency in Santa Clar;t ~ ~~` -~' ~ Coutrty Thu District conjunctively manages E , `' e t` ''~ rho b istrts to rn:tt [ vze t, stet supply, pro ccr. ,~ _ ~ the h~ins from c <>ntamination and enure ~ ~ ' ~ r ,i that proun~lwater supply is stns rained The , h ~ ti - - . , EEE Diauict m~magcs the ~;roundwai-cr resources, _:_ t - inclttcling ~=roundwrtter recharge, rhrotigh = s, ` " .~~_ pert of tcioiz ponds and in stream recharge of z _ - ~4 F the err Mks The' McClellan fonds recharge factltty is located ut Cupertino_ - r~ Polii 5- 71t. Qj P'O rlrld ~/~I/ - • ~;o - . t Sims Support the Santa Clara Valley Water District to find and develop groundwa- ter recharge sites within Cupenino's planning area and provide for public recreation at the sites vihere possi.hle_ :> Po/icy 5-25: Other LI/atar Sources Encoursgc the research of nt.-her water sources, including water reclamation. ~~' F'clicy 5-Z 6: Ixxdustria! 1Rlater Recycling I.:ncourtp,c. industrial projects, es-pcc-ia1- ly at the building peruut approval st.af;e, to have long-ternt conservation meastr~s including recycling equip- - mcnt for rnarzufacrurtno aid pooling water supplies in the plant. Work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to carry out this policy. \ - Policy 5--27: Natcxrn! Water Cocxrses Ketain and restore creek beds, riparian con idols, watercourses and cvssociated vegetation in their natural state to pm- tect a=ildlffe habitat and recreation potcrntial and assist groundwater perco- lation. L'tx_ouragc land acquisition or dedication of sue_h areas. S;:rat~~/ Sari-,3 Clara Valley Vti~ater District. Work ~~,•itlr the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other rclcvan.t t-cgion al agencies to enhance riparian corridors and provide adequate flood control by use of flow increase mitigation. treasures. C)the 'vtJat r I~esot~rces Cupertino has t~~~o major water sttppli- c~rs: the California ~X~ater C~_c-~tnpany and tlic San Jose Water Company. Both of these rc:rti.lers purchase their water supply {torn the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Water comes from two main sources: ~velLs fed by gro urulwatcr, and imported water from. the Rinconada Treatment Plant:_ Cupcrtirzo receives approximately 1.7 million gallon a day from the underground sources and about 45 million gallons a clay from the Rfrzconada plant:. Stevens Creek Reservoir yields about 2,500 acre feet per year to the Ctz-~- or CurErzzzt.;o Gft.,atznt_ Pt_aty VUa-rrn Rasouticrs - 4 ~ •~ lf, ,, 5-17 r - I( :h t A.. .e` I. 1 7 - 240 J-1~ t ~~~5 i< ai `L.. ,: ,. - ENVraoNitN-rnr. Rr-_so}~r_czrs/Sr>s~r_9lr:,r}>rrrrY seasonal nm-off from groundwater recl~_ar};e. "Che Santa Clara Valley Water Dist=ict pro - jected tl-re total demand for Cupertino a~: ahottt 6.85 million gallons a day, which c;t-- be reduced rhrou~~h conservation. Cuperrinc~ resiclcnts consume approtiitnately 131. % gal.-- lons of water per day (6.85 MM gallons per day/52,000 residents), which compares f:IVOr- ably to the Bay Area average of 161.2 gallonr per day (Bay Areu \~arer User Associations). 1-Iowever, this does not mean further co~vser- vation is not necessary. Climat_ie conditions of the. rcgiorl rvirh- in which Cupertino is located reflect the c1i- tnatic conditiorv; typical of the rest of the Smite of Calic4~rrria. These conditions arc characterized by periods of hot and dry scasorvs and seasons of heavy rainfall during rlie wet winT_er months. Weather condit_iorvs, however, cart vary horn year to year. In recent times, the rel;ion expe- rienced periods of multi-year droughts in 197b-1977 and again irr 2987-1992. Given the cyclical nature of the climatic conditions, it may he assruned that the region may a,~rin experience periods of drought in the £u tt.r re. `VZter conservation is of great econom- ic, social aucl environmental itnportarrce. During these past periods of drought, t1}u two retailers serving the City imposed water restrictions on their customers in response to the Saizta Clara Valley Water District's calls for water use reduction. Tl}a reduction tar- gets were periodically adjusted during the drought based upon water reserves, water usage. and projected water supplies from both local acrd imported sources. Through tlae water management programs of both the District and the retv3ilcrs, groundwater levels CI"rY of CVPHA"rTNO GF_NE}2AL PLAN remairied 1}ea ltlry and land subsidence ws}s avoided. The District is currently updating its Integrated Water Resource Plan (I4VRP), the pu pose of evhich is to develop a flexible and in<_remcnt.}I writer supply plan for Santa Clara County tl}rough the year 2040. According ro t11e District, fle~ll~ility is a k_ey aspect of the. IWRI' 2002, which calls for periodic reassessments to respond to ever- clr}nging water clcrnand and water supply coedit-ions. The District strives to meat: the neccLs of its water retailers, hur_ unpredictable avc_ntu.rifties necessitate continual rnonitor- inc~ and revisions to the Districr_'s water n}an- :gcrnent activit.ics. In the 2001 session, the Smtc Lep>islntctre and Governor enacted Senate }3ills 22I and 610, which requires jurisdictions to secure a water supply assessment from suppliers of water systems, for projects subject to the C~~li(c~mia L':nvirotunental S7uality Act. The wet c.r supply assessment mtvst be is xcorporat_ed into t11e environmental documents anti con- sidered when determining if projected water supplies arc sufficient. to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition ro the existing and planned future demands. j;> Polley 5-Z~3: /nteracency Coo rdin a t/on Actively pursue interagency coordina- tion Cor regional water supply problem solving. Po/ic}r 5-~9: Coordination ofLcur/ Conservai`ion Policies wi<"h Ra?~nion- tniide Cons2rva~aon Po/ides Coordinate city-wide w>ater conserva- tion efforts with r1}e Santa Clara Valley Water District efforts being con- ducted on a regional scale. Many of 17-241 tlxsc~ conserver*_ion efforts nre outlined 1n tl-tc `;aua.c C;Icrnr Val icy Water I~istac i I7rcnrgh7: 1'1_in and C.~or~nty~,+idc ~X7.ater Use ted~tction prugra;n. ~~'> Policy .5-3~: f~c,L~'ic In~r~rr~aiic~rt C-Cff~ i' Prr~vidc the public iu ii~rmat.iorr rz_i;:~rd- inc~ water e-onsr_rlrarlozr~aflictcncy.tc<-1t- n~riucs, iuchidin~ how raving anal other imperv ions surfrrccs impact runoff. `t'rr` =''fi:~ Corvsider sanding rcgnlar notices to houschol<1s s;r~d bus9nesses on water prohibitions, wzrtcr allocai_ions and corn serva.r_io:r i ips. I3ecomc a rez u7arly fea- urred article in rlie Cupertino Scene, Courier and Cuidc. Provide consarva- Lion viclec~t.rnz~s on tlu- C;1ty's goveat- tnent: channel. Include water-wise. deruonstration gar- dens in some parks where feasible as they arc relandsctrncd or improc>cd r:sint; draught tolerant native, and nort- invasivc, not. t-Hari «c° plat.-rte. ~X~ork with the County Master ~3ardenars to identify tvatcr-wise plant ruaterials ~rrtd irrigation utathods for rue in public and pnvatc areas. This ir>Formatiou should he posted on the Sustainable portion of the Cit:y's web site and included in Cupertino Scc~nc Sustainable column. - l~ Policy 5-37: V!lctf~r Use Ei`ficiency Pmrnote efficient. rise of water tlrrouglt- out f he Ciry, tra t ~gi zs: 1. T ;artdscaping Plans. Rcr1uire water-effi- cient lanclsc.:ti>ing plans that incorpo- WA"PER RF--SOURCES rate the usage of r<_cycled w~atcr for rz' 1anrlsc_anc- irrigarion as part of the level- Sec Muracu~nL opn~.e~.nt: revicra~ process. Cnut: Corn: tea 9.18 2. Watc-r Consc~rvatictn Prot;.~rrrvs. Work with the San_ia Clara Valley Water District tr> undertake pro~r;:rrns thatpro- mota water use efficiency for residenr_ial and cotnrnercial ctvstotncrs. Maintain programs for I<~nt;-term water conserva- t,ion at C ~it}~ Buildings, 9ncluding insralLa- tion of low flow toilets and showers, inst-arllrtrion of automatic shut off valves in lavatories and sinks and water effi- cient outdoor in i~,ation. L3'uar~ ;arcta~'~' C'c~9ltttcz:.e~ CJrb:rrt runoff pollution is caused by the accumulated debris and chemicals on strce is and pavements that are carried by water runoff into the storm drain system and even- tuaLly into Saxt Francisco Bay. Unlike polhr tan_s that Conte from a point source, such as sewer pipe, urban runoff polhrtanrs arc. waslic-d fTOm streets, parking lots, neighbor- hoods, cc~nstructZOrr sites arrd outer ea-I~oscd surfaces tltroughottt the City_ While urb;~xz runoff pollutants corns. from a variety of sonra_cs, many of tlt<~rn arc familiar to residents because they originate from. the home and automobile. They include detergents, paint products, net wastes, garden past.icides, fertilizers, eroded soils, motor oil and car exhaust. Since the. storm drains are. separate from the sanitary sewers, pollutants carried by water runoff into the storm drain are not treated arul flow directly into the creeks and streams that feed Salt Francisco T3ay. Previously, it was widely believed that wastewater trearrztent plants industries and _ -- F`~ ~ ~ ~. - _ 7 1 CrrY !7P CUr'F.IZIZNO Gt.Nr_rZAL PLAN ~`? ~' 17 - 242 ~- ,-ZO L'.N VII20NbLiN"rAL RI-'SOiIRCPS~SLJS"rAIN.A i3 n.I'IY other sources were t11e main contribtttors of ~~`'~ policy 5-32: Urban P.unof: Po//ettion contaminants to the Ba "Toda y. y, u~:ban pr~v~ntion Proc~rarn runoff is recognized. as a significant contribu- tor t:o 13ay pollution.. The concenu:ttiorts o[ S~~pport arid. participate in the. Santa pollutants can have deleterious effects on Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution aquatic wildlife, which include the impair- Prevention Program (SCVCJI2PPP) ist tnent of g;roty th, reproduction and overalll order to tt=otk cooperatively with other health of sedirnen_t-dwelling; organi.5ms, fish cities to improve the quality of storm and other wildlife- Some totic substances water n~aoffdischarge into Satz acctunulated b a uatic or y q ganisn-vs en tat t1-tc Francisco Uay- food chain when consumed by larger Fish, birds or 1-tumarvs. ~~,^"~' Policy 5-33: /Ilicit l~iscitcrrg~ into Storm Drains and VVaBt?rtvays Prohibit the discharge oEpollutanrs ~mET2 Yt`33'7i~B'9$ ALti©Y8 told t,bc illicit dumping of w:-tstes into To comply with an National Pollutant the storm drains, creeks told waterways. Discharge F_lirnination Sysr_em (NPDES) f'.--, po,'iry ~-34t: Storm llVater Runofr" Mtuxicipal Storm Water ermit enforced b p , y the San Francisco I3ay 1Zegional Water Llie=otlrage the reduction of impetviotvs Quality Control Boned, the IS local monies- surface areas and invescigata opportu- palitics formed the Santa Clara Va11ey Urban nitie_s to retaist or detain storm nrnofE Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. on net;~ development. (SCVURPPP). Tlie SCVURPPI' works tvitlx ~ the participating agencies and the Regional ~`'~ po/iry 5-3s: Deve/opmant on Sc-,otic Board to Develop feasible solutions to con- Systems trolling urban runoff quality. In addition, 17o not permit urlTirt development to ' C;upen_ino is required to prepare a city-.spe- cx:urr in areas not screed by tI sanits3ry cific IJrb.ul Runoff Management Platt. This sewer systerlt, except in- the previously plan iclentific~s the' strategies, tasks and approved Regnant Canyon development. schedules needed to implement a wide array Of pOlllltlon C;lJntr01 IneaSnres. ~=3 Policy 5-36: /Ylitigation for Potential Storm 1/1/ater /tnpacts lnitisilly, many of the urban nrnoff pol- Require mitigatiorL measure s for pc~t.en- Iution control measures centered on educe- tial storm water pollutant impacts for lion artd eliminatitlg illegal discharges. As projects subject to environn~enral the public has become snore aware of the review. urban runoff problem and illegal disclra;-ges elimination, the fOCllS has shifted to control- ~'~'~ Policy 5-37. Pest-Resistant ling the impacts of new and re-development. Landscaping and l3esign Features _ - "I'he City will encourage the eonsidera- ' _,~ ~ - ---~~~~ lion of pest--resistarit landscaping and ~r~ design features, and the incorporation of storm water detention and retention t -~A ;~ f Ft!=~-~G*'=°rG ~'s.~,r_R E Y fir- 5 e`aRtir tttrf~:CcFt [ ~f~~~'[_ tecluaiqucs in the design and IandscaP- , °;• - z - - • - -- - ------ ---- - ¢ ~!_ ' - - - --. - ----- „ CITY OF CLJPEA'ITNp (jENPRAL PLAN 17-243 ittr~ of proposc_d dcvelop.t-Scant projccis The City will recluse nuro( froth the use of pr sticidas and ehetnical Ecctilizet5 from public and quasi-public land by employing companion I-lathing tcch- niqucs, using pest icicles such sLS irlsectici- d~a1 s<~aps and oils, inulclrirrg and rcluasc oEbetreficial insects as ni~propriate. 4A,ti~~_~l~ vi~Js~~ i In recognition of she eoncenvs expressed regarding rite diminishing landfill capacity and the scarcity of potenti2l landfill sites to meet tyre future solid waste disposal needs, the Stste I_egislatttre passed AEi 939, which required that cities re°cluce the amount of ~.~aste going to landfill sites. The State marr- d:+tecl requirement was a i ~~~o step process: a twenty-five (1:i) perc_ent reduction l;y 1995 and a second twenty-five (ZS) percent reduc- tion b}= 2000 for a total reduction of fifty (50) percent. T}re City has now reduced dZC solicj waste tonlrage disposal to comply with the State, mandated requirements. The Los Altos Garbage Company pro- vides garbage pickup anti recycling services to nc~ City of Cupertino. "I he Cupertino resi- dents and. inclusirics dispose of apptotiitnately .1,`3,000 tons of garba~,c: aruru:dly_ liesidentirl Land uses actor mt for 22% of the total ton- n.ay,e; cotnm.creial and industrial lamd uses account for 40%~; debris boxes (constnrction matanals) account for 2Z%; while self-- haul accounts for 1C%~ of tyre total annual tonnage. C'-oncarns regarding the lack of potential landfill sites to meat Cutrtra needs Eor solid waste disposal. and growing recog=nition of rite cnvironmctrtal impacts a: scrciatecl with lancl- fi ll usage prompted Cupertino to explore potential solutions to tlic solid. waste disposal problem. To meat its future solid waste dispos- Sot.tn ~YJ~s-ra al needs, t_hc City, has ea eented a contract with Brcwni-n~; and Fer-ris tltirt provides lrtnd- fill cap.-Icily trt Newby lsltu~cl irr Milpitas. Tlv= tcnn of the agreenlan[ is 35 years and ends in 702.3, or at the time t11e specified tonnages allc~catcd (2,050,OW tons) is tcxr3rcd. t _ _-i L.~ f .,; c_ r 4.t _. ._-'i ~i°` r~ -E$%1~~ ~'E CGk r ~~ ~.":.SVd ,t c... ~ .c~_~, -_~ =cwt ,, t~~.:~s T}~c Ciry is bcginnu;g to ~:.-plore t$c possi hd lily of ex p:indiu~ its recycling prog~an~s to :nchtdc food «-astc (to he composted) and construction. and dctnolition wasr_e- (to be recycled. or reused). In addition, the Ciry is investigating the stun it ~ablc options fir recy- cling or disposal of clecirotiic waste Some of the current clpti<Ins have b-en shoe=n ro be unacceptable fir environmental reasons. "hhe City will continue tc~ ~n=ode to deecrmire the hest options for its residents wid bnsinesscs. ~Y' Poticy5-3 S. ~'ornmercinl//ndustrial ~^r_ycfing Espsard etiisting coturncrcial and industrial recycling prognarns to tnect and surpass f~F939 waste, stream reduc- tion goals_ r;..~..,t~ °Y Increase Recycling{. Request that all cotnrnereial .md industrial uses increase their recycling efforts to help the city achieve: its recycling goals. r~ -~> policy 5-39: ~,esidentin! Recyc/ing Strcatnline t11e resident%al curbside: recycling program in the next decade. Include: all city-wide residential aon- ing districts in the curbside recycling program. CI"t'Y oP CIJPZR'rZNO GENERAL PLAN 5-71 ~`n -. i( i - u~~- 1 7 - 244 l2~ IN VIRUNM r-N-rAL IZ__=_SUUE2C'ES~StiS"L'AINAS3Ii ~~^^~"t --~- ~~a- ~z ~ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~§- ~-u x- ~ Y~-~ "~ r ~ °L tit-`~ `~ ~ d+ - ' -~' ~ °~-, _ ~ 6 ~ , 1'~ S ti-a t~ gigs 1. Coordination with Los Altos Garbage Company. \Uork closely wit11 the Los Altos Garbage Company to develop and implement efficient and effective recyclinf; met1}ocls. 2. E-~L}rite Recycling Probrram. Continue /malre petZrlarlent the e-w~LSte recycling program. 3. Curbside Recycling of yard waste. Include vegetable; fruit and ot]rer appropriate food items, as well as, recy- cling of non-reusable batteries as the City of Palo Alto does. ~~' Policy .5-40: On-s/te Garbage Area Dedication Modify existing, and require for new developments, on-site waste facility requircment_s for all multi-family resi- dential, commercial and industrial land uses to have 50%~ of their garbage area dedicated to recycling and no more than 50% garbage. Strategy Ordinance Revisions. Revise existing ordinances relative to on-site waste facility requirements for all multi-fami- ly residential, commercial and industri- al zoning districts to require that a mist ii =~ __; imam of 50% of garbage area be dedi- ,<.' -; _'- : f~ Gated to tee cling- --.. - - ~-~ - - - - y t - -- -- --- -- `"'~`~'~["°`1 CITY Ole CUt'P}iTTNO GEN£IZA}. PLAN Po/icy 5-47: Pub/ic Education Promote the existing public education progr-ml regarding the reciLtr t-.ion of solid waste disposal and recycling. Strai~gy Recycling Program Irlforcuation. I Ts c. the local television channel, r7~Ie Cupertino Scene, the Internet .md other available media to provide infor- }nation to the. residents about the ohjcc- tivas of the City-'s recycliing program. ~.> Policy 5-42: Ciiy Recyc/ing F_ncourage City staff to recycle at all ( ~ity facilities. Strategies 1. Recycling Opportunities. Provide col- lection bins and increase the number of existing recycling bins at strategically located arc:z_s to facilitate disposal of recy- clable, materials, including all City parks. 2. Schools and Institutions. Partner with s C11001S~l rLStltut10115 m CLlpertln0 tC) ensure that they understand and are adhering to the City's recycling goals and providing adequate recycling c}pportmlities to staff and students. C.' Policy 5-43: Re-distribution of Reusab/e M4terials Through public education, enco}}rage residents and businesses to rc-distribute reusable materiaLls, e.g., garage sales, materials exchange. Str4tegis~s I. Dissemination of Recycling Infor- oration. Disseminate information to both businesses and residents regarding the benefits of recycling and further reducing the solid waste stream. 17-245 "L. Use of the Internet. Set up a web sirs for the benefitc>fthc. public ~vlusc the avail- ability of recyclable m;lteri:ils can be pcasted and exchanges earl be conducted. ~~- Policy 5-'F4: R~vs~ of,°.ufadin t7 /t~lat~rir~/s Encourage the mcyclirzg and reuse of building materials, includirig recyeliug marcrlals generated by the demolition and remodeling elf buildings. _ t _ _I _ ~. r _ ~~ "~ L ~ Z `Y '~ _ - .l ;i - ~ t ~., _ ~_ =i _, _~ ~ _ ....,..c. _ ^-tYC`i. ° ~ .~-•F~ .vas. a5!-~:'~ > _ac iZecyded btcildixlg maceriaLs used in Cupertino Lzbrary a-eco ns Lructirm Stratzgies: 1. Post Demolition and Remodeling Projects. F_ncourage contractors to post demolition and remodeling projects on the Internet announcing the availability of potential reusable materials_ Z. Public and Private Projects. Require contractors working on City projects to u.=,e recycled building materials and scls- tainably harvested wood products to the nl:ixirnrun extent passible and encourage them io do rllc same on private projects. Wastewater collection and treatment are provided to the City of Cupertino by the Cupertino Sanitary District sand the City of Surulyvale. The majority of tlrc City is served W.~. sZ~s w~..-r-F :~z by the Cupertino Sc wet District, while the City elf Sunnyvale serves only a small portion of the <upertino Urban Service area within the Sail Jose 1Zarlcho Rinconacla area, which is Located adjoinirzg I_awrencc 1?:, pressway on the c-:ISt sick of the City. ,. _ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ _ i~F.!sLCCS?1, s"i°_ 5:2 ;('f=yt l=~'_Sf='.,; C't "Y ~;~;> Po/icy 5-'X S: Coordincrtir~n with tfie Cuo~rtino Saraitrary 17i~trict Provide input into District's Mosier Plan. preparation process to ensure that issues relevant to Cnpertino's l,lnd rLSe policies are addressed, and work closely with nc~ Distrrict on the implenienta- tiorl of the Ceneull Yl,.n. l~le ~:llpertlno Sftrutary DLSrrl C: t_ C3InC into being in 1957_ In 1964 it prepared its first Master P1a12. Presently the District is in the process of pre-paring its second Master Plan, a process that will take approximately two years. The Cupertino Sanitary District: collects and transports waste water collected in Cupertino to the San Jose/Santa Clara ~X,'ater Pollution Control Plant located in North San Jose, from which it has purchased 8.6 millions gallons par day (mgp). Presently, the District is only using 5.1 mgp. Tllereforc, there are 3.5 mgp avail:.lblc to the District to accommodate future growth. T11e District maintains approximately orlc million feet of se.wcr lines. 11 recent inspectiorr of approximately 100,000 feet of sewer lines revealed that the system- is in good condition. However, although the physical conditions of the infrastnrcture appear to be good, there are some problems with. the carrying capacity cIf a number of CIZ-Y OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN ~~1~ ,~y,~r '' t ~- +` ~_ - .r 1 7 - 246 -J~} ~. ~~,~_ LNViRONM~NTAL RESODRCrs~SUSTA1NA1i1L11'Y lines in t11c system. The lines located a*_ the. Town Center, south of Wolfe Road and south ofI Z80 on Wolfe Road, Stelling Road :Intl Pootlrill Blvd. are running eitlu:r at capacity or Deer capacity. In order to accorn- modatc the effluent from major develop- ments, this problem ~vi11 have. to be correct- ed. "1'he District expects t1Iat private devel- opers wi(1 defray the cost of upgrading the affected sewer lines. To transport wastewater collected in Cupertino to the Plant, t=he: S arrii.ary District must use lines travetsirl ~; the Cities of Santa Clara and San Jose. C=onsequently, Cupertino's effluent generat- ed by future glov~rh may inZp:ict these liners. Therefore, tltc potential impacts on tlrese linc,s tnust be considered. Zlre City of Sunnyvale provides waste- water treatment service for two Mocks of Cu.pertillo's commercial properties along east Stevens Cre_ck Boulevard. This service ;tree also includes unincorporated single-family residential properties within the Cupertino Urban Service, area. Tlie City of Sunny.~alc ~X/a.stcwater "Iteatrncnt Plant h.LS a cl.tily treatment capacity of 29 mgd of which approximately IS mgd are being utili-r.ed. Z-I7e City of Sunnyvale can continue to pro- vide treatment capacity for fixture growth in its C:upcrrino service area. F Iowever, tlrc C YCY OF CVPF_R"rINO C)HNERAL PLAN r-IZUik service mains and orltc,r portiorvs of the sewer main sys tcm would probably have to be upgraded by the developers, if large office users arc allowed in the Cupertino service are.I. But i.t is unlikely that the Stevens Creek- Conceptual Plan would be amended to allow office Uses in this area because of the ncc.d to maintain compatibility with adjoin- ing single-fancily reside-ntial uses. ~~ Policy 5-46: Sunnys~nla Treatment P/nn t Consider the impacts on the Sunnyvale s.ulitary sewer sys- tem if sii,nific_ant office uses are proposed in the east Stevens Creek Boulevard area. r:_> ~~ Policy S-~7_ IJcaltco Pcar:cway Recognil.e that new high discharge tvsers in the Vallm area and the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue area will require private developers to pay for the upgrading of tributary lines. Strategy Cost Estimates. Develop preliminary cost estimates for the upgrading of the sewer tributary lines to discuss with prospective developers_ 1 7 - 247 txle'd like to thaxzl: Julia Philips, Director, CCC Stattawide. Energy M.~nagcrnent Prc~gntnt and Yat Comely on her staff, from Dc. Anza C ~llega fctt the-ir assistance and t'lie inf<~nnatioa t-hey have provided. 'I'1te follo~~,~irtr, r~scrur-ces when: used as refercnca for this section: ~~ PC~zF_, www-i~~~e.cr~m (search under "sustainable" and check-out the rebates! ) California Dei~artment of Engrg}=: - www.cnergy.ca.gov - www.califomiacnergT%efficiency.cotn - ww«.cons;unerenergycenter.org/ reba tc - database of current rebate and inceritive programs- IJ.S. Department of Enerfry, «nvw. core. energy. gov/bu ildi n ~;s/ highperformance, www-susr_ainabla.doe_ gov/n.-t anao'crnent/geni nfo I2F sots rc r=s L..JS C~rccn. Building C,c~rutcil, c~vw.usgl~c.org. Visit this site for ir;for- ntation on. tlte^ LEEDS (I_eadersh.ipvz - Energy ~- F'nvirctnmertal Design) stan- dard and certification prcxess for "Green Buildings o-tnd products^. m SaeralIICntO Municipal Ener€ry District, tvwwsrnud.org, go to the Green Power section of site. Suruet Magazine, Sunset: New Western Garden Book and w~rwsutvsetcom Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Conaniitnitics, www.bayarcrtalliance.orf~ e Sustltin;:ble S(ti~rr Mateo County W W R'. sUStai11 a UleSanrnatC:O.OI'g Northern California Solar Energy Asscx_iation, cwvw_norcalsolarorg s City of Sartta Monica, tvcv~l~.ci.santa- m onica.ca.us/env iro ntnent City of Portland Oregon, OCfice of Sustainable, Developmcrrt, www. stx stainaUleportl an d. org De Anza College, www.e netgyrnanagement. da artz a. edu CrrY c~F L.v F'r-'P'I'INO-Gai.f tz.+r. ILA. h' j - ~ 7 -:' - -. ~, ? - .. -_ 1 7 - 248 V ~~ A I r~~ ira~°, s'iee ruifry :ad pd~.lern Eels mice: ~y cm~~ ~a un~ i .. ~} ~ '~~' 4 ~CIIY GFj ~~rt~?~i P'/f IPd U'~'~:5 e.`~ tJA ~u~Tl~d~] C3 ~'~' CO iJ1~1C1€L cgrilaa- ~'teeting %ctob°r ~1, ~t3£3:i l'J,.+,C:~•i3~. ~?s~ ?LJ~I~;rL~=At=1+C1i. At 6:47 p.m. Mayor Y.~wok called the me+~ting to order i,:. the 10350 'f'orce <Av°uue, C~sl~c:rtino, and Ib:d the I'lodge of All silence in n~ern.ory of forrno'r Niayor `vzJally Dean. ~ S+µS f unity Hall Council Chamber, . 1-ln asked for a nzon~ent of F'rese;ni: mayor 1'atricls lr~~rolc, Vice-2uTayor Richard Lciu~enthal, Couzicil member Sandra James, Council mcn-zber Dolly Saaidoval, and Council member Kazs 4~lang. ? iJt-:,L l~ C~D1,~{1'i.Z~~l t.l~~ .~"!.z~1~3~~3a`l~t C~,OaF+It3 `aTt~'.31OI'~I -- T~loa~~~ ~'~;?~T'1~~J v1~13A;L i`/{E~"' g ~,, ?? _ ~~~S+.F=I 1~fS'g;~OT'1>3 3'do3a~ i' i'~L3S'3'~ i~~~I~~~I'd'~'S y The City Clerlc noted that item number 11,=`was postponed to October 18 at staffs request_ ~r3J3~'~'TI~T+I COP/~~rI~tT3"d~i~_?~.'it'ir3PdS ,~~~ ~~ The City Clerk noted the foliowin, written communications: For item number 9, a petition in favor of keeping l~iim Street operi signed by approximately 700 people, and a handout listing their talking points for schediile'ci speakers; for item number 10, a letter from Home Builders Association of Northern California, and errrail from Dr. Marie Lin opposing chanz;es to the R1 and 1ZH:3 zones. a~ O!£?~A3, ~''Pl"iJi`~SSJ1~litCA Craig Slarna talked about the City Council's denial of the waiver request for the `fournanzcnt of Bands event. He saiditfiat Cupertino schools are famous for their quality of education, and they should not be treated,~s just another nonprofit organization_ Julia Miyakawa said that she is also a volunteer with the Tournament of Bands. She as'.ced vvhy waivers have b//~en given to other organizations, such as the Cherry Blossom Festival, Oktoberfest, Mdon f=estival, etc., and she asked what c~aiteria are used to waive costs. City Manar David Knapp explained that in the cases mentioned, the item waived was the rental fee ruse of a facility. The City does not waive direct costs, such as those for Sheriffs Officersded to control traffic. He said that staff would bring back a report to Council about the typg.- of waivers that have been granted. 17 - 250 t%ctouer ~f, 20DS Cupertino City Council ~ a«e g Marls McKenna, representing ~~ Charribec of Cammer~u, said they were o~~j~osed to cashout program because o~f//tl'ie rnanaeinent burden it:~.ti%oulci put on each e..~q plover, and because of the difficultyy~enforcenzent. Motion: Include lar~guage regarding an optio fot~ r cashout i~1 the C' e~i-i raI plan, Moved 1, ~~aa~~-- Y Council memb Dolly Sandoval, seconc~i~by Vice-I~ilayor R~'fiard Lowenthal. t~Totion failed 2-3,~. ith Mayor Patrick Kwok,~ouncil n~entber S~r~:fira Jaines, Council rcienZber l~ris L~Ia~~; votinb no. Piaseclti said t3zat item I~7o. 42 pertaia~ed to the; Lindy Lane hillside designation. A resident of Lindy Lane said that the City was spectacular hillside lots with legislation that addresses the unique development <ssu ss, and the point of the RHS •zoruns~ is to balance t'ne interests of pizvate owner with public aesthetics, He showed excerpts of th.~ NlLmicipal Code 19.40, aizd said that the ]~indy Lana (south) neighbors support the inclusion of full IZ iS zoning for ali hillside lets being included in the Gc:nerai Plan. Luciano Dalle pre said I"ie Iived on one of thy, affected properties. He said that there was already an RHS overlay on top of the R-1 designation there, which addressed most of tl~c egregious impacts on the land. However, if he can no longer subdivide, it would reduce the value of leis property by a substantial ainoiint. Christina. Dalle Ore, Lindy Lane resident, said. she was against the rezoning. Sloe said that they have no plans to subdivide now, but they wish to preserve the value of their property. Jim Moore, Lindy Lane resident, showed PowerPoint slides and said that on the north side of Lindy Lane the hillside is very steep; t7iere is a huge retaining wall; the R1 zoning doesn't ft the steep Sun property; and the steep hillside requires RHS type designation to provide protection. The zoning is also needed. to maintain a rural nature of the area, and because the area is too steep to safely subdivide and build more Domes. Charlie Casey, resident of Lindy Lane, asked that the original development plan 'oe protected. He said it was approved after careful study of geological conditions and slope, acid was designed to protect the rural environment. He said the south side was allowed smaller lots, but the north side kept larger lots because of the terrain and potential hazards such as landslides and traffic problems. He asked the Council to prevent any further development of Lindy Lane. John James presented a petition to the Council to revise the General Plan to rezone Lindy Lane RHS. He showed PowerPoint slides, which described the mudslide of 1983 acid 1994, and illustrated the damage to his home, which was destroyed. He said this is indicated as a seismic hazard zone in a report from 2002. He said that further property damage and loss of life might result if the property is not rezoned from R-1 to RHS. Julia Tames, Lindy Lane resident, asked that Council rezone it to RHS as it was before because it is a matter of safety. 1 7 - 251 i~~ctoY~er ~, ~0~5 tupertiita~City Cuui-tcil Page Frat>lc .sun, Lindy La.ric resident, said l.e was the owner of the retaining wall, which was paid "for by the previous resicient wvhen Llic road was widened and not because of a_ny larldslicle:s. I1_<; r: aid h~ vas opt;oscd tc rezcrnint~ the area lu~cause of the n~.gativc impact cn his roperty value. Ile asT~_ed that the Cou~-aGi.l follow the 3lanning Commission recom2-nendatia7l, alld he. said that the zoning was claang:.d eal•lier in the year without proper notice. C'on~lr_unity TJc:velopment 7lircc:tor Steve Piasecki noted that a neighborhood ma,ct-in+; haci been held and -tiropt.rty o~~."uers had attended- .1 O1<n I~rJ SriltO 531',"9 ti"tat 17 t~ I:> a ~,CI'.:"ral COI"lt i_i.GtC9r ~.v110 -L"/Or1CS 731 thi?t ~irCa 2110:it days, a1'ld he v.'as riot aWaI-+; CIt oily nOtlfiCat10I1- He e>ald the: neW Ord.7na11GC 11e~3tlVely nnpaClS the property ovrncrs, and he was iIZ su.ppor"i of the IZHS zoning. L~r. Sun, a local rt:!zi e..state a~;cnt, opposed the rezoning_ IIe said there arc: already many subdivided lots and those past owners got ;eolo€,~ical soils reports ~?nd w°re still able to build. I-Ie said that the current ov/ners sl?ould have the sane right as previous owners to maximize their property value. 1`.Mali 1,oving, rcpres~rltin:; Taylor j~loodro~~, askod abotrt the overall consequences for the General Pian if this item is continued. City Plalllac,r Cynthia v~lordeli replied that if this item is continued to the next meeting, the EIR could be heard on Novembel• 15, along t=iith the first racling of C'rze ordinance adopting the General flan. "The following individuals said they were opposed to the ordinance change for the same r~.asons mentioned by Dr. Sun and other speakers: Shirley Bates Tustic_ I in Sherry Fong Shan Zhu Ms. Feng also discussed the measures taken dosing construction of her home to. address the geological conditions of tfze area_ Tohrl Knapp, Lindy I..ane resident, said that 12--15 years ago the Planning Commission rejected a rezoning proposal. If it went through now, all the property owners would be out of compliance. He said that values should be le#1 as -they are, and building applications should be examined to address gceiogicai conditions. TrTark :iantoro, Lindy Lane resident, said that the geology of the south side of the road is different than the north side, which is why the zoning was done the way it was in the first l:lace. I-Ie said that houses built on either side could be safe, depending on how they arc brrilt. IIe said that the property owners are asl~ing to leave the property the way it was when they bought it, and rezoning would devalue his property by about $1 million. IIe said he did receive notice about the rezoning and attended. the neighborhood meeting, but until that time they did not lclio4v that the RHS overlay to the R-1 zoning had been changed to 15 %. David Pau, Mountcrest Drive, was opposed to the ordinance change because he wanted to protect his property rights and value. I~-zsz Cletober 4, 2005 Cupertino City Council Page 1 Q Jennifer Griffin talked about the history of r zudslides axzd said it is important to establish rniniuZUm lot sizes in hillside areas, and particularly in I indy Lane because of the geological hazards. Bill Guangez-ich said he sympathized with the northern neighbors regarding the re- desigu-zation of their property. He said he ,itso sympathized with the neighbors on the south side, and urged tlae City to take into :account the sensitivity of those lots. He saki that better conununication could have saved a lot of an~nush about construction that is koing on now. Motion: Deep the R-1 designation. Moved by Council member Sandra James, seconded by Council mcrnber Kris Wang. Motion can~ied unanin~ousiy. In summary, the City Council took straw vot.+.s to: fl Remove Regnant Creek from the Draft General Plan Add new language to the Draft Gen°ral Plan r~~gaz-ding the Union Pacific Trail <~ Use the tivording provided by the Bicycle Yedostrian Con~snission regarding the location of the' trails o Not add the wording to prohibit non-retail uses from exceeding 25 io of a shopping center ~ Balance the needs of the pedestrians viith desired traffic services ® Stay with the current General Plan regarding Public Art Set standards far Green Building ciesi~~n ® Not include the language regarding th ~ cashout progrram Keep the R-1 designation t Council concurred to continue the public hearing ou the General Plan to the next meeting- 1 1. Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Application No. TM-2004- O5, tiVayne Aozasa (CA Szlater Sez-vice), located on Greenleaf Dr-, APN 326-33-207. (This itenZ was postponed to October 1 8 at staffls request - no documentation in pacl~et): (a) Tentative IvIap to subdivide a .95-acre pax-cel into four lots ranging from approximately 6,430 square feet to 5,830 square feet, plus a remainder of 11,500 square feet Council concurred to postpone this item to the next meeting. Ut~71FI1~7ISH~~ JS~JSYI'~I~~S I~IEtizl BZJ5F~7)t;SS 1 7 - 253 ?cteber 4, 2003 ~"~.:p•°rtir?o City currcil ;~:'~ T-ll~d A ~1 CAS 1'a„e 11 12. Conduct the second reaclixig of~ Ordinaricc Nc. 1.465: "Au ~Jz-dinhnce of the City Council of the City of t_`c=pcrti_r~o llirxczzdiny Cupertina Mranicil~al Cock;, Chapter 11-2~1, Section 11.24.150 2Zelating to, Parking I'rohibit~~orr Along Curtain Streets fo Remove the Prohibition of Parking on the ~~vest Side of Vista ;~-3z-iv: Between App1c; Tree give and a Point 200 1~'eet South." The City Clez~l~_ react tlxc orclin~z3zc~:;- Motion: T b read the ordinance by Title only and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute t11e second readinn thereof. Moved by Vice-Mayor Richard 1_ocventhal, seconded by Co?inch menibez- Sandra Jarnes. Motion carried 5-O. Motion: To enact Ordinance 1`.?0. 165. Moved by Vice-Mayor Ricliarcl Lov~enihal, sc,conded by Council mex-nber Sandra James. Motion carried 5.-O_ ~'OTJNCJt~. ~<:P~~i S Council n-rembcrs hig'nlightc.d the activities of their cornnlittees and various community events. A~dO~T~L`d ~:7~d'~` At 12:10 a.rn., the meeting was adjourned. C~~/(q//~/~J j /~~Ajq" ~3 ~SJ •~ f6_- limberly Smith ~i-ty Clerk For more information: Staff reports, backup rai:aterials, and items distributed of the naecting are available for review at the City Clerk's Off ee, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas Sc Minutes/ City Council/ Packets. Most Council meetings are shown live on Cable Channel 25, and are available at your convenience from our web site. Visit www.cupertino.org and cliclt on Match Meetings. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be ptbrchased from tlae Cupertino Gity Channel, '777-2364. 17-254 CITY OF C ~JPFRTIP~IO 10300 "ror.-e Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 I~ESOLIJ'TIC1N NO. 6522 O~ TI-1T~ PLANP~(ING COMMISSION OF TH}~ CITY OF CUT'ERTINO APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL. DESIGN PERMIT FOR A NSW 4,499 Sc7UARL FOOT, ?_-STORY SINGT_,T~, E~ANIILY RESIDENCE ~~T 21947 L INDY Ll~NE SL:CTION L I'P~FCT Dl SCRIP'TION Application No.: 2003 Site and Architectures L Plains for a residence at 21947 Ludy Lane Applicarit: Clues-Clzinb Lin (Krishnap zra ~ Minasaczdram Residence) I ocation: 21947 Lindy Lane SECTION li: FII~IDINGS WI~EREAS, public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinaszcc of the City of Cupertino, and the Plarizing Colrui~ission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEP~EAS, the applzcarlt has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: L The proposal, at the proposed location, grill not be detrizizental or uzjvrious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and_ will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, c eneral welfare, or cor~venience; 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plazz, and zoiing ordinance; 3. The proposal will use mate-rials, desigri etc-men.ts aizd silizplified building forizis that compliment the existing a_nd nei.gl'tboriz~_g structures that make it 1-iarr~tozuous in_ scale and desigrz with the general neighborhood; _ 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have peen reasonably mitigated in that the building pad was .lowered three Feet and the height of the garage was _reduced to reduce the height of the retaining wall and garage wall facing the downslope rc=_sidE:nce. The lowered pad height also reduced the perceived height of tine proposed house facing the upslope residence such that the view frorr~ ~zpslope is that of just a recessed, suzgle-story residence. NOW, TF3EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. That after careful consideration of maps, fe cts, exhibits, test~inony anal other evidence submitted in this matter, the architectural and site glans are hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and 17 - 255 for 21947 I_.i,_Zdy Lan^ Juty 2~., 2_UO3 1',Ysolufic,zt I~[o. 6522 200:3 1'~r~li- ~~r Sife Flans r; ,, Z -------- ----- a .,~_ - ---- --- _----- --- That the st-ibcon~ lusior~s upon :~rl~ich the {hidings armed conditions sp~cific~d in tlu > resclutioil arcs based «nd contained in. the public hearing record- conceraunt, the zc~sidc iztial dc_sir~1 per~rit for 21134% L,inciy Lana set forth in the Minutes of the I'la:rz?-ping CozYlrzzission rneetirs; of July 22_, 2t?03, and are incorporated by reference as titoiz~;h fU Ily scat forth herein.. ST-;CL7~?I~T_IIl_ CONDITIONS ADI~!LINIS=1'ERTT~ BY TI 3T COMML7NTT1' DE~IFI.OPMTN"I' 1. PzP=I~.~~TED T'I~~~C'~ Approval is based on plan set ti'clc.d: "New Residence for Sheshaprasad Krishnap?ira 8r MaLini Minasandrain, 21947 Lindy Lame, Cupertu2o, CA 9401" consisting of 1 ~ she°ets Iabelc~d A-0 through A-8, A1.1, C-1, C-2 and L-1, dated April 4, 2003, c xcept as __ - - aznendcd by the Conditions contais-~ed in this Rcsc>lutian. 2. Z~St~TICE t-)k~ PFE'`~3,_®~Ei~I+~'ATI~I°dS PaES~I2~f`'~'I~312T~ ~?Z ~3Ti4~EI3_ E~~~'1'T+nl''~I~ The Conditionvs of Project Approval set forth hereiiz may include cc=stain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, anal other er._~ctions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(4) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a . statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of tl~.e dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You arc. hereby further notified -that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, aazd other exactions, pursuant to Goverrurcent Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within taus 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later clialleng~i_ng such exactions. 3. GI30'IT~'CI3PdIC~L__IZEVI~:~T Prior to building permit approval, basement, retaining walls, grading and diauzage shall be evaluate-,d and desigszed by the applicant's geotechtlical en~6ineer and reviewed and approved by tl~e City Geologist and Ci1:y. 1. CC~Ia1STi?YJCTI~31~7 M~I~T~GEt~IE'1?~TT i~Z.~I~T_ _ . -- - In conjunction with the building permit review, the applicant sha1T submit a cozzstr•uction manag eznent plan to address staging of construction materials, loaciiuzg and unloaduzg areas and parking for construction vehicles. The Director of Community Developrrtent shall review and approve that plan. - 5_ tgEpIlA~EIVdEI~TT Q~E I7EAI~ C~~ ~'3 t.I~T~ ~AI~S "Tl2e tv<ro dead coast live oaks shall be replaced with. two, nev.? 36" box oaks prior to occupancy. 6. ~R_STEIZI,~C RETAII~TII'dG ~dALE SETI3l-°bC~ The easterly reta~n;ng wall shall be set back eight (3) feet fzom the side grope-sty line iz1 leications where privacy landscaping is r~quirad. 1 7 - 256 ResoIut~on No. 652 ~ ?008 Arc1~_. ~Sr Siie I'lcins for 2_2947 Lindy 13ne July '22, 200E J.'<i~, _= =r~= ---- ------ ---- PASSED AND ADOP i'I~D this 22"a day of J 11y 200, at a Re€rCZlar Meeting of the Planning Corntrussion of the City of Cupertino, `Mate of Califoszua, by the following roll call vote: AYR'S: CC~MM~SSIONP;RS: Chai.rpe~-son Miller, Brophy, Kaneda, Rose NOES: COMMISSIOI~TEPS: nonc_ ABSTI3IN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENrI': COMMISSIONERS: Vice Cb~~ir Cii_efer AT"I'L3ST: s SCeve I-'iaseclci Jf:[_'Ve P1aSL'Cl<Y Director of ConunuYUty Developzizent APPROVED: /s/ Mariy Miller Marty Miller, Chau-person Planning Commission G:Cupfnt/planning/Pdreport/Res/2008/under K-2008-7.4, RM-2008-26 res.doc 17-257 . Cupertino Planning Co;-omission 2 July 22, 200h - > ~5 ,mot,:'--- t '~°_+-tt.; .. __--_ --__ _ -~_____.____ C7RA L Cf71!'IP1iU7'°7ICf4.T'd``~t°7.~1: r k'~ '~t~(' /'' -- ^~ ~~~~~1~~C~. EjJ J I1~1a# Kamlcar, Ci?pt~r•tirro residen.i: • Addressed the Planiinrg Commission regarding floor area ratio (FAR) of second to first floor d.iscusseci at tttc previous--_Plamring Commission meeting, and urged the Conxnrission to increase the allowable ratio ~o`f\econd floor to first floor. He stated that he owned two properties in Cupertino; one in Raricho~Rinconada where he did not do second floor because of the current rules, re:;ulting in a 67ggcr roof, bigger foundation, smaller backyard; everything opposite a(-the green building pra`c'tices that one would like to see. On his Monta Vista property, he said he would prefer to go to a~s~nd floor if the ttdes permitted. J~erxtxit'er ~ s-ifin, k~axrcho F:;rrcanada resident: Exoressed concern that she felt the current RI ordinance was Bing pieccmcaled into something it was not iutcndcd to be, particularly with the floor to area r tippotentially going to 100% for the second story. She said it may be better to open the whole ~ rdinance. Some lots in Rancho Risxconada are 5,000 sq. ft. or under and there are other are s ri~i~he city that have; very small lots and doing anything more to increase the second story, sets~p dangers for the neighbors. It may be better to open the Rl from the hillside ordinance to~~- floor to area ratio rather than piecemealing this, working on it a little, and then winding up \ --.---_--- .vritlrunpleas~:r~t-tllings-such as-monstE~r~rr>nres:-- -----_~~_ ~~ 1'YJ13I,IC 7IEAIdII'~7L~ 2. A-2.008-14, taCei-2,00&-15 Chia-Ching Lia; 21947 Lindy Lane - (I~rishnapura ~~i P/Iinasaadram residence) Director's referral to the Planning Commission the approval of a Residential Design Review for a new 4,491 sq. ft., two-story single family residence with a basement and a Minor Residential Permit for a side facing second story balcony on the new residence. f Zcmning Commission decisiorz final unless appealed Colin JunY;, ;9enior I'lanrter, presented the staff report: o Reviewed the Director's referral of architectural and site plans for atwo-story 4,499 square foot single-family residence on Lindy Lane, as outlined in the staff report. o Ffe explained that the application was the first proposal under the new ordinance adopted in November 2.007, which is part of the R1 ordinance but applies specifically to the R1-20 zoned properties which arc largely Located north of Lindy Lane. Ist that area the City adopted a set of hillside regulations. © hIe reviewed an aerial view of the property, a three lot subdivision. FIe pointed out that based on the R1-20 ordinance, given the size of the project, they did not meet the planning threshold for a development application; they were not required to do a design review permit, nor a permit for the second story balcony. Because of staff's concerns with the architecture, the history of recent controversy in this neighborhood, staff felt it best to conduct this review in a manner that was similar to what we normally do in a two-story home in R1 zoned property. The applicant erected story poles and neighbors within a 300 foot radius were noticed, and provided them with plan sets. 'There were concerns from the neighbors about the project as presented and redesigns of the project resulted in a much better project than originally presented. ® IIe reviewed the elevations -and noted that the applicant had made modifications to the architecture of the project, creating a lighter, more compatible architectural form to the 1 7 - 258 Cupertino Planning Commission July 2?, 2003 existing homes and older homes in the neighborhood. Staff feels t1-rat from an architectural standpoint, the proposed house is compatib e with the residential neighborhood. He reviewed the nei~r rbors' concerns and the applicant's responses and modifications made to address the concerns, which are detailed in the staff report. Staff has not made a recommendation on the project, but if the City Council decides to approve the site and architectural plan, staff recommends the two highlighted items which are in the model resolution, the last t~vo items in reef are additional items staff would like the Planning Commission to consider and add .o the model resolution, including replacettient of two mitigation Oaks that are on the property. The other condition is that the setback of the castcrty retaining wall currently is at 6 feet; they would like to increase it to ~, feet because staff does not feel that the distance betwee~t the wall and drainage Swale is wide enough to accommodate the privacy landscaping that needs to be planted in that location. Conc. Brophy: Asked staff to explain the changes made to the zoning ordinance in November 2007. Colin .Tung: ® Said what was created was a hybrid of F:1 zoning regulations and ttie hillside zoning regulations. There is a requirement to screen retaining walls; some things are transferred over like screening of retaining walls, the limitation on solid board fencing around a property; requirement for open board fencing around the yards of property; there was some regulations regarding the removal of trees, allowing up to two protected trees to be removed if they are under 13 inches if it is withui the housing pad; there were some protections put in that if it was on steeper slopes greater than 30%, then a hillside exception would be required; but the slope of this property is under that. ® Some of the more interesting aspects of the ordinance related to the fact that the second floor of the residence was unlimited in terms of the square footage. There are limits to it, the FAR limit but that is basically the same; it doesn't s ay that specifically but is the same principle that is in the residential hillside ordinance. There are some certain thresholds about review having to do with if it is on a flat pad and you go through one level of review and if it is not on it, you can only build up to 4,500 before you come to the Planning Commission. The grading quantity was the same, so it is similar but not exactly; if there is anything that comes up during the hearing that you speciFcally want to stress, it would be easier to tallc about specificity rather than generality about the ordinance. ® Said that both of the homes were built not under the previous iteration, but the iteration before that; that particular iteration limited the second story to 35% of the first story, which is the biggest difference. The other difference with the previous iteration was that neither of those two homes were required to go through any t~~pe of public hearing or design review and both of them were allowed with building permits because that is what the ordinance allowed at the time. A two-story home that was less than a 3.i% FAR was allowed with a building permit. Com. Brophy: ® T1ie question about the other retaining wall would destabilize the slopes supporting their home; is there any response to that or is that something that would be taken care of in the geotechrrical study. , Colin Jung: ® Regardless if it is a new permit or a building permit, whenever there is development situations in the hillside, all that must go to the city geologist; the applicant is required to hire a geotechnical engineer and they are going to be looking at not only the retaining walls, they are 17 - 259 Cupertino t'larninn C~~nunissic;n 4 July 22, 2008 ~~oinsr, to ba lovkin,~ at the L-aseruent walls; the grading; the drainage and look at all that stt>ff- It has to be revie-,ved nc,,'t only by the city geolc;gist, but also by community development staff. tcve €'iasecci: 1/xplaincd that active solar is photo voltaics, where the sun is required to light up the photo voltaics and generate ener}cy. Passive solar is the orientation or: a house; it allows solar to gain access to the floor, walls. windows, so that the home can receive the heating. 4:oni.. l~aned.x: © Asked for the reason the 5,500 sq. ft. limited syuare footage covenant was put in place- ;teve ~'iansesld: E>aid that when the three lot subdivision came befcrc tltc Planning Commission, there were concerns about house sire and the applicant agreed to a restriction to the 5,500 square foot in iieu of 45% on the 2.0,000 square foot lots. :staff answered Commissio:acrs' questions about landscape mitigation. for all- three houses, shared use of storm drains and said the applir_art would be required to pay a security deposit or hook into the private storm drain that is in the Lindy Lane driveway. S. Krishxxapexra, Applicant: ® Thanked staff for their cooperation in working closely with them nn the design. ® All recommendations and comments from Planning staff, and the public feedback which has deemed to be the right feedback to address, have been fully addressed. Detailed landscape plan addresses all neighbors' privacy, there are factual errors in the negative impact report submitted by the 20949 Ludy Lane residents and we request upfront to have a separate time for rebuttal oFthe factual errors in the report. ® He reported that alt staff feedback was addressed including mass and bulk; changing the roof to slate; use of mired pavers in the driveway; reduction of retaining wall height; landscape and privacy; reduction of the height of the house from 453 feet to 450 feet. A The design meets the ordinance with no exceptions; comprehensive geotechnical review of the lot finds proposed design and building construction suitable; mass and bulk of the design is lowest compared to east and west side neighbors; building location is at the lowest slope portion of the lot limiting the cut and till; applicants diligently worked with the senior planners since Nov. 2007 to design the house. ® All recommendations or comments from Planning stafF covered public feedback or addressed by amendments to the ordinance, the detailed landscape plan addresses all neighbors' privacy. The neighbor in the front, the neighbor in the back and southwest direction, west north direction, they all have sent emails to the Planning Dept. supporting the design. Com. Brophy: Asked for a response to the staff suggestion that the setback for the east retaining wall be increased from 6 to 8 feet in order to accommodate privacy landscaping; and the replacement of two mitigation Oaks. Applicant: ® Said he would be willing to increase the setback and replace the two mitigation Oaks as suggested by staff. ® Said that the basement helps to hold the structure more geotechrxically safe than the piers, and the construction cost of the basement is similar in cost to the piers. x ~ - 2so Cupertino Planning Commission Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Tuly 22, 20Q3 Jeffrey IIare, ~ittorney representing owners of 21949 Lindy Laue, Lot 1: o Opposed to the project. o Said they were present because of the change; in the ordinance. The size and cubic feet and measurements make for interesting map, but t is real issue is when the ordinance was changed, after the uphill owners built their house, the removal of the restrictions on the second story allowed for the house on Lot 2 to have a much l~sger area which immediately affected the view and blocking the solar access for the: paaive solar for tt7e uphill property. Focus should be that the uphill owner specifically went in, reviewed the ordinance, looked carefully at what was being done, what the upstairs 35% re;;tric`ion would do, and built the passive solar to take maximum advantage of what would be in place. When the ordinance changed and allowed for the larger unrestricted second story, this became apparent when the story poles went up. You are being asked to make a decision with the resolution presented and to make certain findings without the benefit of a staff recommendation; staff calling this as a case of first impression under the ordinance, but has not made any recommendations for environmental review. Under CEQA, this is clearly an u;ncsual circumstance, calling for at least some environmental review to look at some of tl.ese impacts. 1-he City has asked for firrthcr geotechnical review because of the hillside. Whether or not the project conforms to the R1 and RHS zoning is a matter of some dispute; in any respect we do see that it does have an issue with respect to the need for environmental review. > The impacts of the project are not just on the view and the passive solar; but as the design change and configurations are going to go forward, there may be impacts on the hillside as well. The placement of the retaining wall is just the surface part, but it has to cut into the bedrock that underlies the uphill property. The uphill property owners are extremely concerned with this. We are here not to object to the building of a house on the second lot, but simply looking at wfiat you have reaped what you have sown in the removal of a restriction that was put in place for the very specific reason of protecting some of the beautiful views of the valley floor to allow for some of these rather ahead of their time, the passive solar that the uphill property owner designed into the property. We ask that you use your discretion to deny this and send it back until you have had a chance to get the enviromnental review. Steve Piasecld: ® Responded to the attorney's suggestion that more environmental review was needed before a decision would be reached. ® Said the speaker did not refer to a section of CEQA that would be activated for environmental review; our reading of the categorical exemptions is that building a single family house is categorically exempt and does not require additional review. Chair N%iller: e The uphill neighbor is protected because the house cannot be built unless it passes all the necessary requirements from the geotechnical standpoint. Steve Piasecki: • Said the applicant is protected because they are building the house in conformance, as well as the downhill; it is good common sense. practice. 1 7 - 261 Cupertino Planning Commission G July 22, x,008 .a~f'rey Hares ® Said he submitted ~a letter cithag Section 1.500.2 does address the :issue of tJie use oC the categorical exemption; there is no rnention in the staCfrepcrt of s=.ny categorical exr~mption, but the section also provides that an exception to the exemption and<:r that provision if there is unusual circumstances which is our position here; which is cited in the letter submitted. Steve: f'iaseilci: ® Said they have not found any unusual circumstances, but Section 1500303 is new constmcCion or conversion of small structures, Class 3, specifically says "examples of this exe:mplion include but are not limited to one single family residene~. or a second dwelling unit of residential zone". Chair lvliller: Said that reference `vas made t}Iat it doesn't con-Corm to the Rl and the RHS ordinance, but that is not re]evant here, so I am not sure what we do with that comment because there is a special ordinance that applies just to 15 properties on this slope, and that is the ordinance we are required to go by from the standpoint of what we are doing here tonight. ~B effrey 'Flare: m lleferred to the comments in the two letters he submitted to the findings that must be made and the fact that you must find the level of compatibility with the adjoining properties, the lack of any impacts on the adjoining properties which we have detailed and the fact that the project a.s it is currently proposed, will have these impacts. You must make a finding that them; arc none of these in order to find compatibility under those ordinances. I think that the findings that. are in the resolution before you, the evidence that will be presented and has been presented so far, shows that there is these impacts. They can be mitigated; brit have not been done so to the; dc}.Tree that would satisfy us. I think that the finding oC that, lire evidence will show that a finding of no impacts on the adjoining property, no impacts on the passive solar, or any impacts of that nature, are not supported here. With all due respect, that is the finding. I summarized that in my letter to you dated yesterday (July 21). We would ask that you consider this because I think there is a solution here; we think that the original ordinance was designed to limit the upper story on these hillside areas for good reason.; anal we would like to see the opportunity for this to work out for everyone's benefit, to allow them to have a beautiful home on I~ot 2 and to not create a situation. with the larger upper story that creates a blockage of passive solar and the views. ;. ~aglavendra, Cupertino resident: ® In support of the project. ® Said that staff has held the applicants to a higher standard than required by the City laws; and made them go above and beyond by erecting the story poles, by having them take down a number of elements the architect suggested. The applicants did so because they wanted to make it a smooth process in meeting the rules of the city. This should give them a green light orr the topic. ® Summarized that the applicant has followed all the rules set forth by the City and should be given ascent without further delay. T'ej Kolali, Cupertino resident: ® Opposed to the project. ® Said they were a neighborhood, but he felt that it was presently just the `hood'; taking the `neighbor' out, which he felt is wrong. Mitigations exist to the problem, the Planning Commission and Mayor's office is both the executive and the legislature; we don't want to ~ ~ - zsz Ct!pcriino Planning Commission Tuly 22, 2008 bring in the judiciary, we want to fix it as neighbors. ~> The City being the executive and legislator, should be responsible for responsible zoning. Why would 15 residents of Cupertino that are hillside get a special zone? It is a separate issue; but the attorney brought up the point that if it changed midstream, it is an issue. Why do we call them hillsides? The reason we call them hillsides is that the law of gravity does not change; that's what makes it a hillside and if the law of gravity doesn't change, how can zoning change if gravity hasn't changed? It is on a 29% slope; to the common eye, it looks unbuildable, and if you carve that rnucli of a hill out, 2500 cubic yards. Irr comparison, the potting soil bags from the Home Depot, that is one cubic foot, some bags have two cubic feet, and we arc talking 58,000 cubic feet that are going to be taken out of the hill to make room for the house. The house has a 2,000 square foot basement, 2,000 square foot first floor and 2,000 square foot second floor; it is not a house, it is a box. That is where the R1 upper story going to 35'% is important, because you don't want the Mouses to be towers. A walk up that slope and look at the property is very important before any decision is made, and would request that the Planning Commission at least do that before making a decision. a Said he would vote to put sunshine back in thi; neighborhood. ~arvesh Iblahesh, 21~~g9 Lindy Lane: Opposes the project. Said they moved into their home one year ago, and when they designed and built their home, the lot next door was an RHS property and the; maximum allowable upstairs was 1,100 square feet. Since then the law changed and the special 15 houses have the privilege of designing under a different consideration drat the fee us~.d for designing their house. While it increases the value of the other 14 homes, it seriously jeopardizes our safety and quality of living. The negative geological impacts; there is loss of faivacy; views; quality of life; passive solar and property value. © The massive scale isn't compatible; the current design creates a big hole next to our house; five feet from our property line, it creates a twq story deep basement; and it requires an 80 foot retaining wall which is between 1 O and 12 feet high at different points. All of this is 1,000 feet away from the Monta Vista fault at a very steep 29% grade, which creates a high risk for landslides and earthquakes. Who indemnifies that risk? Between the two houses, if the second house was built the way it is proposed, there is going to be a t}rin sliver off the hill there; if there were rains, we might be neighbors too close for comfort: Who says we cannot move mountains? We definitely tried to move a hill here, it is 75 truckloads that we are going to be taking away from a little hillside, and hcpefully will put it somewhere where somebody has some use for it. Relative to the mass and sale of the upper story. The privacy; our living room is going to be looking into one of the bed rooms of the proposed house. Seema Raghvendra: ® Said as an architect she has learned there altv3ys lies a good solution with any problem; the best way to look at it is there are many options they can make to the adjustments to the design to mitigate their concerns. She referred to the upper story mass of the current home and said some of the things they could do is to reduce grading to reduce the height of retaining walls to center the liouse more parallel to the contours which is very fundamental hillside design; rotate it at first; now it is parallel to the contours and. it is moved away from their property line; the big huge retaining wall has now moved away and there is the opportunity to split it into two separate walls which may be 4 feet and 4 feet- There is so much excessive grading in the front; to set back the home, I know it is a great idea but we could possibly move it forward and reduce a significant amount of grading (included in her report) and also at the back of the property where the house is extending and where the 1 7 - 263 Cuper~ino Planning; Coinrnission July 22, 200:3 yard is, it is steep. it would be good to protect that part and have the backyard pulled forward. These are comparative slides, ways to adjust the fagade. Com_ Ilrophy: • Asked if she had conversations with the owners of T__ot 2 during the process. Scema R;:glrvendra: ~ Said she i~rit}ally met with- the owners of Lot 2 in 2005; there wrs an approved desig=n on that lot for a bigger home; they contacted her and asked if she was willing to take the design and make- some changes for them and submit it by the first March 2005 deadline which was before the hillside overlay would come into play. ® T'wo of the items they wanted to change was to push the building back as in the current design; and they wanted to have really steep roofs. She brought to their attention not to nialce the roofs any steeper because the whole house was desir;~ctcd where they could see over it. They backed out from the deal, and decided to withdraw because she did not have time to change the desilrn in 2 weeks. She recommended they return to the original architect and have hire make the modi ications, but they were aware that they were so sensitive about their views. They met again on the lot before the May 2~"', and she submitted her objections because it was oi'I-icial. There ryas a discussion about passive solar- in relation to the applicant's home. M~aian}~i Darjamani, Cupertino resident: ® Said she believed everyone had the right to build their dream home, especially when a house, is built in the hills of Cupertino, the responsibility that comes with that right, is building responsibly on the hillside and with concern for the existing homes. Tire Mittal's home is a green home, with solar panels, concrete floors with radiant heating and it has the strategically placed windows to garner the power of the sun and wind. The family room kitchen is a complete wall of windows which illuminates and warms the home. h1 front of the beautiful walls of windows are the walls where the new home is going to come up. If the plans are approved, the Mittals will lose the view they cherish. The new home is probably designed to take in the views also because that is there right; however, is it not their responsibility to share that right with their neighbors, the ones who have been enjoying the view all along. Now when they take away the Mittals access to the sun, there goes their passive solar dream home. I feel that a city that touts green building and claims that it is one cif their priorities should protect homeowners who have taken their advice. It is the right of the City to encourage the residents to build green and along with that right, I think the City has the responsibility to protect those homeowners who have done what the City wants them to do. I think this is especially important in a case such as this where access to sunlisht is the key part of the design cif the existing home. ® The Rl ordinance states that its purpose is to ensure the provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels. Though the proposed home not only mitigates the air and the light, it will be built with windows that will look directly into the family room and the family room is the heart of the home. Traditionally what the City does is they ask that you plant trees and privacy screening; these are tall homes, and is it fair to ask the Mittals to wait 1 O years for privacy or is it more reasonable to ask that some design changes be made so that it is truly in compliance, not only with the quantitative aspects of the Rl, but also with the qualitative aspects of R1, specifically with respect to light, air and privacy. • Encouraged the new owners to work with their neighbors to reach a compromise where everyone can enjoy the homes of their dreams. 1 7 - 264 Cupertino Planning Commissi.ou ~> July 22, 2003 1-Situ ¢~olali, Cupertino resident: ~~ Said she wanted to voice her opinion on the impact Uic project is going to have on the future of Cupertino hills and the way that premium properties will be sold in the future in Cupertino. Said she was familiar with the two lots; and recalled when the applicants were looking for property in the hills with views and the correct orientation so they could build their green home. "They also wanted to be part of the neighborhood and the prestigious eomrnunity with excellent schools. 'T'hey looked at all available buildable lots with views in the area; and even looked at the lot in question, Lot 2; but the~~ decided to pay more for their lot which had a nattsally existing pad; the second lot does net have a naturally building pad. After consulting with experts, it was concluded that the loC . s a beautiful one-hall- acre lot, with very steep slopes and lacks any natural buildable pad. It can always be engineered with extensive retaining walls which would be extremely costly. She said she was taken aback by what the story poles show; and has since looked at the plans and she concluded that the story poles don't tell half the story. Due to the change in zoning, there is going to be a huge house built on this lot; Mahesh and the D/Iittals stand to lose their views; the story poles are for noighbors to voice their reactions but the city has to enforce some rules to safeguard the privacy and views of the existing homeowners. [ have not seen a precedent like this in any of our neighboring cities like Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, etc. and my colleagues feel the same way. People buy homes not only for schools, but for locations, views, orie nations and sunlight. The city has a responsibility to he green and to protect these via the zoning code- If this project is approved as indicated by the story ,roles, she said she would feel obligated to advise potential buyers that the City of Cupertino really does not care about adverse impacts on adjoining properties and the quality of their properties will never be secure. They are losing a view lot. Requested the Plannhig Commissioners walk °ap the hill to look at what is going on there; they have a beautiful house and have a right to build, but it should comply with the rules, and yet they should come to a mutual agreemerit on that. Kevin Lee, friend of a Cupertino resident: Opposes the project. o Express personal view, not professional. Questioned why the proposed home had to be built directly in front of the existing home where it blocks all its views, where if the land is large enough it could be moved somewhere else. They could enjoy the view of the hills _de, yet not destroy someone else's view at the same time. 4 Said he has spent time at the existing home and enjoyed the view of the hills, and if the proposed home is built, they will not have the same enjoyment. It is an important part of their social life, and is important to understand people's personal views and perspective on life. Anlcur N7ahesh, Son of Seema Raghvendra: ® Said that his favorite place in his home is the family room where he enjoys the view which will have lost its charm if the proposed home ;.s built as shown by the story poles. Their home is a green home with solar panels that keep the home warm in the winter and cool in the summer. .If the panels are blocked the heater and air conditioner will have to be utilized and will bring dust into the home, causing allergies. He said his school teaches saving energy because of the global energy crisis; but if the proposed house is built as shown, they will not be able to even store energy during the winter. There is another way to build a house so everyone is happy; I am sure of it because it is such a big home. ® lie urged the neighbors and Planning Commission to consider his concerns and fmd a good effective answer for all. 1 7 - 265 '~u~~er~ino Pl~r.nning C,o-t~~nissiott 10 July 22, 200 f', etu SrarsltnL;f:~, Cupertino rF~sident: ~~ 3"' s;rade student, friend of A.nkur Mahesh, said she visits the home of her friend frequently and is interested in how the home is designed so that it is green and conserves energy. Said she aspired to be "an architect and have homes that are good for the community and the eitvirotmlent. a She said she knew that the Planning Commission would make the decision on the fate of her friend's home and said she hoped it did not have to lose any of its special and unique feattu-es. It/;lat2 ~r~aznlcar, (i'~oi: prese>;t/writ°tnn cornm eats s-ead): w Supported the project. The applicant, did not change the ntles (zoning Hiles); he is just abiding by theist. e~ FIe has compromised in that 1-~e did not push his plans to the limits, even though he could have. He is considerate of his neighbors. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Conc. I~anedn: ~~ Asked if the comment made wc~s correct that according to the previous ordinance, the second floor of this tivould have had to be 1,100 square feet. Stew Piaseclci: The revised ordinance was a result of a very extensive process working with the neighborhood; many of the ideas came out of the neighborhood; one of those was that if we are going to treat this like a hillside area, perhaps we should give them the same flexibility that other hillside homes have in the 1Z;`iS district where they are not restricted by the 45%; they are allowed to have a larger second floor with the rationale that you have a smaller footprint of the building overall. You don't force t}te first floor to get bigger than it may need to be othet-rvise. That was a conscious decision that grew out of the neighborhood process; it was very extensive and took a long time. Typically even in the valley floor, you are allowed to have 45% second floor to first floor ratio; even that is being discussed as was brought up under Oral Communications. Cony- ~3rophy: Asked how consistent the City has been in the past regarding blocking views of existing homes, which is the fundamental issue. Colin 3nni ® "['he city has decided not to get involved in this on the basis of this one example, that the city has written in its otivn ordinances that we are not responsible for the views from properties. I want to caution you about this; but I think it would set a bad precedent if you grant a property owner a right to have a view through someone else's property; unless there was a view easement through that property that would allow them to have that. It is not to say that the City hasn't had developments, where it was a Planned Development zoning where all the homes were built at the same time where the grading and the home construction was done to make sure that each home had its own view, but it wasn't theee different homeowners building homes based on a different set of regulations, based on a different timeframe, but was done all at the same time with that specific aspect kept in mind. 1 7 - 266 C;upcrtino Planning Commission 1.1 July 22, 2005 Chair ISBiller: e Relative to grading, going back a umnber of y ears, before anything was done with that hillsicic, it was just one steep slope from top to bottom, and one of tare speakers mentioned that there was a natural pad at the top. It may have been graded at some point; either just prior to tthc: subdivision or immediately afterwards. T,; there any recollection of that? Colin Jung: ® Said that the area was devclopud in the Couri.y znany years ago; and one of the things that we learn each time lots get subdivided or homes get built up there, there is a lot of unengineered fill on a lot of those properties. People have i~ushinl; dirt around there for decades; those pads were set at some point, probably without the }.roper permitting authority. Chair Miller (to applicant): a Said that tlxe uphill neighbor suggested rotating your house and sliding it forward; have you considered that as an alternative? Applicant: o Moving the house is going to have a much more deeper towering effect on my lowest side of the house; moving the house forward is going to move more dirt out of the particular- lot, it will not help in any way. The third point is that the second floor view of the upper neighbor is not at all affected in any way because the top of the roof is at 450; the finished floor of the second floor is at 453 of the upper neighbor, so its ab~~ut 3 feet above the roofline. It would not affect the view from the existing house. Coin. Kaneda: The big issue is the views, and as we have herd, -the City doesn't protect views. The height of this building compared to the other buildings <md what it blocks; if you look at the one section that shows the three homes; the home firrthest down the slope blocks the ground floor view of this home; this home will block the ground floor view of the home above. The home that is furthest down the slope does not block the second floor view of the home above. a He said the unfortunate problem is that the home at the top of the slope is designed to take advantage of the views from the ground floor, and he felt that is where the problem is. ® Relative to solar access, he suggested rotating it slightly, but push it north, not south, The further north you get the building, the better ~~-inter solar access you will give the other house• it gets steeper to the north and is problematic to do that. a The home could be much bigger; it is 1,000 square feet smaller than it could be. He said he was concerned about the depth of the cut into tie hill for the basement. Coin. Bropl3y: ® Said he was concerned about the height of the building, and was open to being convinced. The applicant has attempted to deal with the objections of the neighbors; he said he was presently inclined to support approval with the additional clauses that staff recommended at the beginning of the meeting. Coin. Rose: ® Said that everyone was feeling some of the struggles on both sides of the property line; on one hand it is a wonderful experience to have found a lot to be able to build such a big house on; on the other hand, she felt for the existing neighbor who also just finished doing the same thing- She said she was optimistic that the applicant would have some good ideas on how to make it work out after hearing the honest input: from the speakers. The house conforms to the ordinance as it stands today; there doesn't appear to be any place that allows them to change or 17-267 'up;rtir!o 1'ta~xrxing Comr~~issiun 12 July?_2, ~ 00$ manila-tc any change to the proposed structure, other than reducing the height slightly, but she did not see any way to make that happen. Said she agreed with Coats. Kaneda and ,rophy; but was not knowledgeable enough about the grading process and would rely on the city's geologist report and assumed that 'the information from that would be considered as the~i decide to move forward. Her wish was that it could work out for everybody, as they both have the right to have their dream homes. .'hair 1"~liller: a The issues l;o back further than just what is happening tonight; when the subdivision was done it was probably too angn-essive a subdivision and perhaps tcvo houses might have fit better on tl-xis property thaxx three. Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of doing that now, there are three lots, each one of these owners has the right to develop their property and when we look at the ordinance, iP it was under the R1 or under the-, RISS, we might be coming up with a different result, but it's not under either one of those ordinances; it has its own special ordinance. ~_ `SCme people feel unfairly put upon because of'the current ordinance; however, that ordinance vas put in place because other people felt unfairly put upon and that was a compromise with a Iarger group of neighbors; it is diftlcult to make everyone feel comfortable and reach some compromise that works for everyone, and we wish we could. in this case, it hasn't happened; those 15 neighbors in general were unhappy with that ordinance that governs their development there, and they fought against it. Some: speakers said they got the benefits from that. ordinance,-but in fact, they didn't feel that way, and they opposed it and they lost out at the city Council le:vcl. Here at the Planning Conmlission level, we did not support the current ordinance that governs those 1 ~ lots; we opposed it; but the City Council chose to take a different direction and they approved what is in place now and at this level our job is to adhere to the rules and to the ordinance. As everyone has said, the current proposal meets in every way the ordinance that is in place now anal in a number of ways, is unlike some applications that we see, is actually coming in less than the maximum requirements and the big one is the 5,500 square foot above ground requirement, which this applicant is coming in at only 4,500 square feet and the other two neighbors are already 5,500, which puts their mass at a higher level than this house. Relative to grading, it is hard to see that it's one slope, that this house is taking out more dirt than the others did; in fact the others probably took out at some time more dirt just because they have a larger footprint on the first floor. Said he was sensitive about the solar issue; however, it does seem like the neighbor with his expertise, has done an excellent job in designing a house that requires minimal energy. The wall discussed is mostly the eastern wall and his understanding of solar is the southern exposure is the most important one; the western is the second most important one; and the easterly is the least importzmt; the north does not count at all. It doesn't seem like the solar, if there was any blockage at all to the solar aspects of it; it will be minimal in terms of the energy savings that the neighbor is going to benefit from. The house does not have the overhang that protects the windowed area when the sun is high in the sky during summer; it seems for a number of reasons that the passive solar issues that were raised here tonight, don't seem to be as inxportant as some of the other issues. As the other Commissioners stated, the most important issue to the uphill neighbors is the view, and Cupertino does not have a position on views and does not protect views and it would be a mistake for us to set a precedent to do so here tonight. a For those reasons I support the application with the provisos that the screening of privacy of the two adjoining neighbors is done appropriately. m The other issue is water runoff both from the top lot and middle lot to make sure they both tie into the storm drain system, so we don't exacerbate the situation in terms of runoff. 1 7 - 268 Cupertino Planning Commission L3 ~ July 22, 2003 I~~otion: lYlotion by Com• Brophy, second by Coin. Kaneda, to approve fine drz:ft resolution, adding to it Clause `i: ti; e replacexnent of the two mitigation C3alss, and Clause G:- to increase the setback of Ylae east a-ctaining wall from a~i to $ feet in ordex- to accommodate a suitable p:-ivacy lznclscape screening. (`Iote• 4.-0-0; Com, Giefer absent) Chair Miller declared a recess. Upon reconvening the meeting, the agenda was moved to Item 4, New Business. Briefing on >lousing Plemexat update process anad selection of a E'lanasiaaz Commission x-nember to attc;ncl stakelaolden- meetings. Steve Piaseclci: ® Said that~t~e Housing Element update process had been kicked off and Bay Area Economics held 24 uitei'~<~ews with potential interested st~~.keholders. ?maul Pennineer, I3ay area Y~,sonomics (B~.E): Provided an overview.~f what the housing clement process entailed. Asked one commissioner to attend three focus groom sessions conducted over-the next two to three mouths. The housing element is on of seven Genera] Plan elements required by the State; a primary document used by local juris 'ctions to identify housing needs and to ascertain where new housing should go. It tends to be dated every 5 to 7 years by law, although in California it is on a 7 to 9 year cycle. The current Qusing element planning period is from 2007 to 2014; the State does not require the housing e1~~urltents to be approved and submitted until June 2009. The housing element contains a needs ass ssment, constraints analysis, goals and policies and an inventory of sites for new developm~~ It also includes a plan to accommodate new housing. The essential process is that BAE g,w tluough a process of identifying sites where new residential development could take place; i~ tifying the housing needs; whether or not they are significant rehabilitation needs; are there n~~~ds for senior housing, for emancipated foster youth, people with disabilities; laying o at a pro~rt~a of actions that form the plan. It is presented to the Planning Commission for approval an~_t~the City Council. When it is approved, it is presented to the State Departr7ent of Housm and Community Development (HCD) for certification. If certified, it certifies that it is in com liance with State law; when done, it removes the city from any risk cf being sued by an outst e party that may want to pursue some development proposal or have some other advocacy age da in mind. Having a certified housing element, beyond allowing you the opportunity of hav~ a frank discussion of what your housing needs are, is a way for the you to position the city to ca pete for certain types of housing and transportation infrastructure fiords and also it avoids~e potential of fiiturc; litigation. There is no automatic regulatory process at the State level w~ieFe HCD is going to come in and force you to have a certified housing element; they can onlyZieny you certification based on their reading of the law and thus expose the city to a certain tni imal threat of litigation. m Given that we know there are a lot of concerns about development in Cupertino, and i particular there are concenis about maintaining; the city's quality of life about schools, parks, open space, the impact of new housing developments could have for good or bad of the city's future, what we are doing with this time aroun3 with the housing element update process, is a --_-.-'--vet-y-~inGlu-S }-v0-and 1~8r3?-_"tFanspar-ant Duh1iC-FJa1~L.bDaYinn rirnr eta AS.mentinnc~rl t}iav lei rl`Pr~ :t 1 7 - 269 1lttorney at L.<<sv tl ]'rot'cssi_r~nal Cotporxition _i01 Stockton Cw cnue Ss::i lc~sc. C;alii<.~niiaa 9`i I ~~ 7_'cl: dU3 279 3555 Fax: qOf?-279 538f> hhlaw~ct~p;u.bell..ncx July 21, 2008 Via Regular and Li-nrail C.:I3AIFi PERSON ANll ~~GAd I31~ILS OF'1'HE C;UYHRTINO PLANNING C~OMivIISSCON CITY OP CUYERTINO 10300 Tolzlzr Av~NUE CuI>r-,R'rlNO, CA 95014 IZ1=: RESIDENTIAL l~i~SLGN I~l-~VIL:~V nND MINOR 72RS[DIi. N"1'IAI_, PI3RNi1'1 I~oR ~ 1 9~17_I,lhr~}~ I,n;yl,__{R- ?005-1~4 ~t~.!r~ IZNl_20()<j =1G Dear Chair and Members of the Ylaiming Commission "phis letter is submitted on behalf of my clients, Seema Miital anci Sarvesh Mahesh, owners of the property located at 21949 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, which is located immediately adjacent to the property which is the subject of your review. Ms. Mittal and Mr. Mahesh oppose the Application for the reason s set forth hc~ cin. 1 . The project does n~t_conforn~_to t}~e 7onins _re~,ilations that_~yere in effect when t1_ic 3-lot -- su_UdlviSion vas originally <il~prov_c_d l~y_ the CitX Council, As noted in the Staff Report, the proposed development is located in the middle lot of a 3-lot subdivision initially approved by the P1aluling Commission in ?_001 and the City Council in 2004. My clients purchased the uphill property (LoL 1) at 21949 Lindy Lane in or around February, 2005. Ms. Mittal, an f\rchitect by profession, took painstaking care to review the zoning regulations then in effect, and designed her future home taking into account the maximum parameters allowed for the downhill property on Lot 2. She specifically designed her farrlily's home to ialce ful ( advantage ol'tlle beautifiil views, ma;cimizc~ passive solar energy to reduce reliance on mechanical heating and cooling systems, and incorporated structural elements to ensure hillside geologic stability. 1_Jnfortunately, while living away from the property during the construction p1~Iase, my clients were unaware of proposed changes to the: coning regulations, under which the current application has boen submitted. Most significantly, t11e mass and Scale of the proposed design will serve not only to obliterate the wonderful views of the valley that my clients have enjoyed, but also will serve to defeat the passive solar energy design of the structure itself. In addition, the proposed placcrnent and design will require installation of a massive retaining wall that could possibly threaten the geologic stability of my client's property. "1 he cut and grading required for i~-Z~o Planning Comrni~sion Tuly 21, 2008 E' ~~e installation of the footing for this massive rctaini! g wall right at the setback tine could undermine the stability of the underlying bedrock- which provides support for my clients' home- 2. "Clue propgsed_dcyclopxnen,t is inconsisten` }with the ~u~>ose and intent oI the Sinr~,l~-_ Fa.nri~iZc,sidentiat BIZ-1 Zoninb_regulatic>ns. Chapter 1928 of the Cupertino Municipal Ccde provides, in perCineut parC, that the Purpose of establishing 1Z-1 single-family zoning districts is intendccl to "create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to: A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods. 13. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels; C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the predominantly low-intcnsit~~ setting in the conununity. The proposed development is inconsistcn± wi h the purpose and intent. of Chis Zoning District for several reasons, as will be discussed below. A critical element of the proposed design, as noted above, is that the upper story will inii-ir_=;e xipon the adjoining- property owner's passive solar design. Section I of the R-1 Zoning Ordinance states, in part, as follows: Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter mzry be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infi-in~e upon solar easements or adioiningpr~t>ert~owners. (~19.28.060(I); emphasis added_~ "I'he Staff Report con-ectly notes that there: arc no solar easements (at p. 5), br.rt does not address the point that the 7_.oning Ordinance expressly prohibits any str-uciure from infringing on solar easements oi- adjoinina property owners. Here, the proposed design, as depicted by the story poles, will clearly infringe on the adjoining property, effectively defeaCing both the views and passive solar design so carefully incorporates into the design of the uphill property. 7'he focus here is the firndamental purpose of the Zoning Ordinance -- to "ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures with residential neighborhoods." Where the proposed design of a new stnicturc has the potential to adversely affect adjoining properties, the Zoning Ordinance provides for a process of review, and allows adjoining neighbors the opportunity to_ comment on those features of the proposed design that could have significant impacts on their property. Therefore, even if the proposed design meets the specific, numeric m_aximun~ parameters set forth in the design guidelines, the Zoning Ordinance allows for further modifications to "ensure a reasonable level of compatibility" with the adjoining properties. I Iere, slight modifications to the proposed design would allow the applicant fiill benefit of their property, but would preserve most of the passive solar fiu~ction of the uphill property design, as well as some of the views. It is exactly this type of modification that is contemplated under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow fora "reasonable level of compatibility." i~-z~i Planning Conur.is lion _Tnly 2 I , ~?_OOS 1' i_;c 3 3. Further clesi~=n :zzc>ciiLieatic~xis ,.nc~,_ri2itil~_atic~_n oi_ adverw im,par,is__wi.ll tie i-equircd heti~rc the rc_quirc,d findzn_os. can t~e,m~t~le to tipprove the permit,. Section 19.25.100, "'Iwo-Story [residential Pcrnrit," allows the Director of Community Development, and by the basis of this referral, the i'lanning Commission, to "approve, c<~nditionally approvo, or deny the application. `l•he permit can be approved gnly_nhpn_ntalcing call of the followin;>_fi_ndings: I . `hhe project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning orclinanccs, attd the:. purpc~5es cif this title. 2. 1 he grai~ting of the permit wi 11 n_ot ~ c•s_ult_iiZ a condition that is detrimental or injurious tq - -- _ -- prc>pcrtS, or_n7l~rgycn~~ n(s__ri thc_y_icinity, and will not be cletrirnental to the public hca]tli, saf-ety or welfare. . 3. The proposed project is harn~ioniquti_ in sc_tlc and design with the general neighborhood. 4. Adverse yts_u__a_1 impacts on adjoining 7'rc-zd?crties_h_a_v_c_, been re_zson3hly n~ititt,at_c_d. (§ 19.28.7 00(D~; emphasis added). The toning Ordinance contemplated that even if a proposed two-story single-family home design met the numerical parameters set forth in the Codc, the City would have: the authority to impose conditions and mitigation measures before apln•oving the permit, in order to ensure compliance and consistency with the General Plan and subelements, including the City's Toning Ordinance. The required tiuclings above inctucie a findinzi of consistency with the; purposes. of 'title 19~; avoid any detrimental impacts on other property in the vicinity; that the proposed _ --- _ ~ 19.04.020 Purposes. The purposes of this title shall be to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general weH'are, including the following more particularly specified purposes: A. To further promote, and accomplish the objectives, policies, and programs of the Cupertino General Plan; I3. To protect the character and the social and economic stability of agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial and other areas within the City; to assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas; and more particularly, to lessen congestion and assure convenience of access, to secure safety from fire, flood and other dangers; to provide for adequate. Light, au-, sunlight and environmental amenities, to promote and encourage conservation of scarce resources; to prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of population, to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious cori~munity; to attain a desirable balance of residential and employment opportunities; to facilitate the adequate provision of ri'ansportation, water, sewage, drainage facilities, schools, parks and other public developments, to protect the food supply; to conserve property values; to promote cffFCient urban design and arrangement; and to secure economy in governmental expenditures; C. To mitigate the negative impacts to public safety resul[ing from the location of buildings, and the uses of buildings and of land, adjacent to streets and highways while at the same time facilitating existing or prospective traffic movements throughout the City. 17 - 272 Pleianing Cc~nimission Tuly 21, 2008 Y~ige 4 project be harmonious iu scale ~uul design, and tc~ mitigate visual impacts on adjoining properly. The Code: requires that all of these findings must be made before a permit can be approved. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance speciSicall.~ requires that uo exceptions may be granted unless ail specified findings as set forth in §i 9.28.110 be made. Most noteworthy among the required findings is that the "proposed caception wiil_not result in significant visual rz~act as v_icwcd from a}~uttin~ propertic_s_" I Iere, there is no question but that the. proposed second story design, although permitted under the modified 0-dinanee that was adopted subsequent to the approv~il of Lhis 3-lot subdivision, would have a significant visual impact as viewed from Ms. Mittel and Mr. Mahcsh's property. Unless the design is further modified, we submit that the failure to satisfy the requirements of this finding would be sufficient grounds for denial of the proposed prc~jcct. 4. Thc~rQpc~SCd dc.vclc~_pnZCnt iy not consistE;nt with the requirements of the City_'s - --- - - - he5idc,i~ tial I_Iillsi de~RI1S~_Ionin~ i c<._ulations. The City's Residential Hillside Zoning rcgui~-bons were adopted to ensure that residential development in the hillside areas would be balan~~ed with the need to consei-ve natural resources and protect life and properly l:rom natural hazard.:;. Towards this end, the RIIS regulations are designed, in part, to: C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; and D. Maintain spatial relationship between structures and within neighborhoods. 019.40.010). In addition, the I2IIS Zoning Ordinance provides, in pertinent part, as follows. i9.~3'lLI2(3 ~o16zr b3esigr~. The setback and height restrictions proviclecl in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized :for passive or active solar purposes; provided, that no such structure shall infringe uj~on solar access orl roi~erty ~.'i~tits of aclloin__n~ps-oPer~ty owners... [...] In other words, the RIMS Zoning regulations expressly address and. prohibit a structure from irefringing upon the soizar access oi' adjoining pro ~erty owners. This provision is not limited to situations involving solar "easements," but is expressly applicable to the "solar access" rights of adjoining property owners. Here, Ms- Mittel specifically designed her home in reasonable reliance upon the then-existing zoning standards :n order to permit her to utilise natural passive solar energy. The RHS Ordincuice expressly states that the chapter is intended to "ensure a 1 7 - 273 Pl~inn9n~ Crnnn~ission Tut}' 2. t, 2008 t'~e~c 5 reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures," and to "maintain a spatial relationship between structures and within neighborhoods." Allowing the enlarged second story to the extent proposed by the adjacent property ownc;r would defeat the passive. so1«r design element deliberately incorporated by Ms. 1`.~Iittal when. she designed her home. S. Unusual-(,-ircurri tance,, preclude-the C'it_y's use of an ~.xen~~~tion-from the rcguir~.mcnts-c>_I_` the C alifoinia Bnvironmc~ntal_C,~ualrty_Act for 1:hi5 Proicc:t. Neither the Staff Report nor the Draft Resolution makes any reference to compliance with the requirements tinder the. Califon~ia L;nvirortrnentat Quality ~1ct (CEQA) for this proposed development on hillside property. The R~1S Toning Ordinance (Chapter 19.40) acknowledges that the purpose and intent of the RHS toning District is to preserve the natural setting in the hillsides, acid that the to ensure that the utilization of land for residential uses is balanced with the need to conserve nattu•al resottrces and protect. life and property Ii-om natural hazards. `1 he lullsidc location, amount of grading required, and the project's inconsistency with specified elements of the City's Coning regulations render it ineligible for consideration for a cateborical exemption under CEQA. (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15300.2). Whereas a similar project Iocated_on flat land may qualify :for such an exemption, this project's unique location on a lot with an approximately 28% grade slope could have significant, adverse impacts on the stability of the hillside- The impact of the ultimate design and placement oi'the project structure could impact not only the uphill property, but fire dowrthili property •and the stability of Lindy [,a:ne itself, which provides vehicular access to a number of~other residential properties in the area. The Staff Report provides that the retaining walls and setback regulations "will be reviewed, along with the basement and foundation, by the applicant's geotechnical engineer and the City's f~eologist prior to building permit approval." (at Page 4). In addition, the Staff llcport requires that a "constnrction management plan" will be required as part of a building permit application. I3owever, no additional detail, soils studies, or other relevant geologic information has been provided at this time by the applicant. The City has not requested an initial Study. Ms. Ivliual has identified the. potential adverse geological impacts that could result from the extraordinary amount of grading that will be required, the placement of the proposed retaining walls, and the potential for destabilization of the sensitive hillside envirotunent The City's 7_orring Ordinance specifies that one of the criteria for permit approval. is that it will ":not result in a condition that is detrimental. or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. (§19.28.100(D)). We. therefore submit that the City should require the applicant to prepare and provide appropriate soils and geotechnical info mlation, a construction management plan, and other information per the requirements under C13QI\. 7'he hillside location and nature of this project render it as an exception to the exemptions due to the unusual circumstances in this case, and the City, as Lead Agency, needs to comply with CEQA. Conclu lion 17-274 Ylannin~~ C.'omutissio^ Jul}~ 21, '1.065 Page F> Ms. Mittal went to great lengths to study existing zoning regulations and designed her bonze not on_]y to be fully c;ontpatible and c:onsistcnt with the City's requirements, but also to take info account the eventual. development of the adjacent hillside lot per those requirements. Ms. Mitfitt was wall-ahead of the curve in her effin-ts to design a bonze that was "Green" before it became fashionable, incorporating unique passivo solar features cued other elements to allow it to Fe into the hillside environment.- 7~hc changes in :he City's coning ordinance, while allowing the much larger second story taaturca that now threaten to block her views of the valley floor, as well as defeat the passive solar features of the home, sti11 provides fin• a degree of discretion to ensure ultinicetc compliance ~~%itlt the fiuzdarnental purpose and intent of the City's regulations: compatibility with the sw-rounding residential neighborhood. Ms. Mittal has stated that the proposed building design for 21947 Lindy Lane might be suitable for a flat lot, but is inappropriate for a sloping hillside: property with 29% grade. She is not saying that the adjacent property should not be developed -only that the development should comply with the City's R-1 and R[-IS 7onin~ ordinances. She his submitted information that shows this can be accomplished with some modest changes to the proposed project, and requests that the City give careful consideration to the fca~.ible alternatives she has proposed. Otherwise, my clients have no alternative but to request that you dente the application as proposed. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Respectfully submitted, J~f B. IIare cc_ Charles Kilian, City flttorney Steve Yiaseclci, Director of Co~ntnunity D~vclopmant Colin Jung, Senior p]anner Clients i~-z~s ~, °~"~ ~a ~ ? CIT`z' OF C_' CJP'k~,l_{"t`I~dO 1.0300 'orre ~"-.vetu~, Cupertino, ~'aliiornia 13517"L4 ':.J?3P~3RTMENT F' COI't~I1b~IUl~I t'I'1' DSVEI OPMEI~TT IZEPOR"t FORM Aj;plication: no applications (see Discussion, first paragraph) Agenda Date: July 22, 2008 Applir_ant: Chia-Clting Lin Property Location: 21.947 T_.indy Lane, APN 356-25-029 APPI_,ICA"i'ILyN :~UI1~YIv7_AAtY: ~ I.~irector's referral of architc~~.±-oral and site plans for a new, two-story 4,499 square-foot sinz;le-family residence with l.~asement RGCOI:/Sl~~IINDA't IOI'•I No recomntenciation PROJECT DATA: Lqt Area: 20,473 square feet Existing Zoning: P"L-2.O (Single-Fatnlty Residential, minimum lot size 20,000 sq. ft.) 13asetnenf Area: 1,977.sq. ft. First Floor Area: 2,040 sq. ft. (w/o garage) C-s~t-age Area: 541 sq. ft. .`_3ecgnd Floor Area: 1 918 sq. ft. Total) ~ loor Area (w/ o basement): 4,499 sq. ft. Total Floor Area (w/ basement): 6,476 sq. ft. (basement not countable toward building area) i~~Iaxirntinz Floor Area: 5,500 Sq. ft. (not FAR-based, restricted by property covenant) Floor Area Ratio: 22%> %> of 2n~ Floor to 1st Floor 1°'t Stott' Front Setback: 1st Story Side Setbacks: 15t Story ItE'ar Se_tbz=.clc 2=~~i Story Front Setback: 2T'~ Stott' Side Setbacks: 2n~j Story Rear Setback Grading Quantity (cubic yards) Cut cmd fill, baserneizt grading cxcZzected. On-Site Parking: B ACI<GROUND Proposed Minimum Required (Maxirrtuin C,imit 74.3%~ not limited, (but FAR< 45%) 56'- 4" 20' 9', 14'- 1.1" combination of 15', no side less than 5' 80'- 9" 'L0' 56'- 4" 25' 10'- 4", 32'-6" combination of 25', no side less than 10' 90' 25' 1,268 (2,500) 2 enclosed 2 enclosed 4+ unenclosed 4 unenclosed The applicant (Chia-Ching Lin) is proposing to construct a 4,499 square-foot, ttnro-story residence with basement on a 20,473 square foot lot located along the north side of Lindy Lane. The itrttztecliate neighborhood is predominately older, ranch style, one to 17 - 276 ArcI-_. Pl~u~s for ?_1947 Lizzdy Lane July 22, ~00~ pad>,e 2 two story homes. Newer dwellings are atl larger, two-story homes with a variety of architectural styles and building Finishes. MJSt of the homes in this northerly Lindy Lane area are on lots of 20,000 square feel: or more. The nc igliborhood has asem-rural character without any sidewalks or street lig!~ts. The neighbot•hood of homes on the south side of Lindy Lane are also largely, ranch. style, two-story dwellings with a more suburban character becz~use of the regirnentation of 1.0,000 square toot lots along the toe of the slope and larger Lots upstope. History The property is Lot 2 (middle lot) of a 1.6--acre, 3-lot subdivision on I..indy I ane, cornnzonly known as the "Moxley Property", that was approved by the Planning Commission on July 9, 2001.. In 2004, the City Council subsequently apprcved the final map and subdivision improvement plans. The subdivision creates three lots of slightJ_y over 20,000 square feet each. In that same year, the Planning Commission expressed concern about the size of the houses that could be built on the three lots, and discussed the possibility of rezoning the property from its current P1-20 designation to Residential I Iillside. In lied of the rezoning, Mr. Moxley agreed to a covenant to limit the size of all structures to 5,500 square feet on each lot. The three lots were subsequently sold to different property owners. The owners of Lots 1-and 3 (21949 and 21943 Lindy -Lane) were issued building perrrtits for roughly 5,500 square foot homes in 2005 before generally rr ore restrictive P1 zoning ordinance amendments went into effect. Thus, none of the newer homes on Lindy Lane: 21949, 21943 and the adjoining 21951 (building pernut issued in 2003) had discretionary single- family design review because all fell below tl _e planning permit thresholds in effect at the time. The construction of each house lzas been controversial with some neighbors. As a result of-site preparation for Lot #2 conc.ucted by thc> subdivider, five specimen size oaks were removed from Lot #2-four approved for removal, one not. The replacement requirement in the tentative map was one-for-one with the replacement being a 36" box oak. The five new oaks were planted in 2007 and are shown on the. plan set. Drscussloly Nei~ltborhood Concerns In May 2008, the applicant erected story pops and staff mailed a notice and plans to surrounding property owners within a 300 feet radius, notifying them of the pending residential development. Because of the level of concern about the project, staff continued to refine the design with the applicant and try to address neighbor concerns. i ~ - z~~ 1rch. i"~_zns for'C19~?-7 Liddy 1-,rive July 2`L, 2008 Yar;c :' }3ecau>~ of the past histc_>ry of cor~travc.~~e>y and the. enclosed si_ibsnitted comments (1?xhibit t~), the Director elected to rcF~r the pl.:uzs to the Planning Commission for review and decision. `staff irae; received letter-;, ern ~ ifs aric_i i.~lephonc~ calls from nine= neighbors with one email of support. The neighborhood concerns are sununarized below: ~~- Protect redwood trees on property. (Note: T~ze3~e are no ~redzoood trees ozz thzs propertJ) +'> Address construction in~paci_s on the neighborhood. ~+ Relocate house to protect valley views of house on upper lot (Lot #1). e+ A supped foundation would conform better to the slope, of the land, rather than, the cut anal fill that creates a flat pad. +o+ Not fond of stone exterior for the entrance. <+ Privacy protection plan should include the front yard to screen views of the House fi-om the south side oi: I.,indy Lane and Lindy .Place. •:> Discrepancie_s in the location o£ the easterly sideyard retaining wall and the overall wall height is too tall. *~+ The proposed house appears to be inconsistent with the letter and intent of the R7_ zoning ordinance, which is to enhance the identify of residenti~~l neighbors; e__nsurc provision of light, air and a reasonable Ievel of privacy; ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within neighborhoods; and reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community. :+ Second floor and balcony shall be consistent with the requirements from the Residential Hillside (RHS)r_orzing district. ^~+ Project creates significant and adverse impact to passive solar design and natural lighting. +:+ Project will block views of the valley, and sunrise views (from the fzrst floor) during certain times of the year. <:- Project encroaches into the required one-story building; envelope, which is measured from natural grade, not finished grade. +.- `i'he mass of the second story is much larger than the second story mass of the adjacent residences and is :not compatible. +:+ Detaining walls are proposed less than 5 feet from the property line and potentially tl2reaten existing support piers for the uphill property. P1~ease refer to exhibit A for additional details on the: neighbors' concerns. Neighborhood. Compatibility One of the principal purposes of the R1 Ordinance is to ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within a residential neighborhood. This is basically achieved by having developments adhere to a set of specific development parameters (i. e., maximum lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height, second floor to ground floor ratio, building setback, building envelope) to curtail development- intensity to a ~ ~ - 278 Arch. Plans for 21947 Lu1d_y Lane July 22, 2008 Pa4TP_ 4 level generally accepted by the conununity. Typically the City has allowed new homes to be maximized within the approved frarnework of the R1 Ordinance provided that the design and the style of the home are consistent and/or compliment the neighborhood. Building permits were issued in 2005 for the I of 1 (upslope) and I_.ot 3 (downslope) homes. Both owners elected to build up to the maximum, which is 5,500 square feet and their second-stories were linuteci to 35% of the first story, which were the zoning rules in effect at the time of construction. TI-~e zoning regulations for this area changed in November 2007 and the owner of Lot 2 ha.~ elected to build a smaller house (4,500 square feet), se.t it back From the front driveway, and build a larger second story (74.3% of the first floor), which is allowed by the ne~v zoning amendments. The applicant has modified the design- to eliminate its previously heavy appearance and to achieve greater neighborhood compati'oility between the older, smaller ranch-style homes and the newer, larger homes of mostly European anci modern architectural styles. The concrete file roof was changed to a lighter slate or clay file roof. The roof veneer was removed from the turrets and entrance and limited to just the base of the house. `T'hick balcony balustrades were replaced with the thinner iron-steel railings. The applicant will also be adding fenestrations to the windows to break up overall window sizes. Overall staff believes the applicants will be creating an acceptable balance between the older and newer residences in the neighborhood. Retaining Wall Height 8i Location The applicant has lowered the building pad t~zree feet to reduce the height of the retaining wall facing the downslope property to 6 feet or under. Retaining walls meet property line setback regulations and will be reviewed, along with fhe basement and foundation, by the applicant's geotecltnical engineer and the City's geologist prior to building permit approval. Lowering the buiL_ling pad, raises the height of the upslope retaining wall by three feet, but that wall is not visible to the upslope property owner. The R-1 ordinance requires retaining walls in excess of five feek to Ue screezied with landscaping or faced with decorative materials. Construction Activities A construction management plan should be required as part of a building permit application. Construction activities must meet the City noise ordinance and required construction hours. The applicant will address this at the hearing. Lif=_ht -and Air, Obstruction of Passive Solar House Design and Obstruction of Views Compliance with the R-1 building setbacks and building envelopes is by definition providing adequate air and light to adjacent residential parcels. Building separations between Lot 2 and Lot 1 (upslope) is even generally greater than the minimum building setbacks with most of the proposed second story wall length 14 to 17 feet away from the property line and 27-30 feet away from the upslope residence wall In reviewing Sheet ~~-z~s Arch. Pleuts for 2194,7 Lindy Lane JuCy `Z2, 2008 Page 5 11-8, tlic eleva-tion of the second floor of the proposed residence is bolo~~v i_he elevation of the first floor of the I~ot 1 (upslope) residence. The view from the Lot 1 re.:>rdence is essentially that of a recessed one-story dwelling. The solar design aspects of the R1 zoning ordinance have been misinterpreted by the neighbors (Exhibit h3). Wht(e the City may allow variances to setback and hei<;ht to accornrnodate passive or active Solar equipment or house design, no such modified structure shall infringe upon solar casements or adjoining property owners. "1,1iere are no solar easements otl the properties. The City does not regulate the protection of views in hillside areas (Exhibit C: CHIC suction 19.40.050(L)). As the plans are proposed the Lot 2 house occupies a middle elevation that maintains or creates a second story view for each of the three adjacent lots. Tl.iere are no viewshed c_asen-cents on the properties. I'rivacy Protection The project is screened from Lindy Lane by the presence of the mature trees downslope from the property and the existing house on Lot 3. 'The project will be required. to adhere to the required privacy protection standards outlined in t11e R1 Ordinance, which include screening of second story window and balcony views into adjacent side and rear yards. Landscape screening was not required for rear yard views because the rear yard property owner is at a grade elevation above the second floor of the proposed house. The ordinance allows adjacent property owners to waive or modify those landscaping requirements in writing in the event that privacy landscaping is not wanted. Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner C---= Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Coxnrnunity Developmesii= __ ~~~n ENCLOSURES Model Resolution for approval Model. Resolution for denial (available at hearing) Exhibit A: Neighbor comments Exhbit 13: Excerpt from solar provisions of R1 Ordinance F_.xhibit C: Excerpt from Views and Privacy provisions of RHS Ordinance Plan Set EI:CuptNt/Planning/I'dreport/pcReports/2007/2007 Arch Plans 21947 Lindy Lane.doc 1 7 - 280 CI"I'Y OF C11PER`T'INO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, Ca: forma 95014 RESOLD 1_ ION NO. OIL THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A RFiSII7ENTIAL DESIGN PERMIT FOR A N F..W 4,499 SQUARE FOOT, 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 1; I' 21947 L INDY LANE SECTION [: PROTECT DF,SCRIP"I'ION Application No.: 2007 residential design per;nit Applicant: Chia-Ching Lin (IGrishnapL ra c~ Minasandram Residence) Location: 21.947 Lindy Lane SECTION II: FINDINGS WI-ITiREAS, public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WI IEREAS, th.e applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and h~zs satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health., safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, and zoning ordinance; 3. The proposal will use materials, design elements and simplified building forms that compliment tl~e existing and neighboring structures; NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOL VED: "That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the architectural and ::ite plans are hereby approved subject to the conditions which arc. enumerated in this Resolui-ion beginning on page 2 thereof; and "That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning the residential design permit for 21947 Lindy Lane set forth in the .Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 2008, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DF_VELOPMENT DEPT. ~~-zs~ Resol-t"ition No. 6,90 .`.E3A-?00`?-12 Noe-eaib;,r "i3, 2C)07 L~ac~e 2 "L. t~Pi'ZZO'V'i-:D PRC~)ECT Approval is based on plan. set titled: "Tl1e Krishnapura's New Residence/2"1947 Lindy i,ane/Cupertino, CA 95014" cc;nsisting of 13 sheets labeled A-O tlirouglt A-8, f\1.1, C- 1, C-2 and L--1 dated 4/4/Of3, except as amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. NOTICE OF ZEES, I7~EDICATI01`dSLI~ESERV~7'-IONS OIL OTI_iF:fL EX~ CTIf~i4iS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation rec~uirernents, and other exactions. Pursuant to Goverrunent Code Section 66020(4) (1), these Conditions constitute tivritten notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval. period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Govenut~ent Code Section 66020(x), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred fiorn later challenging such exactions. 3. GEOTEC~INIC~',L REVIE~7 Prior to building permit approval, basentent, retaining walls, ~>rading and drainage shall be evaluated and designed by the applicant's geotechnical engineer anti reviewed and approved by the City Geologist and City. 4. CONSTRUCTION MANAG_FMENT PLAN In conjunction with the building permit review, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to address staging of construction materials, loading and unloading areas and parking for construction vehicles. The Director of Community Development shall review and approve that plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of July 2008, at a Rebular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTES I': APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Marty Milier, Chairperson Director of Community Development Planning Corrunission G:Cuptnt/planning/Pdreport/Res/2007/2007 Arch Rz Site Plans for 21947 Lindy i.ane approval.doc ~ ~ - zaz 'I'elrphonic Comments born Neighbors concerning development plans for 21947 Lindy Lane. 1. From Andrew Tangy 2_l 932 Linder I_,ane_ Fie is concerned about the three redwood trees across from his house and does not want to see them removed. He also does not want any construction to be too noisy. 2. From I3i11 C=rucngerich,_21950 Liddy T,:uie_ Pic said the City should use its pourers to place house so views from upper lot are not obstructed. 3. Front Sara Ar~cno 21902 Lindy I_me_ She expressed her concerns with future, construction impacts on the neighborhood and said there should be a construction management plan in place. IL Colinj/VVord Docs/R-2008-14b.doc 1 7 - 283 Page 1 of 2 CGfli': a)t1a"ZCj ;=rom: Luciano V. Dalle Ore [Idaileore@grrrail.cam] Sz,ng: `/`Jednesday, May 28, 2008 5:22 PM i-oc City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Colin Jung C.c: 'Cristina Dall:~ Ore' Sui.~jee:g: Corram~~ntis on pro~~osed new r °~idence at 2_'1947 Lindy Lane Dear Mr. Jung These are our comments regarding the ne~rv residence at 21947 Lindy Lane. ] . First of all, we would like to Ic>_t you know that we are very pleased with the process of requiring story poles and neighbors notifica[ion. Although this process is more cumbersome and may create initial tensions, if handled in an appropriate way, it is far more preferable than to present the community with afait-accompli ~,vhich may result in long terra resentment between neighbors. As you may understand, given recent history, a peaceful coexistence is by now of paramount importance for us all. ?_. Wca al:=,o understand that the owners have been in conversation with their neighbors over the long week- end regarding possible compromises which may result in alterations of the proposed plan. Since we are extremely supportive of these discussions, we find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to balance our need to be conciliatory in our approach and feedback with our need to formally record our issues. As such, we will list them along with our stated desire that these issues be discussed in a constn.rctive and informal process with the owners rather than through a formal process within City Hall. 3. (VVe understand this is being addressed) The front of the house does not seem to take into account the fact that the house is placed on a slope -the cut and fill approach appears to result in nesting a "flat land" house on the side of the hill, ~.vhich does not take advantage of (and actually appears to fight) the topographical features of the lot, and also requires possibly higher retaining walls than necessary. 4- We are not particularly fond of the stone exterior for the entrance. While we understand and respect the fact that these are the owner's choices, we would like to make sure that this has not been an added requirement by the city which may not necessarily reflect the owner's (or for that matter the neighborhood) wishes. 5. -I he privacy protection planfiing plan drawings are not completely clear. We would like to confirm that there is a plan to hide the house from the side of the access road and from the residences on the south side of Lindy Lane and Lindy Place by deploying a screen as close as possible to the road. Given that there is a generous front setback, the owners would still be able to preserve the English style impression of the entrance once past the privacy screen, while still protecting whatever is left of the rural character of the north side of Lindy Dane. 6. From the point of view of compromises on size and/or scale, we would have no issues of supporting an expansion of the house up to 5,500 sq ft. and/or increase of height of the two front turrets, as long as privacy concerns are satisfied through the use of appropriate screening and as long as the height and placement are coordinated with the neighbors. We really appreciate the effort that you and the rest of the staff are investing in trying to get our community to work tope-ttier towa~ a peaceful solution --- Best Regards Luciano &Cristina Dalle Ore Luciano V. Dalle Ore ~ 22101 Lindy Lane ~ Cupertino, CA 95014 U.S.A. ~ m. +~ (408) 962-4804 ~ h. -r-1 (408) 257- - 17-284 5/28/2008 Colin Juna From: Bob Rodert [brodertLa7corncast.nc ] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 X2:20 PI\! To: Colin Jung Subject: Re: Responses to your questions about the T~,vo-Siory Residential Permit for 2'1947 Lindy Lane: R-2008-14 & RiN-2008-16 7'hc~ exec ilant photograph c1_ari_t-ias evc~rythi_ng, Co1i-n. l'd £orgo~l=~.n i=ha-L there's a third lot up tk:er.e. That's going to one cozy hillside wh~,n thca Lot. L house. is finishod! 't'hanks for the clart~:ica t-.ion. Sob Rodert 2191.2 Lindy Ln Cupertino ?.57-2607 Colin Jung wrote>_: i3ob: > Attached is an aerial photograph of tk-ie pro;_~e~rty. You may l~.now it as Lot #`r 2 of the Moxley subdivision, the' vacant 1-ot next t_o the. Mittals and across tk-ie drivc=.way frc:~i i'rank Sun. it has story poics on it that should be vi.si_b1o once, you walk a ways up thc~ driveway. > There are two large oaks- at the=_ rear o£ t_!~e pr.opc-arty that are una.Lfected by tYic development. There are also five recently p1~~ntad oak trc3es on i.ha .7_ot that was required- mitigation for previous tree removal on they property--- i=our in the' rear a7.onq and a fifth in the front. A11 should be on the landscape plan. > Colin Jung- > Senior Planner > City of Cupertino > > 408-777-3257 > «R-2008-14 Vicinity Map.doc » - 1 7 - 285 I'a~~e 1 of I C~c>Eira .1~,~~~; Fro. n: rihua sun [xihuasun~'t~yahoo.c:~m] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 200II 10:4° f'IV; To: Shesha hr,shnapi_:r~; Colin Jung Subje::z: C3uilding design Hi Colin., I'in Lhe ininzcdiatr ac_Ijacent neighbor o_t 1~,Ir. S1~eslia Krislu~apura on Liizdy Lane. After reviewing his design, I felt that it conf~pl7ned well to the current ordinance. 'i'herefoi-e, we dorit have any objections to -the cru-rent desig-n. Z hope he can have his drea~ll home built as gniclcly as possible. Franc Stiu~ 1 7 - 286 5/27/2008 Colin Jung May 28, 2008 Sciuor Planner Hardcopy via Mail. Cit~,~ of Cupertino 103 00 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95Q14 Dear Colin: I am writing to you regarding the proposed reside.~ce at 21947 Lindy Lane. I live adjacent at 21943 Lindy Lane, which is the Fast neighbor- Unfortunately, L am unable to approve the proposed drawings as submitted for the following reasons: 1 . There are inaccLU-acies and discrepancies cn the location of the retaining wall in relation to the property Iine on different pages (there may be other inconsistent depictions, but I only checked a few dimensions). 2. "The height and proximity of the proposed =-etaining wall is of extreme impact -more than 10 feet as drawn on the front elevation and section and oily six feet away from the property Iine 3. Privacy regarding the 2na floor balcony and landscape screening that has been proposed In reviewing the drawuzgs provided by the city of Cupertino, I found that there are inaccuracies in the distance between the property line and the proposed retaining wall closest to my property. It has been represented as six feet on the Topo and Grading plan, but is reflected as eight or even ten feet on the Elevations and Section, while the: d_.mensional setback still remains at 14 feet 7/8 inch. 'Thus, it looks like there are different widths of the driveway (area between retaining wall and garage). The scale used on the cross-sections and the elevations provides additional distance depicting more openness between the two properties than what is planned to be built, which is misleading. Based on the dimensions on the topographical plans, there is six feet between the property line and the retaining wall, which creates a very tall retaining wall to be in very close proximity to my property. I have a concern of the location of retaining wall, where it is only six feet from the property line and thus too close to ni~~ property. The wallcway that I have adjacent to the proposed project sits approximately six feet below the exposed base of the proposed retaining wall. `Thus the retaining wall starts at a point that is six feet above the grade of my rear walkway. If we add the six feet starting point, plus the ten feet retaining wall (that is only 6 feet away from the property line) plus an additional 25 feet of house creates 41 feet of structure that is just 15 feet away from the property line (see the attached diagram). With this retaining wall so close to my property,. this creates an extreme impact on my property, where anyone who walks the walkway will have a towering structure above them and there will be loss of sunlight along the rear of my house. _Iristcad-of a-salid-ten facet retairzin 11-tither ~i --- wa ty~irgiri~~r~typioally all~afo~r faotre~ining wall with an inset of four feet for another four foot retaining wall, and finally another four feet inset and then the retaining wall, so that there can L-e planting and a stepped scale to the vertical element, not to mention the stepped loading on the walls. 'The landscaping that is being used to ~7-287 screen the vertical element is art I_~.vcr~i-ccn ~'re-°p<r Vine, wl,_ic}t at the spe.c.iiied size (per a Landscaper) can take four to eight years to fill in and solten the ti~~ail. If cinder-block is used, a split-face block would soften the wall and provide attach,nent ~r the vines, urhich would be prefen-ed to just st cement wall- The privacy for our property is a-t issue, since tilde is insufficient screening for the house. The concern is the 2°d Moor balcony will over look my backyard. Tltrce 25-foot high shrubs (which are not called out on the legend) are proposed as v: ell as two 1 5-gallon plums, but the proposed 2.°`~ floor balcony of my neighbor sits cv~.~ll above the shrub and the plum and thus they will look over these plantings aild directly into xny bac}.yard. Further, in speaking with a landscaper t-7tis shrub typically comes in 15-gallon size and typically start at 4-6 feet tall. The landscaper further stated that these shrubs grow approxunataly 1-2 feet a year, which translates into 10 to 20 years of growth prior to reaching 25 feet. I am open to i~cconunendations on how to alleviate our privacy issue. I met with Shesha regarding these issues a.nd tie: committed that he would limit the retaining wall to less than six feet in height, but stated that that ha most likely would not be able to move the retaining wall further away from the property line. 1',ven with a six foot retaining wall, there is still a significant narrowing affect because of the close proximity ofthe retaining wall- We would like to see the retaining wall move further away :[rom the property line ~tnd possibly step the retaining wall to eliminate this crowding/towering affect I am willing to work with Shesha_ IPrevised plans address my all of my concerns satisfactorily, I will with withdraw my objection and approve the revised plan. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (408) 8?_8-12_10. Thank you, h;dward Chan 21943 Lindy Lane ~~-zas ~ -- ~ -i _ ce 1- I - ~ 1_- ~ - -- _ _ ~- l -. - - f _ _ I -- - _ ~- ~ -- ~- - -_ -- T - -- - ~ - -- _ (- II - I - j- - - - - - _ _ - - T- ~=- - ' ~ 1- _ 1_ _ - ~ 1-- L I 1 ~ f_ - __ - l - I 1~ -- L -- - - -- - _ _ - -- _ 1--- L l 1- -~ I -_ ~ - - --- - _ - - -. i - - _- [-~ -- 1 f L ~ ~ i -- ~ 1 - L _ ~_ ~ 1 - -- _ I ~ , '- - I - ~ - --- ~- - - - -- ~ ~ ~ L - 1 ~ 1 f I ~ f .~ ~~- -~ ~ I -- - - __ ~ 1 ~ , ,~+ I - I_- - ~ I I L_ ~ -I --1 -- _ ~ _ ~ _ , T _~ _ ~_~ - -_ -_ ,_ - .___ - - - O ~\ ~ _ _ ~ ~ I - I- - ~ - ~ ~- -- ~ - ~ ~ - ~~ ~- -- C - -~~ _-- ~ -_ - I r~ ~ A , _ - _- -~ -_ - - I - I _ -~ r -- - ( i - - I `-- -- I I i I - - I I -- _ {-- I I l __ I I _- I - I L ~ _ f 1 _ l _ I ~ _ _I _f - I ~ - i - fir I .- _ _ ~ _ ~ __ ~-_ ~ ( ~ __ - ~- _ __ -- J 7 -- __ ~ _ I ~ __ I _ - _ _ __ I - - i - L_ _ - I _ ___ I __ ~ L- - - - - -_ ~ ~ l ~ ~ . ~ -- r L I ~ - - I ~1 j ~1 T -i I -- -- --- - - - -_ - _ ~ -- ~ -1 I - -- -- I - I - -~ ~ - _ _ ~ I - - __ - I I --- -- - _ ~ _ 1 - -- ~ _1 ~ ~ - __I~ I -~- - -~ __ ~_ -- -~ - I _ - I I - - i- I - _ - 1 I I - -- _ -1 I I -1 --- -- --- --- --I - ~ - I ~ i -- - _ - -- _. ~ i ~ ~ - I I - f _ _ ~ _1 - I i - I I ~ -- I - ---~ - - - - ~ - - .~ -- 1 - __- 1 ~j __ - J _.. - - - - - ~ ~ - - _~ _ -- -- - - _- _ _ --- ~ -- 1 ~ __- _ - I -1 ~ - - - - -- - - - -- ~ - I ~ 1 - - - - - I _I_ ~ __ - _ i ~ ~ _ 1 - 8 9 - --- _- - -~ t- 3 ~--r' ~ ~~ +,.yrn.,,--'3~ y.~`+`„-yic# ~'~`.a~Y.~'~- '~~ --.y-~rY..v- -~ ...i i-~ -~.:_ A~.x--=~..-,~.~?:a- - r.--~.~r~....-'~ .mac-: a~F',."~r~ ~ ,s't~~.-T~~-'~:. ~-s~~z--~r~=~.'S.~~.~~.~x ~""`~>r- ~-c- fir-- ~ ^'`s ~,.,..-_-,::-'.~:~-~. -Y"K;~,.:.~~ ~ _ __ . "r ~rF1~F ~~r B. ~~_x~ littc~rney at Law f`._ 1'rofes~sional Corporation 5p1 Stockton 1lvenue S :u Jose California 95120 CcL- 40g-7_79-3555 P'az: X308-279-5938 Jbhlaw~paeball.net May 23, 2003 S"I`EVE PlasEClcl DIREG'TOEZ OF CONIMLINITY DI'.VLiLOF'MENT CITY OF CUP1R"I'INO 103OO TORIZF AVENUE CLJPL:RTINO, CA 95014 RE: COIvIMF,NTS RE: Ri?Si1~LiN"I'IAL DI/SIGN REVIF_W MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR 21947 LINDY LANE R-2008-14 AND RM 2008-16 Dear Mr. Piasecki Seema Mittal and Sarvesh Mahesh, owners of the property located at 21949 Lindy L,aue; Cupertino,.have retained my law office in connection to the pending application for a Minor Residential Permit and Residential Design Review for the adjoining property at 21947 Lindy Lane (hereinafter the: "Subject ParceP'~. Ms. Mittal and Mr. Mahesh oppose the Application for the reasons set forth herein. While it is oLU understanding chat the "decision" to be made on Thursday, May 29, is not a hearing per- se, but instead is a staff-level review of the application, we also understand that it would be appropriate to submit a summary of our issues and concerns with the project. 1t is our hope that a mutually satisfactory solution that satisFies the letter and intent of the City's ordinances and guidelines can be achieved. Background As you are probably aware, my clients purchased the property at 21949 Lindy Lane in February, 2005, after having conducted a thorough and comprehensive review of the City of Cupertino zoning regulations, discussions with Staff- of the Community Development Department, as well as a studied review of the approved plans for not only their site, but the adjacent site which is now the subject of this application for design review. Ms. Mittal is a licensed Architect, and she took extraordinary measures to design her property not only to conform to the City's existing design standards, but also to 17 - 290 Design ltevievd Iv3siy 28, 2008 Page 2 incorporate energy efficient design elements to the ma,~cimum extent possible. Specil3cally, Ms. Mittal designed the south eastern exposure to maximize use of passive solar energy for both heating and lighting, as well as created a breezeway design for natural cooling, and took other steps to significantly reduce overall dependence on the use of mechanical heating and cooling system:>- The completed design also included elements to t~tkc advantage of the wonderLuI views of the lights of the valley floor, as well as the satirises during ail times of the year. My clients proceeded with the construction of their home with the explicit understattding that zoning regulations implemented on March 1, 2005, imposing a residential hillside overlay on the R1 zoning district in the hillside area, would limit the size of any structure on the adjoininb property to around 3,500 sq- ft. and placing a 4-5% cap on the size of the upper floor (~u-ound 1,000 sq- ft.), thus preserving their views anti privac~~. On April 18, 2008, my clients saw the ,tory poles that had been constructed for the subject parcel, and shortly thereafter, learned for the first time tltat the City ~f Cupertino had adopted Ordinance 07-201 1, which amended Chapter 19.28 of the Municipal Code to relax the restrictions on de~~elopment within a 15-Iot area. The amendments, it turns out, allowed design plans that were drastically different than the previously approved plans for the subject parcel. The new design plans include a doubling of the second story area (from around 1,000 sq. ft- to over ?_,500 sq- ft.), and additional elements that will cause the proposed structure to exceed all reasonable parameters of mass and scale for the parcel.. "1`:~ese modifications drastically alter the previously approved desig7t that was the basis of my clients' design- The placement and orientation of the elevated portions o f the prop ascd structure will effectively defeat the passive solar design elements incorporated by ny clients, and completely obstruct city light views from all living spaces, in direct contravention of the purpose and intent of the Ordinance. Toning Regulations 'i•he proposed development of the subject parcel appears to be inconsistent with the: letter and intent of the City's single-family residential development regulations. As set forth in Section 19.28.01 O, the purpose of the Single Family Residential (R1) zones is to "create, preserve and enhance areas suitable" for development in order to A. Enhance the identity of residential r-eighborhoods; L3. Ensru-e provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy ... C. Ensure a reasonable level o F compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; D- Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the cornrnunity. ~~-2si Dsi;;n Rcvfc,w Adrry 1.8, 2003 Ya;~c 3 erection 19.28.050, which was amended by Ordinance 07-2011 iu October, 2007, expressly identifies the hillside area within which the subject parcel is located, 'and provides that any second Moor area xvld balcony "shall be consistent with the rccli_rirements from the Residential Hillside (PHS) Zoning District (Chapter 19.40). This Ors finance also provides that the purpose of the R>-IS zoning district is to rebulate development commensiuate with community goals as set forth in the General Plan, and to ensr_rce Ihrrt utilization of land for residential uses is balance with the need to conserve natural resrnu-ces ~rnd protect Life and property from n<rtural hazards. Totivard that objective, the purpose of the RIdS regulations includes the following: 13. I~alsurc the provision o_Plight and air to individual residential parcels; C. I_irYsure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of str-cictures within residential neighborhoods; D. Maintain a special relationship between structures and witbin neighborhoods; 13. Rcinfbrce the predominantly tow-intensity setting of the community; l~. Maintain a balance between residential development and preservation of the natural hillside setting. Pursuant to Section 19.40.130, the Director of Community Development is ctnpowered to make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions o f the IZHS Ordinance, "consistent with the legislative intent thereof." (§19.40.130). In reviewing an application for a Minor Residential Permit, the Director can approve, conditionally approve, or deny tihe application. The application can be approved only if th; Director makes all of the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title. 2. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare_ 3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. (§ 19.28.090). 1 7 - 292 llesia,>>-~ Revie v/ May 28, 21)08 Page 4 Violctilions of Z_,onin~ Ordinance My clients respectfully subnYit that the. proposcd development of the subject parcel located at 21947 Lindy Lane does not c:onfonn with either the letter or the intent of the above-references provisions of the City's zoning regulations. 1. Protect creates sianificant_<_in<1 adverse i~~act to t~a5~ive solar dcsit=n._ Both the F2.1 and I'._HS zoning ordinances expressly state that a fimdamental purpose of the respective orclincuzces is to enstu-c provision of light and air, As noted previously, the dwelling at 21949 Lindy Lane was deliberately designed by Ms. Mittal to maximize the potential for passive solar heating, and to maximize the use of natural lighting with the southern exposure. i'he plat°ment of the story poles made it suddenly apparent that the revised plans for the subject parcel would significantly and adversely unpact these features which were carefulhj de:~igned in reliance on the previously- approved plans. Not only will the proposcd pt~oject sigTrtificantly reduce my clients'. access to passive solar energy and natural lighting, but their access to views of the lights of the valley and to views of the sunrises during certain times of the year will be obliterated. Moreover, the mass depicted try the story poles do not include the elevated, second-story covered deck. IIere, the Design Guidelines are fairly explicit, stating, in pertinent part, as follows: Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a stnrctttre utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure sha]1 infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. (§19.2f;.060(I)(Emphasis added). One need only review the proposed. mass and scale of the proposed structure to see irnmcdiately that it would severely impact the passive solar features so carefully and thoughtfully incorporated in the-design of the uphill property by Ms. Mittal. 2. Protect is not harmonious in scale and desi~=,n with the adjoiningproperties. There are several indicia of possible violations of the design guidelines that relate to the overall massing and scale of the proposed structure. For one, the City's ordinance provides a limitation of a maximum exterior wall height measured from the natural ade measured at the property line, and atwenty-five degree roof line angle measured from the ten-foot high line. (§ 19.28.060(G)(2)(a)). As seen in the diagrams distributed to the neighbors, the building envelope exceeds these restrictions by several feet, in some instances because the measurements were taken from the finished pad, and not the natural ade. In addition, the project includes a covered, 500-square foot upper story deck that adds a significant amount of mass to the second story that is not depicted by the story poles. 1 7 - 293 llesi~rt Review P age 5 "1'}ie lower lot (Lot 3) has a 12.00 tiq. 1't. upper story. T'he upper lot (my clients' lot:) F~as 1300 sq. ft. of upper story. "i'he proposed project will have a 2,500 sq. ft. upper story riiass (including, the covered cicck not depicted by the story poles). Because of previously iml~oscd restrictions, t:hc predonriziant size of the upper stories were limited to arour,cl 35% ofd t} c Lower story nzas~. 3. RE,taic_in£= Cj7all_trc~ronoscd I~,,;_il~__u1 5 feet fron~rot?ey-ty_linc and ~ot~ritiai~ tlrcaten ex~stin~s~portpiers_for the uphill. pre)}~erty. "I1ic proposed drawings depict a series of light-well retaining walls located less than 5 feeC from. the property Line - in violation oPthe minimum setback requirements. Section 19.'L8.060(F) specifically states that the. minimiun side setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be five feet. Of equal concern to my clients, it is anticipated that the installation of these retaining walls will. require e~Ytensive digging and excavation in and ~rrounci the; area where my clients placed the: support piers for their property. Section 192.8.100(D), which sets forth the required Endings for approval of a two-story residential permit, includes a f-ending that: The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or inj urous to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will noC be detrimental to t?re public health, safety or welfare. (§19.28.1OO~ll)(2)). here, the slope o~ihe l~uid approaches a 30% grade. In addition to their concern over the generous allowance that permits the homeowner the right to grade up to 2,500 cubic yards on a lot that measures Less than one-half acre, my clients are extremely concerned that the trenching <uzd grading necessary to locate the Iightwell retaining walls this close to their property poses a serious risk of failure of the hillside integrity. 4. Based on theproposed design of the project, the Director cannot make all of the neccssar-y finclin~S required under the Municipal Code_ Section 19.28.090 sets forth the findings that the Director of Commruuty Development must make -and must make alt of them - in order to approve an application for a Minor Residential Permit. As explained herein, the project is not consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, the zoning ordinances, and the stated purposes of Title 1 9. Approval of the permit will very likely result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements on the adjoining lot, and in the event of major slope failure, could pose a real risk to the public health, safety and welfare. The project, with its mass and scale, is clearly not harmonious with the other structures in the neighborhood, especially with a second story that is at least twice the size of the second story clcrnents of the properties on either side. Furthermore, the adverse visual impacts, as well as the adverse impacts on the passive solar elements of the uphill property, have not been reasonably mitigated. 1 7 - 294 Design Review May ?3, 2003 Pale 6 Conclusion I~1y clients respectfully therefore r~~qucst that the proposed application he dc:uied for the reasons set forth herein, and that the pLOject applicants be directed to retunZ with an application that meets both the letter ~rr~d it tent of the City of Cupertino Gene-rat Plait and mooning regulations. Request for Notice and Copies of Docutne,_nts In addition, I request that you place: my law office on the distribution list for all notices of any actions related to this matter. Further, I request that I be provided with copies of any and all letters, e-mails and other eiocuments which have been submitted in coru~cction with the pending application for th•~ subject parcel. .Respectfully subnlittecl, Jeffrey B. Ilare cc_ Colin Jung, Senior Planner Charles Kilian, City Attorney Clients 1 7 - 295 Coii;~ d:urtc~ From: rortb<rii a>con~castn~t Sent: R~loncay, July 1 ~}, 2001; 10:00 /~Pn l"o: Colin Jung Sr.lbjeci: 21947 Linciy Lane Hi Colin S received a lettcr 1:. e;L weak from t.:he Planning Ue oar tnrer.t to thm c£tect theft tYt c~rca's a hearing on 219fl7 I:,incly 1~.3 nP_ on July 22nd. Ur~,t_orLun~h-caly, S wi.11 ba out of town on i=1~at clay. S ~ssuma that this is l_argal.y a pro for=tna evont, that tYia p_1.uns 1-t z~vc la rgal_y bacon si.gnad oP_*- and val_:i_datad-as cons is tc^ac witl-t city pol.ic.y. 'she one clu c~stion C Crave is that one ag<~ncla .i_tc=tn adds-esses ~ si_de f:ac i-ng second story b..-r l.cony. T.'m c_urious -f Lha balcony Eac~s sorithcns t. or_ soot hwcst, o-r}-rich is the only c i_rcri rnsC ance in wiz i_ch i really car. c--~ You may/ know that this nec•r borne wil_1 look diroc Cly at nri_nca across thF~ small- Lindy Lane va.iloy. i'et-irap_; ~rre could h%:zve a sYtori_ discussion this week? You r,an Ca7.1. my cc~11 (rlOf3) 515-5117. Look:i_ng :[onward i:o ha~ar~i-ny :E~om you. Ron ?3erti l_1406 Lir.dy P~1_ace 1 1 7 - 296 c_z_ J.1.8.f1F>O Cupertino - <'o ring Vii} i~ (~ ~j'~`; 5. The perimeter of the basement and all lightwell 2. The murimum side-yard setback shall be fifreen retaining walls shall be treated and/or reinforced with the fee:. most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the 3. The minimum rear-yard setback shall be twenty Director of Community Development. f Ci. Height. 1. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an R1 zone shall not exceed twenty- eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or other appurtenances. 2. Building Envelope (One Story). a. The maxiruum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: 1. A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line; 2. A twenty-five-degree roof line angle projected inward at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection <-<2)(a)<1) of this section. b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in subsection G(2)(a~ of this section, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to riventy feet with a Minor Residential Permit. 3. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet; and shall have a minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story wall. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a min;munn of four feet from the first story exterior wall plane. a. The Director of Community Development may approve an exception to this regulation based on the findings in Section 19.28.110 D. 4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry feature height shall be fourteen feet. 5. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by affixing an "i" designation to the R1 zoning district. H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of the permit requsement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similar unenclosed features. re .. ' I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a stricture utilised for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Any solar structure that requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Priinor Re: idential Permit subject to Section 19.28.090. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001- Ord. 18E3, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (pa.-t), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord: 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19..2.8.070 Landscape Requirements. To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass anti bulx of new rivo-story homes ;urd addition;, tree and/or sluub planting is required. The intent of this section is to provide substantial screening within three years of the planting. A. ApplicabIlity. This requirement shall apply to new two-story homes, second-story decks, two-story additions, or modifications to the existing second-story decks or existing windows on existing two-story homes that increase privacy impacts on neighboring residents. Skylights, windows with sills more than five feet above the finished second floor, windows with permanent, exterior louvers up to six feet above the finished second floor, and obscured, non-openable windows are no[ required to provide privacy pro _ection planning: B. Privacy Planting Plan. Proposals for a new two- story house or a second story addition shall be accompanied by a privacy planting plan which identifies the location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees or shrubs. 1. New trees or shrubs shall be required on the applicant's property to screen views from second-story windows. The area where planting is required is bounded by athirty-degree angle on each side window jamb. The trees or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit. a. New tree or shrubs are not required to replace exiting trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified Arhorist or Licenses Landscape Architect verifies that the existing trees/shrubs have the characteristics. of privacy planting species, subject to approval by the Duector or 1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three Corimuniry Development. Y'eet into the front setback for the principal dwelling. _ ., ~:`.. ~. r' :. -~~ *, -^; EV 1 7 - 297 2005 S-4 ~ ~ ~, ., l., C tip°x:.1730 - E~1n il3F~ f~~t on lots which are z;reater tha n one acre. The setback sh.:.ll be rraeasured from the top of bank of the watcrco~arses or from existing riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. Thr. setback from rigasian vegetatsonwill be nieasu-re3 from tlae drip line perimeter. I. Development Near Promi,-ncnt Ridgelines_ 1 _ The development of nevr, indc°pendent stnactures shall not disrupt a fifteen percent site line from a prominent ridge as identified in Appendi:c A_ The LCteon percent site line shall be mea.~ared from the top of ridge at t`ae closest paint fzom the s'.rru:ture_ 2. Additions to legally existing laom_es lec_ated within the fifte-:.n percent site line of a prominent ridgeline may not further encroach into the site Line, e.g., tlae addition may not add height or bin's which may increase t,`ae disruption to the fiF:een percent ridgeline site line_ 3. Should thesn_ requirements become impractical, alternatives will be considered through the exception process_ J. Devc;lopmeni on Slopes of Thirty Percent or Greater. 1. Site plans for all development proposals shall include topographical information at contour int='rvals not to exceed ten feet and a horizontal map scale of one inch equals two hundred foot or larger. .Areas where slops exceed thirty percent shall be identified on the site development plan. 2. No structure or _impravements shall occur on slopes greater than thirty percent unless an exception is granted or unless no more than five hundred smiare feet of development, including grading and structures, occurs oa an area with a slope greater than thirty percent. K_ Trail Linkages. 1. Among other items required to be identified on the, site plan, the site plan shall identify trail linkages as shown in the General Plan Trail Plan, on and adjacent to the Sat.°.. E'~_fS ~ w ».. M l=_.3 upon an exc_ption granted by the FIa=_?-wing Coxns{zission L3 accordance with Section 19.<G0.140. A.. Floor Area. l .a. For lots with less than ten thausand square feat of net lot area the maximum floor area ratia sh-fll sue forty-five p.~rcerit of the n.et lot area. Forrmlla: A = 0.45 I3 ~. = IvIaximmn al?~~~able house sizL. ~ =Net lot area. b. For lots with more than ten rl?ousand sgnxare feet of nee lot area the ma,~cimuLU floor area shall be four thousand five hundred square feet plus 59.59 square f::et for every one thousand square feet over ten thousand square: fc~e:[ of net lot area. In all ca_sc.s the ma.~.imnam floor rsea shall not exceed six thousand five hun<lrcJd square feet without an exception. Fo7-mula: ~._((~-~10,C-~D)/1,~L'D)(59.59)-2-~3,5SpO A =Maximum allowable house. size prior to instituting the maximum 6,500 square foot building sia~_ S =Net lei area_ 2. Lot_: Within Clustered Subdivisions Containing Co -on Ogen Space. Lots within clustered subdivisians in which land iv reserved as common open space, may count a proportionate amount of the reserved private open space for calculating the allowable house size, except that no developable lot would be subject to greater than aforty-five- pcrcent floor area ratio prior to slope consideration_ The avera`=e slope of a lot within a clustered subdivision shaL1 be calculated on the developable lot. 3. Slope Adjustment Criteria. For lot:; with an average slope greater than ten percent, the allowable floor 2. If a trail linkage, as shown in the General Plan Trail Plan, is identified across a property being developed, no development shall false place within that area. except if approved through the exception process. L. Views and Privacy. It is not the responsibility of City Government to ensure the privacy protection of the building permit applicant or owners of surrounding properties that may be affected by the structure under construction. However, the Director of Community Development naay confer with the building permit applicant to discuss alternate means of preventing privacy intrusion and preserving views. (Ord. 1725, (part), 1996; Ord. 1653, (part), 1995; Ord. 1634, (part), 1993) ~_ 19.61D.QP~D ~'uafldang C®rr~saS~, Set9~~e&s aid F<ea~hk I2esErflef a©ras_ All provision : of this section may tzo deviated frog area, pnor to uistrtutmg the maximum su thousand Five hundred square foot allowable building size, shall be reduced by one and one-half percent for each percent of slope over ten percent. For lots with an average slope over thirty percent the allowable floor area shall be reduced by a constant thirty percent. Formula: C = A x (1-(1.5 x (D - O.1))) A = Maximum allowable house size based on subsection 1 above prior to instituting the maximum 6,500 square foot building size. C = Maximum allowable building for lots •arith greater than 10~ average slop;:. D = Average percen*_ slope of net lot area. a 7 - 298 Lr 19-: `: -,r ,f i, ,~~~ ~ [ °/~~ ~~v` y~ T /f ~~ a K e September 24, 2008 OFFICE OF TF-iE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONF_: (40£3) 7'77-3223 -FAX: (408) 777-3366 Please see the attached amended action letter correcting the date of the Council meeting in which the Council tools action (September 16). The date of the original letter will still count as the date the decision was mailed (September 19). Sincerely, `` ~--- ~~~GV~L f~~t Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerlc cc: Community Development Scema Mittal 8c Sarvesh Mahesh 21949 Lindy Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 Sheshaprasad Krishnapura 201 Orchard Glen Ct. Mtn. View, CA 94043 17 - 299 ---- __ z `°'~~~ '{ ~ ` ~ ~ OF1'ICE GF THE CITY CLERK z ( ~ , ~ ~ . 9 '? 4 '~ ~ry~ srx~~,~ CITY HALL ~Ar.`.=--.__..~..__.~_ 10300 TORRE AVF_NUE ~ CUPERTINO, CA 95094-325.`i ~. ~:~ g~ f a~ Y~ @ ~~ ~~ TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3?_?_3 - ~='AX: (408) 777-3366 Septem~ier 19, 2008 Re: Consider an appeal of the Planning Cornrrrission's decision to approve a Residential Design Review for anew 4,491 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with a basement and a Minor Residential Permit for a side facing, second-story balcony on the new residence, Application Nos: R-2008-14, RM-2008-16, Cl-xia-Ching Lin, 21947 Lindy Lane, (I{rishnapura ~~ Minasandram residence), APN 356-25-029. The appellant is Seerna Mittal 8c Sarvesh Nlahesh. At its September 16, 2008 meeting, the Cupertino City denied the appeal and approved the application with the following modif ed conditions: P~cnrove the lower balcony completely Move the house forward by 6 feet If you have any questions please contact the cornrnunity development department at (408) 777- 3308. - "I'he conditions of the project arc: as follows unless rrtodiFed above: SEC"i'ION III. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMLJNLTY DEVELOPMENT D P PT. ----- - - 1. AFPI-'10VED PROJECT Approval is based on plan set titled: "New Residence for Sheshaprasad I{rishnapura ~~ 1Vlatini Minasandram, 21947 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA 94043" consisting of 13 sheets labeled A-O through A-8, A1.1, C-1, C-2 and L-1, dated April 4, 2008, except as amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. Z. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RFSEI2VATIONS OR O'hIIER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set .forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other 1 7 - 300 R-2008-14 Septcrnber IS, 2005 exactions. You are hcrc:by further notifiedi that Li1c SO-day approval period in which you nzay protest these fee;, dedications, reservations, ztnd other exactions, pursuant tc~ Govenrment Code Section 66020(x), h~~~ begun. If you fail to file a protest vrithin this 90-day period complying with all csf tIrc requirerrients of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later_ challenging such exactions. 3. Gr,®TI!:Cl~i'd1CAI~ R~!3VI_r ~~ Prior to building permit approval, basement, retaining walls, ~n-ading and drainage, shall be evaluated and dcsil;ned by the applicant's geotechnical engineer and reviewed and approved by tlra City Geologist and City. tel. C®(~+iS'3'ft~TCTIGPd fylE~1V1~C1!,Ii%1F~1'7'A_l'I.f'~P7 Ili conjunction with the building permit ;-eview, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to address staging ol~ construction materials, loading and unloading areas and parking Por construction vehc-.tcs. The Director of Community Development shall revie~.v and approve that plan. 5- 12FI'1=.r~Cl~i'vIF,NT GF Dl~t?~1~ Ct3A.3T 1,1V1±, (~~I~S ' The ttivo dead coast live oaks shall be replaced with -two, new 3G" box oaks prior to occupancy. 6. EASTEI~.LY RETAIi`~dilslG `'V~I.L S1+','1 Rf?aCK The easterly retaining wall shall be set back eight (8) feet from the side property line in locations where privacy landscaping is m.~Iuired. Please review conditions carefully. If you have gray questions regarding the conditions of approval, please contact the Department of Community Development at J,03-777-3308 for clarification. Failure to incorporate conditions into your plan set will result in delays at the plan checicira ;stage. 7[f development conditions require tree preservations, do not clear tlae site until required tree protection devices ~:re installed. The conditions of project approval set for%li herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these conditions constitute written notice of~a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-d:ay approval period in which yoga may protest these fees, dedications, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), lags begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Any interested person, including the applican ; prior to seeking judicial review of tfze city council's decisionz in this matter, naczst first fc~'e a petition for reconsideration witfz the city clerk within ten days after the council's decision. Any petition so filed zrzust comply witfz municipal ordin¢nce code y2.08.096. 17 - 30 I R-200Y3-14 Sei~~tea~iibe.r 19, 2v0~ Sincerely, ~ -'~ Grace Schmidt Deputy City Cl~ck_ cc: Community Development Seamy I~ilital 8c ~>azvesh /fahc:sh 219?-9 Lindy Lane Cupertino, Cam. 95014 Sheshaprasad Krisluiapura 201 Orchard Elan Ct. Mtn. View, CA 94043 3 1 7 - 302 September 16, 2003 Cupertino City Council €+;~~"E ,j 1~~~ ~;;s ~~= ~3 ate, 12. Consider an a~~eal of the Planning Corr.rrrissiott's decision to ap~~rove a ltestdcnuat Design Review for anew 4,491 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with a basemcut and a Minor Residential Permit fbr a side facing, second-story balcony on the new reside-ncc, Application Nos: R-20G8-1~1, IZIvl-2008-16, Chia-Ching I,in, 2.197 Liildy_ Lane, (Krishnapura c~ Minasandram residence), APN 356-25-029. 'l~lrc appellant is Seema Mit~:al c~ Sarvesh Mahesh. Written communications included the following: ° ~lrz email from Seema 1vlittal dated September 1~, 2.008 ° An email from Seerna Mittal dated September 16, 2008 a !Lu email from Jeffrey Hare dated September 15, 2008 a An email from Ldward Chan dated September 14, 2008 ° A hard copy of the applicant's presentation Council member Mark Santoro recused himself from this item and left the dais. 3'he appellant Seema Mittal said that her two concerns for the proposed project are the massive, incompatible upper story and the severe geo-technical risks. She said this area is a lifestyle neighborhood with premium view properties ranging from .5-acre to 2.5-acres; 3 of the 15 homes are new and all have the wedding cake design. She noted that over ~3 period of 2.5 years, 3 different zonings h~.ve been applicable in this area and that she designed her house and projected what might be built on the neighbor's property based on a cet-tain zoning assumption. She showed diagrams reviewing the upper floor ratio and mass of the project as compared with the rest of the neighborhood and said that the current applicant's home doesn't have tine same restriction on the upper story and that the project is incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood under the R1 design guidelines. She talked about her house losing 60% of its shading coefFcient because of the huge upper story of the proposed pro_jcct and also discussed geo-tecluucal issues. She asked Council to reduce the upper story size to be compatible with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood, especially the adjoining hones, and asked for a condition of approval for the shoring plans to be done by a structural engineer and reviewed by the City; and asked the City [i~r indemnification to mitigate her risk. The applicant Sheshaprasad Krishnapura distributed a hard copy of his PowerYoint presentation. He highlighted his key rnessagc points: 1) the design meets the requirements of Ordinance No. 07-2011 completely with no exceptions; 2) a comprehensive geo- techrtical review of the lot finds proposed 3esign and building construction suitable; 3) the mass and bulk of the design is the lowest compared to the east and west side neighbors (72% and 79%); 4) the building location is at the lowest slope portion of the lot limiting the cut and fill; 5) the applicants diligently worked with City senior planners since Nov. '07 to design the house; 6) all recommendations/comments from the Ylamiing staff, covering public feedback are addressed by fully adhering to the ordinance; 7) the detailed landscape plan addresses all neighbors' privacy; 8) there is no impact to active solar for any neighbors. At 12:32 a,m. on Wed., Sept. 17 Mayor Sandoval opened public hearing. 1 7 - 303 Scptcrnber 1G, 2.OOi~ Cupc.rtinc City Council ~, ~ H , ~ `~ ~ ~ '~ Hill Gi_iengerich-said that he is a neighbor and supports the appea-1 because the placement o 'the proposed house tapes the heart out of the view of the appellant's house. Smites 7htbey said that the City should require a green review for any new construction. She noted that the iViittal home was built as a grr,en home and it wouldn't he as energy c$icient with the new proposed home. 1~~Tatagani Rajan~.vli sai~_i that the appellant's house ah-eady exists and that even thouF~h the ~ipplicant addressed all the concerns of staff, they aren't Living next door. Shc noted that the City advocates being green and the Mittal home is a green home. She urged Coui~cil to uphold the appeal and protect the green homes. I?dward Chan said he is the down-slope neighbor a~zd is not opposed to the house but has concerns for privacy tl'tat weren't discussed at the Planning Corrunission. He said the second floor of the proposed home has a direct view into his backyard and bedroom window anti that it would take a long time for privacy scrc.cning to crow. He asked Council as a fair compromise to remove the stepped-out portion of the second .floor or have it further away from his house. Nitu Kohli, a realtor and resident, said that the appellants had originally decided to pay more for their cut~'ent lot because of the view, instead of the adjacent lot that the applicant currently owns, and because it had a n.:tturally-existing building; pad. She noted that the adjacent lot has no build-able pad and a very steep slope. She said that the-City has a responsibility to enforce same rules to protect the rights of the existing homeowners. Shc urged council to use this case to mandate all future applicants to be responsible and take into account the concerns of-the existing families. "1'ej Kohli said it was wrong that 3 difFerent zonings were applied on same property in ?_.5 years for 1 S properties, a.nd zoning restrictions on hillsides should be tighter than those on flat. areas. He urged Council to vote for adjudicated mediation between the appellant and applicant rather than voting for or against the appeal. Zuby said that the rights of those being affected by the project should also be considered. She urged Council to uphold the appeal. Mahoney%~Sandoval moved and seconded to deny the appeal and approve the application with a modification to remove the lower balcony completely. Wong added a friendly amendment to move the house forward by 6 feet. Mahoney accepted the friendly amendment. The amendment carried with Santoro absent. The original rnotion to deny the appeal tuzd approve the application vt~ith a modification to remove the lower balcony completely, along with the amendment to move the house forward by 6 feet, carried with Santoro absent. ~~ 17-30h fs~'S ai?~~~~t~ ~~~~' CITYbF ~~~~i ~~~ C~ipertino, CA 9014 0108) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SU1~I1bIARY Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: September 76, 2008 Application: Appeal of Plam~ing Commissicn decision (no applications) Applicant: Chia-Ching Lain Owner: Shesha Krislznapura and Malini Minasandram Location: 21947 Lindy Lane Appellants: Seema Mittal 8~ Sarvesh Mahesh APPLICATION SUMMARY Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of architectural and site plans for a proposed 4,499 square-foot, two-story, single-family residence with basement in a R1-20 zoning district. RECOMMENDATION The Council has the options to either: a) Uphold the Planning Commission's decision (i.e. deny the appeal); or b) Uphold the appeal; or c) Uphold the appeal with modifications. BACKGROUND On July 22, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved on a 4-O vote (Giefer absent) the architectural and site plans for a proposed 4,499 square-foot, two- story, single-family residence with basement in a R1-20 zorung district (Exhibit B-1, C-1 c~ D-1). The property is within the Lindy Lane area that was rezoned by the City Council in October 2007. "This is the first new residence that has been reviewed by the City since the zoning ordinance took effect. DISCUSSION: Revzezo Process: The size of the new residence falls below the threshold for discretionary design revietiv by the City and under normal circumstances such a residence would be approved with just a building permit. Because of the past history of controversy over 1 7 - 305 ~.ppeal o£ IZesidentia.l Lesign Appr-oval for 2")=_~1 ~i_,ixtdy Larze Sep~c>znbE~r "L 6, 2tJ08 Paf;e 2 new developments in this aced, st<3ff directed the al~pticant to erect story poles, and staff mailed notices and plans for the pending developmeizt to surrounding property owners within 300 feet. Because of the level of concern about the project, staff continued to refine the design with the applicant and try to address neighbor concerns. Based on the submitted cornrnents and past controversy over development, the Director of Community Development elected to refer the plans to the Planning Commission L-or review and decision. Erzz~ironn~zenEal Pezriezn: Staff found the project categorically exempted from the provisions of the Califor-nia P.nvironrnental duality Act (CEQA) under CEC~A Guidelines Section 15332: In-Fill Development Projects. Staff notes that the applicant has conunissioned a geologist to conduct xlecessary geotechnicat investigations for the development of the property that will be revi,wed by the City Geologist at the building permit stage of development. Such geotechnical studies and City review were a15o required of both the upslope and downslope properties during building permit plan checl~. T11c development of these two residences ware also categorically exempted from environmental review. Appeal: The adjacent upslope neighbors, Scema Mittal and Sarvesh Mahesh, residing at 21949 I indy Lane, are appealing the Planning Commission's decision for the following reasons (Exhibit A-1): 1. The project, as currently proposed, is not compatible with the scale and design of the ether residential uses in the neighborhood. 2. The project will have a severe, adverse impact on my property due to its inconxpatible mass and scale, resulting in: a. Significant obstruction to sunlight, daylight and air circulation for the passive solar design and energy efficiency features; which are an integral part of the design of rrty house. b. Significant, adverse visual impact to the views from atl our living spaces on the first floor and outdoor patio areas. c. The mass and scale of the structure and very deep excavations, in combination with its proximity to our property line, may pose a potential threat to hillside stability, during construction and after completign. Sta Res~?orzses to A~~~eaT: Each of the Appellant's assertions are listed below in boldface, followed by staff's response in_ italics. 1. The project, as currently proposed, is not compatible with the scale and design of the other residential uses in the neighborhood. i~-mss tll~peal of IZesicir_;.:iai T~esii~xa approval for 219~~.1 Lindy Lane Septerr.k~er 26, 2_U03 ~~,' frE~ Pesponse: '17ze proposed hozzse is I,000 square. feeE srnaZZer thczrc the tzoo abutting residences, but Zar~~>er tTzarz many of the older residences in the nezgYzborhood. There are a rrzixttzre of arcleitecEzeral sfz/Zes irz the neighborhood. The proposed house. zoas designed to bridge the desigzz . differences between the older, razzc_lz stJZe houses arzd the varied m-chiEectzzre of mo}'e recentZ~ bunt residences. Overall, staff believes the proposed hozzse creates arz acceptable balance between the older arzd nezoer reside-aces ~irz the neighborhood. The:. lino abzzttirzg lzorzzes on~ LindJ I_arce constructed in 2005-06 have second stories tfzat are 35 of the first story, zezhich zoere the zoning regulations in effect at the time of Ehezr consfrz.zction. TZie proposed house has a proportionallJ larger secozzd story that is 74.3 % of the first floor, zolzich is allowed by the recent zoning mnerzdznents for this area. 2a. The project will have a severe, adverse i;-npact on my property due to its incompatible mass and scale, resulting in significant obstruction to sunlight, daylight and air circx.xlation for the passive solar design and energy efficiency features, which are an integral part of the design of my hou=e. Response: Compliance znith tl~ze R-1 building setbc~clcs and building envelopes is by definition providing adequate air and light to adjacent residential parcels. Tlce bzcitding separations betzzzeerz the applicant's Cot azzd the zzpsZope Zo_t are generally greater than the minirnazrzz bzzzZding setbacks zoitlz most of the proposed second story wall length being 74 to 17 feet away from Elie property Zine arzd 27-30 feet azoaJ front the upslope residence wall. In reviezozrzg Sheet A-8, the ele~oation of the second floor of the proposed residence is below the elevation of the first floor of the zzpslope residence. The vie~zz from the zzpslope residence of the proposed residence is essentiaZlJ ilzat of a recessed one-sto~~i-/ cZzoeZZing. With regard to solar design (as articulated in the I:1 zoning ordinance), the CihJ may alZozn varzarzces to setback and height to accommodate passive or active solar equiprrzent or House design, but rzo such modified structure shall infringe upon adjoining propertzj owners. 2b. Tlic project will have a severe, adverse impact on my property due to its incompatible mass anti scale, resulting in si~z;iaificant, adverse visual impact to the views from all our Iiving spaces on the first floor and outdoor patio areas. Response: "I'Zze CitJ does not regulate the protection of private property views in hillside areas (See Cupertino Municipal Code Section Z3.40.050(L)). The City zoould create a vent undesirable precedent to grant an adjacent property ozoner a right to a viezo through a neighbor's property. There are rzo private view shecZ easements on the properties. As the plans czre proposed the house occupies a rrziadle elevation that maintains or creates a second storz~ viezo for each of the three adjacent Zot~~ (zzpslope, middle (applicant's property), and dozonsiope). i~-~o~ Appeal o£ IZesidcnfiial Dr sign f~.pprovaI for :?1947 Lind,> Lane September 7 ~, 2008 1'af;e 4 ?._c. "i'he. project will have a severe, adv~~rsF~ impact on my property dire to its incorripatible mass and scale, resulting in very deep excavations, in combination with its proximity to otir property line, may pose a poter~tial threat to hillside stat-.iiity, during construction. and after completion. IZespo3ese: The tfpe of cut anti fill error>oserl by Elte applicant is not proFcibztecZ btu the R7 zoning ordi~zrzrcce. The applicant is already condz~ctircg th~~ geotecFz3zical ircz~esiigations to ensztre the creation of a safe axed stable building site tl~rat wilt be reviezoed by the CiC~,/ Geologist cet the b1-tildireg perrmit stage of development. The Z'Zwzning Corrzrnission also rrzade geotechrzicaZ reoiezo a rrr«rulatonf reyatir•e3ner~zL ofits design app7-oz~a1 of the residence. Both ztpslopc: arul dozorzslope residences have sirrzilar retaining walls retaifzing ztpslopc soils, so zoe know zt has been done irz tFais area acid thei/ are effective irz creatirzg stable building s-ices. Iinclosures Exhibit A-1: Appeal Form anti Email 1xl~ibit 13-1: PlarlninL~ Corrunission 1~e5olution No. 6522 Exhibit C-1: I'iaruzing Commission staFf report dated July 22, 2008 Exhibit D-1: Planszin~~ ComilllSSlOn July 22, 2008 meeting minutes (draft Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: fs Steve Piasecki ~~~ Steve Piasecki David W. Knapp Director, Communi ty Development City Manager G:Pta~ining/I'D[ZEPORT/CC/2008/21941 LircdJ Lit AppeaZ.dac 17-3~8 ~~- ~' ~ ~ CUPF_RTItVO GiTY GLERFC 3. Appii~~t~od=~o_ ~.c~~~ ".=~_7~-w s"c-s~,Js,~ ,tc.1ZP--4--t §%`~--.~'~Ayy ~,? ~]`~ i-f--7 ~t~ 2. ApS~3ic3ri~L~s) T=S~~cw: ---c`t-~ l.~~ - _~f'>f~.~~1t~~L~:~ L".! 1~_. ~ , 2 I~~t'y L)9~1F~~°' L~l . 3. ='Appeilaat(s) l`tarx?.e: _ ~~ `~=\~~r~; -~,'~ 1_Y L-;~'~L_. ~`T~s~~7--a! ~4--~ i~-'~~~--{-~-s}~ Ad.*_3~s:ti-.s ~ .1 ~ ~~, ~ _ l._! !~i ~'~`'t'----1.~~.id~~ ~ ~r~' Ti S~,b /~ ~ So I t Phone Nu~cber °'~~+~':r C~~1_-~-. _ ~_i°~ ,~L+3 ,-'j"~Li ,P~`~- _'t--~/,(°- EZ21171 , .-~~r/'~®'9s~--~C~- >~~i l~°iT~'Lo1-r'C~ -Y'~ Appeal a d~±~ision ofDir~x of C-oaba~"ua~Fiit~ DevelopmPS~t . Appeal a decision of Dirertol or Public 'r~orlrs . ~~rt's~c;al a cid-cision ofPla~?1.~= Cort'ta~i^ ian 5. Date of de~c rmiuation of l~i,-ec~c:: or irc~~~-ig of r~otic:e of City decision: .¢ . c ~- 6. ~asls cif appe~i: ~ Qom-- C-~1 _ P u ~~ v„o.PV T -i'~ c~-~.:'~~'`( ~,r? , t ~2 - t ~ C~ ~r° TI--I ~ --~ . ~ ~PP~t-t i~-~- "i~-a~ ~'~--tom t c~ rl ®t= ~ ~ ~L~~t N~ ~~i~; ~ 1 ~~ ~ t ~ ~ ®ta1 ~V 1_°~'°. ~Z/ 2-~UO~j, ~~ tv C.~LtLI ! t~fGT ~ri--t ~ ~ yz-c~ P~-~-~"`l ~.~ ~:~i~~~ ~ ~`~' ~-~ ~~ tom, r.~ QY tsv , C~V ~'t~~"`Tt ~v a _ SignaEure(s) ~~~^ t _! ! n a.-- A~-+ ~1--~ Please comply form, include apgeal fes~ of n156.0O c~~a:it to R lotion No_ 07-056 (~ 150.00 for massage application appeals), ~!ad retarn to tiie attezttion of Ilia City Clerk, - 10300 Torre Aventae, Cupertino, {408) 777-:3223. _ 17 - 309 ~- Palo t of 2 Cois`rti Jtrr~r~ t=ram: Grace Schmidt , '~--~ ~, Sent: 'i"?~ursday, Augusf 14, 200E3 8:23 A~ l~o: Colin Jung Cc: Traci Caton Subject: E=W: Anpr>al reason -. rrom 29 J<t9 Lindy lane I,nportanc c: High -----original Message----- ram: seemam@camcast.nct [mailto:seemam@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, Z(~08 S4Ci Pt`9 To; Grace Schmidt t=r: seemam~lcomcast.net; sarv?sh.rnahoshG-iltavant.com :-~utsject: Appeal reason'- fror,i 21949 Lindy lane Grace. , Thanks. for be>ing patient. I finally fund an Internet place her© in the wilderness that is working at SNAIL's PACE}i! ' VVe will be putting Together a Wrote detail report later, but in summary the reasons are: 9.The project, as currrntly proposed, is not compatible with the scale and design of the other residential uses in the neighborhood 2.-} ~~e project '.rJi}I have a severe adverse impact on my property due to its incompatible mass and state, resulting in: a. Significant obstruction to sunlight, daylight and air circulation for the passive solar design and energy efficiency fes3tures, which are an integral part of the design of my house. b. Significant adverse visual impact to the views from all our living spaces on the first floor and outdoor pafio areas. . c- The mass and scale of the structure and very deep excavations, in combination with its proximity to our property line, may pose a potential threat to hillside stability, during construction and after completion. Pease email /calf me if you have questions. We return on Sunday. Also I would like to knodv the final date of the hearing as soon as- it is final and also by ~nrhen you need the material that will need to he circulated to the Council members prior to ythe hearing. Ptease confirm that you have recieved this mail. Thanks, Seema 97 - 390 92-6 ~/2/20~g RESIDENCE FOR PRASAD KRISHNAPURA MINASANDRAM 7 L NDY LANE ;R INO, CA 94043 S 18°08'05" W COIniaPATiDfl OF PAVERS ARD 6TIn'ED CONC. DRIVEWAY PAI'fERfl, TEETDRE, STYLE DBO N 14,815 f ~~ SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=10`•0" 161,48, BUILDING DATA SCOPE OF WORK; NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESH)ENCE W/ BASEMENT INDEX A-0 SITE PLAN C-1 TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN C-2 DRAINAGE & GRADING PLAN L•1 LANDSCAPE & PRNACY PROTECTION A-1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A•1.1 BASEMENT PLAN A•2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A-3 ROOF PLAN A-4 ELEVATIONS A•5 ELEVATIONS A-6 SECTIONS A•7 SECTIONS A-8 ELEVATION SECTION 196,41' yr 2;~ APN: 356.25.029 ZONE: R-1 (ORDINANCE: 07.2011 GROUP OF OCCUPANCY: R-3/U•1 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: VB STORIES: 2 WITH BASEMENT LOT AREA: 20473 BASEMENT: 1976.64 SQ. FT. 1ST FLOOR AREA: 2040.33 SQ. FT (W/0 GARAGE) GARAGE AREA: 540.75 SQ. FT 2ND FLOOR AREA: 1918.43 SQ. FT. TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 4499.51 SQ. FT. (W/0 BASEMENT) TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 6476.15 SQ. FT. (W BASEMENT) California Fire Code California Building Code California Mechanical Code California Plumbing Code California Electric Code Energy Efficiency Standazds 2007 Edition 2007 Edition 2007 Edition 2007 Editlaa 2007 Edition 2005 Edition Title 24~ Along with any other applicable local and state lams and regulations. B' ~bC ~".'~ N d N ~a 4K p J m Q N ~~ N N VICINITY MAP ~]~ 'pro ao~ ~~ xa~ "'" r+ U ~ ~ UxH p0 ~~z ~~ ~0 Na x~w a~ U~w Fw N ~W ~ ao 0 ~x z~ a~ N" ~ ~ MN QO aW zz ~a "aF W~ dw xW ~] Fz c+o Dram chee Date 4I4~08 seals NOTED nob sxooi /~ ~~ y~ X< ~_:_ `7.. _ ,.I _I `s _ ~ ~A~ ~ OB'0$'~ W ~ 60 `~, ~~ N TWO- RY _ ~ ~~ REST ~ ~~ -, `~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ \ B' ~ ~ F.. 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~I~ \~ - .' I ~ \ '~ ~ I ~~ ; ® - i B Nv ~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ i,li \ ,~-`W~ 0 F1~. ~ G ~ GE= ~.5 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I~~~ m \ \ \ it I OAN \ ~ \I ~~0 [ \ ~ ~ I ll1 EI IV ,~~ \ I I C I ~ ~ N ~ ~ I' ~ I'!I II 161 ~ ~ ~! o, ~ ~ 48 ~ . ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I 1~ ~ ' y ~ '~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I ' I ~N i I ~w J~ ~ owe ~ I I / ~ \ TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN , ~ ~ SCALE: 1"=10'-0" ~ EARTHWORK TABLE VER LINE LINE 9ASIN MANHOLE YER MANHOLE VER ClF_AN-0M DIRECTION \ ~H-HLOCN TALL ~4 ~a T SENT [/ \<g / 1 i I ~D] i f ION `~ ~ °~ +_ CUf ICY1 FILL ICYI PROPOSED GRADING 7012 CUBIC YARD 200 CUBIL YARD NOTE: EPRTHWORK OUAMOIES ON THIS TABLE ARE FOR INFORMATION ONLY CONTRACTORS ARE i0 PERFORM TNEIR OWN OUANTRIES TAKE-0FF. 42J P AI ~\ DITION DF UBC, UIC, UPC, NEC, AND CITY GF FREMONi, UNTY ANDARO~ NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FDA EMERGING SAFETY MEASURES PN- REG THE \ L, AND MAINTAIN ALL SAFETY DEVICES, INCLUDING SNORING, AND SHkL ELY STATE, AND FEDERAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS, LAV AND AECRILATIONS 1R MUST VERIFY ALL JOIM/CROSSING LOCATNNS, ELEVATONS, CURB, GLITTER, AND ALL GRADE HINTS. IF DISCREPANCY IS FDDND, THE CONTRACTOR MUST 'ROCEED VITH ANY CONSTRID:TION UNTIL VERIFICATION AND REVISION (IF NECESSARY) ROUND UTILITIES/STRUCTURES SHOVN HEREON VERE OBTAINED FRDN INFORMATION :S NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMPLETENESS AND ACCURACY R' SAID INFORMATION. IERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LOCATION AND SIZE M THOSE TO BE USED AND SHALL BE PRIVATE UTLITIES SHOVN OR NOT SNOVN IEREON LT IS A PART ff THIS PLAN. Tla !91ST STRINC£NT REDUIREMEMS BY SOIL ENGINEER 02 TI$ REOULRElaNTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINER IN TFE SOIL REPORT FOR TIEREi6 ALL GRADING VORK SHALL BE DONE ENDER THE OBSERVATLDI OF THE SOILS IFIED 4B HOURS IffORE THE START OF ANY GRADING. !LDING PA- VOBC UST AEVD:V THE PLANS FOR DESIGN INFANSISTENCIES AND TYP03 SUCH AS ELEVATIONS, NCONSISTENCIES UR ®VOBIS TYPOS ARE FOUND, THE WNTRACTOR MUST IWIE-IATELY TIOTI BEFORE PROCEEDING VITH ANY VORN URS 01 ADVANCE OF START OF VORI( FLR THIS PROkCT. ERIFY ON TXE GRADING PERMIT THAT THE PAD LOCATION AND ELEVATION IS CONSTRUCTED NSPECiION, iNE CIVIL ENGINEER VILE ALSO BE RERUIRE- TO CERTIFY THAI THE SITE VAS APPROVED PLANS PRIOR ID ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE W OCCU°ANCY. D ~ IN AN ACCEPTABLE LOCATION DRAINAGE & GRADING PLAN SCALE: 1"=10'•0" \\, ~ II IIIL \ I r III I~ BW I I min 9( \ N 7:1 I ~ i II O I m 1 ar<I ~ I II I I W II I I N 1 III N I pRD I I 4 I i I I I I iii ~ I J\ ~ i Q q) DAK J~~ // / Z]ro "m app ~m U'm~ °° ~a~ NN ~'L~0 aN U~w H~ N ~W ~ ~Z WN zm a~ xA ~o ~~ ao aW zz ~a aH W~ ~w Fx NU Revisions By Dra Cbec Date 4/4/08 Scale NOTED Job sxoDJ etrcs sunrtm Hens c.cnonan unu ur r.u. o u.c. tnncrcccrv unuunlA;uvtrc; rvn c r uwcro nnuwnuu O DIRICDS BUCCINATORA SCARIEi TRUMPET NNE 1 GALLON EVERGREEN V1NE5; TAR GROWING; RED FLOWERS ® EUONYMUS FORNNEI COLD EGGED EUONYMUS 1 GA110N EVERGREEN; COMPACT SHRUB WfIH i1GHf GREEN ' GAxgpALE GOLD' YELLOW EDGED ifAVES O VIBURNUM DAWDII RAND Y~BURNUM 5 GILLON EVERGREEN; WHRE FLOWERS © TRACHELOSPERMUM JlSMINOIDES STAR JASMINE 1 G<110N EVERGREEN CROUNOCOVER; WHITE FLOWERS SPRING/SUI ROSMARINUS OFFlCINAlJS ROSEMPRi 1 GA110N EVERGREEN; SPRUDINC, 7RAl1NC CROUNOCOVER; BLUE O 'HUNDNGiON BLUE LANDSCAPE NOTES ~~ ~l1 PROl~E6'IMPORT TOP60D. OVER ALLPWNTEVG ARBAE. 12) PROVIDE Z' MOLCH OVER ALL AEW 6HROB AAD GROUIIDCOVBR AREAS. (3~ ALL BIHtOBB A11D CROUNOCOVERB 6HALI. SE BET 1iE THE DIED:NSIOA OF THE SPACDIC FROM A0.IACBHT WALI44, CURSS AAD WALLS UALESB OTHERWISE SHOWN. ALL 6HRUB AND GROURDCOVER BPACHIG SHALL SB TRIANGULAR UALEBB DMWN OTHERWISE. 141 WHERE Cll2C1E DEPICTS PLANT, CENTER PODR OF CIRCLS BQUALS LOCATIOR OP TRURH OF PLAAT, TYPICAL. TB) TREES TO HB PLANTED A8 SODA A8 POBBIHI.B, BBQUSNCS COABTROCTION TO FACILITATE EARLY GROWTH. CORTRACTOR TO EVALUATE TEMPORARY ,E~ cpomm cruclfaEwm o cMr6a u drown ~ 196.41' A12TVaf!V pT2(1TF.f`TT~1N AT.ANTTN~: ~ LAIVllSCAYE PLAN SCALE: 1"=10'-0" PRUNUS CER451FERA 'KRAUTFR VESUVIUS' eAF~ A'NA `* gg PRUNUS SERRUUTA i . ~!41J 'KWANW!' PURPLE LFAF PWM 15 G4 DARK PURPL PINK FLOWEf ROWERINC CHERRY 14' BOx DECIDUOUS; BRANCHES F 76-td I I I ,r-,r ~~ ,a~~ ~ I I ~a amotx , .. m h - ~aM 0 0 mboa }fi"0% canp i 0 ~ acsx b ~ I I I I b I ~ I FAMILY ~ i ROOM r-r I - I CaNG ---------`IPSAff.-----------~ ---- I b r-r I .5 I I I e-n• ''ff r-a r z,~ r-r '°°I' i I ,r-,' BEDRO M I I I II I I I D{NING tr-4 j I I I II I II ~ I I ---- I ~ ---- u ~_~ Leo i I ~~ I I 0 Vii' 0 O I ----- I 14~~~ _--_- I I S Y RARY m r-- i-Uow J g~Fr.er I tP-tC I ~ LIVING ~ ROOM m I I I soeo !° I m n ~ ~ ®. Iwe ~wvt neo t7_r wwa t~ aneo ------------ ----- A -- -~ .N TWO CAR GARAGE I I I i I i i i CARPORT I n'-o' to'y' Fi,nnR Ai.AN AREA TABULAIIONOF 1ST FLOOR ~ 4266 © 315x12.83 = 48.11 ®I'.1ix38.83 = 666.;! ® 22.5x33.83 = 761.18 ©16.3 .© 5.5x24.58 =135.19 0 4.25x21.25 = 98.31 ~ l4+18.751 px8.75 = 49.'8 0 L78.89 TOTAL FL OF ISI FL LIKING ARCH= 2040.33 SO. FT t~ AREA TABULATION OF ~~ GARAGE ~ 6, 92x11.92 = 8249 ® 28.83x22 = 458.26 GARAGE AREA = 548.75 SO. FT. e ao~ ~~ U ~ ~ '~ t7m~ ~~ ~ro~ ~~ U~z p0 ~~~ as U~~ H~ N ~w d ~x ~N zm ~" ~ ~~ ao aF W~ ~~ ~W N~ Fx no Dra Chee Date 4/13/08 6tale BO7&D Job SROO1 B 75-td "~~ I ttr' 5-d u'-6 5-5 I I I ~~ I I SAUNA JACUIIII ~~ I . sxDwawt I aoeo ,~.~~a 5-d ~ TM SH WE .i >, k'-Id Yd t, -kk~ --~k BEDROOM a skw ~~ s snrs k/17 ~ k 7Y kff 0 Y-u' P A8 uc b I I 9kkk m ,~o z~k i i I 7680 i ------j ~ 7kkk ~ unuTr MECH ~ ROOM I uw I I I I I uw _ I Is-n' 6-d iSTORAGE GAME I I" I I I I i tY-5 i AREA IA.BUlAi10N pF FLppR 0 3.ISxu.67 = sso~ ® IZIiX3B.83=666.71 ® 21.92X3383 = 944.53 ~ 4.25X21.25 = 90.31 ® l4+10.75!/2x6)5 = 4918 ® 1'0.30 1p1AL FL AREA = 1916.6) Sp. FI 17-Y FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" n'd ,r-d a A.~ ,rte ~a PROVDEWN, IP%TI j I~IAE AiIIOACCEiS 10lOW IMpa ~ iFtff. I ]020.5N ROOF I C'~SS° ~ 0 0 ~~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~~ MASTER ~ BATH ~ BEDROOM 4Y' e ~ O _- _-a_ __ __ ~___ ________________ __ 12 4 O ___ I ;ae: i ra '-VF.f.~-~- 1-C ,d-f ,r-c ~ BEDROOM ,~.1 I ~ Inl '~I~ L- e+~Qew 6 Vo O~PMS o\ .S'.. /~SS111GNII I iF.ap I i i Y BEDROOM ~ u,-r I r-,d 1r-r I I I I I I a' xox wuaw I I ~ro~ I n ~ i~ uLs~ ---, (J t I ~' ~, J 0 BEDROOM >, ~s :~~oe no Be°a ~ b 4 12 ,d-C AREA TABULATIDN OF fL00R p 2.5X6.83 = 17.06 ®31X36.08 = 1180.48 p zzfi.a2 =12Ba Q 13.5X33.63 = 456.71 p (5.92+19.15)/zz7.56 = 95.39 ©zs.7e ~ 3.33z5.5B = 16.58 ® 99.57 Q12 TDTAL FL AREA DF 2ND FLDOR = 1918.43 B0. FT a~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ N~ NN wao ,ono ~°o "N a„ xa~ ~~ U~w E'r~ ~W d aU o ZW z~ xQ aU ~~ aF ~ '~ d ~ ~4~ ~~ Fx Np Dra Chec Date 4~4~08 Scale SOTED Job SHDO1 n'-d d-'d ; V^. \/ y~ lI ^J T_ ~~ H~ 0 I_ O O y/~ ~ ~~ $ ~g ~ ~ ~~ ~~ s~® _~~ .~ ~. v 0 `V /~ / -~-'--- - CEILING iC7EAlY tNE 2ND FL 9 ~,\ B~ \ "~~J CEILING I .`\ I ~® ~~ `r4~ 7 ' ®® ®® ~'\ ------- ----- F.FL _. FgN{-------- - -- ~, - ---------------------------------^T--- ----~-- - ---- -- I I I I i `[~f~/n --------- ~ i C FRONT ELEVATION ; `~ "N// ~~ ; II Architectural decorated stone veneer SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" ; ' ~~ ~ '~-0~ ' I pattern & color determined by owner ; ~ ' ~I I' \\ \_ I I I I ~~ I ~ `-------- I I ------------------------------------------------------- -----~ L_______ ________________________________________________________.. i Tuscany slate the over X30 felt paper TOP OF ROOF Closs A or equal determined by owner Tuscany iron steel railing p~~ ~~ style and pattern determined by owneY Architectural pllar determined by owner )P OF ROOF 2ND FL ~EILING F.FL N]ro ,~~ ro aoa ~~ t7m~ °° Zap MM ~~~ NN ~~ H p0 ~px NN ~~~ yN Ua~ H~ V/ W d' dz wN ZW zo' xQ aU aN zz ~~ aH W~ aw xW ~~ Fx ao Dia Cbec Date 4~4~06 6cale NOTED Job SE001 ceiling height r Tuscany iron steel railing style and pattern determined by owner Architectural pillar determined by owner i~ wro~mrc u~ i 14'- I ~~/ ~'__ ~ I m n ~I -' / /' -- -' ~ ~' ~I ~i - ~i I~ ~I .\ IUV - - ----- - ® I ~ OTTOM OF ~ ~o CEILING ~~~,; ~ ~~ ~~ -' , -- I 2ND FL ~ B OTTpM OF ' ' i~ ii ii i~ i ~~ CEILING i I~ I li I~ ~~ I ' ~ ~__ I~ I i ____ F.FL REAR ELEVATION i SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" basement w/ 9' ceBing height TOP OF ROOF 2ND FL BOTTOM OF CEILING F.FL I / /' ,, i i ~~ rwovm urn ~~ or ~~ ..._._L.__. TOP OF ROOF MASTER MASTER '" ~9Id. BEnROOM ~LJ~ W W ~ W 2ND FL CEILING i --fit- - \ ---'I ------ ------t - - ~=---+ ~_~ 11~I---~ _.1~~ fiC --- -- '- SCALE ii4°=1~-0° SECTION A-A ------- - 3' aid ~~ zap "'"' M{~U N1ND H p0 U~0 mN Ud~ H~ V1 ~W d ~Z Wm a~ ~Q U N~ ZF ra W~ aw xW ~] Fx NU Dn Che Dete 4/4/08 srak reorsn Job SBO01 TOP OF ROOF 2ND FL CEILING F.FL SECTION B-B /~ 47D 470 _ 4 60 460 460 ~ - ~-- I PROPERLY IJNE 2ND FL ~ I SO ----------- 40 ------- ------------------------ 453 ---- 4 ---- --- ---- - I - _ _ _ 4SD -{-~- ---~----------~ 8 PROPERLY LINES ~ ~ nn I I . ~ i ~ ® ~ o ~QOuu I 30 ~ ° ~D ---------------------------~--- --- I -- i ---- --- - - -- --- 2ND FL --- ------ ----------- - - -1 i ------------ __ 435 - -------- ----- '~ ----- --- ~ I --- - ~,~~±----------------------7 +"' 30 --------- - - --- -- a--0 ++-~ s- ---- -- °° ~' - ----- --- ------------------------------ 430-~ 2ND FL -- _ _-- -- 1 ~ 415 - - - - - -- I 422.5 I ~~ --- ----- - ~=----420 - - -- - -r- -- ---- --- --- ---- ---- 420 LCONY/iERRACE ~ B'-~' ,e'~ B~55MENi I ~ I 11.5 I - --- --------------------------- 410------------------------- ------------------------------ 410-~ I GARAGC= ' I I .6t'~96.5 I I SCALE; SECTION 3/32' 1~ °p i ~ ------------ ------------------------- - -- = = aoN ~~ U ~ ~ '~ ~~~' ~~ zaa "'`" x o ~~ U~x o0 ~~~ wa Ua~ F~ N ~w aU o ~z zm zw ~~ a NN QG ~~ xz G+ a F xW ~] h~ No Dta Che Date 4~4~08 Scale NOTED Job SK001